Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - 2002-02-05 PMCITY COUNCIL MEETING OF uarM 15,71)6Z INCLUDES MINUTES, AG •DA FOLLOW-UP*, AGENDA AND PACKET. (NOTE: BLANK NUMBERED PAGES IN PACKET WERE REMOVED PRIOR TO MICROFILMING). *FOLLOW-UPS MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN DONE FOR MORNING AND SOME EVENING MEETINGS. Cijy Council Judie Hammerstad, Mayor Ellie McPeak, Council President Jack Hofnan Karl Rohde CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Tuesday, February 5, 2002 6:00 P.M. Council Chambers City Hall 380 A Avenuc Bill Schoen Also published on the internet at: ci.oswego.or.us Gay Graham Contact: Robyn Christie, City Recorder E -Mail: public_affairs@ci.oswego.or.us John Turc%i Phone: (503)675-3984 This meeting is in a handicapped accessible location. For any special accommodations, please contact Public Affairs, (503) 635-0236, 48 hours before the meeting. Estimated Start Time 6:00 1. 2. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL Pa ze # 6:05 3. ADOPTION OF COUNCIL GOALS, 2002 ........................................................ 6:10 4. CONSENT AGENDA ♦ The consent agenda allows the City Council to consider items that require no discussion. ♦ An item may only be discussed if it is pulled from the consent agenda. ♦ The City Council makes one motion covering all items included in the consent agenda 4.1 REPORTS 4.1.1 lii(l award for the installation of residential lire sprinklers in .........................5 adult foster and special need homes Action: Authorize the City Manager to enter into an agreement with Western State's Fire Protection for the construction management, design, and installation of residential fire sprinkler systems for an amount not to exceed $164,645.00. City Council Agenda February 5, 2002 Page 1 of 5 4.2 RESOLUTIONS 4.2.1 Resolution 02-02, authorizing the City Manager to sign an ............................11 extension of the Passenger Services Agreement with the Oregon Electric Railway Historical Society for the Operation of the Willamette Shore Trollev Action: Adopt Resolution 02-02 4.2.2 Resolution 02-04, authorizing Amendment #2 to the Lake .............................17 Oswego Adult Community Center's fiscal year 2001-2002 contract with Clackamas County Social Services Division Action: Adopt Resolution 02-04 4.2.3 Resolution 02-07, continuing membership in the City County .......................23 Insurance Services Trust Action: Adopt Resolution 02-07 4.3 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 4.3.1 December 10, 2001, information session............................................................31 4.3.2 December 18, 2001, morning meeting................................................................45 4.3.3 December 18, 2001, special meeting witli TAB.................................................59 4.3.4 January 8, 2002, special morning meeting.........................................................65 4.3.5 January 8, 2002, special meeting........................................................................71 4.3.6 January 15, 2002, special meeting......................................................................87 Action: Approve minutes as written (or as corrected if Council adds corrections to the motion) MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA VOICE VOTE MU C;UNSENT AGENDA 5. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA 6:15 6. CITIZEN COMMENT The purlmse of citizen comment is to a11o1v citizens to present information or raise an issue regarding items not on the agenda. A time limit of three minutes per citizen shall apply. City Council Meeting February 5, 2002 Page 2 of 5 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS :20 7.1 Recommendation from the Planning Commission for a legislative ...............97 text amendment to the Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan to include the Waluga Neighborhood Plan and to amend the Waluga Neighborhood Association boundary (LU 00-0025) Public Hearing Process: Review of hearing procedure by City Attorney Staff Report by Sidaro Sin, Associate Planner Public Testimony • 5 minutes for individuals • 10 minutes for representatives of a recognized neighborhood association, government or government agency, or other incorporated public interest organization Questions of Staff Motion: If the Council wishes it should move to approve LU 00-0025 and direct staff to prepare findings and Ordinance 2318 for adoption. Discussion -,40 7.2 Recommendation from the Planning Commission for Legislative ...............119 amendments to the Lake Oswego Zoning Code to expand the City's neighborhood notice requirements regarding land use applications. (LU 01-0045) Public Hearing Process: Review of hearing procedure by City Attorney Staff Report by Sidaro Sin, Associate Planner Public Testimony • 5 minutes for individuals • 10 minutes for representatives of a recognized neighborhood association, government or government agency, or other incorporated public interest organization Questions of Staff Motion: If the Council wishes it should move to approve LU 01-0045 and direct staff to prepare findings and finalize, ordinance 2317 fir adoption. Discussion City Council Meeting February 5, 2002 11age 3 of 5 6:50 7.3 Recommendation from the Planning Commission for Legislative text .......125 amendments to the Lake Oswego Zoning Code and Development Ordinance to combine the City's land use development codes and development standards into a new, consolidated, Community Development Code. (LU 01-0048) Public Hearing Process: Review of hearing procedure by City Attorney Staff Report by Sidaro Sin, Associate Planner Public Testimony • 5 minutes for individuals • 10 minutes for representatives of a recognized neighborhood association, government or government agency, or other incorporated public interest organization Questions of Staff Motion: If the Council wishes it should move to approve LU 01-0048 and direct staff to prepare findings acid finalize Ordinance 2314 for adoption. Discussion 7:00 7.4 Deliberations and decision on ZC 7-98 - Density Guidelines ............................... A recommendation from the City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission proposing legislative text amendments to the lake Oswego Zoning Code (LOC Chapter 48) that require a minimum lot density be achieved when land is subdivided in any residential zone and to amend the minimum density text currently in the Zoning Code for R-3 and R-5 zones so that it only applies to subdivision development. A public hearing ►vas held on this item on January 15, 2002. The record ►vas kept open until Janttart 29, 2002.16r additional continents. Tonight Council ►vill hold deliberations and make a decision. 8:00 8. INFORMATION FROM COUNCIL This agenda item provides an opportunity for individual Councilors to provide information to the Council on matters not otherwise on the agenda. Each Councilor will he given five minutes. 8.1 Councilor Information 8.1.1 Resolution 02-09, approving the formation of a joint ....................................329 subcommittee with the City of West Linn to explore the feasibility of establishing a joint aquatic/community center. City C OL111 it Mccting February 5, 2002 Page 4 of 5 8.1.2 Resolution 02-10, adopting a selection policy for purchasing a ....................335 work of art from the Arts Downtown exhibit. 8.2 Reports of Council Committees, Organizational Committees, and Intergovernmental Committees x:31) 9. REPORTS OF OFFICERS S:35 9.1 City Manager 9.2 City Attorney 10. ADJOURNMENT CABLE VIEWERS: The Regular City Council meeting is shown live on AT&T Tualatin Valley, Channel 22/28, at 6:00 p.m. The meeting will be rebroadcast: Wednesday "Thursday Friday Friday Saturday City Council Meeting February 5, 2002 1:00 a.m. on Channel 22/28 7:00 p.m. on Channel 21/30 1:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. on Channel 21/30 7:00 p.m. on Channel 22/28 1:00 a.m. on Channel 22 Pagc 5 o1'5 3• CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 02/05/02 AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY MEETING DATE: February 5, 2002 SUBJECT: Adoption of Council Goals for 2002 RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to adopt Council goals for 2002. ESTIMATED FISCAL ATTACHMENTS: IMPACT: • 2002 Council Goals STAFF COST: $ BUDGETED: Y N FUNDING SOURCE: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR signoff/date NOTICED (Date): Ordinance no.: Resolution no.: Previous Council consideration: i z - CITY WNAGER 31- G Z - signoffate City of Lake Oswego City Council Goals 2002 Neighborhood Livability A. Adopt compatibility infill and redevelopment ordinance B. Consider revisions to Tree Code C. Adopt Lake Forest and Waluga Neighborhood Plans D. Revise Zoning Code regarding variances Recreation and Culture A. Adopt Parks & Recreation Master Plan B. Develop Trails Master Plan C. Reach decision on joint use library facility D. Adopt a long-range public art plan E. Develop Springbrook Creek Corridor Park F. Purchase open space lands III. Transportation Funding & Infrastructure A. Agree on mechanism for permanent funding for road maintenance B. Support streetcar linkage to Portland C. Pursue funding for Boones Ferry Road corridor project IV. Urbanization and Growth Management A. Pursue dual interest agreement with County to prevent degradation of natural resources and livability in unincorporated areas B. Be active participant in intergovernmental efforts V. East End Projects A. Adopt East End Plan B. Adopt Foothills Plan C. Develop concept plan for transit center D. Develop plan for US Bank property E. Commence development of Block 138 Vi. Fiscal Health and Planning A. Prepare report on needs, priorities, funding and timing for public facilities B. Develop overall strategy for long-term operating stability VII. Sustainability Adopt sustainable practices AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY MEETING DATE: FEBRUARY 05, 2002 4.1.1 02/05/02 SUBJECT: Authorize the City Manager to enter into an agreement with Western State's Fire Protection for the construction management, design, and installation of residential fire sprinkler systems for an amount not to exceed $164,645.00. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to authorize the City Manager to enter into an agreement with Weston State's Fire Protection for the construction management, design, and installation of residential fire sprinkler systems for an amount not to exceed $164,645.00. EST. FISCAL IMPACT: STAFF COST: $ NA . I BUDGETED: Y N X FUNDING SOURCE: FEMA DEPT. DIRECTOR Sitnoft/date__. Ord\rptcov00.doc ATTACHMENTS: • Council Report dated January 29, 2002. ASST. CITY MANAGER Signoft%datc NOTICED (Date): Resolution no.: N,1 Findings no.: N/A Previous Council consideration: No > CITY MAN GER Signoft%date d z J CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO COUNCIL REPORT TO: Douglas J. Schmitz, City Manager FROM: Dan Semrad, Fire Chief PREPARED BY: Phil Sample, Fire Marshal SUBJECT: Motion to authorize the City Manager to enter into an agreement with Western State's Fire Protection for the construction management, design, and installation of residential fire sprinkler systems in approximately 20 "special care homes" for an amount not to exceed $164,645.00. DATE: January 28, 2002 ACTION The City Council is requested to authorize the City Manager to enter into a contract with Western States Fire Protection for the installation of fire sprinkler systems in Adult Foster Homes and Special Residences for an amount not to exceed $164,645.00. BACKGROUND In October of 2001 the City Council approved the acceptance of a FEMA grant to pay for 90% of the cost to put fire sprinklers in adult foster homes. The fire department received proposals h-om four contractors; selected the most qualified, and is now requesting the City Council to authorize the City Manger to enter into an agreement. The Council may recall that up to $258,750 of federal funds and $28,750 of city matching funds were approved for this project. Additional funds will be spent for water N' 1 hook-up fees, permit fees, city administrative cost to administer the project, and promotional fees to raise the awareness of the benefits of residential fire sprinklers. CONTRACTOR SELECTION PROCESS The project was advertised in the Daily Journal of Commerce. Contractors were required to pre-qualify with experience related directly to the installation of residential fire sprinklers and demonstrate project management skills. Proposals were received from: 1. Gormley Plumbing and Heating; McNlinm ille, Oregon 2. Jim's Plumbing; Aloha, Oregon 3. Olsen Fire Protection; MihN,aukie, Oregon 4. Western States Fire Protection; Oregon City, Oregon Proposal Evaluation Criteria A. Experience and Training of Residential Sprinkler Installers 20% B. Staff Expertise with Residential Sprinklers & Project Management 40% C. Former Customer Satisfaction 20% D. Sample Bid and Rates on One House 20% EVALUATION OF PROPOSAL Exp./Train Exl)/PrJ Mg Cust Sat Rates -TOTAI, Gormley 1) 11) 15 33 19 5 72 Jim's Plb 18 28 19 20 tis Olsen FP 18 25 19 15 77 Western FI' 18 40 19 1.1 91 The category of "Project Management and Staff Expertise" with residential tire sprinklers projects was weighted the heaviest, because if this project is not finished by the aggressive deadline date, the funds will no longer available from FEMA. With the evaluation process completed, Western States Fire Protection was tentatively selected to do the job based on the rates they had proposed in the sample bid. Western Fire Sprinkler Contract Award January 29, 2002 -2- States then prepared an estimate for all of the homes and provided Fire Department staff with a not to exceed price. Based on the staffs approval of Western States' proposal, we are now asking council to authorize the City Manager to enter into an agreement. The total number of homes participating has not been finalized. Currently ten homes in the city and seven homes in the county have received tentative approval. If the project goes well and additional requests for sprinkler systems are approved, the contract amount will be revised based on the same rates and in accordance with City procedures. At Council's request, priority is given to homes in the City's boundaries. ALTERNATIVES Authorize the City Manager to enter into an agreement with Western State's Fire Protection for the construction management, design, and installation of residential fire sprinkler systems in "special care homes" for an amount not to exceed $164,645.00. Do not authorize the City Manager to enter into an agreement with Western State's Fire Protection for the construction management, design, and installation of residential fire sprinkler systems in "special care homes" for an amount not to exceed $164,645.00. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to enter into an agreement with Western State's Fire Protection for construction management, design, and installation of residential fire sprinkler systems in "special care homes" for an amount not to exceed $164,645.00. Fire Sprinklcr Contract Award January 29, 2002 -3- 4.2.1 02/05/02 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY MEETING DATE: February 5, 2002 SUBJECT: Resolution 02-02, Authorizing the City Manager to Sign an extension to the Passenger Services Agreement with the Oregon Electric Railway Historical Society for the Operation of the Willamette Shore Trolley RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to adopt Resolution 02-02 authorizing the City Manager to sign an extension to the Passenger Services Agreement with the Oregon Electric Railway Historical Society for the operation of the Willamette Shore Trolley EST. FISCAL IMPACT: $0 STAFF COST: BUDGETED: N/A Y N FUNDING SOURCE: ATTACHMENTS: • Komarek Council Report dated January 24, 2002 NOTICED (Date): Ordinance no.: N/A Resolution no.: 02-02 Previous Council consideration: January_ 1998 I ENGINEER CO . DEV. DIRECTOR CITY MA AGER Date Date Date li C:\windows\'19SMI'\'I'rolley_agree_agendri_cheeklist res 02-02 1-25-02.doe CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO COUNCIL REPORT TO: Douglas J. Schmitz, City Manager FROM: Joel Komarek, City Engineer PREPARED BY: Tom Tushner, Assistant City Engineer SUBJECT: Willamette Shore Trolley Passenger Service Agreement DATE: January 24, 2002 Action Council is requested to adopt Resolution 02-02 authorizing the City Manager to prepare and sign a letter notifying Oregon Electic Railway Historical Society, Inc. (OERHS) of the City's intent to extend the Passenger Services Agreement with OERHS to January 1, 2003. Discussion Through a lease agreement with the City of Portland, the City of Lake Oswego is able to enter into a Passenger Services Agreement with the OERHS to operate a trolley on the Willamette Shore Rail Line. The existing lease agreement expired on January 1, 2002. The City and the OERHS entered into an agreement for the operation of a trolley on the Willamette Shore Trolley Line in January 1998. Since that time, the OERHS has safely and successfully operated a trolley service. Pursuant to the existing Passenger Services Agreement, the City may extend the effective date by giving written notice to OERHS. Alternatives 1. Adopt Resolution 02-02 authorizing the City Manager to extend the Passenger Services Agreement 2. Do not adopt Resolution 02-02 authorizing the City Manager to extend the Passenger Services Agreement. Recommendation Council is recommended to adopt Resolution 02-02 authorizing the City Manager to prepare and sign a letter notifying OERHS of the City's intent to extend the effective date of the Passenger Services Agreement with the OERI-IS for the oper,ltlon of a trolley on the Willamette Shore Trolley Line to January 1, 2003. J\('OMMON 17TOM_T\Projects\Trolley\trolley_agree02.021.7.02.doc 13 RESOLUTION 02-02 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO SIGN AN EXTENSION TO THE PASSENGER SERVICE AGREEMENT WITH THE OREGON ELECTRIC RAILWAY HISTORICAL SOCIETY, INC. FOR THE OPERATION OF THE WILLAMETTE SHORE TROLLEY WHEREAS, the City and the Oregon Electric Railway Historical Society, Inc. have had a successful relationship for the past three years in the operation of the Willamette Shore Trolley; and WHEREAS, the City and the Oregon Electric Railway Historical Society, Inc. desire to continue operation of the Willamette Shore Trolley; and BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego that: Section 1. The City Manager is authorized to sign an extension to the Passenger Service Agreement between the City of Lake Oswego and the Oregon Electric Railway Historical Society, Inc. for the operation of the Willamette Shore Trolley. A copy of the Passenger Services Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference. Considered and enacted at the regular Council meeting of the City of Lake Oswego at a regular meeting held on the 5th day of February 2002. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: EXCUSED: ATTEST: APPROVED AS FORM: City Attorney's Office Attachment: Passenger Services Agreement Judie Hammerstad, Mayor Robyn Christie, City Recorder Attachments are available for review in the City Recorder's Office. 1:\COMMON CVTOM nPmjecu\Trolley\Trolley PSA Res 02-02 1.23.02.doe 15 4.2.2 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 02/05/02 AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY MEETING DATE: February 5, 2002 SUBJECT: Resolution 02-04. A resolution of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego authorizing the Mayor to sign an amendment to the intergovernmental Agreement between the City and Clackamas County Department of Human Services, Social Services Division for fiscal year 2001-02. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Approve Resolution #02-04. EST. FISCAL ATTACHMENTS: NOTICED (Date): IMPACT: � • Janaury 28, 2002 --- ----- - --- ----- STAFF COST: $none Carline memo • Resolution # 02-04 BUDGETED: Contract Amendment Y— N X Ordinance no.: Resolution no.: 02-04 FUNDING SOURCE: $2,500 in additional revenues expected from Previous Council Clackamas County consideration: no c DEPT. DIRECTOR ASST. CITY MANAGER CITY M AGER - - //?, f /0 --- - - - - I - ------ I -------- 13 1 64'-) 0 2, si off/ ate signoff/date signoff/d to 1 'r K: A Kri'it i A 1-1 )tcov.4!1 Parks and Recreation Memorandum TO: Douglas J. Schmitz, City Manager From: Kim Gilmer, Director of Parks and Recreation Prepared By: Debra Carline, Director of Adult Community Center Subject: Resolution 02-04 Amendment to Intergovernmental Agreement with Clackamas County Department of Human Services Date: January 28, 2002 Purpose To request that the City Council approve Resolution 02-04, which authorizes the Mayor to execute an amendment to the intergovernmental agreement with the Clackamas County Department of Human Services compensating the City for delivering social services to the community. This amendment will provide an additional $2,500 in revenues to the City for the Adult Community Center's existing Respite Program. Background On June 5, 2001, the City Council adopted Resolution 01-89, which authorized the Mayor to sign an intergovernmental agreement with Clackamas County Department of Human Services to financially compensate the City for delivering social services to the community via the Adult Community Center. The County has recently informed us that additional funding is available to compensate the City for services that we already provide, but for which funds have not been available. In addition, medical transportation matching funds from the Federal government have also increased, resulting in additional revenue to the City. The total increase in funds is an additional $2,500.00 during FY 2001-2002. This additional funding will provide support and/or training to family caregivers, as stated in the contract. In order to receive these funds, an amendment to the existing intergovernmental agreement is required. Recommendation To adopt Resolution 02-04 1 �4 RESOLUTION 02-04 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN AN AMENDMENT TO THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND CLACKAMAS COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, SOCIAL SERVICES DIVISION, FOR FY 2001-2002 TO RECEIVE ADDITIONAL REVENUES. WHEREAS, the City of Lake Oswego and Clackamas County Department of Human Services, Social Services Division have entered into an intergovernmental agreement for the provision of a variety of social services to be provided by the Adult Community Center for FY 2001-2002; and WHEREAS, Clackamas County Department of Human Services, Social Services Division has additional funding to compensate the City of Lake Oswego for providing additional social services; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego that the Mayor is hereby authorized to execute on behalf of the City of Lake Oswego an amendment to the intergovernmental agreement with Clackamas County Department of Human Services, Social Services Division for FY July 1, 2001 to June 30, 2002, in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A7 to add $2,500 of Older Americans Act funds for the city's Respite Program. Considered and enacted at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego, on the 5th day of February, 2002. Attachments are available for review AYES: in the City Recorder's Office. NOES: EXCUSED: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO RM City Attorney's Office Judie Hammerstad, Mayor Robyn Christie, City Recorder 21 4.2.3 02/05/02 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY MEETING DATE: February 5, 2002 SUBJECT: Resolution 02-07, Continuing Membership in the City County Insurance Services Trust RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve Resolution 02-07, continuing the City's membership in the City County Insurance Services Trust. EST. FISCAL IMPACT: STAFF COST: $ BUDGETED: Y N FUNDING SOURCE: DEPT. DIRECTOR Date ATTACHMENTS: • Jordan memo of 1115102 Resolution 02-07 ASST/`, MANAGER — ZZ �- - - Date NOTICED (Date): Ordinance No.: Resolution No.: 02-07 Previous Council Consideration: -e z& CITY MA GER _3 / o 2, Date 01 tiJ Administrative Services TO: Douglas J. Schmitz, City Manager FROM: Chris Jordan, Assistant City Manager Council Report SUBJECT: Resolution 02-07, Continuing Membership in the City County Insurance Services Trust DATE: January 15, 2002 Purpose Council is asked to approve Resolution 02-07 continuing the City's participation in the City County Insurance Services Trust (CIS). Background For much of its insurance coverage the City is self-insured jointly with other local governments. Self-insurance, with adequate protection against catastrophic losses, is the most cost-effective form of protection over the long term. Periodically, the City is required to adopt a resolution confirming our membership in CIS. Approval of Resolution 02-07 will satisfy this requirement. Options Approve Resolution 02-07. Pull from the consent agenda and discuss. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of Resolution 02-07. Attachment RESOLUTION 02-07 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO CONTINUING THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO'S MEMBERSHIP IN THE CITY COUNTY INSURANCE SERVIES TRUST WHEREAS, City County Insurance Services (CIS) is a trust established by the League of Oregon Cities and the Association of Oregon Counties to create and administer pooled retention funds to protect members against the financial consequence of property, casualty, and workers compensation losses pursuant to coverage agreements; and WHEREAS, CIS provides its members a broad array of risk management services, including risk financing and loss control programs, claims management and legal representation, risk management consulting, data gathering, information sharing, training and related services; and WHEREAS, the City of Lake Oswego finds that membership in CIS is a benefit in managing the risks involved in providing services to its citizens; and WHEREAS, the City of lake Oswego has been provided copies of the CIS Trust Agreement, Bylaws and Rules which have been updated and revised recently; and WHEREAS, the CIS Bylaws, at Articles 2.2.2 and 3.3 provide that Articles 2 and 3 of the bylaws shall constitute a contract between the Member and CIS and that the Member shall adopt a resolution acknowledging that contractual relationship. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego that the City of Lake Oswego ("Member") does hereby acknowledge and agree that it has received copies of the CIS Agreement and Declaration of Administrative Trust, Bylaws, and Rules and accepts the terms and conditions therein with respect to any CIS coverage programs in which it elects to participate and for which it is accepted as a Member by CIS. Considered and enacted at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego on this day of February, 2002. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: EXCUSED: Judie Hammerstad Mayor ATTEST: Robyn Christie City Recorder APPROVED AS 5ORM: City Attorney's Office ti CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY MEETING DATE: February 5, 2002 SUBJECT: Approval of Minutes from: 1. December 10, 2001, information session 2. December 18, 2001, morning meeting 3. December 18, 2001, special meeting with TAB 4. January 8, 2002, special morning meeting 5. January 8, 2002, special meeting 6. January 15, 2002, special meeting RECOMMENDED MOTION: Approve minutes as written (or as corrected if Council adds corrections to the motion) EST. FISCAL ATTACHMENTS: IMPACT: Minutes from: • December 10, 2001, information session • December 18, 2001, morning STAFF COST: $ meeting BUDGETED: • December 18, 2001, special meeting with TAB Y N • January 8, 2002, special morning meeting FUNDING SOURCE: • January 8, 2002, special meeting • January 15, 2002, special meeting N:\Robyn\report minutes.doc NOTICED (Date): Ordinance no.: Resolution no.: Previous Council consideration: —ew CITY M AGER 3 ( 02, signoff/ ate 4.3 02/05/02 4.3.1 02/05/02 MINUTES OF DECEMBER 10, 2001 INFORMATION SESSION CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES December 10, 2001 Mayor Judie Hammerstad called the City Council information session to order at 4:10 p.m. on December 10, 2001, at the Main Fire Station, 300 B Avenue. Present: Mayor Hammerstad, Councilors Rohde, Schoen, Turchi and Hoffman. Councilors Graham and McPeak were excused. Staff Present: David Powell, City Attorney; Jane McGarvin, Deputy City Recorder; Bob Kincaid, Chief of Staff; Janice Deardorff, Human Resources Director; Richard Seals, Financial Planning Manager; Chris Jordan, Assistant City Manager 3. INFORMATION SERSION 3.1 Discussion of subjects for January Council Retreat Mayor Ilammerstad commented that many of the matters mentioned by Mr. Schmitz were not necessarily the source of major goals, although the Council would handle them during the course of the year. She mentioned sending out letters to the Advisory Committees asking for their year end reports and goals and informing them of their scheduled time with the Council on Saturday morning. She indicated that they would invite LONAC also. Councilor Rohde suggested inviting the Chamber. Mayor Hammerstad asked if the Council wanted an open invitation to civic organizations. She suggested scheduling those who wanted to come after the advisory committees and allowing half an hour. The Council agreed by consensus. Mayor Hammerstad suggested spending Friday on a review and self-evaluation of the Council and its Year 2000 goals, focusing on what they accomplished, why they did not accomplish other things and where they could improve in both substance and process. She noted that Joe Hertzberg would facilitate the meeting. David Powell, City Attorney, indicated to Councilor Rohde that the periodic review of the Comprehensive Plan would begin in 2002. Councilor Rohde spoke to reversing the review process to start with the Council identifying its areas of concern, and then sending their concerns first to the Task Force and the Planning Commission instead of receiving a final recommendation from the Planning Commission and being on the tail end of the process. Mayor Hammerstad suggested scheduling this issue for discussion at a Monday information session. Councilor Rohde asked for discussion of the Youth Council goals and their projects. Mayor Hammerstad mentioned going through the visioning exercise again to see if anything changed. Councilor Schoen requested a printout of last year's exercise. Councilor Hoffman discussed his interest in determining how much money was actually available in the community for ballot measures to fund programs, both in the short-term and in the long-term. He suggested having an analysis of the level of debt of the average Lake Oswego household (past and present) in order to determine the ability of the community to absorb more ballot measures for funding programs. He spoke of determining the long-term needs, resources and the political factors. Councilor Hoffman asked for a list of all the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) projects, especially those that they had choices about. He asked for a discussion of prioritizing projects. He questioned if they could find other funding sources for any CIP projects, which they have paid for using dedicated funds. He indicated to Councilor Rohde that an examination of the Public Facilities Plan would be part of the discussion. Mayor Hammerstad concurred that this was an issue under the `Needs for the next 20-30 vears' category. City Council Information Session Minutes Page 1 of 12 December 10, 2001 3i Councilor Rohde indicated to Councilor Hoffman that the previous Council rejected a community forest program. Councilor Hoffman reported on his Internet research on tree codes, which existed all over the country. He asked for discussion of a community torest program, as there might be other options to their tree code. Mayor Hammerstad suggested having a brief presentation on the issue with future discussion within a goals context. Councilor Hoffman mentioned an article he read in a New Urbanism newsletter, which discussed new zoning codes that allowed `flex -housing' in neighborhoods and neighborhood commercial uses. He spoke of the `orange juice and Frisbee' test: people should be able to live in a neighborhood in which a 12 -year old kid could ride his/her bicycle to a store to pick up a quart of orange juice on a Sunday morning, and in which the residents could walk to the park to play Frisbee. Councilor Hoffman asked for discussion of allowing more flexibility in the Zoning Code, such as allowing non-traditional uses in a zone (i.e., multi -family housing in an R-10 zone). He commented that it might not happen for 20 years but there was a lot of information coming out about how to adapt New Urbanism concepts to existing neighborhoods. Councilor Rohde asked for a discussion on affordable housing. Councilor I loffm.in luointc(l out that affordable housing could be combined with a New Urbanism discussion. Councilor Schoen mentioned looking at what services the City might have to discontinue, given the revenue projections. Chris Jordan, Assistant City Manager, indicated to Councilor Turchi that citizens would pay on the 20 -year street maintenance bond until 2017. Mayor Hammerstad mentioned Councilor McPeak's opinion that the Council should start budgeting like adults. Councilor Turchi asked to discuss the School District's likely financial position next year and what the City's role might be with respect to the District. He mentioned the possibility that a large contingent of people might come to the Council in mid-February or March to ask the Council to save the School District. Mayor Hammerstad observed that the two aspects of that issue — philosophical and practical — might be different discussions. Councilor Turchi concurred. He described this as a situation in which they had some flexibility and projected needs that they needed to discuss at the same time. Mayor Hammerstad mentioned the need to consider the different missions of the two agencies. Councilor Turchi indicated that the School Board held its goal setting session in August. Mayor Hammerstad noted the list of things under land use, including revisiting the Council goal, neighborhood livability in a community context, as well as discussing sustainability. Other land use topics mentioned included annexations and island annexations. Mayor Hammerstad mentioned her expectation that a result of the goal setting session would be the Council having a common understanding of their short-term goals. She spoke of setting a couple of long-term goals this year. Councilor Rohde asked about getting a jumpstart on the 2003 legislative session by developing a legislative agenda. He recalled that last year they did their goal setting after the legislative session started, and he felt that they had reacted to things. Mayor Hammerstad concurred that it had felt like they were always behind but observed that at this point they had little information available and could end up spending time on something that they did not need to work on. She suggested a future discussion on questions to ask the candidates in September. Councilor Hoffman suggested that Mr. Powell make a presentation to the Council in July on the 2002 ballot measures, after he attended the Oregon City Attorneys Association meeting. Mr. Powell mentioned revisiting the Council's legislative objectives, noting that they had been too late on the photo radar issue. 3.2 Employee Assisted Housing City Council Information Session Minutes Page 2 of 12 December 10, 2001 34 Bob Kincaid, Chief of Staff, recalled that Councilor Rohde asked staff to look into an employee assisted housing program. He said that he had been well into his research on it when the Oregonian came out with an article about Fannie Mae putting together employer assisted housing program. He reported that he met with Fannie Mae representatives who designed a program for Lake Oswego. He introduced Sue Krake, Senior Deputy of Fannie Mae Partnership Office and Jane Leo, Portland Metropolitan Area Realtors. Mr. Kincaid recalled Councilor Turchi's query on how many life -safety employees lived within the Lake Oswego city limits. He presented a map showing where all full-time City employees lived in the region. He said that seven police officers and seven fire fighters lived within the City's urban services boundary with an additional 22 employees living in and around the Lake Oswego area. He noted that the regular work force of 285 employees were scattered from Sandy to Forest Grove and from Castle Rock, WA, to Salem. Councilor Hoffman summarized the percentages as 15% police, 15% fire and 10% other employees living within the Lake Oswego USB. Mr. Kincaid indicated that he diel not knew how that compared with other jurisdictions. Janice Deardorff, Human Resources Director, said that cities did not necessarily routinely keep those statistics. She recalled that Portland used to have a residency requirement. Councilor Turchi asked if those living around Lake Oswego were older employees who purchased homes when homes were more affordable in Lake Oswego. Mr. Kincaid said that he did not know, pointing out that the employee might rent rather than own a home. Ms. Deardorff indicated that it was a mix of employees from older employees to mid-range employees to new employees. Ms. Krake gave a presentation using overhead graphics. She described three pieces to setting up a program to help employees live close within the city: the nuts and bolts of the program, how to measure what people could afford, and did the housing exist for them to purchase. She emphasized that the discussion was predicated on everyone acknowledging the desire to have City employees live near or within the city. Ms. Krake commented that she has worked with employer -assisted housing in the public and private sectors for six years. She observed that the programs were custom-made and designed to meet the needs of the employer. She said that this conversation was an opportunity to discuss a general framework that could be customized to Lake Oswego's situation. Ms. Krake reviewed five ways in which employers could work with employees: direct assistance through a grant or a loan, education on purchasing a home and taking out a home loan, matching the employee's savings, and loan guarantees working with a lender partner. She noted that each option had different advantages and disadvantages in meeting both the employer and the employee's goals (keeping employees close in (employer) and buying a home (employee)). Ms. Krake discussed the affordability element. She mentioned that Mr. Kincaid insisted that a range of salaries be looked at in order to get a realistic view. She went through an example of what an employee at the administrative secretary grade level could afford. At an average salary of $2,909 per month (62% of the metro area median income), this employee could afford a $107,950 home (97% or $104,700 loan, 3% or $3,200 down payment and $960 per month house payment, including taxes and insurance). She noted that the maximum other debt that this employee could carry was $144 per month (including car payment and credit cards). She indicated that the cost to the employee to complete the transaction (down payment and closing costs) was $8,205. The handout included three other positions. Councilor Rohde asked if Ms. Krake used a percentage formula to calculate what an employee could afford to pay. He observed that people put a greater percentage of their income towards housing than was typically recommended. Ms. Krake explained that 15 years ago, the qualification structure for a loan used to be 25% of the income for the house payment and 33% City Council Information Session Minutes Page 3 of 12 December 10, 2001 35 maximum debt; today those percentages have shifted to 33% and 38%, which was what she used in calculating these figures. Ms. Krake concurred with Ms. Deardorff that a person's debt load usually surpassed the $144 per month remaining after a house payment. She mentioned educating people on how to reduce their debt; it could take a year or so to pay off bills prepatory to buying a home. Ms. Krake clarified to Councilor Hoffman that the minimum requirement for Fannie Mae was that the buyers themselves needed to provide 3% of the home purchase price. She explained that in her example, 3% of the purchase price ($3,239) subtracted from $8,205 left a balance of $4,966. She confirmed that $4,000 to $5,000 was the typical amount paid by the employer. Ms. Krake acknowledged Councilor Hoffman's point about finding homes in Lake Oswego within these price ranges. She said that the next step after identifying the employees that the City wanted to bring into the city was identifying how many housing units existed in the city that were affordable. Ms. Leo reviewed the data (plotted on maps) pulled from the realtor's multiple listing service listing homes with Lake Oswego addresses, which fell within the various price ranges. She noted that the majority of the 100 housing units falling in the $0 to $175,000 range were in Mountain Park and the Lake Grove area (primarily condominiums under $100,000). She noted the broader spread across the city of the 30 units falling within the $176,000 to $200,000 price range (Lake Grove, Jean Road), and of the 39 units falling within the $201,000 to $250,000 price range. She concluded that Lake Oswego did have a healthy housing stock on the market in a broad price range. Ms. Krake pointed out that first time homebuyers usually did not buy the "American Dream" house with a white picket fence; they bought condominiums, row houses or single-family fixer uppers on a small lot. She confirmed to Ms. Deardorff that their example figures were based on the salary of the employee alone as opposed to a dual income. Mr. Kincaid indicated to Mayor Hammerstad that he was not aware that the City has surveyed its safety employees about their desire to live in Lake Oswego. Ms. Deardorff mentioned that she has heard in the past that many safety employees did not want to reside in the town in which they worked because they did not want their families targeted or ostracized because of their work. She mentioned that she has not asked that question in today's terms, so she did not know if it was still true. She commented that she had not heard that from fire fighters. Ms. Krake said that she heard both stories. She recalled a City of Portland police officer employer -assisted housing program that included the ability to finance security or other housing modifications in order to increase the officers' comfort levels with living in the city. Councilor Turchi wondered whether the large number of employees lived in West Linn in order to be close to the city but without live in the city itself. Councilor Turchi noted that the figures showed that a fire fighter, making 88% of the average municipal income in the metro area, was eligible to purchase a $151,000 home, which meant that he/she would have a hard time finding a home in Lake Oswego. Ms. Krake indicated that that was true all over the metro area, which was why many municipalities were trying to figure out how to give employees a choice between buying a home versus renting. Ms. Leo spoke to the Council remembering during its goal setting that anything the City did could affect the price of housing, especially in terms of making housing affordable. She noted that Lake Oswego and West Linn led the way in terms of the most expensive housing on the market. She indicated that a family of four, at a median income of $5,409 per month, fell approximately $600 short of being able to buy a median -priced house. She described the $100,000 units as a place to start. Ms. Leo indicated to Councilor Turchi that she was not saying that a Council decision to subsidize a down payment for a home might increase the cost of homes, although that depended City Council Information Session Minutes Page 4 of 12 December 10, 2001 36 on the funding sources. She used an example of planting a new 4 -inch caliper tree versus replacing a 4 -inch caliper tree: it cost $400 to purchase and plant a new tree but it cost $400 plus a permit fee and other costs to replace the tree. Ms. Leo mentioned the Portland ordinance requiring developers to plant one caliper inch of tree for every 1,000 square feet of new construction, which translated to $500 for 5 caliper inches of trees on a 5,000 square foot lot and an additional fee tacked on to the housing price. She commented that they saw many people coming to the table with all the cash they had and the extra fee was simply too much. Councilor Hoffman asked how the $4,000 to $5,000 at closing helped a homebuyer. Ms. Krake pointed out that most people's rent payments were at or above a mortgage payment. She indicated that the biggest barrier was accumulating the cash to get into the transaction in the first place. She said that the employer, by providing assistance with the closing costs, really made a difference in people's ability to buy a home. Councilor Rohde commented that the City could borrow money at low rates. He asked if there were programs in which the agency borrowed the money, loaned it to the employee and passed on the low interest rates. Ms. Krake said that there were programs using loans instead of grants. She discussed the impact dynamic of loan interest, which added on to the house payment amount and ate away at the additional debt a person could carry. Mayor Hammerstad asked if there was a way in an employer -assisted program to prevent the speculative selling of property that someone purchased at a low price but which had a value twice the purchase price. She asked if there were programs where the agency recouped the down payment at the time the employee sold the home and realized the profit. Ms. Krake said that there were programs structured to recoup the down payment at any transfer of ownership. She noted that an employee leaving the City would also trigger a repayment. Councilor Hoffman expressed concern that the draft program report used an official seal, making it look like it was a program in effect. He asked either to remove the seal or to mark the report as `draft.' Ms. Krake reviewed the draft framework program. She noted the draft eligibility requirements: • Permanent City employee for a minimum of one continuous year before application; • An agreed upon level of evaluation in their last written performance evaluation; • The City could chose to make the program available in less than a year to safety personnel; • The City could limit the program to certain job grades or use whatever criteria it wanted. Ms. Krake reviewed the draft program requirements: • A minimum of 3% of the sale price from the borrower's own funds; • The home must be the principal residence of the employee during the term of the program; • The home must be located within the city boundaries; • Participating employees must attend and complete a class on buying and home ownership through an approved education buyer (this protected the City's investment through proper management of the home); • Eligible employees must be able to qualify for a mortgage through a financial institution (leaving the determination of mortgage qualifications to the lenders); • The purchase price could not exceed 120% of the median home sales price for the Lake Oswego area (average price $300,071 per Ms. Leo). Ms. Krake suggested a variety of elements to think about when defining the program (draft): City Council Information Session Minutes Page 5 of 12 December 10, 2001 37 • A loan would be up to 5% of the purchase price for a term of five years; • A cap on the amount provided by the agency; • The money provided must be used for the transaction costs to get into the home; • Loan proceeds could be used to cover the expense of an energy rating; • The principal and interest due on the loan would be forgiven (or a piece of it) if the employee maintained or exceeded his/her performance level rating (although it remained as taxable income)' • The principal was considered income; • The loan was secured against the property in order to allow the agency the option of recouping the money if someone sold the home or refinanced it; • The remaining portion of the loan would be paid in full upon sale of the home or the employee leaving the agency's employment; • The employee must sign and abide by an agreement codifying the details of the program; • The loan could be paid in full at any time. Mr. Jordan indicated to Councilor Rohde that the City could not do much better than most people in terms of interest rates. The Council discussed interest rates. Mayor Hammerstad commented that the next step for the Council to think about was budgeting money for a program during the budget cycle. Ms. Krake noted the cost benefit analysis included in the report. She mentioned that under the model used, the program would cost the City $10,000 over ten years. She pointed out the option for the Council to budget a certain amount each year, and when that money was gone, the program waited until the next year. Ms. Deardorff asked if Ms. Krake has seen collective bargaining groups ask for this benefit. Ms. Krake said that she has not seen this benefit attached to a contract, although agencies have offered it to employees, such as the Portland School District and the University of Portland. Councilor Hoffman noted that on the average, over 10 years, the cost was $6,000 per the employee per year, factoring in a decreasing turnover rate due to age. Ms. Krake indicated that she based the decreasing turnover rate on the historical data she had available, which showed a rate of 1.5% to 5%. Councilor Rohde asked how much the Council should budget for the program. Mr. Kincaid said that it depended on how big a program the Council wanted and how much their employees would participate. He mentioned the option of limiting the program to the first seven or eight employees in the first year or limiting the amount of money allocated to it. He commented that, over time, the Council might want to adjust the parameters and see how successful the program was. Councilor Hoffman spoke to articulating the arguments in favor of doing the program first. He mentioned Councilor Rohde's comment that the police officers should live in the city, as they used to. He summarized Ms. Deardorff's comment as keeping the officers in the city might not be the primary reason why public employers had the program because it might not be as much a benefit to the officers as they thought. Councilor Hoffman said that it sounded like a good idea but he was nervous about it because he did not know the arguments in favor of it, especially for a municipality. He asked which employees were good to have live in the city. Councilor Hoffman asked for comparables with other cities. He asked if there was a way to find out from employees whether they were interested in such a program but without raising City Council Information Session Minutes Page 6 of 12 December 10, 2001 38 expectations. He summarized his questions as would employees take advantage of the program and could employees articulate a reason why the community benefited from them living in the community. Councilor Hoffman clarified to the Mayor that he was interested in anecdotal information gained by Ms. Deardorff, as opposed to a survey of employees. He suggested asking the managers if they thought employees would be interested in the program. He stated that he also needed to know the arguments against the program before he would feel comfortable with it. Councilor Schoen said that he did not want to float something among the employees without solid information. He spoke to getting more information before proceeding too far. Ms. Deardorff commented that, given that this program targeted first-time homebuyers, they should ask how many employees already owned their own homes. She observed that they might be talking about a small number of people. Mr. Kincaid indicated that he had no idea how many employees owned their own home. Councilor Hoffman spoke of the different levels to articulate in a white paper on why this was a good idea. He observed that a consideration from an organizational standpoint might be trying to attract younger people with their lower salaries. He posed the questions of did it benefit the organization to have employees live in the city, and did it benefit the community to have employees in the city. Mayor Hammerstad observed that Portland and other cities must have written rationales for their programs. Ms. Deardorff recalled that, when the program came out, Portland's rationale had been to try to get people to move into the North Portland and Northeast Portland neighborhoods, which were traditionally more crime -ridden; the premise was that the presence of more police officers in those communities would decrease crime and support the overall development and financial stability of those areas. Ms. Krake commented that it had also served as a recruitment tool. Ms. Leo pointed out that Portland's program was still limited to specific geographical areas and remained a healthy program. She indicated that Portland was willing to carry $100,000 as a silent second in order to get police officers into those areas. She commented that first year cops in Portland, who made less than the median for one person, could buy into those neighborhoods with $200,000. Ms. Leo indicated that the AFL-CIO program (fire fighters) was broader, covering any Portland address in an attempt to attract and retain employees. She asked if the Council's intention was to target the first-time homebuyer or to attract its employees to live within the city limits, which would not limit the program to first-time homebuyers. Councilor Schoen recalled that the original premise raised by Councilor Rohde had been a program for public safety personnel. Ms. Krake pointed out that, in the event of a disaster, the first line of defense relied heavily on maintenance workers as well as police and fire. Councilor Turchi commented that what they were looking for were people who would be in the city and available 24 hours a day; therefore, first-time homeowner criteria did not matter. Councilor Hoffman indicated that he was not certain that that was the only reason justifying a municipality having more employees living in its own neighborhoods. Mayor Hammerstad commented that it would be helpful to look at other communities of similar size and see if they had successful programs. Councilor Hoffman spoke to looking at the demographics also. Councilor Hoffman asked staff if it was possible to look for a placeholder for some amount to start the process. Ile mentioned not committing to anything other than just looking at an amount and investigating their options, as he might want to spend the money on something else. Councilor Schoen observed that their choices would come out in their priorities. City Council Information Session Minutes Page 7 of 12 December 10, 2001 3 ,'4 Mayor Hammerstad commented that the program did have some larger societal values in terms of having people live close to their work, which raised considerations of commuting and travel time. She reiterated her interest in seeing what other communities have done. She said that she did not know whether she would vote for or against an employer -assisted housing program but she did want to know more about it. Mayor Hammerstad mentioned that it had less financial cost in the long term than she would have thought. She held that having 25 employees moving into the community for a total cost of $60,000 had considerable benefit. She indicated that the Council would revisit the issue when more information became available. 3.3 Review: Update of Master Fees and Charges Booklet Richard Seals, Financial Planning Manager, confirmed to Mayor Hammerstad that the master fees and charges booklet update was scheduled for the Council's December 19 meeting. He noted that the effective date of the updated fees was in January 2002. He described the booklet as a consolidation of all the City fees and charges from utility rates to developer SDCs, etc. He mentioned that the City's total fee revenue was $18 million a year or one-third of the operating revenues for the City budget. Mr. Seals indicated that roughly $10 million of the $18 million came from the utility rate revenues. He stated that the proposed update contained no significant changes for 2002; any changes were mostly inflationary in nature. He noted the increase in the main surge fee to $8 to cover software and an increase in the golf fees from 75 cents to $1.00 per 9 -hole round. Mayor Hammerstad asked why staff did not round the golf fees of $8.75 and $15.25 to $9 and $16. Mr. Seals said that he had wondered the same thing but did not know why the Golf Course Manager did not round the fees after his market analysis. Mayor Hammerstad pointed out that the rates were so low that she could not imagine anyone objecting to $9 and $16 with $10 on Friday, Saturdays and some holidays. Mr. Seals mentioned that he knew that the rates came from the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board. Mayor Hammerstad confirmed to Mr. Jordan that she was recommending rounding the fees to $9 and $16, with $10 for the price of Saturday and Sunday and keeping the $17 where it was. Councilor Hoffman recounted a comment he heard from a remodeler that the City was lacking timely permit processing, and that the remodeler would support increasing permit fees if the City added staff. He described the problem as the City not having enough inspectors. He indicated that he knew from personal experience that it took a long time to get building inspections. Councilor Graham indicated that she has heard similar stories. Mr. Jordan observed that if the City was not providing satisfactory service, even with the increases, then staff needed to do something to improve that service. Councilor Hoffman spoke to asking the builders and remodelers if the City was getting things through the process so that they could get their projects done; if not, then would they be willing to pay an extra 10% for the City to hire more staff. Mr. Jordan mentioned the staff shortage in the Building Department. He expressed his hope that when they got back up to frill staff, they would no longer hear those kinds of complaints; however, if they continued, then they needed to do something about it. Councilor Hoffman pointed out that the homeowners in Lake Oswego were more concerned about time than money. Mayor Hammerstad recalled that improved service was one of Mr. Schmitz's goals, and consequently, staff conducted a survey of people interacting with the Planning Department, which might give Mr. Jordan more than anecdotal information. Ms. Deardorff noted that the City had a new Community Development Director and Building Official, both of whom were looking at the City's delivery of service in order to determine if they were providing services at the appropriate level. She spoke to the Council not hastily deciding City Council Information Session Minutes Page 8 of 12 December 10, 2001 40 that this was a `people' issue when it might be a `setting of the standards and follow-through' issue. She said that she would inform Mr. Schmitz and Mr. Lashbrook of this concern during her Friday meeting with them. Councilor Schoen asked why staff did not raise the athletic field user charges (page 19). Mr. Jordan said that there has been serious consideration on raising those charges. He explained that staff did not want to raise the fees prematurely and chose to wait until after they brought back the information to Council, which Council requested a month and a half ago, and Council gave them the guidelines. Councilor Schoen asked if the Council could make an interim increase of fees. He discussed his concern with the athletic field user charges, which he argued the Council needed to look at realistically. He questioned whether the provider organizations would choose to donate equivalent funds to support field maintenance and equipment purchases in lieu of a per player per season fee. He held that the organizations had additional funds, which should be part of the original fee system. Mr. Jordan concurred with Mr. Seals that the Council could increase fees at any time; this was an annual booklet, which the Council could change at any time. He described the Council's two options: an immediate interim increase and a second increase in a couple of months (following the staff report) or no increase now but a new increase following the staff report. Councilor Schoen mentioned the tournament and special use reservation fees in particular. He held that those uses in particular would have a huge impact on the fields. He acknowledged the argument that the City had a responsibility to provide recreational facilities for all its citizens but argued that the City was not responsible for providing those facilities for non -citizens, especially at a nominal fee. He spoke to looking at the big picture, noting the huge deficit in field maintenance (which was complicated by the artificial turf situation). Councilor Schoen said that he was not suggesting charging the field users 100% of the costs but he did think that the City charged them only a very small percentage of its costs. He spoke to taking a tough look at the issue in light of the Council's fiduciary responsibility, even though it would upset the team sports people. Councilor Hoffman mentioned that PRAB and Kim Gilmer were meeting this Wednesday with representatives of the non-profit organizations providing recreational opportunities to kids in Lake Oswego in order to discuss the delivery of recreation services in Lake Oswego. He pointed out to Councilor Schoen that the City had some basic maintenance costs for field upkeep, regardless of who used the fields, because grass grew, etc. He recalled that staff was working on obtaining those numbers at the Council's request. Councilor Hoffman spoke to distinguishing between organized usage and unorganized usage and developing the rationale for increasing the fees. Councilor Schoen observed that this was not a simple issue but reiterated that the City needed to look at the consequences of the increased usage. Mr. Jordan mentioned receiving some new charts recently from Parks & Recreation showing field usage, which indicated that staff was in the process of obtaining the requested information. He observed that right now was a good time to wait for a month or two to increase fees because the fields were not in use at this time of year, and the City did not forego any potential revenues. He indicated that staff would have something to the Council in January for discussion. Mr. Jordan suggested addressing Councilor Schoen's concern that people would assume that there were no new increases by adding a footnote to the printed fee, which stated that the Council would review this fee in early 2002 for potential changes. The Council agreed by consensus. Councilor Rohde posed a scenario of going to a hardware store, buying a toilet and installing it in his home. He questioned having to pay a $75 permit fee (page 30). Mayor Hammerstad questioned whether she was supposed to have obtained a permit to replace her dishwasher. City Council Information Session Minutes Page 9 of 12 December 10, 2001 41 Councilor Hoffman spoke to conducting a useful exercise of reviewing the fees to see if they made sense today. Mr. Powell clarified that the permit fee was for replumbing a home to install additional fixtures, and not for replacing an existing appliance. Mayor Hammerstad suggested adding some clarifying language. Mr. Jordan mentioned that the State Building Code might have a requirement of a plumbing permit in order to do some of this work. The Council discussed the backflow prevention device, which the Mayor held was a most annoying and impractical device. Mr. Jordan said that he would try to get the Council an explanation on why it was required. Councilor Rohde raised the question of the fee for the appeal of a hearing body decision to the Council (page 37). He noted that the City could waive that fee for neighborhood associations but not for any other non-profit organization. He mentioned the possibility that the Bicycle Transportation Alliance might appeal the DRC decision on bike parking at the high schools. He spoke to having the ability to waive the fee for non -profits. Councilor Hoffman expressed concern at setting a precedent, which any kind of organization could cite. Councilor Rohde suggested limiting it to non-profit organizations filed under the state. He pointed out that the fee for appealing a decision on the high school would be enormous. He reiterated that there should be an opportunity to waive the fee for non-profit organizations or to charge a reduced fee. He observed that a complete waiver would make it meaningless. Councilor Schoen commented that he saw no value in waiving an appeal fee for the Alliance. Councilor Hoffman summarized Councilor Rohde's concern as not discouraging non -frivolous appeals by neighbors. Councilor Hoffman noted the statement that the City Manager has waived the fee in the past, asking where that was in the ordinance. Mr. Powell directed the Councilor to Section 1, page 1, which allowed the City Manager to establish a waiver in a particular case or based on past practice. He indicated that the Council could include a blanket category but pointed out that making an appeal too easy (through an extremely low fee or fee waiver) would provide an opportunity for the many non -profits with their varying points of view to bring a multitude of items before the Council. He agreed that they did not want to make an appeal prohibitively expensive so that people could not exercise their rights. Councilor Rohde concurred that it should be an amount that established a seriousness about the appeal but was not so high, as to discourage people completely. He spoke of finding a balance, mentioning $300 as a reasonable amount. Councilor Hoffman mentioned his concern about staffing costs, as appeals involved a significant time commitment from staff. He discussed his concern at giving too much discretion to the position of City Manager, as an incumbent could abuse that discretion in encouraging or discouraging appeals based on waiving or not waiving the fee. He indicated to Mayor Hammerstad that giving the discretion to the Council put the Council in a difficult position, especially with regards to quasi -.judicial decision, as it allowed the Council to establish who came before it and who did not. Mr. Jordan referenced the language on page one, which described the City Manager's authorization to waive a fee if it met certain criteria and the requirement that he/she inform the Council in writing of the request and his/her decision for comment. Mayor Hammerstad indicated that that language was fine for addressing the concern. Councilor Hoffman concurred but indicated that he found Councilor Rohde's concern legitimate. Mayor Hammerstad suggested waiting to see if the procedure outlined worked in the Bicycle Transportation Alliance's situation; if the Alliance came to the Council saying that it could not pay the fee, the Council could send them to the City Manager to request a waiver. Councilor Rohde concurred. City Council Information Session Minutes Page 10 of 12 December 10, 2001 Mayor Hammerstad discussed her concern with the fees relating to historical preservation (page 36). She spoke to reinstating the two fees crossed out on the schedule. She explained that last year she had not supported the fees because she thought that the law did provide for the City doing these services and the high fee subverted the legislative intent. She indicated that, with more information, she believed that the fee level was appropriate for the service provided. Mr. Powell indicated to Councilor Hoffman that the City charged $1,600 because it required either a hearing based on criteria in the Comprehensive Plan or a waiver process, which was similar to a land use hearing. He mentioned that recent court decisions have established the requirements. Mayor Hammerstad indicated to Councilor Hoffman that they could not charge a huge amount because there had to be a nexus between the fee charged and the cost to provide the service. Mr. Powell mentioned the probability of a due process argument on an extremely high fee. Jane McGarvin, Deputy City Recorder, asked why general service copies were 10 cents at the library and 25 cents everywhere else in the City (pages 10, 15). Mr. Seals recalled that he pointed that out to the library personnel but the librarians felt strongly that they needed to maintain the 10 cents per page charge. He said that Mr. Schmitz raised the same question but decided to let it go this year. Mr. Powell pointed out that people did self-service copies at the library while doing research whereas elsewhere in the City, staff had to retrieve the record in order to make a copy. Mayor Hammerstad questioned whether they should hold the tree code fee increases (page 38) in abeyance until after the Tree Code Task Force did its work. Mr. Seals noted that the increases were purely inflationary. Councilor Hoffman commented that the Task Force would not finish its work until mid -summer. Councilor Hoffman spoke in support of holding off on the fee increases because people would interpret fee increases as the Council having already made up its mind about the tree code. He suggested putting a note that the City held the fees at the 2001 rates, pending the review of the tree code by the Task Force. Mr. Seals mentioned that the utility rates reflected year 2 of the 6 -year plan. He indicated to Councilor Hoffman that the City was in good shape and on track with respect to saving money for the lake interceptor project. Councilor Hoffman asked when staff would know if the cost might be higher than the original estimate. He discussed his concern that they charge a slightly higher fee now to accommodate potential increased costs as opposed to charging a significantly higher fee during the project. Mr. Seals said that the latest estimates he heard were between $18 and $25 million; they used $20 million as their design dollar amount for the project. Mr. Jordan said that he has not heard anything more on it either. He noted that staff was trying to accumulate enough money at this time to meet the covenants and to sell bonds. Mayor Hammerstad suggested revisiting the issue at budget time. 3.4 Review: Amendment to the annual budget for fiscal year 2001-02 and making; appropriations Mr. Seals confirmed to Mayor Hammerstad that the Council would take formal action on this item at its Tuesday evening meeting. He noted the adjustments to six funds and that the biggest adjustment was in the public safety capital improvement fund to reflect the FEMA grant for the sprinklers in adult foster care. 4. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Hammerstad adjourned the mccting; at 6:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, City Council Information Session Minutes Page 11 of 12 December 10, 2001 413 �ane McGarvin Deputy City Recorder PPROVED N , Mayor City Council Information Session Minutes December 10, 2001 Page 12 of 12 4.3.2 02/05/02 MINUTES OF DECEMBER 18, 2001 MORNING MEETING jawiq CITY COUNCIL MORNING MEETING MINUTES } December 18, 2001 a« Mayor Judie Hammerstad called the special City Council meeting to order at 7:33 a.m. on December 18, 2001, in the City Council Chambers. Present: Mayor Hammerstad, Councilors Turchi (arrived 8:00 a.m.), Graham, McPeak, Hoffman, Rohde and Schoen (arrived 7:35 a.m.). Staff Present: Doug Schmitz, City Manager; David Powell, City Attorney; Robyn Christie, City Recorder; Kim Gilmer, Parks & Recreation Director; Richard Seals, Financial Planning Manager; Chip Larouche, Information Technology Manager; Bob Kincaid, Chief of Staff; Tom Tushner, Principal Engineer • Arts Downtown Jean Folwell, Arts Commission Co -Chair, explained that immediately after the Arts Downtown kick-off in June 2001 (coinciding with the Festival of the Arts) the Commission decided to move the kick-off date for Arts Downtown from June 2002 to September 2002. She indicated that they did so in order to preserve the opportunity to have art all summer and to avoid wearing out the City staff and the Arts Commission. She mentioned the opportunity to couple Arts Downtown with a fundraiser. Ms. Folwell pointed out that moving the event to September 2002 took it out of the 2001/02 fiscal year budget, which was where the funds for Arts Downtown 2002 were presently located. She asked the Council to roll over the $25,000 allocated for Arts Downtown 2002 to the 2002/03 budget, so they could have it available in September 2002. Marta Furman, Arts Commission Co -Chair, reviewed the artist selection committee for Arts Downtown 2002. She mentioned that 13 of the Arts Downtown 2001 sculptors resubmitted either their current piece or a new piece; the committee chose another seven new artists for a total of 20 sculptors. She commented that because they used a call for artists (as opposed to an invitation), the show saw a wider range of styles. She indicated that she had the letters ready to send to the sculptors. Councilor Rohde asked if the Council making this decision now was in advance of the Budget Committee's decision-making process. Doug Schmitz, City Manager, confirmed that this money has already been allocated in the budget for this project. Mayor Hammerstad acknowledged Councilor Rohde's point about the Budget Committee and conceded that the Council could not guarantee 100% that the Budget Committee would approve the request. She pointed out that the decision ultimately came back to the Council for final approval. She held that it was 99% probable that the Council would approve carrying the money over. Ms. Folwell confirmed to Councilor Graham that the Arts Commission did have a matching grant from the Tourism Bureau. She said that they would try to use it in this fiscal year to pay for the pedestals Ms. Furman indicated to Councilor McPeak that five of the 13 repeat artists were submitting the same statue that they had submitted in Arts Downtown 2001; the selection committee felt strongly about those 5 pieces and re -selected them again. She said that the other eight artists would submit new pieces. Mayor Hammerstad suggested that the Arts Commission write a letter to the Budget Committee informing it that the Commission presented this proposal to the Council to carry over City Council Morning Meeting Minutes Page 1 of I 1 December 18, 2001 a'•' this money to the next fiscal year for expenditure for the same purpose for which it was allocated. Councilor McPeak referenced the proposed policy for purchasing a sculpture from Arts Downtown using City or Trust fund monies. She mentioned that this draft incorporated the suggestions she received from the Arts Commission and the Public Art Committee. She noted that it still included the additional public process for selecting a piece that file Council discussed. Councilor McPeak noted that Step 1 of the proposal was different from her original draft version. She explained that the Arts Commission thought it important to inform the artists up front of the purchase price limitations for a City purchase, giving them a minimum and a maximum. She said that she did not include a minimum because she saw no need for one. Councilor Rohde asked what affect might the purchase price limitation have on limiting an artist's willingness to participate in the show. Ms. Furman stated that the three artists participating in the discussion had been the strongest proponents of providing a ball park figure to the artists; artists wanted to sell their work and the potential price helped them to decide on the materials. She indicated that she did not think the limitations would discourage the artists from participating. Councilor Hoffman concurred that the answer was `no', citing the discussion at the Arts Commission meeting that artists mentally decided whether to create a $6,000 or $60,000 sculpture. Councilor Rohde asked if that meant that the public did not get to view a $60,000 sculpture for a year. Councilor McPeak conceded that it might but held that the artist who submitted the $175,000 piece could not have expected the City to purchase it. Ms. Furman indicated that she trusted the level of professionalism exhibited by the selected artists to lead the artists to do the right thing. She observed that 13 out of 19 artists returning indicated support for the City's exhibit. Councilor Graham pointed out that Arts Downtown also provided good publicity for the artists. Mayor Hammerstad observed that if the City set a maximum amount of $10,000 and artists dropped out, then the City would know that that did not work. Councilor McPeak commented that the price was subjective, including the factor of the materials selected by the artist. Mayor Hammerstad mentioned the hope that the businesses would buy a piece. Kim Gilmer, Parks & Recreation Director, held that it was significant that the City would buy a piece; therefore, the price range was important. Councilor McPeak spoke of the City commitment while the Mayor spoke of the budget cycle. Ms. Furman indicated that the Commission would recommend that the City purchase at least one sculpture. She noted that the pieces were for sale to the public. Mayor Hammerstad suggested making it a strong recommendation. Councilor Rohde suggested including an historical reference to the City purchasing a certain piece for a certain price. Ms. Gilmer noted that the City did sign a contract. Councilor Hoffman spoke to finding a way around the budget cycle. Councilor McPeak discussed Step 2 of the purchase policy. She spoke to selecting up to five pieces that were suitable in terms of price and location. Mayor Hammerstad asked for an opinion from the Arts Commission on whether the art stayed in the downtown area and whether they should include Lake Grove. Ms. Furman spoke of moving art out into the parks. Councilor McPeak discussed Step 3, speaking to selecting only pieces that the City could afford. She mentioned the selection committee developing a short list as the first step of the selection process. Councilor McPeak discussed Step 4, which included the same public process as the original draft but eliminated the veto. Mayor Hammerstad spoke to eliminating Step 4. She expressed her concern that one person could vote 20 times. Councilor McPeak argued that the public process, even flawed, had a high value. She spoke to selecting with controlled limits. Ms. City Council Morning Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 11 December 18, 2001 /� ti Furman spoke of the public having ownership through a public input process. Mayor Hammerstad held that they could select one piece in Step 3. Councilor Hoffman agreed with Councilor McPeak about having the public process. Councilor Turchi arrived at 8:00 a.m. Ms. Furman commented that the Commission would like some consensus of what people would like. Ms. Folwell indicated that they wanted to explain this policy to the Commission. She mentioned seeing what worked. Councilor Rohde indicated that he liked Step 4, which he thought they could monitor. Councilor Schoen held that they were making this process too complex. He noted the representative on the committee. Councilor Rohde moved to accept Arts Downtown purchase policy with the change to Step 1. Councilor McPeak seconded the motion. Councilor Rohde accepted Councilor McPeak's friendly amendment of developing; a short list of up to five pieces suitable in terms of price and location. Mr. Schmitz noted that staff would put the guidelines for the proposal in the form of a resolution. A roll call vote vas taken and the motion passed with Councilors 'Turchi, Graham, McPeak, Hoffman and Rohde voting; in favor; Mayor Hanuncrstad and Councilor Schoen voted against the motion. 15-21 3. REVIEW EVENING AGENDA Mayor Hammerstad mentioned that the list of topics provided by the Transportation Advisory Board looked like items for discussion at the Council goal setting session. She suggested asking the Board for specifics from the list in order to learn what were their concerns and most important issues. Item 4, Consent Agenda Councilor McPeak noted a correction to Item 4.1: her name was left off the interview committee. Mayor Hammerstad noted that Councilor Turchi was doing the consent agenda this evening. Councilor Rohde asked Councilor Turchi to flesh out two consent agenda items in more detail: what the Tree Code Review Task Force would be doing and more information about what would happen with the First Street alley sewer project. Mayor Hammerstad referenced Councilor Graham's e-mail to her about the business owner's concern regarding the First Street alley sewer project, that it would disrupt his business. Mr. Schmitz explained that the City delayed this project a year to early 2002 because of this same business owner's concerns. Councilor Rohde recalled that this business owner thought that this sewer pipe should go in State Street. There were no corrections to the minutes. Mayor Hammerstad asked to reduce the testimony time limits allowed by City ordinance from 10 minutes for neighborhood associations and 5 minutes for individuals to 5 and 3 minutes respectively for the hearing tonight. She held that this allowed ample time for testimony yet still allowed them to get through the hearing process. Councilor McPeak moved to reduce the testimony time limits to 3 minutes for an individual and 5 minutes for a representative of an organized neighborhood association. Councilor Turchi seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken and the motionap ssed with Mayor Hammerstad, Councilors Turchi, Graham, McPeak, Hoffman, Rohde and Schoen voting in favor. 17-01 City Council Morning Meeting Minutes Page 3 of I I December 18, 2001 41i Item 7.1, Master Fee Schedule Update Mayor Hammerstad noted the revised copy of the fee schedule in the packet. Councilor Rohde asked for discussion on treating non-profit organizations the same as neighborhood associations with respect to waiver of appeal fees (page 118). Mayor Hammerstad pointed out that the City Manager had the ability to waive fees (page 82). Councilor Hoffman indicated that he was not concerned unless abuse became a problem. The Council discussed whether the City Manager should return to informing the Council of every waiver that occurred. Councilor Rohde indicated that he did not mind the notifications. Councilor Hoffman held that doing so was a waste of time. Richard Seals, Financial Planning Manager, indicated to Councilor Schoen that he did add the disclaimer (the City was currently studying the fee) to the athletic field fee (page 100), to the permit fee (page 111) and to the tree code fees (page 119). Item 8.1, Ordinance 2308 Mayor Hammerstad said that she would ask for additional testimony on the two amendments that the Council asked for at the last meeting, which were exempting lakefront properties and setting a sunset date. Item 9, Information from the Council Councilor Rohde said that he had a JPACT report. Councilor Rohde mentioned hearing that Metro was now looking at 800 -foot buffers. Mayor Hammerstad stated that that was ridiculous. She noted that, if a local jurisdiction were to make the decision, then it could, within the ESEE analysis, set virtually any setback that it wanted to set. She indicated that Metro was using a basin approach. She explained that Lake Oswego, because it was in a number of basins, would have to form intergovernmental agreements with the governing jurisdictions. She questioned whether this approach was workable, given the need for point hearings. Mayor Hammerstad commented to Councilor Rohde that the 800 -foot number must have been a typo or something in the newspaper article cited by Councilor Schoen. She reiterated that there was no basis for that number. Item 9.1.1, Recommendation from the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board regarding Softball Field at Lakeridge High School Councilor Hoffman asked Mr. Schmitz to have staff provide him assurance at tonight's meeting that this field would be for community use by both the adult softball league and Little League. He described this as the school's problem, which the Superintendent wanted to solve by using the $250,000 of the community bond funds that were originally slated for the north Lakeridge field. Councilor Hoffman noted that both the Parks & Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB) and the Team Sports Advisory Committee (TSAC) concurred with the request. He held that it could be a win-win situation in developing a field as a recreation facility for baseball and softball, as long as it was a community facility, given that it used community bond money. Mr. Schmitz indicated to Councilor McPeak that this would meet the Title 9 requirements facing the School District, as the primary use of the field would be for Lakeridge girls' softball, followed by community use as secondary. He noted that this conformed to the joint use agreement. Mr. Schmitz explained to Councilor Schoen that the City was contributing $250,000 to a field that would cost $600,000 to build. Fie indicated that they could not segregate out what part of the field the City money was used for; their contribution would be used for construction costs. City Council Morning Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 11 December 18, 2001 50 Mayor Hammerstad confirmed that the District would be responsible for covering all the cost over and above the $250,000 contributed by the City. Councilor Schoen asked what park projects were they giving up by using the money here. Councilor Hoffman indicated that they lost the north Lakeridge field (the water tower field), to which this money had been allocated, and gained a facility that they probably needed. Councilor Graham mentioned receiving a phone call from a citizen upset over using City money to bail out a School District Title 9 problem. She spoke to assuring the people that other city activities would occur on that field. Councilor Graham asked if a girls' softball field was smaller than the standard adult softball field. Ms. Gilmer said that she would check on that but she did think that adult softball could use a girls' softball field. She noted that a Little League field was a bit shorter than a softball field. Councilor Turchi asked if the City agreeing to contribute funds gave tacit approval to lighting the field. Mr. Schmitz noted that the City was not specifying the elements of the field. He mentioned that the Oregon Civil Rights Commission has indicated that there was a need for lighting on the field. Mayor Hammerstad described the probable Council consensus as spending the money on the development of a girls' softball field was consistent with community use and in accordance with the joint use agreement. Mr. Schmitz noted that Superintendent Korach would be at the meeting; they could get his remarks on the record and do a follow-up letter. Councilor Graham mentioned her concern about who had responsibility for mitigating the wetland area. Mayor Hammerstad pointed out that the City was not selecting the site. Councilor Hoffman concurred with Councilor Turchi that lighted fields were a sensitive subject, and that, by approving the request, the City tacitly approved a lighted field. Mr. Schmitz said that the application had to go through the conditional use process, including notification of the neighbors. He emphasized that the City was approving a financial request. Mayor Hammerstad reiterated that the City was not selecting the site. Mr. Schmitz explained that, by staying out of the siting issue, the Council did not put itself in the potential position of hearing an appeal of a land use action that it has already endorsed. Councilor Rohde recalled that the City listed the original project in the bond for the voters to recognize, when he described as a `good faith obligation.' He asked if the City would add the original project to the CIP and suggest future funding. Mr. Schmitz said that the City has gone through a process of saying that it was willing to transfer those funds to another project and to abandon the Cloverleaf project. Mayor Hammerstad reitereated that both PRAB & TSAC made that recommendation. Item 9.1.2 Clackamas County Coordinating Council Proposal Mayor Hammerstad noted the matrix provided by the Clackamas County Coordinating Committee illustrating the various proposals for a parks and/or library district. She observed that a parks district had many problems. She commented that, given Lake Oswego's existing parks program and its parks bond, she did not see that option as providing much benefit to the City. She referenced Councilor Rohde's earlier comment that Lake Oswego's tendency to pass these kinds of measures provided the rest of the County with a large number of positive votes, whereas the cast side of the river was not inclined to pass them; thus, Lake Oswego could override local control. Mayor Hammerstad suggested that the Council not support the parks district option because Lake Oswego had its own parks system, and because imposing it on the rest of the County seemed arrogant and heavy-handed. She observed that it might not be possible at all, due to the economy. She mentioned that Bob Kincaid has been attending the technical meetings. City Council Morning Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 1 l December 18, 2001 5 j Bob Kincaid, Chief of Staff, concurred that the parks district concept would probably fall apart, citing other jurisdictions trying to develop their own parks systems. Councilor Hoffman asked what the problem was that they were trying to solve. Mayor Hammerstad said that the problem was the rest of the county not having enough money for parks. She noted that the problem with the library was slightly different: Mayor Hammerstad said that forming a separate library district (Option 4) was cumbersome and required a governing body as well as a tax base. She reiterated that, with Lake Oswego passing the last library levy at 80%, the city provided votes to pursue that option. She observed that Lake Oswego might not get as much out of a library district as it would out of a local option levy for libraries (Option 8). Mayor Hammerstad observed that Option 8, the local option levy for libraries, was essentially the same thing that they have done in the past. She noted that Lake Oswego passed the levy at 80%; therefore, it carried countywide. She mentioned the current funding allocation formula based on circulation. She recalled that it was a `bloodbath' when they did the allocation formula five years ago but it worked well for Lake Oswego because they had high circulation. Mayor Hammerstad mentioned the County's consideration of redoing the formula based on population, which would not be good for Lake Oswego. She pointed out that Lake Oswego had significant influence on the development of the allocation formula, since it brought an 80% vote to the table. She said that she would not move forward with either option unless they kept the circulation formula. Mayor Hammerstad indicated to Councilor McPeak that there was another option for Lake Oswego that was not listed on the matrix: going out for its own local option for the library. She explained that that was not necessarily the best option because Lake Oswego was part of a county library system, which included the ability to check books out in Multnomah and Washington Counties. She recommended supporting the County levy as in the City's best interest, provided that the allocation formula was fair. Mayor Hammerstad indicated to Councilor McPeak that the current allocation formula included a population element already. She agreed with Councilor Rohde that this would be a good discussion for the public to hear. Councilor Rohde referenced the discussion of the transportation utility fee and the transportation impact fee. He indicated that the County would model the transportation impact fee after the Washington County model, which collected the fee countywide and allocated it to the affected jurisdiction. Tom Tushner, Principal Engineer, described the Washington County program, which recognized the regional impacts of development. He said that the County obliged the local jurisdictions to spend the money on its arterial system. He mentioned a credit for development. Councilor McPeak asked if there was the political will in Clackamas County to do a countywide fee. Councilor Rohde recalled that there had been strong interest exhibited at the Timothy Lake retreat in developing a countywide system, as opposed to individual jurisdiction transportation utility fees. He pointed out that it created a more unified system of collection. Councilor Rohde noted that the request was for Lake Oswego to participate in funding a consultant to develop the program and the allocation formula for consideration. He said that right now they did not know how it would work, given the usual jurisdictional self -interests. Councilor McPeak asked if it was possible that Lake Oswego could get $1.2 million out of it. Mayor Hammerstad said that she thought it was possible but reiterated that the request was to hire a consultant to develop the program. City Council Morning Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 11 December 18, 2001 Councilor Rohde indicated that the Committee based the individual jurisdiction contribution amounts on a population allocation, similar to the way the League of Oregon Cities determined membership fees. Mr. Schmitz advised the Council that the petition regarding the naming of a certain tree in town might come forward under citizen comment. 4. REVIEW FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Mayor Hammerstad mentioned the Bicycle Transportation Alliance presentation scheduled for January 2. David Powell, City Attorney, advised the Council that they needed to update the City's resolution listing the criteria for a recommendation to the OLCC to grant a liquor license. He recommended the January 2 date for the required public hearing. The Council discussed whether to hold a January 2 meeting. It agreed to cancel the January 2 meeting and to move the scheduled agenda items to January 15, including the swearing in of the Youth Councilors. Councilor Rohde suggested scheduling the Bicycle Transportation Alliance presentation for January 15. Mayor Hammerstad asked the Council to approve a reduction in the testimony time limits for the density guidelines hearing. Mayor Hammerstad indicated to Councilor Hoffman that the Council would receive the latest amended copy of the Waluga Neighborhood Plan, scheduled for January 8. Councilor Hoffman mentioned that he did have some concerns with the plan, which he had written up in his e-mail. Mayor Hammerstad explained that Mr. Sin's changes addressed those concerns, including removing the language favoring single-family detached homes (which LCDC objected to). Mr. Powell informed the Council that, while it was welcome to read all the Code consolidation documentation, it only had to read the executive summary because all the changes were content neutral and affected only the Code organization. 5. OTHER BUSINESS 5.3 City Phone System Councilor Hoffman expressed his concern that this item sounded like the Council was approving a $250,000 expense at a morning meeting, as opposed to an evening meeting. He held that the public would be interested in this discussion. Mr. Schmitz explained that this item was informational only; it did not require legislative action because it was already in the budget and on the State bid list. Mr. Powell concurred that the Council did not need to award the bid formally. Chip Larouche, Information Technology Manager, presented the plan to purchase Cisco voiceover/lT phones, thus giving every employee a new phone. He noted that the current phones and the 15 year old phone switch would disappear. He mentioned their background research into phone systems; Siemans (the owner of the City's current switch) gave a ballpark estimate in the 5400,000 range, as did the maker of the switch at the school district. Mr. Larouche explained that he brought this to the Council today because they were ready to purchase some equipment that was on sale (40.5% discount) until December 31, 2001, through a Qwest contract with the State of Oregon. Mr. Larouche distributed a chart illustrating the impact of the system change on the operating costs: a 55% drop every year, which meant that the system paid for itself in six years. He explained that the system contained modular parts, which allowed staff to replace system elements as opposed to the entire system. He asked for Council approval to proceed with the purchases. City Council Morning Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 11 December 18, 2001 53 Mr. Larouche indicated to Councilor Turchi that a human voice would still answer the phone, as that was the Council policy. He described the expanded capabilities of the voice messaging system, including sending voice mails to the e-mail box for review. He indicated that the system did have the option of an automated answering system. Mr. Larouche indicated to Councilor Rohde that the dramatic increase in the costs for trunks represented buying additional capacity. He explained that the 24 trunks they had coming into the City were full, with no expansion room; by purchasing two `pries' (each capable of carrying 24 trunks) and putting 12 trunks in each pry, the City could add more trunks if it wanted to. Mr. Larouche indicated to Councilor Rohde that this new system used the same highways to transmit voice that were in the fiber coming from AT&T (scheduled for installation by January 31); the fiber would significantly improve the City's data transmissions. Mr. Larouche indicated to Councilor Rohde that the system did have wireless capabilities, but whether to take advantage of them or not was a policy decision. He explained that wireless phones required either a receiver or some kind of Internet Service Provider arrangement. Mr. Larouche confirmed to Councilor Hoffman that the State was converting to this system. He indicated that the only other jurisdiction that he knew of using this system was the City of Bend, which was 80% completed. He recounted the staff trip to Bend to look at the system. He said that Bend was happy with it. Mr. Larouche pointed out the $5,000 a year that the City currently spent on bringing Qwest in to do adds and changes; with the new system, he could do the adds and changes by computer. He indicated to Mayor Hammerstad that his goal was to have the system up and running by April 15 with June 30 as the final deadline. Mr. Larouche explained to Mayor Hammerstad that the Citywide problem with the current phones being dead lay in the 15 -year-old switch. He commented that they were hoping it survived until April 15. Mr. Larouche indicated to Councilor Rohde that they built three days of training into the contract as well as web training tools and the ability to send people to Qwest or Cisco for refresher training. Mr. Larouche answered a series of specific questions asked by the Council. He explained to Councilor Turchi which buttons would be reprogrammed for re -dial. He mentioned that the receptionist phones were 6 -line phones while all other phones were 2 -line phones. He noted that the phones included caller id. He said that each user could program in his/her own directory of frequently called numbers. He indicated to Councilor Schoen that the system did not have a camera and therefore could not do face-to-face phone calls. Mr. Larouche indicated to Councilor Rohde that when the power went out, the system ran on its UPS (uninterrupted power supply) for the first 15 to 20 minutes and then would need the building's emergency direct generator. He mentioned to Councilor Graham that they talked Cisco into giving the City $10,000 to $12,000 for the old equipment and hauling it away. 5.1 Demolition of Hart House Mr. Schmitz indicated to Councilor Rohde that he needed to talk with Rachel about getting into the house. He clarified to Councilor Schoen that the Taylor house, not the Hart house, had been trashed. He confirmed to Councilor Graham that the City has allowed salvage of handrails, doorknobs, etc., from previous demolitions and would do so with the Hart house. Councilor Graham noted that the $13,000 price for the demolition was exclusive of any other costs arising due to hazardous materials. She asked if the Harts would be responsible for the removal of asbestos and lead-based paint. Mr. Powell said that the City purchased the house on an `as is' basis, which meant that it had responsibility for the costs of that removal. Ile indicated City Council Morning Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 11 December 18, 2001 54 that something requiring an environmental action by DEQ, such as contamination from an oil- based furnace, would probably be the responsibility of the previous owners. Councilor Rohde asked if this house has been evaluated with respect to architectural integrity and historical value, given its age. He mentioned the possibility of raising money through grants for the restoration of historic properties. Mr. Schmitz said that the house was not on the City's historic inventory list because the evaluation did not rate a high number. Councilor Rohde reiterated that he wanted to see the house. Councilor Hoffman asked staff to obtain the Historic Review Advisory Board's opinion because its members were sensitive to the demolition of 84 -year-old structures. He asked for the Glenmorrie Neighborhood Association's opinion also as well as the Natural Resources Advisory Board. He commented that the public tended to accuse a public body of not providing sufficient notice, and therefore he would like to garner input from these groups. Staff mentioned that the neighborhood would like the house to come down. The Council discussed taking a tour of the house with the Historic Review Advisory Board. Councilor Rohde commented that the demolition evaluation described the Hart house as being in the same condition as the Heritage House had been in before it was renovated. The Council agreed that staff should arrange a tour. 5.2 Compassionate Leave Policy Mayor Hammerstad indicated that she removed this item from the agenda. 5.3 State & A Mr. Schmitz mentioned the letter received by Mayor Hammerstad from a citizen about the change in the sequencing of traffic at the Highway 43 and A Avenue intersection. Mr. Tushner recounted the story of ODOT's changing of the signal light sequencing. He said that ODOT contacted City staff in early October about timing changes to accomplish three goals: to interconnect the McVey signal for the mid-day timing plan, to increase the cycle length to address peak hour southbound traffic movements and to address a litigation problem at the intersection with respect to the amber clearance signal. Mr. Tushner reviewed ODOT's change in the amber clearance interval from none to `at the start of the cycle' (leading) to 'at the end of the cycle' (lagging). He indicated that the changes were made to achieve amber clearance for the center lane traffic. Mr. Tushner mentioned that he had asked ODOT to give him advance warning in writing of the exact date in November that they would implement the change but he received only two days advance notice. Mr. Tushner said that he put ODOT on notice about the software and minor hardware problems needing adjustment. He indicated that ODOT has received comments on the changes but not a deluge of comments. Mr. Tushner explained that the phasing at the signal at State and A was unusual in the state; the Lake Oswego police enforced someone stopping as 'an obstruction of traffic, which was a different interpretation than used by other police departments in the state. He commented that from his perspective that interpretation was somewhat awkward. He recalled that the police department had had some issues with the leading left turn when it was first installed. He speculated that they were seeing similar issues with the change to a lagging left turn. Mayor Hammerstad pointed out that people had gotten used to the initial signal setting. She commented that she thought that the leading left turn had worked well for both the north and south directions. She noted that the problem with the change to a lagging left turn was the inability of trucks to make a left-hand turn from the inner lane; therefore, they sat in the outer lane with a green light and no where to go, which backed up that lane almost past the railroad City Council Morning Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 11 December 18, 2001 55 tracks. She held that the changes were far worse than the initial set-up that everyone was used to. The Council generally agreed that the situation was worse now. Councilor Rohde suggested putting up a `doghouse' signal light and a sign on the signal light standard explaining when to turn. Mr. Tushner said that lie would investigate installing a doghouse light, which he thought was a possibility. He mentioned that they were readily available and insignificant in cost but he did not know if it was an issue for ODOT. Mr. Tushner recounted the history he has heard with respect to the City's effort to put up a custom sign when the initial leading light went in, and ODOT's reluctance to allow a custom sign. He observed that traffic control signs needed to convey a clear and simple message. He mentioned ODOT and the State Traffic Engineer's efforts to keep signage uniform so that both daily commuters and out-of-towners could understand what they were supposed to do. Mayor Hammerstad commented that `proceed on arrow' seemed understandable. Mr. Tushner said that he would talk to ODOT, which maintained that it was the responsible agency, about reverting to the original sequencing and putting up additional signage. lie indicated to Councilor Schoen that staff would investigate installing the doghouse light. Councilor McPeak commented that, by changing the original sequencing, ODOT has already admitted tacitly that this intersection was unusual. She described this as an unusual enough situation to warrant a sign, even if ODOT did not want signs in many places. Mayor Hammerstad described the problem with turning left from A Avenue to Highway 43 (heading towards Portland) during rush hour traffic. She mentioned the north lane backing up through the intersection and the short light that allowed only five cars through. Councilor Rohde commented that the City asked for that design in order to allow for the median. Mr. Tushner recalled that, during their first meeting with ODOT, ODOT agreed not to substantially change and of the side street timing when it retimed the signals. He noted that ODOT increased the cycle length but retained the percentage allocated to the side streets. He observed that things became very difficult with an under -capacity intersection. He indicated that part of the reason for the current left turn configuration was an attempt to address the capacity issues. He mentioned that the long-term plans called for a dual left turn lane but on a practical level, that was an expensive project. Councilor Turchi commented that they should discuss this at an evening meeting. Mayor Hammerstad suggested that Mr. Tushner bring it up under Information from the Council. Mr. Tushner suggested that he approach ODOT before discussing this in public. He indicated that he preferred to have an ODOT Westside traffic signal manager with him during that discussion. Mayor Hammerstad concurred that Mr. Tushner should contact ODOT and inform them that this was a community concern. She mentioned scheduling a presentation on a TV night, such as February 5. Mayor Hammerstad suggested to Councilor Rohde that they discuss his concern about the youth candidates on the advisory boards at the agenda retreat. She suggested that Councilors Turchi and Rolide recruit right now at the high schools for these positions. Councilor Turchi observed that they might reach more interested students in the political action classes. Councilor Turchi suggested that they go through the chain of command, starting with Mr. Schmitz talking to Mr. Korach, in recruiting advisory board youth members. Mayor 11ammerstad directed Mr. Schmitz to start the process. Councilor Turchi spoke to setting up a process whereby they advertised for Youth Councilors and made the appointments in April and May, rather than in October. He suggested recruiting from the current juniors and sophomores for the Youth Council. City Council Morning Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 1 1 December 18, 2001 56 6. EXECUTIVE SESSION Mayor Hammerstad recessed the meeting at 9:30 a.m. to Executive Session pursuant to ORS 192.660(I)(e), to consult with persons authorized to negotiate real property transactions on behalf of the City. 7. RETURN TO OPEN SESSION Mayor Hammerstad reconvened the meeting at 9:43 a.m. 8. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Hammerstad adjourned the meeting at 9:45 a.m. Respectfully submitted, -;"44�6-j Robyn Chr' tie City Recorder APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: N udie Hammerstad, Mayor (-'ity Council Morning Meeting Minutes December 18, 2001 Page I 1 of I I 4.3.3 02/05/02 MINUTES OF DECEMBER 18, 2001 SPECIAL MEETING Public Affairs Department TO: Judie Hammerstad, Mayor Members of the City Council FROM: Robyn Christie, City Recorder SUBJECT: Correction to Minutes DATE: February 5, 2002 ( Douglas I Schmitz, David Powell Minutes The following correction has been made to the minutes on the consent agenda for the February 5, 2002 Council meeting. Please make the motion to approve minutes as corrected. Date of Minutes Page Correction December 18, 2001, Special 2 of 3 Delete final sentence in sixth paragraph: meeting with TAB (62 in packet) Mayor Hammerstad commented that the North Macadam to OHSU traffic became accommodated tra ic. N:\Robyn\min memo.doc CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES December 18, 2001 Mayor Judie Hammerstad called the City Council special meeting to order at 5:20 p.m. on December 18, 2001, in the Municipal Courtroom. Present: Mayor Hammerstad, Councilors Rohde, Schoen, Turchi, Graham, McPeak and Hoffman. Staff Present: Doug Schmitz, City Manager; David Powell, City Attorney; Robyn Christie, City Recorder; Kathy Marcott, Engineering Technician; Tom Tushner, Principal Engineer TAB Present: Jim Kronenberg, Henry Germond, Rose Rummel-Eury, Donna Jordan (Chair), and Steven Schulte (Vice Chair) 3. Study Session with the Transportation Advisory Board Donna Jordan, TAB Chair, discussed a problem that the Board had with reaching a quorum. She mentioned two upcoming public hearings, for which they were trying to make sure that five Board members would be present. Ms. Jordan discussed the pathway criteria plan they developed, and their efforts to make sure that funds were reallocated in the budget for the pathway projects. She reported that the Board felt that the top three projects they have identified were well received by the neighborhoods. She mentioned a concern that, by having a set of pathway criteria, people might expect to see a continued expansion of the tax rate. She spoke of looking into how they could expand the vision of funding, not only street maintenance, but all the various pieces in the puzzle of improving and maintaining all transportation opportunities. Ms. Jordan indicated that they were proceeding with the George Rogers Park expansion. She noted the problem of bringing more cars into the area, as the neighbors already complained about people parking in front of their houses. She mentioned another issue of getting pedestrians across Highway 43 safely. Ms. Jordan spoke of looking at the whole downtown redevelopment in terms of the traffic light pattern placements, referencing the citizen concern about the crossing at 5`h and A. She mentioned that the Board was trying to figure out how to work with the Council and its goals that were specific to the Board's purview. Mr. Germond raised a concern with their youth board member who had attendance problems due to her commitment to the soccer team. lie suggested including attendance as a criteria during the interview process. Mayor Hammerstad apologized for the Board not having a youth member. She mentioned that the Council redesigned the Shadow Council program in order to give the students a better experience. She noted that the additional responsibilities and expectations scared some students away. Mayor Hammerstad said that the Council was working on the youth advisory board member appointments, but the Board might not have a youth member until spring or next year. Mr. Germond suggested having alternates. Ms. Jordan mentioned a difficulty with finding a chairman. Mayor I lammerstad observed that that was a common problem for committees. She mentioned that last year some committees might not have had enough 'meat' in terms of their work. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Pagel of 3 December 18, 2001 61 Ms. Jordan spoke of the Board's efforts to keep involved and to find creative solutions to problems. She mentioned the heavy involvement of people and time with the Boones Ferry Corridor Study. She noted their concern with how to keep those kinds of big projects moving forward, mentioning the upcoming Meadows Road project. Tom Tushner, Principal Engineer, recalled that six months ago staff applied to ODOT for $25,000 cash towards a $130,000 project on Meadows Road between Carman Drive and Bangy Road. He said that when ODOT rejected their request, they cut the project out. He explained that a week ago ODOT sent the City a letter, referencing the upcoming economic stimulus package and asking if Lake Oswego could live up to its original commitment. He indicated that staff was looking into finding the $100,000. Mayor Hammerstad informed the Board that the Council has asked for a presentation by ODOT on the State's changes to the intersection at State Street and A Avenue. She mentioned wanting to discuss the efficiency or non -efficiency of those changes. Ms. Rummel-Eury described the confusion that she has observed at the intersection following those changes. Ms. Jordan wondered why ODOT chose to change the signal light timing in November, which was the start of the holiday season. Mayor Hammerstad referenced the Council's goal setting session in January. Ms. Jordan mentioned finances and the entrance to Hwy 43 in Glenmorrie. She spoke of having the capability to make small changes. Mr. Germond observed that the Oak Street/Glenmorrie crashes did not warrant a major change; however, that count did not include incidents or near misses. He spoke of a sharp upgrade. Mayor Hammerstad commented that sometimes the solution was worse than the problem. Ms. Jordan mentioned citizen involvement and reaching a compromise on the 5`h and A crosswalk situation. Mayor Hammerstad spoke of a trolley to streetcar connection. She mentioned the North Macadam project, which ended at Gibbs Street. She indicated that it was on a fast track for 2004 and without federal dollars. She referenced the Foothills properties in Lake Oswego and spoke to the possibilities over the next five years. Ms. Rummel-Eury noted the neighborhood opposition to the tram. Mayor Hammerstad commented that the North Macadam to OHSU traffic became accommodated traffic. Mr. Schulte referenced the four projects identified by the Board for this year, all of which had good neighborhood support. He discussed their concern that they might not be able to spend all their allocations for those projects within this fiscal year. He asked if they could carry the money over to the next fiscal year. He indicated that three projects were short in length and the fourth longer. He asked if they should prioritize. Doug Schmitz, City Manager, indicated that there was no guarantee of a carry over, although they could make the request to the Budget Committee. Ms. Jordan observed that they needed to get moving on the projects. She mentioned making links to schools or other public areas. She discussed the issue of geographic equity in the distribution of links. Mr. Tushner pointed out that the three smaller projects were easier to engineer, which staff was in the process of doing. He indicated that staff would develop a recommended priority list for the Board and give the Board a sense of the engineering and feasibility of the four projects. He observed that the larger ($135,000) project would likely not be done this year but perhaps the remaining three ($40,000 each) would. Ms. Jordan expressed the Board's appreciation for Mr. Tushner and Ms. Marcott's work as their staff liaisons. Mr. Schmitz announced that construction started on the Palisades project tomorrow. City Council Special Meeting Minutes December 18, 2001 Page 2 of 3 Councilor Turchi noted that the Board members have now received their property tax statements, which included the school measure. He asked to what degree did they think that Lake Oswego citizens would favor increased property taxes to fund traffic and transportation projects. Ms. Jordan mentioned the Board's discussion of reviving local improvement districts (including partial districts) and finding creative ways to generate neighborhood support for pathways. Ms. Jordan spoke to getting one of these pathway projects going in order to have something to point to in generating that support. Mr. Kronenberg commented that people did not know about the projects. He speculated that if they saw a project in progress or completed, then they might feel better about the process. Ms. Jordan observed that there were many ways to provide pedestrian connections other than the traditional sidewalk, curb and gutter. 4. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Hammerstad adjourned the meeting at 6:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, —0110 R byn Ctristie City Recorder APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: N udic Hammerstad, Mayor City Council Special Meeting Minutes December 18, 2001 Page 3 of 3 63 4.3.4 oziO5i()') MINUTES OF JANUARY 8, 2002 SPECIAL MORNING MEETING -O, t_A_lt _OJ CITY COUNCIL MINUTES t January 8, 2002 Ot[GO" / Mayor Judie Hammerstad called the special City Council meeting to order at 7:32 a.m. on January 8, 2002, in the City Council Chambers. Present: Mayor Hammerstad, Councilors Turchi, Graham, McPeak, Hoffman, Rohde (arrived 7:35 a.m.) and Schoen. Staff Present: Doug Schmitz, City Manager; David Powell, City Attorney; Robyn Christie, City Recorder; Stephan Lashbrook, Community Development Director 3. REVIEW EVENING AGENDA Mayor Hammerstad noted the four presentations scheduled for the study session this evening. She requested that Councilors ask only for more information this morning and hold their substantive questions for this evening. item 3.2 1'lanniiig Commission Reconunendution for Approval of Zoning/Development Code Consolidation (LU 01-0048) David Powell, City Attorney, indicated to Mayor Hammerstad that staff could make the staff report this evening short, depending on the level of detail that the Council wanted to hear. He expressed his appreciation for Councilor Hoffman reading the whole thing but pointed out that all the Council really needed to know was that staff was consolidating everything into one place in an effort to make the Code more logical and readable. Item 3.3. Draft Waluga Neighborhood Plan (LU 00-0025) Mayor Hammerstad noted that the neighborhood made the changes to its plan that Council requested. Mayor Hammerstad explained to Councilor Graham that she did not need to read earlier drafts of a staff report because staff incorporated the changes into the latest draft. She suggested following a rule of thumb: read only what was pertinent. item 3.4 Planning Commission Recommendation for Approval of Density Guidelines (ZC 7-98) Councilor McPeak requested information on whether other jurisdictions had the future development plan concept in place or were considering it. Mayor Hammerstad observed that the concept existed in overlays on developments, such as Clackamas Town Center or Washington Square, with one intent of preventing underdevelopment. Stephan Lashbrook, Community Development Director, indicated to Councilor McPeak that, with respect to minimum density specifically, he knew that some jurisdictions have applied the minimum density requirements across the board and not exempted partitions at all. He explained that the Planning Commission had been trying to create a situation where people could not circumvent the minimum density requirement by going through a series of partitions year after year. He said that he would research the question today and provide the information in the evening. Mr. Lashbrook indicated to Mayor llammerstad that Lake Oswego, if not the last jurisdiction to adopt the minimum density requirements, was one of a handful of the last. Mayor Hammerstad asked Mr. Lashbrook to explain to her later in the day, the application of the mathematical formula for determining a lot size (minus the 20% for roads and streets). City Council Morning Meeting .Minutes Page 1 of 4 January 8, 2002 6 'r Mayor Hammerstad recalled that she had talked to David Bragdon about the impact of the City buying up open space in an area that might come into the urban growth boundary in light of the population and housing targets mandated by Metro, and whether it led to a problem of density transfer, including the open space. She said that the answer was yes, according to the City Code. Mayor Hammerstad said that Metro, in looking at the amount of the area that could come into the urban growth boundary, would take out the open space. She stated that she wanted to be on that committee in order to ensure that Lake Oswego did not have density transfer from that open space, which would put the City in a bad situation. Mr. Lashbrook clarified to Councilor Schoen that the City either took out the actual amount of roads, streets and parks or it used the 80%/20% allocation. Councilor McPeak asked staff to give a clear explanation of density transfer for the audience this evening. Mayor Hammerstad mentioned including the exemptions. 4. REVIEW FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Mayor Hammerstad noted the addition of a study session on annexation and tax increment financing on Monday, January 28. She indicated to Councilor Schoen that sign ordinance was rescheduled for January 29. The Council discussed going out to dinner after the Friday retreat session but decided to do it another night. Mayor Hammerstad mentioned that the invitation to civic groups to come to the Saturday morning session would be in the paper this week. The Council discussed the parking arrangements at U.S. Bank. 5. OTHER BUSINESS 5.1 Selection of date for tour of Hart Property Mayor Hammerstad recalled the concerns on the Council that the City might want to preserve the house instead of demolishing it. She referenced the demolition request in asking for consideration that the Council was not experts on the question, and it did have a recommendation for demolition from an expert who reviewed the matter. Mayor Hammerstad observed that the Council going out en masse might arouse neighbors' concerns. She asked what the consequences were to a Council desire to preserve the home, especially in terms of finances. She indicated to Councilor Hoffman that she thought it would be more appropriate for the Historic Review Advisory Board to tour the house, as opposed to accompanying the Council on a tour. Councilor Rohde reported that he looked at the house after the last meeting. He indicated that it was probably a house worth saving; it was over 100 years old and Lake Oswego had few of those homes left. He pointed out that the `expert' who recommended demolition also recommended the demolition of Lantern Lodge, the Thiely residence and the Heritage House for the same reasons: the houses were in terrible condition and would require a lot of money to renovate. He argued that those facts did not mean that they simply abandoned the effort. Councilor Rohde held that the house had some historical value to the community. He spoke to finding ways to preserve it, such as National Historic Register grants. He argued that, although it was easier and less costly in monetary terms to tear down the structure, it might be more expensive in social terms. Councilor Graham said that she would like to tour the house. She indicated that she wanted to know why it would be demolished and why it would not be demolished. She suggested splitting the Council visit if it would attract too much attention. Councilor McPeak asked if it was trickier politically to have HRAB tour the house, recommend retaining it and the Council disagree with the recommendation. She said that, in that situation, City Council Morning Meeting Minutes Page 2 ol'4 January 8, 2002 fi b she was uncomfortable not seeing the house. She questioned the difficulty of an HRAB decision versus a Council visit. Councilor Turchi reported that he took looked at the house and saw some architectural merit, characteristic of the period. He acknowledged the point that HRAB designating the house as worth preserving left the Council with having to take on an historically designated site, a situation with which he was uncomfortable. Mayor Hammerstad indicated to Councilor McPeak that it was best to see the inside rather than simply to go and look at the outside on one's own. Councilor Hoffman said that he had no problem touring the home with HRAB. He pointed out that the citizens on that committee have given the Council their opinion on the head gate and other items; the Council accepted some of their recommendations but not all of them. He commented that HRAB wanted to be consulted by the Council on these matters. He remarked that the house might be worth preserving but the Council might not be able to afford to do so. He spoke in support of looking at the house. The Council discussed when to schedule the tour. Councilors Schoen, Turchi, Rohde and Hoffman each indicated that he could take the tour on Wednesday, January 9, at 10 a.m.; Mayor Hammerstad, Councilors McPeak and Graham each indicated that she could take the tour on Wednesday, January 16, at 9 a.m. The Council discussed setting a date for the Board and Commission/City Council dinner (with spouses) at the Country Club. It agreed cin January 27 at 6:30 p.m. Councilor Hoffman agreed to confirm the date at the Country Club. Mayor Hammerstad confirmed to Councilor Graham that she should tell Shirley to re- schedule the Library Advisory Board interviews (January 24) because they conflicted with the Clackamas Cities Dinner. Mayor Hammerstad noted that Lake Oswego was the host for the February Clackamas Cities dinner. She commented that Councilor Rohde's suggested economist sounded like a good speaker. Councilor Rohde also suggested Representative Darlene Hooley. Mayor Ilammerstad said that she would ask her. Mr. Schmitz indicated that staff would respond to the request from a schoolgirl in Rye, NY, regarding her school project on cities on the West Coast. Councilor Turchi mentioned that Lake Oswego school children send out letters all across the country requesting similar things, and that there was a certain reciprocity expected. 6. EXECUTIVE SESSION Mayor Hammerstad recessed the meeting at 8:04 a.m. to Executive Session pursuant to ORS 192.660(1)(i), to review and evaluate the performance of an officer, employee, or staff member pursuant to standards, criteria, and policy directives adopted by the City Council. Councilor Turchi moved to give the City Manager and the City Attorney a 5% increase to get them partially towards parity with other jurisdictions, and an additional 2% added on July 1, 2002, to cover the cost of living. Councilor Graham seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken and the motion passed with Mayor Hammerstad and Councilors Turchi, Graham, McPeak, Hoffman, Rohde and Schoen voting in favor. 17-01 7. RETURN TO OPEN SESSION Mayor Hammerstad reconvened the morning meeting at 9:33 a.m. Councilor Graham presented a request from Kay Roney of the Lake Oswego Lakers that the Council donate a luncheon as an item at the Lakers annual fund-raising auction in February. Mayor Hammerstad discussed her concern that the Council already had a meal engagement City Council Morning Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 4 January 8, 2002 6 �f donated to the Rotary Club, which has not been taken up. She expressed her discomfort with the Council donating several of these kinds of things, only to have them all come up during the same month. The Council agreed not to donate a luncheon. 8. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Hammerstad adjourned the meeting at 9:37 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Rob hris ie City Recorder APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: N Judie Hammerstad, Mayor City Council Morning Meeting Minutes January 8, 2002 Page 4 of 4 7 U 4.3.5 MINUTES OF JANUARY 8, 2002 SPECIAL MEETING CITY COUNCIL MINUTES �t January 8, 2002 \ f ��. WtGaM Mayor Judie Hammerstad called the City Council study session to order at 6:05 p.m. on January 8, 2002, in the City Council Chambers, 380 A Avenue, Present: Mayor Hammerstad, Councilors Turchi, Graham, McPeak, Hoffinan, Rohde and Schoen. Staff Present: Doug Schmitz, City Manager; David Powell, City Attorney; Robyn Christie, City Recorder; Sidaro Sin, Associate Planner; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney; Stephan Lashbrook, Community Development Director; Jane Heisler, Associate Planner; Denny Egner, Long Range Planning Manager 3. STUDY SESSION 3.1 Planning Commission Recommendations for Approval of Neighborhood Notice Requirements (LU O1-0045) Sidaro Sin, Associate Planner, mentioned that the intent of the proposed amendments was to increase notification and citizen involvement in land use applications. He noted that these amendments would apply citywide and pertain to the required neighborhood association meetings and mailed notices for pending land use applications. Mr. Sin noted the change requiring developers to mail notices to the abutting neighborhood associations, in addition to the impacted neighborhood association. He reviewed the requirement that expanding the 300 -foot mailing notice area in 10 -foot increments until 50 property owners were notified (when there were not 50 property owners living within 300 feet of the property). Mr. Sin mentioned the requirement that the applicant provide more detailed and specific ini'ormation at the neighborhood meetings. He indicated that a neighborhood association chair would have the opportunity to provide a list of the neighborhood's concerns in addition to the applicant's separate minutes. Mr. Sin said that Jeff Novak was the sole testifier at the Planning Commission's November 16 hearing; staff incorporated his comments into the draft amendments, which the Commission recommended for approval. Councilor Graham asked for clarification on Point 6 (page 5). She asked if the determination that an application was complete meant that the application was in compliance or simply completed. Mr. Sin explained that an application had to meet certain requirements in order to be deemed complete. Councilor Schoen noted that, although the requirements applied city wide, four neighborhoods drove the changes. He asked what input the City received from the rest of the city. Mr. Sin said that staff did multiple mailings through the Planning Commission and received no comments from any other neighborhood association. Councilor Schoen asked what was the rationale behind notifying abutting neighborhood associations of developments. Mr. Sin said that the concern arose out of the fact that the impacts of a development in one neighborhood, such as on traffic or water runoff, could potentially impact the abutting neighborhoods. He clarified that the requirement was to mail out letters to the abutting neighborhood association chairs, and not to everyone in the abutting neighborhoods. City Council Study Session Minutes Page 1 of 13 January 8, 2002 IF 3 Mr. Sin indicated to Councilor Hoffman that the Code consolidation would update the references in the document. Councilor Hoffman asked if the 10 -foot increment rule was in the Waluga Neighborhood Plan, stating that he did not remember seeing it there. Mr. Sin indicated that the reference to the closest 50 property owners was in the Waluga plan but the idea came from Planning Commission brainstorming sessions on how to notify 50 property owners. Councilor Hoffman observed that this would apply to all neighborhood plans and land use applications. He indicated that he did not see this as an unduly expensive proposition for the developers, who preferred working with the neighborhoods at the beginning of the process as opposed to hearing objections at the Planning Commission hearing. Councilor Rohde asked to include First Addition and Old Town on the grid (page 4) because they were adopted neighborhood plans. He pointed out that First Addition served as the template for the remaining neighborhood plans. Councilor Rohde asked why the lake was left off as an abutting neighborhood association. He pointed out that something done in his neighborhood association was seen by everyone in Hallinan across the lake. Mr. Sin indicated that the Commission did discuss that question. He said that staff recommended staying with the abutting neighborhood associations because all the lake was zoned residential; there was little chance of multi -family or commercial developments with their significant visual impacts occurring. Dan Vizzini, Planning Commission, concurred that the Commission concluded that, given the predominantly residential nature of the neighborhoods around the lake, notifying the across -the - lake neighborhoods seemed like overkill. He spoke of trying to reach a balance in not making this too onerous. He indicated to Councilor Rohde that they tried to incorporate as much of the neighborhood plan noticing requirements as possible while achieving more efficiency in a uniform code for the city. Councilor Hoffman referenced Section 49.36.7 10 (page 10). He questioned giving the neighborhood associations an additional 10 days to identify issues after starting the 120 -day clock (upon completion of the application). He suggested deeming an application complete except for neighborhood input and waiting until after the 10 days to start the 120 -day clock. He observed that it was a staff: issue of determining whether they needed the time. Mr. Sin explained that often, between the time of the neighborhood meeting and the application submittal, the design or application changed. He said that giving the neighborhood the 10 days was staffs attempt to deal with neighborhood issues at the beginning of the process, as opposed to at the end of it. He mentioned that, as part of these amendments, they were writing into the Code that the neighborhood chairs could submit their own list of concerns. He indicated that he was comfortable that they could get through the process within the 120 days. Councilor Graham referenced Section D (page 10) and Section 7A (page 1 l ). She asked why the same sentence was crossed out on page 10 but left in on page 11. David Powell, City Attorney, indicated that the sentence was duplicative, and did not need to be on the first page. Mayor Hammerstad noted the public hearing scheduled for February 5. 3.2 Planning; Commission Recommendation for Approval of Zoning/Development Code Consolidation (LU 01-0048) Mr. Sin explained that the intent was to reorganize the City Zoning Code, Development Code and Development standards by consolidating them into a more logical flow. He noted that the consolidation did not include any substantive modification to the text. He mentioned that the last Code reorganization occurred in 1982. City Council Study Session Minutes Page 2 of 13 January 8, 2002 7 11 Mr. Sin reviewed the three categories of revisions: changing references from Planning Director to City Manager, correcting typographical errors and providing an explanation for any changes that went beyond the first two. He noted the errata sheets for errors detected after the consolidation went to print in December. Mr. Sin described how the reorganized Code followed the chronological steps of the land use process. He mentioned that there was no public testimony at the Planning Commission's November 26 public hearing; staff had not received any written comments. He said that the Planning Commission recommended adoption of the reorganization. Councilor McPeak asked why staff changed `Planning Director' to `City Manager.' Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney, explained that the Development Code said City Manager while the Zoning Code said Planning Director; Toni Coffee, the former Planning Director who worked on the reorganization, had favored City Manager over Planning Director. He noted that the definition of City Manager included the City Manager or his designer. Mr. Powell observed that the Code often referred to City Manager in lieu of another staff position title because the Charter mandated that the City have a City Manager, whereas the City could change other staff position titles as appropriate. He said that the City Manager then delegated those duties to the various department heads. Mr. Boone discussed the process he, Tom Coffee, Hamid Pishvaie and Mike Wheeler went through, beginning in 1999, to develop the Code consolidation. He indicated that the Planning Department has been using the working draft (second draft following staff comments) for 8 months, which resulted in additional comments and revisions. He mentioned the press release on the draft Code consolidation given to the papers, the Chamber and frequent users of planning services as well as the inclusion of the draft on the City website. Mr. Boone indicated that staff issued another press release to the same people following the Planning Commission's work. He mentioned an article in Hello, LO. He said that they have not received any public comments, other than from one neighborhood chair who said that he was pleased with the result. Councilor Rohde asked how staff has integrated the Code consolidation with the City's e - government procedures. Mr. Boone explained that, upon adoption and becoming part of the Code, staff would put it on the City website under the Code page. He mentioned the use of a PDF mode, which would make it easier to view the Code online. He noted that the consolidation also included the development standards, which have not been online previously. Councilor Rohde spoke to staff writing an article on the Code consolidation for the League of Oregon Cities newsletter. He thought that other communities in Oregon would be interested in following up on Lake Oswego's process. Mr. Powell mentioned that Lake Oswego's Code was among those posted on the League website and accessible statewide. Mayor Hammerstad suggested that Mr. Powell and Mr. Boone send a press release to the League. Dan Vizzini, Planning Commissioner, said that the Commission was happy with the product and has been using it since it received the first draft. He mentioned that the most critical user of the document, Ken Sandblast (a planning professional), was pleased with the flow of the document and found it a good product from the user's point of view. Mr. Boone mentioned that they would put the neighborhood notice provisions (and the other ordinances scheduled for hearing on the same night) into the consolidation format once they knew that they would be adopted. He explained that the theory was that when the Council adopted the new Community Development Code first, staff would have already put the other ordinances into the new format. Councilor Hoffman said that he thought it was a good product. He asked where the definitions were for Section 50.41 (drainage standards for major development), as he could not find them. City Council Study Session Minutes Page 3 of 13 January 8, 2002 7 5 Mr. Boone indicated that Councilor Hoffman was the first one to notice that omission; staff would put those definitions in the definition section. Mr. Powell mentioned the hard work and time invested by Mr. Boone and the Planning staff (Mr. Pishvaie, in particular) in reorganizing the Code. Mayor Hammerstad noted that the public hearing on the Code was scheduled for February 5. 3.3 Draft Waluga Neighborhood flan (LU 00-0025) Mayor Hammerstad recalled that the Council appointed a Council subcommittee to work with neighborhood representatives with respect to Council concerns with the plan. She mentioned that they also worked on the revisions requested by the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) for compliance with state law. Mr. Sin mentioned that the subcommittee had identified 16 policies of concern. He indicated that the subcommittee, staff and the Waluga Steering Committee worked over the last 7 months to find acceptable language for the 16 policies. He noted that the earlier agenda item addressed the plan policies requiring additional notification. He commented that the working group reworded the plan policies, which had required a higher degree of scrutiny for changes to multi- family or commercial zones, to strongly emphasize the City's current requirements for zone changes. Mr. Sin indicated that the group eliminated those policies, which the DLCD construed as unfairly promoting single-family development, and replaced them with a statement regarding the character of single-family developments as urban space and the use of open space. He noted that the subcommittee supported the plan policy prohibiting new drive-through window facilities in the Lake Grove business district (as a means of ensuring a design quality for future development in the area). Mr. Sin said that the subcommittee accepted the Transportation Advisory Board's recommendation to keep the sidewalk and bike lane on the east side of Quarry in addition to providing a sidewalk along Douglas Way. Mr. Sin confirmed to Mayor Harnrncrstad that the neighborhood association agreed with the changes. Councilor Hoffman said that he went through the plan pretending to be a developer who wanted to get a zone change for a tri-plex (a major development). He stated that lie could not figure out what the burden of proof was for the applicant. He confirmed to Mr. Powell that he was referencing the example on page 9. Mr. Powell indicated that the Comprehensive Plan Goal 2, Policy 14F, already set out the burden of proof for an applicant, which was confirmed by case law as applicable in all quasi- judicial land use proceedings. He concurred that the Comprehensive Plan policy did not include the words `strictly required.' He referenced Mr. Sin's staff report discussing the DLCD's objections to the proposed plan policies favoring single-family housing. Mr. Powell explained that, in the discussions, the neighborhood clarified that it wanted to say that what it really meant was that a developer had to demonstrate substantial evidence and meet the burden of proof described in Policy 14F. He mentioned the neighborhood's concern that prior decisions did not pay enough attention to the existing burden of proof. He said that the Task Force recommended language, such as `strictly required,' in order to address the neighborhood's concern, rather than changing the criteria. Councilor Schoen asked what the rationale was for not allowing new drive-through food services. Mr. Sin referenced the research on other cities' handling of this issue, which he did at the subcommittee's request. He said that 50% allowed some form of drive through facilities and 50% did not. He explained that the primary factor was the intent to develop pedestrian activity in town centers; drive-through facilities were seen as having an adverse impact to that intent. He City Council Study Session Minutes Page 4 of 13 January 8, 2002 7 c; noted that this prohibition was also consistent with the Lake Grove Neighborhood plan, which governed the other side of Boones Ferry, Mayor Hammerstad mentioned the subcommittee's concern about proliferation, as there were already several drive-throughs in the area. She pointed out that this prohibited new drive- throughs as a means of making the area more pedestrian friendly and discouraging drive through use. Councilor Schoen observed that this was the only area of the City that provided drive- through services. Mr. Boone confirmed to Councilor Hoffman that the plan would include the 10 -foot increment in the noticing provisions discussed earlier. Councilor Hoffman noted a typographical error on page 2, RAM 2. Mayor Hammerstad opened the meeting to public testimony. • Jeff Novak, 4322 Collins Way Mr. Novak expressed his hope that they would see this adopted soon, as they have been working on it for five years. He noted the active involvement by the neighbors and the Steering Committee's work in soliciting input from the neighbors. He described the biggest issue for them as finding a way to communicate the characteristics of their neighborhood for planning decisions. Mr. Novak observed that Waluga was unique in that it was the densest of all the Lake Oswego neighborhoods. He noted that their geography shaped them as an island of residential, which they wanted to protect from encroachment. He explained that that factor lay behind the wording `strictly required.' He acknowledged Waluga's status as a primary planning model of what the City was trying to do in terms of single-family residential surrounded by multi -family residential and a business district. Mr. Novak indicated to Mayor Hammerstad that the neighborhood was supportive of the Council discussion. Mayor Hammerstad noted that the public hearing on the plan was scheduled for February 2. Councilor Hoffman asked for clarification of a statement on page 47: "do not adopt criteria that will include deterioration or demolition as a justification for a zone change." Mr. Powell noted the deletion of the original policy proposed by the neighborhood to not allow deterioration or demolition of existing homes as a reason for plan and zoning map amendment changes. Mr. Powell discussed the subcommittee's concern about having a policy that prohibited deterioration as a reason for a zone change, while at the same time the City wanted to encourage the redevelopment of dilapidated areas. He described the statement as a compromise, in which the neighborhood asked that the City not adopt official zone change criteria that included deterioration or demolition as justifications themselves. Mr. Powell indicated to Councilor McPeak that the City has never adopted those criteria. He noted that this was a directive to the City not to do so. He described the neighborhood's concern as a developer using the deterioration of a house as it aged as justification for a zone change to commercial. He pointed out that this compromise provided the neighborhood with some assurance that the Council would not make that a criterion yet did not delve into the motivations of redevelopers. Councilor Hoffman asked what it added to the plan to include the statement on page 49 about enhancing the character of low-density residential development within the Waluga neighborhood by requiring the preservation of open space and natural resources per the City's adopted Sensitive Lands Ordinance. He pointed out that the City already had the Sensitive Lands Ordinance and overlays. itv Council Study Session Minutes Page 5 of 13 January h, 2002 7 ( Mayor Hammerstad recalled that this was one of many similar comments and a problem for the DLCD. She explained that the subcommittee decided to leave in basic goal statements of what the residents wanted their neighborhood to look like while removing other superfluous comments. Councilor Hoffman said that he had no problem with the neighborhood character statement, except that it seemed to be directly contrary to what DLCD said. He questioned whether the list of characteristics on page 61 was consistent with the subcommittee's intent and DLCD's direction. Mayor Hammerstad said that the subcommittee looked at this list as a goal statement and the statement on page 49 as a mission statement. She emphasized that they were not regulatory statements. Councilor Hoffman reiterated that he saw a tension between DLCD's direction and the Steering Committee's discussion of its vision for the future. Mr. Powell pointed out that DLCD's letter did not oppose the idea of celebrating the idea of the neighborhood's single-family nature and desiring to preserve it. He explained that DLCD objected to regulatory provisions that made that harder or impossible to achieve. He concurred that the Task Force did not see the character statement as violating DLCD's direction; it was a statement declaring the neighborhood's aspirations. Mayor Hammerstad recalled that DLCD wanted the neighborhood plan to allow for any type of housing. She indicated that the lack of that allowance was what DLCD based its objections on. She spoke to leaving the statement in, citing the numerous compromises by the patient neighborhood, which was been willing to work these issues through. Councilor Hoffman concurred that the plan was a good piece of work. Mr. Powell referenced a sentence on page 66 and several policies under Goal 10, which stated a goal of encouraging the maintenance of single-family residential uses as the predominant land use, as long as other housing types were not unduly excluded. He held that that was consistent with the neighborhood character statement. Councilor Rohde asked if RAM 9 (page 91) was the only reference to the parking problems in the area. Mr. Sin noted that it was also addressed under major issues in regulation 6. Doug Schmitz, City Manager, indicated that this was a compromise between making a policy versus a recommended action measure (RAM). Mr. Sin confirmed that the neighborhood did this before the subcommittee formation. Mayor Hammerstad mentioned the public hearing on February 5. 3.4 Planning Commission Recommendation for Approval of Density Guidelines (ZC 7-98) Jane Heisler, Community Planning Manager, reviewed the history of the density guidelines, starting in 1996 with the adoption by Metro of its Urban Growth Management Functional Plan that required all cities and counties to change their Comprehensive Plans and Zoning Codes to meet the Functional Plan requirements. She mentioned that many of those requirements did result in more efficient use of urban land, the infrastructure, transportation system and open space as a preventative against the expansion of the urban growth boundary. Ms. Heisler mentioned the City Council's 1997 adoption of regulating language for R-3 and R-5 zones, which the proposed amendment deleted because it applied to lots created by subdivision or by partition. She explained that later Metro explained that the minimum that the City had to do to meet its requirements was apply the guidelines to subdivisions, which the proposed amendment did. Ms. Heisler noted that the second proposal in 1999 to apply the guidelines to the rest of the residential zones including applying minimum density to any proposed lot with a minimum of a half acre size. She recalled that Council asked staff to meet with Metro to discuss the City's options and a possible exception; Metro did not find an exception feasible because the City could not meet its density targets within the city limits. City Council Study Session Minutes Page 6 of 13 January 8, 2002 To Ms. Heisler indicated that this proposal, heard by the Planning Commission on November 14, 2001, did what Council requested by justifying application of the guidelines to subdivisions. She noted the Planning Commission findings (Exhibit A, pages 115 — 116). She reviewed the arguments that the Commission heard during public testimony. She summarized the Commission's response to the testimony as the City was trying to do its part in terms of regional goals, and that long-range planning involved looking at the future. Ms. Heisler mentioned that staff originally proposed not including the R-2, R-0 and DD zones because those three zones based the maximum number of units on floor area ratio rather than on minimum lot sizes. She explained that staff put them back in when Metro argued that the City was not dealing with all its residential zones. She observed that doing so was also more in keeping with the Council's direction to apply the minimum density requirements to subdivisions. Ms. Heisler mentioned the Commission's concern that a property owner could circumvent the minimum density requirements through a series of partitions over more than one calendar year. She discussed the Commission's solution of requiring a `future development plan,' by which the City would not lose the opportunity for minimum density on the entire parcel. Ms. Heisler used an overhead projector graphic to demonstrate how the future development plan worked. She described a scenario of a person applying to partition into two lots, land that was four times the minimum lot size. The person would draw up a future development plan that showed how the parcel could be developed at minimum density over time; the City would record the notice of the future development plan so that any property owner would know about it as well as the City, and both could use it as a guide for future development. Ms. Heisler described another scenario of a property owner with a lot with an existing house on it who wanted to partition it into two lots and build another house; he/she had to locate the house on the second lot in such a manner that it would not preclude the future partitioning of the remaining lot. Councilor Turchi asked if this requirement precluded a property owner with two acres of land from partitioning his/her property to give half to his/her children to build a house on and use the other half to build his/her dream house, nestled in the trees in the center of the property. Ms. Heisler agreed that there was a potential for this requirement to impose a size restriction and a location restriction on homes, even if the property was not ever subdivided. Mr. Vizzini concurred, arguing that the zone itself established the restriction because it determined how many lots could occupy the space, as well as the building envelope through setbacks. Ms. Heisler confirmed to Councilor Turchi that a person building on Lot 2 would have to pick out which of the potentially available lots he/she would put his/her house on. She concurred that a dream house could not be located in the woods in the center of the property. Councilor Turchi commented that this was different from his general notion of minimum density, which has been that it was not a big deal, as a person could partition his/her property into three lots. He pointed out that this proposal allowed the partitioning into three lots but then required building on the property as though it were a subdivision. Mr. Vizzini stated that a person had to build in keeping with the zone. Mr. Vizzini described the friction as arising from saying, on one hand, that the property owner needed to plat his/her property according to the zone requirements, and on the other, that he/she could not build on multiples of the lots once they were platted, because that meant building incompatibly with the zone. He argued that trying to put a building that normally fit on an R-10 zone in an R-5 zone raised neighborhood compatibility issues. He commented that he heard concern about the idea that people could not build across lots, once they were platted, and that this proposal required the building envelope to fit within a single lot on the plat. City Council Study Session Minutes Page 7 of 13 January 8, 2002 7 �. Councilor Turchi said that he understood that intellectually but he had a problem with the larger pieces of land in Forest Highlands. He observed that many Forest Highlands property owners only wanted to partition their land to build a second house on it; they did not want to subdivide. He argued that this requirement did not allow them to partition their property and use it as though it were a one -acre lot. Mayor Hammerstad referenced the Atherton Heights development on Derby Street. She pointed out that the developer did cluster the houses towards the front of the five acres, thus leaving the back land for future development, which was a good decision in light of preserving the urban growth boundary. She held that it would have been a better decision if it had been a rule. Mr. Vizzini mentioned another possibility of not dividing the property but simply placing a secondary structure on the acreage. Councilor Turchi commented that he supported the urban growth boundary and Lake Oswego taking its fair share of growth and development in the Portland metro area but he wanted to be sure that he understood the ramifications of the proposal. Ms. Heisler concluded that the language stating `two lots' meant that her idea of building a secondary dwelling unit within the square footage of the home or as an accessory structure would not work. Mr. Powell discussed the concern of the Forest Highland property owners, who were not as interested in building secondary dwelling units on the same lot, as they were in partitioning the land and giving half of it to their children. He observed that clearly the Council had a difficult choice. The Council could either go strictly with Metro's minimum requirements and allow the opportunity for serial partitions to get around the minimum density requirement or it could use the Commission's ingenious solution of requiring a shadow plat for partitions. Mayor Hammerstad held that, from a practical standpoint, the market would drive the issue. She argued that property owners would put the maximum number of dwelling units possible on the land in order to achieve the maximum profit in the long run. She pointed out that Lake Oswego was already developing at more than 80% density. Councilor McPeak observed that one reason why the Council let this subject simmer as long as it has was because of its lack of welcome by possibly the majority of the Council. She concurred that the Council overall supported the concept of the urban growth boundary, which she did not want to expand more rapidly than necessary. She stated that she would wait to be convinced that this was a good idea. Councilor McPeak argued that if they made this change for the small number of likely serial partitions, they would be adding to a controversial solution. She described the idea as `difficult to defend.' She said that she found it hard to support the idea at this time. She held that, in trying to achieve this perfectly efficient use of land, the Council could harm its chances of achieving a good but not perfect use of land. Councilor McPeak stated that if Metro did not ask this of the Council, then she was not yet convinced that they should ask it of themselves. She held that the gains were small and the negatives were large. Ms. Heisler put up a graphic showing what other communities have done. She noted that some cities have achieved 50% minimum density because they were so close to meeting their targets while others have included partitions because they could not meet their targets if they restricted it to subdivisions. Mr. Lashbrook presented the research staff did per Council's request this morning. He reported that there were four jurisdictions still pending before Metro on compliance with this issue: Lake Oswego, Oregon City, Durham and Multnomah County. He indicated that Oregon City was still City Council Study Session Minutes Page 8 of 13 January 8, 2002 60 working on it, Durham asked for an extension because it did not want to do it, and Multnomah County was doing it through a participatory process with its cities. Ms. Heisler clarified that Multnomah County did not provide urban services; therefore, it used an intergovernmental agreement process with its cities to achieve compliance, which it needed to finish. Mr. Lashbrook reviewed the three questions he asked of individuals at each of the cities, including whether they applied it to land partitions and whether they had a method of phasing it in. He noted that, while most of the cities were already doing more than the minimum Metro requirements, they were not all doing them the same. Councilor Schoen concurred with Councilor McPeak's comments. He commented that he had come in with the understanding that the City would not apply minimum density to partitions. He stated that he could not support the proposal. He spoke to doing what Metro required the City to do, which would be an easier sell. He recalled that the number of developable parcels in the city were not enough to create a battle over partitions versus future development plans for partitions. Mayor Hammerstad commented that if this provision was going to be a fatal flaw in the support of the ordinance, then the Council wanted to see an ordinance with this part deleted. Councilor Hoffman asked what problem the City was trying to solve with the future development plan. Mr. Lashbrook summarized the comments of Mr. Johnson and Mr. Sandblast, the two Planning Commissioners most strongly supporting the future development plan. He indicated that these two gentlemen have been around the business long enough to have seen developers using a series of partitions to get around subdivision requirements. He mentioned a scenario of a developer asking for a two -lot partition on December 30 and another two -lot partition two weeks later. Mr. Vizzini clarified that the Commission thought it unfair to allow two different standards for identical properties abutting each other. He noted that one coming under the subdivision requirements had one set of standards while the other coming under a series of partitions had another set of standards, which reeked of unfair application of the requirements. Mr. Vizzini indicated that he did not see this as an issue of Metro compliance but rather as a logical extension of the zoning map. He argued that the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map established a given area of town for development at a certain density level, which also achieved neighborhood compatibility. Mr. Vizzini pointed out that this proposal did not apply to all partitions but only those that met the four times the minimum lot size requirement. He emphasized that they were not talking about small lots dividable into two to three parcels but only lots large enough to divide into four or more parcels. He mentioned that this issue was personal to him because of the situation on the large parcel in back of his house, in which the property owner built a large house that was incompatible with the neighborhood and proposed dividing the property in two and building a second incompatible house. Mr. Vizzini cited the development behind his house as an example of the problem that could result from serial partitioning. He conceded that looking at the situation in terms of an owner wanting to give his/her children a piece of the property was one way to look at it. He argued that another way was to see that serial partitioning allowed the opportunity for incompatible developments that were at odds with the underlying zone and the Comprehensive Plan. Mayor Hammerstad described a scenario, using the graphic, in which a property owner demolished a little house on his/her land and built a big house under the County standards. Then the owner wanted to annex into the City and subdivide, which presented a problem because of the house location. She held that this was happening along the major streets, especially in Forest Highlands, where a huge house took up a large amount of land and made it almost impossible to put in development compatible with the neighborhood. City Council Study Session Minutes Page 9 of 13 January 8, 2002 81 Mayor Hammerstad argued that they could prevent this scenario by using the shadow platting, so that they knew where the house could go. She spoke of doing an intergovernmental agreement with the County with respect to the minimum density requirements for the region. Mayor Hammerstad concurred with Councilor Turchi that for these examples, the market was not working. Councilor McPeak referenced the Mayor's earlier comment that market forces supported the concept. She argued that zoning was supposed to put ultimate limits on the use of the land but not force people towards a limit. She held that minimum density did force people with respect to the use of the land, while zoning simply laid out the boundaries. Councilor Hoffman disagreed, contending that zoning was a forced use of the land, regulations that came into existence because the market was not working. Councilor McPeak clarified that she was speaking of a single piece of property. She pointed out that zoning allowed a property owner to divide a large piece of property up into a certain number of pieces but it did not force the property owner to divide it. Mayor Hammerstad conceded the point but argued that minimum density did not force anything either. Councilor McPeak disagreed, arguing that a shadow plat prohibited a property owner from building a big house. She said that zoning currently allowed a person to have one house on a big piece of land. She contended that the shadow plat added another restriction on the land use by saying that the property owner could not build a big house on that piece of land. Mr. Vizzini pointed out that the restriction was what was allowed in the zone. Councilor McPeak reiterated that zoning was not intended to force that, rather it limited a lot to a certain size under the zoning and allowed the property owner to build up to whatever the zone allowed. Councilor Hoffman agreed, commenting that zoning forced the size of the building as well as the type of development. Councilor McPeak argued that this went beyond that. Mr. Vizzini pointed out that the Mayor's scenario used an undivided lot with the dream house built on the back of the lot; then the owner came into the city in order to divide the lot. He described the situation as a `grandfathered situation,' in asking the question of what did the minimum density rule require of the property owner when he/she came into the city to divide the land. Mr. Vizzini mentioned his and Ms. Heisler's search through the exceptions to see if, under this circumstance, the owner could divide the remaining property into fewer lots than otherwise would be required under the zone. He noted that the location and size of the house precluded the full subdivision of the land per the zone requirements because there was not enough room to meet the setback requirements. Mr. Vizzini pointed out that there was a loophole in the way the ordinance was written, which could be codified by adding an exception under Sec 48.57.15: in cases where there was a pre- existing structure and insufficient land to meet the minimum requirement, then one divided the land up to the maximum extent possible under the zone. Councilor Schoen asked if the reality was that people would develop to the County standards before annexing to the city. He argued that this put an unnecessary restriction on the use of the land. Councilor McPeak asked if the City could put a timing regulation that prohibited partitions closer than one year apart. Mr. Powell noted that Metro used the state law definitions of partitions and subdivisions. He conceded that there might be some opportunity for the City to make that kind of a regulation, as long as it used the same terminology and applied it at least to subdivisions. lie indicated that Metro would not prohibit the City from applying it to partitions beyond the definition of subdivision. Mr. Vizzini argued that this was not about restricting the use of someone's property; only a partition or subdivision of the property triggered this provision. He held that a person could develop a dream house on his/her property at any time under the current rules and these proposed City Council Study Session Minutes Page 10 of 13 January 8, 2002 82 rules. He described this as an issue about land subdivision based on the zone, and not about development. Councilor Rohde described how one could get around the minimum density requirement under the Mayor's scenario by using a lot line adjustment. Mr. Sin concurred that there were loopholes people could use to get around the rules. Councilor McPeak mentioned that there were some property owners who were families in which the senior members of the family owned a big piece of land, which served as their retirement nest egg or which they could give to their children. She held that a partition was their route. She argued that the City limited their use of their property by allowing a partition into two lots but not allowing them to use the property as they wished; instead, they had to site houses in a way that fit in with the ultimate use of the land in the future. She reiterated that she saw that as a big restriction. Mr. Vizzini concurred that it was. Councilor Rohde held that a property owner could do that, under the scenario he just suggested. Mr. Vizzini said that the issue for him was what tools did they have in place to realize the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Map that flowed from it. He asked how to address the demand in the community to protect neighborhood character without the tools in place to do so. He argued that the most essential tool was the zone. Mr. Vizzini spoke of the incompatibilities that resulted from not following the zone. He asked why they went through the effort of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map if they did not use it as a blueprint for development. He argued that this was about developing the tools to ensure that the City used the Plan and Map as a blueprint. Councilor McPeak observed that Mr. Vizzini spoke of ensuring it while she spoke of allowing it. Mr. Vizzini argued that a similar tool was street connectivity. The City required developers to go through that in order to ensure that they developed in a manner that was in keeping with the goals and blueprint for the community. He contended that, without the blueprint, they would see the hodge-podge development of East Portland. Mr. Vizzini concurred with Councilor Graham that the compatibility question was an issue. Mayor Hammerstad agreed, pointing out that allowing two houses on a 1.5 -acre piece of land in an R-7.5 zone, which were larger than what was allowed in an R-15 zone, eliminated the zoning pattern. Councilor Schoen said that he was looking for the simplest requirement. He held that creating a situation in which people had to figure out how to get around the requirement was an unhealthy way to develop land. He reiterated that if Metro required a minimum density requirement, then they should do what Metro required. Mayor Hammerstad noted the public hearing on January 15 and the deliberation and decision on February 5. She indicated that they would leave the record open for a week and a half for written comments. Councilor Rohde asked staff to provide a colored map showing the large pieces of land within the City's urban services boundary. He held that that information made it clear why Forest Highlands became so upset over this issue, considering that its R-20 County zone translated to an R-7.5 zone in the city. Ms. Heisler presented a map showing that information. She concurred that Forest Highlands was the neighborhood outside the city limits most impacted by these guidelines. Councilor Turchi asked if the piecemeal annexation and development in the Forest Highlands area resulted in inefficient engineering of City services, perhaps having to go around County land and costing the taxpayers money. Ms. Heisler indicated no, noting that provision of services was primarily `pay as you go.' Mr. Lashbrook clarified that if all that land had been in City Council Study Session Minutes Page 11 of 13 January 8, 2002 83 the city 30 years ago, the City could have provided the services more efficiently, as the land was topographically challenging. Mayor Hammerstad mentioned the exceptions to minimum density requirements (page 120). She discussed her concern about the effect on development of density transfers for publicly owned open space. She commented that the City has purchased a significant amount of open space in the Stafford area or it might purchase open space in other areas. She pointed out that a density transfer for the open space meant developing the rest of the area as multi -family. Mayor Hammerstad mentioned an upcoming Metro subcommittee that would be looking at taking open space out of the inventory of developable land, which she wanted to sit on. She wondered if they could state in the ordinance that publicly owned open space was not subject to density transfer. She pointed out that, with a movement of the urban growth boundary, the productivity of Stafford came in at a certain number of units without the consideration of open space; that number became Lake Oswego's target, which it could not meet with density transfers for open space. Mayor Hammerstad spoke of two lines of defense: getting on the committee and exempting publicly owned open space from density transfers. Councilor Schoen asked if that would include watersheds and sensitive lands. He observed that by the time they took everything out of Stafford, there was not as much developable land left as everyone thought. Mr. Powell indicated that he did not think that it would hurt anything to add it in. Mayor Hammerstad asked staff to do so. Councilor Graham questioned whether Metro would disallow Lake Oswego superseding its rules when it came down to the final crunch. Mayor Hammerstad pointed out that open space was a value that Metro was looking for within the urban growth boundary. Councilor Schoen asked if Metro would require density transfer for sensitive lands. Mayor Hammerstad indicated that Metro did not require it but the City has taken it out. Councilor Hoffman indicated that his only concern with the ordinance was the future development plan. He said that he understood that people were trying to ensure that any development was consistent with the zone, which was why zoning was a planning tool; if the City believed that R-7.5 was the right zone in an area, then it should not allow someone to split a 20,000 square foot lot into two 10,000 square foot lots. He noted that they were trying to get development that matched the neighborhood. Ms. Heisler indicated to Councilor McPeak that the map showing the actual number of acres affected by the ordinance has changed, and staff would provide the Council with an updated map. Mayor Hammerstad requested colored maps for the packets, including an updated unincorporated area map. 4. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Lashbrook introduced Denny Egner, the new Long Range Planning manager. Mr. Vizzini thanked the Council for the opportunity to speak. Mayor Hammerstad asked the Council to allow a reduction in the testimony time limits for minimum density from 10 minutes for neighborhood associations and 5 minutes for individuals to 5 minutes and three minutes respectively. Councilor Rohde disagreed with reducing it. Councilor Turchi moved to reduce the testimony time limits to 5 minutes for neighborhood associations and 3 minutes for individuals. Councilor Schoen seconded the motion. Mayor Hammerstad explained that by restricting the testimony to those time limits and leaving the record open for written comment, she hoped to move things along in an expeditious manner. City Council Study Session Minutes Page 12 of 13 January 8, 2002 84 Councilor Hoffman concurred with Councilor Rohde that they should not reduce the time limits. He pointed out that this was the only chance for these people to speak and it was an important issue to some. Mr. Lashbrook suggested allowing those who felt cut off by the time limits to speak again at the end. He observed that not many stuck around. Councilor Hoffman said that was fine. Mr. Vizzini mentioned that Mayor Katz of Portland, upon hearing the same testimony for the fifth time, would ask for a show of hands from the audience in support of the comments and then ask that folks not take up additional time stating what has already been stated. He concurred that there was a civic engagement issue but held that the Council also did not need to listen to the same thing repeatedly. Councilor Turchi withdrew his motion. 5. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Hammerstad adjourned the meeting at 8:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Robyn Chr tie City Recorder M, ON udie Hammerstad, Mayor City Council Study Session Minutes January 8, 2002 Page 13 of 13 W 4.3.6 02/05/02 MINUTES OF JANUARY 15, 2002 MORNING MEETING b o, at or CITY COUNCIL MORNING MEETING MINUTES January 15, 2002 otl4oM Mayor Judie Hammerstad called the special City Council meeting to order at 7:34 a.m. on January 15, 2002, in the City Council Chambers. Present: Mayor Hammerstad, Councilors Turchi, Graham, McPeak, Hoffman, Rohde and Schoen. Staff Present: Doug Schmitz, City Manager; David Powell, City Attorney; Robyn Christie, City Recorder; Janice .Deardorff, Human Resources Director; Stephan Lashbrook, Community Development Director; Joel Komarek, Interim City Engineer; Richard Seals, Financial Planning Manager; Jane Heisler, Associate Planner; Chris Jordan, Assistant City Manager 3. REVIEW EVENING AGENDA Mayor Hammerstad asked Councilor McPeak to review the consent agenda this evening. She mentioned the presentation of The First 90 Years of Herald and Virginia Campbell, compiled by Patricia Rovainen, to the library. The Council asked staff to provide a clarifying explanation of Item 5.1.1, the contract award, tonight. Mayor Hammerstad noted two corrections to the minutes: • p. 51, 6`h paragraph, change "Lake Oswego as the last city" to "Lake Oswego as one of the last cities" • p. 52, 6`h paragraph, change "zoning density" to "zoning" Item 8.1 Density Guidelines Mayor Hammerstad mentioned that she asked for clarification on the relationship of the numbers in the analysis of parcels subject to the minimum density of partitions (page 171). Stephan Lashbrook, Community Development Director, indicated that staff would clarify the numbers this evening. Councilor Rohde suggested that Mayor Hammerstad make it clear to the citizens at the hearing tonight that only one person could speak as the neighborhood representative for the ten minutes, as there has been confusion about that in the past. Mayor Hammerstad indicated that she would also clarify that they would strictly adhere to the testimony time limits. Mayor Hammerstad explained to the Council that her intent tonight was for the Council to ask questions, get additional information or deliberate but it would not make a decision. She said that at the subsequent meeting, the Council would deliberate, discuss and vote but there would be no public testimony. She indicated to Councilor McPeak that tonight was the best time to make an amendment, although a Councilor could do so on the night that the Council made the decision. She pointed out that they would need to take testimony again on any substantive changes. Mayor Hammerstad indicated to Mr. Lashbrook that she intended to leave the record open for one week for written testimony. She commented that she thought that this process gave them the opportunity to give thoughtful consideration to the issues and to be clear about what the Council wanted to do. Mayor Ilammerstad mentioned that the City received a letter from OLCC regarding applications for liquor licenses, stating that Lake Oswego's process was fine (Item 8.2). City Council Morning Meeting Minutes Pagel of 8 J,►nuary 15, 2002 ;.1 Item 9.1 Information from the Council Doug Schmitz, City Manager, clarified to Councilor Graham that Phase 3 (Item 9.1.1, page 220) had no funding and staff has not scheduled it. He confirmed that Phase 1 of the recommendation was taking out the crosswalk and the orange crossing flags. Mayor Hammerstad indicated that they would want to discuss that this evening. Councilor Rohde mentioned that he had a JPACT report. Councilor Graham indicated that she had some items also. 4. REVIEW FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Mayor Hammerstad observed that they were in the process of scheduling iterns discussed at the retreat. She recalled that during Mr. Schmitz's evaluation, they had talked about doing the 5 Traits of Leadership for the whole Council, but they did not discuss it at the retreat. Janice Deardorff, Human Resources Director, reported that the cost was just under $4,000 for the entire Council. Mayor Hammerstad spoke to this program as a training opportunity. She recalled the Council's discussion about some Councilors, who were not going to Washington, D.C., attending other meetings that the Council felt might be more valuable. Ms. Deardorff described the program as providing an individual profile of personality and management style. She observed that the consultant would also look at the Council's management style as a group, if all the Councilors participated, and give feedback on areas of strength and areas needing development. Mayor Hammerstad recommended that the Council go through the program. She said that they would write a {)roposal for Council's consideration at a future date. Mayor Hammerstad mentioned that Councilors McPeak and Graham would take the Hart House tour this week. Councilor Hoffman referenced an e-mail he received regarding the development at the Durham Quarry. He recalled their conversation at the retreat about the potential impacts of this development on Lake Grove. He asked staff to contact Tualatin and Washington County to get information on the plans, traffic studies and other retail information. He asked Mr. Lashbrook to summarize the information and report to the Council on the development, as well as giving his perspective on how it would affect the West End. Mr. Schmitz announced that last night the School Board continued the Lakeridge girls' softball field matter for 30 days in order to do a hydrology study on Sites 1 and 3. He indicated that this was acceptable to Mr. Wright, the OCR complainant, and to Mr. Powers, Development Review Board. Mr. Schmitz indicated to Councilor Rohde that the District was not under a court order to have this done by a certain date but they had wanted it online for the 2003 season. He observed that with the delays and the time it took for the sod to mature to playing level, it would take longer. He mentioned that Mr. Korach talked with OCR yesterday about the extension and was able to negotiate something acceptable. 5. OTHER BUSINESS 5.1 Management Compensation Methodologies Ms. Deardorff introduced Bill Erdle, Compensation Resources, LLC, a consultant who specialized in compensation and classification work. She mentioned that she has worked with Mr. Erdle since the 1980s. She noted that he did work at the City of Lake Oswego before her arrival, based on his reputation in working in the public sector. Ms. Deardorff mentioned that Mr. Erdle has been helping staff look at how to restructure the City's management compensation program, with a particular emphasis on finding a way to link City Council Morning Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 8 January 15, 2002 �U performance more tightly to compensation. She spoke of getting away from the annual cost of living adjustment, which was somewhat of a shell game played with other organizations. She noted that they could not get totally away from it because of the way that the market was set up. Ms. Deardorff spoke to discussing the issue of compensation philosophically this morning, following Mr. Erdle's presentation on compensation in general. Mr. Erdle gave a slide presentation (see handout, Compensation Overview). He reviewed the areas for discussion (page 2) and his background in industrial psychology and compensation (in both the public and private sectors). He mentioned that the main focus of the majority of programs that he set up was pay for performance, although he could set up whatever type of program an organization wanted. Mr. Erdle noted that compensation programs provided guidance for managerial pay decisions, supported organizational goals, insured fairness in the pay program and provided for both legal and regulatory compliance. He observed that the typical objectives for a compensation program were to attract, retain and motivate employees. Mr. Erdle discussed the two general areas of rewards in a compensation program: extrinsic and intrinsic. He described extrinsic rewards as base pay, benefits and any variable compensation while intrinsic rewards included recognition in the job, the work itself and the organizational working conditions. Mr. Erdle reviewed the factors to consider in setting up a compensation program. He mentioned internal equity (the perceived worth of a job relative to other jobs in the organization), external equity (the value of the job to similar jobs in other organizations), individual equity (how employees perceived their level of pay relative to other individuals), and process/program equity (the employee's perception of fairness in the organization's compensation program). Mr. Erdle recommended that organizations be open and explain their compensation programs clearly to their employees. He cited an example of an organization that had a good program but did not explain it clearly to its employees; consequently, the employees were suspicious about what was going on. Mr. Erdle mentioned other factors to consider (page 6), including perfortance and productivity incentives (motivating and rewarding higher levels of employee performance). He cautioned care in setting these up in order to avoid motivating or rewarding inappropriate behavior. He mentioned compliance with state and federal laws, ease and flexibility of program administration and cost-effectiveness. Mr. Erdle reviewed a diagram demonstrating the process an organization went through in determining what to pay an employee (page 7). He explained that job analysis involved information about what the job itself entailed (usually collected through questionnaires or interviews), which was followed by job documentation (writing up job descriptions). Mr. Erdle explained that the next two simultaneous steps - external pay comparison and internal job evaluation — involved identifying the appropriate markets for the various jobs outside the organization and determining the relative value of the job within the organization. He noted that internal job evaluation systems, which used four factors of skill, effort, responsibility and working conditions, were categorized as quantitative and non -quantitative (page 8). Mr. Erdle mentioned that the job ranking system (non -quantitative) was the oldest type of system and very simple. He commented that he called the quantitative systems `pseudo- scientific' because they were also subjective, although they gave the impression that they were not because they yielded a dollar value based on factors or points. He observed that all the systems yielded about the same results. City Council Morning Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 8 January 15, 2002 9i Mr. Erdle reviewed the next step, the internal and external reconciliation (page 10). He said that the result of the reconciliation, a job worth hierarchy, translated into salary ranges. Mr. Erdle reviewed an example of a salary structure using a 10% progression from mid -point to mid -point (page 12). He described the process as identifying the market, deciding where an organization wanted to pay in relation to the market, and setting up the salary structure to fit those factors. Mr. Erdle mentioned differences between the public and private sectors. The private sector typically set the market rate for the jobs within a pay grade at the mid -point, while the public sector typically set the market rate at the maximum point. The private sector kept an eye on the market rate annually and adjusted its structure accordingly in order to remain competitive, while the public sector was either behind the market at the end of the year (lag structure), at the market at the end of the year (lead structure) or at the market mid -year and behind the market at the end of the year (lead -lag structure) (page 13). The public sector went through the entire analysis considerably less frequently than the private sector. Mr. Erdle reviewed the different types of pay increases (page 14). He observed that across-the- board increases were becoming less popular among private organizations, as where cost -of - living increases, but the public sector and union contracts still used the cost -of -living increase. He indicated that step and promotional increases were used in both sectors. Mr. Erdle indicated that merit increases, or pay for performance, were the type of program that he usually set up. He noted that a good performance evaluation system was critical in a merit increase program. He observed that it was also a lot more work for an organization because of the time commitment to employee performance evaluation and setting goals, etc. Mr. Erdle reviewed the factors in maintaining a compensation program (page 15). He recalled that when the City of Vancouver went from an analysis and review of its pay structures every seven years to every two years, the number of employee complaints decreased significantly. Mr. Erdle indicated to Councilor Turchi that a supervisor could adequately supervise five to eight people and determine merit. He concurred that a Police Chief writing evaluations for 50 people and determining merit was in a difficult situation. He spoke to moving evaluations down to the supervisory ranks. Ms. Deardorff indicated that in Lake Oswego the sergeants and lieutenants did the employee evaluations; the Police Chief only did the captains and the administrative personnel who reported directly to him. Ms. Deardorff indicated to Councilor Turchi that a typical supervisor in the City supervised between five to eight people. She confirmed that Councilor Turchi's situation at the school district, where he supervised 53 people at an elementary school and wrote the merit evaluations, would not exist at the City. Councilor McPeak asked if there were guidelines to help define a market. She recalled that the City had to change the market it used when recruiting for a position. Ms. Deardorff indicated that the City changed from the metro local market (still used for the labor groups) to a statewide market. Mr. Erdle said that the guideline he used with the private sector was with whom was the organization competing with for its employees. He commented that the market was not necessarily the same industry, citing a high-tech company losing employees to a sports manufacturing company. He said that typically agencies gathered that information through exit interviews. Ms. Deardorff confirmed that the City did exit interviews and used the information in its analysis. Ms. Deardorff recounted what happened in the City's recruiting process for a Community Development Director. She recalled that they ended up identifying the top 10 cities in Oregon as their market. She observed that the market played itself out when Mark Schoening left for the City of Eugene (No. 2 in population in the state). City Council Morning Meeting Minutes Page _4of 8 January 15, 2002 J : J Councilor McPeak asked if the factors shifted fast or were predictable. Mr. Erdle said that sometimes they were. He spoke to re-evaluating every year whether the market was still the correct market, as some organizations would come in or drop out. Ms. Deardorff commented that Lake Oswego lost its fire fighters to Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue and the City of Portland but it did not use those organizations as market comparators because that market was so high that the City could not compete. She concurred with Councilor McPeak that this was a case of a hierarchy of organizations and that Lake Oswego recognized where it fit in the hierarchy, instead of in a level of competition. Ms. Deardorff commented that Lake Oswego was an attractive employer within its current market, citing the 48 interviews for police officers this week. She mentioned that Lake Oswego has not taken a single position and used a different market than its typical market. She recalled that at the City of Portland, they had jobs in a hot skills market and used a private sector market for those jobs because that was whom they were competing against. Mr. Erdle suggested considering a different salary structure when using a different market, such as a structure that allowed employees to move along it at a different rate than others. Councilor Schoen asked how Mr. Erdle's system differed from the Hay system, which was based on accountability and decision-making. He observed that realistically Lake Oswego could not complete with Eugene. He commented that he had a difficult time with the merit increases, given the accountability issue and the budget as the biggest driving force in pay rates. Mr. Erdle indicated that he tended to shy away from the Hay system because it was complex, pseudo -scientific and required a large staff to administer. He said that he could include factors from it in the internal evaluation of jobs portion of a performance system. He spoke to creating a simple system that was easy to understand and use. He described the whole job ranking approach that he used successfully with Norm Thompson's in developing a pay structure. Mr. Erdle described how the salary range for a job (minimum to maximum) interacted with appraisal ratings (meets sometimes/new to job, meets, exceeds) to detennine a pay increase tied directly to job performance level. He noted that studies have shown that people can only differentiate between three different levels of performance. Mr. Erdle said that this system gave managers a tool for figuring out what kind of increase to give and organizations a tool for budgeting for increases. He explained that once the organization knew what the employee performance levels were and where the employees were in the salary structure, then it could develop guidelines for giving increases. Councilor Rohde asked what an organization did when all the employees did a great job, exceeding expectations and warranting a 5% increase but the organization's revenues only increased 3% a year. Mr. Erdle discussed changing the expectations or criteria for the appraisal ratings, including getting the managers together to reach a consensus on rating employees. He mentioned `forced distribution,' which made make sure that there were a certain number of exceeds or meets. Mr. Erdle confirmed to Ms. Deardorff that forced distribution meant that not everyone woul(l necessarily get an increase. Ms. Deardorff observed that the timing of bringing up this discussion was difficult in face of Clic budget crisis and the need to reduce personnel costs. She pointed out that they did need to maintain the City's compensation program in order not to lose people, which cost the City more money in the long run. Councilor Rohde clarified that he did not want to set up a program based on market and merit that set up unreasonable expectations in a restricted revenue environment. Ms. Deardorff concurred. City Council Morning Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 8 .iauuiary 15, 2002 9,S Councilor Hoffman commented that staff's challenge might be to reduce managers. Ms. Deardorff concurred. She indicated that they did take advantage of opportunities not to fill positions vacated due to attrition. She mentioned that the Library Advisory Board felt that the reduction in the number of supervisors at the library resulted in an understaffed library. She observed that the Board did not consider that the library might have had too many supervisors for too long, and this reduction brought the City in line with where it needed to be. Councilor McPeak held that it was difficult to maintain a tough grading system, as organizations tended towards grade inflation. She asked if it was possible in the public sector to have an objective merit system. Mr. Erdle said that he did not know. He indicated that he did not know of any one in the public sector using merit, although that did not mean that no one was on the national level. Mr. Erdle indicated to Councilor Schoen that he would recommend removing the step system in a new system or moving to a combination system, which allowed rapid step movement during a training period. He mentioned seeing the combination system in the private sector. Ms. Deardorff referenced the handout "Year 2002 Compensation Program," which outlined the transition steps staff intended to take during the year 2002. She noted that they would maintain the current step and pay program for 2002. She explained that the resolution for a 2% cost of living increase was before the Council today in order to keep the City on the market in the next year. Councilor Turchi asked why this program ran from January to January rather than with the fiscal year. Ms. Deardorff said that she understood the history behind that fact as there had been a desire 10 years ago to move the management non -represented group away from the collective bargaining effective dates, which ran with the fiscal year. Mr. Schmitz indicated to Mayor Hammerstad that he thought it was timely to pursue this option, as they have talked about making the transition for several years. Ms. Deardorff indicated that staff would work on developing the program over the next year and present it to Council; at that point, Council could consider the financial situation and decide whether to adopt it. She did not advise trying to sell widening the pay ranges to the public right now. She spoke to having concrete evidence that the City linked performance to the pay ranges before doing so. Mr. Erdle commented that the City could gradually move into the system, as the Metro Area Communications Commission did, and set the market at the mid -point. He mentioned his personal opinion that the public would be receptive to a merit system, as most people already worked under a pay for performance system. Ms. Deardorff discussed the other side of pay for performance, what happened when someone did not meet the performance criteria. She disagreed with the common perception that people in the public sector could not be gotten rid of. She argued that it took a commitment to more documentation and performance monitoring but it could happen. Ms. Deardorff asked for the Council's concurrence to start talking to the directors, managers and supervisors about their commitment to managing performance, setting performance criteria/standards and evaluating performance. She observed that right now the City's system was mixed in terms of doing performance reviews. She described it as a commitment to the Council and the public that the public would be happy to know what the City was doing as an organization. Councilor Graham asked if it was common in the public sector to give severance pay to an employee who clearly went beyond the rules. Ms. Deardorff said that it was not common in the past but she thought that it was becoming more common. Mr. Erdle concurred but pointed out that the City did not have to have a severance package at all. He mentioned seeing severance City Council Morning Meeting Minutes Page 6 of R January 15, 2002 9I packages in layoff situations that were not due to the employee's performance, but not in a performance based system. Ms Deardorff mentioned that they were moving department heads into an `at will' status, which meant that they were working `at the will' of the City Manager. She explained that the contract typically provided for some sort of payment if they left the organization, although termination for cause would be a lesser payment. She indicated that they did not have that structure for the current supervisors, managers or other department heads but they set it up for new department heads. Ms. Deardorff observed that people were more litigious now than they have been in the past. She mentioned that it could cost the City less to settle a payment on an employee suing the City for whatever the employee felt he/she was owed than to go through the court process, which was time-consuming and expensive. She described it as an unfortunate cost of doing business today. Councilor Schoen asked if the City stated clearly in these contracts the 90 day and 120 day performance reviews, and the option to let the employee go in the event that their performance was unsatisfactory. Ms. Deardorff said yes. She mentioned a provision for an annual contract renewal that included a review. Ms. Deardorff indicated that their next management training for supervisors, managers and department heads would include performance management from a legal context as well as coaching in performance evaluation. Ms. Deardorff indicated to Councilor Schoen that they projected a cost of between $5,000 and $10,000 to develop the program. She said that she would come back with a more exact figure. She confirmed to Councilor Rohde that the cost was in the 2001/02 budget. The Council agreed by consensus to direct Ms. Deardorff to proceed with developing the program. Councilor Turchi moved to approve Resolution 02-05, adjusting management confidential salaries. Councilor McPeak seconded the motion. Ms. Deardorff clarified to Councilor Turchi that people would get a 2% increase plus a step increase (if they were in a position to get a step increase). Richard Seals, Financial Planning Manager, indicated to Councilor Turchi that the staff estimate of $100,000 for the salary increases included all related benefit increases. Ms. Deardorff clarified to Councilor Schoen that the City was not doing any additional salary adjustments in 2002, other than for those under Step 5 who were eligible for a merit increase; a merit increase became effective on the employee's anniversary date. She confirmed that charter officers were not included in this program. A voice vote was taken and the motion passed with Mayor llammcrstad, Councilors Turchi, Graham, McPeak, Hoffman, Rohde and Schoen voting; in favor. 17-01 6. EXECUTIVE SESSION Mayor Hammerstad recessed the meeting at 8:50 a.m. to Executive Session pursuant to ORS 192.660(1)(a), consider the employment of a public officer or the evaluation of a public officer. David Powell, City Attorney, reviewed the Executive Session parameters. 7. RETURN TO OPEN SESSION Mayor Hammerstad reconvened the morning meeting at 8:53 a.m. Councilor Schoen moved to adjust the municipal judge's salary by 2%. Councilor McPeak seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken and the motionap ssed with Mayor City Council Morning Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 8 January 15, 2002 95 Hammerstad, Councilors Turchi, Graham, McPeak, Hoffman, Rohde and Schoen voting in favor. (7-0] 8. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Hammerstad adjourned the meeting at 8:55 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Robyn Chrigtie City Recorder PPROVED N fudie Hammerstad, Mayor City Council Morning Meeting Minutes January 15, 2002 Page 8 of 8 96 7.1 02/05/02 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY MEETING DATE: February 5, 2002 SUBJECT: Planning Commission's Recommendation for Approval of Waluga Neighborhood Plan (LU 00-0025) RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve the Waluga Neighborhood Plan (LU 00-0025) and direct staff to prepare findings and Ordinance 2318 for adoption. EST. FISCAL IMPACT: STAFF COST: BUDGETED: Y —N — FUNDING SOURCE: Bond Fund ATTACHMENTS: • January 16, 2002 Staff Report IWachments are available for review in the Uitv Recorder's Office. DEFT. DIRECTOR ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER . . 1 & 2— / Signoff/date Signoff/date r-u0L1at-1tU NU I IO.:t5 (Date): January 24, 2002 Ordinance No. 2318 Previous Council consideration: Work Session (5-1-01) Work Session (1-8-02) - - ------ V�&- - - CITY VANAGER �` 0z Signoff/ ate CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY MEETING DATE: February 5, 2002 SUBJECT: Planning Commission's Recommendation for Approval of Waluga Neighborhood Plan (LU 00-0025) RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve the Waluga Neighborhood Plan (LU 00-0025) and direct staff to prepare findings and Ordinance 2318 for adoption. - EST. FISCAL ------------------ ATTACHMENTS: IMPACT: . January 16, 2002 Staff Report • B. Planning STAFF COST: Commission Findings BUDGETED: and Conclusion • C. Planning Y N_ Commission Minutes . D. LU 00-0025 Staff FUNDING SOURCE: Report dated March 23, 2001 Bond Fund . F1. Draft Waluga Neighborhood Plan, dated January 16, 2002 . F2. Draft Ordinance No. 2318 • G1. Letter from DLCD, dated June 4, 2001 • G2. E-mail from DLCD, dated January 16, 2002 DE T. DIRECTOR L ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER 'LZ z. L' D'Z-._ Signoff/date Signoff/date PUBLISHED NOTICES (Date): January 24, 2002 Ordinance No. 2318 Previous Council consideration: Work Session (5-1-01) Work Session (1-8-02) _ b AV CITY MFANAGER ,: � °z- Signoff/ ate CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO COUNCIL REPORT TO: Douglas J. Schmitz, City Manager FROM: Sidaro Sin, Associate Planner. wr-,:"' SUBJECT: Planning Commission's Recommendation for Approval of Waluga Neighborhood Plan (LU 00-0025) DATE: January 16, 2002 REQUEST The City of Lake Oswego is making this application for the Waluga Neighborhood Association (WNA) to amend the text of the Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan to include the Waluga Neighborhood Plan (vN-\T, Exhibit FI) and to amend the Waluga Neighborhood Association Boundary as shown in the shaded area of Figure 1 in Exhibit F1. (Waluga Neighborhood Plan) ACTION The action before the City Council is to consider a recommendation made by the Planning Commission to approve LU 00-0025 and direct staff to prepare findings and finalize Ordinance 2317 for adoption. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY The Planning Commission unanimously recommended the City Council adopt the draft Waluga Neighborhood Plan and amend the Waluga Neighborhood Association Boundary as shown in the shaded area of Figure 1 in Exhibit Fl . The Planning Commission held public hearings on April 9 and 23, 2001 and adopted its Findings and Conclusion on May 14, 2001. Members of the WNA spoke in favor of adopting the Plan. There was no testimony in opposition of the Plan. This recommendation was made without the benefit of having the Department of Land Conservation and Development's (DLCD) comments (Exhibit G1), which were not received until June 4, 2001. City Council Public Hearing date February 5, 2002 Waluga Neighborhood Plan (LU 00.0025) 3 Page I J ;.i BACKGROUND On May 1, 2001 the City Council held a study session on the Planning Commission's recommendation to adopt the draft Waluga Neighborhood Plan. At the study session, the Council expressed reservations about supporting the WNP as recommended by the Planning Commission and requested further discussions prior to scheduling a Council hearing, The primary concern was that the WNP did not balance the needs of the neighborhood in the context of the community. Members of the City Council expressed concern that the Plan appeared to set its own priorities without consideration for previously adopted Comprehensive Plan policies, or state and regional objectives. These concerns are generally the same concerns expressed by DLCD in its letter to the City. In order to address these concerns, the Council created a City Council Subcommittee on neighborhood plans to look into these issues. The Subcommittee met on June 5, 2001 with staff and then on October 4, 2001 with a representative from the Waluga Neighborhood Steering Committee to discuss the issues and alternative policy language. The Subcommittee and Waluga Steering Committee have worked extensively to come up with the alternatives proposed and both are in agreement with the alternative policy language. Most recently, on January 8, 2002 the City Council held a work session to discuss the alternative policy language. There were no major items of concern. In addition, on January 16, 2002 the City received an e-mail from DLCD (Exhibit G2) indicating that they have had the opportunity to review the alternative language and concluded that, "changes in the revised Plan....are consistent with Statewide Planning Goals, particularly Goal 10 Housing." DISCUSSION The following discussion provides a more detailed analysis of the 16 proposed policies that the Council had concerns with. Specifically, there are six policies that require additional regulatory action in order to be effective and three regulatory policies that are applicable to Comprehensive Plan amendment and zone changes, upon adoption of the neighborhood plan. In addition, there were seven other policies that the Council had reservations about, given the Council's concerns identified above. The 16 policies are found under the following Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan goals: • Goal 1, Citizen Involvement - Policies: 4, 5 & 6 • Goal 2, Land Use Planning - Policies: 1, 5, 6, 7 & 8 • Goal 9, Economic Development - Policies: 4 & 5 • Goal 10, Housing - Policies: 1, 2, 3, 4 & 7 • Goal 12, Transportation - Policy: 11 The discussion below provides Council with a summary of the proposed changes to the 16 policies that were of concern. The format is as follows: The proposed policy, the Subcommittee discussion, proposed amendment with staff comments (if applicable) and review for compliance with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Statewide Planning Goals. City Council Public Hearing date February 5, 2002 Page 2 Waluga Neighborhood Plan (LU 00.0025) 4 luU Bold = Proposed new language gee-Oot = Proposed to be removed Bold and Italics = Staff continent Italics=Original Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan Policy GOAL 1, CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT Policies 4, 5 & 6 (Starting on Page 7 of the Draft Plan) Proposed Policy l: "4. When minor or major development is proposed, require that the minimum threshold for notification of proposed land use action be the closest fifty property owners when less than fifty are contained within the required 300 -foot notification boundary." Subcommittee Discussion: The Subcommittee expressed concerns about the specificity of these policies and the fact that the feasibility of accomplishing them had had not yet been established. Proposed Amendment: Delete as Policy, make it a RAM. ess than fifty are eentained within the required 300 feet netifieatteH beundaf=y. (Geal I;4 (Staff Comment: This iteral is proposed to be deleted because it is addressed through LU 01-0045, Neighborhood Notice Requirements. On November 20, 2001 the Planning Commission reconunended approval ofproposed Zoning Code text amendments to the neighborhood notice requirements, which include a change to notify 50 properties (not 50 property owners.) The Planning Commission: recommended notifying 50 properties. When applied to properties, this would often result in the notification of more than 50 property owners because generally there is more than one owner for a property. LU 01-0045 is scheduled fora City Council public hearing on February 5, 2002. The Plannine Commission recommended that this be moved under Recommended Action Measures RAM viii below.] Proposed Policy 2: Pursuant to LOC Chapter 49, ensure the neighborhood has adequate opportunity to understand and develop effective comments and testimony on land use applications by: a. Notifying the recognized Neighborhood Association whose boundaries include the site prior to making a final decision. b. Providing the Neighborhood Association the opportunity to provide comments prior to the final decision. %rt} Council Public Hearing date February 5, 2002 Page 3 Waluga Neighborhood Plan (LU 00.0025) r J 101 Subcommittee Discussion: The Subcommittee expressed concerns about the specificity of these policies and the fact that the feasibility of accomplishing them had had not yet been established. Proposed Amendment: Delete part of Policy. 5. Pursuant to LOC Chapter 49, ensure the neighborhood has adequate opportunity to understand and develop effective comments and testimony on land use applications. by: Proposed Policy 3: 6. Ensure that required pre -application neighborhood meetings between the applicant and the neighborhood be accurately communicated to decision -makers by requiring: a. The applicant to agree with Neighborhood Association chair upon a mutually convenient meeting date, time and place. b. Special attention shall be given to ensure that attendees concerns and issues are noted within the meeting minutes and that they are clearly audio -taped. The developer shall mail minutes to the attendees and the Neighborhood Association Chair or designee. A reasonable time, of not less than seven days following mailing, shall be provided for the chair or designee in consultation with the attendees, to review, correct if necessary, and approve the minutes. Also, the developer shall make copies of the tapes conveniently available for Neighborhood Association review within one week after the meeting and prior to development application to the City. C. Meeting audiotapes and written minutes approved by the Neighborhood Association chair or designee is provided to the City at the time of application submittal. Subcommittee Discussion: The Subcommittee expressed concerns about the specificity of these policies and the fact that the feasibility of accomplishing them had had not yet been established. Proposed Amendment: Delete as Policy. Make it a RAM. 6. Riisufe !I- -neighbor-heed meetings betwe --A City Council Public Hearing date February 5, 2002 Page 4 Waluga Neighborhood Plan (LU 00-0025) mail Minutes to the attendees and the Ne;-"--I---,l A SSeeiat ion Chair- er- dt&ignee, tapes een—­Hently-avai !able 0and prior- to deveiepniefit appjjea­-- ten Eninutes appfeved 'he by the Neighbefheed-As�� CityY.N4 [Staff Comment: This item is proposed to be deleted as a policy because it is addressed through LU 01-0045, Neighborhood Notice Requirements. On November 26, 2001 the Planning Commission recommended approval ofproposed Zoning Code text amendments to the neighborhood notice requirements, which includes a change on this issue. Although changes were made to the original language above, the general concept of providing more notice and access to information for neighborhood associations was kept. LU 01-0045 is scheduled for a City Council public hearing on February 5, 2002. The Planning Commission recommended that this policy be moved under Recommended Action .lfeasttYes, RAM viii below. Asa RAM, this item maybe removed during periodic review if it is deemed that the general concepts of the RAM have been implemented.] RAM viii. Work in partnership with the Neighborhood Association to develop Zoning Code text amendments to reflect the following: 1. When minor or major development is proposed, require that the minimum threshold for notification of proposed land use action be the closest fifty property owners when less than fifty are contained within the required 300 -foot notification boundarv. 2. Ensure that required pre -application neighborhood meetings between the applicant and the neighborhood are accurately communicated to decision -makers by requiring: a. The applicant to agree with Neighborhood Association chair upon a "Initially convenient meeting date, time and place. b. Special attention shall be given to ensure that attendees' concerns and issues are noted within the meeting minutes and that they are clearly audio -taped. The developer shall mail minutes to the attendees and the Neighborhood Association Chair or designee. A reasonable time, of not less than seven days following mailing, shall be provided for the chair or designee in consultation with the attendees, to review, correct if necessary, and approve the minutes. Also, the developer shall make copies of the tapes conveniently available for Neighborhood Association review ,y Council Public Hearing date February 5, 2002 Page 5 aluga Neighborhood Plan (LU 00.0025) within one week after the meeting and prior to development application to the City. c. Meeting audiotapes and written minutes approved by the Neighborhood Association chair or designee is provided to the City at the time of application submittal. Review for Compliance w ith City Comprehensive Plan & Statewide Planning Goals: Comprehensive Plan, Goal 1 Policies 1, 2, 3 & 4: L Provide opportunities for citizen participation in preparing and revising local land use plans and ordinances. 2. Provide citizen involvement opportunities that are appropriate to the scale of a given planning effort. Large area plans, affecting a large portion of community residents and groups require citizen involvement opportunities of a broader scope than that required for more limited land use decisions. 3. Provide for and encourage formation of neighborhood organizations. These organizations, when recognized under the criteria outlined in the Citizen Involvement Guidelines, may: a. Recommend neighborhood boundaries. b. Make policy and implementation recommendations on issues affecting its neighborhood. C. Engage in planning activities for its neighborhood and participate in community- wide planning issues. 4. Encourage citizens to participate through their neighborhood without excluding participation as individuals or through other groups. Findings: The proposed policy and RAM of the Waluga Neighborhood Plan relates directly to and implements the above Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan policies by further ensuring that citizens are assured of the following: • The policy and RAM stress the opportunity for citizens to be involved in the planning process; • Ensures ongoing two-way community between citizens and the City; • Provides opportunities for citizens to interact with staff on a one-to-one basis on land use matters affecting their neighborhood; and • 'Provides access to timely information so that concerns may be addressed. Statewide Planning Goal 1: Review of LU 00-0025 has conformed to all procedural requirements of the Lake Oswego Zoning and Development Codes and has been reviewed and determined to be consistent with the Citizen Involvement Goals of the City's acknowledged Comprehensive Plan. City Council Public Hearing date February 5, 2002 Page 6 Waluga Neighborhood Plan (LU 00.0025) - 104 Conclusion: The policy and RAM complies with and implements the City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan, Goal 1, Goal and Policies 1, 2, 3 and 4 and Statewide Planning Goal 1. GOAL 2, LAND USE PLANNING Policies 1, 5, 6, 7 & 8 (Starting on Page 10 of the Draft Plan) Proposed Policy 4: 1. Applicants proposing a zone/plan density change to R-0, R-2, R-2.5, or R-3, shall demonstrate that the proposal complies with the following criteria: a. That the need for the plan/zone change is balanced with the need to ensure the cohesiveness and design integrity of single-family residential neighborhoods by requiring the subject parcel to abut a major arterial street and be within walking distance (1/4 mile to bus lines or transit centers). b. Demonstrate that the proposed density is appropriate for the location given public facilities, natural resources and hazards, road or transit access and proximity to commercial areas and employment concentrations. c. A proposed plan/zone density change shall have no negative effect on the City's compliance with the Metropolitan Housing Rule (OAR 666-07-000). Subcommittee Discussion: The Subcommittee ackno\�-ledged DLCD's comment regarding conflicts with Statewide Planning Goal 10, about making plan/zone maps amendments increasingly more difficult. In consideration of DLCD's comment, the staff is recommending that criteria (a) be deleted because it is too restrictive by specifying that parcels abut a major arterial street. A similar policy already exists in the Comprehensive Plan: Goal 10, Policy 8 directs high density residential (R-0, R-2 and R-3) development to be located within walking distances of bus lines and transit centers. The other two criteria (b) and (c) could be left in because they are reiterations of other policies in the Comprehensive Plan. Proposed Amendment: Delete part (a) of Policy. 1. Applicants proposing a zone/plan density change to R-0, R-2, R-2.5, or R-3, shall demonstrate that the proposal complies with the following criteria: a. That the nlaW th the need to 1:1— fequiFing the subjeet par- le distanee (1,14 mile to bus lines b. Demonstrate that the proposed density is appropriate for the location given public facilities, natural resources and hazards, road or transit access and proximity to commercial areas and employment concentrations. City Council Public Hearing date February 5, 2002 Page 7 Waluga Neighborhood Plan (LU 00.0025) �' 105 c. A proposed plan/zone density change shall have no negative effect on the City's compliance with the Metropolitan Housing Rule (OAR 666-07-000). Proposed Policy 5: 5. Endeavor to maintain and improve Waluga Neighborhood's existing detached, single- family residential character. Subcommittee Discussion: The Subcommittee discussed DLCD's comments, that several policies of the WNP, in consideration of Statewide Planning Goal 10, would unfairly make low density single family detached the "favorite" housing type for new construction in the neighborhood. The Subcommittee further discussed the strong policies in the City's Comprehensive Plan that supports the development of a wide range of housing; specifically, Comprehensive Plan: Goal 10, Policies 14 and 15 promote a wide range of housing types. Based on the above conflicts with Statewide Planning Goal 10 and the City's Comprehensive Plan, the staff does not recommend keeping any proposed policies that would unduly favor single-family dwellings over any other type of development. As an alternative, the Waluga Steering Committee in conjunction with staff has developed two alternative policies to replace those proposed seven policies that may be construed as unduly favoring single-family dwellings. Those other policies include: Goal 2, Policy 7 and Goal 10, Policies 1, 2, 3, 4 & 7. Proposed Amendment: Delete, Replace with Alternative Policies. [Staff Comment: Goal 2, Policies S & 7 and Goal 10, Policies 1, 2, 3, 4 & 7 are proposed to be deleted and replaced by the two policies below.] #l. An applicant for a plan and zoning map change to a multi -family designation shall be strictly required to demonstrate substantial evidence of the public need for the change, plus substantial evidence that the proposed change will best meet the identified public need versus other available alternatives, as required by Comprehensive Klan Goal 2, Policy 14(f). [Staff Comment: The purpose of this policy is to emphasize the importance of addressing the criteria fir a zone change; however, it does not change or add to the requirements of a zone change.) #2. Enhance the character of low density residential development within the Waluga Neighborhood by requiring the preservation of open space and natural resources pursuant to the City's adopted Sensitive Lands Ordinance. City Council Public Hearing date February 5, 2002 Page g Waluga Neighborhood Plan (LU 00-0025) V - 10 (Staff Comment: The proposed policy does not promote the preservation of low density residential development rather it emphasizes preservation of open space and natural resources through existing Code language to enhance the character of low density residential development.] Proposed Policy 6: 6. Do not allow deterioration and/or demolition of existing homes as a reason for Plan and Zoning Map amendments to more intense land uses. Subcommittee Discussion: The Subcommittee discussed DLCD's comments which indicate that this policy would not allow redevelopment of properties that could/should be redeveloped, for reasons of community viability and livability, does not allow for changes over time that are necessary to prevent a static community, and ignores the proposition that the neighborhood landscape will change over time. The Subcommittee discussed existing zone change plan amendment criteria and recommended alternative language as shown below. Proposed Amendment: Delete and Substitute Alternative Language. 6. Dexistingleffies c .. oase* F Plan Zoning Map -luiYtT-uses. vile" �..a ♦ r more li'ILt 4II�i Do not adopt criteria that would include deterioration/demolition as justification for a zone change. Proposed Policy 7- 7. Per City Code and where practicable, single-family housing shall be preserved and steps taken to ensure that if higher density housing is developed adjacent to existing single- family detached dwellings, that it will not adversely affect single family developments. Subcommittee Discussion: The Subcommittee discussed DLCD's comments, that several policies of the WNP, in consideration of Statewide Planning Goal 10, would unfairly make low density single family detached the "favorite" housing type for new construction in the neighborhood. The Subcommittee further discussed the strong policies in the City's Comprehensive Plan that supports the development of a wide range of housing; specifically, Comprehensive Plan: Goal 10, Policies 14 and 15 promote a wide range of housing types. Based on the above conflicts with Statewide Planning Goal 10 and the City's Comprehensive Plan, the staff does not recommend keeping any proposed policies that would unduly favor single-family dwellings over any other type of developed. City Council Public Hearing date February 5, 2002 Page 9 Waluga Neighborhood Plan (LU 00-0025) 11 1�/ Proposed Amendment: Delete, Replace with Alternative Policies 7. Pef Givy Gede and' where pr-aetieablet, single family heusing- - taheft te efisufe that if—higher- density housing, is develepe family ' s [Staff Comment: Goal 2, Policies S & 7 and Goal 10, Policies 1, 2, 3, 4 & 7 are proposed to be deleted and replaced by the two policies below.] #1. An applicant for a plan and zoning map change to a multi -family designation shall be strictly required to demonstrate substantial evidence of the public need for the change, plus substantial evidence that the proposed change will best meet the identified public need versus other available alternatives, as required by Comprehensive Plan Goal 2, Policy 14(f). [Staff Comment: The proposed policy is duplicative and reiterates what the applicant is required to provide for justification for a zone change. Emphasis is added by including "strictly" to stress the importance of addressing the criteria established for a zone change./ #2. Enhance the character of low density residential development within the Waluga Neighborhood by requiring the preservation of open space and natural resources pursuant to the City's adopted Sensitive Lands Ordinance. [Staff Comment: The proposed policy does not Promote the Preservation of low densit), residential development, rather it emphasizes preservation of open space and natural resources through existing Code language to enhance the character of low density residential development.[ Proposed Policy 8: 8. Comprehensive Plan Map Amendments and Zone Map Changes to commercial uses within the Waluga Neighborhood Plan area shall be limited to areas currently zoned as commercial, including those commercial areas illustrated in Figure 6, at the time of this policy's adoption, unless an applicant demonstrates compliance with all Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan policies applicable to commercial plan/zone map amendments including all policies included in the Comprehensive Plan Goal 9, Policy (2)(c). In addition, an applicant for a plan and zoning map amendment to commercial use shall demonstrate through a City-wide analysis, that a change in circumstances has occurred which causes a departure from: a. The Findings and Conclusion of "An Analysis of Commercial and Industrial land Use and Employment in Lake Oswego Oregon"; b. Findings for vacancy rates for rentable retail space cited in the "Market Analysis for the Lake Oswego GAP Quick Response Grant"; and City Council Public Hearing date February 5, 2002 Page 10 Waluga Neighborhood Plan (LU 00.0025) 1 �, 108 c. Findings that there are not adequate employment opportunities such that the City cannot meet Metro established job targets identified within the most recent Metro 2020 Regional Forecast and Growth Allocation. Subcommittee Discussion: The Subcommittee discussed DLCD's comments that the proposed policy is overly restrictive and noncompliant with Goal 9, Economic Development. After reviewing different alternatives to address this policy, staff is recommending an alternative policy (see below), Proposed Amendment: Delete Policy and replace with alternative, 8. Gempr-ehensive Plan Map ffiendments and Zone Map Changes te-eenimer-eial uses within thsa�Il al e .�hbe 1, ,d Plan afea shall L t• _ d � Waluga r. Ntl"as I peliey1 2@" s demenstfute a tanees has oeouffa EM 161- a . An applicant for a plan and zoning map change to a commercial designation shall be strictly required to demonstrate substantial evidence of the public need for the change, plus substantial evidence that the proposed change will best meet the identified public need versus other available alternatives, as required by Comprehensive Plan Goal 2, Policy 14(f). %Staff Comment: The original policy is proposed to be reworded as RAM vii (see below) and replaced with the language above.] vii. When the city considers Comprehensive Plan amendments and zone changes to commercial uses within the Waluga Neighborhood boundary, it should consider if any change in circumstance has occurred which would cause a departure from: a. The Findings and Conclusion of "An Analysis of Commercial and Industrial land Use and Employment in Lake Oswego Oregon"; b. Findings for vacancy rates for rentable retail space cited in the "Market Analysis for the Lake Oswego GAP Quick Response Grant"; and City Council Public Hearing date February 5, 2002 Waluga Neighborhood Plan (LU 00-0025) 13 Page I I 1 h'( C. Findings that there are not adequate employment opportunities such Ihat the City cannot meet Metro established job targets identified within (lie most recent Metro 2020 Regional Forecast and Growth Allocation. Review for Compliance with City Comprehensive Plan & Statewide 1'lannin GOAS: Comprehensive Plan, Goal 2, Section 1, Policies 3, 8, 18, & 19: 3. Require development to conform to all applicable City land use regulations and codes. 8. Ensure that development and implementation of the City's land use regulations and Comprehensive Plan minimize pressures to expand the Portland Metropolitan Urban Growth Boundary. 18. Develop and adopt specific Neighborhood Plans and implementing measures consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as the means to enhance neighborhood livability and achieve desired neighborhood character. A Neighborhood Association may request the Planning Commission and City Council to initiate Neighborhood Plan Map and text amendments at any time, without fee, upon finding that the proposed changes are in the public's interest and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 19. Review commercial, industrial, institutional and high density residential development to ensure the quality of building and site design, and overall appearance. Findings: The policies and RAM conform to and implements the City Comprehensive Plan by: • Maintaining the neighborhood's existing zoning and plan designation consistent with the City's objective of meeting the Metro housing allocation targets and implementation of the State's Metropolitan Goal 10, Housing Rule. • Providing clear and objective criteria consistent with the City Comprehensive, to be utilized when considering applications for zone changes and plan map changes to R-0, R- 2, R-2.5 or R-3. Comprehensive Plan Goal 2, Section 2 Policies 1, 4 & 5: Enact and maintain regulations and standards, which require: a. New development to enhance the existing built environment in terms of size, scale, bulk, color, materials and architectural design. b. Landscaping. C. Buffering and screening between differing land uses, and; d. Measures to foster a safe and interesting transit and pedestrian environment. 4. Ensure that both public and private development enhance the aesthetic quality of the community. .5. Establish and enforce regulations to abate unsightly conditions and other nuisance situations. ty Council Public Hearing date February 5, 2002 Page 12 l'aluga Neighborhood Plan (LU 00-0025) 14 liU Findings: The policies and RAM are consistent with the above City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan Goal 2, Community Design and Aesthetics because they contain the goal and policy language which: • Provides for consideration and potential adoption of design standards specific to the Waluga Neighborhood to ensure the creation and maintenance of an aesthetic environment. • Supports the preservation of existing significant vegetation and other natural resources that contribute to the unique character of the neighborhood. Statewide Planning Goal 2: These policies and RANI have been reviewed and determined to be consistent with the City's acknowledged land use planning and policy framework. This review has determined that there is a factual basis to approve the Waluga Neighborhood Plan in that it is consistent with all applicable criteria. The Plan has also been coordinated with all applicable jurisdictions and agencies. Conclusion: The policies and RAM comply with and implement the City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan, Goal 2 Land Use Planning, Section 1, Policies 3, 8, 18, and 19; Goal 2 Land Use Planning, Section 2, Policies, 1, 4, and 5; and Statewide Planning Goal 2. GOAL 9, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Policies 4 & 5 (Starting on Page 18 of the Draft Plan) Proposed Policy 9- 4. Do not allow new drive-in or drive-through food service windows in the Lake Grove Business District. Subcommittee Discussion: The Subcommittee had initially expressed concerns about adopting a policy prohibiting a use that is currently allowed as a conditional use in the General Commercial zone. Review of how other jurisdictions addressed drive-thru facilities in a Metro designated "town center" revealed that about half allowed some form of drive-thru facilities, while the other half did not allow any drive-thru facilities because the intent of town centers is to promote pedestrian friendly activities and human scale developments. For this reason, the Subcommittee supported this proposed policy. ProposedAmendment• Minor alteration of language. 4. Develop and consider for adoption Zoning Code text amendments to Do not allow new drive-in or drive-through food service windows in the Lake Grove Business District, City Council Public Hearing date February 5, 2002 Page 13 Waluga Neighborhood Plan (LU 00-0025) �} J 1 (Staff Comment: This language is proposed in order to be consistent with other neighborhood plans.] Proposed Policy 10: 5. Ensure the design quality of future development in the Lake Grove Business District by enacting land use and design regulations which enhance the district's existing built environment and positive design qualities and which also provide the opportunity for a variety of architectural design, and building types and sizes, including variations in setbacks, height, bulk and scale, which are consistent with these characteristics. Subcommittee Discussion: The Subcommittee discussed supporting this policy because of the upcoming Transportation and Growth Management (TGM) grant proposal applied for by the City and the potential it provides in implementing this policy. The City is currently refining the scope of work and hopes to send out requests for proposals this Spring. Proposed Amendment: None. Support the proposed policy as is. Review for Compliance with City Comprehensive Plan & Statewide Planning Goals Comprehensive Plan, Goal 9, Policies 3, 16 and 17: �• Require new commercial and industrial development to: a. Mitigate adverse impacts such as noise, traffic and visual aesthetics, on adjacent land uses through methods such as buffering, screening, parking controls, and height, bulk and scale limits. b. Comply with design and aesthetic standards to ensure compatibility with surrounding land uses and Lake Oswego's overall community character. C. Develop transit opportunities appropriate to the scale and character of the project. d. Provide for a safe and convenient pedestrian and bicycle circulation system to and within the development. e. Preserve natural resources and provide required open space. 16. Limit commercial development in the Lake Grove Business District to that which is intended to accommodate neighborhood and community needs for goods and services. 17. Allow mixed-use development within the Downtown and the Lake Grove Business Districts to provide opportunities for commercial, entertainment, professional, cultural, public, and residential activities. Regional draw business other than those providing specialized services and unique goods shall not be located in these districts. Findings: These policies conform to the above Comprehensive Plan Policies by recognizing that: C;ty Council Public Hearing date February 5, 2002 Waluga Neighborhood Pian (LU 00-0025) Page 14 • New commercial development shall mitigate adverse impacts such as noise, traffic and visual aesthetics on adjacent land uses. • The Lake Grove Business District has been designated by Metro as a having several design types. The policies support and encourage compatibility between existing and future land uses, with emphasis to support pedestrian friendly uses. Statewide Planning Goal 9: The policies have been reviewed and determined to be consistent with the need to provide for economic opportunities consistent with the needs of Lake Oswego residents for employment and the ability to acquire needed goods and services. Conclusion: The policies are in conformance and implement the City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan Goal 9, Economic Development, Goal, Policies 3, 16 and 17; and Statewide Planning Goal 9. GOAL 10, HOUSING Policies 1, 2, 3, 4 & 7 (Starting on Page 21 of the Draft Plan) Proposed Policies 11-15: -. — .—enees, in the Waluga -heed. ghber 'thin the eempatibility of resulting development with neighberhoed design . Te the maximum extent feasible, the existing single family housing shall be pFe&efYed­esnd steps taken t amenities and value, In Eteeefdanee with Qf- -PT �1­ C'% ..... . . f ee mere, a! uses, if deN,eleped, will net advefsely affeet single fia-M.'.7 fit: , > > aif tfee Weyes, end df ainage -00a, essentii a. 4r-- --f- --I,+- IT nc 8 48.17)7 and ethef City Council Public Hearing date February 5, 2002 Page 15 W'aluga Neighborhood Plan (LU 00-0025) Subcommittee Discussion: As noted previously for discussions under Goal 2, Policies 5 and 7, the Subcommittee discussed DLCD's comments, that several policies of the WNP, in consideration of Statewide Planning Goal 10, would unfairly make low density single family detached the "favorite" housing type for new construction in the neighborhood. The Subcommittee further discussed the strong policies in the City's Comprehensive Plan that supports the development of a wide range of housing; specifically, Comprehensive Plan: Goal 10, Policies 14 and 15 promote a wide range of housing types. Based on the above conflicts with Statewide Planning Goal 10 and the City's Comprehensive Plan, the staff does not recommend keeping any proposed policies that would unduly favor single-family dwellings over any other type of developed. As an alternative, the Waluga Steering Committee has developed two alternative policies to replace those proposed policies that may be construed as unduly favoring single-family dwellings. Proposed Amendment: Delete Policies and replace with the two policies proposed below. [Staff Comment: Goal 10, Policies 1, 2, 3, 4 & 7 and Goal 2, Policies S & 7 are Proposed to be replaced by the two policies below.] #1. An applicant for a plan and zoning map change to a multi -family designation shall be strictly required to demonstrate substantial evidence of the public need for the change, plus substantial evidence that the proposed change will best meet the identified public need versus other available alternatives, as required by Coil,1wehensive Plan Goal 2, Policy 14(f). /Staff Comment: The proposed policy is duplicative and reiterates what the applicant is required to provide for justification for a Zone change. Emphasis is added by including "strictly" to stress the importance of addressing the criteria established for a zone change.] #2. Enhance the character of low density residential development within the IvValuga Neighborhood by requiring the preservation of open space and natural resources pursuant to the City's adopted Sensitive Lands Ordinance. /Staff Comment: The proposed policy does not Promote the preservation of low density residential development, ratifier it emphasizes preservation of open space and natural resources through existing Code language to enhance the character of low density residential development.] City Council Public Hearing date February 5, 2002 , Waluga Neighborhood Plan (LU 00.0025) - t 8 !age ! G 1 Ii,'1 Review for Compliance with City Comprehensive Plan & Statewide Planning Goals Comprehensive Plan, Goal 10, Policies 4, 7,12 and 14: 4. Require mitigation of adverse impacts such as noise, traffic and visual aesthetics, on differing, adjacent land uses through site and building design. 7. Provide for safe, comfortable, visually attractive streets in new developments. 12. Assure an orderly transition from one residential density to another through design and development standards such as landscaping, buffering and screening. 14. Provide a wide range of housing hypes to meet the needs of various lifestyles and family types. • Findings: The policies support the City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan, in that they provide for; • Preservation of the neighborhood's mix of existing land uses, which contributes to the availability of different housing types. • Preservation of natural resources and open space through preservation, enhancement and maintenance of these resources. Statewide Planning Goal 10• The polices have been reviewed and determined to be consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 10 in that they provide for the housing needs of existing and future Lake Oswego citizens and also provides the opportunity to accommodate future housing choices. Conclusion: The Waluga Neighborhood Plan is in conformance with City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan Goal 10, Housing, Goal and Policies 4, 7, 12 and 14 and Statewide Planning Goal 10. GOAL 12, TRANSPORTATION Policy 11 (Starts on Page 30 of the Draft Plan) Proposed Policy 16• .Amend the Transportation System Plan (TSP, Figure 9) to: as iD 771 :„ the TCD b. Add a sidewalk along the south side of Douglas Way from Quarry Road to Boones Ferry Road to ensure safe pedestrian movement unless other pedestrian access becomes available. Cl -y Council Public Hearing date February 5, 2002 Waluga Neighborhood Plan (LU 00-0025) 1 �f Page 17 115 Subcommittee Discussion: The Subcommittee requested that the Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) review this proposed policy and provide them with a recommendation. On July 11, 2001, the TAB recommended to keep the pathway on the east side of Quarry Road because it would provide access to different point of interest in the neighborhood and they also supported the addition of a sidewalk on Douglas Way. The Subcommittee accepted this recommendation and further added to the Douglas Way recommendation "unless other pedestrian access becomes available." Proposed Amendment: Delete (a), keep the rest of the proposed policy. 11. Amend the Transportation System Plan (TSP, Figure 9) to: a. Delete the proposed multi pufpese pathway en the eastside of Quanty Read, i n as rn 2.211 : TCD b. Add a sidewalk along the south side of Douglas Way from Quarry Road to Boones Ferry Road to ensure safe pedestrian movement unless other pedestrian access becomes available. Review for Compliance with City Comprehensive Plan & Statewide Planning Goals Comprehensive Plan, Goal 12, Sub -Goal 6, Policies, 3, 4 and 5: 3. Connect local walkways to activity centers such as schools, employment areas, parks, commercial areas, and transit centers and corridors. 4. Connect local walkways to activity centers such as schools, employment areas, parks, commercial areas, and transit centers and corridors. S. Involve citizens in the pedestrian facility planning process as well as in facility design. Findings: The policy supports the City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan, in that it provides for: • Future transportation improvements that address the need to balance automobile access with the need to maintain the existing and land use pattern and develop a comfortable and safe pedestrian environment. • Maintaining pedestrian pathways and encouraging development of additional pathways. Statewide Planning Goal 12• The policy has been reviewed and determined to be consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 12 in that the proposed policy supports the development of the pedestrian system in the neighborhood. Conclusion: The policy implements and is in conformance with the City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan Goal 12, Sub -Goal 6 and Statewide Planning Goal 12. City Council Public Hearing date February 5, 2002 Page 18 Waluga Neighborhood Plan (LU 00-0025) i V N 116 RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the Planning Commission recommendation to amend the text of the Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan to include the Waluga Neighborhood Plan (WNP, Exhibit Fl) and to amend the Waluga Neighborhood Association Boundary as shown in the shaded area of Figure 1 in Exhibit Fl, with amendments as identified in this report. EXHIBITS: A. Notice of Appeal [No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use] B. Planning Commission Findings and Conclusion, May 14, 2001 C. Planning Commission Minutes, April 9 & 23, 2001 D. LU 00-0025 Planning Department's Staff Report Dated March 23, 2001 (Exhibits for this report are available at the Planning Department) E. Graphics: F. Written Materials: F1. Draft Waluga Neighborhood Plan, dated January 16, 2002 F2. Draft Ordinance No. 2318 G. Letters: G1. Letter from the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD), dated June 4, 2001 G2. E-mail from DLCD, dated January 16, 2002 LACase Files\2001\LU 01-0045 Neighbor. Noticing Require. - Contractors-Developers\City Council\2-5H curl ngReport.doc City Council Public Hearing date February 5, 2002 Waluga Neighborhood Plan (LU 00-0025) Page 19 1Ii I BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION 2 OF THE PPROY,r CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO D A REQUEST FOR A LEGISLATIVE TEXT ) LU 00-0025 -1414 AMENDMENT TO THE LAKE OSWEGO ) CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO & COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO INCLUDE ) WALUGA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSN. THE WALUGA NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSION & ORDER a io NATURE OF APPLICATION _ A legislative text amendment to the Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan to include the Waluga Neighborhood Plan. HEARINGS 1� The Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the proposal on April 9, 2001 at is which time it accepted oral and written public testimony. The public hearing was continued to Ia April 23, 2001 at which time the Planning Commission completed its deliberations on the 20 application. ^t CRITERIA AND STANDARDS A. Applicable Citv of Lake OsweEo Comprehensive Policies _. Goal 1: Citizen Involvement, Goal and Policies 1, 2, 3 and 4 Goal 2: Land Use Planning Section 1, Goal, Policies 3, 5(a), 5(b)(i), 8,18, 19 and 22 Section 2, Policies 1, 4 and 5 =4 Goal 5: Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Resources and Natural Resources Section 1, Fish and Wildlife Habitat, Goal, Policies 1, 3, 5 and 6 Section 2, Vegetation, Policies 1, 3, 4, 5, 10, 11, 12 and 14 Section 3, Wetlands, Goal and Policies 1, 4 and 5 Section 4, Stream Corridors, Goal and Policies 1, 7 and 12 34 Section 6, Open Space, Goal and Policies 1(g), 2 and 3(a) 3{ Goal 8: Parks and Recreation, Goal and Policies 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10 b Goal 9: Economic Development, Goal and Policies 1, 3, 5, 6, 11, 13, 16 and 17 Goal 10: Housing, Goal and Policies 4, 7, 12 and 14 Goal 11: Public Facilities 39 Section 1, Public Safety, Policies 2 and 4 40 Section 2, Storm Water Management, Goal and Policies 1, 8 and 9 41 Section 3, Water Treatment and Delivery, Goal and Policies 1 and 7(a) 42 Section 4, Wastewater Collection and Treatment, Goal (a) ,43 Section 5: Administrative, Government Services, Energy, 44' Communications and Schools, Goal EXi1IBIT B PAGE 1 LU 00-0025 - 1414 010 93 1 Goal 12: Transportation 2 Section 1, Major Streets System, Policies 1 and 4 3 Section 3, Neighborhood Collectors and Local Residential Streets, Goal 4 and Policies 1, 2, 4, 6 and 8 5 Section 5, Transportation Demand Management, Policy 3 6 Section 6, Walking, Goal and Policies 3, 4 and 5 Section 7, Bicycling, Goal and Policy 2 8 Section 8, Transit System, Goal and Policies 2 and 3 9 Goal 13: Energy Conservation, Policy 3 3 B. Applicable Statewide Planning Goals: Goal 1: Citizen Involvement 1 _ Goal 2: Land Use Planning 14 Goal 5: Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Resources and Natural Resources 1 Goal 8: Parks and Recreation 16 Goal 9: Economic Development and Commercial Lands Goal 10: Housing ' Goal 11: Public Facilities 19 Goal 12: Transportation <' Goal 13: Energy Conservation C. Metro Urban Growth Manalzement Functional Plan Title 1: Requirements for Housing and Employment Accommodation Title 2: Regional Parking Policy Title 3: Water Quality and Flood Management Title 4: Retail in Employment and Industrial Areas 27 Title 5: Neighbor Cities and Rural Reserves 25 Title 6: Regional Accessibility 29 Title 7: Affordable Housing 30 31 D. Transportation Planning Rule (Chapter 660 DiN inion 12) 32 33 E. City of Lake Osweeo Development Code: 34 LOC 49.16, 010 Purpose 35 LOC 49.60 Legislative Decisions 36 LOC 49.60.1500 Legislative Decisions Defined 37 LOC 49.60.1505 Criteria for a Legislative Decision 38 LOC 49.60.15 10 Required Notice to DLCD 9 LOC 49.60.1520 City Council Review and Decision �o LOC 49.60.1525 Effective Date of Legislative Decision -:1 42 CONCLUSION 43 44 The Planning Commission concludes that LU 00-0025 is in compliance with all applicable 45 criteria. PAGE 2 LU 00-0025 - 1414 N /� t 2 FINDINGS AND REASONS 4 The Planning Commission incorporates the staff report, dated March 23, 2001, on LU 00-0025 (with all exhibits attached thereto) and its supplemental Memorandum dated April 16, 2001 (with 6 all exhibits attached thereto) as support for its decision, supplemented by the further findings and conclusions set forth herein. In the event of any inconsistency between the supplementary matter s herein and the staff report, the matter herein controls. To the extent they are consistent with the approval granted herein, the Commission adopts by reference its oral deliberations on this matter. Following are the supplementary findings and conclusions of this Commission: _ 1. The Planning Commission found many policies in the Waluga Neighborhood Plan - (WNP) are supportive and complimentary to existing policies contained in the Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan even though they are phrased in a manner applicable to the Waluga Neighborhood's unique character and circumstances. However, the Planning Commission also found that there are some policies that are either regulatory in nature or which require future implementation to be effective. The following policies will require future implementation of the policy in the form of a Comprehensive System Plan, zoning code or development code text amendment in order to be effective: Goal 1, Citizen Involvement, Policy 4; Goal 1, Citizen Involvement, Policy 6; Goal 9, Economic Development, Policy 4; Goal 9, Land Use Planning, Policy 5; and Goal 12, Transportation, Policy 11. The following polices will be effective upon the Waluga Neighborhood .Plan's adoption. These policies will be applicable in addition to the existing criteria for Comprehensive Plan amendments and zone changes: Goal 2, Land Use, Policy 1; Goal 2, Land Use, .:4 Policy 6; and Goal 2, Land Use, Policy 8. 2. The Planning Commission found that moving the shared neighborhood boundary line between Waluga and Lake Grove back to the center line of Boones Ferry Road, as illustrated in the shaded areas of Figure 1 of the neighborhood plan, is logical at this time, and is consistent with the agreement reached between the two neighborhood associations during the 2000 Council update of the neighborhood boundaries. 3. The Planning Commission reviewed at length Policy 12 of Goal 9, Economic S Dex-clopment, and found the policy to be potentially in conflict with the City Comprehensive Plan in that it could unnecessarily bind the City's position regarding C future zones changes in the area. 4 -3 Upon further review, the neighborhood association representatives acknowledged 43 that the existing criteria found under the Comprehensive Plan Goal 9, Policy 44 (2)(c) and proposed policy under the WNP Goal 2, policy 8, would be sufficient at PAGE 3 LU 00-0025 - 1414 l J N S 9 t1 t2 13 14 15 16 1 is 19 20 21 22 , ; 26 _7 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 this time to address their concerns as to the criteria for zone change from residential to commercial. With support from the neighborhood association, it was concluded that the following amendments would be made to the Plan: 1 j Proposed Policy 12 under the Waluga Neighborhood Plan's Goal 9 would be removed as a policy and the language of that policy included in the Summary of Major Issues for Goals 2 and 9. 2) Proposed Policy 8 of Goal 2 would be amended to: a. Reference Figure 6, which illustrates the portions of the Lake Grove Business District that are located within the Waluga Neighborhood Boundary, and b. Clarify that when an applicant for a plan and zoning map amendment demonstrates that there is a change in circumstances, that the change in circumstances must be based on City-wide changes, and not just localized in the Waluga neighborhood. IT IS ORDERED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION of the City of Lake Oswego that: 1. The Planning Commission recommends that LU 00-0025 be approved by the City Council. I CERTIFY THAT THIS ORDER was presented to and APPROVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Lake Oswego. DATED this day of2001. PAGE 4 LU 00-0025 - 1414 LW§44,1 kBeebe, Chair Planning Commission J i' Iris Treinen Senior Secretary .,) b04 ATTEST: PRELIMINARY DECISION - April 23, 2001 AYES: Beebe, Edwards, Sandblast, Waring NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Groznik, Johnson, Vizzini ADOPTION OF FINDINGS AND ORDER - Nlay 14.2001 AYES: Beebe, Edwards, Groznik, Johnson, Sandblast, Vizzini, Waring NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None LACase Files`1000TU 00-0025•waluga neigh. planTlanning CummissionTC Findings LU 00.0025.doe PAGE 5 LU 00-0025 - 1414 9 7 N OREGON CALL TO ORDER AF?10FE0 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 9, 2001 Chair William Beebe called the Planning Commission meeting of Monday, April 9, 2001 to order at 7:05 p.m. in the Council Chamber of City Hall, at 380 "A" Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon. 11. ROLL CALL Members present were Chair William Beebe, Vice Chair Daniel Vizzini and Commissioners Ray Edwards, Frank Groznik, James Johnson, Kenneth Sandblast and David Waring. Staff present were Jane Heisler, Community Planning Manager; Sidaro Sin, Associate Planner; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney and Iris Treinen, Senior Secretary, Ill. CITIZEN CO,IMENT - Regarding Issues Not On the Agenda None. 1V APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Johnson moved to approve the Minutes of March 12, 2001, corrected to reflect that he was present at the ineetinQ. Commissioner Sandblast seconded the motion and it passed with Chair Beebe, Vice Chair Vizzini and Commissioners Edwards, Groznik, Johnson, and Sandblast voting yes. Commissioner Waring recused himself from the vote. There were no votes against. VI. PUBLIC HEARING LU 00-0025, a request by the City of Lake Oswego and the Waluga Neighborhood Association for a legislative text amendment to the Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan to include the Waluga Neighborhood Plan and amend the Waluga Neighborhood boundary. Staff Coordinator was Sidaro Sin, .4ssociate Planner. Chair Beebe opened the public hearing and explained the procedures and time limits to be followed. He asked the Commissioners to report expartc contacts, biases or conflicts City of Lake Oswego Planning Comnussion j t+ EXHIBIT C ge I of 15 Minutes of April 9, 2001 of interest related to the application. None were reported. No one challenged any Commissioner's right to hear the application. Sidaro Sin, Associate Planner, advised the Commission to recommend the Waluga Neighborhood Association Plan and boundary amendments to the City Council with one change to remove Proposed Goal 9: Economic Development, Policy 12 and include similar language regarding the Association's opposition to contmercial intrusion into residential areas in that goal's Summary of Major Issues. He recalled that the Association had voted to endorse the proposed plan on February 22, 2001, after two years of planning effort. He noted the plan proposed eight goals that were intended to maintain the character and quality of life in the neighborhood: Goal 1: Citizen Involvement Goal 2: Land Use Goal 5: Open space/Natural Resources Goal 8: Parks and Recreation Goal 9: Economic development Goal 10: Housing Goal 11: Public Facilities Goal 12: Transportation To keep residents involved in the land use process. To support regulations that promoted compatibility of uses. To support preservation of all natural resources within the neighborhood. To maintain and expand part: facilities (but not at the cost to the environment or to neighborhood character). To promote the Lake Grove Business District and emphasize compatibility between commercial and residential uses (These policies were also consistent with Lake Grove Neighborhood Plan). To maintain the balance and aesthetic qualities of the neighborhood. To support consistent and reliable services and recommended a partnership with Lake Oswego School District to resolve compatibility issues between the neighborhood and school facilities. To provide for safe multi -modal transportation and traffic management and address potential traffic problems on some roads. Mr. Sin advised that neighborhood plan policies were to complement and support the City's Comprehensive Plan and were not to create additional regulatory policies or require the City to go beyond compliance with the existing Comprehensive Plan. He noted the proposed plan included two categories of policies: 1) Policies that required additional regulatory actions in order to be effective (including Goal 1: Citizen Involvement, Policies 4 and 6; Goal 9: Economic Development Policies 4 and 5; and Goal 12: Transportation, Policy 11). He explained that City of Lake Oswego Planning Conuy fission Minutes of April 9, 2001 30 Page 2 of 15 implementation of these policies would require changes to the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code. 2) Policies that were to be applicable to Comprehensive Plan and Zone Change amendments upon adoption of the proposed plan and boundary amendments (including Goal 2: Land Use, Policies 1, 6 and 8). Mr. Sin advised that the staff had found the plan complied with all applicable criteria, except for Goal 9: Economic Development, Policy 12, which limited commercial development to within the existing Lake Grove Business District boundary as shown in Figure 1 of the Neighborhood Plan. He explained the Association anticipated that this policy would maintain the existing balance between residential and commercial development. He observed the proposed Policy represented the Association's view of the issue and did not necessarily represent the City's position. He also observed the proposed policy was potentially in conflict with Comprehensive Plan Goal 9, Policy 1(c) to "designate adequate commercial and industrial lands to rnaintain and improve the health of the local economy." He advised that altliom. h there currently were adequate commercial and industrial lands within the City, the City's position regarding commercial zone changes might change as economic conditions changed over time. He said that the proposed policy was also in potential conflict with Metro's 2040 Growth Concept Plan that was reflected in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Sin recommended the proposed policy be removed as a policy and that similar language be included in Goal 9, Summary of Major Issues. Commissioner Johnson asked if the proposed policy also violated Statewide Planning Goal 2 by eliminating due process for review of a zone change request. He observed the proposed policy did not provide for development review criteria and analysis of impacts. Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney, interpreted the policy as a statement by the neighborhood association that it would discourage - but not prohibit - rezoning. He observed it was more of a statement of intention than a regulatory policy. He advised against including the proposed policy in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Sin recommended that the Commission support the proposed amendment to the Neighborhood Association Boundary as illustrated in the proposed plan in Exhibit 1, Figure 1 on page 43 of the staff report. He pointed out that a boundary shared by the Waluga and Lake Grove Neighborhoods would revert back to the centerline of Boones Ferry Road upon adoption of the Waluga Neighborhood Plan. (Please refer to Planning Division Staff Report dated March 23, 2001.) The staff clarified that the proposed plan provided for notice of minor or major development to the closest 50 property owners when less than 50 properties were within the required 300 -foot notification area. They also clarified that when the boundary City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Page 3 of 15 Minutes of April 9, 2001 3.1 between neighborhoods was moved upon adoption of the plan, that action would automatically also change the Lake Grove Neighborhood Association's boundary. Chair Beebe opened the hearing to testimony. Proponents Jeff Novak. Vice Chair of the NValuga Neighborhood Association 4322 Collins Way, Lake Usvve _o. 97035, stated that he also chaired the Neighborhood Planning Steering Committee. He said the neighborhood's position was that policies that referenced the commercial area should remain in the plan even though there would need to be future action to implement them. He said the Category 2 items were also important. He observed that a proposed policy to address allowed density near arterial streets and set locational criteria for uses and a proposed policy not to allow deterioration and/or demolition of existing homes to be a reason for zone changes were similar to policies found in the Lake Grove Neighborhood Plan. I -le also stressed the importance of the policy regarding zone changes to higher residential densities. He addressed the staff suggestion to remove Goal 9, Police 12. He explained the neighborhood was approximately two-thirds commercial uses and residents desired to protect the value of their property. He acknowledged that the proposed policy would not technically obligate the City, but he observed that it would serve to send a message to people who might consider zone changes in the area. He no(cd the plan could be changed later to respond to changing conditions. He distinguished that the purpose of the language in Goal 2: Land Use, Policy 1 was to address changes to higher residential densities; and the purpose of Goal 2, Policy 12 was to limit rezoning to commercial use. In response to a question by Commissioner Sandblast regarding whether the Association had considered addressing rezoning to commercial uses in a summary of major issues instead of a policy, INIr. Novak stressed that his Association desired to include strong language that would give "teeth" to their intent by making it a policy. Commissioner Vizzini observed the neighborhood plan would become a subset of the City's Comprehensive Plan upon its adoption and it would make more sense to include the neighborhood's position in the Summary of Major Issues. He recalled the Waluga neighborhood had supported the proposed expansion of the Albertsons' commercial use into the residential zone and he noted the proposed policy indicated the Association would oppose such expansion. He suggested that the Association create locational criteria for such uses, rather than create a policy that would be applied regardless of circumstances. Mr. Novak explained that the Albertsons' application predated the neighborhood planning process and he noted that land was no longer available for expansion of commercial uses along Boones Ferry Road into the residential area. He worried that if the Association did not include their position regarding commercial expansion in a policy, others would find a way to be allowed to achieve that intrusion. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Page 4 of 15 Minutes of April 9, 2001 � j 2 Ron Hall, Chair of the Waluea Neighborhood Association, 15194 Quarry Road, Lake Oswego, 97035, also addressed proposed Goal 9, Policy 12. He recalled the City had encouraged neighborhood planning and the proposed plan was the result of many hours of planning by Association members and staff. He stressed that his neighborhood featured a relatively small area of residential uses and he worried that commercial encroachment that would make it even smaller. He noted an approval for development of a school had recently removed another residence from the neighborhood. He said the Waluga Neighborhood was one of the more densely developed areas in the City. He said it was important for the Association to take a stand to maintain the residential area. He noted that other neighborhood plans had included language intended to protect residential areas. He asked that his neighborhood also be allowed to protect residential uses. He opined that a policy statement carried more weight than a recommended action measure. Mr. Boone advised that the proposed language was an internal policy statement or statement of principle to show what the Association's position would be whenever they testified before the Planning Commission during a hearing regarding a request for a zone change; however, it was not a policy that would apply criteria ("teeth") that a developer was to comply with. He explained that staff found it was not a regulatory policy and it was not appropriate for it to be stated as a policy (or that reason. He recommended that the Comprehensive Plan not be encumbered by a neighborhood association's internal policies. Commissioner Vizzini observed that the Association's policy would serve as a warning to developers, but it would not bind decision makers. Mr. Hall also clarified for the Commissioners that he felt it was necessary to include language regarding the residential intrusion policy in several places in the plan. Cindy Maddox, 4735 Heritage Lane, Lake Oswego, 97035, testified that commercial intrusion was a larger problem in the Waluga Neighborhood than in other neighborhoods and that the residential area had been shrinking. She thanked the staff and the Commissioners for their support during the planning process. Neither for nor against None. 0pponents None Chair Beebe closed the public hearing and opened deliberations. City of Lake Oswego Planning Conunission Page 5 of 15 Minutes of April 9, 2001 .� ;; Deliberations Commissioner Johnson pointed out that Comprehensive Plan Goal 9, Policy (2)(c) provided 20 different criteria to be met in specific commercial districts in the City, such as Kruse Way and Grimm's Corner. He suggested a specific reference to the Waluga commercial district be included there. He observed that one criterion required an applicant to demonstrate "the development allowed by the proposed Plan/Zone amendment will be compatible with surrounding neighborhoods." He said he was sympathetic to the neighborhood's position and he opined the issue should be addressed more specifically and not simply via a broad statement. Commissioner Vizzini observed that the Comprehensive Plan also intended to "limit commercial development in the Lake Grove Business District to that which is intended to accommodate neighborhood and community needs for goods and services." He suggested that language be expanded to address commercial "creep" into residential zones. He also noted that developers were currently required to satisfy a number of different criteria to obtain a zone change. Commissioner Sandblast commented that he understood why the Association had proposed the policy; however, he did not believe it should be incorporated into the City's policies. He observed that because proposed Goal 2, Policy 8 and the fourth paragraph of Goal 9 Summary of Major Issues also dealt with the issue, Goal 9, Policy 12 could be removed. Commissioners Johnson and Sandblast volunteered to work with the neighborhood and the staff to revise the language in the proposed plan for the Planning Committee to consider. Commissioner Johnson moved to continue LU 00-0025, Waluxa Neighborhood Plan, to April 23, 2001 in order to revise the proposed language, The motion passed with Commissioners Beebe, Edwards, Groznik, Johnson, Sandblast, Vizzini and Waring voting yes. There were no votes against. Vice Chair Vizzini noted that the map in Figure 6 (Limits of Commercial Land Uses) on page 48 excluded a newly created commercial zone next to the Albertson's site. Jane Heisler, Community Planning Manager, explained the difference between the maps in Figure 4 (Sensitive Lands) and Figure 5 (Waluga Park and Open Space) was that any development of property in areas shown in the Sensitive Lands Zoning Overlay would be regulated by the Sensitive Lands section of the Zoning Code; however, Figure 5 showed City owned parks and open space. Chair Beebe announced a three-minute break, then reconvened the meeting. City of Lake Oswego Planning Cor rnission Page 6 of 15 Minutes of April 9, 2001 34 CALL TO ORDER CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 23, 2001 Chair William Beebe called the Planning Commission meeting of Monday, April 23, 2001 to order at 6:35 p,m. in the Council Chamber of City Hall, at 380 "A" Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon. Jr. ROLL CALL Members present were Chair William Beebe, and Commissioners Ray Edwards, Kenneth Sandblast and David Waring. Vice Chair Daniel Vizzini and Commissioners Frank Groznik and James Johnson and were excused. Staff present were Jane Heisler, Community Planning Manager; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney; and Iris Treinen, Senior Secretary. III. CITIZEN COMMENT - Regarding Issues Not On the Agenda None. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES None. V. GENERAL PLANNING — WORK SESSION LU 01-0021, First Addition Neighbors and Lake Grove Neighborhood Association Zoning Code Text amendment changing method of measuring building height. Staff Coordinator was Jane Heisler, Community Planning Manager. Jane Heisler, Community Planning Manager, related that the City Council had directed an effort by representatives of the First Addition Neighbors (FAN) and the Lake Grove Neighborhood Association to work with staff to find an interim solution to the issue of the impact on neighborhood character of construction of overlarge houses in those neighborhoods. She reported that although the City Council had created a Neighborhood Compatibility Task Force that was to suggest longer-term solutions to the issue, the Council had envisioned that the neighborhood association representatives would propose interim changes that could be easily enacted and implemented. She City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of April 23, 2001 35 Pagel of 8 lustrated that a simple house with 6:12 pitch roof and two floors could be built a to height of approximately 28 feet and within the maximum R-6 Zone widt ' of 35 feet t er the proposed limitations. Mr. Bolland suggested that the pitch lination be imposeNofiky e FAN R-7.5 Zone and in Lake Grove. He indicated that i n informal surveyCouncilors showed insufficient support for a pitch imitation, the neighborhoodpresentatives would be satisfied if the proposed change in height measurement meth"'od was adopted. Commissioners Sandbla$t and Edwards worried about the it of height and pitch limitations on other neigh'Nrhoods, such as the West Lake: rove Design District and areas of contemporary desigh,homes around the lake. if the limitations were applied citywide. Mr. Bolland acknow ged that such a limitation would not be acceptable to residents around the lake. He stye ed the chan���� should be applied only to FAN and Lake Grove. He worried that city. 'de changes could adversely impact individual neighborhood plans. He reported that a ouse'had been demolished on E Avenue that day and he urged the City to act swiftly to p /tect the neighborhood. Ms. Heisler related that the Neighborhood C ipatibility Task Force was to consider potential changes in the context of�individual ghborhoods. She clarified that the proposed pitch limitation amen ent would apply o single-family and zero lot line dwellings in any residential zone in the Lake Grove hborhood. She confirmed for Commissioner Sandblast that the proposed language cot be modified to clarify either that the limitations were to apply to specific zones. such as -6, R-7.5 and R-10, or to "single-family detached housing in any zone." Sherry Finnigan 3700 Upper Drive, lake Oswego, 97035, r -ailed that the Lake Grove Neighborhood Association had not been allowed to addres oof slopes at the time they created their neighborhood plan. She encouraged the Plannin Commission to address roof pitch in Lake Grove so that the neighborhood would be p tected in the interim tin 1 the Neighborhood Compatibility Task Force had complete their work. She rep ed that a recent sale of two lots and a house (to be demolish ) in her neigh rhood could result in three "McMansions." She urged speedy actio by the City s. Heisler advised that the Measure 56 notification process was to be accomplish efore a public hearing was held regarding the proposal. Chair Beebe closed the worl session at approximately 7:00 PM. VI. PUBLIC HEARING LU 00-0025, a request by the City of Lake Oswego and the Waluga Neighborhood Association for a legislative text amendment to the Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan to include the Waluga Neighborhood Plan and amend the Waluga Neighborhood boundary. Staff Coordinator was Sidaro Sin, Associate Planner. The hearing was continued from April 9, 2001. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission 36 Page 3 of 8 Minutes of April 23, 2001 Chair Beebe opened the public hearing and explained the procedures and time limits to be followed. He asked the Commissioners to report exparte contacts (including site visits) biases or conflicts of interest related to the application. None were reported. No one challenged any Commissioner's right to hear the application. Jane Heisler, Community Planning Manager, presented the staff report on behalf of Sidaro Sin, Associate Planner. She observed the Commissioners had generally supported the proposed plan at the previous hearing, except for Goal 9: Economic Development, Policy 12 that set a policy that Waluga would oppose attempts to rezone from residential use and generally discourage rezoning of residential to commercial uses outside of areas depicted in Figure 6 (the existing commercial zone). She reported that Mr. Boone, Mr. Sin and Commissioner Sandblast had met with the Waluga Neighborhood Association on April 16, 2001, and the group had agreed that proposed Policy 12 would be removed as a policy and the language of that policy would be included in the Summary of Major Issues for both Goals 2 and 9. Proposed Policy 8 of Goal 2 was to be revised to reference Figure 6 commercial uses located within the Waluga Boundary, and would clarify that when an applicant for a Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendment demonstrated a change in circumstances, that change was to be based on city-wide changes and not just Waluga Neighborhood changes. Jeff Novak, 4322 Collins Way. Lake Oswego, 97035, stated that he was Vice Chair of the Waluga Neighborhood Association and Chair of the Neighborhood Planning Steering Committee. He testified that the Association believed that the issues had been resolved and the proposed plan was ready to be adopted. No one else indicated they desired to testify. Chair Beebe closed the public hearing and opened deliberations. Deliberations Commissioner EdNvards moved to recommend that the City Council approve LU 00-0025, amended as recommended by the staff in Attachments 1. And 2. of the Community Development Planning Division Memorandum to the Planning Commission dated April 16, 2001. Commissioner Waring seconded the motion and it passed with Commissioners Beebe, Edwards, Sandblast and Waring voting yes. There were no votes against. LU 01-0003, a request by the City of Lake Oswego for a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to bring approximately 1.44 acres of road right-of-way into the City's Urban Services Boundary (USB). The City initiated this land use action to correct a mapping error. Staff Coordinator was Sidaro Sin, Associate Planner. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission M Page 4 of 8 Minutes of April 23, 2001 j STAFF REPORT CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO PLANNING DIVISION APPLICANT: City of Lake Oswego for the Waluga Neighborhood Association LOCATION: Applies to the Portion of the Waluga Neighborhood Association Specified in Figure 1 of Exhibit 1 DATE OF REPORT: March 23, 2001 I. APPLICANT REQUEST: FILE NO.: LU 00-0025 STAFF: Sidaro Sin, Associate Planner DATE OF HEARING: April 9, 2001 The City of Lake Oswego is making this application for the Waluga Neighborhood Association to amend the text of the Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan (LOCP) to include the Waluga Neighborhood Plan (WNP, Exhibit 1) and to amend the Waluga Neighborhood Association Boundary as shown in the shaded area of Figure 1 in Exhibit 1. ll. APPLICABLE CRITERIA: A. Applicable City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Policies Goal 1: Citizen Involvement, Goal and Policies 1, 2, 3 and 4 Goal 2: Land Use Planning Section 1, Goal, Policies 3, 5(a), 5(b)(i), 8,18, 19 and 22 Section 2, Policies 1, 4 and 5 Goal 5: Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Resources and Natural Resources Section 1, Fish and Wildlife Habitat, Goal, Policies 1, 3, 5 and 6 Section 2, Vegetation, Policies 1, 3, 4, 5, 10, 11, 12 and 14 Section 3, Wetlands, Goal and Policies 1, 4 and 5 Section 4, Stream Corridors, Goal and Policies 1, 7 and 12 Section 6, Open Space, Goal and Policies 1(g), 2 and 3(a) Goal 8: Parks and Recreation, Goal and Policies 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10 Goal 9: Economic Development, Goal and Policies 1, 3, 5, 6, 11, 13, 16 and 17 Goal 10: Housing, Goal and Policies 4, 7, 12 and 14 Goal 11: Public Facilities EXHIBIT D Section 1, Public Safety, Policies 2 and 4 Waluga Neighborhood Plan LU 00-0025 Page I of'43 Section 2, Storm Water Management, Goal and Policies 1, 8 and 9 Section 3, Water Treatment and Delivery, Goal and Policies 1 and 7(a) Section 4, Wastewater Collection and Treatment, Goal (a) Section 5: Administrative, Government Services, Energy, Communications and Schools, Goal Goal 12: Transportation Section 1, Major Streets System, Policies 1 and 4 Section 3, Neighborhood Collectors and Local Residential Streets, Goal and Policies 1, 2, 4, 6 and 8 Section 5, Transportation Demand Management, Policy 3 Section 6, Walking, Goal and Policies 3, 4 and 5 Section 7, Bicycling, Goal and Policy 2 Section 8, Transit System, Goal and Policies 2 and 3 Goal 13: Energy Conservation, Policy 3 B. applicable Statewide Planning Goals: Goal 1: Citizen Involvement Goal 2: Land Use Planning Goal 5: Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Resources and Natural Resources Goal 8: Parks and Recreation Goal 9: Economic Development and Commercial Lands Goal 10: Housing Goal 11: Public Facilities Goal 12: Transportation Goal 13: Energy Conservation C. Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan Title 1: Requirements for Housing and Employment Accommodation Title 2: Regional Parking Policy Title 3: Water Quality and Flood Management Title 4: Retail in Employment and Industrial Areas Title 5: Neighbor Cities and Rural Reserves Title 6: Regional Accessibility Title 7: Affordable Housing D. Transportation Planning Rule (Chapter 6601 Division 12) E. City of Lake Oswego Development Code: LOC 49.16.010 Purpose LOC 49.60 LOC 49.60.1500 LOC 49.60.1505 LOC 49.60.15 10 LOC 49.60.1520 LOC 49.60.1525 Waluga Neighborhood Plan LU 00-0025 Legislative Decisions Legislative Decisions Defined Criteria for a Legislative Decision Required Notice to DLCD City Council Review and Decision Effective Date of Legislative Decision 40 Page 2 of 43 111. BACKGROUND This is the first time the Waluga Neighborhood Association has developed a Neighborhood Plan specific to the area contained within its neighborhood boundaries (Figure 1 of Exhibit 1). The Plan was developed in a period of over two years by the Waluga Neighborhood Association Plan Steering Committee and involved substantial research, review and discussions. The Waluga Neighborhood Plan (WNP) consists of eight goal and policy chapters. These chapters are numbered and structured to be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Statewide Planning Goals. Also, terms and phrases marked with an (*) asterisk in the proposed Plan are defined in a definition section at the end of the Plan. The eight goal and policy chapters of the Waluga Neighborhood Plan are: GOAL 1: Citizen Involvement GOAL 2: Land Use GOAL 5: Open Space, Scenic and Historic Resources and Natural Resources GOAL 8: Parks and Recreation GOAL 9: Economic Development GOAL 10: Housing GOAL 11: Public Facilities and Services GOAL 12: Transportation The WNP includes proposed policies that are "supportive and complementary" to existing Comprehensive Plan policies, which are not intended to create additional Comprehensive Plan policies to be applied to the neighborhood plan. The language of the neighborhood plan policy may be different than the Comprehensive Plan policy or policies because the neighborhood plan policy may be a summary or compilation of policies. This means that the policies are not intended to create additional regulatory policies or require actions by the City over and above compliance with existing Comprehensive Plan policies. However, there are some proposed policies that are either regulatory in nature, or which may require future implementation to be effective. These items are highlighted in order to provide the Commission and the Council an understanding and clarity of the level of commitment that the WNP proposes. The proposed policies below are identified in this report because they fall into one of the two categories identified above: 1. Policies that require additional regulatory action in order to be effective. 2. Regulatory policies that are applicable to Comprehensive Plan amendment and zone changes, upon adoption of the neighborhood plan. Waluga Neighborhood Plan LU 00-0025 9i Page 3 of 43 Policies that require additional regulatory action in order to be effective This means that these policies will not be effective upon adoption of the WNP. This will require future implementation of the policy in the form of a Comprehensive Plan System Plan, zoning code or development code text amendment in order to be effective. 1. When minor or major development is proposed, require that the minimum threshold for notification of proposed land use action be the closest fifty property owners when less than fifty are contained with the required 300 -foot notification boundary. (Goal 1, Citizen Involvement, Policy 4) 2. Ensure that required pre -application neighborhood meetings between the applicant and the neighborhood are accurately communicated to decision -makers by requiring: a. The applicant to agree with Neighborhood Association chair upon a mutually convenient meeting date, time and place; b. Special attention shall be given to ensure that attendees concerns and issues are noted within the meeting minutes and that they are clearly audio -taped. The developer shall mail minutes to the attendees and the Neighborhood Association Chair or designee. A reasonable time, of not less than seven days following mailing, shall be provided for the chair or designee in consultation with the attendees, to review, correct if necessary, and approve the minutes. Also, the developer shall make copies of the tapes conveniently available for Neighborhood Association review within one week after the meeting and prior to development application to the City. c. Meeting audiotapes and written minutes approved by the Neighborhood Association chair or designee is provided to the City at the time of application submittal. (Goal 1, Citizen Involvement, Policy 6) Do not allow new drive-in or drive-through food service windows in the Lake Grove Business District. (Goal 9, Economic Development, Policy 4) 4. Ensure the design quality of future development in the Lake Grove Commercial District by enacting land use and design regulations which enhance the district's existing built environment and positive design qualities and which also provide the opportunity for a variety of architectural design, and building types and sizes, including variations in setbacks, height, hulk and scale, which are consistent with these characteristics. (Goal 9, Land Use Planning, Policy S) Amend the Transportation System Plan to: a. Delete the proposed multi-purpose pathway on the eastside of Quarry Road. b. Add a sidewalk along the south side of Douglas Way from Quarry Road to Boones Ferry Road to ensure safe pedestrian movement. (Goal 12, Transportation, Policy 11) Waluga `.Neighborhood Plan Page 4 of 43 LU 00-0025 Staff also concludes that the WNP does not require ORS 227.186 notice (Ballot Measure 56) notice. This statute requires individual property owner notice before the first public hearing of a change in: a. a comprehensive plan that will require property to be rezoned, or b. a land use regulation that will change the base zone of the property; or C. a land use regulation that limits or prohibits land uses in the property's zone. Although there is proposed language within the WNP to potentially limit certain uses in the commercial zone, policies under number 3 and 4 above, they will not be self-regulatory upon implementation of the Plan. Rather, a separate implementation process will be required to make those policies effective. This separate implementation process will require a Ballot Measure 56 notice. The policies found under number 1, 2 and 5 above are also not subject to Ballot Measure 56 notice because they do not rezone, change the base zone or prohibit land uses on any property. Regulatory policies that are applicable to Comprehensive Plan amendment and zone chan es This means that the following policies will be effective upon the WNP's approval and adoption. These policies will be applicable in addition to the existing criteria for a Comprehensive Plan amendments and zone changes. Applicants proposing a zone/plan density change to R-0, R-2, R-2.5, or R-3, shall demonstrate that the proposal complies with the following criteria: a. That the need for the zone/plan change is balanced with the need to ensure the cohesiveness and design integrity of single-family residential neighborhoods by requiring the subject parcel to abut a major arterial street and be within walking distance (1/4 mile to bus lines or transit centers); b. Demonstrate that the proposed density is appropriate for the location given public facilities, natural resources and hazards, road or transit access and proximity to commercial areas and employment concentrations; and c. A proposed plan/zone density change shall have no negative effect on the City's compliance with the Metropolitan Housing Rule (OAR 666-07-000). (Goal 2, Land Use, Policy 1) Do not allow deterioration and/or demolition of existing homes as a reason for Plan and Zoning Map amendments to more intense land uses. (Goal 2, Land Use, Policy 6) Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Zone Changes to commercial uses within the Waluga Neighborhood Plan area shall be limited to areas currently zoned as commercial at the time of this policy's adoption, unless an applicant demonstrates compliance with all Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan policies applicable to commercial plan/zone map amendments including all policies included in the Comprehensive Plan Goal 9, Policy (2)(c). In addition, an applicant for a plan and zoning map amendment to commercial use Waluga Neighborhood Plan LU 00-0025 !1 3 Page 5 of 43 shall demonstrate that a change in circumstances has occurred which causes a departure from: a) The Findings and Conclusion of "An Analysis of Commercial and Industrial land Use and Employment in Lake Oswego Oregon"; b) Findings for vacancy rates for rentable retail space cited in the "Market Analysis for the Lake Oswego GAP Quick Response Grant 2"; and c) Findings that there are not adequate employment opportunities such that the City cannot meet Metro established job targets identified within the most recent Metro 2020 Regional Forecast and Growth Allocation. (Goal 2, Land Use, Policy 8) Staff's analysis of the plan regarding its compliance with the applicable criteria consists of two parts: 1. A summary of the Neighborhood Plan's major issues 2. Specific findings and conclusions which show how the neighborhood plan complies with all applicable Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies, Statewide Planning goals, Metro Functional Plan requirements and the Transportation Planning Rule. The WNP does not include any proposals for zone changes or comprehensive plan amendments. Staff has analyzed the WNP to determine its conformance with applicable decision-making criteria. It has been determined that the Neighborhood Plan complies with these criteria and, staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend the Plan for adoption by the City Council. Proposed Neighborhood Plan Boundary Amendment In addition to requesting that the WNP be adopted, this application requests that the Waluga Neighborhood Boundary be amended to reflect the shaded areas, as shown in Figure 1 of Exhibit 1. If granted, the east boundary of the Waluga Neighborhood Boundary along Boones Ferry Road would be relocated to the center of Boones Ferry Road. The original Waluga and Lake Grove Boundary was changed with the support and understanding of the Lake Grove Neighborhood Association that the boundary would revert back to its original location along Boones Ferry Road (centerline), after the Waluga Neighborhood Association had its plan adopted by the City. The Neighborhood Associations entered into this agreement because there was concern that development could occur on the west side of Boones Ferry Road (within the Waluga Neighborhood Boundary) without the benefit of being subject to an adopted neighborhood plan. 1 This is an August, 1988 Background Report prepared in fulfillment of Statewide Planning Goal 9 for the Periodic Review of the Lake Oswego Comprehensive Pian. 2 This is a market analysis report prepared for a legislative Plan and Zoning Map Amendment PA 4-98/ZC 6-98/DA 1-98. Waluga Neighborhood Plan Page 6 of 43 LU 00-0025 44 This is consistent with the approved minutes of the January 24, 2000, Planning Commission Meeting where neighborhood boundary amendments were discussed. Specifically, on page 2 -- Lake Grove/Waluga, the commissioners noted that the Lake Grove map (Exhibit A-15) and the Waluga map (Exhibit A-17) showed different common boundaries along Kruse way in the area of Mercantile Village. Ms. Heisler clarified that Exhibit A-15 showed the correct proposed boundaries. She related that the Waluga, Lake Grove and Rural Lake Grove neighborhood organizations had agreed that the Lake Grove Neighborhood Association would include a one - lot deep area along the west side of Boones Ferry Road until the Waluga Neighborhood Plan was in place; whereupon the boundary between the neighborhoods would be shifted back to the centerline of Booties Ferry Road. (Exhibit 4) In conclusion, staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to Council that the neighborhood boundary be amended as identified in the shaded area of Figure 1 of Exhibit 1. IV. SUMMARY OF MAJOR ISSUES GOAL 1: CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT The process for developing the WNP first began in March of 1998 when an application was submitted by the Waluga Neighborhood Association (WNA) and was approved by the City Council, effective March 1999. Over this two and one-half year process, there have been extensive efforts to involve members from the community in the development of the Plan. This effort was initiated with the mailing of a neighborhood -wide survey (Exhibit 2) in June of 1998. The survey addressed questions from parks to transportation, in order to determine what types of issues there were in the neighborhood. The survey results formed the basis of the issues that the WNP's goals and policies address. A nine -member Waluga Neighborhood Plan Steering Committee was formed to champion this process for the neighborhood. There have been over 24 Steering Committee meetings and 2 general neighborhood association meetings (Exhibit 3) that have guided the WNP, since its inception in 1998. The Last general neighborhood association meeting was held on February 22, 2001. In preparation for this meeting, a draft plan was mailed to every address and property owner within the neighborhood's boundary. In addition, notices of the general neighborhood meeting to discuss the draft plan were mailed out to all neighborhood association chairperson and all property owners within 300 feet of the neighborhood association boundary. This Chapter of the Waluga Neighborhood Plan recognizes that opportunities must be provided for all residents to become involved in issues that affect them. It is especially true for the Waluga Neighborhood. The association was the second city recognized neighborhood association in Lake Oswego. Since then, neighborhood residents have been actively involved in commenting on current land use applications and developing transportation and land use plans for the neighborhood. It is important for the Waluga Neighborhood that there be continued involvement and cooperation in citywide as well a localized matters that relate to the neighborhood. Due to the Waluga Neighborhood Plan Page 7 of 43 LU 00-0025 45 diversity of land uses within the Waluga Neighborhood the plan recognizes and ensures that there be notification and the opportunity for comments on a variety of current land use issues, to make certain that compatibility and the character of the neighborhood is maintained. Policies that require additional regulatory action in order to be effective: 4. When minor or major development is proposed, require that the minimum threshold for notification of proposed land use action be the closest fifty property owners when less than fifty are contained with the required 300 foot notification boundary. 6. Ensure that required pre -application neighborhood meetings between the applicant and the neighborhood are accurately communicated to decision -makers by requiring: a. The applicant to agree with Neighborhood Association chair upon a mutually convenient meeting date, time and place. b. Special attention shall be given to ensure that attendees concerns and issues are noted within the meeting minutes and that they are clearly audio -taped. The developer shall mail minutes to the attendees and the Neighborhood Association Chair or designee. A reasonable time, of not less than seven days following mailing, shall be provided for the chair or designee in consultation with the attendees, to review, correct if necessary, and approve the minutes. Also, the developer shall make copies of the tapes conveniently available for Neighborhood Association review within one week after the meeting and prior to development application to the City. C. Meeting audiotapes and written minutes approved by the Neighborhood Association chair or designee is provided to the City at the time of application submittal. As noted earlier, policies 4 and 6 are applicable to minor and major development applications and require amendments of the development code to be implemented because they are not self- executing regulatory policies. This means that these policies will not be effective upon adoption of the Waluga Neighborhood Plan. This will require future implementation of the policy in the form of a zoning code or development code text amendment in order to be effective. All remaining policies proposed (Policies 1-3, 5) are supportive and complementary of Goal 1 policies in the Comprehensive Plan and LOC Chapter 49, which require opportunities for citizen participation in coordination with the City on development plans and adequate time and opportunity to comment on development proposals. GOAL 2: LAND USE PLANNING The Waluga Neighborhood is unique in that it has developed into an example of a mixed-use neighborhood. It has the distinction of having integrated low-density residential, high-density residential, special -use housing, commercial, office, retail and recreational uses, while also offering different modes of transportation for travel. It is this unique balance of land uses that contributes to the character of the Waluga Neighborhood and it is this character that the neighborhood would like to enhance and preserve. Waluga Neighborhood Plan Page 8 of 43 LU 00-0025 46 The Waluga Neighborhood recognizes and understands that this mixed-use contributes to the overall wholeness of the neighborhood. However, they would like to ensure that new development, be it single-family, multi -family, office or commercial, enhance and do not negatively impact the character of the neighborhood. Maintaining the balance of land uses, especially for single-family dwellings is important to the neighborhood. The Waluga Neighborhood Association believes that single-family dwellings represent an ever -shrinking island within the Waluga Neighborhood that needs to be preserved because of the perception that the single-family residential areas is slowly being encroached upon by multi -family, commercial and office developments. The balance of the existing land uses should be maintained to ensure the preservation of the character and livability of the area. It is important to note that while the Plan strives to preserve the character of the neighborhood and the existing land uses, these policies do not prohibit zone changes if such a change was warranted in the future due to changing circumstances. These policies merely require that the burden of proof be placed on an applicant to warrant these changes in land use. This position is similar to that of the Lake Forest Neighborhood Plan and is reflected in Goal 2, Policies 1, 6 and 8. Also, as noted earlier, the following policies will be effective upon the WNP's approval and adoption. These policies will be applicable in addition to the existing criteria for a Comprehensive Plan amendment and zone change. Applicants proposing a zone/plan density change to R-0, R-2, R-2.5, or R-3, shall demonstrate that the proposal complies with the following criteria: a. That the need for the plan/zone change is balanced with the need to ensure the cohesiveness and design integrity of single family residential neighborhoods by requiring the subject parcel to abut a major arterial street and be within walking distance (114 mile to bus lines or transit centers). b. Demonstrate that the proposed density is appropriate for the location given public facilities, natural resources and hazards, road or transit access and proximity to commercial areas and employment concentrations. c. A proposed plan/zone density change shall have no negative effect on the City's compliance with the Metropolitan Housing Rule (OAR 666-07-000). 6. Do not allow deterioration and/or demolition of existing homes as a reason for Plan and Zoning map amendments to more intense land uses. 8. Comprehensive Plan Amendments Map and Zone Map Changes to commercial uses within the Waluga Neighborhood Plan area shall be limited to areas currently zoned as commercial at the time of this policy's adoption, unless an applicant demonstrates compliance with all Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan policies applicable to commercial plan/zone map amendments including all policies included in the Comprehensive Plan Goal 9, Policy (2)(c). In addition, an applicant for a plan and zoning map amendment to commercial use shall demonstrate that a change in circumstances has occurred which Waluga Neighborhood Plan LU 00-0025 47 Page 9 of 43 causes a departure from: a. The Findings and Conclusion of "An Analysis of Commercial and Industrial land Use and Employment in Lake Oswego Oregon"'; b. Findings for vacancy rates for rentable retail space cited in the "Market Analysis for the Lake Oswego GAP Quick Response Grant "; and c. Findings that there are not adequate employment opportunities such that the City cannot meet Metro established job targets identified within: the most recent Metro 2020 Regional Forecast and Growth Allocation. All remaining policies proposed (Policies 2-5,7) are supportive and complementary of either the existing City Code or the Comprehensive Plan, Goal 2, which promotes compatibility of new development and that developers bear the burden of proof for development. GOAL. 5: OPEN SPACES, SCENIC AND HISTORIC RESOURCES AND NATURAL RESOURCES A defining characteristic of the Waluga Neighborhood is its natural resources. Specifically, its mature tree canopy, the bountiful natural resources in Waluga Park and wetlands and tree groves found throughout the neighborhood. These characteristics are central to the neighborhood identity and attributes that the Plan preserves and enhances. Along many of the residential streets in the neighborhood, mature trees loom high above residential and commercial development, reflecting the fact that these trees have been here for a long time. Among these old trees, you also find meandering paths, which add to the sense of place and provide for safe and efficient pedestrian and bicyclist travel. This vision of preservation and enhancement is embodied in Goal 5, policies 2, 3, 6, 7 and 10. Waluga Park is a prized resource within the Waluga Neighborhood and it should continue to be expanded, improved and protected, without negatively impacting the neighborhood's quality of life. The Waluga Neighborhood Association believes it greatly enhances the livability of the neighborhood and provides a cornerstone for the community. The Waluga Neighborhood contains a significant stream corridor, wetlands and tree groves (Figure 4). These significant natural resources have been inventoried and identified in the Lake Oswego Sensitive Lands Inventory (ESEE Natural Resources Inventory analysis) and are mapped as Sensitive Lands Overlay Zones on the City's Zoning Map. These natural resources add to the character of the neighborhood and are important in many ways, such as providing for wildlife habitat, surface water quality and storm water conveyance, and adding to the natural beauty and aesthetics of the neighborhood. This view is expressed in many of the proposed policies (Goal 5, Policies 1, 5, 8, 9, 11 and 13). t This is an August, 1988, Background Report prepared in fulfillment of Statewide Planning Goal 9 for the Periodic Review of the Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan. 2 This is a market analysis report prepared for a legislative Plan and Zoning Map Amendment PA 4-98/ZC 6-98/DA 1-98. Waluga Neighborhood Plan Page 10 of 43 LU 00-0025 4n To preserve these natural resources, the Plan looks to emphasize many of the standards and regulation already in existence within the City Code. Protection and mitigation is sought through the vigilant application of the Sensitive Lands Ordinance. New landscaping and compatibility of uses is achieved through the stringent application and review of design standards. The remaining proposed policies (Policies 4 and 12) are supportive and complementary of the existing City Code, which promotes sensitivity of tree planting in consideration of solar access and the protection of natural resources from flooding, erosion and other effects of increased water run-off. GOAL 8: PARKS AND RECREATION Waluga Park is approximately 53 acres, of which 19 active and tranquil acres are located in the Waluga Neighborhood. The park is the site of an old working quarry and inactive volcano. The amenities the park offers include walking trails picnic areas, ball fields, wetlands, natural vegetation and wildlife viewing. Due to the size, quality and amenities, the park attracts people from the abutting neighborhoods as well as citywide. The Waluga Neighborhood strongly identifies with the park because it provides the area a unique identity and it sets the tone for the character of the rest of the neighborhood and the surrounding community. The park is an amenity that should be preserved, maintained and improved for all to enjoy. This idea is expressed in Goal 8, Policies 1, 5 and 6. Results of the neighborhood survey indicated that 72% of respondents were in favor of the City purchasing private property to add to the existing park. In addition, 66% of respondents supported the use of tax dollars to expand Waluga Park. Specifically, as identified in RAM (i), the Waluga Neighborhood would like the City to consider purchasing the property located at the corner of Quarry Road and Oakridge Road. The acquisition of this heavily wooded property would be a significant addition to the continued success of Waluga Park and serve as a potential pedestrian gateway to the park from the south. This idea is expressed in Goal 8, Policy 2. The remaining proposed policies (Policies 4 and 12) promote sensitivity of tree planting in consideration of solar access and the protection of natural resources from flooding, erosion and other effects of increased water run-off. All of the proposed policies in Goal 8 are supportive and complementary to the existing City Code or the City's Comprehensive Plan. GOAL 9: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENUCOMMERCIAL LANDS A portion of the Lake Grove Business District is located within the Waluga Neighborhood Boundary. The area around the neighborhood was originally the center of a rural community, and has since grown and expanded both north and south along Boones Ferry Road and west along Kruse Way. Businesses in this area are primarily of a community or neighborhood scale, although as one goes further west along Kruse Way, commercial office complexes have developed in the recent past. This growth in commercial and office development has ensured Waluga Neighborhood Plan LU 00-0025 Am Page 11 of 43 that the Lake Grove Business District will continue to prosper and contribute to the livelihood of the community. Within the Waluga Neighborhood, there are several 2040 Growth Concept designations which may affect how development occurs. The overall principles embodied in the Metro 2040 Growth Concept include encouraging a compact urban form in specific design type areas. The intent of focusing development in these design type area is to enable established neighborhoods outside of these design type areas to develop at existing Comprehensive Plan densities, rather than requiring higher densities. In this way, the greater proportion of additional units that jurisdictions are required to provide to meet targeted dwelling units for 2017 will be located in Design Type areas. The "design type" that are found in the Waluga Neighborhood area, include Town Centers, Main Street, Transit Corridors and Employment Centers. The Plan supports these design types by supporting mixed-use and encouraging compatibility between commercial and residential areas. The Waluga Neighborhood understands that having a commercial and office center in its boundaries is an asset to the neighborhood. However, that asset must be balanced with the needs and interests of the residents who live in the area. To ensure balance and compatibility between commercial and residential development the Waluga Neighborhood Association felt that it was important to establish a boundary beyond which commercial development would not encroach into residential areas. This boundary is illustrated in Figure 6 and identified in Policy 12. The combination of this boundary and other existing design standards, such as buffering and landscaping requirements within the existing City Code will ensure that the existing amicable balance between residential and commercial development is not disrupted. Policies 4 and 5 are regulatory in nature. This means that these policies will not be effective upon adoption of the WNP. This will require future implementation of the policy in the form of a zoning code or development code text amendment in order to be effective. Policies that require additional regulatory action in order to be effective: 4. Do not allow new drive-in or drive-through food service windows in the Lake Grove Business District. S. Ensure the design quality of future development in the Lake Grove Business District by enacting land use and design regulations which enhance the district's existing built environment and positive design qualities and which also provide the opportunity for a variety of architectural design, and building types and sizes, including variations in setbacks, height, bulk and scale, which are consistent with these characteristics. The remainder of the policies (1-3 and 6-11) are supportive and complementary to existing City Code or Comprehensive Plan policies. Generally, these policies support the opportunity for mixed-use development, promote good design and compatibility for new commercial development, and require good pedestrian access and preservation of natural resources. Waluga Neighborhood Plan LU 00-0025 50 Page 12 of 43 However, Policy 12 requires clarification. This proposed policy strives to express an idea that is very important to the neighborhood, which is to ensure balance and compatibility between commercial and residential development. This idea is expressed through the establishment of a boundary beyond which commercial development would not encroach into residential areas. This boundary is the existing Lake Grove Business District Boundary, as applicable to the Waluga Neighborhood Boundary. Proposed Policy 12 reads as follows: 12. Commercial development is provided for in this plan in the area shown in Figure 6. The Waluga Neighborhood Association will oppose attempts to rezone in any other areas of the neighborhood from the residential zoning designations existing at the time of the adoption of this plan based upon the policies herein which taker: together as a whole discourage rezoning of residential to commercial outside of those areas depicted in Figure 6. Staff understands the importance of the proposed policy, however believes that the idea is better suited as a statement in the Summary of Major Issues. This will ensure that the Neighborhood's position is specifically expressed, recognizing the statement is a policy of the Waluga Neighborhood Association and summary interpretation by the of the Waluga Neighborhood Association, rather than a policy or interpretation of policies by the City. For these reasons, Staff does not concur with the Association that a statement of the Association's policy or the Association's sununM interpretation of comprehensive plan policies is appropriate as a City policy itself or action measure. The strength of Staffs position is shown by testing the proposed language as a policy: Policy 12 will have no effect upon City policy because as written it is a Neighborhood Association's policy and not that of the City; further, a summary of what the Neighborhood Association (or for that matter any other body other than the Planning Commission or City Council) interprets other policies to be is not in itself a policy statement. • The proposed policy is a statement of the Waluga Neighborhood Association's position on zone changes from residential to commercial zoning. The definition of a "Policy" states that a policy is "A statement identifying Lake Oswego's position... often identifying the City's position". Proposed Policy 12 specifically states that "Waluga Neighborhood Association will oppose" and therefore implying that this is a view of the neighborhood association and not necessarily a view of the City. Therefore, identifying this position in the summary of major issues is more appropriate. • This policy is potentially in conflict with the City's Comprehensive Plan, Goal 9, Policy 1(c), which states: 1. Designate adequate commercial and industrial land to: C. Maintain and improve the health of the local economy. By implying that Policy 12 is the "City's position", it may prevent rezoning residential land to commercial land in this area. Currently, there is adequate commercial land, however, it is hard to predict long term economic trends. Proposed Policy 12 may unnecessarily bind the City's position regarding commercial zone changes because the City may not be able to Waluga Neighborhood Plan Page 13 of 43 LU 00-0025 51 designate or potentially approve zone changes from residential to commercial designations as economic conditions change over time. • Proposed Policy 12 is potentially in conflict with 2040 Growth Concept Plan, as this area is designated for several design types. By having a potential City policy which states that it "will oppose attempts to rezone in any other areas of the neighborhood from the residential zoning designations existing at the time of the adoption of this plan" would potentially unnecessarily bind the City's position for any future commercial zoning. GOAL 10: HOUSING/RESIDENTIAL LAND USE In general, the Waluga Neighborhood Association believes that the small island of single-family residences are, surrounded by multi -family, commercial and office campus uses. Currently, 17% of the total land area is developed with single-family dwellings. The Waluga Neighborhood would like to protect single-family residences from encroachment by multi- family and commercial uses as this potentially impacts the balance of land uses and the quality of life. This position is emphasized in policies 1, 2 and 4. There is little available land for development (approximately 6.4% is vacant). The neighborhood feels it is important to recognize that the mix of single-family and multi -family units within the Waluga Neighborhood boundaries meets or exceeds the Metropolitan Housing Rule and state goals3. Currently, 17% of the land within the WN is comprised of single-family residential development (148 single-family dwelling units) and 10.4% is comprised of multi- family residential development (308 multi -family dwelling units). The Waluga Neighborhood Association would urge that new developments that add density consider the lower density alternatives. In all cases, it is important that any new development be compatible in height, bulk and scale to the surrounding properties and that extensive buffering be required between step-downs from high -to -low density uses, especially when related to a zone change or when adjacent properties are more than one zoning level apart. Policies 4, 5 and 8 support this position. The Waluga Neighborhood Association would like to see that tale existing housing stock be preserved and low-density single-family uses be encouraged in the neighborhood. Infill development and secondary housing units may be allowed, including flag lots, subject to specific design and development standards to ensure design compatibility (Policy 3). Also of importance is that zoning standards be used to ensure that all new residential development, including substantial remodeling, contributes to the positive design character of the neighborhood. Preservation of the character of existing local streets is important, including the non -grid street pattern and preservation of trees within street right-of-way and on adjacent property, which provide tree canopy and shade (Policies 7, 8 and 9). 3 "Metropolitan Housing Rule" (OAR -660-7-000-060). This rule requires the City provide an opportunity for a 50%/50% mix of single-family and multi -family or attached housing. Waluga Neighborhood Plan Page 14 of 43 LU 00-0025 J N In general, all policies are supportive and complimentary to the City Code. GOAL 11: PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES POLICE AND FIRE PROTECTION, SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT, WATER TREATMENT AND DELIVERY, SANITARY SEWER, PRIVATE UTILITIES AND SCHOOLS The Neighborhood Plan recognizes that the City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan contains numerous policies which are applicable to the community as a whole. In view that the Citywide Plan is generally sufficient, this element of the Neighborhood Plan was developed to apply to the Waluga Neighborhood's specific conditions, character and needs. They are intended to be supportive and complementary to the other Comprehensive Plan polices which apply citywide. The Plan Chapter addresses Police and Fire Protection, Storm Water and Surface Management, Water Treatment and Delivery, and Private Utilities and Schools. The common emphasis of the Goals and Policies is to ensure that the Waluga Neighborhood is provided with high quality, responsive and environmentally sound public facilities and services. However, issues of particular importance to the Waluga Neighborhood include: the continuance of quality and reliable facilities and services; promoting coordination with all service providers in order to receive the best level of service; and working with the Lake Oswego School District to resolve any issues that may arise. An important institution in the Waluga Neighborhood is the Lake Grove Elementary School. A concern that the neighborhood has is the continued use of the bus barn at the school. Specifically, the buses potentially negatively impact the surrounding neighbors by producing noise in the early morning, affect the air quality and pose potential traffic problems while navigating through the narrow neighborhood streets. The Waluga Neighborhood Association would like to work with Lake Oswego School District to address these issues. Specific policies and RAMS to address working with the School District includes Polices 1 and 2, RAMS i and ii. The remainder of the policies are supportive and complementary to the Comprehensive Plan or existing City Code. GOAL 12: TRANSPORTATION The boundaries of the Waluga Neighborhood include approximately 208 acres of land comprised of single-family residential, multiple -family residential, office, commercial and park development. Of the 208 acres, there are approximately 28 acres of right-of-way (13.5%). The WN is located along the crossroads of two major arterials, Kruse way (which runs east and west) and Boones Ferry Road (which runs north and south). Other significant roadways include Carman Drive, a major collector connecting I-5 with Kruse Way, located on the northwest boundary and Quarry Road, a neighborhood collector, which allows local residents of the neighborhood to access Carman Drive and Boones Ferry Road in such a manner to disperse Waluga Neighborhood Plan Page 15 of 43 LU 00-0025 53 traffic to the nearest collector or arterial. Many people use these roadways to get to destination points within the neighborhood such as Waluga Park, Lake Grove Elementary School, the commercial corridor located along Boones Ferry Road and the Kruse Way Office complexes located on Kruse Way. The Waluga Neighborhood Plan Transportation Goals and Policies are based on the concerns developed through the neighborhood survey. While 50% of the respondents indicated that school crossings ensure adequate safety for children, only 39% of respondents indicated that generally pedestrians are safe when walking in the area. The neighborhood would like to emphasize the continued safety for children and also improve the quality and safety of pedestrian paths through the Waluga Neighborhood by promoting and developing additional pathways that would add to the existing character of the neighborhood pathway system and provide additional opportunities to destination points in the Waluga Neighborhood. This is addressed in Policies 4, 5, 6, 7 and 13. In the neighborhood survey, 94% of the respondents indicated that cut -through traffic should be limited, especially traffic from the Kruse Way office complex area and from southbound traffic on Cannan Drive from the Westlake/Holly Orchard area. In addition, the area has a large amount of pedestrian activity due to the proximity of the school, park and commercial developments in the area. Policy 3 promotes reducing traffic speeds through the use of traffic calming measures. Also of concern is that the character of the area's streets and pathways remain compatible with the Waluga Neighborhood. Of particular concern is Quarry Road. Quarry Road is perceived to receive a lot of cut -through traffic due to its locational relationship to commercial developments on Boones Ferry Road and the office complexes on Meadows Road. Commuters may use this shortcut between Kruse Way and Boones Ferry Road to avoid traffic and potentially save time. Traffic management needs to be continually addressed on Quarry Road. Recent measures such as erecting stops signs at problem locations have successfully addressed some of the traffic issues, however as new commercial and office complexes are constructed on Meadows Road, the more need there is to review further measures to address increased traffic. This is addressed in Policy 12. In summary, the direction of this chapter is to: 1) Manage traffic to reduce the amount of cut - through traffic and excessive vehicle speeds through the neighborhood; 2) Improve and provide for practical and safe pedestrian, bicycling and transit opportunities; 3) Maintain the quality and appropriateness of the transportation system.; and 4) Emphasize safety for pedestrian and bicyclists. Also of importance is the management of traffic in the neighborhood, especially relating to cut -through traffic and speeding, and maintaining the functional nature of the transportation system with the character of the neighborhood. Waluga Neighborhood Plan Page 16 of 43 LU 00-0025 5/1 Staff has concluded that the VW Transportation element is in conformance with all applicable criteria and is supportive and complementary with existing Comprehensive Plan policies or existing City Code. V. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS A. Compliance with Citv of Lake OsweEo Comprehensive Plan Policies Goal 1, Citizen Involvement: Compliance with City Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan Goal 1: Citizen Involvement Goals and Policies 1, 2, 3 and 4 GOAL: The City shall: a. Create opportunities for every interested citizen to be im-ol%ed iii ;ill phases of the planning process to ensure that their concerns are heard; b. Encourage broadly based public participation including all geographic areas and diverse interests, and; C. Ensure regular and ongoing two-way communication between citizens and elected and appointed officials. POLICIES: 1. Provide opportunities for citizen participation in preparing and revising local land use plans and ordinances. 2. Provide citizen involvement opportunities that are appropriate to the scale of a given planning effort. Large area plans, affecting a large portion of community residents and groups require citizen involvement opportunities of a broader scope than that required for more limited land use decisions. 3. Provide for and encourage formation of neighborhood organizations. These organizations, when recognized under the criteria outlined in the Citizen Involvement Guidelines, may: a. Recommend neighborhood boundaries. b. Make policy and implementation recommendations on issues affecting its neighborhood. C. Engage in planning activities for its neighborhood anal participate in community -wide planning issues. 4. Encourage citizens to participate through their neighborhood without excluding participation as individuals or through other groups. Findings: The Waluga Neighborhood Plan Goal 1, Citizen Involvement, goal and policies relate directly to and implement the above Comprehensive Plan goals and policies by further ensuring that Waluga Neighborhood Plan Page 17 of 43 LU 00-0025 J rt citizen's are assured of the following: • The Plan stresses the opportunity for citizens to be involved in the planning process; • Ensures ongoing two-way community between citizens and the City; • Provides opportunities for citizens to interact with staff on a one-to-one basis on land use matters affecting their neighborhood; and • Provides access to timely information so that concerns may be addressed. Conclusion: The Lake Oswego Neighborhood Plan complies with and implements the City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan, Goal 1, Goal and Policies 1, 2, 3 and 4 Waluga Neighborhood Plan Page 18 of 43 LU 00-0025 56 d1_ _ 7 1% _ i __ _1 WT _ _ Tl Uloal 1.: UHU Use rianning Compliance with City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan Goal 2: Land Use Planning, Section 1, Goal and Policies 3, 5(a), 5(b)(i), 8, 18, 19 and 22 GOAL: Lake Oswego shall ensure that: a. The City's land use planning processes and policy framework serve as a basis for all decisions and actions related to the use of land and; b. Laud use regulations, actions and related plans are consistent with and implement the Comprehensive Plan. POLICIES: 3. Require development to conform to all applicable Cite land use regulations ;Ind codes. 5. Maintain residential neighborhoods at existing zone and plan density designations, except where: a. Changes to higher residential density designations are necessary to be consistent with development on the subject property at the time of this policy's adoption, or; b. An applicant demonstrates that a proposed zone/plan density change complies with the following criteria: i. If the property is subject to an adopted neighborhood plan, the applicant shall comply with any special zone/plan density change criteria that may be required by the neighborhood plan. 8. Ensure that development and implementation of the City's land use regulations and Comprehensive Plan minimize pressures to expand the Portland Metropolitan Urban Growth Boundary. 18. Develop and adopt specific Neighborhood Plans and implementing measures consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as the means to enhance neighborhood livability and achieve desired neighborhood character. A Neighborhood Association may request the Planning Commission and City Council to initiate Neighborhood Plan Map and text amendments at any time, without fee, upon finding that the proposed changes are in the public's interest and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 19. Review commercial, industrial, institutional and high density residential development to ensure the quality of building and site design, and overall appearance. 22. Provide opportunities for mixed use commercial and residential development within commercial zones. W aluga Neighborhood Plan Page 19 of 43 LU 00-0025 5T Findines• The Waluga Neighborhood Plan conforms to and implements the City Comprehensive Plan by: • Maintaining the neighborhood's existing zoning and plan designation consistent with the City's objective of meeting the Metro housing allocation targets and implementation of the State's Metropolitan Goal 10, Housing Rule. • Providing clear and objective criteria consistent with the City Comprehensive, to be utilized when considering applications for zone changes and plan map changes to R-0, R-2, R-2.5 or R-3. • Ensuring that developer are responsible and participate in the development of the City's infrastructure, proportional to the impact of their development by requiring needed infrastructure and applicable Service Development Charges (SDC) as conditions of development approval. • Protecting the character of the neighborhood by including policies that strive to balance the existing land uses. Conclusion: The Waluga Neighborhood Plan complies with and implements the City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan, Goal 2 Land Use Planning, Section 1, Policies 3, 5(a), 5(b)(i), 8, 18, 19 and 22 Compliance with Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan, Goal 2 Land Use Planning, Section 2, Policies 1, 4, and 5 POLICIES 1. Enact and maintain regulations and standards, which require: a. New development to enhance the existing built environment in terms of size, scale, bulk, color, materials and architectural design. b. Landscaping. C. Buffering and screening between differing land uses, and; d. Measures to foster a safe and interesting transit and pedestrian environment. 4. Ensure that both public and private developnnent enhance the aesthetic quali(y of the community. 5. Fstablish and enforce regulations to abate unsightly conditions and other nuisance situations. Findings: The Waluga Neighborhood Plan is consistent with the above City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan Goal 2, Community Design and Aesthetics because the neighborhood plan contains the following goal and policy language which: • Provides for consideration and potential adoption of design standards specific to the Waluga Neighborhood to ensure the creation and maintenance of an aesthetic Waluga Neighborhood Plan Page 20 of 43 LU 00-0025 J h environment. Recognizes that landscaping, buffering and screening is important for new development in order for new development to contribute the existing character of the neighborhood. Supports the preservation of existing significant vegetation and other natural resources that contribute to the unique character of the neighborhood. Directs that the design and operation and operation of institutional uses are compatible with existing residential character. Conclusion: The Waluga Neighborhood Plan complies with and implements the City of Luke Oswego Comprehensive Plan Goal 2 Land Use Planning, Section 2, Policies, 1, 4, and 5 Waluga Neighborhood Plan Page 21 of 43 LU 00-0025 GOAL 5: Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas and Natural Areas, Compliance with City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan Goal 5 Section 1, Fish and Wildlife Habitat, Goal, Policies 1, 3, 5 and 6 Section 2, Vegetation, Policies 1, 3, 4, 5, 10, 11, 12 and 14 Section 3, Wetlands, Goal and Policies 1, 4 and 5 Section 4, Stream Corridors, Goal and Policies 1, 7 and 12 Section 6, Open Space, Goal and Policies 1(g), 2, 3(a) Section 1, Fish and Wildlife Habitat, Goal, Policies 1, 3, 5 and 6: GOAL: Lake Oswego shall preserve and restore environments, which provide fish and wildlife habitat. POLICIES: 1. Preserve and restore natural resources and lands which are important to fish and wildlife habitat including: a. Wetlands, water bodies, stream corridors, and associated vegetation. b. The Willamette Greenway and the Urban Service Boundary's (USB) floodplains and floodways. C. Surface and groundwater quality. d. Tree cover and understory vegetation, including downed trees and nesting snags. e. Upland areas, especially forested hillsides. 3. Preserve and restore fish and wildlife habitat through: a. Land and habitat management practices on public and private lands; and, b. Providing linkages to various habitats for access and safe passage of wildlife to food, water, nesting and cover. 5. Require the preservation or establishment and ongoing maintenance of vegetated buffer areas when development occurs on property adjacent to stream corridors and wetlands. 6. Preserve and restore native plant communities to provide wildlife food, cover, and nesting opportunities Section 2, Vetetation, Policies 1, 3, 4, 5, 10, 11, 12 and 14 POLICIES: 1. Protect, restore and maintain existing vegetation which has environmental, wildlife habitat and aesthetic qualities, including tree groves and forested hillsides and vegetation associated with wetlands, stream corridors and riparian areas. 3. Require developers to maximize the preservation of trees and to maintain and Waluga Neighborhood Plan Page 22 ol'4; LU 00-0025 (� enhance the cohesive quality of tree groves through: a. Site design and construction methods, and; h. Open space dedication of areas, which contain these resources. 4. Require the protection of significant or historic individual trees pursuant to a heritage tree protection program. 5. Ensure vegetation is maintained, protected and restored through: a. Regulation of tree removal; b. Conditions of development approval; C. Monitoring of development to ensure compliance with the City's regulations and conditions of development approval; and, d. Enforcement of regulations. 10. Ensure the continued maintenance of vegetation required pursuant to development approval, within landscaped and common areas. 11. Design and construct public works projects to preserve existing vegetation to the: extent practical. 12. Protect and enhance vegetation resources within rights -of- way and other public lands though measures such as: a. Regulations to protect public trees; b. The provision of adequate right-of-way to ensure sufficient space for tree planting, and; C. An ongoing planting and maintenance program for trees and other vegetation in public rights-of-way, open spaces, and parks. 14. The City shall emphasize protection rather than mitigation of the functions and values of vegetation. Section 3, Wetlands, Goal and Policies 1, 4 and 5 GOAL.: The City shall protect, maintain, enhance and restore wetlands. POLICIES: 1. Protect, maintain, enhance, and restore the natural functions and values* of wetlands including enhancement of water quality, flood protection, fish and wildlife habitat, open space, and natural areas. 4. Require activities, which use wetlands to be compatible with the preservation of wetland functions and values. These activities include uses such as public and private recreation, surface water management and flood control. Waluga Neighborhood Plan Page 23 of 43 LU 00-0025 01 5. Require the review of any development proposal that could impact a wetland with the appropriate local, state and federal agencies. Section 4, Stream Corridors, Goal and Policies 1, 7 and 12 The City shall protect, restore, and maintain stream corridors to maintain water quality and to provide open space and wildlife habitat. POLICIES: 1. Protect, maintain, enhance and restore the functions and values of stream corridors, including maintenance of water quality, storm and flood water conveyance, fish and wildlife habitat, open space and aesthetic values. 7. Require all development proposed within or adjacent to stream corridors to: a. Incorporate and maintain stream corridor features, functions and values in the project design such as stream banks, riparian* vegetation, and fish and wildlife habitat, and; b. Dedicate land or easements to preserve stream corridors and adjacent riparian areas. 12. Design and construct public works projects to preserve existing stream banks and adjacent riparian vegetation Section 6: Open Space, Policies 1(2), 2 and 3(a) GOAL: The City shall protect, enhance, maintain, and expand a network of open space* areas and scenic resources within and adjacent to the Urban Services Boundary. POLICIES: 1. Establish an open space network within and adjacent to the Urban Services Boundary (USB) which: g. Provides land, which meets the open space and recreation needs of the community. 2. Preserve open space through dedication, deed restrictions, covenants, or other methods as conditions of development approval which, when possible, shall be consistent with the City's parks, open space, and pathways plans. 3. Promote an open space network that: a. 1\laintains the existing tree canopy. Findino: The Waluga Neighborhood Plan conforms to Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan goals and policies through: • Recognizing the need to preserve wetlands, stream corridors and tree groves within the Waluga Neighborhood Plan LU 00-0025 Page 24 of 43 boundaries of the Waluga Neighborhood. • Providing opportunities for private property owners to preserve trees through the City's adopted Heritage Tree Protection Program. • Recognizing protection of the community's wooded character and vegetation resources through application of the City's tree -cutting requirements. • Recognizes that developers must maximize the preservation of trees, with an emphasis of tree preservation for commercial developments. • Emphasizing protection rather than mitigation of the functions and values of all natural resources (LFNP, Goal 5, Open Space and Natural Resources, Policy 6); • Recognizing that Public works projects are to be designed, implemented and maintained to protect natural resources, with an emphasis for protection of resources located within rights-of-way and other public lands. Conclusion: The Lake Forest Neighborhood Plan complies with and implements the City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan Goal 5 Open spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas and Natural Resources Section 1, Fish and Wildlife Habitat, Goal, Policies 1, 3, 5 and 6 Section 2, Vegetation, Policies 1, 2, 3,4, 5, 10, 11, 12 and 14 Section 3, Wetlands, Goal and Policies 1, 4 and 5 Section 4, Stream Corridors, Goal and Policies 1, 7, and 12 Section 6, Open Space, Goal and Policies 1(g), 2 and 3(a) Waluga Neighborhood Plan Page 25 of 43 LU 00-0025 63 GOAL 8: Parks and Recreation Compliance with Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan, Goal 8: Parks and Recreation, Policies 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. 8 and 10. 3. Coordinate park planning, acquisition and development N�ith affected neighborhoods and with other community projects and programs. 4. Distribute park and recreation opportunities by type throughout the City as land availability allows. Ensua re long-range balance is maintained between land acquisition and facility development efforts to: a. Avoid the irrevocable loss of land suitable for park and recreation uses; I). Minimize future land acquisition costs; and, C. Provide for the activity needs and preferences of the community. 6. Require developers to pay their equitable share of future park acquisition and development costs. 7. Plan and develop a system of pathways which can connect open space and part: facilities with neighborhoods. 8. Develop parks that: a. Are compatible with adjacent land uses, by using setbacks and effective buffering and screening to minimize impacts of intensive uses such as traffic, parking, bright lights and noise; b. Do not generate traffic which exceeds the design capacity of adjacent streets at off peak hours and, where feasible, do not utilize local residential streets to accommodate traffic generated by intensive uses; and c. Are, where possible, accessible by a variety of transportation modes including transit, bicycling and walking. 10. Provide accessibility to all park users, according; to applicable state and federal laws. Findings: The Waluga Neighborhood Plan conforms to and implements the City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan because it establishes a policy basis for the neighborhood which h1-011 (CS: Preservation, enhancement and improvement of Waluga Park Communication between the City and the Neighborhood Association in regards to planning and development in Waluga Park. Developers paying their fair share of future park acquisition and development costs, pursuant to the City's Systems Development Charge policies. Waluga Neighborhood Plan LU 00-0025 Z Page 26 of 43 Conclusion: The Waluga Neighborhood Plan complies with and implements the City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan Goal 8 Parks and Recreation, Goal and Policies 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 10 Waluga Neighborhood Plan LU 00-0025 65 Page 27 of 43 GOAL 9: Economic Development: Compliance with Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan, Goal 9: Economic Development, Goal, Policies 1, 3, 5, 6, 11, 13, 16 and 17. GOAL: The City shall provide for economic development opportunities, which enhance the prosperity and livability of the community. POLICIES 1. Designate adequate commercial and industrial land to: a. Supply goods and services to the population within bake Oswego's Urban Services Boundary;* b. Provide close -to -home employment opportunities, and; C. Maintain and improve the health of the local economy. 3. Require new commercial and industrial development to: b. Mitigate adverse impacts such as noise, traffic and visual aesthetics, on adjacent land uses through methods such as buffering, screening, parking controls, and height, bulk and scale limits. C. Comply with design and aesthetic standards to ensure compatibility with surrounding land uses and Lake Oswego's overall community character. e. Develop transit opportunities appropriate to the scale and character of the project. f. Provide for a safe and convenient pedestrian and bicycle circulation system to and within the development. h. Preserve natural resources and provide required open space. 5. Allow home occupations* subject to regulations that ensure compatibility with the surrounding residential neighbors. 6. Support redevelopment of existing vacant and underutilized industrial and commercial lands rather than designating additional lands for these purposes. 11. Require new commercial development, where possible, to develop joint street access, parking facilities, and pedestrian connections with other businesses to reduce land area requirements, traffic congestion, parking and safety problems. 13. Direct commercial and through traffic, other than that generated from adjacent neighborhoods, away from local residential streets. 16. Limit commercial development in the Lake Grove Business District to that which is intended to accommodate neighborhood and community needs for goods and services. Wahiga Neighborhood Plan LU 00-0025 Page 28 of 43 17. Allow mixed use development within the Downtown and the bake Grove Business Districts to provide opportunities for commercial, entertainment, professional, cultural, public, and residential activities. Regional draw business other than those providing specialized services and unique goods, shall not he located in these districts. Findines: As noted in the Summary of Major Issues for Goal 9, Economic Development, proposed policy 12 is in conflict with the City's Comprehensive Plan, Goal 9, Policy 1(c). Proposed Policy 12 states: 12. Commercial development is provided for in this plan in the area shown in Figure 6. The Waluga Neighborhood Association will oppose attempts to rezone in any other areas of the neighborhood from the residential zoning designations existing at the time of the adoption of this plan based upon the policies herein: which taken together as a whole discourage rezoning of residential to commercial outside of those areas depicted in Figure 6. This policy is potentially in conflict with the City's Comprehensive Plan, Goal 9, Policy 1(c), which states: Designate adequate commercial and industrial land to: c.. Maintain and improve the health of the local economy. By implying that Policy 12 is the "City's position", it may prevent rezoning residential land to commercial land in this area. Currently, there is adequate commercial land, however, it is hard to predict long term economic trends. Proposed Policy 12 may unnecessarily bind the City's position regarding commercial zone changes because the City may not be able to designate or potentially approve zone changes from residential to commercial designations as economic conditions change over time. In order to be in compliance with the City Comprehensive Plan, Goal 9, Economic Development, staff recommends that proposed Policy 12 of the Neighborhood Plan be removed as a policy and the language be relocated to the Summary of Major Issues in the Waluga Neighborhood Plan, Goal 9, Economic Development. The remainder of the Waluga Neighborhood Plan conforms to the above Comprehensive Plan Goal and Policies by recognizing that: • New commercial development shall mitigate adverse impacts such as noise, traffic and visual aesthetics on adjacent land uses. Special attention should also be given to safe and efficient transit and pedestrian environment within the Lake Grove Business District. • The neighborhood is unique in that there is a diversity of land uses. This diversity should be promoted and enhanced with mixed use developments. Waluga Neighborhood flan Page 29 of 43 LU 00-0025 67 Boones Ferry Road is an important corridor for commerce and that safety and access should be developed and maintained for all modes of travel. Conclusion: The Waluga Neighborhood Plan is in conformance and implement the City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan Goal 9, Economic Development, Goal, Policies 1, 3, 5, 6,11, 13, 16 and 17. Waluga Neighborhood Plan Page 30 of 43 LU 00-0025 68 GOAL 10: Housing Compliance with Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan, Goal 10: Housing Goal and Policies 4, 7,12 and 14. GOAL: The City shall: a. Provide the opportunity for a variety of housing types in locations and environments to provide an adequate supply of safe, sanitary, energy efficient housing at price and rent levels appropriate to the varied financial capabilities of present and future city residents; b. Protect the character of existing neighborhoods, and; C. Provide for needed housing while protecting environmentally sensitive areas, using land and public facilities as efficiently as possible, and facilitating greater use of alternative transportation modes. POLICIES: 4. Require mitigation of adverse impacts such as noise, traffic and visual aesthetics, on differing, adjacent land uses through site and building design. 7. Provide for safe, comfortable, visually attractive streets in new developments. 12. Assure an orderly transition frons one residential density to another through design and development standards such as landscaping, buffering and screening. 14. Provide a wide range of housing types to meet the needs of various lifestyles and family types. Findines• The Waluga Neighborhood Plan conforms to the City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan, in that it provides for: • Opportunity to enhance the diversity of housing types IMiti(l in the neighborhood by encouraging mixed use developments • Preservation of the neighborhood's mix of existing land use, which contributes to the availability of different housing types. • Appropriate scaled streets that are compatible with type of development they serve. • Preservation of natural resources and open space through preservation, enhancement and maintenance of these resources. Conclusion: The Waluga Neighborhood Plan is in conformance with City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan Goal 10, Housing, Goal and Policies 4, 7,12 and 14. Waluga Neighborhood Plan LU 00-0025 Page 31 of 43 Goal 11: Public Facilities and Services Compliance with Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan, Goal 11: Public Facilities and Services Section 1: Public Safety, Policies 2 and 4 Section 2: Storm Water and Surface Water Management, Goal and Policies 1, 8 and 9 Section 3: Water Treatment and Delivery, Goal and Policies 1 and 7(a) Section 4: Wastewater Collection and Treatment, Goal (a) Section 5: Admin, Government Services, Energy, Communications and Schools, Goal Section 1: Public Safetv POLICIES: 2. Require adequate police and fire protection to be considered for all development. Particular attention shall be given to: a. Fire hydrant locations and sufficient fire flows; b. Street layout and site design features that ensure emergency vehicle access and building identification; C. Building security; and, d. Exterior lighting and landscape design. 4. Ensure adequate police and fire protection can be provided to newly annexed areas. Section 2, Storm Water and Surface Water illanalzement 1 GOAL: The City shall reduce storm water problems, which cause flooding, erosion, and water quality problems. POLICIES: 1. Minimize future storm drainage problems within and adjacent to the Urban Services Boundary (USB). 8. Utilize natural systems and non-structural methods to control storm water run-off at the source as a preference to structural systems to the extent allowed by site characteristics. 9. Require all storm drainage improvements on private property, and that required as a condition of new development to: a. Accommodate storm drainage flows of development at full build -out; and b. Be compatible with the City's Storm Drainage Public Facility and Capital Improvement Plans and Surface Water Management Program. Waluga Neighborhood Plan LU 00-0025 0 Page 32 of 43 Section 3, Water Treatment and Delivery GOAL: The City shall ensure a reliable and adequate supple of high quality water to meet the existing and future needs of Lake Oswego POLICIES: 1. Provide a sufficient supple of higl► quality water at adequate pressures to meet consumption and fire tlow projections and emergency storage needs. 7. Require developers to: a. Provide water service to meet domestic needs and fire now requirements to all new development Section 4: Wastei�ater Collection and Treatment GOAL: Lake Oswego shall provide an adequate and efficient wastewater collection and treatment system within the Urban Services Boundary which: a. Meets the present and future needs of Lake Oswego residents and businesses Section is Admin. and Gen. Government Services, Energy, Communications and School~ GOAL: The City shall ensure the availability of administrative and general government services and shall coordinate with efforts of others to provide schools, energy and communication services. Findings: The Waluga Neighborhood Plan conforms to the City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan in that it recognizes that: • A high level of public safety should be provided within the neighborhood. • Reduction of water pollution, storm drainage problems should be accomplished by reducing and eliminating flooding and erosion, through catchbasin cleaning and street sweeping, stream restoration and completion of Public Facility projects, and through erosion control associated with construction. • A reliable and adequate supply of water for domestic purposes and for fire protection will be provided through the completion of Public Facility Plans and Capital Improvement Projects. • Working with the School District will promote the resolution of traffic and facility issues. Waluga Neighborhood Plan Page 33 of 43 LU 00-0025 r 1 i. Conclusion: The Waluga Neighborhood Plan is in conformance with City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan Goal 11, Public Facilities and Services: Section 1: Public Safety, Policies 2 and 4 Section 2: Storm Water and Surface Water Management, Goal and Policies 1, 8 and 9 Section 3: Water Treatment and Delivery, Goal and Policies 1 and 7(a) Section 4: Wastewater Collection and Treatment, Goal (a) Section 5: Admin., Government Services, Energy, Communications and Schools, Goal Waluga Neighborhood Plan LU 00-0025 Page 34 of 43 Goal 12: Transportation Compliance with Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan, Goal 12: Transportation: Sub -Goal 1: Major Streets System, Goal and Policies 1 and 4 Sub -Goal 3: Neighborhood and Local Residential Streets, Policies 1, 2, 4, 6 and 8 Sub -Goal 5: Transportation Demand Management, Policy 3 Sub -Goal 6: Walking, Goal and Policies, 3, 4 and 5 Sub --Goal 7: Bicycling, Goal and Policy 2 Sub -Goal 8: Transit System, Goal and Policies 2 and 3 SUB -GOAL. 1: MAJOR STREETS SYSTENI Lake Oswego shall develop a major street system consisting of major and minor arterials and major collectors, which will have minimal impact on the City's air quality, address the mobility needs of residents for all modes of travel and promote energy conservation (See Figures 16 & 17, of Comprehensive Plait, Goal 12, Sub -Goal 1). POLICIES: 1. The arterial and major collector street network shall be designed to, and maintained at, service level "D" during peak hours, to moderate vehicle speeds and to promote a balance of roadway size and scale Nvith the need to provide efficient transportation. Where residential neighborhoods are bisected by existing major streets, the impacts of traffic -- noise, safety, aesthetics and air quality -- shall be minimized by the following actions: a. Where feasible, traffic generated by new development, shall be routed to other available major streets that are not within or adjacent to residential uses. b. Ensure that traffic generated by new land uses does not exceed the design capacity of the street system. C. Provision of safe and efficient bicycle and pedestrian improvements to connect residential areas to other areas of the community. SUB -GOAL 3: NEIGHBORHOOD COLLECTORS AND LOCAL RESIDENTIAL STREETS GOAL: Lake Oswego Shall develop a system of neighborhood collectors and local residential streets which preserves the quiet, privacy and safety of neighborhood living and which has adequate, but not excessive capacity, necessary to accommodate planned land uses. (See Figures 16 & 17, of Comprehensive Plait, Goal 12, Sub -Goal 1). Waluga Neighborhood Plan Page 35 of 43 LU 00-0025 ,� .5 POLICIES: 1. The primary function of local residential streets and neighborhood collectors is to serve the circulation and access needs of residents adjacent to and abutting these streets. Neighborhood collectors will serve to channel local traffic to the major streets system. Through traffic (auto trips which have neither trip end within the neighborhood association boundary) on these streets shall be discouraged. 2. The City shall, in conjunction with the neighborhood association, plan for, develop and maintain a local residential street system at a service level and scale which: a. Recognizes the multi -use functions of neighborhood streets for walking, bicycling and social interaction, and which preserves the privacy, quiet and safety of neighborhood living; b. Provides for safe access to abutting land; and, C. Allows adequate and safe circulation from residential properties to the major streets system and neighborhood activity centers. 4. The City shall utilize flexible design criteria and construction standards for local residential street and neighborhood collector improvement projects. Design criteria shall be consistent with the adopted neighborhood plan. In particular these standards shall promote: a. Street development which is compatible with the physical and social characteristics of each neighborhood to promote neighborhood identity and beauty. b. The minimum scale of improvements necessary to provide adequate, but not excessive capacity, required to safely handle automobile traffic generated by planned land uses. C. Solutions to storm water problems and surface water management issues. d. The safety and utility of pedestrians, bicyclists, transit users and motorists. 6. The City and neighborhood associations shall jointly plan for the use of public rights -of -ways in residential neighborhoods. Uses within rights-of-way shall be supportive of the multi -use function of neighborhood streets and may include: a. Pedestrian paths and bikeways; b. Vehicular related uses as on -street parking, transit facilities and driveways; and, C. Urban design, public utility, safety and beautification elements such as street trees, public seating, street lights, wheelchair ramps and sidewalk extensions. Manage traffic on Neighborhood Collectors and Local Streets according to the policies established in this chapter. Traffic calming measures should be used where feasible to encourage non -local traffic to use streets with higher functional classifications and should not significantly divert traffic to other nearby streets of the same or lower classification. Waluga Neighborhood Plan Page 36 of'43 LU 00-0025 �' SUB -GOAL 5: TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT: GOAL: Lake Oswego shall develop strategies and implement programs that reduce the number of automobiles traveling in Lake Oswego, especially during break morning and evening traffic hours. POLICY: 3. Increase the attractiveness of alternative transportation through mixed use development in areas consistent with the Region 2040 Plan. SUB -GOAL 6: WALKING GOA I.: The City shall provide a continuous citywide network of safe and convenient walkwm-s that promotes walking as a mode of travel for short trips. POLICIES: 3. Connect local walkways to activity centers such as schools, employment areas, parks, commercial areas, and transit centers and corridors. 4. Connect local walkways to activity centers such as schools, employment areas, parks, commercial areas, and transit centers and corridors. Involve citizens in the pedestrian facility planning process as well as in facility design. GOAL 7: BICYCLING GOAL: The City shall provide a network of safe and convenient bikeways integrated with other transportation modes to increase modal share of bicycle transportation for all trip purposes POLICY: 2. Connect local bicycle facilities for bicyclists to ride to local and regional destinations, activity centers, connections to other transportation modes and the regional bicycle network. Waluga Neighborhood Plan Page 37 of 43 LU 00-0025 SUB -GOAL 8: TRANSIT SYSTEM GOAL: The City shall encourage transit ridership by working with Metro, 'Tri -Met and ODOT to cievelop a transit system which is fast, comfortable, accessible and economical through development of land use patterns, development design standards and street and pedestrian/bikewac improvements which support transit. POLICIES: 2. Develop Transit centers in Town Centers and Employment Centers where there is a need for transfer points between bus lines and local shuttle services or transit trunk routes. Transit centers will be conveniently located for all modes of transportation, in particular pedestrian, bike and transit. 3. The City will work with Tri -Met to ensure that the needs of the community's transportation disadvantaged are met by making transportation services more accessibly. Findines• The Waluga Neighborhood Plan conforms to the City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan in that its policies recognize that: • All modes of transportation will be provided within the neighborhood. • A transportation system of neighborhood collectors and local residential streets will be provided, which preserves the quiet, privacy and safety of the residential neighborhoods in the neighborhood by using flexible design standards, innovative surface water management, and preserving vegetation within the right-of-way. • Future transportation improvements will address the need to balance automobile access with the need to maintain the existing and land use patter and develop a comfortable and safe pedestrian environment. • Maintaining pedestrian pathways and encouraging development of additional pathways is strongly desired. • Access to public transit will increase, thereby providing additional opportunities for alternative modes of transportation. Conclusion: The Waluga Neighborhood Plan implements and is in conformance with City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan Goal 12, Transportation: Sub -Goal 1: Major Streets System, Goal and Policies 1, and 4 Sub -Goal 3: Neighborhood and Local Residential Streets, Coal and Policies I, 2, 4, 0 and 8 Sub -Goal 5: Transportation Demand Management, Policy 3 Sub -Goal G: Walking, Goal and Policies, 3,4 and 5 Sub -Goal 7: Bicycling, Goal and Policy 2 Sub -Goal 8: Transit System, Goal and Policies 2 and 3 Waluga Neighborhood Plan LU 00-0025 76 Page 38 of 43 Goal 13, Energy Conservation: Compliance with Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan, Goal 13: Energy Conservation: Policy 3 POLICY: 3. Reduce energy consumption related to transportation by promoting; a reduction in vehicle miles traveled through the sue of alternative transportation. Findines• The LFNP conforms to and implements the City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan, Goal 13, Energy Conservation in that the Plan provides for the following: • Encouraging the use of alternative transportation systems to reduce vehicle miles traveled, including walking, bicycling and transit. Conclusion: The Waluga Neighborhood Plan implements and is in conformance with City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan Goal 13, Energy Conservation, Policy 3 B. Oregon Statewide Planning Goals Goal 1, Citizen Involvement, Goal 2, Land Use Planning; Goal 5, Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic, and Natural Resources; Goal 8, Parks and Recreation, Goal 9, Economic Development, Goal 10, Housing; Goal 11, Public Facilities and Services and Goal 12, Transportation; Goal 13, Energy Conservation. The Waluga Neighborhood Plan complies with the above relevant Oregon Statewide (Tanning Goals as follmNs: Goal 1: Citizen Involvement Review of LU -00-0025 has conformed to all procedural requirements of the Lake Oswego Zoning and Development Codes and has been reviewed and determined to be consistent with the Citizen Involvement Goals of the City's acknowledged Comprehensive Plan. Goal 2: Land Use Planning The WNP has been reviewed and determined to be consistent with the City's acknowledged land use planning and policy framework. This review has determined that there is a factual basis to approve the Waluga Neighborhood Plan in that it is consistent with all applicable criteria. The Plan has also been coordinated with all applicable jurisdictions and agencies. Goal 5: Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic, and Natural Resources The WNP has been reviewed and determined to be consistent with the City's adopted and acknowledged Goal 5, Natural Resource Protection Program because it is consistent with the City's objectives of protecting inventoried and significant natural resources to the extent allowed by the City's acknowledged Goal 5 program. Waluga Neighborhood Plan LU 00-0025 Page 39 of 43 Goal 9: Economic Development The WNP has been reviewed and determined to be consistent with the need to provide for economic opportunities consistent with the needs of Lake Oswego residents for employment and the ability to acquire needed goods and services. Goal 10: Housing: The WNP has been reviewed and for the most part determined to be consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 10 in that it provides for the housing needs of existing and future Lake Oswego citizens and also provides the opportunity to accommodate future housing choices. The WNP, by not proposing to change its existing Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Designations helps maintain the City's overall conformance with the Metro Housing Goal. Goal 11: Public Facilities and Services: The WNP has been reviewed and determined to be consistent with Statewide Planning Goal I 1 in that it supports the provision of adequate public facilities and services to serve the range of land uses in the Neighborhood Plan boundary. Goal 12: Transportation: The WNP has been reviewed and determined to be consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 12 in that the proposed goals and policies support the development of a multi -modal transportation system in the neighborhood and maintenance of the ability of the local street network to accommodate current and future traffic. Goal 13: Energy Conservation: LU 00-0025 has been reviewed and determined to be consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 13 in that it promotes the development of a multi -modal transportation system in the neighborhood which should increase non -energy -consuming modes of transportation. C. Metro Urban Growth Manadrement Functional Plan The Metro Urban Growth Functional Plan was approved on November 21, 1996 by the Metro Council, and became effective February 19, 1997. The purpose of the plan is to implement the Regional Urban Growth Goals and Objectives (RUGGO), including the 2040 Growth Concept. The Functional Plan must be addressed when Comprehensive Plan Map Amendments are proposed through the quasi-judicial or legislative processes. The following responses address compliance with the Metro Functional Plan. Title 1 — Accommodation of Growth. This title requires changing local plans, if necessary, to increase permitted densities to assure sufficient capacity for the 2040 Growth Concept. The Waluga Neighborhood Plan is consistent with this title in that it proposes to maintain the current Plan and Zoning Map densities within the Neighborhood Plan boundaries. Waluga Neighborhood Plan Page 40 of 43 LU 00-0025 ,r Title 2 — Regional Parking Policy. This title regulates the amount of parking permitted by use for jurisdictions in the Metro region. This title is not applicable to the neighborhood plan. Title 3 — Water Quality and Flood Management Conservation The proposed Neighborhood Plan is consistent with the this title in that it recognizes and calls for the protection of Goal 5 resource lands designated by the City and also promotes surface water quality measures. Title 4 — Retail in Employment and Industrial Areas. Although there are no lands zoned industrial in the Waluga Neighborhood, the proposed Neighborhood Plan is consistent with the "Retail in Employment Areas" of this title in that it recognizes and calls for the continued development and improvement of the Lake Grove Business District. Title 5 — Neighbor Cities and Rural Reserves defines Metro's policy regarding areas outside of the Urban Growth Boundary. This site is within the Urban Growth Boundary; therefore, this Title does not apply. Title 6 — Regional Accessibility. This title recognizes the link between mode split, levels of congestion and street design and connectivity in creating a transportation system that works and supports the desired land use concept. The title is intended to establish an interconnected road system in undeveloped areas to reduce trips and encourage alternative modes of travel. This title is only partly applicable to the Waluga Neighborhood Plan. The Neighborhood is of an older established urban area and its road system is built and in place. However, the Neighborhood Plan calls for improvements to the existing transportation system to increase safety, biking and pedestrian uses and to reduce congestion. It also encourages additional transit and greater connectivity of streets and pedestrian facilities. Therefore the neighborhood plan is consistent with this Title. Title 7 — Affordable Housin . This title is advisory only and recommends that local jurisdictions implement tools to facilitate development of affordable housing. The proposed Neighborhood Plan supports this title because it promotes a balance of the existing land uses, including multi -family residential and mixed-use developments. Conclusion: LU 00-0025, the Waluga Neighborhood Plan complies with the relevant Titles of the Metro Functional Plan. D. Transportation Planning Rule This State of Oregon Administrative Rule applies to amendments to comprehensive plans, functional plans and land use regulations (OAR 660-12-060(1)). A finding must be made because the application requests amendment of the City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan. OAR 660-12-060(1) and (2) provides as follows: (1) Amendments to comprehensive plans, fnnnctional plans and land use regulations which Waluga Neighborhood Plan LU 00-0025 Page 41 of 43 significantly affect a transportation facility shall assure that allowed land uses are consistent with the identified function, capacity and level of service of the facility. This shall be accomplished by either: (a) limiting allowed land uses to be consistent with the plan functions, capacity and level ofservice of the transportation facility; (b) amending the TSP [Transportation System Plan] to provide transportation facilities adequate to support the proposed land uses consistent with the requirements of this division; (c) altering land use designations, densities, or design requirements to reduce demand for automobile travel and meet travel needs through other modes. (2) A land use regulation amendment significantly affects the transportation facility if it: (a) changes the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility; (b) changes a standard implementing a functional classification system; (c) allows types or levels of land uses which would result in levels of travel or access which are inconsistent with the fiinctional classification of a transportation facility; or (d) would reduce the level of service of the facility below the minimum acceptable level identified in TSP. " Findinis/Conclusion: OAR 660-12-060(1) and (2) is not applicable to LU -00-0025 because the Waluga Neighborhood Plan does not propose to change land use designations or the functional classification of streets within the neighborhood association's boundaries. E. City of Lake Oswego Development Code LOC 49.16.010 Purpose LOC 49.60 Legislative Decisions LOC 49.60.1500 Legislative Decisions Defined LOC 49.60.1505 Criteria for a Legislative Decision LOC 49.60.15 10 Required Notice to DLCD LOC 49.60.1520 City Council Review and Decision LOC 49.60.1525 Effective Date of Legislative Decision The City of Lake Oswego has conformed to all procedural requirements in LU 00-0025, evidence of which is contained in the record. VI. Conclusion/Recommendation: Staff has found that LU 00-0025, the Waluga Neighborhood Plan can be made to conform to all applicable decision-making criteria and recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council, the following: 1. Approval of the Waluga Neighborhood Plan 2. Amendment of the Waluga Neighborhood Plan Boundary 3. In order to be in compliance with the City Comprehensive Plan, Goal 9, Economic Development, it is recommended that proposed Policy 12 of Goal 9, of the Neighborhood Plan be removed as a policy and the language be relocated to the Summary of Major Issues in the Waluga Neighborhood Plan, Goal 9, Economic Development. Waluga Neighborhood Plan LU 00-0025 6U Page 42 of 43 Exhibits: 1. Waluga Neighborhood Plan, proposed draft dated April, 2001 2. Waluga Neighborhood Survey, June 1998 3. Summaries of Open Houses and Citizen Comments Received to Date (General Neighborhood Meeting/Open House April 19, 2000 and February 22, 2001) 4. Approved Minutes of the January 24, 2000, Planning Commission Meeting L:\Case Files\2000\LU 00-0025-waluga neigh. plan\Planning Commission\LU 00-0025 PC Staff Rcport.doc Waluga Neighborhood Plan Page 43 of 43 LU 00-0025 Proposed Waluga Neighborhood Plan Planning Commission Recommended Draft With Amendments from City Council Subcommittee on Neighborhood Plans January 16, 2002 Introduction In 1993, the City Council adopted a Neighborhood Planning Program to provide neighborhoods in Lake Oswego an opportunity to develop a vision and corresponding customized guidance on matters of land use, building and site design and capital expenditures. The Neighborhood Planning Program was designed to go beyond the general guidance provided by the Comprehensive Plan Goals and policies, in order to address more localized and specific neighborhood needs. This is the first time the Waluga Neighborhood has developed a Neighborhood Plan specific to the area contained within its neighborhood association boundaries (Figure 1). The Plan was developed over a period of over two years by the Waluga Neighborhood Association Plan Steering Committee and involved substantial research, review and discussions. Upon adoption, the Neighborhood Plan will be incorporated into the City's Comprehensive Plan by legislative amendment. It augments Citywide land use goals and policies in regard to land use within the boundaries of the Waluga Neighborhood Association. Because the Neighborhood Plan is part of the Citywide Comprehensive Plan it is required to be in conformance with Statewide Planning Goals and the Metro Regional Framework Plan, which is also enabled by state statute. The Neighborhood Plan, prior to public hearings for adoption, will be reviewed by both the City of Lake Oswego and the Department of Land Conservation and Development as to whether it meets these tests. Future changes are also evaluated as to consistency with the city, state and regional goals and policies. The Waluga Plan consists of eight goal and policy chapters as follows: GOAL 1: Citizen Involvement GOAL 2: Land Use GOAL 5: Open Space, Scenic and Historic Resources and Natural Resources GOAL 8: Parks and Recreation GOAL 9: Economic Development GOAL 10: Housing GOAL 11: Public Facilities and Services GOAL 12: Transportation These chapters are numbers and structured to be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Statewide Planning Goals. Also, terms and phrases marked with an (*) asterisk are defined in the definition section at the end of the documf It is important for both the Waluga Neighborhood Plan and the Lake Oswego EXHIBIT F•1 Comprehensive Plan to be responsive to changing conditions and circumstances Because the Neighborhood Plan is part of the Citywide Comprehensive Plan, its update is City Council Subcommiltce Draft 1/16/02 83 Page 1 required as part of periodic review of the City's Comprehensive Plan to address changes and unanticipated circumstances which occur over time. In addition, because the Waluga Plan is intended to "comprehensively address" land use policy issues in the neighborhood, and the neighborhood is part of the City as a whole, there are no parts of either the City's Comprehensive Plan of the Waluga Neighborhood Plan which can be considered separately from other parts. All Plan goals and policies are intended to be supportive of one another. However, when using the Neighborhood Plan to make decisions, if conflicts arise between goals and polices, the City has an obligation to make findings, which indicate why the goal or policy being supported takes precedence over those which are found to be in conflict. This involves a decision-making process on the part of the City, which balances and weighs the applicability and merits of both the Neighborhood Plan's and Comprehensive Plan's many goals and policies against one another. The City's Comprehensive Plan and its Neighborhood Plan elements occupy center stage for directing Lake Oswego's future. However, other planning activities and documents are also important. Other plans, such as the Park and Recreation Master Plan, Transportation System Plan, the various public facility plans, and the Capital Improvement Plan, are important to consider when making land use decisions. Any portion of these plans and any related action dealing with land use must be consistent with the policy direction of the Comprehensive plan and its Neighborhood Plan Chapters. The Neighborhood Plan elements of the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning and Development Codes are intended to mutually support one another. The Plans do not contain specific standards for development. Instead they provide the policy basis for specific standards and procedures of the Zoning and Development Code, which are used to review new development and modifications to existing development. However, the Plans are applicable to legislative and some quasi-judicial decisions such as Plan and Zone Map amendments and certain other land use actions, which must address applicable regulatory Plan goals and policies. These include actions such as conditional uses and text changes to the City's Zoning and Development Codes. City Council Subcommittee Draft 1/16/02 84 Page 2 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN FORMAT DEFINITIONS AND OBLIGATIONS OF GOALS, POLICIES AND RECOMMENDED ACTION MEASURES Goals, policies and recommended action measures identify the intent of the City to accomplish certain results. The different types of plan statements vary in specificity. Usually, goals are the most general, and policies and recommended action measures are the most specific. The City's obligations under these statements vary according to the type of statement. The goals and policies are intended to relate to one another. The goals are followed by supportive policies. The goals and policies in turn are supported by recommended action measures. However, each plan statement can stand alone, either as a goal or policy which are obligations the City wishes to assume, or as a recommended action measure which is a recommendation to achieve a desired end, but does not signify an obligation. The Comprehensive Plan and its Neighborhood Plan elements is the general guide for the city in matters relating to land use. However, a number of other factors should be recognized: The Plan is not the only document, which established City policies and planning activities. For example, the City must conform to the Municipal Code, state and federal regulations, and intergovernmental agreements. To the extent possible, these requirements are referenced in the Plan. 2. If a project or process is not addressed by the Plan, the City may still take appropriate action to address it. However, if necessary, the Plan should be amended in this circumstance. 3. Although the goals and policies do not specifically address disaster situations (washed out roads, fire, broken utility lines, etc.) the City's responsibility in areas f safety and public health may occasionally require emergency actions which would otherwise require adherence to specific permit requirements and findings of plan compliance. I. GOAL Definition: A general statement indicating a desired end or the direction the City will follow to achieve that end. Obligation: The City cannot take action, which violates a goal statement unless: 1. Action is being taken, which clearly supports another goal. 2. There are findings indicating the goal being supported takes precedence (in the particular case) over another. City Council subcommittee Draft 1/16/02 85 Page 3 H. POLICY Definition: A statement identifying Lake Oswego's position and a definitive course of action. Policies are more specific than goals. They often identify the City's position in regard to implementing goals. However, they are not the only actions the City can take to accomplish goals. Obligation: The City must follow relevant policy statements when amending the Comprehensive Plan, or developing other plans or ordinances which affect land use such as public facility plans, and zoning and development standards or show cause why the Comprehensive Plan should be amended consistent with the Statewide Land Use Goals. Such amendments must take place following prescribed procedures prior to taking an action that would otherwise appear to be in conflict a Plan policy. However, in the instance where specific Plan policies appear to be conflicting, the City shall seek solutions which maximize each applicable policy objective within the overall context of the Comprehensive Plan and Statewide Goals. As part of this balancing and weighting process, the City shall consider whether the policy contains mandatory language (e.g. shall, require) or more discretionary language (e.g, may, encourage). III. RECOMMENDED ACTION MEASURES Definition: A statement that outlines a specific City project or standard, which if executed, would implement goals and policies. Recommend action measures also refer to specific projects, standards, or courses of action the City desires other jurisdictions to take in regard to specific issues. These statements also define the relationship the City desires to have with other jurisdictions and agencies in implementing Comprehensive Plan goals and policies. Obligation: Completion of projects, adoption of standards, or the creation of certain relationships or agreements with other jurisdictions and agencies, will depend on a number of factors such as citizen priorities, finances, staff availability, etc. The City should periodically review recommended action measures to determine which are a priority to be accomplished in view of current circumstances, community needs and the City's goal and policy obligation. These statements are suggestions to future City decision -makers as ways to implement the goals and policies. The listing of recommended action measures in the plan does not obligate the City to accomplish them. Neither do recommended action measures impose obligation on applicants who request amendments or changes to the Comprehensive Plan or its Neighborhood Plan Chapters. The list of recommend action measures is not exclusive. It maybe added to or amended as conditions warrant. City Council subcommittee Draft 1/16/02 86 Page 4 NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER STATEMENT The Waluga Neighborhood boundary represents a diversity of public facility, commercial, office, single-family and multiple -family developments that desire to share a "planned community"* which maximizes the quality of life. The Waluga Neighborhood is striving to create a "small town" atmosphere which supports mass transit, maintains the current balance of land uses and densities, and provides clear transitions from different types of land uses. We are an active partner and supporter of the Lake Grove Business Association, which encourages business development and planning along the borders of our Neighborhood Association. The neighborhood's commercial businesses are patronized by both the neighborhood and the community. Commercial businesses on our east, west and north borders, provide valuable jobs and revenue to our area and we would like to see these businesses continue to thrive. However, efforts should be made to keep commercial generated traffic on the arterial system and to discourage cut -through traffic* in residential neighborhoods. The Waluga Neighborhood Association believes that the single-family residential area is slowly being encroached upon by multiple -family, commercial and office developments. Balance of the existing land uses should be maintained to ensure the preservation of the character and livability of the area is not jeopardized. We strive to improve and preserve the existing balance of land uses to maintain accessibility to the school, park and businesses and to encourage neighborhood interaction and a sense of community. We would also like to encourage and accommodate bicycle and pedestrian connectivity within the community in order to create a safe and friendly atmosphere. Higher density multiple -family developments are located between commercial areas and lower density residential development. This is an efficient and smart land use pattern that should continue to be used, as long as it is not a detriment to existing single-family residential development. With all considerations taken into account, new multi -family and commercial development should be located near major arterials, mass transit and businesses in order to take advantage of the potential for increased walking and decreased auto use. Waluga Park is a prized resource within the neighborhood association boundary and we want to continue to expand, improve and protect it, without negatively impacting neighborhood traffic and parking. We believe it greatly enhances the livability of our neighborhood and provides a cornerstone for our neighborhood and focal point. It is the goal of the Neighborhood Plan to ensure that new planning efforts and development support the vision for our neighborhood and that all residents are provided the opportunity to participate in the issues facing our neighborhood. The Waluga Neighborhood can be characterized as a quiet neighborhood on the edge of a vibrant and active commercial crossroad. The diversity of the land uses and destination points in this neighborhood represent one of Lake Oswego's finest mixed use neighborhood. City Council Subcommittec [haft 1/16/02 �, Page 5 The boundaries of the Waluga Neighborhood include approximately 208 acres of land comprised of single-family residential, multiple -family residential, office, commercial and park development. Of the 208 acres, there is approximately 28 acres of right-of-way (13.5%), 68 acres of housing (32%), 19 acres of park (9%) and 66 acres of commercial development (32%). The WN generally lies to the west of Boones Ferry Road, to the south and east of Carman Drive, north of Firwood Road and generally east of Waluga Drive. The Waluga Neighborhood is located along the crossroads of two major arterials, Kruse Way (which runs west -east connecting to I-5 and Boones Ferry Road) and Boones Ferry Road (which runs north -south connecting to I-5 and Portland). Residents within the neighborhood use these roadways to get to destination points within the Waluga Neighborhood such as Waluga Park, Lake Grove Elementary School, the commercial corridor located along Boones Ferry Road and the Kruse Way Office complexes located on Kruse Way. Waluga Park is approximately 53 acres, of which 19 active and tranquil acres are located in AN. The park is the site of an old working quarry and inactive volcano. The amenities the park offers include walking trails picnic areas, ball fields, wetlands, natural vegetation and wildlife. Due to the size, quality and amenities, the park attracts people from the abutting neighborhoods as well as Citywide. Another highlight of the neighborhood is the Lake Grove Elementary School. Between 1924 and 1953, the school was part of the Lake Grove School District. It wasn't until 1954 that the school became part the Lake Oswego School District. In 1949 the school burned down and had to be rebuilt. Today, the school site is approximately 7 acres in size, 61,000 square foot of building and serves children from kindergarten through sixth grade. As of January 2, 2001, there were 463 students attending the school. The Waluga Neighborhood is located in the heart of the Lake Grove Business District*. The area around the neighborhood was originally the center of a rural community, and has since grown and expanded both north and south along Boones Ferry Road and west along Kruse Way. Businesses in this area are primarily of a community or neighborhood scale, although as one goes further west along Kruse Way, commercial office complexes have developed in the recent past. This growth in commercial and office development has ensured that the Lake Grove Business District* will continue to prosper and contribute to the livelihood of the community. In conclusion, the Waluga Neighborhood wishes to continue to see the neighborhood flourish within its current diversity of natural resources, land uses and recreational opportunities, and at the same time, protect the balance of low-density residential, multi- family and commercial uses. The impact of over -development of multi -family or commercial uses around the periphery of the neighborhood would result in negatively impacting the quality of life that the neighborhood has come to enjoy. It is these characteristics that contribute to the quality of life that the neighborhood would like to preserve and enhance. City Council Subcommittee Draft 1/16/02 88 Page 6 GOAL 1: CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT Summary of Maior Issues: This Chapter of the Waluga Neighborhood Plan recognizes that opportunities must be provided for all residents to become involved in issues that affect them. It is especially true for the Waluga Neighborhood. The association was the second city recognized neighborhood association in Lake Oswego. Since then, neighborhood residents have been actively involved in commenting on current land use applications and developing transportation and land use plans for the neighborhood. It is important for the Waluga Neighborhood that there be continued involvement and cooperation in citywide as well a localized matter that relate to the neighborhood. Due to the diversity of land uses within the Waluga Neighborhood the plan recognizes and ensures that there be notification and the opportunity for comments on a variety of current land use issues, to make certain that compatibility and the character of the neighborhood is maintained. Goals: 1. Create opportunities for every interested citizen to be involved in all phases of the planning process to ensure that their concerns are heard. 2. Encourage broadly based public participation including all geographic areas and diverse interests. Ensure regular and ongoing two-way communication between citizens and City elected and appointed officials. 4. Ensure that all residents and business owners in the neighborhood have the opportunity to be involved in all phases of the land use planning process. 5. Ensure that communication within the neighborhood and to the City regarding issues of both neighborhood and citywide significance reflects the diversity of interest of those who live, work, and do business in the neighborhood. Policies: l . Assist the City in determining the priority needs for the Neighborhood and the City, through neighborhood involvement in City Boards and Commissions. 2. Ensure that coordination occurs between the Neighborhood Association, other neighborhoods and County Planning Organization (CPO)* in regard to land use, public facility planning and construction, and other matters which have impacts on neighborhood residents and business owners across neighborhood boundaries. 3. Provide timely information and notice so that both neighborhood residents and business owners have the opportunity to participate in land use actions and the development of public facilities. 4. Pursuant to LOC Chapter 49, ensure the neighborhood has adequate opportunity to understand and develop effective comments and testimony on land use applications. City Council Subcommittee Draft 1/16/02 8 9 Page 7 Recommend Action Measures: i. Support the Lake Oswego Neighborhood Action Coalition (LONAC)* through actions such as participating in general meetings. ii. Encourage elected and appointed City officials to periodically meet with the Neighborhood Association to ensure its opinions and needs are communicated directly to the City. Encourage the Lake Grove Business Association to develop and distribute information to area residents about shopping, entertainment and service opportunities provided by the Lake Grove Business District*. iv. Work in partnership with the Neighborhood Association to assure public notice, information and communication procedures are in place to prepare for possible public safety events such as fire and law enforcement incidents, inclement weather and other emergencies and natural and man-made disasters. V. Encourage neighborhood residents and business owners to make a personal commitment to neighborhood safety and social quality by taking interest in the well being of their neighbors. vi. Encourage neighborhood residents and business owners to work together toward betterment of their neighborhood. NIH. Make available to business owners and residents a copy of the adopted Neighborhood Plan to ensure they have the opportunity to become knowledgeable of the plan's content and applicability. viii. Work in partnership with the Neighborhood Association to develop Zoning Code text amendments to reflect the following: 1. When minor or major development is proposed, require that the minimum threshold for notification of proposed land use action be the closest fifty property owners when less than fifty are contained within the required 300 -foot notification boundary. Ensure that required pre -application neighborhood meetings between the applicant and the neighborhood are accurately communicated to decision - makers by requiring: a. The applicant to agree with Neighborhood Association chair upon a mutually convenient meeting date, time and place. b. Special attention shall be given to ensure that attendees concerns and issues are noted within the meeting minutes and that they are clearly audio -taped. The developer shall mail minutes to the attendees and the Neighborhood Association Chair or designee. A reasonable time, of not less than seven days following mailing, shall be provided for the chair or designee in consultation with the attendees, to review, correct if necessary, and approve the minutes. Also, the developer shall make City Council Subcommittee Draft 1/16/02 90 Page R copies of the tapes conveniently available for Neighborhood Association review within one week after the meeting and prior to development application to the City. c. Meeting audiotapes and written minutes approved by the Neighborhood Association chair or designee is provided to the City at the time of application submittal. City Council Subcommittee Draft 1/16/02 9 I Page 9 GOAL 2: LAND USE PLANNING Summary of Major Issues: The Waluga Neighborhood is unique in that it has developed into an example of a mixed use neighborhood. It has the distinction of having integrated low-density residential, high-density residential, special -use housing, commercial, office, retail and recreational uses, while also offering different modes of transportation for travel. It is this unique balance of land uses that contributes to the character of the Waluga Neighborhood and it is this character that the neighborhood would like to enhance and preserve. Residents recognize that the character of a neighborhood is the result of good land use planning goals, policies, regulations and standards. In this regard, it is essential that the Neighborhood Plan, the City's land use regulations, Comprehensive Plan and other planning efforts are consistent and support one another. It is especially important in regards to issues such as compatibility of new development and maintaining the balance of existing land uses. The Waluga Neighborhood would like to ensure that new development, be it single- family, multi -family, office or commercial, enhance and do not negatively impact the character of the neighborhood. Among other things, "character" includes aesthetics, the ability to walk and bike, natural resources, air quality and the sense of a friendly easygoing atmosphere. Maintaining the balance of land uses, especially for single-family dwellings is important. The Waluga Neighborhood Association believes that single-family dwellings represent an ever -shrinking island within the Waluga Neighborhood that needs to be preserved because of the perception that the single-family residential areas is slowly being encroached upon by multi -family, commercial and office developments. The balance of the existing land uses should be maintained to ensure the preservation of the character and livability of the area is not jeopardized. We strive to improve and preserve the existing balance of land uses to maintain accessibility to the school, park and businesses and to encourage neighborhood interaction and a sense of community. The Waluga Neighborhood Association has indicated that it will oppose attempts to rezone in any other areas of the neighborhood from the residential zoning designations existing at the time of the adoption of this plan based upon the policies herein, which the WNA believes that taken together as a whole discourage rezoning of residential to commercial outside of those areas depicted in Figure 6. Goals: I . Ensure that the City's land use planning processes and policy framework serve as a basis for all decisions and actions related to the use of land in the Waluga Neighborhood Association. 2. Ensure that the City's land use regulations, actions and related plans are consistent with and implement the Waluga Neighborhood Plan. City Council Subcommittee Draft 1/16/02 CJ ) Page 10 Policies: 1. Applicants proposing a zone/plan density change to R-0, R-2, R-2.5, or R-3, shall demonstrate that the proposal complies with the following criteria: a. Demonstrate that the proposed density is appropriate for the location given public facilities, natural resources and hazards, road or transit access and proximity to commercial areas and employment concentrations. b. A proposed plan/zone density change shall have no negative effect on the City's compliance with the Metropolitan Housing Rule (OAR 666-07-000). 2. As applicable by City Code, ensure that the architectural, site design and landscape character of new development and substantial remodel of structures within the Waluga Neighborhood is compatible* with the character of the existing neighborhood. 3. As applicable by City Code, ensure that the design and operation of group and residential care facilities and institutional uses are compatible* with, the site and neighborhood character. 4. Per City Code, require developers to bear the burden of proof to demonstrate how proposed land use actions are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, Waluga Neighborhood Plan and applicable codes and land use regulations. Do not adopt criteria that would include deterioration/demolition as justification for a zone change. 6. An applicant for a plan and zoning map change to a commercial designation shall be strictly required to demonstrate substantial evidence of the public need for the change, plus substantial evidence that the proposed change will best meet the identified public need versus other available alternatives, as required by Comprehensive Plan Goal 2, Policy 14(f). Recommended Action Measures: 1. Review and update the Waluga Neighborhood Plan concurrent with Periodic Review of the City's Comprehensive Plan. ii. Where possible encourage the conversion and change of zoning of commercial and multi -family properties to single-family residential zoning. iii. Investigate the feasibility of Comprehensive Plan and zone change amendments that would result in actual utilization of properties zoned other than single-family residential are actively used or developed to the appropriate underlying zone or initiate a zone change to reflect the existing use. For example, the properties located at 15820 and 15850 should be considered rezoned back to single-family residential use. iv. The Waluga Neighborhood Association shall encourage property owners and builders not to develop properties to maximum density through discussions at the required land use neighborhood meeting. City Council Subcommittee Draft 1/16/02 Nage 11 J;t V. The Neighborhood Association will support, review and communicate Waluga Neighborhood positions regarding development of Public Facilities Plans and the implementation of Capital Improvement Programs. vi. Explore the possibility of a Comprehensive Plan Text amendment that would apply a certain time limit on a Comprehensive Plan and Zone Change amendment, in which a property would be required to be used for what it was rezoned to, or the property would revert back to its original zoning designation. The property would automatically revert back to the previous zoning if no substantial progress has been made towards developing the property for what is was rezoned to. Substantial progress may include, but is not limited to, issuance of a building permit or the City's acceptance of a completed land use application. vii. When the city considers Comprehensive Plan amendments and zone changes to commercial uses within the Waluga Neighborhood boundary, it should consider if any change in circumstance has occurred which would cause a departure from: a. The Findings and Conclusion of "An Analysis of Commercial and Industrial land Use and Employment in Lake Oswego Oregon"'; b. Findings for vacancy rates for rentable retail space cited in the "Market Analysis for the Lake Oswego GAP Quick Response Grant2"; and c. Findings that there are not adequate employment opportunities such that the City cannot meet Metro established job targets identified within the most recent Metro 2020 Regional Forecast and Growth Allocation. t This is an August, 1988 Background Report prepared in fulfillment of Statewide Planning Goal 9 for the Periodic Review of the Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan. 2 This is a market analysis report prepared for a legislative Plan and Zoning Map Amendment PA 4-98/ZC 6-98/DA 1-98. City Council Subcommittee Draft 1/16/02 94 Page 12 GOAL 5: OPEN SPACES, SCENIC AND HISTORIC AREAS, AND NATURAL RESOURCES Summary of Maior Issues: A defining characteristic of the Waluga Neighborhood is its natural resources. Specifically, its mature tree canopy, the bountiful natural resources in Waluga Park and wetlands and tree groves found throughout the neighborhood. This signature characteristic should be preserved and enhanced. Along many of the residential streets in the neighborhood mature trees loom high above residential and commercial development, reflecting the fact that these trees have been here for a long time. Among these old trees, you also find meandering paths, which add to the sense of place and provides for safe and efficient pedestrian and bicyclist travel. Waluga Park is a prized resource within the Waluga Neighborhood and it should continue to be expanded, improved and protected, without negatively impacting the neighborhood's quality of life. The Waluga Neighborhood Association believes it greatly enhances the livability of the neighborhood and provides a cornerstone for the community. The Waluga Neighborhood contains a significant stream corridor*, wetlands* and tree groves* (Figure 4). These significant natural resources have been inventoried and identified in the Lake Oswego Sensitive Lands Inventory (ESEE Natural Resources Inventory analysis)*. Development which would impact these resources is regulated by LOC 48.17, Sensitive Lands Overlay District. These natural resources add to the character of the neighborhood and are important in many ways, such as providing for wildlife habitat, surface water quality and storm water conveyance, and adding to the natural beauty and aesthetics of the neighborhood. To preserve these natural resources, the Plan looks to emphasize many of the standards and regulation already in existence within the City Code. Protection and mitigation is sought through the vigilant application of the Sensitive Lands Ordinance. New landscaping and compatibility of uses is achieved through the stringent application and review of design standards. Goal: Preserve and protect Waluga Neighborhood's natural resources and wooded character. Policies: 1. Pursuant to LOC 48.17, preserve stream corridors*, tree groves*, wetlands* as designated by the City's Sensitive Lands Inventory (Figure 4), particularly within Waluga Park. 2. Pursuant to City Regulations, require preservation and maintenance of open space reserves* consistent with conditions of development approval including: a. Preventing the removal of trees and non-invasive vegetation* except as provided by the Lake Oswego Tree Code (LOC 55); b. Removing invasive vegetation* and replanting with native plant species where appropriate; City Council Subcommittee Dralt 1/16/02 95 Page 13 C. Preventing the dumping of garbage and yard debris in open space areas through enforcement of nuisance provisions Lake Oswego Code (LOC 34.08.490); and d. Not allowing the encroachment of structures, yards, landscaping or other private improvements. Preserve and where possible, enhance the Waluga Neighborhood tree canopy* by applying the City's tree cutting regulations to all parcels within the Neighborhood Plan Boundary, per LOC 55. 4. Where practicable*, require landscaping and planting of trees which grow to a significant size for all new development. Tree planting, including species selection and location shall take into account solar access requirements (LOC Chapter 57). 5. As per LOC 48.17, emphasize protection of significant trees* and tree groves* over tree and vegetation removal and subsequent mitigation through replanting. 6. Provide property owners the opportunity to preserve trees through participation in a City adopted Heritage Tree Protection Program*. 7. Where practicable, protect and enhance significant trees within the public right-of- way and on other public lands by: a. Adopting standards and regulations to protect public trees; b. Ensuring maintenance of adequate public right-of-way to plant trees that are known to grow to a significant size; and C. Ensuring no adverse effects from surrounding use impacts tree viability. Pursuant to LOC 48.17 ensure public works projects in the Waluga Neighborhood are designed, implemented and maintained to protect trees, stream corridor*, wildlife habitats and other natural resources. 9. Pursuant to LOC 48.17, ensure development does not disturb or harm surrounding or abutting natural resources and sensitive lands, either directly or indirectly, by requiring resource protection measures as part of the development review process. 10. When trees are removed in the Waluga Neighborhood in violation of the Lake Oswego Tree Code (LOC Chapter 55) ensure that tree planting, which is required for mitigation occurs within the Waluga Neighborhood's boundaries. 11. Protect, preserve and restore where practicable the natural resource functions and values of City inventoried stream corridors, wetlands and tree groves in the Waluga Neighborhood, which are shown on the Sensitive Lands Map and Atlas* and protected by the City's Zoning Code. 12. Pursuant to City standards, require storm drainage and water quality management measures* and facilities for all new development within and outside the Waluga Neighborhood to ensure Waluga Neighborhood properties and natural resources are protected from flooding, erosion and sedimentation and other effects of increased water run-off. City Council Subcommittee Draft 1/16/02 96 Page 14 13. Pursuant to LOC 48.17, allow property owners to conduct restoration activities within stream corridors, wetlands and tree groves without the dedication of conservation easements when these efforts are undertaken at their own expense. Recommended Action Measures: i. Actively support a Lake Oswego Community Forestry Program which: a. Provides for an ongoing planting and maintenance program for trees and other vegetation in public rights-of-way, natural areas, open spaces and parks. b. Provides information regarding tree care to the general public. ii. Encourage property owners and citizen groups to landscape with native plants along stream corridors and adjacent to wetland buffer areas. iii. Encourage the identification of historically significant buildings and features in the Waluga Neighborhood. iv. Encourage the dedication of conservation easements* to protect natural resources and open space. v. Develop and maintain landscaped entry features and focal points with the Waluga Neighborhood at the following location: a. At the intersection of Quarry Road and Boones Ferry Road. vi. Monitor the condition of Waluga Neighborhood's tree canopy over time, including the identification and progression of disease such as laminated root rot, through a City maintained data collection and inventory system. vii. Re-evaluate the labeling of the stream/wetland identified as W -17B (east side of Daniel Way) on the Sensitive Lands Map as "insignificant". City Council Subcommittee Draft 1/1&02yr Page 15 GOAL 8: Parks and Recreation Summary of Maior Issues: Waluga Park is approximately 53 acres, of which 19 active and tranquil acres are located in the Waluga Neighborhood. The park is the site of an old working quarry and inactive volcano. The amenities the park offers include walking trails picnic areas, ball fields, wetlands, natural vegetation and wildlife viewing. Due to the size, quality and amenities, the park attracts people from the abutting neighborhoods as well as citywide. The Waluga Neighborhood strongly identifies with the park because it provides the area a unique identity and it sets the tone for the character of the rest of the neighborhood and the surrounding community. The park is an amenity that should be preserved, maintained and improved for all to enjoy. Results of the neighborhood survey indicated that 72% of respondents were in favor of the City purchasing private property to add to the existing park. In addition, 66% of respondents supported the use of tax dollars to expand Waluga Park. Specifically, as identified in RAM (i), the Waluga Neighborhood would like the City to consider purchasing the property located at the corner of Quarry Road and Oakridge Road. The acquisition of this heavily wooded property would be a significant addition to the continued success of Waluga Park and serve as a potential pedestrian gateway to the park from the south. Goal: To expand, improve and maintain Waluga Park for active and passive activities, providing attractive, safe, functional and available access to all segments of the neighborhood population. Policies: I . Identify and recommend improvements to Waluga Park that satisfies the recreation needs of the neighborhood. 2. Identify and recommend acquisition of lands, contiguous with Waluga Park, when they become available on the market. Avoid the irrevocable loss of any parts of Waluga Park. 4. Per LOC Chapter 39, require developers to pay their equitable share for park acquisition and development costs. 5. Provide accessibility to all park users, which meet or exceed applicable state and federal laws. 6. According to community and neighborhood needs, add new facilities to Waluga Park, which enhance the character of the park. 7. Pursuant to City Code, develop Waluga Park such that: City Council Subcommittee Draft 1/16/02 96 Page 16 a. Developments are compatible with adjacent land uses, by using setbacks and effective buffering and screening to minimize impacts of intensive uses such as traffic, parking, bright lights and noise; b. Traffic generation does not exceed design capacity of adjacent streets at off peak hours, local streets are not used to accommodate traffic generated by intensive use, and adequate parking facilities are constructed to minimize and discourage automobile parking outside of the park on residential streets; and C. Accessibility to the park is available from all sides for bicycles and pedestrians, if not in conflict with natural resources. Recommended Action Measures: i. Actively pursue the acquisition of the currently available 4-5 acres of property at the corner of Oakridge Road and Quarry Road. ii. Actively work with the Lake Grove Christian Church on options for acquiring the property and facilities upon which they are located through acquisition, trading of other city property or a combination of both. iii. Work with the community and developers to develop a continuous pedestrian and bicycle pathway around the periphery of Waluga Park. iv. Assure appropriate levels of handicapped accessibility to Waluga Park that is reflective of such users in the Waluga Neighborhood. V. Work with the community and developers to develop additional pedestrian and bicycle pathways with the Kruse Way Open Space. vi. Seek citizen input in park and recreation planning through surveys, meetings and other appropriate methods. vii. Work with Neighborhood Associations to develop and integrate the City -owned water reservoir property on the north border of Waluga Park as part of Waluga Park. viii. Encourage reciprocating use of parking facilities between Lake Grove Elementary School and Waluga Park, City Council Subcommittee Draft 1/16/02 91_J J page 17 . GOAL 9: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Summary of Maior Issues: A portion of the Lake Grove Business District* is located within the Waluga Neighborhood Boundary. The area around the neighborhood was originally the center of a rural community, and has since grown and expanded both north and south along Boones Ferry Road and west along Kruse Way. Businesses in this area are primarily of a community or neighborhood scale, although as one goes further west along Kruse Way, commercial office complexes have developed in the recent past. This growth in commercial and office development has ensured that the Lake Grove Business District* will continue to prosper and contribute to the livelihood of the community. Within the Waluga Neighborhood, there are several 2040 Growth Concept* designations which may affect how development occurs. The Metro Functional Plan was adopted in November, 1996, to implement the Regional Urban Growth Goals and Objectives (RUGGO), including the 2040 Growth Concept. The overall principles embodied in the Metro 2040 Growth Concept and the RUGGO include encouraging a compact urban form in specific design type areas. The intent of focusing development in these design type area is to enable established neighborhoods outside of these design type areas to develop at existing Comprehensive Plan densities, rather than requiring higher densities. In this way, the greater proportion of additional units that jurisdictions are required to provide to meet targeted dwelling units for 2017 will be located in Design Type areas. The "design type" that are found in the Waluga Neighborhood area, include Town Centers*, Main Street*, Transit Corridors* and Employment Centers*. The Waluga Neighborhood understands that having a commercial and office center in its boundaries is an asset to the neighborhood. However, that asset must be balanced with the needs and interests of the residents who live in the area. To ensure balance and compatibility between commercial and residential development it was important to establish a boundary beyond which commercial development would not encroach into residential areas. This boundary is illustrated in Figure 6. The combination of this boundary and other existing design standards, such as buffering and landscaping requirements within the existing City Code will ensure that the existing amicable balance between residential and commercial development is not disrupted. The Waluga Neighborhood Association has indicated that it will oppose attempts to rezone in any other areas of the neighborhood from the residential zoning designations existing at the time of the adoption of this plan based upon the policies herein, which the WNA believes that taken together as a whole discourage rezoning of residential to commercial outside of those areas depicted in Figure 6. Goal: Promote policies and actions which support the viability of Lake Grove Business District* and its ability to provide goods and services to area residents and businesses in an innovative manner compatible with the character of surrounding residential neighborhoods. City Council Subcommittee Draft 1/16/02 100 Page 18 Policies: 1. Ensure that future improvements to Boones Ferry Road maintain or improve safe access to area businesses for the automobile, transit, pedestrians and bicyclists, while maintaining the function and character of adjacent neighborhood collectors and the local residential streets. 2. Minimize the number of driveway access points to Boones Ferry Road through use of wide consolidated driveways of sufficient width to allow simultaneous ingress and egress. 3. Provide opportunities for mixed-use development to occur in the Lake Grove Business District* whereby multi -story buildings would accommodate businesses on the ground floor and residential units above. 4. Develop and consider for adoption Zoning Code text amendments to not allow new drive-in or drive-through food service windows in the Lake Grove Business District*. Ensure the design quality of future development in the Lake Grove Business District* by enacting land use and design regulations which enhance the district's existing built environment and positive design qualities and which also provide the opportunity for a variety of architectural design, and building types and sizes, including variations in setbacks, height, bulk and scale, which are consistent with these characteristics. 6. New commercial development shall protect existing natural resources to the extent possible through implementation of approved protection plans. Vegetation which is removed, including trees, and especially mature Douglas Firs, shall be replaced consistent with approved landscape plans. New trees shall be installed whenever possible along streets, pedestrian ways, building setbacks and within public places. New commercial and multi -family development shall provide landscape buffering and screening between differing land uses to enhance aesthetic quality and mitigate visual and operational impacts, per existing City codes and regulations. Ensure that the design of new commercial development and required public improvements contribute to the development of a safe and efficient transit and pedestrian environment within the Lake Grove Business District*. 9. Ensure that land use regulations foster compatibility between new and existing commercial and multi -family development and with surrounding residential neighborhoods through measures such as: a. Outdoor lighting controls; b. Separating noise sources from adjacent noise sensitive uses; c. Containment and screening of trash collection areas; d. Utilizing setbacks, buffering and screening to mitigate the visual and operational impacts of outdoor storage areas and other outdoor activities; and e. Enforcement of prior conditions of development approval per LOC 48.02.055 — 48.02.075. City Council Subcommittee (haft 1/16/02 1 U 1 Page 19 10. Discourage and abate nuisance situations*, such as excess noise, unconfined garbage and light spillover, through enforcement of the nuisance provisions of the Lake Oswego Code (LOC 34.08.000 — 34.11.599). 11. Control and license home occupations* within the residential zones of the Waluga Neighborhood to ensure they will not increase traffic and noise or disrupt in any other way the livability and quality of life of the residential area. Recommended Action Measures: 1. Work with the Lake Oswego West/Lake Grove Business Association and area neighborhood associations to develop a plan for Boones Ferry Road, which will address: a. Safety and vehicular and pedestrian access to area businesses and adjacent residential neighborhoods; b. Future auto capacity needs of the roadway; c. Enhancement of the pedestrian environment; d. Transit; and e. Streetscape character and aesthetics. Encourage intra -city transit connections between the Lake Grove Business District* and other business districts and employment centers and with the City's residential neighborhoods. City Council Subcommittee Draft 1/16/02 102 Page 20 GOAL 10: HOUSING Summary of Maior Issues: The Waluga Neighborhood is an island of single-family residences, surrounded by multi- family, commercial and office campus uses. Currently, 17% of the total land area is developed with single-family dwellings. The Waluga Neighborhood would like to protect single-family residences from encroachment by multi -family and commercial uses as this potentially impacts the balance of land uses and the quality of life. There is little available land for development (approximately 6.4% is vacant), and what is available to be developed will likely be targeted for higher density uses. It is important to recognize that the mix of single-family and multi -family units within the Waluga Neighborhood boundaries meet or exceed the Metropolitan Housing Rule and State Goals3. Currently, 17% of the land within the WN is comprised of single-family residential development (148 single-family dwelling units) and 10.4% is comprised of multi -family residential development (308 multi -family dwelling units). The Waluga Neighborhood Association would urge that new developments that add density consider the lower density alternatives. In all cases, it is important that any new development be compatible in height, bulk and scale to the surrounding properties and that extensive buffering be required between step-downs from high -to -low density uses, especially when related to a zone change or when adjacent properties are more than one zoning level apart. The Waluga Neighborhood Association would like to see that the existing housing stock be preserved and low-density single-family uses be encouraged in the neighborhood. Infill development and secondary housing units may be allowed, including flag lots*, subject to specific design and development standards to ensure design compatibility. Also of importance is that zoning standards be used to ensure that all new residential development, including substantial remodeling, contributes to the positive design character of the neighborhood. Preservation of the character of existing local streets is important, including the non -grid street pattern and preservation of trees within street right-of-way* and on adjacent property, which provide tree canopy and shade. Goals: 1. Preserve, maintain and enhance the livability and aesthetic character of Waluga's residential neighborhoods. 2. Encourage improvement and maintenance of properties within the Waluga Neighborhood boundary to increase aesthetics and uphold property values. 3. Maintain the low density, detached single-family residential character ol'the Waluga Neighborhood. "Metropolitan Housing Rule" (OAR -660-7-000-060). This rule requires the City provide an opportunity for a 501/o/50% mix of single-family and multi -family or attached housing. City Council Subcommittee Draft 1/16/02 tui Pulte 21 Policies: 1. In accordance with LOC 48.26, do not allow the expansion or increase in non- conformance of a non -conforming use. Non -conforming uses may affect the quality of life in the Waluga Neighborhood through noise, traffic, glare and appearance of structures that may be incompatible with abutting residential uses. Replacement of non -conforming uses with permitted uses is strongly encouraged. Pursuant to Standards for Secondary Dwelling Units and Lake Oswego Systems Development Charges Code (LOC Chapter 39), secondary dwelling units shall: a. Have one unit be occupied by the property owner. b. Pay applicable systems development charges (SDC). An applicant for a plan and zoning map change to a multi -family designation shall be strictly required to demonstrate substantial evidence of the public need for the change, plus substantial evidence that the proposed change will best meet the identified public need versus other available alternatives, as required by Comprehensive Plan Goal 2, Policy 14(f). 4. Enhance the character of low density residential development within the Waluga Neighborhood by requiring the preservation of open space and natural resources pursuant to the City's adopted Sensitive Lands Ordinance.] Ensure that the scale and character of neighborhood collectors and local streets, which provide access to and within Waluga's residential neighborhoods are appropriate to the area served and are designed in accordance with the Lake Oswego Development Standards. Ensure that undeveloped street right-of-way* remains available for street trees, on - street parking and pedestrian use and is not prevented from being utilized for these and other public uses by private encroachments such as landscape improvements and storage of vehicles, boats and equipment. Pursuant to LOC 48.20, ensure home occupations* do not conduct business activities that cause adverse impacts on residential neighborhoods such as outside storage, excessive traffic, inappropriate hours of operation noise, etc. 8. Pursuant to the Lake Oswego Uniform Traffic Code (LOC Chapter 32), require those who store boats, recreational vehicles, equipment and automobiles under repair on the street right-of-way*, to remove them from the street right-of-way*. Recommended :fiction Measures: i. Develop design standards specific to Waluga Neighborhood to ensure all new residential development, including secondary dwellings and homes being substantially remodeled contribute to the neighborhood's positive design character which address issues such as: a. Height, bulk and lot coverage to ensure new residential development does not conflict with the predominant scale and design characteristics of the neighborhood; City Council Subcommittee Draft 1/16/02 .1011 Page 22 b. Minimizing the impact of the automobile on the development site through residential design and development standards, which prescribe measures such as garage location, size of paved areas, driveway size and location, etc; c. Appropriate setbacks, buffering and screening between existing and proposed development; and d. Preservation of existing mature canopy trees and other significant trees and other landscape features to the extent practicable. ii. Encourage the upgrading and remodeling of existing residential structures rather than demolition and new construction. iii. Encourage owners who store recreational vehicles, construction equipment and non -operational automobiles in front yards to relocate them away from public view. iv. Promote public safety and a sense of visual and social connection throughout the neighborhood by: a. Discouraging the planting of hedges and other plant materials which substantially screens residences from view. b. Encouraging property owners to cutback overgrown vegetation. V. Revise existing development standards for setbacks, lot coverage, house size, compatibility, mass, bulk, scale and height, solar access, or other aspects of building placement or massing, for the purposes of ensuring compatibility with existing, surrounding neighborhood development. vi. Investigate the feasibility of amending the Comprehensive Plan Map from GC/RO to R-7.5 for the properties at 15820 and 15850 Quarry Road due to the existing single-family character of the area. vii. Investigate the feasibility of amending the Comprehensive Plan Map from R-5 to R-7.5 for the property located at the northwest corner of Oakridge Road and Quarry Road due to the existing single-family character of the area. viii. Pursue the feasibility of purchasing the property currently zoned R-5, located at Oakridge Road and Quant' Road, and include it within Waluga Park, creating a gateway into the park from the south and therefore creating the opportunity for future pathways and facilities. ix. Produce and distribute a brochure on city code and enforcement to distribute to neighborhood residents and post on the City web site so that they can assist in maintaining neighborhood aesthetics. X. Encourage those who propose to construct homes larger than two-story to meet with neighborhood residents (residing within at least 300 feet) prior to obtaining building permits to promote: a. Compatibility in building design and scale with the surrounding homes; b. Tree preservation; and City Council Subcommittee [haft 1/16002 105 Page 23 c. Protection of neighbor's existing views. xi. Maintain a non -grid street pattern in the Waluga Neighborhood to preserve the peaceful and quiet feel of the neighborhood. City Council Subcommittee Draft 1/16/02 .106 Page 24 GOAL 11: PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES Summary of Maior Issues: The Neighborhood Plan recognizes that the City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan contains numerous policies which are applicable to the community as a whole. In view that the Citywide Plan is generally sufficient, this element of the Neighborhood Plan was developed to apply to the Waluga Neighborhood's specific conditions, character and needs. They are intended to be supportive and complementary to the other Comprehensive Plan polices which apply citywide. The Plan Chapter addresses Police and Fire Protection, Storm Water and Surface Management, Water Treatment and Delivery, and Private Utilities and Schools. The common emphasis of the Goals and Policies is to ensure that the Waluga Neighborhood is provided with high quality, responsive and environmentally sound public facilities and services. However, issues of particular importance to the Waluga Neighborhood include: the continuance of quality and reliable facilities and services; promoting coordination with all service providers in order to receive the best level of service; and working with the Lake Oswego School District to resolve any issues that may arise. The Waluga Neighborhood is located to the northeast of an area of land that is currently located in Clackamas County. In expectation that the unincorporated area will be annexed into the City and be developed, the neighborhood would like to ensure that adequate facilities and services are available for any future development. Equally as important is that if services are extended, that existing services to the neighborhood are not negatively affected or interrupted. An important institution in the Waluga Neighborhood is the Lake Grove Elementary School. A concern that the neighborhood has is the continued use of the bus barn at the school. Specifically, the buses potentially negatively impact the surrounding neighbors by producing noise in the early morning, affect the air quality and pose potential traffic problems while navigating through the narrow neighborhood streets. The Waluga Neighborhood Association would like to work with Lake Oswego School District to address these issues. Goal: Police and Fire Protection Provide a high level* of police, tirc protection and emergency preparedness services to the Waluga Neighborhood. Policies: 1. Ensure all, police and fire protection service levels are not diminished during transitions with new developments and annexed areas. 2. Utilize law enforcement when necessary to: a. Ensure safety in the Waluga Neighborhood, Kruse Way and Boones Ferry Road. b. Prevent illegal activities at Waluga Park. City Council Subcommittee Draft 1116/02 t Page 25 1U( Recommended Action Measures: 1. Recognize the special public safety needs of Lake Oswego's elderly, young and socially disadvantaged. Provide primary prevention services to these groups, such as: a. Traffic safety and drug education; b. Home fire and crime proofing information; C. Support for Neighborhood Watch and block programs; and d. Personal safety education. ii. Increase traffic safety through: a. Review of planning and engineering proposals to ensure safe road design; b. Active bicycle, pedestrian and safety belt enforcement; and C. Maintenance of an active community traffic safety program. iii. Support the Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) through public education and support neighborhood volunteers. iv. Raise issues with local agencies regarding particular situations relevant to the Waluga neighborhood, including: a. Waluga Park safety; b. Pedestrian safety around Lake Grove Elementary School; and C. Minimize non -emergency vehicle trips for school buses and fire engines on residential and neighborhood collector streets. Goal: Storm Water Management and Surface Water Management In the Waluga Neighborhood, reduce, and where possible elitninate, flooding, soil erosion, standing water in the public right-of-way*, and water pollution associated with storm water runoff. Policies: 1. Congruent with the Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan, utilize natural systems and non-structural methods to control storm water run-off at the source as a preference to structural systems to the extent allowed by site characteristics Pursuant to the Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan, require all storm drainage improvements on private property, and that required as a condition of new development to: a. Accommodate storm drainage flows of development at full build -out; and b. Be compatible with the City's Storm Drainage Public Facility and Capital Improvement Plans and Surface Water Management Program. Per City requirements, consistent with local, state and federal regulations, developers shall identify the use of any hazardous materials on the property and procedures to be used to assure inadvertent leakage or run-off into the storm drainage system does not occur. City Council subcommittee Draft 1/16/02 10b Page 26 4. Implement any storm water improvements identified in the Lake Oswego Public Facilities Plan necessary to improve the drainage system. Recommended Action Measures: i. Work with neighbors to identify and correct situations where hazardous chemicals have the potential to leak into the storm drainage system. Goal: Water Treatment and Delivery Provide reliable and adequate supply of high quality water to meet the existing and futures needs of the Waluga Neighborhood. Policies: 1. Consistent with City requirements, require all developers to provide and make available, plans and documentation to the City and Neighborhood Association, to ensure that new developments will have adequate water service to meet domestic needs, fire flow requirements and to extend (when necessary) adequately sized water lines with sufficient water pressure to all new development. 2. Implement any improvements identified in the Lake Oswego Public Facilities Plan and Capital Improvements Plan to ensure increased water storage capacity and improved fire protection and domestic water service. Recommended Action Measure: i. Work with residents to resolve low water pressure issues, especially in the area south of Douglas Way and east of Quarry Road. Goal: Wastewater Collection and Treatment Ensure Waluga residents receive environmentally safe and reliable sanitary sewer service. Policy: 1. Consistent with City Code, ensure that future construction of sanitary lines in the Waluga Neighborhood minimizes impacts on developed properties and utilizes the public right-of-way* or existing easements whenever possible. Goal: Private Utilities and Schools Ensure the availability of administrative and general government services and coordination with others to provide schools, energy and communications services. Policies: 1. Encourage the Lake Oswego School District to maintain and improve the Lake Grove Elementary School. 2. Work with the Lake Oswego School District on alternative locations for the bus barn and maintenance facility that would have fewer impacts on the neighborhood. City Council Subcornnunee Dratt 1/16/02 Page 27 �u:� Recommended Action Measures: i. Encourage the Lake Oswego School District to develop a Facility Plan in relation to the Waluga Neighborhood Plan. ii. Work with the School District to address issues relating to the Waluga Neighborhood, such as: a. Minimizing traffic on residential and neighborhood collector streets, by finding alternative routes to major collectors other than Quarry Road; b. Solving unsafe traffic and pedestrian safety situations, particularly at the corner of Douglas Way and Quarry Road where it is unsafe for buses making turns when there is opposing traffic or pedestrians in the area; c. Improving the sidewalks across the school property along Douglas Way to create paths that do not share the parking facility; and d. Minimizing the noise and disruption caused by the bus barn, by finding alternative locations, such as the City's maintenance facility on Jean Road. WaluQa Neighborhood Public Facility Projects and Capital Improvement Ilan The following public facility projects (Figure 7) are identified within the City's 20 -year Public Facility Plan* (PFP) and 5 -year Capital Improvement Program* (CIP). It should be noted that some projects are identified in one plan and not in the other. In addition, the Waluga Plan has identified specific projects, which it desires to see addressed. The funded CIP projects are priority projects, which are intended to be implemented over a 5 - year period. PFP projects, which have not been included in the CIP, are proposed to be implemented over a longer time frame- up to 20 years. Neighborhoods have an ongoing opportunity to influence the type and timing of public facility projects by participating in the CIP and PFP updates. Update of the CIP corresponds to the budget process either at one or two year intervals, and includes several opportunities for neighborhood involvement at public meetings and at Planning Commission and City Council public hearings. The following projects are listed by their reference numbers in the City's Public Facility Plan*. Those projects that do not have reference numbers are identified in the 5 -year Capital Improvement Plan and not in the PFP. Public Facility Projects PFP Project SW -27 — Springbrook Creek from Boones Ferry Road to Kruse Way This project was to improve the pipes for the flow of storm water. The project is scheduled to begin in 2002 at a cost of $279,000. However, the City is currently in the process of updating the CIP and this project may not be included. PFP Project WA -22— Waluga Tank Repair This is a relatively small project to repair some minor damage to the water tank. This project is scheduled to begin in 2002. The estimated cost of the project is $3,000 and the funding source is Water System Development Charges. City Council Subcommittee Draft 1/16/02 Page 28 Capital Improvement Plan CIP Project WA -9 — Waluga Reservoir No. 2 Design This project consists of a design of a 3.5 million gallon reservoir to augment an existing 4 million gallon reservoir. The proposed location will be north of the existing reservoir. The new reservoir will increase water storage capacity, improve fire protection and domestic water service to the Downtown, First Addition. The project is tentatively scheduled in the CIP for 2003-2004 and is estimated to cost $465,000. The funding source is Water Bonds. City Council Subcommittee Draft 1/16/02 111 Page 29 GOAL 12: TRANSPORTATION Summary of Maior Issues: The boundaries of the Waluga Neighborhood include approximately 208 acres of land comprised of single-family residential, multiple -family residential, office, commercial and park development. Of the 208 acres, there are approximately 28 acres of right-of- way (13.5%). The WN is located along the crossroads of two major arterials, Kruse way (which runs east and west) and Boones Ferry Road (which runs north and south). Other significant roadways include Carman Drive, a major collector connecting I-5 with Kruse Way, located on the northwest boundary and Quarry Road, a neighborhood collector, which allows local residents of the neighborhood to access Carman Drive and Boones Ferry Road in such a manner to disperse traffic to the nearest collector or arterial. Many people use these roadways to get to destination points within the neighborhood such as Waluga Park, Lake Grove Elementary School, the commercial corridor located along Boones Ferry Road and the Kruse Way Office complexes located on Kruse Way. The Waluga Neighborhood Plan Transportation Goals and Policies are based on the concerns developed through the neighborhood survey. While 50% of the respondents indicated that school crossings ensure adequate safety for children, only 39% of respondents indicated that generally pedestrians are safe when walking in the area. The neighborhood would like to emphasize the continued safety for children and also improve the quality and safety of pedestrian paths through the Waluga Neighborhood by promoting and developing additional pathways that would add to the existing character of the neighborhood pathway system and provide additional opportunities to destination points in the Waluga Neighborhood. Of major concern as reflected in the survey, 94% of the respondents indicated that cut - through traffic* should be limited, especially traffic from the Kruse Way office complex area and from southbound traffic on Carman Drive from the Westlake/Holly Orchards area. In addition, the area has a lot of pedestrian activity due to the proximity of the school, park and commercial developments in the area and traffic speeds should be addressed through traffic calming measures. Also of concern is that the character of the neighborhood's streets and pathways remain in character and appropriate for the Waluga Neighborhood. Of particular concern is Quarry Road. Quarry Road receives a lot of cut -through traffic* due to its locational relationship to commercial developments on Boones Ferry Road and the office complexes on Meadows Road. Commuters use this shortcut between Kruse Way and Boones Ferry Road to avoid traffic and potentially save time. Traffic management needs to be continually addressed on Quarry Road. Recent measures such as erecting stops signs at problem locations have successfully addressed some of the traffic issues, however as new commercial and office complexes are constructed on Meadows Road, the more need there is to review further measures to address increased traffic. In summary, the direction of this chapter is to: Manage traffic to reduce the amount of cut -through traffic* and excessive vehicle speeds through the neighborhood; Improve and provide for practical and safe pedestrian, bicycling and transit opportunities; Maintain the quality and appropriateness of the transportation system.; and Emphasize safety for pedestrian and bicyclists. Also of importance is the management of traffic in the City Council subcommittee Draft 1/16/02 Page 30 11; neighborhood, especially relating to cut -through traffic* and speeding and maintaining the functional nature of the transportation system with the character of the neighborhood. Goal: Ensure that the transportation system in the Waluga Neighborhood is safe and enhances neighborhood character and quality by: a. Improving safety of all transportation modes*; b. Maintaining and enhancing the aesthetic quality, natural resources, privacy and quiet of residential areas; c. Providing for adequate traffic movement and access within residential and business areas appropriate to the aesthetic character, transportation, and safety needs of each area; d. Providing practicable pedestrian, transit, parking and bicycling opportunities; and e. Ensuring accessibility for the handicapped. Policies: 1. Maintain the character of the Waluga Neighborhood's street system by: a. Utilizing flexible design standards and innovative surface water management solutions in accordance with City Code to ensure pavement width and street design is appropriate for the function of the street and needs of the area served. b. Using permeable surfaces and roadside ditches and bio -filtration methods in accordance with City Code to convey and treat surface water run-off. 2. Where practicable, preserve trees within the street right-of-way* and encourage private property owners to preserve trees on their property, which provide tree canopy and shade. Where appropriate, utilize traffic management devices to prevent speeding and discourage cut -through traffic* on local residential streets and neighborhood collectors. 4. Future transportation improvements should address the need to balance automobile access with the need to maintain the existing land use pattern and develop a comfortable and safe pedestrian shopping environment. 5. Ensure the ability to walk and bike safely throughout the neighborhood by providing bicycle and pedestrian facilities: a. At a minimum, on one side of all neighborhood collectors and other selected local streets; b. On both sides of major streets (arterials and major collectors); and c. Where practicable, sidewalks, pathways and bike lanes that provide contiguous paths between major streets. 6. Pursuant to the Neighborhood Traffic Management Program LOC Chapter 32.14, encourage the ability to walk and bike safely throughout the neighborhood without City Council Subcommittee Drag 1/I6/02 Page 31 113 impacting the neighborhood's natural resources or character by utilizing traffic management measures where necessary to maintain low speeds and traffic volumes. 7. Work with Tri -Met to encourage greater access to public transit service through more frequent bus service on existing lines and safe and convenient pedestrian and bicycle connections to transit. Ensure that Waluga residents are integrally involved from start to finish in the planning, design and implementation of transportation projects that could affect the neighborhood. 9. Encourage acquisition or development of land for pathways that do not parallel streets, when street connections are not feasible. 10. In accordance with the City Code and where practicable* require that new development develop shared access to Boones Ferry Road through use of consolidated driveways of sufficient width to allow simultaneous ingress and egress and shared parking facilities. 11. Amend the Transportation System Plan (TSP, Figure 9) to add a sidewalk along the south side of Douglas Way from Quarry Road to Boones Ferry Road to ensure safe pedestrian movement unless other pedestrian access becomes available. 2. Maintain the character of Quarry Road, through maintenance and address negative impacts such as a decrease in safety and aesthetics, cut -through traffic* and speeding by implementing traffic management measures. 13. Keep open and maintain all existing pathways within the neighborhood unless it can be shown through factual documentation that the pathway is unsafe to abutting property owners and that there is no longer a need for the pathway. Recommended Action Measures: i. Work with Tri -Met to provide neighborhood residents, business owners, employees and customers greater access to transit service by: a. Instituting flexible routes and providing local circulator service to residential areas; b. Providing frequent transit service to and from the Lake Grove Commercial; c. District, Downtown Lake Oswego and Kruse Way Employment Centers; d. Increasing frequency of fixed bus routes along Boones Ferry Road; and e. Improving the comfort and safety of transit waiting areas. Support the development of a Transportation Management Association (TMA) among Waluga area businesses to encourage measures to reduce single occupant automobile use such as: a. Subsidization of transit options such as local circulator buses; b. Car and van -pools for employees; and c. Incentives for employees and customers who utilize alternative transit options. City Council Subcomminec [haft 1/16/02 A Page 32 iii. Ensure discussion of transportation issues involves other Regional Centers, Town Centers and Employment Centers that have direct transportation connections with the Lake Grove Business District* such as Downtown Tualatin, Tigard, Washington Square, Kruse Way and Downtown Lake Oswego. iv. Preserve the character of Waluga Neighborhood's local residential streets by: a. Traffic management; b. Ensuring the capacity of major street systems to prevent dispersion of through traffic onto local residential streets; c. Truck ordinance routing; d. Measures to enhance safety of walking and biking; e. Reduced Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT); and f. Controlling the speed and volume of traffic through measures which calm the flow of traffic, including speed bumps, "Neighborhood Residents Only" signs and additional stop signs. V. Develop site specific solutions to ensure safe and comfortable bike and pedestrian use along Boones Ferry Road, including safe crossing opportunities. vi. Work with area schools, churches, local businesses and city parks to minimize parking impacts on neighborhood streets. Vii. The Waluga Neighborhood Association shall work with the City of Lake Oswego to resolve traffic problems that are in the best interest of the City and the safety and character of the neighborhood. Examples of coordination included cooperation in the analysis and placement of traffic management devices, traffic control devices, traffic counts, speed studies and public education. viii. Increase and improve pedestrian crossing opportunities and safety across major streets to shopping, transit and employment. Consider textured or raised crosswalks, pedestrian signals, mid -block curb extensions to reduce crossing distance, or improve sight distance and additional crosswalks where appropriate. ix. Develop a parking strategy for the Lake Grove Business District*, Waluga Park and Lake Grove Elementary School to: a. Ensure safe access to area businesses, parks and schools. b. Maximize the efficiency of lands available for parking. Identify potential traffic safety issues and take measures to promptly correct these situations as they arise. In particular, special attention should be given to Galewood Street at Quarry Road. These problems include poor street geometry, sight -distance problems* and turning radius restrictions, which pose traffic hazards and prevent safe access by emergency vehicles and school buses. Solutions may include street realignment, vegetation removal, installation of convex mirrors, and installation of stop bars. City Council Subcommittee Draft 1/16/02 l l J Page 33 xi. Work with the Waluga Neighborhood to determine the appropriateness of speed bumps or other traffic management devices on neighborhood streets, including Quarry Road, Douglas Way and Galewood Street. xii. Design and place neighborhood identification signage at major neighborhood intersections, including the entrance to the Waluga neighborhood at the intersection of Quarry Road, Carman Drive and Meadows Road. xiii. Actively enforce speed limits within the Waluga Neighborhood, especially along Quarry Road and Douglas Way, as well as in other areas determined by City - sponsored traffic studies to be above normal speeds. xiv. Conduct traffic studies, as needed to review traffic patterns and actively work to calm traffic on neighborhood streets. xv. Encourage neighbors, businesses, Lake Oswego Parks Department and Clackamas County to: a. Apply no herbicides, pesticides or fertilizers in public rights-of-way* or utility easements; b. Continue the Parks Department Integrated Pest Management program for Waluga Park; c. Provide notice to adjacent property owners at least 15 days prior to any applications; and d. Post notice at such locations, where applications exceed minor spot applications, clearly marking the boundaries of the application, for a period of not less than 15 days from the date of the application. xvi. Support the construction of improvements on Boones Ferry Road, Kruse Way and Carman Drive, which facilitate the flow of traffic and reduces non -local trips throughout the neighborhood. xvii. Study alternatives strategies to safely cross both Boones Ferry Road and Douglas Way, in proximity to the Lake Grove Elementary School. xviii. Support the Public Maintenance Department's policy to not allow the application of herbicides, pesticides or fertilizers in public right-of-way* or easements by the City of Lake Oswego Maintenance Services Department. City Council Subcommittee Drag 1/16102 116 Page 34 Definitions: Wo -filtration: Bio -filtration refers to practices, natural features and specially constructed facilities that use natural processes to remove sediments and other pollutants from surface water. For example, natural features such as vegetated swales, wetlands, stream corridors and permeable surfaces provide bio -filtration of surface water. Capital Improvement Plan (CIP): The City of Lake Oswego's Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) is a .five year planning, programming, and financing plan for protecting the City's investment in its infrastructure and for constructing new facilities to meet increased service demands. Each year, Lake Oswego's CIP is updated and presents a prioritized schedule of major public improvements that will be implemented within a five year period and their possible sources of funding. Compatible: For the purposes of the Waluga Neighborhood Plan, this term is described as capable of existing, functioning, and performing in a harmonious, agreeable combination with another or others in regards to and not limited to the following; aesthetics, preservation of natural resources, transportation, etc... Conservation Easement: The granting of conservation easements is made possible by LOC Chapter 59, which establishes a process to encourage the voluntary retention and protection of the natural, scenic and open space values of the community by private property owners through donation or dedication of easements to the City or other non- profit or governmental organization whose purpose is to protect these resources. County Planning Organization (CPO): County Planning Organizations (CPOs) are comparable to the City of Lake Oswego Neighborhood Associations and are chartered by Clackamas County. There are three CPOs in the Lake Oswego Urban Services Boundary and adjacent to the City limits: Rosewood Action Group, Forest Highlands and, Lake Forest CPOs. Cut -Through Traffic: Cut -through traffic is through traffic or auto trips, which have neither trip end nor beginning within the neighborhood association boundary. Pursuant to Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan, Goal 12, Sub -Goal 1, cut -through traffic is discouraged on residential streets and neighborhood collectors. Dangerous Building: Buildings or structures that are regulated pursuant to the city of Lake Oswego Building Code [LOC Chapter 45), which are structurally unsafe or not provided with adequate egress, or which constitute a fire hazard or are otherwise dangerous to human life. The Building Code pursuant to LOC 45.09.060 declares any use of these structures, which constitute a hazard to safety, health, or public welfare by reason of inadequate maintenance, dilapidation, obsolescence, fire hazard, disaster damage or abandonment as an unsafe use. Also declared unsafe are parapet walls, City Council Subcommittee Draft 1/1"2 117 Page 35 cornices, spires, towers, tanks, statuary and other appendages or structural members which are supported by, attached to, or part of a building and which are in a deteriorated condition or otherwise unable to sustain design loads specified in the Lake Oswego Building Code. Dangerous and Unsafe Buildings may be adapted by the City of Lake Oswego, when located in the City or by Clackamas County, when located in the incorporated area. Employment Center: An area containing various types of employment and some high density residential, with limited commercial uses. There is one designated employment area in Lake Oswego, which encompasses areas which are designated by the Comprehensive Plan as Highway commercial, Campus Research and Development, office Campus, R-0 and some R-3, within the Kruse Way Corridor. ESEE Natural Resources Inventory: The Economical, Social, Environmental and Energy Analysis (ESEE) required under Statewide Planning Goal 5. The purpose of the ESEE is to inventory natural resource sites and identify their relative resource value for the purpose of determining an appropriate level of protection through land use regulations. Flag Lot: A Flag Lot is a lot located behind another lot that has normal street frontage and where access is provided to the rear of the lot via a narrow "flag pole" (i.e. driveway), or an easement. There are two distinct parts of a flag lot; the flag, which comprises the actual building site, located behind another lot, and the pole, which, provides access from the street to the flag. A flag lot results from the division of a large lot with the required area and depth for two lots, but which has insufficient width to locate both lots on the street frontage. The creation of flag lots is subject to specific criteria within LOC 48.19 to enhance compatibility with the surrounding residential neighborhood. Heritage Tree Protection Program: The Heritage Tree refers to the City Ordinance No. 2159, which is intended to recognize, foster appreciation of and provide for the voluntary protection of "Heritage Trees." A Heritage Tree(s) is a tree or stand of trees of landmark importance due to age, size, species, horticultural quality or historic importance. High Level of Police, Fire Protection and Emergency Preparedness Services: For the purposes of the Waluga Plan, this term is described as: a. The ability of the Lake Oswego Fire Department to reach the location of fire alarms within the City, within eight minutes or less, and; b. The ability of the Police Department to reach the location of emergency calls for protection of life and property within a maximum time of five minutes. Home Occupation: A lawful occupation, profession, activity or use conducted in a dwelling unit that is clearly incidental and secondary to the use and dwelling for dwelling purposes. City Council Subcomnuttee Draft 1/16/02 118 Page 36 Inner Neighborhood: Inner Neighborhoods are accessible to jobs and neighborhood businesses and typically average (citywide) six dwelling units per acre. All residential areas that do not lie within another Design Type area in the Lake Oswego Urban Service Boundary, are considered Inner Neighborhoods. Invasive Vegetation: Defined by the Lake Oswego Development code, LOC 48, as vegetation that displaces or dominates native plant communities, such as Himalayan blackberry, English ivy, Reed canary grass, Morning glory, Scotch broom. Lake Grove Business District: Generally located in the western portion of the City along Boones Ferry Road and the easterly area of Kruse Way, nears the intersection of Boones Ferry Road Lake Oswego Neighborhood Association Coalition (LONAC): LONAC is an organization composed of representatives of the Lake Oswego's Neighborhoods which serves as a forum to discuss and represent the common interests of the community. LONAC is not chartered by the City. Main Street: Main Streets are business districts that contain areas of higher density land uses, with concentrations of shopping, services and entertainment or restaurants. Multi- family residential is often located around the Main Street district and may exist on the second or third stories above retail or offices. Main Streets are to have high quality transit service and a good pedestrian environment. In Lake Oswego there are two mapped Main Street Areas, Lake Grove (Boones Ferry Road, between Washington Court on the north side of Boones Ferry and the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way on the south side of Boones Ferry, and Kruse Way); and Lake Oswego ("A" Avenue between State Street and 6t Street, `B" Avenue between State Street and 51h Street and 1St Street, between "C" Avenue and Evergreen Road). Metro 2040 Growth Concept: This is an outgrowth of the principles outlined in Metro's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan. The overall principles include encouraging a compact urban from in specific Design Types areas including Town Centers, Employment Centers, Main Streets, Regional Centers and Transit Corridors. Through the Design Types, the Growth Concept provides for the bulk of additional units that jurisdictions are required to provide to meet targeted dwelling units goals for 2017. The resulting compact urban form is designed to accommodate approximately 720,000 additional residents and 350,000 additional jobs over 40 years region -wide. This compact form is to be served by multiple modes of transportation, maintain a clear distinction between urban and rural lands and reduce urban sprawl. The City of Lake Oswego has determined its Design Type Boundary, which include Employment Centers, Inner Neighborhoods, Main Streets, Town Centers and Transit Corridor. City Council Subcommittee Dreg 1/16/02 Page 37 I 1 r+ Metropolitan Housing Rule: This rule sets a requirement for Lake Oswego and other Portland metropolitan communities to provide for the opportunity for a minimum of 10 dwelling units per acre on vacant, buildable land and the opportunity for 50%/50% mix of single family and multifamily or attached housing. Natural Drainage System: Natural Drainage system refers to the open and vegetated drainage channels and the surface water treatment facilities, which comprise the great majority of Lake Oswego's storm water conveyance system. Nuisance Situation: Nuisances are broadly defined as anything that interferes with, annoys or disturbs the free use of ones property or, which renders its ordinary use or physical occupation uncomfortable. This definition extends to everything that endangers life or health, gives offense to the senses, violates the laws of decency, or obstructs the reasonable and comfortable use of property. Nuisances also refer to wrongs arising from unreasonable or unlawful use of property to the discomfort, annoyance, inconvenience or damage of another. This usually involves continuous or recurrent acts. A public nuisance is further defined by LOC 34.08.400 as: a. Any condition or use of property, which causes or tends to cause detriment or injury to the public health, safety, welfare; b. Any condition specified in LOC 34.10.500 to 34.12.600; or c. A condition defined as a nuisance by any Lake Oswego Code provision. (Ord. No 1856, Sec. 1; 12-28-82.) Open Space Reserve: Open spaces are natural and developed areas that are largely vacant (free of buildings and paved surfaces) with the potential of becoming a park or natural area. Open space refers to the areas of public or privately owned land, which are devoted to uses that provide relief from urban development. Open space includes diverse elements such as natural landscape, wildlife preserves, bluffs, steep slopes, beaches, playgrounds, wetlands, stream corridors, flood plains, lakes, farm fields, tree groves, ball field gardens, formal landscaped areas, golf courses, cemeteries, or even a landscape back yard. Planned Community: For the purposes of the Waluga Neighborhood Plan, this term means the development of an area through the public involvement process, with consideration given to, among other things, land use management, transportation, parks and recreation development, preservation of natural resources, urban design, housing, economic development and public facilities. Public Facility Plan (PFP): The City's PFP identifies the major facilities and capacity improvements to city infrastructure that are necessary to support land uses allowed by the Comprehensive Plan. These facilities include water, sanitary sewer, storm drainage and surface water management, and major transportation improvements. City Council Subcommittee Draft 1/16/02 12 () Page 38 The PFP is used in conjunction with the CIP as described above to coordinate, program and phase public facility funding decisions. Sensitive Lands Map and Atlas: The bound volume of maps on file in the Planning Department showing the boundaries of RP and RC Overlay districts on individual property maps at a scale of 1:200. The SL Atlas is a component of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Maps and is created and modified pursuant to the standards and criteria contained in LOC Article 48.17 (Sensitive Lands). The districts shall also be shown on the City-wide Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Maps for convenience, but the more specific boundaries as shown in the Atlas shall control regulation pursuant to LOC Article 48.17. Site Distance Problem (pertains to streets): Sight distance problems occur when vegetation or other materials obstruct the view of drivers, pedestrians or bicyclists at street intersections. Significant Tree: "Significant trees" in the Waluga Neighborhood are those trees covered under the City's Tree Ordinance (LOC Chapter 55). This term is also used in the context of significant historic trees. For the purposes of implementing the Waluga Plan, historic trees are those that are fifty or more years old. Stream Corridor: A stream corridor is an area of land that includes a stream and a set of natural features generally associated with the stream. These natural features include, stream channels, flood plains, wetlands, riparian vegetation, associated vegetation, steep slopes, and habit features. A stream corridor generally includes the following: a. Hydrological Characteristics. Physical features that affect stream flow capacity, rates of channel erosion and patterns of sedimentation including but not limited to stream alignment, cross section and profile, roughness of channel and banks, and drainage patterns. b. Plant Communities and Wildlife Habitat. The association of trees, shrubs, ground cover, and aquatic plants that effect the hydrological characteristics of a stream corridor, reduces runoff turbidity, provides shade which lessens thermal pollution, filters out nutrients carried off by runoff, protects stream corridors soils and slopes from erosion, and provides habitat for fish, wildlife and aquatic organisms. c. Soils and Potential for Severe Erosion. Soils within stream corridors tend to be very erosion -prone by nature. This feature affects channel erosion rates, patterns of sedimentation down -stream, and potential for hazards to property within and adjacent to the stream corridor. d. Ravines and Steep Slopes. Lake Oswego stream corridors frequently ravines and steep slopes. e. Associated Aquatic Elements. Floodplains and wetlands may be adjacent to or associated with the stream. City Council Subcommittee Draft 1/16102 1!1 Page 39 Street Right -of -Way: A street right-of-way consists of publicly owned land on which there exists, or on which it is intended to construct, a public street and other public transportation improvements. Throughout the Neighborhood Plan the terms "street right-of- way", "road right-of-way", and "public right-of-way" are used interchangeably and have the same meaning. Within this context, the term underdeveloped right- of-way means that portion of the right-of-way on which there are no public improvements such as road surface, sidewalks, pathways and, drainage facilities. System Development Charge (SDC): An SDC is a reimbursement fee, an improvement fee, or a combination thereof, assessed or collected at the time of increased usage of a capital improvement or issuance of a development permit, building permit or a connection to the capital improvement. System developments includes that portion of a sewer or water connection charge that is greater than the amount necessary to reimburse the government unit for its average cost of inspecting and installing connections with water or sewer facilities. An "improvement fee" means a fee for costs associated with capital improvements to be constructed. A "reimbursement fee" means a fee for costs associated with capital improvements already constructed or under construction. Town Center: Town Centers may serve a population base of tens of thousands of people. Within these areas the City will encourage good transit services, a pedestrian environment, shopping, services, entertainment and higher density housing so that residents may have more transportation choices by locating near thcse uses and services. There are two areas designated as Town Centers in Lake Oswego: Lake Grove and Lake Oswego. Traffic Management Devices: Traffic Management devices are defined as apparatus installed or constructed to regulate the flow of traffic not subject to the standards of the MUTCD, including speed humps, curb extensions, traffic circles, traffic diverters and street closures [LOC 32.02.10]. Transit Corridor: Within these corridors, development may be continuous, such as along portions of Boones Ferry Road in the Lake Grove area, or organized around major intersections or transit stops with sections of residential development in between, based o appropriate criteria. Transit corridors are to receive frequent, high-quality transit service. There are four transit corridors designated in Lake Oswego: 1) State Street 2) "A" Avenue 3) Boones Ferry Road, between Country Club and I- 5 and 4) Kruse Way. Those segments represent Transit Corridors, which contain commercial, high density residential, employment intensive, or mixed use development. The broken lines represent the portions of the Transit Corridor which link the nodes of higher intensity uses described in town centers. City Council Subcommittee Draft 1/16/02 1 -" ;? Page 40 1 N N Transportation Modes: This term refers to the full range of ways that people are capable of traveling from one place to another. "The options readily available to Waluga residents include, walking, biking, bus and automotive." Tree Canopy: For the purposes of the Waluga Neighborhood Plan, the tree canopy is the three- dimensional aesthetic quality imparted to the neighborhood by the existence of numerous existing large trees whose crowns may or may not interweave. The tree canopy may or may not have an associated understory. Tree Grove: A stand of three or more trees (of the same species or a mixture) which form a visual and biological unit, including the area between the forest floor and the canopy, including skyline trees, and including any understory vegetation existing within the canopied area. He stand of trees must be at least 15' in height and must have a contiguous crown width of at least 120' to qualify as a tree grove. Water Quality Management Measures: These are actions that are taken to improve water quality, such as restoration of stream corridors, construction of water detention facilities and use of effective erosion control measures. Wetland: An area that is inundated or saturated by surface water or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances does support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions, commonly known as hydrophytic vegetation. Wetlands generally include but are not limited to swamps, marshes, bogs and areas with similar vegetation. Where Practicable: This term refers to a test of reasonableness and practicality when applying a condition of development approval or seeking to implement a specific plan goal, policy or recommended action measure. Factors to be considered include the cost and effort required to accomplish the desired end in relationship to the scale of development and whether the desired end is realistic in relationship to resources available. LACase Files\2000\LU 00-0025-waluga neigh. plan\City Council\1-16-02Final WalugaDraftPlan.doc City Council Subcommittee Draft 1/16/02 Page 41 i%3 WALUGA Waluga Boundary NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN (following adoption of neighborhood plan) Waluga Boundary IOU FIGURE I GEOGRAPHIC Existing Boundary of INFORMATION JANUARY SCALE: Waluga Neighborhood SYSTEM 2001 1 600' 0 nRIVF: Tou E. z < /�, 0PA1`7 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN (following adoption of neighborhood plan) A0jacent Neighborhood and Homeowner Associations Adjacent Neighborhood FIGURE 2 Boundaries I 1JFO ATION JANUARY SCALE Existing Boundary of -0 MT. R LL - — ' / +] ` � \ _ | ` [J|U/ `u/[.x/ u�+ RING - BROW - — ' / +] ` � \ _ | ` [J|U/ `u/[.x/ u�+ WALUGA RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN R-0 Minimum area per and deterrtunecl by FAR NC Neighborhood Commeroal District Existing Zoning R-3 3,375 sq it area per unit GC General Conlmelclal Dlstrlct FIGURE 3 R-5 5,000 sq n area per unit CR&D Campus Research and Develnpm GEOGRAPHIC R-7.5 7,500 sq n area per unit OC Office Campus Dtslnct INFORMATION JANUARY SCALE: R- 10 10,000 sq 4 area pet unit I WalugaBoopundary SYSTEM 2001 1 " = 600' R-15 15.000 sq N area per unit n°eighbo rood plan) t 7-77 DRIVE C0 LL P R-711111 Re. °q��F TO R-5 - --- ----- R-3 R 3 TTI// f R-10 i Z c. MEADOWS gOAO I a 0C GC RO -- -- CR D I Lt's ,4 GAHMAN EY C% R- -- -- Wall I I R-1 — G V A NU T ON cr -- - m 1 y�� WALUGA Stream Corridor [3,3 1 B Resource .Q� (RP) T MW IMIGIMORHOOD PLAN;i Sensitive Lands Wetland (RP) Insignificant FIGURE 4 Resource SCALE: JANUARY Tree Grove ii Waluga Boundary 2002 1 600' (following adoption of neighborhood plan) ISOM L3Mr C RMAN SWAN M HIM 'ZI I 0041 L—j__aVjNUE j WALUGA 0 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN City Parks and Waluga Park and Open Space Open Space FIGURE 5 A GE PH C Proposed Waluga Boundary JNP-,P1/AT10N JANUARY SCALE: (following adoption of neighborhood plan) S -ST F 2001 1 600' 71 0 cc Uj cc DRIVE Cl) 1 7 0 LL ur jT666HSTONE SP P SP QL- I K CREEK Q Uj I 0041 L—j__aVjNUE j WALUGA NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN Commercial District Limits of Commercial Land Uses FIGURE 6 E 0 PHIC —Waluga Boundary INFORMATION APRIL SCALE: (following adoption of neighborhood plan) SYST V 2001 1 = 600' LU DRIVE CIO L C UCH '-5TONE T I CAR WALUGA •••••"••••••.... WA -Water Pipeline, Water Treatment Plant and Other Water NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN • Facility/Storage Reservoir Improvements Public Facilities Projects - SW -Surface Water FIGURE 7 Major Drainage, Pollutant Reduction Facilities, 0 Stream Rehabilitation and Small Works Projects GEOGRAPHIC JANUARY SCALE: wale a Boundary INFORMATION 9 SYSTEM 2001 1 ll _ 600' (following adoption of neighborhood plan) — ( m ---� i 0 1 CJ _l DRIVE�- 0 \ LL V _ G AFM TOUCHSTONE I MEADOWS / Q FIR 'RIDGF,; r ! I SW 27 I d T�Nb S — - �• • •u••••u a . i 4 wi ,'.fi va �r a'F ' i±i '!r t, . � ::11{.: • `` I WALUGA Major Arterial NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN .r Major Collector Transportation: Street Classification • • . • ...... Neighborhood Collector FIGURE 8 GEOGRAPHIC JANUARY SCALE: Waluga Boundary SIsrEM 2001 1 600' INFORMATION (following adoption of neighborhood plan) " = DRIVE �' --- — TOUCHSTONE MEADOWS ♦` qC CARMAN OQ- FIR RIDGrz I AVtNUE 1i �pQEP Jregon John A n t&aber. NtD.. C_.. � ,-. , June 4, 2001 Honorable Judie Harnmerstad Mayor, City of Lake Oswego 380 A Avenue Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Department of Land Conservation & Development 800 NE Oregon St. # 18 Portland, OR 97232 (503) 731-4065 FAX (503) 731-4068 SUBJECT: Adoption of the Waluga Neighborhood Plan Local File No. LU 00-0025 DLCD File No. Lake Oswego 014-00 Dear Ms. Hammerstad: The Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the proposal for adoption of the Waluga Neighborhood Plan (Plan). We respectfully request that this letter became part of the official record for the above proceedings. The City and the Waluga Neighborhood Plan Steerin` Committee are to be commended for guiding the two-year planning process. We certainly do appreciate the thoughtful consideration of the planning issues addressed in the draft plan. As a general comment, there appears to be a fair amount of contradictory directions within the Plan in terms of its vision for the future. This tension is represented by equal amounts of tett that call for the continuance of a community containing the full spectrum of land uses compared to a vision of an unchanging community with very little growth or development over and above what it presently there. On balance, it is evident the policy preference expressed in the Plan is focused on the latter. The tension reflected in plan provisions is not necessarily bad in itself. It only points to the complexity of the growth issues facing the City of Lake Oswego. Let us try to provide some constructive comments from the State's perspective, particularly as they relate to comments on the Plan's consistency with the following selected Statewide Planning Goals: Goal 2, Land Use planning, Goal 9, Economic Development; Goal 10: Housing-, and Goal 12 -Transportation. EXHIBIT G•1 .1 3 5 In reference to Statewide Planning Goal 12, and the Transportation Planning Rule, we would recommend: 1) the deletion of recommended action measure xi. under Goal 10 (maintenance of a non -grid road pattern) and 2) the preservation of the Multipurpose Pathway designation along Quarry Road in the City's Transportation System Plan. Access to the park and the school is better served than just a sidewalk on Douglas Way The City of Lake Oswego should carefully review the relationship of a Plan's proposed policy preference for the condrnuance of single family uses over other housing types in the neighborhood to Statewide Planning Goal 10. This goal specifies that each city must plan for and accommodate all housing types (including typically, multifamily and manufactured housing) in their plan. It also prohibits local plans from discriminating against needed housing hypes. SpecificaLv, several policies of the Plan under Goal 10, which if adopted would make low density single family detached the "favorite" housing type for new construction in the neighborhood, should be revised. As a goal, it may be appropriate to encourage the maintenance of single family residential uses as the predominate land use, but as lone as otter housing t}er are not trndulyrecluded. Then the question becomes: do the policies that favor single family development over multifamily unfairly raise the "bar" for approval new housing that is not single family. In the Department's position they do. If the City adopts Policies 1, 5, 6, and 8 funder Goal 2 Land Use Planning, noted in the staff report as regulatory measures, those measures are oblivious to changing housing situations and conditions throughout the planning period, the City and the metropolitan Portland region. We believe that it is not in the long-term public interest to establish a policy choice that precludes valuable opportunities for redevelopment (Goal 2, policy 6). This leads to an unfortunate and unintended result: a static community facing the past and not the future. This is an undue and too static a restriction on the developers and the housing market and would serve to limit the availability of various necessary, future land uses. As demographics change, the residents of the neighborhood might find it necessary and desirable to have wider choice of future land uses. For example, future land uses that 136 would be beneficial include: close in residential living units in which to shelter their divorced or single children, their elderly grandparents; or walk or bike to a neighborhood grocery store; rather than travel to some other part of the metropolitan region. The City would do well to continue its primary policy reliance for maintenance of existing neighborhoods with the implementation existing policies in the Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan, specifically Goal 2 policy 5. In order to be compliant with Existing policies 8 (minimize pressure on Metro UGB) and 22 (opportunities for mixed use), appear to conflict directly with proposed Neighborhood PIan policies . The same holds true for current comprehensive plan policies under Goal 10, which appear to be duplicative of proposed policies under Goal 2. We are aware that the current city adopted policy contained in the City's comprehensive plan allows that special zone/plan density criteria may be presented in neighborhood plan. However, several proposed policies do not contain objective criteria for evaluation and are not consistent with current adopted city policies. In conclusion, because Policy 1 of LGNP Goal 10 does notprovide far the accommodation of m;d ple housing types in the Neighborhood Plan. and uVairynarrowxpossibiAtiesfor multifamily rezones, and set up restrictive commercial use preferences, it is incon nrtent with Statewide Planning Goals 9[see proposed plan polity 2 (e) ]and 10. In addition, the staff report that includes potential findings for the adoption of the Waluga Neighborhood Plan, as currently written, would not be appropriate in light of our comments. Together with the neighborhood plan policies for heightened communication about application proposals, it would seem that there more than adequate assurances that the neighborhood will persevere in maintaining its existing character, while accommodating incremental changes which will not threaten it. Sincerely, Meg Fernekees, Portland Metro Area Regional Representative cc: Jim Hinman, DLCD Salem (e -copy) 1.3't Sin. Sidaro From: FERNEKEES Meg (Meg.Fernekees@state.or.us] Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 11:27 AM To: ssin@ci.oswego.or.us Ce: jhammerstad@ci.oswego.or.us; jhoffman@ci.oswego.or.us; slashbrook@ci.oswego.or.us; bernardsb@metro.dst.or.us; valoner@metro.dst.or.us; weberm@metro.dst.or.us; HINMAN Jim Subject: Re: Draft Waluga Neighborhood Plan TEXT.htm Good work Sid! Congratulations to all those who worked on building reasonable, balanced policies and implementation measures to replace those provisions for which we had concerns. I especially appreciate the work of the Waluga Neighborhood Association and the City Council -appointed Subcommittee on Neighborhood Plans for their efforts on recommending substitute policies that both meet the Statewide Planning Goals and Neighborhood Association requirements for maintaining livability. I have reviewed the proposed changes in the revised Plan, and based on that rmew I believe that they are consistent with Statewide Planning Goals, parncularly Goal 10 Housing. As the text of the Waluga Neighborhood Plan points out, the neighborhood is located in the heart of the Lake Grove Business District and contains METRO -designated "design types" (Town Centers, Main Street, Transit Corridors and Employment Centers). The Plan correctly focuses policy intent to provide a "greater proportion of additional units ... required to provide ... targeted dwelling units for 2017 (that) will be located in Design Type areas" (pg. 20, Waluga Neighborhood Plan text). It is our hope that the land use permitting authorities in the City continue to keep that proposition in mind as future development is proposed. The addition of more refined design review standards, which should be based on clear and objective standards, will promote well designed development that is compatible with existing land uses. We believe that much of the general citizen opposition to "density" is really based on deeper concerns over badly designed, incompatible, new development We sincerely appreciate the cooperation of the City in responding to our June, 2001 comment letter on the proposed Waluga Neighborhood Plan EXHIBIT G-2 Meg Femekees Portland Metro Area Regional Representative - 1 13,4 cc: Honorable Judie Hammerstad, Mayor Councilor Jack Hoffman, Council President Stephan Lashbrook, Community Development Director Jim Hinman, DLCD Urban Program Coordinator, Salem METRO staff > ---Original Message----- > From: Sin, Sidaro > Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 4:34 PM > To: TERNEKEES Meg' > Subject: Draft Waluga Neighborhood Plan > > Meg: > > The City Council is going to hold a public hearing on February 5, 2002 on > the Waluga Neighborhood Plan. They are going to have a work session on it > this evening. I don't expect you to have comments for the meeting > tonight, but can you take a look and tell me what you think. > I feel confident that we've addressed your concerns. > <<1-8worksessionmemo.doc>> <<4-23-01 RevisedFull Draft Plan.doc>> > .Any continents, soon, would be greatly appreciated, > Thanks, > Sidaro Sin > Associate Planner > City of Lake Oswego > PO Box 369 > Lake Oswego, OR 97034 > 503.697.7421 > 503.635.0269 (fax) 7.2 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 02/05/02 AGENDA REPORT SUMMARI MEETING DATE: February 5, 2002 SUBJECT: Planning Commission's Recommendation for Approval of Neighborhood Notice Requirements (LU 01-0045) RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve LU 01-0045 and direct staff to prepare findings and finalize Ordinance 2317 for adoption. EST. FISCAL I-A-TTACH-MENTS-:- IMPACT: January 16, 2002 Staff Report STAFF COST: BUDGETED: Y N FUNDING SOURCE: Bond Fund Attachments are available for review in the City Recorder's Office. DEPT. DIRECTOR ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER PUBLISHED NOTICES (Date): January 24, 2002 Ordinance No. 2317 Previous Council consideration: Work Session (1-8-02) CITY ANAGER Signoff/da a Signoff/date Signo /date 0 l,` 1 LACase Files\2001\LU 01-0045 Neighbor. Noticing Require. - Contractors-Dcvelopers\City Council\2-5llearing('ovet-Mcnui.dnc I i'4 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY MEETING DATE: February5, 2002 SUBJECT: Planning Commission's Recommendation for Approval of Neighborhood Notice Requirements (LU 01-0045) RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve LU 01-0045 and direct staff to prepare findings and finalize Ordinance 2317 for adoption. EST. FISCAL ATTACHMENTS: IMPACT: . January 16, 2002 Staff Report e B. Planning STAFF COST: Commission Findings & BUDGETED: Conclusion • C. Planning Y N Commission Minutes • D. LU 01-0045 Staff FUNDING SOURCE: Report for Planning Commission Bond Fund . F1. Draft Ordinance No. 2317 � t DZ Signoff/da e ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER Signoff/date 1 PUBLISHED NOTICES (Date): January 24, 2002 Ordinance No. 2317 Previous Council consideration: Work Session (1-8-02) 11P/// ___ _ _. CIT ANAGER Signo /date LAC:ase Files\2001\LU 01-0045 Neighbor. Noticing Require. - Contractors-Developers\City Counci1\2-5NearingCoverMcmo.doc CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO COUNCIL REPORT TO: Douglas J. Schmitz, City Manager FROM: Sidaro Sin, Associate Planner C,Nn SUBJECT: Planning Commission's Recommendation for Approval of Neighborhood Notice Requirements (LU 01-0045) DATE: January 16, 2002 REQUEST The City of Lake Oswego is requesting Zoning Code text amendments to expand the City's neighborhood notice requirements regarding land use applications. (Neighborhood Notice Requirements) ACTION The action before the City Council is to consider a recommendation made by the Planning Commission at its November 26, 2001 meeting to approve LU 01-0045 and direct staff to prepare findings and finalize Ordinance 2317 for adoption. The proposed amendments are identified in Exhibit F 1. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY The Planning Commission held a public hearing on November 26, 2001 and adopted its Findings and Conclusion on December 10, 2001. One person testified recommending an additional amendment to the draft, which the Commission included in its recommendation to Council. There was no testimony in opposition of the amendments. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended the City Council adopt the proposed amendments to the neighborhood notice requirements. BACKGROUND Proposed amendments to the neighborhood notice requirements are a result of requests from neighborhood associations to increase notification of land use proceedings to neighborhood associations and property owners. In particular, the associations expressed the concern that the current notice requirements did not adequately notify all affected neighbors and that it did specifically require applicants to provide informative presentations, which have resulted in unproductive neighborhood association meetings. City Council Public Hearing date February 5, 2002 003 Neighborhood Notice Requirements (LU 01-0045) Page I Neighborhood associations have voiced their concerns about neighborhood notice requirements in neighborhood plans that have been developed or are in the process of being developed. Specifically, neighborhood associations have proposed policies in their neighborhood plans that would require amendments to the City's current notice requirements. The adopted Glenmorrie Neighborhood Plan and the Lake Grove Neighborhood Plan, as well as the draft Lake Forest and Waluga Neighborhood Plans, contain various policies directing the City to craft Development Code amendments to increase notification and citizen involvement opportunities for their associations. Related policies in these neighborhood plans are summarized below. Neighborhood Agree Written Mtgs, Tapes Notice to Opp. Notify Allow Complete Plan on Minutes audiotaped made closest To NH"as NH to presentation mtg. available available 50 meet soon as" provide at n'hood date for property with appl, comm meeting & review owners staff rec. before Time final Lake Grove X X X X X X X decision Glenmorrie X X X X Lake Forest X X X X X Waluga X X X X X X Note: The Old Town and First Addition Neighborhood Plans are not included in this matrix because they do not have any policies that direct the City to develop additional neighborhood notice requirements. On March 12, June 11, and September 10, 2001, the Planning Commission held work sessions on neighborhood notice requirements to address the neighborhood associations' concerns. Generally, the neighborhood representatives supported including amendments that reflected the items in the matrix above, and in particular the expanded notification area to the closest 50 property owners. Due to the interest expressed by these neighborhood associations, the Planning Commission concluded that a uniform notification policy be adopted citywide. In response, during the City's 2000 update of neighborhood boundaries, the Planning Commission's recommendations included expanding the required notice of development from the immediate neighborhood in which a development was being proposed to all neighborhood associations adjacent to the neighborhood association in which the development is proposed. This recommendation was made with the recognition that developments in one neighborhood may have significant impacts on abutting neighborhoods, particularly in regard to traffic, surface water management and visual impacts. DISCUSSION On November 26, 2001, the Planning Commission recommended the Council approve the amendments as shown in Exhibit F1. No written comments were received from the public. However, at the public hearing, a Waluga Neighborhood Association member provided verbal testimony by recommending an amendment that would require the applicant to provide the Neighborhood Chair with three different alternative meetings on different days. The Planning City Council Public Hearing date February 5, 2002 004 Page 2 Neighborhood Notice Requirements (LU 01-0045) / V N Commission considered the recommendation and amended item #1 below to reflect the neighborhood association member's concern. The proposed amendments provide workable solutions to neighborhood concerns regarding the notification process for development proposals. Proposed amendments address the neighborhoods' concerns and apply to mailed notices for the required neighborhood association meetings and the mailed notices for a pending land use application. In total, there are seven proposed amendments based on policy language in neighborhood plans and two proposed amendments from related discussions on neighborhood boundaries. The seven proposed amendments are: 1. The applicant shall propose three alternative neighborhood meetings (on three different days) that the Neighborhood Chair may choose from. 2. For the "required neighborhood meeting" all property owners and residents within 300 feet of the site shall be notified and for the "notice of pending land use application", all property owners within 300 feet of the site shall be notified. If there are less than 50 properties within 300 feet of the boundaries of the site, the notice area shall be expanded by 10 -foot increments outward from the 300 -foot boundary until at least 50 property owners are included in the notice area. 3. At the neighborhood association meeting, the applicant shall provide details to convey the appearance (materials and colors), site design, density, natural resources protection areas, arrangements of uses, access and other relevant visual information that would be included in a complete application for the type of development proposed. 4. The neighborhood associations, the applicant, and any interested person shall have the option of audio -taping the meeting. However, it is not a requirement that the meeting be audio -taped. 5. The applicant shall send a copy of the written minutes of the neighborhood meeting to the adjacent neighborhood association chairs within 14 days following the meeting. The chair shall submit a list of the neighborhood's concerns to the applicant and to the City within 14 days following the mailing of the minutes by the applicant. 6. If the Planning Director determines the application is complete,. the Planning Director shall inform the applicant of the completeness by mail. A copy of the completeness letter shall also be mailed to the affected neighborhood associations. 7. Within ten days of receiving the letter of completeness, neighborhood associations may request a meeting with staff to discuss the application. If a meeting is requested, the applicant shall also be notified of the meeting and invited to attend the meeting. The two proposed amendments from related discussions include: City Council Public Nearing date February 5, 2002 U0 Neighborhood Notice Requirements (LU 01 -0045) Page 3 1. All neighborhood notice requirement amendments shall apply City-wide. 2. Abutting neighborhood associations will be notified of developments whose impacts would go beyond the neighborhood where the development site is located. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt Ordinance 2317. Note: The Council is also considering adoption of LOC Article 50, the Community Development Code (CDC). If, following the public hearing on this matter and the CDC, the Council directs that Ordinance 2317 be scheduled to adopt the Code changes proposed, Ordinance 2317 will be revised to implement the changes through the CDC format and numbering. EXHIBITS: A. Notice of Appeal [No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use] B. Planning Commission Findings and Conclusion, December 10, 2001 C. Planning Commission Minutes, November 26, 2001 D. LU 01-0045 Planning Department's Staff Report Dated November 15, 2001 (Exhibits for this report are available at the Planning Department) E. Graphics- None F. Written Materials Fl. Draft Ordinance No. 2317 G. Letters- None L:1Case Files\2001\LU 01-0045 Neighbor. Noticing Require. - Contractors-Developers\City Council\2-5HcaringReport.doc City Council Public Hearing date February 5, 2002 006 Neighborhood Notice Requirements (LU 01-0045) Page 4 1 � (I D kPPnrL0WE 1 BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION 2OF THE 3 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO d 5 6 A REQUEST FOR ZONING CODE TEXT ) LU 01-0045 - 1452 AMENDMENTS TO EXPAND THE CITY'S ) (CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO) NEIGHBORHOOD NOTICE REQUIREMENTS) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & ORDER 9 REGARDING LAND USE APPLICATIONS ) 10 tl 12 NATURE OF APPLICATION 13 14 Legislative amendments to the Lake Oswego Zoning Code to expand the Citv's neighborhood 15 notice requirements regarding land use applications. 16 F is 19 20 21 �s HEARINGS The Planning Commission held a public hearing and considered this application at its meeting of November 26, 2001. CRITERIA AND STANDARDS A. '6 2- B. 2S 29 30 C. 31 32 33 34 35 36 3 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 City, of Lake Osweoo Comprehensive Plan: Goal 1: Citizen Involvement Policies 2 & 5 Statewide Planning Goals: Goal 1 — Citizen Involvement City of Lake Oswego Development Procedural Reuuirements: LOC 49.16.010 LOC 49.20.115 LOC 49.22.200 LOC 49.36.000-.710 LOC 49.44.900-.920 LOC 49.46 LOC 49.60.1500(2) LOC 49.60.15 10 CONCLUSION Purpose Major Development Burden of Proof Application Procedures Review of Major Development Applications and Appeals Hearings before a Hearing Body Legislative Decision Defined Required Notice to DLCD The Planning Commission concludes that LU 01-0045 is in compliance with all applicable criteria. ----- EXHIBIT B PAGE 1 007 F- LU 01-0045-1452 2 FINDINGS AND REASONS 3 4 The Planning Commission incorporates the staff report, dated November 15, 2001, on L U 01- 5 0045 (with all exhibits attached thereto) as support for its decision supplemented by the further 6 findings and conclusions set forth herein. In the event of any inconsistency between the a supplementary matter herein and the staff report, the matter herein controls. To the extent they 8 are consistent with the approval granted herein, the Commission adopts by reference its oral 9 deliberations on this matter. 10 11 Following are the supplementary findings and conclusions of this Commission: I2 t -, 1. The Commission considered the testimony of Jeff Novak, the representative from the 14 Waluga Neighborhood Association. Mr. Novak was concerned with the proposed draft I ; amendment to LOC 49.36.705(2). Specifically, the proposed amendment would allow an 16 applicant to provide the neighborhood chair with three alternative meeting options (any I combination of the date, time and meeting locations). His concern was that an applicant 1s may propose three alternatives that were on the same date, but with three separate times 19 that were just minutes apart from each other. As an option, Mr. Novak suggested 20 language that required the meetings to be on different dates. 21 22 The Commission agreed with Mr. Novak and decided to make the following change to 23 that section: 24 25 LOC 49.36.705(2) �6 "Selectine Date Time and Location of Neighborhood Meeting. In establishing the date, 27 time and location of the meeting with the neighborhoods, the applicant shall provide the 28 chair of the neighborhood in which the site proposed for development is predominately 29 located three alternative meeting options 30 leeatiens on three different days). If the site proposed for development is located where 31 there is no recognized or forming neighborhood association, the applicant shall provide 32 the neighborhood chair of the recognized or forming neighborhood association closest to 33 the site proposed for development, with the three alternatives for dates, -time and -fig 34 leea4iee. The neighborhood chair, as provided above, shall choose from the three 35 alternatives." 36 37 38 ORDER 39 40 IT IS ORDERED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION of the City of Lake Oswego that: 41 42 1. The Planning Commission recommends that L U 01-0045 be approved by the City 43 Council. 44 PAGE 2 008 LU 01-0045-1452 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I6 11 12 13 1.1 15 16 17 i8 19 20 21 22 23 24 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 I CERTIFY THAT THIS ORDER was presented to and APPROVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Lake Oswego. DATED this 10th day of December 2001. Daniel Vizzini, Chair Planning Commission Ins Treinen Senior Secretary ATTEST: PRELIMINARY DECISION - November 26, 2001 AYES: Edwards, Johnson, Sandblast, Vizzini, Waring, Webster NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Groznik RECUSE: None ADOPTION OF FINDINGS AND ORDER - December 10, 2001 AYES: Groznik, Johnson, Sandblast, Vizzini, Waring, Webster NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Edwards RECUSE: None PAGE 3 LU 0 1 -0045-1452 the Code — before it was published. They then confirmed for the Commissioners that they would include reference sections in the draft the City Council was to consider. Chair Vizzini anticipated reference guides that would also facilitate online access to the Code. Commissioner Johnson moved to recommend that the City Council aanrove LU 01- 0048 together with the changes recommended in the staff presentation. Vice Chair Edwards seconded the motion and it passed with Chair Vizzini, Vice Chair Edwards and Commissioners Johnson, Sandblast, Waring, Webster voting yes. Commissioner Groznik was not present. There were no votes against. Chair Vizzini announced the final vote on the findings, conclusions and order was to be held on December 10, 2001, LLT 01-0045 — Neiphborhood Notice Requirements, a request by the City of Lake Oswego for Zoning Code Text amendments to expand the City's neighborhood notice requirements regarding land use applications. Staff Coordinator was Sidaro Sin, Associate Planner. Chair Vizzini opened the public hearing and explained the procedures and time limits to be followed. He asked the Commissioners to report any exparte contacts and conflicts of interest. None were reported. Sidaro Sin, Associate Planner, explained the proposal reflected neighborhood association goals to expand development notification requirements and to make developer/neighborhood meetings more informative and productive. He recalled the Commissioners had indicated they desired that notice of development in the affected neighborhood be sent to all adjacent neighborhood associations because the development could have negative traffic, storm water and visual impacts on nearby neighborhoods. He observed that several draft and adopted neighborhood plans (ie: Lake Grove, Glenmorrie, Waluga and Lake Forest Neighborhoods) included policies that directed the City to provide increased notification and citizen involvement opportunities. He recalled the Commissioners had recommended that increased noticing requirements be applied citywide. He pointed out that Exhibit F-1 of the staff report contained the draft text amendment proposed by the staff, however, there had been a total of seven proposals suggested in neighborhood plans and in Commission discussions about neighborhood association boundaries. He clarified the proposed expanded notice procedure would apply to both neighborhood association meetings and pending.land use applications. He noted the proposal required an applicant to contact by letter all adjacent recognized neighborhood associations that shared boundaries with the neighborhood or that were separated by a street, canal or stream. He asked if the Commissioners desired to require notification across the lake. He discussed each amendment as follows: The staff recommended a provision that a developer was required to offer the neighborhood chair a choice of three alternative developer/neighborhood meeting City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission 01.1 EXHIBIT C Page 3 of 13 Meeting of November 26, 2001 times over a provision that the developer and neighborhood chair were to agree on a meeting time. 2. The staff recommended a requirement that all property owners and residents within 300 feet of the development site were to be notified, and if there were less than 50 property owners within 300 feet of the site, the notice area was to be expanded outward in 10 -foot increments until at least 50 property owners were included in the notice area. Mr. Sin also presented an alternative procedure to expand the notice area once - from 300 to 400 feet - but he cautioned that in some zones that amount of expansion could result in much greater numbers of property owners to be notified. 3. An amendment that provided that the developer was to provide the neighborhood with the same level of detail about the development (e.g., materials, colors, etc.) that was required in a complete application for the type of development proposed. 4. An amendment that provided that the applicant and the neighborhood association were to have the opportunity to audiotape the developer/neighborhood meeting, but that a taped record was not a requirement. Mr. Sin explained the staff believed the best way for the neighborhood association to present their concerns to the City would be to list them in their own words, rather than relying on the others' interpretations of the applicant's audiotape. 5. The staff recommended a procedure that specified that the applicant was to send a copy of the written minutes of the developer/neighborhood meeting to the affected neighborhood association chairs within 14 days after the meeting and the neighborhoods were to submit a list of neighborhood concerns to the applicant and the City within the next 14 days. Mr. Sin recalled a previous suggestion to require the minutes to be made available to the neighborhood within 7 to 21 days — with no time limit for neighborhood action - and another suggestion that that the applicant was to provide the minutes within 14 days and if the neighborhood had not reviewed and commented on them within another 14 days the applicant could submit them to the City without any changes. He noted the latter alternative did not ensure that neighborhood concerns would be identified in the minutes. 6. An amendment that provided that the Planning Director was to notify the applicant and the affected neighborhood associations when the application was deemed to be complete. 7. The staff recommended a provision that the neighborhood association was to have ten days from receipt of the completeness letter to discuss the application with the City staff and the applicant was to be invited to attend the meeting. He explained that a suggestion that provided for a meeting seven days prior to the issuance of the staff report would not allow sufficient time for the staff to address potential issues and prepare the report for the review process. He advised that neighborhood associations had always been afforded an opportunity to meet with the staff at any time during the review process. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission 012 Meering of November 26, 2001 Page 4 of 13 Mr. Sin concluded that the application met the burden of proof and he recommended that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the version recommended by the staff in Exhibit F-1. The staff clarified for the Commissioners that the proposed procedures (except for any neighborhood association meeting with the staff) would take place before the 120 -day review period began. Public Comment Jeff Novak, 4322 Collins Wav, Lake Oswego, 97035, stated he represented the Waluga Neighborhood Association, which supported the proposed amendment with the exception of the wording of the provision related to three alternative meeting options. He suggested that the requirement specify that the applicant was to offer the neighborhood chair a choice of three different meeting days "at times and locations to be agreed." Chair Vizzini observed that would also require a change in another part of the proposal that would then read "If the site proposed for development is where there is no recognized or forming neighborhood association the applicant shall provide the neighborhood chair of a recognized or forming neighborhood association closest to the site proposed for development with three alternative dates." Chair Vizzini then closed the public hearing and opened deliberations. Deliberations Commissioner Sandblast moved to recommend that the City Council adopt LU 01- 0045 as recommended by the staff, with the modification regarding alternative meeting choices suggested by Mr. Novak during his testimony. Ms. Webster seconded the motion and it passed with Chair Vizzini, Vice Chair Edwards and Commissioners Johnson, Sandblast, Waring, Webster and voting yes. Commissioner Groznik was not present. There were no votes against. Chair Vizzini announced that a vote on the findings, conclusions and order was to be held on December 10, 2001 and the proposal would then be forwarded to the City Council for consideration. ZC 7-98 — Density Guidelines, a request by the City of Lake Oswego proposing legislative text amendments to the Lake Oswego Zoning Code (LOC Chapter 48) that require a minimum lot density be achieved when land is subdivided in any residential zone and to amend the minimum density text currently in the Zoning Code for R-3 and R- 5 zones so that it only applies to subdivision development. Staff coordinator is Jane Heisler, Community Planning Manager. The hearing was continued from October 8 and November 14, 2 00 1. *Vice Chair Edwards left the meeting at 9:05 PM. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission 013 Meeting of November 26, 2001 Page 5 of 13 L�4y 04LAKE OSS;V ec J n I \\ O STAFF REPORT CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO OREGO,.- PLANNING DIVISION APPLICANT City of Lake Oswego PROPERTY OWNERS N/A LEGAL DESCRIPTION N/A LOCATION City -Wide COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION N/A NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION All FILE NO LU 01-0045 STAFF Sidaro Sin DATE OF REPORT November 15, 2001 DATE OF HEARING November 26, 2001 ZONING DESIGNATION N/A I. APPLICANT'S REQUEST The City of Lake Oswego is requesting Zoning Code text amendments to expand the City's neighborhood notice requirements regarding land use applications. II. .RECOMMENDATION This application has met the burden of proof that the proposed Zoning Code text amendments comply with all applicable criteria. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of LU 01-0045 (staff s recommended version of amendments as presented in Exhibit F-1) to the City Council. III. 120 -DAY DECISION DATE N/A L-- - - -1 EXHIBIT D 015 LU 01-0045 Page I of 13 IV. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS A. City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan: Goal 1: Citizen Involvement Policies B. Statewide Planning Goals Goal 1 — Citizen Involvement 2&5 C. Citv of Lake Oswego Development Procedural Requirements: LOC 49.16.010 Purpose LOC 49.20.115 Major Development LOC 49.22.200 Burden of Proof LOC 49.36.000-.710 Application Procedures LOC 49.44.900-.920 Review of Major Development Applications and Appeals LOC 49.46 Hearings before a Hearing Body LOC 49.60.1500(2) Legislative Decision Defined LOC 49.60.15 10 Required Notice to DLCD V. FINDINGS A. BackErottnd: Proposed amendments to the neighborhood notice requirements are a result of requests from neighborhood associations to increase notification and citizen involvement opportunities for their associations. In particular, the associations expressed the concern that the current notice requirements did not adequately notify all impacted neighbors and that the required neighborhood association meetings have not been productive nor do they require applicants to provide informative presentations. In response, during the City's 2000 update of neighborhood boundaries, the Planning Commission's recommendations included expanding the required notice of development, from the immediate neighborhood in which a development was being proposed to all adjacent neighborhood associations. This recommendation was made with the recognition that developments in one neighborhood may have significant impacts on abutting neighborhoods, particularly in regard to traffic, surface water management and possible visual impacts. (Note: Staff is proposing that the applicable definition of "adjacent" include neighborhood associations that are located across a street, canal or stream. Staff is not recommending that "adjacent" include across a lake. This item will be discussed below.) In addition, neighborhood associations have voiced their concerns about neighborhood notice requirements in neighborhood plans that have been developed or are in the process of being developed. Specifically, 016 LU 01-0045 Page 2 of 13 neighborhood associations have proposed policies in their neighborhood plans that would require amendments to the City's current notice requirements. The adopted Glenmorrie Neighborhood Plan and the Lake Grove Neighborhood Plan, as well as the draft Lake Forest and Waluga Neighborhood Plans, contain various policies directing the City to craft Development Code amendments to increase notification and citizen involvement opportunities for their associations. Related policies in these neighborhood plans are summarized below. Neighborhood Agree Written Mtgs. Tapes Notice to Opp, Notify Allow Complete Plan on Minutes audiotaped made closest To NI-I"as NH to presentation mtg. available available 50 meet soon as" provide at n'hood date for property with appl. comm. meeting & review owners staff Rec. Before Time final Lake Grove X X X X X X decision On March 12, June 11, and September 10, 2001, the Planning Commission held work sessions on neighborhood notice requirements to address the neighborhood associations' concerns. The Commission heard public testimony from neighborhood representatives regarding the proposed amendments. The work session was intended to find out from neighborhood associations what their goals and concerns are regarding opportunities for involvement in development issues. Generally, the neighborhood representatives supported including amendments that reflected the items in the matrix above, and in particular for the expanded notification area to the closest 50 property owners. Due to the interest expressed by these neighborhood associations, the Planning Commission concluded that a uniform notification policy be adopted citywide. The draft Zoning Code text amendments (Attachment F1) for neighborhood notice requirements provide workable solutions to neighborhood concerns regarding the notification process for development proposals. Proposed amendments address the neighborhoods' concerns and apply to mailed notices for the required neighborhood association meetings and the mailed notices for a pending land use application. The amendments proposed in attachment Fl are staff's recommendations. Some amendments include alternatives. Those alternatives are discussed later in this report and also identified in the draft Zoning Code text amendment document. 017 LU 01-0045 Page 3 of 13 X Glenmorrie X X X X Lake Forest X X X X X Walu a X X X X X }{ In total, there are seven proposed amendments based on policy language in neighborhood plans and two proposed amendments from related discussions on neighborhood boundaries. The seven proposed amendments from neighborhood plan policies include: 1) The applicant shall propose three alternative neighborhood meetings (including time, date and location) for the neighborhood chair to choose from. 2) For the "required neighborhood meeting" all property owners and residents within 300 feet of the site shall be notified and for the "notice of pending land use application", all property owner's within 300 feet of the site shall be notified. If there are less than 50 properties within 300 feet of the boundaries of the site, the notice area shall be expanded by 10 -foot increments outward from the 300 -foot boundary until at least 50 property owners are included in the notice area. 3) At the neighborhood association meeting, the applicant shall provide details to convey the appearance (materials and colors), site design, density, natural resources protection areas, arrangements of uses, access and other relevant visual information that would be included in a complete application for the type of development proposed. 4) The neighborhood associations, the applicant, and any interested person shall have the option of audio -taping the meeting. However, it is not a requirement that the meeting be audio -taped. 5) The applicant shall send a copy of the written minutes of the neighborhood meeting to the effected neighborhood association chairs within 14 days follo,,ving the meeting. The chair shall submit a list of the neighborhood's concerns to the applicant and the City within 14 days following the mailing of the minutes by the applicant. 6) If the Planning Director determines the application is complete, the Director shall inform the applicant of the completeness by mail. A copy of the completeness letter shall also be mailed to the affected neighborhood associations. 7) Within ten days of receiving the letter of completeness, neighborhood associations may request a meeting with staff to discuss the application. If a meeting is requested, the applicant shall also be notified of the meeting and invited to attend the meeting. The two proposed amendments from related discussions include: 1) Any amendments should apply city-wide. 2) Abutting neighborhood associations should be notified of developments whose impacts would go beyond the neighborhood where the development site is located. 018 LU 01-0045 Page 4 of 13 Discussion: The discussion below addresses proposed amendments #I through #7, above, as well as a discussion on the inclusion of the "lake" regarding adjacent neighborhood notices. The draft Zoning Code text amendment is drafted to reflect staff s recommendations for amendments. As noted above, some amendments include alternatives. Discussion on alternatives is included below and also highlighted in the margins of the draft Zoning Code text amendment document. A) Provisions for more efficient and clear coordination Three of the proposed amendments can be grouped under this heading. In particular, items #1, applicant to provide three meeting alternatives, and #4, option of audio -tape recording of meeting, and #5, availability of written minutes. The purpose of a neighborhood meeting is to identify potential issues regarding a proposed application. The process is intended to result in a better application and to lessen the expense of the review process by avoiding delays. The City expects an applicant to take reasonable concerns and recommendations of the neighborhood into consideration when preparing an application. The City also expects the neighborhood association to work with the applicant to provide such input. #1 - Applicant to provide three meeting alternatives Staff Recommendation: • Allow the applicant the opportunity to suggest three meeting alternatives (any combination of dates, times and locations). This will establish a range of choices for the chair to choose from. Alternative/Discussion: • Applicant/chair to agree on meeting date. o Comment: The proposal to allow the applicant and chair to set a meeting date is of concern because it does not consider the possibility that no meeting date may be agreed upon or a meeting date might be suggested by the chair that is several months out, which could affect the applicant's project. #4 - Audio -tape recording of meeting Staff Recommendation: • The neighborhood associations, the applicant, and any interested person should have the option of audio -taping the meeting. However, it should not be a requirement. o Comment: Staff s proposal is to recognize that anyone can audio- tape the meeting. Oregon law permits anyone to tape another person, as long as the persons are aware that a tape recording is LU 01-0045 019 Page 5 of 13 being made. The purpose of audio -taping is to refresh the memory of the person listening to the tape as they prepare written comments. The Development Review Section should not have to review the audio -tape because the issue is actually not what was particularly said, but what are the specific issues for Development Review to consider when reviewing the application. Alternative/Discussion: Require meeting to be recorded. o Comment: The alternative is to require that the applicant record the meeting on audio -tapes and make the recording available to interested parties. The rationale for the availability of audio -tapes is to provide an audio recording of the meeting for the applicant and neighborhood to refer back to. Currently, the Code does not require audio -taping and, therefore, it is not part of the completeness check. The question that arises is the necessity of the audio -tapes. If the purpose of the meeting is to identify issues that arise out of a proposal, it appears that it would be easier to have the neighborhood submit a list of their concerns and not have to depend on the accuracy of the applicant's minutes. There is nothing in the Code that states that the neighborhood and applicant must come to an agreement, although it would be in the applicant's best interest to work with the neighborhood. #5 - Availability of written minutes Staff Recommendation: • The applicant shall send a copy of the written minutes of the neighborhood meeting to the affected neighborhood association chairs within 14 days following the meeting. The chair shall submit a list of the neighborhood's concerns to the applicant and the City within 14 days following the mailing of the minutes by the applicant. Alternative/Discussion #1: Minutes made available within 7-21 days to the neighborhood chair o Comment: This alternative was one of the first alternatives discussed from neighborhood plans. This alternative however, does not take into consideration that there is no time limit for the neighborhood chair to return the minutes to the applicant. Staff does not recommend this alternative. Alternative/Discussion #2: • Provide written minutes of the meeting to the chair of the neighborhood association within 14 days after the meeting. The chair will have the opportunity to consult with the attendees, to review and make written comments on the minutes and return the minutes to the applicant within 14 days. In the event neighborhood comments are not provided within 14 azo LU 0 1 -0045 Page 6 of 13 days, the applicant may submit their version of the minutes with the application. o Comment: As noted above, the purpose of this meeting is to identify potential issues regarding a proposed application, which is intended to result in a better application benefiting both the applicant and the neighborhood. The intent of the meeting is not to make sure that the minutes are completely accurate (although they should be). The emphasis of the meeting is on identifying the issues. The meeting provides a vehicle to record the issue, but the burden should not solely be placed on the applicant to provide accurate minutes. Minutes are simply part of the completeness check for the application and are not part of the decision-making criteria. It is staffs contention that although this provides the neighborhood chair the opportunity to respond to the minutes prepared by the applicant, it may not exactly identify what the neighborhood's concerns are. As a result, staff is recommending that the neighborhood chair provide a separate list of the neighborhood's concerns, as noted above. B) Notification to the closest 50 property owners for required neighborhood meeting and pending land use application if there are 50 property owners within 300 feet of the development site. This item addresses proposed amendment #2 above. This proposal is found in the adopted Lake Grove Plan and the draft Waluga Plan. State Statutes require that notice be given to properties located within 100 feet of the subject property. Our current Code requires notification to within 300 feet of the subject property. Previous Commission discussions considered that notification should be based on the area of impact and not on a specific number of properties. However, if notification was to be based on the number of properties, notification should be based on concentric circles (perhaps 10 foot intervals), until 50 properties were notified. #2 — Notification of 300 feet or closest 50 property owners Staff Recommendation: For the "required neighborhood meeting" all property owners and residents within 300 feet of the site and for the "notice of pending land use application", all property owner's within 300 feet of the site shall be notified. If there are less than 50 properties within 300 feet of the boundaries of the site, the notice area shall be expanded by 10 -foot increments outward from the 300 -foot boundary until at least 50 property owners are included in the notice area. 021 LU 01-0045 Page 7 of 13 Alternative/Discussion #1: Expand the notice area to 400 feet from the development site o Comment: Although expanding the notice requirement from 300 feet to 400 feet would simplify the notice requirement, in areas of high density such as in the R-0 through R-5 zones, the number of people notified may be double the amount that would generally be notified. This would result in an excessive burden on the applicant and going beyond the "area of impact" for something as simple as a minor partition. C) Additional Communication with Neighborhood Leaders Prior to Decision -Making Two of the proposed amendments can be grouped under this heading. This includes items #6, notifying neighborhood when application is complete and 47, providing opportunity for neighborhood to meet with staff prior to availability of staff report. #6 - Notifying neighborhood N hen application is complete Staff recommendation: When the Planning Director determines the application is complete, the Director shall inform the applicant of the completeness by mail. A copy of the completeness letter shall also be mailed to the adjacent neighborhood associations. Alternative/Discussion: • No alternatives are proposed. #7 - Provide opportunity for neighborhood to meet with staff prior to aN ailahilih of staff report Staff recommendation: • Within ten days of mailing the letter of completeness, neighborhood associations may request a meeting with staff to discuss the application. If a meeting is requested, the applicant shall also be notified of the meeting and invited to attend the meeting. Alternative/Discussion: Provide the opportunity for the neighborhood to meet with staff at least 7 days prior to the required availability of the staff report. The applicant would be given prior notice and the opportunity to attend the meeting. o Comment: This proposal allows the neighborhood association to meet with staff at least 7 days prior to the availability of the staff report. The 7 days prior to the availability of the staff report does not allow staff enough time to address and work through potential issues before the staff report is due to be printed, which is usually several days before the staff report is made available to the public. It must O c C LU 01-0045 Page 8 of 13 also be noted that neighborhood associations have always had the opportunity to meet with staff at any time during the review process. D) Applicant to Provide Certain Information at Required Neighborhood Meeting The above proposal is only found in the draft Lake Forest Neighborhood Plan and addresses proposed amendment #3 above. The Lake Forest Neighborhood Association is concerned that application information that has been presented in the past by applicants inadequately describes the concept and site design of their proposal. Current Code does not provide for any standards other than specifying that the applicant is responsible for contacting and discussing the proposed development with the neighborhood for the purpose of identifying potential issues or conflicts regarding a proposed application so that they may be addressed prior to filing of an application. #3 — Applicant to provide certain information at neighborhood meeting Staff Recommendation: • At the neighborhood association meeting, the applicant shall provide details to convey the appearance (materials and colors), site design, density, natural resources protection areas, arrangements of uses, access and other relevant visual information that would be included in a complete application for the type of development proposed Alternative/Discussion: No alternatives are proposed. In conclusion, the draft Zoning Code text amendments are intended to address the neighborhood associations' concerns, while not excessively burdening the noticing requirements that applicants must adhere to. E) In consideration of notifying the adjacent neighborhood association of a pending land use application, the proposed language includes notifying those neighborhood associations that are separated by a street, canal or stream. Should a neighborhood association separated by the lake be notified as well? Currently, the draft version of LOC 49.36.705(3)(a)(ii) reads as follows: "all adjacent recognized neighborhood associations (adjacent recognized neighborhood associations are those association which share boundaries with the neighborhood(s) pursuant to subsection (a) above, and additionally those recognized neighborhood associations that are separated from the 00, 3 LU 01-0045 Page 9 of 13 neighborhood association(s) pursuant to subsection (i) by a street, canal or stream, and" Staff Recommendation: Staff does not recommend including a neighborhood association that is separated by a lake in the adjacent neighborhood association notice requirement. o Comment: The Planning Commission should consider the "area of impact" as it relates to a development. For instance, many of the properties located around the lake are designated low density residential, with the exception of some parcels located on the east end of the lake that are designated high density or commercial. Those neighborhood associations located on the east end would be notified of any high density or commercial development because most of them are considered adjacent to each other. However, for the rest of the lake, the only development that we would expect to see is development of single-family dwellings. The worst case scenario is that a property owner could request a variance to the setback requirement. The question would be, how much of a visual impact would that setback variance make, if it were approved? Is it enough to warrant the inclusion of noticing all neighborhood associations that would be considered to be "across the lake"? It is staff's recommendation that it is not warranted to expand the notice area to include neighborhood associations across the lake, in light of the consideration for the limited scale of the anticipated development with the scale of the noticing effort involved. B. Compliance with Criteria for Approval: As per LOC 49.22.200, the applicant shall bear the burden of proof that the proposal complies with all applicable review criteria or can be made to comply with applicable criteria by imposition of conditions of approval. Adequate evidence has been provided to enable staff to perform a thorough evaluation to determine compliance with applicable criteria, listed on page 2 of this report. A. CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES GOAL 1: CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT Policies 2 and 5 024 LU 01-0045 Page 10 of 13 2. Provide citizen involvement opportunities that are appropriate to the scale of a given planning effort. Large area plans, affecting a large portion of community residents and groups require citizen involvement opportunities of a broader scope than that required for more limited land use decisions. 5. Seek citizen input through service organizations, interest groups and individuals, as well as through neighborhood organizations. Findings: This application addresses policies 2 and 5 above. Pursuant to the requirements of a legislative process, announcements for the proposed Zoning Code text amendments have been provided to all neighborhood associations. The Planning Commission held three work sessions on this item. Notices of the March, June and September, 2001, work sessions were mailed to all neighborhood associations. Lastly, notices were also sent to the City's legislative distribution list, which includes Metro, the state, county and city jurisdictions, public and private interest groups, and service districts. Citizens, interest groups, and neighborhood associations will have an opportunity to participate in the review of the proposed amendment during the City's public hearing processes. Many of the proposed amendments are in response to citizens and, in particular, neighborhood associations' concerns that the current Code is not responsive to notifying all affected parties in a land use action. In order to address these concerns, the amendments include expanding the scope of the notice requirements to include adjacent neighborhood associations and expanding the 300 -foot notice requirement until at least 50 properties are notified. These substantive changes will provide opportunities appropriate to the scale of the planning effort involved. Conclusion: The application complies with the Goal 1, Citizen Involvement Policies 2 and 5. B. CONSISTENCY WITH STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS Goal 1 -Citizen Involvement Pursuant to the requirements of a legislative process, announcements for the proposed Zoning Code text amendments have been provided to all Neighborhood Associations and interested parties. 2 J LU 01-0045 Page 11 of 13 Public hearings will be held before the Planning Commission and City Council. Notice has been provided consistent with City requirements. Adequate opportunities have been made available for citizen involvement with regard to this application. C. LAKE OSWEGO DEVELOPMENT CODE PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS LOC 49.16.010 LOC 49.20.115 LOC 49.22.200 LOC 49.36.000-.710 LOC 49.44.900-.920 LOC 49.46 LOC 49.60.1500 (2) LOC 49.60.1510 Purpose Major Development Burden of Proof :application Procedures Review of Major Development Applications and Appeals Hearings before a hearing Body Legislative Decision Defined Required Notice to DLCD Findings: The application has been submitted, noticed and reviewed in accordance with the City of Lake Oswego Development Code. The record indicates that the application complies with all of the above applicable procedural requirements. Conclusion: The application process conforms to all applicable procedural requirements, as stated above. VI. CONCLUSION: Based upon the materials and findings presented in this report, staff concludes that this application has met the burden of proof that the proposed Zoning Code text amendments comply with all applicable criteria. VII. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of LU 01-0045 (staff's recommended version of amendments as presented in Exhibit F- 1) to the City Council. 026 LU 01-0045 Page 12 of 13 EXHIBITS: A. Notice of Appeal B. Findings and Conclusions C. Minutes D. Staff Reports E. GRAPHICS None [No current exhibits reserved for hearing use] [No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use] [No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use] [No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use] F. Written Materials F1. Draft Zoning Code Text Amendments G. Letters None Date of Application Submittal: February 1, 2001 Date Determined to be Complete: N/A State Mandated 120 Day Rule: N/A LACase Files\2001\LU 01-0045 Neighbor. Noticing Require, - Contractors-DevelopersTIanning Cummission\LU 01-0045 Staff Report.doc 027 LU 01-0045 Page 13 of 13 ORDINANCE NO. 2317 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO AMENDING ARTICLES 24, 26, 40 AND 44 OF CHAPTER 49 (DEVELOPMENT CODE) OF THE LAKE OSWEGO CODE RELATING TO PRE -APPLICATION MEETINGS AND NEIGHBORHOOD NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS, AND ADOPTING FINDINGS [LU 01-00451 WHEREAS, notice of the public hearing for consideration of this Ordinance was duly given in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held before the Lake Oswego City Council on February 5, 2002 to consider the Planning Commission's recommendation to approve application LU 01-0045, a request by the City of Lake Oswego for a Zoning Code Text Amendment to amend requirements for neighborhood notification and pre -application meetings; and The City of Lake Oswego ordains as follows: Section 1. The City Council hereby adopts the Findings and Conclusions (LU 01-0045) attached as Exhibit "A". Section 2. Section 49.36.705 of the Lake Oswego Code is hereby amended by deleting the text shown by strikeeu and adding the new text shown in Bold and Underline as follows: Section 49.36.705 Neighborhood Contact Required for Certain Applications. Prior to submittal of an application for a partition, subdivision or a major development, the applicant shall contact and discuss the proposed development with any affected neighborhoods as provided in this section. The Planning Director may require neighborhood contact pursuant to this section prior to the filing of an application for any other development permit if the Director deems neighborhood contact to be beneficial. 1. Purpose. The purpose of neighborhood contact is to provide a description of the development sufficient so that potential issues or conflicts regarding a proposed application may be addressed prior to filing. This contact is intended to result in a better application and to expedite and lessen the expense of the review process by avoiding needless delays, appeals, remands or denials. The City expects an applicant to take the reasonable concerns and recommendations into consideration when preparing an application. The City expects the neighborhood associations to work with the applicant to provide such input. The City recognizes that potential impacts of development, such as storm eater runoff, traffic, noise or impacts on natural resources, may affect not only the area immediately surrounding the site of the Ordinance No. 2317 0 EXHIBIT F•1 Page 1 of 10 proposed development, but the neighborhood in which the site is located, and adiacent neighborhoods. 2. Selecting Date, Time and Location of Neighborhood Meeting. In establishing the date, time and location of the meeting with the neighborhoods, the applicant shall provide the chair of the neighborhood in which the site proposed for development is predominately located three alternative meeting options (on three different days). If the site proposed for development is located where there is no recognized or forming neighborhood association, the applicant shall provide the neighborhood chair of the recognized or forming neighborhood association closest to the site proposed for development, with the three alternative dates. The neighborhood chair, as provided above, shall choose from the three alternatives. The meeting shall he scheduled during the evening after 6:00 p.m. or on the weekend not less than 20 days from the date of mailing of the notice. The meeting shall be held at it location open to the public within the boundaries of the association in which the proposed development is predominately located or at a public facility within the Cite of Lake Oswego. if the meeting is held at a private residence or business, it shall be posted at the time of the meeting as the meeting place and shall note that the meeting is open to the public and all interested persons may attend. 3. Notice to Neighborhoods, Property Owners, and Residents of Neighhorhood Meetine. It. The applicant shall contact by letter: Q all recognized neighborhood associations whose boundaries contain all or part of the site of the proposed development, (ii) all adiacent recognized neighborhood associations (adjacent recognized neighborhood associations are those association which share boundaries with those neighborhood(s) described to subsection (i) above, and additionally those recognized neighborhood associations that are separated from the neighborhood association(s) described to subsection (i) by a street, canal or stream, and _L!iij and all property owners and residents within 300 feet of the site, provided however, if there are less than 50 properties within 300 feet of the boundaries of the site, the notice area pursuant to this subsection shall be expanded, by 10-foot increments outward from the 300 foot boundary, until at least 50 properties are included in the notice area. The letter shall briefly describe the nature and location of the proposed development, and invite the associations and interested persons to a meeting to discuss the proposal in more detail. If no recognized neighborhood association is established, but one is in the process of forming, the applicant shall contact the forming association. Ordinance No. 2317 Page 2of10 030 For the purpose of this section, a "forming association" is a group that has approached the City in writing and begun the process to form a recognized neighborhood association, as determined by the Planning Director. b. On the same date the letters described in subsection 3(a I thFOUgh 3 are mailed, the applicant shall provide and post notice on the property subject to the proposed application. The notice shall be posted at a location visible from the public right of way. The notice shall state that the site may be subject to a proposed development (e.g. subdivision variance, condition use) and shall set forth the name of the applicant and a telephone number where the applicant can be reached for additional information. The site shall remain posted until the conclusion of the meeting. 4. Manner of Providing Letter Notice of Neighborhood Meeting Pursuant to Subsection 3(a). a. Mailed Notice. The letters required by subsection 3(0 above shall be sent as follows: W For recognized or forming neighborhood associations described in subsections (3)(a)(i) and (ii) above: (1) By certified mail, return receipt requested, to the Chairs of the neighborhood associations or forming associations, and, (2) By regular mail to the other officers of the neighborhood associations; and (ii) For property owners and residents pursuant to subsection 3(a)(M) above, by regular mail. 5. Recording the Neighborhood Meeting. The neighborhood associations, the applicant, and any interested person shall have the option of audio -taping the meeting. However, it is not a requirement that the meeting be audio -taped. 6. Applicant's Presentation at Neighborhood Meeting. The applicant shall provide details in the neighborhood rneeting that convey the appearance (materials and colors), site design, density, natural resources protection areas, arrangement of uses, access and other relevant visual information that would be included in a complete application for the type of development proposed. 7. N'teeting Minutes / Neighborhood Association Concerns. a. The applicant shall prepare minutes of the neighborhood meeting. The minutes shall contain a record of any verbal comments made at the meeting. Ordinance No. 2317 031 Page 3 of 10 b. The applicant shall send a copy of the written minutes of the neighborhood meeting to the respective neighborhood association chairs that received notice of the meeting, pursuant to subsection 3(a)(i) and (ii) above, within 14 days following the meeting. C. Each neighborhood association chair, or the chair's representative, shall submit a list of the respective neighborhood's concerns, if any, to the City and the applicant within 14 days following the mailing of the minutes by the applicant to the neighborhood association chair or the chair's designated representative. d. The neighborhood association chairs shall be allowed to supplement the record with any additional comments regarding the content of the meeting, as Ions as such comments are filed before the record is closed. 8. Applicant's Documents Filed with Application. An application shall not be accepted for filing unless and until the applicant demonstrates compliance with this section by including with the application: a. A copy of the certified letter to the recognized neighborhood associations or forming associations, with copies of return receipts; b. A copy of the letter to officers of the associations and to property owners and residents pursuant to subsection 4 above wii 399 -feet, including an affidavit of mailing and a copy of the mailing list containing the names and addresses of such officers, owners and residents; C. A copy of the required posted notice, along with an affidavit of posting; and d. A copy of the minutes of the neighborhood meeting, hill and copies of any written comments from property owners, residents, and neighborhood association members. The appheant shall also send a eopy of the minutes meeting,to the ehaiF Of the neighber-heed asseeiatien. The ehair- shall be allowed to supplement the r-eeeFd with any additional eemments regarding the eentent of the as leng as sueh eemments C. A copy of the materials that were presented at the neighborhood association meeting. Section 3. Section 49.36.710 of the Lake Oswego Code is hereby amended by deleting the text shown by str-ikeeut and adding the new text shown in Bold and Underline as follows: 49.36.710 Filing an Application; Determination of Completeness. 1. A minor or major development application shall be filed along with the number of copies required by the Planning Director, and the applicable filing fee. 2. The Planning Director shall review the application and determine whether it is complete. A final decision on an application, including resolution of all appeals, shall be rendered within 120 days after the Ordinance No. 2317 032 Page 4 of 10 application is deemed complete pursuant to ORS 227.178 (referred to herein as the "120 Day Rule"). The Planning Director shall mail a written notice of such determination within 30 days of the date of filing of the application. When the Planning Director determines the application is complete, the Director shall inform the applicant of the completeness by mail. A copy of the completeness letter shall also be mailed to the affected neighborhood associations identified in LOC 49.36.705(3)(a)(i) and (ii). 'Within 10 days of the mailing of the notice of completeness to the respective neighborhood associations, the chair, or the chair's representative, of any of the noticed neighborhood associations may request a meeting with the Planning Director to discuss the application. The purpose of this meeting is to identify issues. No evidence or argument presented at this meeting shall be deemed to be made part of the record; anv evidence or argument shall be submitted in the manner required by LOC 49.40.805 (minor developments) or LOC 49.44.910 and .1000 (major developments; appeals of minor developments). If a meeting is requested, the applicant shall be notified of the meeting and invited to attend the meeting. If the Planning director determines that the application is incomplete, the Director shall inform the applicant in the written notice of the additional information necessary to make the application complete. The application shall be deemed complete at such time as the additional information is submitted. The applicant shall have 180 days to complete the application. If the Planning Director fails to mail notice of the determination within 30 days from the date of filing of an application the application shall be deemed complete on the 31" day following filing of the application for the purposes of the 120 Day Rule. If the applicant refuses to submit the additional information, the application shall be deemed complete for the purpose of 120 Day Rule on the 31" day. 3. Nothing in this section shall be deemed to be a limitation on the City's ability to render a final decision on a land use application after the expiration of 120 days. Section 4. Section 49.40.805 of the Lake Oswego Code is hereby amended by deleting the text shown by str-ikeetrt and adding the new text shown in Bold and Underline as follows: 49.40.805. Notice of Minor Development Application. 1. Prior to making a final decision on a minor development permit application, the Planning Director shall provide written notice to owners of property within 300 feet of the entire contiguous site for which the application is made. If there are less than 50 properties within 300 feet of the site, the notice area shall be expanded, by 10 -foot increments outward from the 300 foot boundary, until at least 50 properties are included in the notice area. The list shall be compiled from the most recent property tax assessment roll. Notice shall also be sent to: Ordinance No. 2317 033 Page 5of10 a. Any recognized neighborhood associations whose boundaries either contain part or all of inelade the site, and b. All adjacent recognized neighborhood associations (adjacent recognized neighborhood associations are those association which share boundaries with the neighborhood(s) identified in subsection (a) above, and additionally those recognized neighborhood associations that are separated from the neighborhood association(s) identified in subsection (a) by a street or stream). The Planning Director shall certify that such notice was given. 2. The notice required by subsection 1 of this section shall: a. Provide a 14 -day period for submission of comments prior to the decision; b. State the place, date and time that comments are due; c. State that issues which may provide the basis for an appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals shall be raised with sufficient specificity to enable the City to respond to the issues; d. List, by commonly used citation, the applicable criteria for a decision; e. Set forth the street address or other easily understood geographical reference to the subject property; f. State that copies of all evidence relied on by the applicant are available for review, and that copies can be obtained at cost; and g. Include the name and phone number of the Planning Director or such other City staff person as may be assigned by the Planning Director to review the application. Section 5. Section 49.40.820 of the Lake Oswego Code is hereby amended by deleting the text shown by stitikeeut and adding the new text shown in Bold and Underline as follows: 49.40.820 Appeal of Minor Development Decision. 1. A final decision of the Planning Director on a minor development application may be appealed to a hearing body by the applicant or any person aggrieved by the decision. An appeal shall be made by filing a written request for a hearing with the City Recorder within fifteen calendar days of the date of decision. 2. A written request for a hearing shall contain: a. A reference to the City application number and date of the final decision; b. A request that a hearing be held on the application; c. The name, address, and signature of the appellant; and d. A filing fee. The filing fee shall be set by resolution of the City Council but shall be no more than authorized by state law. The filing fee shall be refunded if the appellant prevails at the hearing or on a subsequent appeal. The filing fee requirement shall not apply to appeals filed by the Oregon State Department of Land Conservation and Development or to appeals filed by recognized neighborhood associations entitled to receive Ordinance No. 2317 t Page 6 of 10 notice of a pre -application neighborhood meeting pursuant to LOC 49.36.705(3)(a)(i) and (ii). 3. The City Recorder shall reject the appeal if it is not filed within the 15 - day appeal period set forth in subsection 1 of this section, is not filed in the form required by subsection 2 of this section, or does not include the filing fee required by subsection 2 of this section. If the City Recorder rejects an appeal, the City Recorder shall so notify the appellant by letter. This letter shall include a brief explanation of the reason why the City Recorder rejects the appeal. A decision of the City Recorder to reject an appeal pursuant to this section is final and is not subject to appeal to the hearing body or the City Council. An appeal rejected pursuant to subsection 2 of this section may be corrected if it is refiled within the 15 - day appeal period set forth in subsection 1 of this section. 4. An appeal of a Planning Director decision regarding a minor development shall be heard de novo by the hearing body pursuant to LOC 49.44.900 to 49.44.920 and 49.46. 1000 to 49.46. 1035. Section 6. Section 49.44.920 of the Lake Oswego Code is hereby amended by deleting the text shown by strikeout and adding the new text shown in Bold and Underline as follows: 49.44.920 Notice of Public Hearing. 1. Notice of a public hearing before a hearings body shall be mailed at least twenty days before the initial public hearing: a. To the applicant and the owners of record on the most recent property tax assessment roll of the property, located within 300 feet of the subject property. If there are less than 50 properties within 300 feet of the site, the notice area shall he expanded, by 10 feet increments outward from the 300 foot boundary, until at least 50 properties are included in the notice area, b. To recognized neighborhood associations entitled to notice of a pre -application neighborhood meeting, pursuant to LOC 49.36.705(3)(a)(i) and (ii); and c. If the hearing regards an appeal of a Planning Director decision on a minor development application, to the appellant if different than the applicant and any person not otherwise required to be notified by this section who submitted comments during the 14 -day comment period provided by LOC 49.40.805(2). 2. Nothing in subsection 1 of this section shall preclude the Planning Director from providing additional public notice as Planning Director deems appropriate. 3. The notice shall: a. Explain the nature of the application and the use or uses which could be authorized; b. List the applicable criteria from the ordinance and plan that apply to the application at issue; c. Set forth the street address or other easily understood geographical reference to the subject property; Ordinance No. 2317 of J Page 7 of 10 d. State the date, time and location of the hearing; e. State that failure of an issue to be raised in a hearing, in person or by letter, or failure to provide statements or evidence sufficient to afford the hearings body an opportunity to respond to the issue precludes appeal to the City Council and the Oregon State Land Use Board of Appeals on that issue; f. Include the name and phone number of the City staff person assigned to the application from whom additional information may be obtained; g. State that a copy of the application, all documents and evidence submitted by or on behalf of the applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and will be provided at reasonable cost; h. State that a copy of the staff report will be available for inspection at no cost at least ten days prior to the hearing and will be provided at reasonable cost; and i. Include a general explanation of the requirements for submission of testimony and the procedure for conduct of the hearing. 4. At the time notice is mailed pursuant to subsection 1 of this section, a notice shall be posted on the site subject to the application at a location readily visible from a public right-of-way, if available. The notice shall state that the site is subject to an application for a development permit and the telephone number of the City department to call for further information about the application. 5. The failure of a person entitled to notice as provided in this section to receive notice shall not invalidate such proceedings if the Planning Director can demonstrate by affidavit that such notice was given. Section 7. Section 48.24.665 of the Lake Oswego Code is hereby amended by deleting the text shown by stri eeut and adding the new text shown in Bold and Underline as follows: LOC 48.24.665 Notice Procedures for Class 1 Variances. Class 1 variances shall require fourteen calendar days notification of pending action. Notice shall be sent to: 1. The owner of the property that is the subject of the variance, and the applicant if it is a different person. 2. The owners of the property included within an area enclosed by lines parallel to and 300 feet from the exterior boundary of the property or contiguous property of the applicant. If there are less than 50 properties within 300 feet of the site, the notice area shall be expanded, by 10 feet increments outward froin the 300 foot boundary, until at least 50 properties are included in the notice area. 3. Neighborhood associations entitled to receive notice of a pre -application neighborhood meeting pursuant to LOC 49.36.705(3)(a)(i) and (ii). The content of the notice shall be the same as that described in LOC 49.40.805. The notice shall solicit written comments on the proposal and inform the recipient that they will receive a copy of the Manager's Ordinance No. 2317 036 Page 8 of 10 decision and may appeal that decision. Failure of the City to send notice or failure of a person to receive notice shall not invalidate any proceeding in connection with the application. Section 8. Section 49.44.920 of the Lake Oswego Code is hereby amended by deleting the text shown by strikeeet and adding the new text shown in Bold and Underline as follows: Section 49.44.920 Notice of Public Hearing. (Major Developments) 1. Notice of a public hearing before a hearings body shall be mailed at least twenty days before the initial public hearing: a. To the applicant and the owners of record on the most recent property tax assessment roll of property located within 300 feet of the subject property. If there are less than 50 properties within 300 feet of the site, the notice area shall be expanded, by 10 feet increments outward from the 300 foot boundary, until at least 50 properties are included in the notice area; b. To recognized neighborhood associations entitled to notice of a pre -application neighborhood meeting, pursuant to LOC 49.36.705(3)(a)(i) and (ii); and c. If the hearing regards an appeal of a Planning Director on a minor development application, to the appellant if different than the applicant and any person not otherwise required to be notified by this section who submitted comments during the 14 -day comment period provided by LOC 49.40.80550.81.010(2). 2. Nothing in subsection 1 of this section shall preclude the Planning Director from providing additional public notice as Planning Director deems appropriate. 3. The notice shall: a. Explain the nature of the application and the use or uses which could be authorized; b. List the applicable criteria from the ordinance and plan that apply to the application at issue; c. Set forth the street address or other easily understood geographical reference to the subject property; d. State the date, time and location of the hearing; e. State that failure of an issue to be raised in a hearing, in person or by letter, or failure to provide statements or evidence sufficient to afford the hearings body an opportunity to respond to the issue precludes appeal to the City Council and the Oregon State Land Use Board of Appeals on that issue; f. Include the name and phone number of the City staff person assigned to the application from whom additional information may be obtained; g. State that a copy of the application, all documents and evidence submitted by or on behalf of the applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and will be provided at reasonable cost; Ordinance No. 2317 01,37 Page 9 of 10 h. State that a copy of the staff report will be available for inspection at no cost at least ten days prior to the hearing and will be provided at reasonable cost; and i. Include a general explanation of the requirements for submission of testimony and the procedure for conduct of the hearing. 4. At the time notice is mailed pursuant to subsection 1 of this section, a notice shall be posted on the site subject to the application at a location readily visible from a public right-of-way, if available. The notice shall state that the site is subject to an application for a development permit and the telephone number of the City department to call for further information about the application. 5. The failure of a person entitled to notice as provided in this section to receive notice shall not invalidate such proceedings if the Planning Director can demonstrate by affidavit that such notice was given. Read by title only at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego held on day of , 2001. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: EXCUSED: Judie Hammerstad, Mayor Dated: ATTEST: Robyn Christie, City Recorder APPROVED AS TO FORM: David D. Powell City Attorney Ordinance No. 2317 033 Page 10 of 10 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY MEETING DATE: February5, 2002 SUBJECT: Planning Commission's Recommendation for Approval of Zoning/Development Code Consolidation (LU 01-0048) RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve LU 01-0048 and direct staff to prepare findings and Ordinance 2314 for adoption. EST. FISCAL IMPACT: STAFF COST: BUDGETED: Y N FUNDING SOURCE: Bond Fund ATTACHMENTS: • January 16, 2002 Staff Report Wachments are available for review in the Citv Recorder's Office. - z DEPT. DIRECTOR ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER Signoff/date Signoff/date 7.3 02/05/02 PUBLISHED NOTICES (Date): January 24, 2002 Ordinance No. 2314 Previous Council consideration: Work Session (1-8-02) CITY KAAGER 2 c> 2 Signoff date Case Files\200N..0 01-0048 Zoning -Development Code Consohdatiioon\City CounciMU01-0048CCCover.doc ` 001 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY MEETING DATE: February 5, 2002 SUBJECT: Planning Commission's Recommendation for Approval of Zoning/Development Code Consolidation (LU 01-0048) RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve LU 01-0048 and direct staff to prepare findings and Ordinance 2314 for adoption. EST. FISCAL ATTACHMENTS: IMPACT: • January 16, 2002 Staff Report • B. Planning STAFF COST: Commission Findings & BUDGETED: Conclusion • C. Planning Y N Commission Minutes • D. LU 01-0048 Staff FUNDING SOURCE: Report for Planning Commission Bond Fund o F1. Draft Consolidated Code, December 2001 • F2. Errata sheet of further revisions after the December 2001 draft y-mac.- Y� DEPT. DIRECTOR /(q.-, Signoff/date ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER Signoff/date PUBLISHED NOTICES (Date): January 24, 2002 Ordinance No. 2314 Previous Council consideration: Work Session (1-8-02) CITY WNAGER cD 2, Signoff date I \fuse Files\200)\LU 01-0048 Zoning -Development Code (onsoliduuon\('ity ('ouncil\I.U01-0048CCCover.doc 001 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO COUNCIL REPORT TO: Douglas J. Schmitz, City Manager FROM: Sidaro Sin, Associate Plannei-4#7 SUBJECT: Planning Commission's Recommendation for Approval of Zoning/Development Code Consolidation (LU 01-0048) DATE: January 16, 2002 REQUEST The City is requesting a Zoning Code and Development Ordinance text amendment to reorganize and consolidate Lake Oswego Code (LOC) 48 -Zoning Code, LOC 49 -Development Code and Lake Oswego Development Standards (LODS) into one consolidated chapter, called the Community Development Code. (Zoning/Development Code Consolidation) ACTION: The action before the City Council is to consider a recommendation made by the Planning Commission at its November 26, 2001 meeting to approve LU 01-0048 and direct staff to prepare findings and Ordinance 2314 for adoption. The proposed amendments are identified in Exhibit F1 and F2. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY The Planning Commission held a public hearing on November 26, 2001 and adopted its Findings and Conclusion on December 10, 2001. No public testimony was received. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended the City Council adopt the proposed Zoning/Development Code consolidation amendments. BACKGROUND: The intent of the Code consolidation is to reorganize the Zoning Code, Development Code and Development Standards into one cohesive document called the Community Development Code. The result will be a smoother flowing, more logical and user-friendly Code. The impetus for the Zoning and Development Code consolidation is a result of concerns from those people who use the code on a daily basis, such as staff, developers, planning consultants and the City's Boards and Commissions. � City Council Public Hearing date February S. 2002 Zoning(Development Code Consolidation (LU 01-0048) Page 1 The idea for the Zoning and Development Code consolidation goes back as far as the early 1990s, when it was identified as a Council Goal. Today it is identified as a goal for the Community Development Department and City Attorney's Office. The last major reorganization of the Zoning and Development Code was done in 1982, which resulted in our current Code format. Through the years, there have been some minor code amendments. However, those amendments focused on substantive changes in the Code rather than organizational changes. This consolidation does not result in any substantive changes to the Code On November 26, 2001, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the draft consolidated Code. There was no public testimony. The proposed Community Development Code was initially prepared by representatives of the Development Review section and the City Attorney's Office. A working draft was prepared in May 2001 and circulated to all Development Review planners, to use as their primary code document for trial purposes. The planners have been using the proposed Community Development Code since May 2001. Following comments by the planners, a September draft was prepared for the Planning Commission's consideration. Following comments by the Planning Commission, a December draft was prepared. The proposed Community Development Code (both drafts) was made available to the public in both hard copy and online. Notice of the availability of the proposed Community Development Code and the Planning Commission's work session and public hearing was given to the public approximately one month prior to the Planning Commission's work session. In addition to the standard procedure for notices of legislative changes, copies of the Press Release outlining the changes and the availability of the proposed Code were distributed to the Development Review Commission and Planning Commission members, neighborhood association chairs, area planners and architects which represent applicants, Lake Oswego Chamber of Commerce, and other interested persons. For the City Council's work session, notice was expanded to all include area Realtors. DISCUSSION: The proposed Code consolidation will reorganize Lake Oswego Code (LOC) 48 -Zoning Code, LOC 49 -Development Code and the Lake Oswego Development Standards (LODS)- Development Standards into one consolidated Community Development Code. The revisions are explained in four parts; 1) "Global Changes" that affect the code consolidation, 2) "Specific Changes", which are discussed in the proposed Code with comments, 3) Errata Sheet that includes additional changes that were made after the printing of the December 2001 draft, and 4) organizational Changes. City Council Public Hearing date February S, 2002 ' - ' O 0 ; page 2 N Zoning/Development Code Consolidation (LU 01-0048) Global Changes These include minor amendments, such as references to the "City Manager" rather than the "Planning Director", general typos, and referring to the reorganized Code as the Community Development Code rather than the Zoning or Development Code. Specific Changes These are identified with a because they require additional explanation as to why something was changed and are block indented following the code section to be revised. For example, the comment to section 50.01.005 Title [page 3 of the December draft] explains that LOC 49.16.005 Title would be deleted because it is duplicative to LOC 48.02.005 Title. Errata Sheet The errata sheet is intended to include proposed changes that were not included in the December 2001 draft because of additional changes suggested by staff following publication of the December draft. The changes are explained and generally include legislative items that were under consideration by the Council at the time of printing. For example, Street Connectivity Standards were adopted after the printing of the December draft and are now included in the errata sheet. Organizational Changes The intent of the Code consolidation has been to reorganize the Code to make it easier to use. Page 1 of the December draft provides a detailed index of how the different sections have been reorganized. The sections are organized to more closely resemble the order that a land use project would follow: • Purpose • Definitions • Zoning Districts • Overlay Zones • Development Standards • General Standards • Special Design District Standards • Types and Processes for Different Applications • Hearing Procedures, Appeals, Remands • Order of Approval or Denial, Modification • Fees City Council Public Hearing date February 5, 2002 005 Zoning/Development Code Consolidation (LU 01-0048) Page 3 RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve Zoning/Development Code Consolidation (LU 01-0048). EXHIBITS: A. Notice of Appeal [No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use] B. Planning Commission Findings and Conclusion, December 10, 2001 C. Planning Commission Minutes, November 26, 2001 D. LU 01-0048 Planning Department's Staff Report Dated October 26, 2001 (Exhibits for this report are available at the Planning Department) E. Graphics- None F. Written Materials Fl. Draft Consolidated Code, December 2001. F2. Errata sheet of further revisions after the December 2001 Draft (1/10/02) G. Letters- None LACase Fi les12001 ALU 01-0048 Zoning -Development Code Consolidation\City Council\L.U01-0048CCReport.doc City Council Public Hearing date February S, 2002 0 0 Zoning/Development Code Consolidation (LU 01.0048) Page 4 1 jV I BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION 2 OF THE 3 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 4 5 6 A REQUEST FOR ZONING CODE AND ) LU 01-0048 - 1451 7 DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE TEXT ) (CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO) 8 AMENDMENTS TO COMBINE CITY'S ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & ORDER 9 LAND USE DEVELOPMENT CODES AND ) to DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 1 I2 13 NATURE OF APPLICATIOti 14 15 Legislative text amendments to the Lake Oswego Zoning Code and Development Ordinance to 16 combine the City's land use development codes and development standards into a new, 17 consolidated, Community Development Code. is I9 HEARINGS 20 21 The Planning Commission held a public hearing and considered this application at its meeting of 22 November 26, 2001. ,; 24 CRITERIA AND STANDARDS 26 A. City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan: 27 Goal 1: Citizen Involvement - Policies 1 & 5 28 Goal 2: Land Use 29 Section 1: Land Use - Policy 23 30 31 B. Statewide Planning Goals: 32 Goal 1 — Citizen Involvement 33 Goal 2 — Land Use Planning 34 35 C. City of Lake Oswego Development Standards: 36 LOC 49.16.0 10 Purpose 37 LOC 49.20.115 Major Development 38 LOC 49.22.200 Burden of Proof 39 LOC 49.36.000-.710 Application Procedures 40 LOC 49.44.900-.920 Review of Major Development Applications and Appeals 41 LOC 49.46 Hearings before a Hearing Body 42 LOC 49.60.1500(2) Legislative Decision Defined 43 LOC 49.60.15 10 Required Notice to DLCD 44 EXHIBIT B PAGE 1 007 LU 01-0048-1451 I CONCLUSION 2 3 The Planning Commission concludes that LU 01-0048 is in compliance with all applicable 4 criteria. 5 6 FINDINGS AND REASONS 7 8 The Planning Commission incorporates the staff report, dated October 26, 2001, on LU 01-0048 9 (with all exhibits attached thereto) as support for its decision. The Commission adopts by to reference its oral deliberations on this matter. 11 12 ORDER 13 14 IT IS ORDERED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION of the City of Lake Oswego that: 15 16 1. The Planning Commission recommends that LU 01-0048 be approved by the City 13 Council. 1s 19 I CERTIFY THAT THIS ORDER was presented to and APPROVED by the Planning 20 Commission of the City of Lake Oswego. 21 22 23 DATED this 10th day of December 2001. 24 26 27 28 Daniel Vizzini, Chair r 29 Planni Commission 30 I 31 32 33 his Treinen 34 Senior Secretary 35 36 37 ATTEST: 38 39 PRELIMINARY DECISION - November 26 2001 40 41 AYES: Edwards, Johnson, Sandblast, Vizzini, Waring, Webster 42 NOES: None 43 ABSTAIN: None 44 ABSENT: Groznik 45 RECUSE: None PAGE 2 008 LU 01-0048-1451 2 ADOPTION OF FINDINGS AND ORDER - December 10 2001 3 4 AYES: Groznik, Johnson, Sandblast, Vizzini, Waring, Webster 5 NOES: None 6 ABSTAIN: None 7 ABSENT: Edwards s RECUSE: None PAGE 3 009 LU 01.0048-1451 l� 1 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES " November 26, 2001 CALL TO ORDER Chair Daniel Vizzini called the Monday, November 26, 2001 meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 PM in the Council Chambers of City 1 --fall at 380 A Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon. if. ROLL CALL Commission members present included Chair Daniel Vizzini, Vice Chair Ray Edwards, James Johnson*, Kenneth Sandblast*, David Waring and Alison Webster, Commissioner Frank Groznik was excused. Staff present included Jane Heisler, Community Planning Manager; Sidaro Sin, Associate Planner; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney; and Jean Hall, Secretary, III. CITIZEN COMMENT REGARDING ISSUES NOT ON THE AGENDA None. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES *Commissioner Johnson joined the meeting. Commissioner Waring moved for approval of the Minutes of October 8, 2001. Vice Chair Edwards seconded the motion and it passed with Chair Vizzini, Vice Chair Edwards and Commissioners Johnson, Waring, Webster voting yes. Commissioners Groznik and Sandblast were not present. There were no votes against. V. GENERAL PLANNING None. VI. PUBLIC HEARING Lli_01-0048 — Zonina/Development Code Consolidation, a request by the City of Lake Oswego for a Zone Text amendment and Development Ordinance Text amendment to combine the City's land use development codes and development standards into a new, City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Oil EXHIBIT C Page I of 13 Meeting of November 26, 2001 consolidated, Community Development Code. Staff coordinator was Sidaro Sin, Associate Planner. The hearing was continued from November 14, 2001. *Commissioner Sandblast joined the meeting. Chair Vizzini opened the public hearing and explained the procedures and time limits to be followed. He asked the Commissioners to report any ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest. None were reported. Sidaro Sin, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. He explained the proposal would reorganize Chapter 48 (Zoning), Chapter 49 (Development) and Lake Oswego Development Standards into a consolidated development code that would be more "user- friendly." He explained that the reorganization would not make any substantive changes to the Code. He noted the City Council had made Code reorganization a Council goal in the early 1990s and the Code's current format reflected the last reorganization in 1982. He clarified that the proposed revisions included global changes to update references to who had authority to make decisions and corrected typographical errors, and other specific, non -substantive changes that had been made after the draft had been printed were explained on the Errata Sheet. He said the new format would make the Code easier to follow because of the order of its components: purpose, definition, zoning districts, overlay zones, development standards and types and processes for different applications. He advised that the City had published notice of the proposed changes and had received no public comments. He recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposal to the City Council. Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney, pointed out several changes in the draft that had been made since the .Planning Commission's work session regarding the proposal, including changes to distinguish between a "zone" and a "district." He advised the proposal would eliminate the definition "minimum density." He explained that multiple descriptions of how to calculate density transfer had been reduced to one description in the "Methodology and Definitions" section and references to Sensitive Lands Districts had been added. He noted a typographical error in a table on page 149 had been corrected to specify cell towers that were "monopole greater than or equal to 80 feet high." Public Comment None. Chair Vizzini closed the public hearing and opened deliberations. Deliberations Commissioner Johnson observed the City had been anticipating the Code reorganization for a long time and he said he supported the proposal. Commissioner Sandblast indicated that he desired to see user reference guides, such as index and table of contents sections. The staff related they intended to add such guides - which were not considered a part of City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission 012 Meeting of November 26, 2001 Page 2 of 13 the Code — before it was published. They then confirmed for the Commissioners that they would include reference sections in the draft the City Council was to consider. Chair Vizzini anticipated reference guides that would also facilitate online access to the Code. Commissioner Johnson moved to recommend that the City Council approve LU 01- 0048 together with the changes recommended in the staff presentation. Vice Chair Edwards seconded the motion and it passed with Chair Vizzini, Vice Chair Edwards and Commissioners Johnson, Sandblast, Waring, Webster voting yes. Commissioner Groznik was not present. There were no votes against. Chair Vizzini announced the final vote on the findings, conclusions and order was to be held on December 10, 2001. LU_ 01-0045 — Neighborhood Notice Requirements, a request by the City of Lake Oswego for Zoning Code Text amendments to expand the City's neighborhood notice requirements regarding land use applications. Staff Coordinator was Sidaro Sin, Associate Planner. Chair Vizzini opened the public hearing and explained the procedures and time limits to be followed. He asked the Commissioners to report any exparte contacts and conflicts of interest. None were reported. Sidaro Sin, Associate Planner, explained the proposal reflected neighborhood association goals to expand development notification requirements and to make developer/neighborhood meetings more informative and productive. He recalled the Commissioners had indicated they desired that notice of development in the affected neighborhood be sent to all adjacent neighborhood associations because the development could have negative traffic, storm water and visual impacts on nearby neighborhoods. He observed that several draft and adopted neighborhood plans (ie: Lake Grove, Glenmorrie, Waluga and Lake Forest Neighborhoods) included policies that directed the City to provide increased notification and citizen involvement opportunities. He recalled the Commissioners had recommended that increased noticing requirements be applied citywide. He pointed out that Exhibit F-1 of the staff report contained the draft text amendment proposed by the staff, however, there had been a total of seven proposals suggested in neighborhood plans and in Commission discussions about neighborhood association boundaries. He clarified the proposed expanded notice procedure would apply to both neighborhood association meetings and pending land use applications. He noted the proposal required an applicant to contact by letter all adjacent recognized neighborhood associations that shared boundaries with the neighborhood or that were separated by a street, canal or stream. He asked if the Commissioners desired to require notification across the lake. He discussed each amendment as follows: 1. The staff recommended a provision that a developer was required to offer the neighborhood chair a choice of three alternative developer/neighborhood meeting City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission 013 Nfeeting of November 26, 2001 Page 3 of 13 STAFF REPORT CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO APPLICANTS City of Lake Oswego PROPERTY OWNERS N/A LEGAL DESCRIPTION N/A LOCATION City-wide PLANNING DIVISION COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION N/A NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION All FILE NO LU 01-0048 STAFF Sidaro Sin DATE OF REPORT October 26, 2001 DATE OF HEARING November 14, 2001 ZONING DESIGNATION N/A I. APPLICANT'S REQUEST The City of Lake Oswego is requesting a Zoning Code and Development Ordinance text amendment to reorganize and consolidate Lake Oswego Code (LOC) 48 -Zoning Code, LOC 49 -Development Code and Lake Oswego Development Standards (LODS) into one consolidated chapter, called the Community Development Code. This consolidation does not include any substantive char es to the Code All chanes are deemed to be organizational changes. II. RECOMMENDATION This application has met the burden of proof that the proposed Zoning Code and Development Ordinance text amendment complies with all applicable criteria. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of LU 0 1 -0048 to the City Council. — EXHIBIT D 015 LU 01-0048 Page 1 of 6 III. 120 -DAY DECISION DATE N/A IV. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS A. City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan: Goal 1: Citizen Involvement Policies 1 & 5 Goal 2: Land Use Section 1: Land Use Policy 23 B. Statewide Planning Goals Goal 1 Citizen Involvement Goal 2 — Land Use Planning C. Citv of Lake Oswego Development Standards LOC 49.16.010 Purpose LOC 49.20.115 Major Development LOC 49.22.200 Burden of Proof LOC 49.36.000-.710 Application Procedures LOC 49.44.900-.920 Review of Major Development Applications and Appeals LOC 49.46 Hearings before a Hearing Body LOC 49.60.1500(2) Legislative Decision Defined LOC 49.60.15 10 Required Notice to DLCD V. FINDINGS A. Background: The intent of the Code consolidation is to reorganize the Zoning Code, Development Code and Development Standards into one cohesive document called the Community Development Code. The result will be a smoother flowing, more logical and user-friendly Code. The impetus for the Zoning and Development Code consolidation is a result of concerns from staff, developers, planning consultants and the City's Boards and Commissions who use the Code on a frequent basis The idea for the Zoning and Development Code consolidation began as early as the 1990s, when it was identified as a Council Goal. Today it is identified as a goal for the Community Development Department and City Attorney's Office. 01.16 LU 0 1-004 8 Page 2 of 6 The last major reorganization of the Zoning and Development Code was done in 1982, which resulted in our current Code format. Through the years, there have been some minor code amendments. However, those amendments focused on substantive changes in the Code rather than organizational changes. The proposed Code consolidation will reorganize Lake Oswego Code (LOC) 48 -Zoning Code, LOC 49 -Development Code and Lake Oswego Development Standards (LODS)-Development Standards into one consolidated Community Development Code. Again, this consolidation does not include anv substantive changes to the Code The revisions are explained in three parts (the first two parts are found in Exhibit F 1, the last part is found in Exhibit F2); 1) "Global Changes" that affect the code consolidation, 2) Specific changes, which are discussed in the proposed Code with comments, and 3) Additional changes that were made after the printing of the September 2001 draft. As noted previously, the draft Code has been reorganized to make it easier to use. Specifically, it has been organized to follow chronological steps in a land use application. Generally, the sections are organized as follows: • Purpose • Definitions • Zoning Districts • Overlay Zones • Development Standards • General Standards • Special Design District Standards • Types and Processes for Different Applications B. Compliance with Criteria for Approval: Pursuant to LOC 49.22.200, the applicant shall bear the burden of proof that the proposal complies with all applicable review criteria. Adequate evidence has been provided to enable staff to perform a thorough evaluation to determine compliance with applicable criteria, listed on page 2 of this report. A. CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES GOAL 1: CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT Policies I and 5 017 LU 01-0048 Page 3 of 6 1. Provide opportunities for citizen participation in preparing and revising local land use plans and ordinances. 5. Seek citizen input through service organizations, interest groups and individuals, as well as through neighborhood organizations. Findings: This application addresses policies 1 and 5 above. Pursuant to the requirements of a legislative process, announcements for the proposed Zoning Code and Development Ordinance text amendments have been provided to all neighborhood associations. In addition, the City did a press release to announce that on October 22, 2001, the Planning Commission would hold a work session on the proposed Code consolidation amendments. Notices of the work session were mailed to all neighborhood associations. Notices and copies of the proposed consolidation amendments were provided to those members in the community that use the code on a regular basis, including planners, architects and developers. Lastly, notices were also sent to the City's legislative distribution list which includes Metro, the state, county and city jurisdictions, public and private interest groups, and service districts. Citizens, interest groups, and neighborhood associations will have an opportunity to participate in the review of the proposed amendment during the City's public hearing processes. Conclusion: The application complies with Goal 1, Citizen Involvement Policies 1 and 5. GOAL 2: LAND USE PLANNING Section 1, Land Use, Policy 23 23. Coordinate the development and amendment of City plans and actions related to land use with other county, state, Metro, federal agency and special district plans. Findings: This policy was addressed under Goal 1, Citizen Involvement Policies 1 and 5. Conclusion: The application complies with Goal 2, Section 1, Policy 23. 018 LU 0 1 -0048 Page 4 of 6 VI. B. CONSISTENCY WITH STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS Goal 1 -Citizen Involvement Pursuant to the requirements of a legislative process, announcements for the proposed Zoning Code text amendments have been provided to all Neighborhood Associations and interested parties. Public hearings will be held before the Planning Commission and City Council. Notice has been provided consistent with City requirements. Adequate opportunities have been made available for citizen involvement with regard to this application. Goal 2 - Land Use Planning This application provides the required information and responses to the applicable approval standards for a Zoning Code and Development Ordinance text amendment and therefore is consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 2. Furthermore, the application has been coordinated with the applicable jurisdictions and agencies as required by Goal 2. C. LAKE OSWEGO DEVELOPMENT CODE PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS LOC 49.16.010 LOC 49.20.115 LOC 49.22.200 LOC 49.36.000-.710 LOC 49.44.900-.920 LOC 49.46 LOC 49.60.1500 (2) LOC 49.60.1510 Purpose iIMajor Development Burden of Proof Application Procedures Review of Major Development Applications and Appeals Hearings before a Hearing Body Legislative Decision Defined Required Notice to DLCD Findings: The application has been submitted, noticed and reviewed in accordance with the City of Lake Oswego Development Code. The record indicates that the application complies with all of the above applicable procedural requirements. Conclusion: The application process conforms to all applicable procedural requirements, as stated above. CONCLUSION Based upon the materials and findings presented in this report, staff concludes that this application has met the burden of proof that the proposed Zoning Code Text Amendment complies with all applicable criteria. 019 LU 01-0048 Page 5 of 6 VII. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of LU 01-0048 to the City Council. EXHIBITS A. Notice of Appeal [No current exhibits reserved for hearing use] B. Findings and Conclusions [No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use] C. Minutes [No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use] D. Staff Reports [No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use) E. GRAPHICS None F. Written Materials Fl. Draft Consolidated Code, Dated September 2001 (Due to the size of the document, this item is available on line at www.ci.oswe¢o.or.us.) F2. Additional amendments not included in September 2001 Draft G. Letters None Date of Application Submittal: August 2001 Date Determined to be Complete: N/A State Mandated 120 -Day Rule: N/A LACase Files\2001\L.0 01-0048 'Zoning -Development Code Consolidation`Planning Commission1LUO1-0048 Staff Report.doc 04 0 LU 01-0048 Page 6 of 6 Draft December 2001 with Consolidation Comments City of Lake Oswego Community Development Code A Proposed Administrative Consolidation of LOC 48 — Zoning Code, LOC 49 — Development Code, and LODS — Development Standards Lake Oswego City Council to Consider December 2001 Draft at: Workshop — January 8, 2002, 6:00 p.m. Public Hearing — February 5, 2002, 6:00 p.m. Lake Oswego City Hall, Council Chambers 380 A Avenue Lake Oswego, OR 97034 A Project of Lake Oswego Planning Department and City Attorney's Office The complete version of this document (Exhibit F-1) is on file with the City Recorder. Copies were previously distributed to the City Council. Additional copies are available to the public upon request at City Hall or via the City's web site at the following address: http:irwww.ci.oswego.or.us/plan/Consolidated%20Code/proposed commuriity_devolopment code.htm EXHIBIT F-1 Draft Community Development Code — Further Revisions (01/10/02) Further recommended revisions following publication of December 2001 draft. In instances in which a section includes a comment of changes previously published in the December 2001 version, the new change and comment are bolded. If a new ordinance was adopted following the publication of the December draft, the text as originally adopted is show in bold and attention is called to the insertion by bolded comment. Ord. 2307 — Street Connectivity (Effective 1/3/02) This ordinance adopts a new LODS 26 — Street Connectivity. This will be placed in the "Transportation" section of the Development Standards, as 50.60. (50.60 was previously designated for the Street lights Development Standard; it will be renumbered to 50.63. The Utility Development Standard was previously designated as 50.61; it will be renumbered to 50.64. References to 50.60 and 50.61 will also be revised to 50.63 and 50.64 respectively. ]Index Changes as follows: Article 50.60 Local Street Connectivity 50.60.005 Applicability 26.010 50.60.010 Purpose and Intent 26.012 50.60.015 Definitions 26.015 50.60.020 Standards for 26.020 Approval of Development Which Requires the Construction of a Street 50.60.025 Standards for 26.025 Approval of Construction of Structures that Do Not Require Construction of a Street but are Located on a Parcel(s) Five Acres or Greater in Page 1 - Draft Community Development69Y Further Re% isnms EXHIBIT F•2 Reverse Index changes as follows: Size Street (Pathway, Parking Lots) Lights 50.60.030 Procedures 26.030 50.60.035 Standards for Construction 26.035 Article 50.63 Street (Pathway, Parkin Lots) Lights Definitions 50.63.005 Applicability 5.010 50.63.010 Standards for Approval 5.020 Article 50.64 Utility Standard 50.64.005 Applicability 14.010 50.64.010 Definitions 14.015 50.64.015 Standards for Approval 14.020 Reverse Index changes as follows: Page 2 - Draft Community Development C�del— Further Revisions c::tt Article 50.63 Street (Pathway, Parking Lots) Lights 5.005 Eliminated 5.010 50.63.005 Applicability 5.015 See 50.02.005 Definitions 5.020 50.63.010 Standards for Approyal Article 50.64 Utility Standard 14.005 Eliminated 14.010 50.64.005 Applicability 14.015 50.64.010 Definitions 14.020 50.64.015 Standards for Approval 14.025 50.64.020 Standards for Construction 14.030 50.64.025 Standards for Maintenance Article 50.60 Local Street Connectivity 26.005 Eliminated Title 26.010 50.60.005 Applicability 26.012 50.60.010 Purpose and Intent 26.015 50.60.015 Definitions 26.020 50.60.020 Standards for Approval of Development Which Requires the Page 2 - Draft Community Development C�del— Further Revisions c::tt A. Section 50.79.020 Section 49.20.110 Minor Development Classification. 1. A Minor Development is a development which requires a permit from the City that requires a more discretionary level of review than a ministerial decision. "Minor Development" is intended to include decisions defined as "limited land use decisions" pursuant to ORS 197.015(12). 2. "Minor Development" includes: a. In the DD zone: (i) Construction of new single family detached dwellings, duplexes, multi -family dwellings, zero lot line of -duple* --dwellings or exterior remodeling modification of a structure containing a non -conforming use that requires a building permit (til Expansion or reconstruction of the structures listed in subsection (i). above, that result in a chancre of use (e.g. from single familyto o duplex) or in an expansion of floor area of an existing; structure by more than 50%. (Ord. No. 1882, Sec. 12: 3-6-84.) (Ord. No. 2091, Amended, 04/19/94; Ord. No. 2129, Amended, 04/02/96. Ord. No. 2156, Amended, 09/16/97: Ord. No. This alternative is found in LOC 48.08.275(l )[Old Town Design District); I have combined the two via this section: I. Construction of new detached single-family dwellings, duplexes, zero lot line and multi -family dwellings and exterior modifications to structures containing non- conforming uses that require a building permit; 2. Expansion or reconstruction of the structures listed in subsection 1. above, that result in a change of use (e.g. from single family to duplex) or in an expansion of floor area of an existing structure by more than 50%. (Ord. No. 1882, Sec. 12; 3-6-84.) Page 3 - Draft Community Developmbt� qde — Further Revisions U �J Construction of a Street 26.025 50.60.025 Standards for Approval of Construction of Structures that Do Not Require Construction of a Street but are Located on a Parcel(s) Five Acres or Greater in _ Size 26.030 50.60.030 Procedures 26.035 50.60.035 Standards for Construction A. Section 50.79.020 Section 49.20.110 Minor Development Classification. 1. A Minor Development is a development which requires a permit from the City that requires a more discretionary level of review than a ministerial decision. "Minor Development" is intended to include decisions defined as "limited land use decisions" pursuant to ORS 197.015(12). 2. "Minor Development" includes: a. In the DD zone: (i) Construction of new single family detached dwellings, duplexes, multi -family dwellings, zero lot line of -duple* --dwellings or exterior remodeling modification of a structure containing a non -conforming use that requires a building permit (til Expansion or reconstruction of the structures listed in subsection (i). above, that result in a chancre of use (e.g. from single familyto o duplex) or in an expansion of floor area of an existing; structure by more than 50%. (Ord. No. 1882, Sec. 12: 3-6-84.) (Ord. No. 2091, Amended, 04/19/94; Ord. No. 2129, Amended, 04/02/96. Ord. No. 2156, Amended, 09/16/97: Ord. No. This alternative is found in LOC 48.08.275(l )[Old Town Design District); I have combined the two via this section: I. Construction of new detached single-family dwellings, duplexes, zero lot line and multi -family dwellings and exterior modifications to structures containing non- conforming uses that require a building permit; 2. Expansion or reconstruction of the structures listed in subsection 1. above, that result in a change of use (e.g. from single family to duplex) or in an expansion of floor area of an existing structure by more than 50%. (Ord. No. 1882, Sec. 12; 3-6-84.) Page 3 - Draft Community Developmbt� qde — Further Revisions U �J b. Construction or exterior modification of a detached single family structure, duplex, zero lot line dwelling or a structure accessory to such structures which: i. Does not qualify as a ministerial decision pursuant to I:nC 49.2;0. through (xis or ii. Requires one or more Class 1 variances_.;-ef c_ iii. Involves a determination by the Planfiifig-DireetffCity Manama that a use not expressly permitted in the zone may be allowed pursuant to the considerations contained in LOC 44.^n�-�-" 50.04.015. In such case, the required notice shall include a description of the proposed use and the reasons for the Planning ity Manager's determination. We believe that this subsection is actually (c), rather than a subset of (b). However, it should be noted that there is an "or" in the sentence above. I.--iy-. Involves an improvement to an existing park or school facility that will increase the capacity of the park or school facility, generate additional traffic, or generate significant additional noise or other negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood. ee. Secondary dwelling units. df. Construction of a structure other than a detached single family dwelling, duplex, zero lot line dwelling or accessory structure, or an exterior modification of such a structure which does not qualify as a ministerial development pursuant to LOC A9.''�550.79.010(2)(c). eg. Lot line adjustments which require one or more Class 1 Zeiiing Code or Glass 1 Develepmeni-Code Variances or which would increase allowable density on the site. lh. Partitions, including partitions which require one or more Class I Zed -C=ede _0+: ode Variances. gi. Subdivisions, including subdivisions which require one or more Class 1 ming Code OF G1859 1 D@N,eiepmew ode Variances. hi. Review of development phases subject to an ODPS. i}k. A change of use from one permitted use to another that increases on-site parking or loading requirements or which changes access requirements pursuant to 6909-EIapiee-(4-) Article 50.55 or that will result in the construction or the increased use of private streets, driveways or parking lot aisles pursuant to 60PS GhHl)teF (19)Article 50.58. #1. Determining an RC District protection area pursuant to LOC 4Q�:7.20-450.16.055. 44m. Construction of a structure described in LODE 26.010(bl LUC 50.60.010(b). 3. Minor developments are initially decided by the City Manager subject to notice, the opportunity to request a hearing, and appeal as provided by LOC Article 50.81. Cross Reference: Greenway Management District. 12/12/01: Subsection 2(l) was adopted by Ord. 2307. It has been changed to conform to the CDC format and placement of LODS 26 as now LOC .50.60. 12/21/01: There was an error in re -lettering the subsections. "j" was used twice. (See item 5 below for additional related correction.) Page 4 - Draft Community Development Code - Further Revisions 026 B. Section 50.59.015 LODS 20.025. Standards for Construction. 1. The surfacing of walkways, bikeways and accessways shall consist of either two inches of asphaltic concrete over a minimum of four inches of compacted crushed rock, or of four inches of concrete, as determined by the City Manager. Other materials must be specifically approved by the City Manager. 2. Walkway surfacing shall be five feet in unobstructed width, unless specifically otherwise approved by the City Manager, and never less than four feet in unobstructed width. 3. Walkways without stairs shall have a maximum cross slope of two percent and a maximum slope of eight percent. If the existing grade exceeds an eight percent slope and the walkway construction requires an erosion control permit pursuant to LOC 52.02.040(1), and construction of stairs are impracticable, then the pathway may follow the existing grade. 4. Ramps for handicapped use are required on all walkways used by the public at all points where a path intersects a curb. 5. Walkways, bikeways and accessways must be constructed in such a way as to allow the surface drainage to sheet flow across them, and not flow along them longitudinally. 6. An accessway shall include at least a 15 -foot wide right-of-way or easement and an 8 -foot wide hard surface. For safety, accessways shall be as straight as practicable. Bollards, buttons, or landscaping shall be used to block motor vehicular access. 7. A Residential accessway shall include at least a 15 -foot wide right-of-way or easement and a minimum 6 -foot wide travel surface. Accessways may meander around maior trees or vegetation, but shall be as straight as nracticable, considering the circumstances related to the property. 8. The surfacing of residential accessways shall consist of either two inches of asphaltic concrete over a minimum of four inches of compacted cruslied rock, or four inches of concrete, as determined by the City NIgnager. Depending on location, topos?riphy or presence of sensitive kinds, other materials may be specifically approved by the City Manager. Residential accessway surfacing, for purposes of meeting this standard, shall be a minimum of six feet in width. 9. Bollards, buttons or landscaping shall be used to block motor vehicle: access at locations where accessways abut streets. Page 5 - Draft Community Development Code — Further Revisions 027 10. Accessways shall be constructed in such away as to allow surface drainage to sheet flow across them, and not flow alone them longitudinally. Note: sections 7-10 were added by Ord. 2307, eff.1/3/02. C. Section 50.60.005 LODS 26.010 Applicability. This standard is applicable to: a. Any development that results in the construction of a street, or b. Construction of: a detached single family dwelling, duplex, zero lot line dwelling, commercial, industrial, institutional, or public facility structure; and is located on a parcel or parcels of vacant or redevelopable land of five acres or larger. D. Section 50.60.010 LODS 26.012 Purpose and Intent. The purpose of the connectivity standard is to ensure that: 1. The layout of the local street system does not create excessive travel lengths or limit route choices. This will be accomplished through an interconnected local street system to reduce travel distance, promote the use of alternative modes of travel, provide for efficient provision of utility and emergency services, provide for more even dispersal of traffic, and reduce air pollution and energy consumption; 2. Streets, alleys and residential accessways shall be designed to meet the needs of pedestrians and cyclists and encourage walking, bicycling and transit as transportation modes; 3. Street and pedestrian and bicycle accessway design is responsive to topography and other natural features and avoids or minimizes impacts to Sensitive Lands Overlay Zones, pursuant to LOC 48:-1750.16; Floodplains, pursuant to GODS LOC 17.00 550.44, and steep slopes, pursuant to 60PS 16.005L.00 50.43; 4. Local circulation systems and land development patterns do not detract from the efficiency of the adjacent collector or arterial streets; 5. The street and accessway circulation pattern contributes to connectivity to and from activity centers, such as schools, commercial areas, parks, employment centers and other major trip generators; 6. The Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan street connectivity requirements (Metro Code 3.07.630) are met; 7. Proposed development will be designed in a manner which will not preclude properties within the vicinity that meet the definition of further developable, from meeting the requirements of this standard, and, 8. To guide land owners and developers on desired street and bicycle and pedestrian accessway connections to the existing transportation system that will improve local access to schools, transit, shopping and employment areas. Page 6 - Draft Community Developmcnt Code — Further Revisions 0,23 E. Section 50.60.015 LODS 26.015 Definitions. A stfip of land imended for use by pedestr4ans and � tgh stfeet Gul-de-saes and dead-=idt 41. Full Street: For the purposes of providing multi -modal access, a street section that includes auto and bike travel surface, and pedestrian travel area, lighting, landscaping, drainage and all other City standards or requirements. -52. Redevelopable: For the purpose of this standor-darticle, land on which development has already occurred, but due to present or expected market forces, there exists the strong likelihood that current development will be converted to more intensive uses during the planning period. The definitions for Residential Accessway, Closed-end street, and Abutting parcels have been moved to LOC 50.02.005 — Definitions. The "Full -Street" and "Redevelopable" definitions were too specific to this article, so they have been left here. F. Section 50.60.020 LODS 26.020 Standards for Approval of Development Which Requires the Construction of a Street. 1. Local and neighborhood collector streets and residential accessways shall be designed to connect to the existing transportation system to meet the requirements of this standard as determined by the Review Authority. 2. Local and neighborhood collector street design shall provide for full street connections between through streets with spacing of no more than 530 feet, measured between the center of the intersection of two through streets that provide for vehicle traffic movement in generally the same direction ("through street pairs") with the cross street. This requirement shall be applied to all through street pairs which surround the site. If the nearest boundary of the site (or boundaries extended to the street) is more than 100 feet from the intersection of a through street nearest to the site and the cross street, the provisions of this Standard shall be met, except when the provisions of subsection 5 below are met. (See Table Appendix 50.60 -A26 -A). 3. Streets shall be designed to connect to all existing or approved stub streets which abut the development site. 4. Cul-de-sacs and permanent closed-end streets shall be prohibited except where a) the requirements of this standard for street and residential accessway spacing are met and b) construction of a through street is found to be impracticable. When cul-de-sacs or closed-end streets are allowed under Seetien Subsection 5, they shall be limited to 200 feet and shall serve Page 7 - Draft Community Development Code — Further Revisions 02J no more than 25 dwellings, except where the Review Authority has determined that this standard is impracticable due the criteria listed in LODS 26.029subsection (5), below. 5. The Review Authority may allow an exception to the review standards of Sestiet-Subsections 1 through 4, above, based on findings that the modification is the minimum necessary to address the constraint and the application of the standards is impracticable due to the following: a. Extreme topography (over 15% slope) in the longitudinal direction of a projected automobile route; b. The presence of Sensitive Lands as described in LOC 48.1750.16 or floodplains LOPS 17.00 LOC 50.44, or other lands protected by City ordinances, where regulations discourage construction of or prescribe different standards for street facilities, unless the nearest through street pairs (See Table 2-6Appendix 50.60-A) surrounding the subject site are more than '/4 mile apart. The Review Authority may determine that connectivity is not required under this circumstance, if a benefit/cost analysis shows that the traffic impacts from development are low and do not provide reasonable justification for the estimated costs of a full street connection; C. The presence of freeways, existing development patterns on abutting property which preclude the logical connection of streets or arterial access restrictions; d. Where requiring a particular location of a road would result in violation of other city standards, or state or county laws or standards, or a traffic safety issue that can not be resolved; or e. Where requiring streets or accessways would violate provisions of leases, easements, covenants, restrictions or other agreements existing as of May 1, 1995, which preclude required street or accessway connections. 6. If the Review Authority allows an exception to 26.020S ibsection (2) for full street connections, it shall require residential accessway connections on public easements or rights-of-way so that spacing between bicycle and pedestrian connections shall be no more than 330 feet measured from the centerline of the nearest bicycle and pedestrian connection intersection with the cross street. 7. The Review Authority may allow a reduction in the number of residential accessway connections required by LOPS-26.02ASubsection (6) based on findings that demonstrate: a. that reducing the number or location of connections would not significantly add to travel time or distance from the proposed development to bus lines or activity centers in the area, such as schools, shopping, or parks or b. that existing development patterns on abutting properties preclude logical connection of residential accessways, or C. That the traffic impacts from development, redevelopment or both are low and do not provide reasonable justification for the estimated costs of such accessway. Cross-reference: Section 4 - See also LOC 42.03.085 Cross-reference added. Page 8 - Draft Cormnunity Development Code — Further Revisions G. Section 50.60.025 LODS 26.025 Standards for Approval of Construction of Structures that Do Not Require Construction of a Street but are Located on a Parcel(s) Five Acres or Greater in Size. When an applicant proposes construction of a structure subject to LOPS LOC -02950.60.005(b) that does not require the construction of a street, but is located on a parcel or parcels five acres or greater in size, the Review Authority shall require: 1. A future connectivity plan to be filed with the City and recorded in the applicable County Clerk records, as a condition of development approval. The future connectivity plan shall show how the location of future streets and accessways will provide for full developinew of the subject parcel as well as any abutting properties in order to meet the standards of 26.02050.60.020(2) — (7), and, 2. Placement of structures in a manner that allows for the future street(s) or accessways to be constructed, as well as an area sufficient to meet the required zone setbacks from the future streets. The revision to the lead-in is a correction of a typo — 26.010(b), not 26.020(b). H. Section 50.60.030 LODS 26.030 Procedures. For all applicable development or construction, the applicant shall submit: 1. Proof of notification of a circulation analysis pursuant to this subsection and subsection 2, below, to all property owners within 530 feet of the boundaries of the parcel on which a development or construction is proposed, if any future streets or accessways are proposed beyond the boundaries of the subject parcel. Notification shall be in a form substantially similar to the example provided by the City. Notification shall be sent to the applicant and the owners of record on the most recent property tax assessment roll as stated above, in the manner required in LOC 49.4 4.92050.82.020. 2. A circulation analysis which includes a scaled site plan showing at a minimum: a. The subject site and the entirety of all properties within 530 feet of the parcel on which the development or construction is proposed; b. A scaled site plan showing existing and proposed topography with contour intervals not more than five (5) feet; C. Drainage features, flood plains, and existing natural resource areas and significant vegetation; d. The name, location, right-of-way, pattern and grades of all existing and approved streets bikeways and pedestrian ways; e. Proposed streets and bike or pedestrian facilities identified in the Transportation Improvement Program in the Comprehensive Plan or applicable Neighborhood Plans; f. All permanent structures; g. Property lines; Page 9 - Draft Community Development Code — Further Revisions 031 h. Bus lines or activity centers, such as schools, shopping or parks, within one-quarter mile (1,320 feet) of the site; and i. All streets and residential accessways proposed by the applicant, containing sufficient dimensions, spot elevations, existing structures and land features on the subject site and abutting parcels, to demonstrate compliance with this standard. 2. The circulation analysis shall graphically and textually illustrate how the proposed development or construction complies with this standard. The applicant must illustrate how proposed streets and residential accessways will provide connections to surrounding properties within 530 feet of the subject site or to the nearest through street pairs, whichever is closer, in compliance with this standard. I. Section 50.60.035 LODS 26.035 Standards for Construction. 1. Standards for construction of full street connections shall be those included in LOC Chapter 42, 2. Standards for construction of residential accessways shall be those included in I ODS 7l�2=5LOC 50.59.015. I Section 50.81.01 t) Section 49.40.805 Notice of Minor Development Application. 1. Prior to making a final decision on a minor development permit application, the Pluniiing Dife te+ Manager shall provide written notice to owners of property within 300 feet of the entire contiguous site for which the application is made. The list shall be compiled from the most recent property tax assessment roll. Notice shall also be sent to any recognized neighborhood association whose boundaries include the site. The Planning L)ireetefCit y Manager shall certify that such notice was given. 2. The notice required by subsection 1 of this section shall: a. Provide a 14 -day period for submission of comments prior to the decision; b. State the place, date and time that comments are due; c. State that issues which may provide the basis for an appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals shall be raised with sufficient specificity to enable the City to respond to the issue; d. List, by commonly used citation, the applicable criteria for a decision; e. Set forth the street address or other easily understood geographical reference to the subject property; f. State that copies of all evidence relied on by the applicant are available for review, and that copies can be obtained at cost; and g. Include the name and phone number of the Planning •City Manager or such other City staff person as may be assigned by the Piallliiilg Di+eetoFCity Manager to review the application. (Ord. No. 2088, Enacted, 03/03/94; Ord. No. Renumbered 07/02/96; Ord. No. ) Cross -Reference: See 50.60.030 if minor development is subject to the Street Connectivity Development Standard. Page 10 - Draft Community DevelopnTde — Further Revisions Cross reference added. K. Section 50.82.020 Section 49.44.920 Notice of Public Hearing. 1. Notice of a public hearing before a hearings body shall be mailed at least twenty days before the initial public hearing: a. To the applicant and the owners of record on the most recent property tax assessment roll of property located within 300 feet of the subject property; b. To any recognized neighborhood association whose boundaries include the subject property; and c. If the hearing regards an appeal of a Plan. ung Pi-eete••Cit Mana cr decision on a minor development application, to the appellant if different than the applicant and any person not otherwise required to be notified by this section who submitted comments during the 14 -day comment period provided by LOC 49-40.90550.81.010(2). 2. Nothing in subsection I of this section shall preclude the Nanning DiteCity Manama from providing additional public notice as PlaiiiDiieetoCity Manager deems appropriate. 3. The notice shall: a. Explain the nature of the application and the use or uses which could be authorized; b. List the applicable criteria from the ordinance and plan that apply to the application at issue; c. Set forth the street address or other easily understood geographical reference to the subject property; d. State the date, time and location of the hearing; e. State that failure of an issue to be raised in a hearing, in person or by letter, or failure to provide statements or evidence sufficient to afford the hearings body an opportunity to respond to the issue precludes appeal to the City Council and the Oregon State Land Use Board of Appeals on that issue; f. Include the name and phone number of the City staff person assigned to the application from whom additional information may be obtained; g. State that a copy of the application, all documents and evidence submitted by or on behalf of the applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and will be provided at reasonable cost; h. State that a copy of the staff report will be available for inspection at no cost at least ten days prior to the hearing and will be provided at reasonable cost; and i. Include a general explanation of the requirements for submission of testimony and the procedure for conduct of the hearing. 4. At the time notice is mailed pursuant to subsection 1 of this section, a notice shall be posted on the site subject to the application at a location readily visible from a public right-of- way, if available. The notice shall state that the site is subject to an application for a development permit and the telephone number of the City department to call for further information about the application. 5. The failure of a person entitled to notice as provided in this section to receive notice shall not invalidate such proceedings if the Plaxiring—DiFeetaFCit Manager can demonstrate by affidavit that such notice was given. Page 1 1 - Draft Community Developnbt ,gde — Further Revisions (U� .j (Ord. No. 2088, Enacted, 03/03/94; Ord. No. 2127, Amended, 01/03/96) Cross -Reference: See 50.60.030 if major development is subject to the Street Connectivity Development Standard. Cross reference added. // // (continued) Page 12 - Draft Community Development Code — Further Revisions 034 L. Appendix 50.60-A Appendix 3(150.60-A Street Feasible t 600' Standards do not apply (within 100' of through -- streets) Through Street Pairs �I Street Not Feasible l l Direction of required Connectivity Property subject to Planning requirement 60 V Existing Accessway WV Barrier to street construction l j� (i.e.,wetland) I Through Street Pairs Page 13 - Draft Community Development Code — Further Revisions 035 2. State and Federal Law Preemption Add as a cross-reference following the Purpose section — 5.01.010 Cross -Reference: Note: From time to time, new state and federal laws, regulations, or court decisions are issued. The reader is advised that federal or state law may be determined to supersede portions of this Community Development Code, either generally or as applied to a specific situation. A citizen suggested adding a notation, reminding people that state or federal law may supersede the Community Development Code. Intro. Comment To Article 50.02. Title of proposed chapter 50.02 has been changed from "Definitions" to "Definitions; Methods of Calculation" because 50.02.050 has been added, providing for a method of calculating maximum residential density. Note: LOC 48.08.280 [proposed 50.02.050] is proposed to be repealed as a part of the Density Guideline code amendments, scheduled for public hearing on February 5, 2002, the same night as the public hearing on this Community Development Code. If it appears that the Council will consider ordinances to adopt Density Guidelines at its next meeting, Feb. 19, then the proposed Community Development Code will be revised to eliminate the proposed 50.02.050, so it would not reinstate what would be repealed by the Density Guideline ordinance. Further, the title to the Article would be returned to "Definitions", since it would no longer contain a methodology of calculation. Building Height and Roof Pitch Overlay, 48.07 / 50.18. This article was amended by Ordinance 2308, effective January 17, 2002. What follows is the revised version of Article 50.18, with redline indicating the changes that would be made for purposes of this consolidation. A. Title 50.18 Country Chib/North Shore, First Addition, Lake Grove and Lakewood Building Height and Roof Pitch Overlay. B. 50.18.005 Height of Structure 48.07,010 1. This zoning overlay requirement shall be applicable to single family and zero lot line dwellings in residential zones located in the Country Club/North Shore, First Addition, Lake Page 14 - Draft Community Development Code — Further Revisions 036 Grove and Lakewood Neighborhoods, except for dwellings on parcels adjacent to Oswego Lake as shown in LOC TABLE&APPendix 48 50.18-A, 45-850.18-B, 4&45.9.18-C and 4&4950.18- D. 2. Notwithstanding LOC 48.02.01550.02.005, Height of Building definition, the method for determining the height of buildings shall be as follows: a. On Flat Lots: The vertical distance from any ground surface at the exterior wall of the building to the highest point of the roof. b. On Sloped Lots: The vertical distance from any ground surface at the exterior wall of the building prior to construction of any structure which artificially elevates the ground surface, to the highest point of the roof. 3. Application to Flag Lots Created Prior to September 6, 2001: This section shall not apply to single family and zero lot line dwellings in residential zones on flag lots created through LOC 4F:-1`950.20 prior to September 6, 2001. Dwellings on flag lots created prior to September 6, 2001 shall be measured according to the methodology outlined in 49.02.01550.02,005, Definitions, Height of Building, and shall not exceed the average height of all dwellings on lots abutting the flag lot as specified in LOC 48.13.939 0.25 0.030(3). Cross -Reference: See expiration provision cited in 50.18.010 cross-reference. C. 50.18.010 Minimum hoof Pitch Required in Country Club/North Shore, First Addition, Lake Grove, and Lakewood Neighborhoods 48.07.015 This zoning overlay requirement shall be applicable to single family and zero lot line dwellings and accessory structures in residential zones located in the Country Club/North Shore, First Addition, Lake Grove, and Lakewood Neighborhoods, except for dwellings and accessory structures adjacent to Oswego Lake, as shown in LOC TABLES Appendix 48-450.18-A. 48- 850.18-B. 48-9-50.18-C and 48 1050.18-D. I. Single Family and Zero Lot Line Dwellings. The minimum roof pitch for primary roof forms of a single family or zero lot line dwelling shall be 6:12. Shed type and flat roofs are not permitted as primary roof forms on single family and zero lot line dwellings. Secondary roof forms, such as sunrooms, balconies, dormers, porticos, or bays may be flat or shed roof types (See TA 136 -Appendix 48-350.07-A). 2. Accessory Structures. The roof pitch for accessory strictures to residential structures shall either match the pitch of the primary roof of the primary structure dwelling or be a minimum pitch of 6:12. 3. Additions to Single Family and Zero Lot Line Dwellings. a. Additions that expand the roof area of the primary residential structure by less than 50% shall match the existing roof pitch of the primary roof. (See -Dile-Appendix 48- 3 0� 07-A). b. Additions that expand the roof area of the primary residential structure by 50% or more shall either match the roof pitch of the primary roof. (See Table Appendix 48- .250.07-A) or have a minimum pitch of 6:12. Cross -Reference: Note: Ordinance 2308 contains the following provision, formerly codified as 48.07.200: Page 15 - Draft Community Development Code — Further Revisions 037 "The provisions of this article are repealed as to structures in Country Club/North Shore and Lakewood Neighborhoods, as shown on LOC Tables 48-9 and 48-10, upon the earlier of: 1. January 17, 2003; or 2. The effective date of an ordinance adopted by the City Council following the Council's receipt of a recommendation on infill development from the Ad Hoc Infill Development Task Force, which ordinance contains a recital stating that it is intended to address the compatibility of infill development, and which contains regulations affecting structures within the Country Club/North Shore and Lakewood Neighborhoods." Reference to Table 48-2 should have been to 48-3; corrected. The Cross -Reference method of tracking the sunset provision to this Article was thought an appropriate method to maintain notice that this article would expire automatically in the future, without codifying the sunset provision. Typically the code provisions are regulatory, requiring compliance, not procedural as to the adopting ordinance. D. Cross -References There are numerous cross-references to: "50.18.010 for First Addition and the Lake Grove Building Height and Roof Pitch Overlay" These cross-references are changed to: "50.18.010 for Country Club/North Shore, First Addition, Lake Grove, and Lakewood Building Height and Roof Pitch Overlay." 5. Section 50.11.020_ Special Requirements Section 48.10.,E 15 12. a. For the 8 acre site bounded by Kruse Way, Kruse Way Place and Boones Ferry Road and zoned Office Campus, the maximum FAR of 0.30 : 1. is allowed if development consists of a maximum of 20,255 square feet of retail commercial use and the balance of the allowable square footage is in non -retail commercial use; For every square foot of reduction of retail use there results a proportional increase in the allowable FAR to a maximum of 0.38 : 1. as described in the following chart. SEE Table 49 1 Appendix 50.11 -A-13 (Floor Area Ratio Graph). There was an error in labeling 48-1 as 50.11-A because there was a previously designated table as 50.11-A. Since the prior designation came first, the reference to the Floor Area Ratio Graph should be 50.11-B. 6. Correction to subsection lettering of Minor Development Classification Section 50.13.040 Section 48.12.375 Special Requirements. Page 16 - Draft Community Development Code — Further Revisions 038 6. The creation of an incidental retail use within an existing structure shall be processed as a change of use pursuant to LOC 4+3-20.1-1050.79.020(2)(411). This is the only code reference to 48.20.110 Minor Development, section (2), subsections j, k or 1. Due to the re -lettering of 49.20.110(2)(i) to (k)[see Item 1 A above), this has been corrected. 7. Exception without Variance Section 50.20.015 Section 48.19.015 Exceptions. 1. For land divisions, the reviewing authority may allow exceptions to this Article without the need to obtain a formal variance pursuant to Articles 48.24 of A9.2 50.68, in one or more of the following circumstances: a. Landscaping required by LOC A9.'�550.20.035(1) as separation between driveways, which would not result in screening or buffering as intended due to topography, lot configuration, or existing natural resources which would be preserved, may be modified or may not be required; b. Setback adjustments of up to 2 feet which are necessary to site a dwelling in compliance with this Article, or will result in additional separation from existing dwellings on surrounding lots, may be permitted; c. Minimum driveway widths of 12 feet required by LOC 49.1-9-02050.20.020(3) may be reduced, when approved by the City of Lake Oswego Fire Marshall. The reference to Articles 48.24 and 49.28 (first paragraph) was missed in the conversion to references in the CDC. 8. Planned Development Procedures Section 50.17.0 10 Section 48.18.475 Procedures. 1. The establishment of a PD Overlay for projects containing more than one phase shall occur in conjunction with the approval by the Planning Commission of an Overall Development Plan and Schedule (ODPS) pursuant to the provisions of LOC Article 49:2650.71. The ODPS shall contain a section which identifies the zone requirements to be applied in the PD Overlay. These requirements may be adopted by referring in the Final Order to existing provisions of ". eha this Code. or by creating special zoning standards pursuant to the Planned Development Overlay section. (LOC 49.19.4 7050.17.QO5 to 9050,16.03050.17.025). Last reference corrected due to typo and deletion of last section in Article Page 17 - Draft Community Development Code — Further Revisions 039 9. Definitions The annotated Code indicated that: (1) the definitions in LOC 50.41, Drainage Standards for Major Development, were to be stricken in LOC 50.41, (2) the definitions in LOC 50.42, Weak Foundation Soils, were to be stricken in LOC 50.42, and (2) the definitions in LOC 50.44, Flood Plain, were to be stricken in LOC 50.44. They were intended to be incorporated into the Definition section 50.02.005, but were inadvertently omitted. The following definitions have been included in the Definition section, 50.02. Where redline appears, a clarification in the definition is proposed for applicability of definitions; in that instance the original language as it appeared in LOC 50.41, 50.42, or 50.44 is shown in Yellow Bold, to illustrate what words in the original definition have been deleted for applicability of the definition.. A. Drainage Standard for Major Development By -Pass: A drainage system to carry storm water runoff around or through a specific area. Detention: The act of detaining or storing storm water runoff for a short period of time during and after a storm. Drainage: A general term applied to the removal of surface or subsurface water from a given area either by gravity or by pumping; commonly applied herein to surface water. Drainage Pattern: The surface and subsurface system for the removal of water from the land, including both the natural elements of streams, marshes, swales, and ponds, whether of an intermittent or continuous nature, and the man-made element which includes culverts, ditches, channels, retention or detention facilities, and the storm sewer system. Floodplain. See subsection C below Hydraulic Characteristics: The features of a watercourse which -determine its water conveyance capacity. They include the watercourse cross-section, alignment, width from bank to bank, profile, and the location and types of vegetation within the watercourse. Obstruction: Any dam, wall, wharf, embankment, levee, dike, pile abutment, excavation, bridge, conduit, pole, culvert, building, wire, fence, fill, or projection into a floodplain, watercourse, or drainage system Page 18 - Draft Community Development Code — Further Revisions 040 Retention: The act of retaining or storing storm water, runoff permanently or for a considerable length of time for some use, or until it percolates into the ground or evaporates. Sedimentation: Deposition of boils, debris, or other materials suspended and transported by storm water runoff. Storm Water Runoff: Water that results from precipitation which is not absorbed by the soil or plant material. Storm Water Storage Area: A facility used for detention and/or retention of storm water runoff. Stream. Flowing surface waters that produce a definable channel or bed. Stream flows can be perennial, intermittent, or ephemeral. Streams do not include ditches, storm drains, or other artificial watercourses unless they are used to convey streams naturally occurring prior to construction or have come to function as natural water courses, thus contributing to the quality of an area*s overall natural systems. Notwithstanding the above "stream" definition, for numoses of LOC 50.41 (Drainage Standard for Maier Development), stream shall mean &Feanv tea natural body oC running water flowing; continuously or intermittently in a channel on or below the surface of the gyro rid. Vegetation: All plant growth, especially trees, shrubs, mosses and grasses. \'Fater Conveyance Capacity: The capacity of a watercourse to convey a particular volume of water per unit of time at a particular water surface elevation at any particular point on the watercourse. Water Courses: Water courses are defined as ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial drainageways which exhibit defined channels: a: Ephemeral means water courses which convey water associated with rainfall events. b. Intermittent means water courses whose conveyance of water is seasonal in nature. c. Perennial means water courses which convey water year-round. Water courses also include perennial springs. They may be either the result of natural processes or human -made features such as canals, mill races, and open drainageways which are either historic in nature, or have come to function as natural water courses, thus contributing to the quality of an Area's overall natural systems including hydrology, vegetation, wildlife habitat. (See "watercourse" for purposes of LOC 50.41 (Drainage Standard for Major Development). Watercourse: A natural or artificial channel which conveys storm water runoff. B. Foundation Soils Page 19 - Draft Community Development Code — Further Revisions 041 Potential Weak—Foundation Soil Potential Weak: A generalized map of locations of potential Weak Foundation Soils is maintained at the Public Works Department, City Hall. However, the actual condition of the site will determine whether such soils exist. WeaR-Foundation Soils, Weak: Those which may cause overall settlement or differential settlement resulting in damage to structures not designed to accommodate movements. Weak Foundation Soils have one or more of the following characteristics: tow strength, compressibility, high organic material content, high shrink -swell ratio or elasticity, or slow percolation and wetness. C. Flood Plain 100 -Year Flood: See "base flood". Also Added: Base Flood See "Flood Base" definition. --- Identical definition from LODS 17/LOC 50.44; deleted as duplicative Flood or Flooding. A general and temporary condition of partial or complete inundation of normally dry land area from the overflow of inland waters anc or the unusual and rapid accumulation of runoff of surface waters from any source, lets iWiNdMiOR Of This definition came from LODS 17/LOC 50.44. Except for the "or Flooding" and "and/or", it is identical to the LOC definition. Therefore this difference has been added to the LOC definition and then this definition deleted as duplicative. Best -Flood, Base. The flood having a one percent chance of being equal led or exceeded in any given year. The "Base Flood" is also known as the "100 -year flood". f4reas of Sneeia -Flood Hazard, Areas of Special: The land in the flood plain subject to a one percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year. Flood Proofine: To make a structure watertight with walls substantially impermeable to the passage of water and with structural components having the capability of resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads and effects of buoyancy. Floodplain(or flood plain). The area bordering a watercourse encompassing both the floodway fringe and the floodway inundated during the 100 year flood, also referred to as the base flood, �< defined in the flood insurance study adopted in Section 4444-310.44-015. . In addition to the above definition, for numoses of LOC _50.41 (Drainage Standard for Maim Development), floodplain Page 20 - Draft Community Development Code — Further Revisions 042 shall include the land areas adjoining all streams, lakes, ponds, or wetlands that are subject to inundation by a 100 -year frequency storm. Definition from LODS 11; last sentence modified for applicability Definition from LODS 17/LOC 50.44, deleted because the key difference from the LOC definition, "as defined in the flood insurance study adopted in Section 17.013", has been incorporated into the LOC definition above. F000dway. The area within the floodplain which includes the channel of a river or other watercourse and the adjacent land areas that must be reserved in order to discharge the base flood without cumulatively increasing the water surface elevation more than one foot. Rod the adjaeen! land kiFells that must 1-:W Fpelswap.,ed ilie_-dei: low dis I - , , a flook! This definition came from LODS 17.LOC 50.44. Except for the change from "area" to "areas", it is identical to the LOC definition. Therefore this difference has been added to the LOC definition and then this definition deleted as duplicative. Floodway Fringe. The area of the floodplain lying outside the floodway. Floodway 1-Fim _ outside !he floe The definition from LODS 17/LOC 50.44 has been deleted because it is identical to the LOC definition. Lowest Floor: The lowest floor of the lowest enclosed area (includint, basement). An unfinished or flood resistant enclosure, usable solely for parking of vehicles, building access or storage, in an area other than a basement areas, is not considered a building's lowest floor, provided that such enclosure is built to comply with the design requirements for such areas in thirrstan LOC 50.44. Manufactured Homes. A multi -sectional dwelling unit with a Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) label, of not less than 1,000 square feet constructed in an off-site manufacturing facility on or after June 15, 1976, to the standards and requirements of the National Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974, and designed to be used with a foundation as a dwelling unit on a year-round basis with approved connections to water, sewer and electric utility systems. N4aiittfe 4 -e��Notwithstandint: the above, --Ffor the purpose of this StandaFt1LOC 50.44, a manufactured home is a structure, transportable in one or more sections, which is built on a permanent chassis and is designed for use with or without a permanent foundation when connected to the required utilities. For flood plain management purposes the term "manufactured home" also includes park trailers, travel trailers, and other similar vehicles placed on a site for greater than 180 Page 21 - Draft Community Development,,CM Further Revisions consecutive days. For insurance purposes the term "manufactured home" does not include park trailers, travel trailers, and other similar vehicles. Definition from LODS 17/LOC 50.44. Mean Sea Level: Mean sea level and other references to elevations are based on the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929. Also Added: _Special Flood Hazard. Areas of. See "Flood Haza l Areas of Special" definition. Substantial Improvement: For the purpose of this 50.44, a substantial improvement is any repair, reconstruction, or improvement of a structure, the cost of which equals or exceeds 50 percent of the market value of the structure either: a. before the improvement or repair is started, or b. before the damage occurred if the structure has been damaged and is being restored. A "substantial improvement" is considered to occur when the first alteration of any wall, ceiling, floor, or other structural part of the building commences, whether or not that alteration affects the external dimensions of the structure. The term does not include either: a. any project for improvement of a structure to comply with existing state or local health, sanitary, or safety code specifications which are solely necessary to assure safe living conditions, or b. any alteration of a structure listed on the National Register of Historic Places or a State Inventory of Historic Places. Water Courses: Water courses are defined as ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial drainageways which exhibit defined channels: a: Ephemeral means watercourses which convey water associated with rainfall events. b. Intermittent means water courses whose conveyance of water is seasonal in nature. c. Perennial means water courses which convey water year-round. Water courses also include perennial springs. They may be either the result of natural processes or human -made features such as canals, mill races, and open drainageways which are either historic in nature, or have come to function as natural water courses, thus contributing to the quality of an Area's overall natural systems including hydrology, vegetation, wildlife habitat. (See "watercourse" for purposes of LOC 50.41 (Drainage Standard for Major Development) and 5.0.44 (Flood Plain). Watercourse: A natural or artificial channel which conveys storm water runoff, Notwithstanding the above definition for purposes of LOC 50 44 watercourse means a died or channel of a waterway. Page 22 - Draft Community Development Code — Further Revisions 044 The additional sentence to Water Course added to reference the reader to the alternative definitions of watercourse (one word). The two definitions of watercourse are the result of the definition from LODS 11 and a different definition from LODS 17. 10. [Note: the following additional ordinances are pending Council consideration, and may be adopted at the time of or prior to adoption of the Community Development Code. When adopted, they will need to be added to the Community Development Code: (proposed) Ord. 2309 - Density Guidelines] This is proposed for public hearing on the same night as the public hearing on this proposed Community Development Code. If, following the respective hearings, it appears that the Council is favorably disposed to adoption of both Ordinance 2309 and the Community Development Code, then Ordinance 2309 will be revised to conform to the Community Development Code format. d. (proposed) LU 01-0045 (Neighborhood Notice Requirements) This is proposed for public hearing on the same night as the public hearing on this proposed Community Development Code. If, following the respective hearings, it appears that the Council is favorably disposed to adoption of both the ordinance for LU 01-0045 and the Community Development Code, then the ordinance draft for LU 01-0045 will be revised to conform to the Community Development Code format. N:\Boone\Planning\Consolidation\Consol idatedCode.Annotated. Errata.Council.doc Page 23 - Draft Community Developmenftlp)— Further Revisions s Draft Community Development Code — Further Revisions (01/28/02) Further recommended revisions following publication of December 2001 draft. In instances in which a section includes a comment of changes previously published in the December 2001 version, the new change and comment are bolded. If a new ordinance was adopted following the publication of the December draft, the text as originally adopted is show in bold and attention is called to the insertion by bolded comment. Ord. 2307 — Street Connectivity (Effective 1/3/02) This ordinance adopts a new LODS 26 — Street Connectivity. This will be placed in the "Transportation" section of the Development Standards, as 50.60. (50.60 was previously designated for the Street Lights Development Standard; it will be renumbered to 50.63. The Utility Development Standard was previously designated as 50.61; it will be renumbered to 50.64. References to 50.60 and 50.61 will also be revised to 50.63 and 50.64 respectively. Index Changes as follows: Article 50.60 Local Street Connectivity 50.60.005 Applicability 26.010 50.60.010 Purpose and Intent 26.012 50.60.015 Definitions 26.015 50.60.020 Standards for 26.020 Approval of Development Which Requires the Construction of a Street 50.60.025 Standards for 26.025 Approval of Construction of Structures that Do Not Require Construction of a Street but are Located on a Parcel(s) Five Acres or Greater in Page I - Draft Community Devclopmcnt Code - Further Revisions s Reverse Index changes as follows: _ Size Street (Pathway, Parkin Lots) 50.60.030 Procedures 26.030 50.60.035 Standards for Construction 26.035 Article 50.63 Street (Pathwav, Parkin Lots) Lights h_ts Standards for A royal pp 50.63.005 --Applicability Article 50.64 5.010 50.63.010 I Standards for Approval 5.020 Article 50.64 Utility Standard 50.64.005 50.64.005 1 Applicability 14.010 50.64.010 ; Definitions 14.015 50.64.015 Standards for Approval 14.020 Reverse Index changes as follows: _ Article 50.63 Street (Pathway, Parkin Lots) 5.005 Eliminated -Lights 5.010 50.63.005 Applicability 5.015 See 50.02.005 Definitions 5.020 50.63.010 Standards for A royal pp Article 50.64 Standard 14.005 Eliminated 14.010 50.64.005 14.015 —..Applicability 50.64.010 Definitions 14.020 50.64.015 Standards for Approval 14.025 50.64.020 Standards for Construction 14.030 50.64.025 Standards for Maintenance Article 56.60 Local Street Connectivity 26.005 Eliminated Title 26.010 50.60.005 _ Applicability 26.012 50.60.010 Purpose and Intent 26.015 50.60.015 Definitions 26.020 _..__ 50.60.020 Standards for Approval of Development Which Re uires the Page 2 - Draft Community Development Code — Further Revisions A. Section 50.79.020 Section 49.20.110 Minor Development Classification. 1. A Minor Development is a development which requires a pert -nit from the City that requires a more discretionary level of review than a ministerial decision. "Minor Development" is intended to include decisions defined as "limited land use decisions" pursuant to ORS 197.015(12). 2. "Minor Development" includes: a. III the D Q=g..t . ( 1) Construction of new single family detached dwellings, , g L1\\rllill;�s, :cro lot line cir--ditpl"---dwellingsrpt af'eNss��r'-yfrttettrrts-or exterior remodel* tilOdilic� I(m of a stricture containing a non -conforming use that requires a building permit.-ijfi £h 9D 01) t.�� �n . reconst►uc i9tzQf_tl e _s rtictui•cs listed in s_�tb e 0,�l�l�..tb0ve that I'CsIIIt Ill i411;U it&C.of us - 1_e fatY�i�y i0 dU1211X) OI' 111 1111 CXUanSlOrl O 9m st1 I f floor a> of an c;�ustitie structure by more (c)rd.No 91 mended_L9_194Ld: 9 L_d4/ Amended Q9/1 /91'�s�la�. (z — - _� This alternative is found in LOC 48.08.275(1)[Old Town Design District]; I have combined the two via this section: 1. Construction of new detached single-family dwellings, duplexes, zero lot line and multi -family dwellings and exterior modifications to structures containing non- conforming uses that require a building permit; 2. Expansion or reconstruction of the structures listed in subsection 1. above, that result in a change of use (e.g. from single family to duplex) or in an expansion of floor area of an existing structure by more than 50%. (Ord. No. 1882, Sec. 12; 3-6-84.) Page 3 - Draft Community Development Code - Further Revisions Construction of a Street 26.0'5 50.60.025 Standards for Approval of Construction of Structures that Do Not Require Construction of a Street but are Located on a Parcel(s) Five Acres or Greater in Size 26.030 50.60.030 Proced ures 26.033 50.60.035 Standards for Construction A. Section 50.79.020 Section 49.20.110 Minor Development Classification. 1. A Minor Development is a development which requires a pert -nit from the City that requires a more discretionary level of review than a ministerial decision. "Minor Development" is intended to include decisions defined as "limited land use decisions" pursuant to ORS 197.015(12). 2. "Minor Development" includes: a. III the D Q=g..t . ( 1) Construction of new single family detached dwellings, , g L1\\rllill;�s, :cro lot line cir--ditpl"---dwellingsrpt af'eNss��r'-yfrttettrrts-or exterior remodel* tilOdilic� I(m of a stricture containing a non -conforming use that requires a building permit.-ijfi £h 9D 01) t.�� �n . reconst►uc i9tzQf_tl e _s rtictui•cs listed in s_�tb e 0,�l�l�..tb0ve that I'CsIIIt Ill i411;U it&C.of us - 1_e fatY�i�y i0 dU1211X) OI' 111 1111 CXUanSlOrl O 9m st1 I f floor a> of an c;�ustitie structure by more (c)rd.No 91 mended_L9_194Ld: 9 L_d4/ Amended Q9/1 /91'�s�la�. (z — - _� This alternative is found in LOC 48.08.275(1)[Old Town Design District]; I have combined the two via this section: 1. Construction of new detached single-family dwellings, duplexes, zero lot line and multi -family dwellings and exterior modifications to structures containing non- conforming uses that require a building permit; 2. Expansion or reconstruction of the structures listed in subsection 1. above, that result in a change of use (e.g. from single family to duplex) or in an expansion of floor area of an existing structure by more than 50%. (Ord. No. 1882, Sec. 12; 3-6-84.) Page 3 - Draft Community Development Code - Further Revisions b. Construction or exterior modification of a detached single family structure, duplex, zero lot line dwelling or a structure accessory to such structures which: i. Does not qualify as a ministerial decision pursuant to LOC 44.-2144(-)S5, Ma.Q(2)(b)(i) through (xi} ii. Requires one or more Class 1 ZOmilig G,de Or Clags variances.; c iii. Involves a determination by the 1�1Hj�trittg-hitt >r_C tx,... ger that a use not expressly permitted in the zone may be allowed pursuant to the considerations contained in LOC 49 A? 5-0- 5.. In such case, the required notice shall include a description of the proposed use and the reasons for the Planning Difeet,__Q! M_ana&cr's determination. We believe that this subsection is actually (c), rather than a subset of (b). However, it should be noted that there is an "or" in the sentence above. d... ta: Involves an improvement to an existing park or school facility that will increase the capacity of the park or school facility, generate additional traffic, or generate significant additional noise or other negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood. ee. Secondary dwelling units. df. Construction of a structure other than a detached single family dwelling, duplex, zero lot line dwelling or accessory structure, or an exterior modification of such a structure which does not qualify as a ministerial development pursuant to LOC 49.20 055QJ2,, (2)(c). eg. Lot line adjustments which require one or more Class 1 Ao' Deve oprMen[-Code Variances or which would increase allowable density on the site. lh. Partitions, including partitions which require one or more Class 1e��inx� C �x#e cir Code Variances. gi. Subdivisions, including subdivisions which require one or more Class 1 Z-Oning £ de- or-('. lass-I--i-)evek)t)-nierfit-Code Variances. hj. Review of development phases subject to an ODPS. 4k. A change of use from one permitted use to another that increases on-site parking or loading requirements or which changes access requirements pursuant to 6098-('httptef-=(� Article_ 5.Q,55 or that will result in the construction or the increased use of private streets, driveways or parking lot aisles pursuant to 1 Air-G-hapter-(1-9Arti�j� j#j. Determin Dg an RC District protection area pursuant to LOC 4 , 7,?P4, 50.16.055. k4m. Construction of a structure described in '.^"�,S 26.019" );I,O(' 50.60.010(b). 3. Minor developments are initially decided by the City Manager subject to notice, the opportunity to request a hearing, and appeal as provided by LOC Article 50.81. Cross Reference: Greenway Management District. 12/12/01: Subsection 2(I) %Nas adopted by Ord. 2307. It has been changed to conform to the CDC format and placement of LODS 26 as now LOC 50.60. 12/21/01: There was an error in re -lettering the subsections. "j" was used twice. (See item 5 below for additional related correction.) Page 4 - Draft Community Development Code — Further Revisions B. Section 50.59.015 LODS 20.025. Standards for Construction. 1. The surfacing of walkways, bikeways and accessways shall consist of either two inches of asphaltic concrete over a minimum of four inches of compacted crushed rock, or of four inches of concrete, as determined by the City Manager. Other materials must be specifically approved by the City Manager, 2. Walkway surfacing shall be five feet in unobstructed width, unless specifically otherwise approved by the City Manager, and never less than four feet in unobstructed width. 3. Walkways without stairs shall have a maximum cross slope of two percent and a maximum slope of eight percent. If the existing grade exceeds an eight percent slope and the walkway construction requires an erosion control permit pursuant to LOC 52.02.040(1), and construction of stairs are impracticable, then the pathway may follow the existing grade. 4. Ramps for handicapped use are required on all walkways used by the public at all points where a path intersects a curb. 5. Walkways, bikeways and accessways must be constructed in such a way as to allow the surface drainage to sheet flow across them, and not flow along them longitudinally. 6. An accesswav shall include at least a 15 -foot wide right-of-way or easement and an 8 -foot wide hard surface. For safety, accessways shall be as straight as practicable. Bollards, buttons, or landscaping shall be used to block motor vehicular access. _ 7. A Residential accgjuway shell include at least a.] . f�c�t..yvide right Q _w a,5en1cnt anal a n�inim�.ui� -foot wide travcl surface. AcG yy y t t .115 1 d nl4tj5��lIP9]C_ve etaklQ�, gilt shall be its strai yltt as frac CIstances icti 8, The surfacing u—frc;§-t.dential acccss«ays shall consist ofeithcr two inches ofaspilaltic concrete over a 111inirt7)tt» of lour inches of com"parted crushed rock, UC tour inclies ofconcrele, as determined by the City Nlana�cr. Delmi(ling on location, topo.;raphy orprescncc ol'scnsiti% lands, other materials may he specifically appm by the Oily Manager. [Zsidet�ti�l_.acccs��'ay surlacing for purposes of Heelinggd this t c N, sliall be a minitnt1t11-QLsix feet in \% idth. �). Bollards, huttm.or landscapinf; shall be used to block motor vehicle access at locations where accessways abut streets. Page 5 - Draft Community Development Code - further Revisions ___1.0--A-ceessways shallb;so cted in,, Ca wa as allow surf ee._dra na _ o sho_ex-flow.acgg_.thenl, and not t]$; along them 14rl�t�d n Note: sections 7-10 were added by Ord. 2307, eff. 1/3/02. C. Section 50.60.005 LODS 26.010 Applicability. This standard is applicable to: a. Any development that results in the construction of a street, or b. Construction of: a detached single family dwelling, duplex, zero lot line dwelling, commercial, industrial, institutional, or public facility stricture; and is located on a parcel or parcels of'vacant or redevelopable land of five acres or larger. D. Section 50.60.010 LODS 26.012 Purpose and Intent. The purpose of the connectivity standard is to ensure that: 1. The layout of the local street system does not create excessive travel lengths or limit route choices. This will be accomplished through an interconnected local street system to reduce travel distance, promote the use of alternative modes of travel, provide for efficient provision of utility and emergency services, provide for more even dispersal of traffic, and reduce air pollution and energy consumption; 2. Streets, alleys and residential accessways shall be designed to meet the needs of pedestrians and cyclists and encourage walking, bicycling and transit as transportation modes; 3. Street and pedestrian and bicycle accessway design is responsive to topography and other natural features and avoids or minimizes impacts to Sensitive Lands Overlay Zones, pursuant to LOC 48 17 Q, Floodplains, pursuant to 1 (-.)I S,-LQQr_a 7:00-55and steep slopes, pursuant to 4. Local circulation systems and land development patterns do not detract from the efficiency of the adjacent collector or arterial streets; 5. The street and accessway circulation pattern contributes to connectivity to and from activity centers, such as schools, commercial areas, parks, employment centers and other major trip generators; 6. The Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan street connectivity requirements (Metro Code 3.07.630) are met; 7. Proposed development will be d6signed in a manner which will not preclude properties within the vicinity that meet the definition of further developable, from meeting the requirements of this standard, and, 8. To guide land owners and developers on desired street and bicycle and pedestrian accessway connections to the existing transportation system that will improve local access to schools, transit, shopping and employment areas. Page 6 - Draft Community Development Code — Further Revisions E. Section 50.60.015 LODS 26.015 Definitions. singlehieYelisis 0.- lie lllretlgh te-tlie use-erl�-pttk��ie-reads-•�afm-k�-signi-frertt�-:3�#fi-tf�•-t•�+r�tve��-+ins-rmc#�or-�}is+rrn� - ----- -. ?- k ed -end- = 4 street tl> s-cxrly-erre•--eemneettfjrr tOfrt"l3er @xi9fiirtg 4h -.41reet. de arid dead-ew4-stfeets are -.-._.._._.-....,.----_-3-___--A-l�tt�#+n�-p:�ee!•s:--Meeh-tr#�-Itrt�--t•13ttE•cfl-mra-x ec�r-�tt4te>rr-t,��Etndrtr-�+: 41. Full Street: For the purposes of providing multi -modal access, a street section that includes auto and bike travel surface, and pedestrian travel area, lighting, landscaping, drainage and all other City standards or requirements. 2. Redevelopable: For the purpose of this s+rtntlarrlarticl�, land on which development has already occurred, but due to present or expected market forces, there exists the strong likelihood that current development will be converted to more intensive uses during the planning period. The definitions for Residential Accessway, Closed-end street, and Abutting parcels have been moved to LOC 50.02.005 - Definitions. The "Full -Street" and "Redevelopable" definitions were too specific to this article, so they have been left here. F. Section 50.60.020 LODS 26.020 Standards for Approval of Development Which Requires the Construction of a Street. 1. Local and neighborhood collector streets and residential accessways shall be designed to connect to the existing transportation system to meet the requirements of this standard as determined by the Review Authority. 2. Local and neighborhood collector street design shall provide for full street connections between through streets with spacing of no more than 530 feet, measured between the center of the intersection of two through streets that provide for vehicle traffic movement in generally the same direction ("through street pairs") with the cross street. This requirement shall be applied to all through street pairs which surround the site. If the nearest boundary of the site (or boundaries extended to the street) is more thdin 100 feet from the intersection of a through street nearest to the site and the cross street, the provisions of this Standard shall be met, except when the provisions of subsection 5 below are met. (See=Frrkz1� App1x Q-A2{�_�}) 3. Streets shall be designed to connect to all existing or approved stub streets which abut the development site. 4. Cul-de-sacs and permanent closed-end streets shall be prohibited except where a) the requirements of this standard for street and residential accessway spacing are met and b) construction of a through street is found to be impracticable. When cul-de-sacs or closed-end streets are allowed under Seetio-5_0-5c ti.on_5, they shall be limited to 200 feet and shall serve Page 7 - Draft Community Development Code - Further Revisions no more than 25 dwellings, except where the Review Authority has determined that this standard is impracticable due the criteria listed in ' ODS '�."'"s�b��.cii4 _(5), below. 5. The Review Authority may allow an exception to the review standards of Seetions-Subsections 1 through 4, above, based on findings that the modification is the minimum necessary to address the constraint and the application of the standards is impracticable due to the following: a. Extreme topography (over 15% slope) in the longitudinal direction of a projected automobile route; b. The presence of Sensitive Lands as described in LOC 48.1-75Q,,yJk or floodplains !,ODS) 17.0( _,or other lands protected by City ordinances, where regulations discourage construction of or prescribe different standards for street facilities, unless the nearest through street pairs (See "1'ab4e-26Appen(1ix 51).60-A) surrounding the subject site are more than !/a mile apart. The Review Authority may determine that connectivity is not required under this circumstance, if a benefit/cost analysis shows that the traffic impacts from development are low and do not provide reasonable justification for the estimated costs of a full street connection; C. The presence of freeways, existing development patterns on abutting property which preclude the logical connection of streets or arterial access restrictions; d. Where requiring a particular location of a road would result in violation of other city standards, or state or county laws or standards, or a traffic safety issue that can not be resolved; or e. Where requiring streets or accessways would violate provisions of leases, easements, covenants, restrictions or other agreements existing as of May 1, 1995, which preclude required street or accessway connections. 6. If the Review Authority allows an exception to 26-4-)220)sceti;otl (2) for frill street connections, it shall require residential accessway connections on public easements or rights-of-way so that spacing between bicycle and pedestrian connections shall be no more than 330 feet measured from the centerline of the nearest bicycle and pedestrian connection intersection with the cross street. 7. The Review Authority may allow a reduction in the number of residential accessway connections required by Lt�S 2E, f}2Ouhss'l_cxi ,(6) based on findings that demonstrate: a. that reducing the number or location of connections would not significantly add to travel time or distance from the proposed development to bus lines or activity centers in the area, such as schools, shopping, or parks or b. that existing development patterns on abutting properties preclude logical connection of residential accessways, or 11 C. That the traffic impacts from development, redevelopment or both are low and do not provide reasonable justification for the estimated costs of such accessway. Cross-reference: Section 4 - See also LOC 42.03.085 Cross-reference added. Page 8 - Draft Community Development Code — Further Revisions G. Section 50.60.025 LODS 26.025 Standards for Approval of Construction of Structures that Do Not Require Construction of a Street but are Located on a Parcel(s) Five Acres or Greater in Size. When an applicant proposes construction of a structure subject to 2Fi)285060._�_5.(b) that does not require the construction of a street, but is located on a parcel or parcels five acres or greater in size, the Review Authority shall require: 1. A future connectivity plan to be filed with the City and recorded in the applicable County Clerk records, as a condition of development approval. The future connectivity plan shall show how the location of future streets and accessways will provide for frill development of the subject parcel as well as any abutting properties in order to meet the standards of 26- .0-21450.60.020(2) — (7), and, 2. Placement of strictures in a manner that allows for the future street(s) or accessways to be constructed, as well as an area sufficient to meet the required zone setbacks from the future streets. The revision to the lead-in is a correction of a typo — 26.010(b), not 26.020(b). H. Section 50.60.030 LODS 26.030 Procedures. For all applicable development or construction, the applicant shall submit: 1. Proof of notification of a circulation analysis pursuant to this subsection and subsection 2, below, to all property owners within 530 feet of the boundaries of the parcel on which a development or construction is proposed, if any future streets or accessways are proposed beyond the boundaries of the subject parcel. Notification shall be in a form substantially similar to the example provided by the City. Notification shall be sent to the applicant and the owners of record on the most recent property tax assessment roll as stated above, in the manner required in LOC 40;4 424450.82,Qa_Q. 2. A circulation analysis which includes a scaled site plan showing at a minimum: a. The subject site and the entirety of all properties within 530 feet of the parcel on which the development or construction is proposed; b. A scaled site plan showing existing and proposed topography with contour intervals not more than five (5) feet; C. Drainage features, flood plains, and existing natural resource areas and significant vegetation; d. The name, location, right-of-way, pattern and grades of all existing and approved streets bikeways and pedestrian ways; C. Proposed streets and bike or pedestrian facilities identified in the Transportation Improvement Program in the Comprehensive Plan or applicable Neighborhood Plans; f. All pennanent structures, g. Property lines; Page 9 - Draft Community Development Code — Further Revisions h. Bus lines or activity centers, such as schools, shopping or parks, within one-quarter mile (1,320 feet) of the site; and i. All streets and residential accessways proposed by the applicant, containing sufficient dimensions, spot elevations, existing structures and land features on the subject site and abutting parcels, to demonstrate compliance with this standard. 2. The circulation analysis shall graphically and textually illustrate how the proposed development or construction complies with this standard. The applicant must illustrate how proposed streets and residential accessways will provide connections to surrounding properties within 530 feet of the subject site or to the nearest through street pairs, whichever is closer, in compliance with this standard. Section 50.60.035 LODS 26.035 Standards for Construction. 1. Standards for construction of full street connections shall be those included in LOC Chapter 42. 2. Standards for construction of residential accessways shall be those included in 1,09S 20-02-- l,0C 50.59.015,, Section 50.81.010 Section 49.40.805 Notice of Minor Development Application. 1. Prior to making a final decision on a minor development permit application, the 111finiii I# 1)ir-eetirrQy_Mal. qr shall provide written notice to owners of property within 300 feet of the entire contiguous site for which the application is made. The list shall be compiled from the most recent property tax assessment roll. Notice shall also be sent to any recognized neighborhood association whose boundaries include the site. The +iltt;,ning—r;Treefo<ity Manager shall certify that such notice was given. 2. The notice required by subsection 1 of this section shall: a. Provide a 14 -day period for submission of comments prior to the decision; b. State the place, date and time that comments are due; c. State that issues which may provide the basis for an appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals shall be raised with sufficient specificity to enable the City to respond to the issue; d. List, by commonly used citation, the applicable criteria for a decision; e. Set forth the street address or other easily understood geographical reference to the subject property; f. State that copies of all evidence reliedon by the applicant are available for review, and that copies can be obtained at cost; and g. Include the name and phone number of the P4tmnittg-444eetoYQL Ma�a,ttgex or such other City staff person as may be assigned by the Pltm-ni ng-DiteetotCi to review the application. (Ord. No. 2088, Enacted, 03/03/94; Ord. No, Renumbered 07/02/96; Ord. No. ) Cross -Reference: See 50.60.030 if minor development is subject to the Street Connectivity Development Standard. Page 10 - Draft Community Development Code — Further Revisions Cross reference added. K. Section 50.82.020 Section 49.44.920 Notice of Public Hearing. 1. Notice of a public hearing before a hearings body shall be mailed at least twenty days before the initial public hearing: a. To the applicant and the owners of record on the most recent property tax assessment roll of property located within 300 feet of the subject property; b. To any recognized neighborhood association whose boundaries include the subject property; and c. If the hearing regards an appeal of a Flu}}fifi}3,� 13fifieetc)i'l lty Manageu decision on a minor development application, to the appellant if different than the applicant and any person not otherwise required to be notified by this section who submitted comments during the 14 -day comment period provided by LOC 49 4O:-8�5Q,$l0Q(2). 2. Nothing in subsection 1 of this section shall preclude the Nl.t►nni}rg 1)i►ecirC�y _N1g from providing additional public notice as P-Itmnittr-- — tor(: ityqr _N�at� ;er deems appropriate. 3. The notice shall: a. Explain the nature of the application and the use or uses which could be authorized; b. List the applicable criteria from the ordinance and plan that apply to the application at issue; c. Set forth the street address or other easily understood geographical reference to the subject property; d. State the date, time and location of the hearing; e. State that failure of an issue to be raised in a hearing, in person or by letter, or failure to provide statements or evidence sufficient to afford the hearings body an opportunity to respond to the issue precludes appeal to the City Council and the Oregon State Land Use Board of Appeals on that issue; f. Include the name and phone number of the City staff person assigned to the application from whom additional information may be obtained; g. State that a copy of the application, all documents and evidence submitted by or on behalf of the applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and will be provided at reasonable cost; h. State that a copy of the staff report will be available for inspection at no cost at least ten days prior to the hearing and will be provided at reasonable cost; and i. Include a general explanation of the requirements for submission of testimony and the procedure for conduct of the hearing. 4. At the time notice is mailed pursuant to subsection 1 of this section, a notice shall be posted on the site subject to the application at a location readily visible from a public right-of- way, if available. The notice shall state that the site is subject to an application for a development permit and the telephone number of the City department to call for further information about the application. 5. The failure of a person entitled to notice as provided in this section to receive notice shall not invalidate such proceedings if the hIK}t»ing--l)ifeeIorUy Magi can demonstrate by affidavit that such notice was given. Page 11 - Draft Community Development Code – Further Revisions (Ord. No. 2088, Enacted, 03/03/94; Ord. No. 2127, Amended, 01/03/96) Cross -Reference: See 50.60.030 if major development is subject to the Street Connectivity Development Standard. Cross reference added. (continued) Page 12 - Draft Community Development Code — Further Revisions L. Appendix 50.60-A Street Feasible I ~beet Not Feasible I Appendix 2-650,60-A F:ATA L— Standards do not apply (within 100' of through streets) Direction of required Connectivity Property subject to Planning requirement Existing Accessway Barrier to street construction (i.e.,wetland) Page 13 - Draft ('Mmntunit% l)r\ cloyment Code – Further Revisions 2. State and Federal Law Preemption Add as a cross-reference following the Purpose section — 5.0 1.010 Cross -Reference: Note: From time to time, new state and federal laws, regulations, or court decisions are issued. The reader is advised that federal or state law may be determined to supersede portions of this Community Development Code, either generally or as applied to a specific situation. A citizen suggested adding a notation, reminding people that state or federal law may supersede the Community Development Code. Intro. Comment To Article 50.02. Title of proposed chapter 50.02 has been changed from "Definitions" to "Definitions; Methods of Calculation" because 50.02.050 has been added, providing for a method of calculating maximum residential density. Note: LOC 48.08.280 [proposed 50.02.050] is proposed to be repealed as a part of the Density Guideline code amendments, scheduled for public hearing on February 5, 2002, the same night as the public hearing on this Community Development Code. If it appears that the Council will consider ordinances to adopt Density Guidelines at its next meeting, Feb. 19, then the proposed Community Development Code will be revised to eliminate the proposed 50.02.050, so it would not reinstate what would be repealed by the Density Guideline ordinance. Further, the title to the Article would be returned to "Definitions", since it would no longer contain a methodology of calculation. Building Height and Roof Pitch Overlay, 48.07 / 50.18. This article was amended by Ordinance 2308, effective January 17, 2002. What follows is the revised version of Article 50.18, with redline indicating the changes that would be made for purposes of this consolidation. A. Title 50.18 Country Club/North Shore, First Addition, Lake Grove and Lakewood Buildin", Ileight and Roof Pitch Overlay. B. 50.18.005 Height of Structure 48.07.010 1. This zoning overlay requirement shall be applicable to single family and zero lot line dwellings in residential zones located in the Country Club/North Shore, First Addition, Lake Page 14 - Draft Community Development Code — Further Revisions Grove and Lakewood Neighborhoods, except for dwellings on parcels adjacent to Oswego Lake as shown in LOC T" ES -A n.Q�45-7��,L$�A, D. 45-5 5 _- , 4 154 and 48-1-t1S4 -L& 2. Notwithstanding LOC 48 )2-.04-55 2.005, Height of Building definition, the method for determining the height of buildings shall be as follows: a. On Flat Lots: The vertical distance from any ground surface at the exterior wall of the building to the highest point of the roof. b. On Sloped Lots: The vertical distance from any ground surface at the exterior wall of the building prior to construction of any structure which artificially elevates the ground surface, to the highest point of the roof. 3. Application to Flag Lots Created Prior to September 6, 2001: This section shall not apply to single family and zero lot line dwellings in residential zones on flag lots created through LOC -6, -.'1150.20 prior to September 6, 2001. Dwellings on flag lots created prior to September 6, 2001 shall be measured according to the methodology outlined in 484 -P -.H1 `550.02,.005. Definitions, Height of Building, and shall not exceed the average height of all dwellings on lots abutting the flag lot as specified in LOC 48-14)-.0�;0 Cross -Reference: See expiration provision cited in 50.18.010 cross-reference. C. 50.18.010 Minimum Roof Pitch Required in Country Club/North Shore, First Addition, Lake Grove, and Lakewood Neighborhoods 48.07.015 This zoning overlay requirement shall be applicable to single family and zero lot line dwellings and accessory structures in residential zones located in the County Club/North Shore, First Addition, Lake Grove, and Lakewood Neighborhoods, except for dwellings and accessory structures adjacent to Oswego Lake, as shown in LOC TA431-F-S-, m'p . 48*75QJ8,-A. 48_ 48-c}SQ,_ . and 48--1{ 50.18_-D. 1. Single Family and Zero Lot Line Dwellings. The minimum roof pitch for primary roof forms of a single family or zero lot line dwelling shall be 6:12. Shed type and flat roofs are not permitted as primary roof forms on single family and zero lot line dwellings. Secondary roof forms, such as sunrooms, balconies, dormers, porticos, or bays may be flat or shed roof types (See TT "TA_B6r.`Ap.pgtt 2. Accessory Structures. The roof pitch for accessory structures to residential structures shall either match the pitch of the primary roof of the primary structure dwelling or be a minimum pitch of 6:12. 3. Additions to Single Family and Zero Lot Line Dwellings. a. Additions that expand the roof area of the primary residential structure by less than 50% shall match the existing roof pitch of the primary roof. (See=1=tut�le Appett,i4- 3e-�.�77A). b. Additions that expand the roof area of the primary residential structure by 50% or more shall either match the roof pitch of the primary roof. (See T*°'l Ap _e 48- 2 Q7- ) or have a minimum pitch of 6:12. Cross -Reference: Note: Ordinance 2308 contains the following provision, formerly codified as 48.07.200: Page 15 - Draft Community Development Code - Further Revisions "The provisions of this article are repealed as to structures in Country Club/North Shore and Lakewood Neighborhoods, as shown on LOC Tables 48-9 and 48-10, upon the earlier of: 1. January 17, 2003; or 2. The effective date of an ordinance adopted by the City Council following the Council's receipt of a recommendation on infill development from the Ad Hoc Infill Development Task Force, which ordinance contains a recital suiting that it is intended to address the compatibility of infill development, and which contains regulations affecting structures within the Country Club/North Shore and Lakewood Neighborhoods." Reference to Table 48-2 should have been to 48-3; corrected. The Cross -Reference method of tracking the sunset provision to this Article was thought an appropriate method to maintain notice that this article would expire automatically in the future, without codifying the sunset provision. Typically the code provisions are regulatory, requiring compliance, not procedural as to the adopting ordinance. D. Cross -References There are numerous cross-references to: "50.18.010 for First Addition and the Lake Grove Building Height and Roof Pitch Overlay" These cross-references are changed to: "50.18.010 for Country Club/North Shore, First Addition, Lake Grove, and Lakewood Building Height and Roof Pitch Overlay." 5. Section 50.11.020 Special Requirements Section 48.10.315 12. a. For the 8 acre site bounded by Kruse Way, Kruse Way Place and Boones Ferry Road and zoned Office Campus, the maximum FAR of 0.30 : 1. is allowed if development consists of a maximum of 20,255 square feet of retail commercial use and the balance of the allowable square footage is in non -retail commercial use; For every square foot of reduction of retail use there results a proportional increase in the allowable FAR to a maximum of 0.38 : 1. as described in the following chart. SEE Tah4e-4,84 I nnen .i c 50=1„1-A _� (Floor Area Ratio Graph). There was an error in labeling 48-1 as 50.11-A because there was a previously designated table as 50.11-A. Since the prior designation came first, the reference to the Floor Area Ratio Graph should be 50.11-B. 6. Correction to subsection lettering of Minor Development Classification Section 50.13.040 Section 4!8.12.375 special Requirements. Page 16 - Draft Community Development Code — Further Revisions 6. The creation of an incidental retail use within an existing structure shall be processed as a change of use pursuant to LOC 49.'�.4 !()50 (2)(4h). This is the only code reference to 48.20.110 Minor Development, section (2), subsections j, k or 1. Due to the re -lettering of 49.20.110(2)(i) to (k)[see Item l A above), this has been corrected. 7. Exception without Variance SX-ti"_50-2U.015 Section 48.19.015 Exceptions. I. For land divisions, the reviewing authority may allow exceptions to this Article without the need to obtain a formal variance pursuant to Articles '°m T,; - in one or more of the following circumstances; a. Landscaping required by LOC 4Fr.-11)4l_1550-20,035(l) as separation between driveways, which would not result in screening or buffering as intended due to topography, lot configuration, or existing natural resources which would be preserved, may be modified or may not be required; b. Setback adjustments of up to 2 feet which are necessary to site a dwelling in compliance with this Article, or will result in additional separation from existing dwellings on surrounding lots, may be permitted; c. Minimum driveway widths of 12 feet required by LOC 4,449-E2050.20.020(3) may be reduced, when approved by the City of Lake Oswego Fire Marshall. The reference to Articles 48.24 and 49.28 (first paragraph) was missed in the conversion to references in the CDC. 8. Planned Development Procedures Section 50.1 7.01-0 Section 48.18.475 Procedures. 1. The establishment of a PD Overlay for projects containing more than one phase shall occur in conjunction with the approval by the Planning Commission of an Overall Development Plan and Schedule (ODPS) pursuant to the provisions of LOC Article 494659 U. The ODPS shall contain a section which identifies the zone requirements to be applied in the PD Overlay. These requirements may be adopted by referring in the Final Order to existing provisions of thi-i ekaptert!_l ; ,Co. c, or by creating special zoning standards pursuant to the Planned Development Overlay section. (LOC 45.1$ ,0 Q 7= to48.1£1:4r10S0:-l-6.0:30!9,17.0-S). Last reference corrected due to typo and deletion of last section in Article Page 17 - Draft Community Development Code — Further Revisions 9. Definitions The annotated Code indicated that: (1) the definitions in LOC 50.41, Drainage Standards for Major Development, were to be stricken in LOC 50.41, (2) the definitions in LOC 50.42, Weak Foundation Soils, were to be stricken in LOC 50.42, and (2) the definitions in LOC 50.44, Flood Plain, were to be stricken in LOC 50.44. They were intended to be incorporated into the Definition section 50.02.005, but were inadvertently omitted. The following definitions have been included in the Definition section, 50.02. Where redline appears, a clarification in the definition is proposed for applicability of definitions; in that instance the original language as it appeared in LOC 50.41, 50.42, or 50.44 is shown in Yellow Bold, to illustrate what words in the original definition have been deleted for applicability of the definition.. A. Drainage Standard for Major Development By -Pass: A drainage system to carry storm water runoff around or through a specific area. Detention: The act of detaining or storing storm water runoff for a short period of time during and after a storm. Drainage: A general term applied to the removal of surface or subsurface water from a given area either by gravity or by pumping; commonly applied herein to surface water. Drainage Pattern: The surface and subsurface system for the removal of water from the land, including both the natural elements of streams, marshes, swales, and ponds, whether of an intermittent or continuous nature, and the man-made element which includes culverts, ditches, channels, retention or detention facilities, and the storm sewer system. Floodplain. See subsection C below Hydraulic Characteristics: The features of a watercourse which -determine its water conveyance capacity. They include the watercourse cross-section, alignment, width from bank to bank, profile, and the location and types of vegetation within the watercourse. Obstruction: Any dans, wall, wharf, embankment, levee, dike, pile abutment, excavation, bridge, conduit, pole, culvert, building, wire, fence, fill, or projection into a floodplain, watercourse, or drainage system Page 18 - Draft Community Development Code — Further Revisions 1.9 Retention: The act of retaining or storing storm water, runoff permanently or for a considerable length of time for some use, or until it percolates into the ground or evaporates. Sedimentation: Deposition of boils, debris, or other materials suspended and transported by storm water runoff. Storm Water Runoff: Water that results from precipitation which is not absorbed by the soil or plant material. Storm Water Storage Area: A facility used for detention and/or retention of storm water runoff. Stream. Flowing surface waters that produce a definable channel or bed. Stream flows can be perennial, intermittent, or ephemeral. Streams do not include ditches, storm drains, or other artificial watercourses unless they are used to convey streams naturally occurring prior to construction or have come to function as natural water courses, thus contributing to the quality of an area*s overall natural systems. ding- thI;Lgt y.c,___%teamde.fi_ntt� to s�� oL,4QC 5-WAI_M tan�iar�1 �oj Maier L)gyelonnlent siceamljgl r_,_,at4t t�s�tLual body qf ainniit t_er flowing contintio.US-.-Q1_.iiit��l�lLtt�.l11� 1t1 1, _]J 1:.4„�1_.9L 4.tiV_>l urf. c Q tlue_,grg�urtcl. Vegetation: All plant growth, especially trees, shrubs, mosses and grasses. Water Conveyance Capacity: The capacity of a watercourse to convey a particular volume of water per unit of time at a particular water surface elevation at any particular point on the watercourse. Water Courses: Water courses are defined as ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial drainageways which exhibit defined channels: a: Ephemeral means water courses which convey water associated with rainfall events. b. Intermittent means water courses whose conveyance of water is seasonal in nature. c. Perennial means water courses which convey water year-round. Water courses also include perennial springs. They may be either the result of natural processes or human -made features such as canals, mill races, and open drainageways which are either historic in nature, or have come to function as natural water courses, thus contributing to the quality of an Area's overall natural systems including hydrology, vegetation, wildlife habitat. $ (���� ' __ _---�nti�• I�,r ,nr� GS.:�1..�,1.�� ��1,�.�,1'stlll�g t-W]d�Kdt��']tijor DevinpJnt�t). �.I oursc: .1 natura t2 .. trtifirial rhanncl ��I�irla run�cy.� ;l��nt� waicr runo[f. Foundation Soils Page 19 - Draft Community Development Code - Further Revisions Potential Weak -Foundation Soil Poiczt W€ak: A generalized map of locations of potential Weak Foundation Soils is maintained at the Public Works Department, City Hall. However, the actual condition of the site will determine whether such soils exist. Weak -Foundation Soils: Weak; Those which may cause overall settlement or differential settlement resulting in damage to structures not designed to accommodate movements. Weak Foundation Soils have one or more of the following characteristics: low strength, compressibility, high organic material content, high shrink -swell ratio or elasticity, or slow percolation and wetness. C. Flood Plain 100 -Year Flood: See "base flood". Also Added: Ba -se Flood .5ce "I.loL)J, Base" dehilitIoll. -1>c ------t rit_ �tfiv rnart-inKclt t tsr. : t�rit� rti+cd ��r-nirilr►}rr rt�t>il-read tit^trl>c rte+;-ttteltitltt l�t�L rrtet# tr+ ett trr trt etttr Blurt e o 1* tate; laud tafi��rstcjrl, tttzliltslM�jetit�toltint<�t tteLc�r:tf)t�tgtlYthe lam}: gratiHjg; eleatin; git '"i eK titti9 ,-Elft 1 }tti�+; Identical definition from LODS 17/LOC 50.44; deleted as duplicative Flood_.,11g. A general and temporary condition of partial or complete inundation of normally dry land area from the overflow of inland waters 4%kor the unusual and rapid accumulation of runoff of surface waters from any source. tx�rt�-I-ly-dry-lentil-areri�-ttt�t�t-tl�e-t+���t�Crn-«4=itt[artci--vaatert �3rtt1?,+r tl�c-�:rnu�itsi_»nc}-spit} M-etIttrA d i mi on . ,tret . This definition came from LODS 17/LOC 50.44. Except for the "or Flooding" and "and/or", it is identical to the LOC definition. Therefore this difference has been added to the LOC definition and then this definition deleted as duplicative. fate Flood.asc.__,The flood having a one percent chance of being equal led or exceeded in any given year. The "Base Flood" is also known as the "100 -year flood". Areas-c��.i'M Flood Hazard�Areas of Suecial: The land in the flood plain subject to a one percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year. Flood Proofin>z: To make a structure watertight with walls substantially impermeable to the passage of water and with structural components having the capability of resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads and effects of buoyancy. Floodplain(9t . The area bordering a watercourse encompassing both the floodway fringe and the floodway inundated during the 100 year flood, also referred to as the base flood,-."- defined in the flood insnranee stud)adopted in'-+eetion t? 01350.a4.015, In acidI 1' tom . above detinition, for gp pf l.O(,' St1. �1 (Drainau .tgdi fclNj.cr Devc1ol)rnent), noodplain I local}) Htlt:--1t�Nt1c#Lfit3tt-t#> tltr fltl li�llreifitit t13e-1}eoelljl�r}r3 Page 20 - Draft Community Development Code — Further Revisions developmentstedicifwd this ferm shalt iuludp_th-c-la_n-d-argas._. Qi_ ni-ng all streams, lake . 3 Qr w�17a ds_tl�at re�uhi-cC,tA4 ta—un- 1i n bx_.ae, ygricv �lorrn. Definition from LODS 11; last sentence modified for applicability Hood Pi tint_ -_---!'he area-t>or subjeet to-#lt�,ciit�t,►-W>E�t}Ye }�u'rpr�se r�i tlttis �,i��; a-}lc�c�-}�katrT-is�l�.: ���l�rlecl-l�-t-lie-baiti-ai;-r}efiiied-iirthc-}3flecl--ii�ttra�ee-:ttttd� adopted in seetion 1 ;.01 Definition from LODS 17/LOC 50.44, deleted because the key difference from the LOC definition, "as defined in the flood insurance study adopted in Section 17.013", has been incorporated into the LOC definition above. Fioodway. The area within the floodplain which includes the channel of a river or other watercourse and the adjacent land areas. that must be reserved in order to discharge the base flood without cumulatively increasing the water surface elevation more than one foot. H2Oodwft-1 e aretr «ttbiifi tl�t + ejd trlttTt�-\\«}iter ti lu'cie3 t'he t ltrlrr'nel-ejf rz rivet�er�cu}x�t� it3 orffer totit!teittitY};t' Mite bit�3e 11()()d H^tEl�fiit� etitfiTtt}flint t }t�tfil iea91t1 -IiTG' aEt i` tilt }ttt't iii t }ifit'i-F1Rt)rt 41Taii' (me .}o(+ - This definition came from LODS 17/LOC 50.44. Except for the change fi-om "area" to "areas", it is identical to the LOC definition. Therefore this difference has been added to the LOC definition and then this definition deleted as duplicative. Floodway Fringe. The area of the floodplain lying outside the floodway. t�{<iE�i4+'�ty--}`Ptii�;t:'. .--}-}tl�-.li'tt;-(>}`-tilt i�ltlt>t{_I)lYtitl-�Wt1'r-i)tit�t(t� file }ltltltlti'tit': The definition from LODS 17/LOC 50.44 has been deleted because it is identical to the LOC definition. LQwest F1 ori Tlje law gfloor dthe l(\vc' -Linciudim, basement) _A .fjnishe�l 4i lQQ�r�SIS.� et1S�4�tArS' . I),itkigyl�elicle,, iliiIcc 2]la an area other than a b_#cement, a-is_rtot c.onsiLlrred a builclin�'� l��\\est floor, pro-viOed that such c closure is built to �4 1 [ _thy dc.sign rectutrcrtIcntS for Such areas in.thty .tat rr}) � 44, Manufactured Homes. A multi -sectional dwelling unit with a Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) label, of not less than 1,000 square feet constructed in an off-site manufacturing facility on or after June 15, IA, to the standards and requirements of the National Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974, and designed to be used with a foundation as a dwelling unit on a year-round basis with approved connections to water, sewer and electric utility systems. _ c tctrrt' NotwithstandingllL above--}�(or the purpose of 4vi4-ttttrt4rrr4LQ S._ 44, a manufactured home is a structure, transportable in one or more sections, which is built on a permanent chassis and is designed for use with or without a permanent foundation when connected to the required utilities. For flood plain management purposes the term "manufactured home" also includes park trailers, travel trailers, and other similar vehicles placed on a site for greater than 180 Page 21 - Draft Community Development Code - Further Revisions consecutive days. For insurance purposes the term "manufactured home" does not include park trailers, travel trailers, and other similar vehicles. Definition from LODS 17/LOC 50.44. Mean Sea Level: Mean sea level and other references to elevations are based on the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929. Also Added: ST -WA 1 ()LUwatd�Ace s Qf� See "F_Wsic _L [.i tr Area f Sne de_ft_ni1io t, Substantial Improvement: For the purpose of t+�i� tin<.im<il.pC' 1). lel. a substantial improvement is any repair, reconstruction, or improvement of a structure, the cost of which equals or exceeds 50 percent of the market value of the structure either: a. before the improvement or repair is started, or b. before the damage occurred if the structure has been damaged and is being restored. A "substantial improvement" is considered to occur when the first alteration of any wall, ceiling, floor, or other structural part of the building commences, whether or not that alteration affects the external dimensions of the structure. The term does not include either: a. any project for improvement of a structure to comply with existing state or local health, sanitary, or safety code specifications which are solely necessary to assure safe living conditions, or b, any alteration of a structure listed on the National Register of Historic Places or a State Inventory of Historic Places. Water Courses: Water courses are defined as ephetneral, intermittent, and perennial drainageways which exhibit defined channels: a: Ephemeral means water courses which convey water associated with rainfall events. b. Intermittent means water courses whose conveyance of water is seasonal in nature. c. Perennial means water coarses which convey water year-round. Water courses also include perennial springs. They may be either the result of natural processes or human -made features such as canals, mill rates, and open drainageways which are either historic in nature, or have come to function as natural water courses, thus contributing to the quality of an Area's overall natural systems including hydrology, vegetation, wildlife habitat. (_ v for purposes of LOC 50.41 (Drainagp_sLQT I l gy�14f1111 �1 5.0 44—(E.L Plain). ercoursc: A natural or artificial channel which conveys storm water runoff. Nom ithst:indlin, tltc abO\ C LIclinition1 fi�r.htl -poses o.l..0 (? _JU,�t�}, ��aztct'S Qkti means a h��l �,r �Itcuui�•I i,l a ��;i�rr�c;iv. Page 22 - Draft Community Development Code — Further Revisions The additional sentence to Water Course added to reference the reader to the alternative definitions of watercourse (one word). The two definitions of watercourse are the result of the definition from LODS 11 and a different definition from LODS 17. 10. Appendicies to LOC 50.66 and 50.67 When copying the appendices to LODS 23 and 24, every other page of Appendix B (LODS 24/50.66-A) was copied, and Appendix C (LODS 23/50.65-A) was omitted. The full copies of the appendixes are added to the Appendicies. 11. Global Changes Missed I have discovered that the following "global changes", which arc holded, were not marked in the December version. A. Section ';0.03.020 Section 48.02.075 Relationship to Other Laws and Private Agreements; Prior Approvals and Conditions of Approval. 1. It is not an intent of to interfere with, abrogate or annul any easement, covenant or agreement between parties; provided, however, that where thi9-e=hatttefjj'g Cure imposes a greater restriction upon the use of buildings, and premises, upon height of buildings, or requires larger open spaces or similar restrictions than arc imposed or required by private agreements, easements and covenants, the provisions of ll�iy-e;l�apterlh_is('oeie shall govern. 2. Planned unit developments approvals, conditional use permits, variances and Development Review Commission approvals, and conditions attached to those approvals, and conditions attached to zone change approvals, granted prior to December 16, 1982 shall remain in effect until specifically amended or deleted by action pursuant to this Code. A request -to amend approvals or delete or amend conditions of approvals is classified as a request to amend the zoning map and shall be considered as such unless the subject matter of the request is regulated by 1r$C: C1tapEer-49-I,Q,86.025 (Modification of -Approved --ft in which case the request will be processed pursuant to the provisions of 170C.—Ch-ap er-491,0C J8. 6 Those conditions imposed or approvals granted by ordinance under the prior Zoning Code may be amended or deleted by order of the hearing body, or, on appeal, by order of the City Council, without the necessity of adopting an'amending ordinance. 3. For the time periods stated below, construction may occur pursuant to the listed types of approvals granted under the prior Zoning Code: a. Conditional use permit - two years from the date of the order granting approval. b. Variances - six months from the date of the order granting approval. c. Planned unit developments - the time period stated in the approved development schedule, unless that schedule is modified pursuant to subsection 2 of this section. The time for Filing plats must comply with LOC 49.48.140550,87.010. There was a typo: 49.48.1405 should have been 49.58.1405 Page 23 - Draft Community Development Code — Further Revisions If 15% of the structural construction is not complete within the time periods stated, the approval shall be reviewed as a new application pursuant to the applicable City Code provisions. This subsection applies to uses which conform, to the use requirements of titin ef�apteril�CS��, If a conditional use permit, variance or PUD is a non -conforming use under the terms of this Wit .. �-q it is subject to the provisions of LOC 48-26.7-105_0,7 && and not this subsection. (Ord. No. 1851, Sec. 1; 11-16-81.) B. Section 50.16.075 RP District Development Standards Section 48.17.310 Except as provided in LOC 47,47.- 3+)51.1_( :M, all development subject to environmental review shall comply with the following standards. The original code reference really should have been 48.17.320 I. Landscapin9. The delineated RP Resource and buffer zone shall maintain the natural function and character of resource area, which provides food and shelter for native wildlife. Landscaping within these areas shall therefore comply with the following criteria: a. Plants: Plants used for landscaping within a delineated resource and buffer area shall: i. Be adapted to local soils and growing conditions; ii. Require no fertilizers or pesticides detrimental to the resource; iii. Not be dependant on long-term irrigation, which can increase erosion and sedimentation. (Irrigation necessary for initial establishment of the plants is not considered long term irrigation); and iv. Provide food or cover for wildlife. b. The City shall maintain a Restoration Plant List on file in the Planning Department listing species that comply with the criteria in subsection 1(a) of this section. If a plant is listed on the Restoration Plant list, it shall be presumed to comply with subsection 1(a) of this section. The Restoration Plant List is not intended to be an exclusive listing of allowable landscaping materials, but shall be used as a guideline and may be updated by the Planning i)iite� MWaggx from time to time as new plants in compliance with subsection 1(a) of this section are discovered or become available. An applicant may utilize a plant not on the Restoration Plant List as long as it complies with the criteria in subsection 1(a) of this section. c. Removal of vegetation identified on the Restoration Plant List is not permitted from a delineated resource or buffer area. d. No herbicides or pesticides shall be used within the delineated resource or buffer area except for control of invasive plants as identifiedron the Invasive Plants List maintained in the Planning Department. e. New landscaping within the delineated resource or and buffer area shall not include any plants on the City's Invasive Plants list. f. Existing Landscaping: Non -conforming fornial landscaped areas including ornamental gardens and lawns located within a delineated resource or buffer area and in existence at the time of the adoption of these standards, may be maintained, altered or the modified pursuant to LOC 48.26008 =,M. However, a non -conforming landscaped area may not be expanded pursuant to LOC 48.26.72 05UQ Q Page 24 - Draft Cornmurlity Development Code — Further Revisions 2. Tree Removal. Tree removal within an RP District requires a Class II tree removal permit or an Emergency Tree Removal Permit, in accordance with Article 55.02.042(2) and 55.02.080 (Tree Cutting), except that a tree removal pursuant to LOC 55.02.080(3) shall only be permitted for those limited development activities allowed and approved pursuant to this section. 3. Utilities. a. Public or private utilities shall not be placed within an RP district or buffer unless there is no other practicable alternative. If allowed within an RP District, mitigation shall be required pursuant to LOC Sections 494-7-.0k'X459,,� to115. When applying the mitigation process to this section: i. Step #1 Avoidance Sanitary sewer, water, power, gas, cable, telecommunications and storm drain lines shall be maintained in public rights of way and routed around significant resources, rather than through a resource wherever possible, except that tunneling under a resource shall be permitted where tree roots can be avoided and the functions and values of a resource will be maintained. ii. Step #2 Minimization Sanitary sewer, water, storm drain line and other subsurface crossings shall be made within 30 degrees of perpendicular to the stream where practical or feasible. 4. Streets, Driveways and Public Transportation Facilities Public or private streets, driveways or public transportation facilities shall not be placed through an RP Resource or buffer area to access buildable areas of the property unless there is no other practicable method of access. If allowed pursuant to this criterion, the applicant shall comply with the following criteria. a. Streets, driveways and bridges shall be the minimum width necessary to protect resources within the RP district or buffer while also allowing for safe passage of vehicles and/or pedestrians. b. Stream and/or wetlands crossings shall be avoided if practicable. Where unavoidable, the applicant shall use bridges or arched culverts that are wildlife friendly and do not disturb the natural stream bed. The number of stream or wetland crossings shall be minimized through use of shared access for abutting lots and access through easements for adjacent lots; c. The applicant shall plan for fiiture extension of shared access, access easement, or private streets to access potential new building sites in order to avoid subsequent encroachments into the RP District or Buffer; d. The applicant shall mitigate for loss of any portion of an RP Resource pursuant to LOC 4 HHH59 LG.„Q to 45-1 7,6l05Q_l__ Q5_. 5. Structures, Parking Areas Pathways Driveways Lighting and Fences. a. Except as provided in subsection 4 above, new structures, parking areas, active use recreation facilities, hard surfaced pathways, streets and driveways shall be set back at least 10 feet from an RP District buffer. Accessory structures, decks, and similar outdoor facilities meeting the criteria of LOC 4g-2H3t4,14,Q�(5)(a-c) and LOC 4&:2(�0 {},Q4� 12) are pennitted within the 10 foot setback area so long as they are placed no closer than 3 feet from the resource buffer boundary. b. Passive use recreation facilities, such as soft surface trails and pedestrian bridges, may be located within the RP district or its buffer. Any disturbed land area shall be restored with plants as described on the Restoration Plants List. c. Exterior lights shall be hooded and positioned so that light does not shine directly into the RP District, Page 25 - Draft Community Development Code — Further Revisions d. Fences shall not be placed in a resource or its buffer, unless they are constructed to allow wildlife passage. 6. Resource Alterations. a. Streams shall not be impounded or diverted from their natural channels unless the applicant demonstrates: i. The diversion or impoundment will cause mininunn degradation or loss of natural features in the stream corridor; ii. The diversion will not cause erosion or otherwise cause damage downstream of the development site; and at least one of the following criteria are met: A. A diversion would return a previously altered stream to its original location; or B. A stream channel occupies all or most of a legally created lot; or C. An impoundment is designed to reduce flooding or improve water quality. b. A wetland shall not be impounded or the hydrology of the wetland modified through such activities as draining the resource or enlargement of the resource to create a pond, unless it can be demonstrated that the criteria for allowing resource enhancement in LOC 48:4731x, 5.0.16.080 have been met. 7. Hazardous Materials. The site shall be inventoried for hazardous materials, debris and noxious materials, and these materials shall be removed prior to the development of the site. 8 Land Divisions. The following standards apply to applications for land divisions including partitions, subdivisions, and Planned Developments (PDs): a. All new lots proposed on lands that include an RP District shall have designated sites for buildings, vehicular access, and utility service that are located outside of the delineated RP resource and buffer area. Exception: This standard shall not apply to lots established as open space tracts, for transfer to a public agency or private trustee to manage as a natural area, or where the entire lot is included in a conservation easement that prohibits development on the site; and b. Permanent signage is required in planned developments and subdivisions to identify the RP District and buffer area where any common open space protects an inventoried natural resource through conditions of approval. The signage shall be installed before any occupancy permit is issued. Such signage shall be reviewed as part of the development review process, and shall meet the standards of LOC Chapter 47. C. Section 50.20.005 Section 48.19.005 Purpose; Applicability. 1. The purpose of the Flag Lot Ordinance is to: a. Enable the efficient use of residential laird and public facilities and services, b. Provide standards for site and building design compatibility of new development with the existing neighborhood character, c. Reduce the area of impervious surface resulting from redundant access paving, and improve the appearance where pavement is necessary, and d. Minimize the disturbance of natural resources. 2. The provisions of LOC 49.19.00-5 10,005 through 49:4�U4r.-,50.20.035 shall apply to all land divisions creating flag lots, and to any development occurring on a flag lot created subsequent to the adoption of this ordinance. 3. The creation of flag lots is permitted only in residential zones. Page 26 - Draft Community Development Code — Further Revisions (Ord. No. 2172, Enacted, 8/6/98) The reference to 49.19.035 in subsection 2 was a typo; it should have been to 48.19.035. D.eeVA254A9,_M Section 48.22.577 Specific Standards for Telecommunications Facilities in Residential Zones. In addition to compliance with the approval standards in LOC Section 5Q.30,015 ,48-24I:�41 (4) and (5) and the general conditional use criteria in LOC A— -eler Lp telecommunications facilities designated as a conditional use shall comply with the following standards: 1. New telecommunications facilities shall not be located on a parcel containing an existing single family dwelling, duplex, rowhouse or zero lot line dwelling. 2. Antenna(e) must be located no closer than 35 feet from any habitable structure. Tower guy anchors must meet the normal setbacks of the underlying zone. 3. If the proposed facility will exceed the 50 foot height limitation of the Lake Oswego Charter in a residential zone, the applicant shall demonstrate that: i. The facility could not feasibly be located outside of a residential zone; ii. There are no alternatives available to meet the required coverage area; and iii. The height is no taller than necessary to provide adequate transmission. Section 49.26.330 Hearing Body Action. The appropriate hearing body shall consider the ODPS at a public hearing conducted pursuant to L _ cle 50 8 and notice shall be given in accordance with LOC 49. 4.920UZ,,, . The hearing body shall approve the proposed ODPS only if it finds that the plan and schedule will satisfy the requirements of LOC 4�'.�_-050.79•Q , and, 1. Provides an overall general site plan which is properly related to and preserves natural features and resources consistent with the provisions of LOG Chapter 48 mind this eh#4erU§ Q, 2. Provides for land uses and intensities that are consistent with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, aflterthis of public facilities, Code, and with the planned capacities 3. Provides clear guidance for the specific design and coordination of future phases. 11. LOC 50.58 Title On -Site Circulation — Driveways and Fire Access Roa_o; The title to this article (LODS 19) was originally shortened by removing "roads". Hamid requests that "roads be restored to the title, to assist the public in recognizing that the subject matter is about driveways and roads. Page 27 - Draft Community Development Code — Further Revisions 12. [Note: the following additional ordinances are pending Council consideration, and may be adopted at the time of or prior to adoption of the Community Development Code. When adopted, they will need to be added to the Community Development Code: (proposed) Ord. 2309 - Density Guidelines] This is proposed for public hearing on the same night as the public hearing on this proposed Community Development Code. If, following the respective hearings, it appears that the Council is favorably disposed to adoption of both Ordinance 2309 and the Community Development Code, then Ordinance 2309 will be revised to conform to the Community Development Code format. d. (proposed) LU 01-0045 (Neighborhood Notice Requirements) This is proposed for public hearing on the same night as the public hearing on this proposed Community Development Code. If, following the respective hearings, it appears that the Council is favorably disposed to adoption of both the ordinance for LU 01-0045 and the Community Development Code, then the ordinance draft for LU 01-0045 will be revised to conform to the Community Development Code format. N:\Boone\Planning\Consolidation\ConsolidatedCode.Annotalcd. Errata .Council.doc Page 28 - Draft Community Development Code — Further Revisions S D. 9-5 -// APPENDIX g DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT REDEVELOPMENT AREA BOUNDARY MAP• I � ,I M I / O •may • • � •. � • ••',.:::' � . 777 i/ .\;;; •:. , ; ; v I ' 1 1' � I B O 0 _1• L A ' �'�• •.. 1, '•'I It •� I Arts & Crafts Style 1900-1920 The Arts and Crafts movement originated in England m the 1880s when the designer William Morris (1834-1896) began writing and lecturing about the need for a "new birth" of the arts. He rejected classically inspired art and looked instead to the Middle Ages, local traditions, and nature for inspiration and subject matter. According to Morris, art was for everyone, not just the wealthy, and everyone was a potential artist or craftsperson. He feared that the prevailing doctrine of "art for art's sake" was causing artists to lose touch with real people and life, and that his attitude would eventually kill art's vitality. Ardent and articulate in his views, he persuaded others to look at common objects such as furniture, metalwork, wallpaper, textiles, and houses and subjects worth of artistic expression. His philosophy became so influential that the Arts and Crafts Society was formed; it espoused the virtues of natural materials and fine craftsmanship, encompassed all aspects of design, and elevated the crafts to the status of art. Although Morris .%-as not an architect, he influenced many creative English architects, including Philip Webb (1831-1951) who designed Morns's house, known as the Red House, in 1859. The design, modeled after local Gothic vernacular houses, was considered radical because vernacular houses were generally regarded as inferior and unworthy of emulation. The ideals of the Arts and Crafts movement -- love of nature, and respect for the common man and craftsmanship -- led many architects of the time to base their designs on traditional, rather than classical, houses built by country people out of available materials. Two other English architects, C.F.A. Voysey (1857-1941) and Sir Edwin L. Lutyens (1869-1944), also influenced the architecture of the Arts and Crafts movement. Voysey, who also designed furniture, wallpapers, and fabric, simplified and adopted English country house designs, creating a "new" usually smaller home for middle-income families. His work was published in Europe and the United States throughout his life. The Wade Pipes House (120), in Portland, with the medieval roof pitch of forty-five degrees, and the low opposing slopes of the two gables, clearly shows Voysey's influence. "The style descriptions are borrowed from the book Architecture, Oregon Style. Characteristic Elements of the Style Steeply pitched gable roof, often with intersecting or double gable dormers, or with one slope occasionally sweeping close to the ground. Prominent chimneys. Asymmetrical composition, generally rectangular, with roof, window and porch projections. Casement and sash windows with many small panes, seg- mental and round arched openings used for accent. Stucco, shingle, brick, or horizontal siding sometimes used in combination. Simplified English vernacular elements such as simulated half-timbering and simulated thatched roofs. Arts & Crafts Style 919 West Point Road English Tudor 1910-193-5 Characteristic Elements of the Style Steeply pitched gable roof, often with double gable dormers, or lower roofs behind ornamental parapets. Prominent fluted chimneys. Rectangular shape with vertical projections. Bay, oriel, dormer, and many -paned windows, sometimes with leaded glass. Brick construction, with bricks sometimes set in intricate designs; wood -frame construction, with stucco finish; or a combination of brick and stucco construction. Tudor -arched or round -arched openings, especially in the entrance door; quatrefoil or medieval designs in decorative trim; imitation half-timbering. Brick buildings have contrasting stone moldings. The English Tudor style was one of the most popular styles in the years following the First World War. Wealthy Americans were attracted to the English country manor house and used it as the model for their suburban homes. The characteristic half-timbering, usually only a superficial design placed upon a stucco wall, was based on the medieval tradition, which called for heavy timber framing with wattle and daub (a mud -and - straw or twig mixture) or brick infilling between the timbers. The sources for this fashion are to be found in English build- ings of the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries. Good examples can be found in most towns and cities throughout the state. 737 Country Club Road English Tudor Oregon Rustic Style 1915-1940 Characteristic Elements of the Style Moderately pitched hipped and gable roofs, sometimes in combination. Large stone chimneys. Asymmetrical composition. Numerous small windows with many panes and simple undecorated frames, dormer windows. Log construction, unpeeled logs or half -round logs applied as siding; board -and -batten or shingled siding left unpainted; natural materials such as river boulders or rough stone used in foundations or as siding for first -floor levels. Handcrafted rustic decorative elements: carved newel -posts, handwoven textiles, log or bent -twig furniture. The Oregon Rustic style is comparable to the National Park style used for the lodges and buildings in national parks around the country. These buildings, designed to harmonize with their forested settings, used natural materials such as logs and local stone, and sometimes emulated the look of pioneer or folk architecture. They resemble early log buildings but differ from them in their self-conscious use of rustic ele- ments. The Rustic style was also influenced by the Great Camp architecture of the Adirondacks, a style used in resorts built for very wealthy American families between the 1880s and the 1920s. The buildings of these resorts were mansion - like wooden structures that used logs for siding, branches for posts, and other rustic materials for furniture and decorative details. Perhaps the first Rustic style building in Oregon was Cloud Cap Inn, built on Mount Hood in 1889. Its design by William H. Whidden featured log construction, a stone chimney, and a wood shake roof, trademarks of the style. Crater Lake Lodge, built in 1914 with additions in 1924, and Oregon Caves Chateau, built in 1934, were both constructed in the National Park tradition. Timberline Lodge, built on Mount Hood between 1936 and 1938 as a Works Progress Admin- istration (WPA) project, is the finest example of the Oregon Rustic style. The Timberline project employed some of Oregon's most noted craftsmen and artists, and remains today as a monument to their skills. The United States Forest Service used this style in ranger stations, shelters, and lookouts in the early 1900s. During the Great Depression, the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) adopted the style in the many structures it built in recreation areas across the country. .ar �•u �R � � ��fl },y��'^^'� •N�%an��� � � � fit' ,�4r� d{LL�'Iyy�IY A� moi.• 3�.�'eY p N/ , �r •/,�-�y',^�'.�1I !+�-tY�f1'.,.tiy' �11 M�.'� i7pY►� i ; �••� '�'� ',• �'•.n� q.�' ,i �o �� _ i �e� � �',I/� a �+; ; I W-W ► Ono TIL L. 4375 South Shore Blvd. Arts & Crafts 'N,� �' ,aV'' ., r �• .rte VIM- Tmm .. n �- :lu Fir, - .�1A -moi rY, 'I-' 1 u'. �� Y1Irt• ��i �'�/, .i''^.�• ;',� •�, * -�. "�._.�;�^;r'., ..i;"'t' -.."'• ' ''fes.,- ��- Yj 876 North Shore Road Oregon Rustic 1650 North Shore Road English Tudor ;--r.L "' - el Wa r:A el 6TH ! r'1 EM Figure 1 ALLEY FY (BEFORE) ALIZY (AFrER) Figure 3 • Mixed use structures - retail below/office or residential above. • Stepped cornice due to slope. • The Gable roofed building is masonry at lower level to establish a strong visual base. • The flat roofed building is all masonry. • Signage opportunities on awnings and in cornice band or hanging above cornice. Figure 5 New buildings borrow from the adjacent English Tudor Building. Note complimentary massing, roof forms, masonry chimney and building base. One site defines the street witha' hedge, the other with a masonry and metal fence. Figure 6 ✓rte .,�6 w�r.y+` (�^�' � % . '� �''��G+k• Brick basket Weave Herringbone Running Cross Diagonal _11 IL D oa a as a as 0 0 a a 0 ��a I I E�Ffl D OL D _=� J� Rectangular Random Semi. -irregular Irregular Crazy Paving S�`_Rectangular (fitted) (irregular one unfitted) Figure 9 Parking structures can be integrated with residential or commercial building by using similar materials and similar proportions of openings and by extending horizontal elements (i.e. cornice). The garage entry takes advantage of topography to be visually subordinate to the pedestrian entry. Figure 11 API�EPa1DgX�B"c�LD TOWNs�rYLrs DESCRIPTION APPENDIX B OLD TOWN STYLES DESCRIPTION Old Town Stvle: Building appearance which borrows from the vernacular, (gable front) style, craftsman bungalow style and Cape Cod (neo-colonial) style. These buildings are characterized by simple massing and composition, use of natural materials, window and door openings emphasized with trim and gable and hip roof forms. Vernacular Stvle: One or two story with moderately pitched gable front or side shape, often with a partial or full width front porch with shed or hip roof. Vernacular house forms include square, rectangular, L- or T -plan with intersecting gables. These houses include symmetrical placement of doors and double hung sash windows, which are emphasized by window trim. They are typically sided with shiplap, clapboard or other wood horizontal siding. Typically, there is little or no decorative detailing. On the more complex structures with intersecting gables, the roof ridge of one of the gables is sometimes higher than the other adjacent wing. A typical vernacular "worker cottage" in Old Town Craftsman Style: Low pitched gabled roof (occasionally hip) with wide, overhanging eaves, roof rafters usually exposed, decorative (false) beams or braces commonly added under gables, porches either full or partial width, with roof supported by tapered square columns or pedestals, frequently extended to ground level and frequently composed of stone, clapboard, brick or in combination. Dormers are commonly gabled, hip or shed roofed. Double hung windows, often multi -light in top half or often grouped in two's or three's, or large windows the front facade with smaller pane sections above and often flanked by two smaller windows. The most common wall cladding is wood clapboard, wood and shingles, with stone and brick used in combination, or for porch post pillars or columns. Stucco is occasionally used as is board and batten. Craftsman Neo -Colonial (or Cape Code): This is one of the styles built in America since 1940. The neo-colonial is a simplified form loosely based on the previously popular colonial of the 20's and 30's. This style grades into preceding Colonial Revival style but differs in showing less concern for precisely copying Colonial prototypes. Free interpretations of colonial door surrounds and colonnaded entry porches are often used. Facades, although usually symmetrical, also lack the regularly spaced patterns of window placement seen in Georgian and Adam houses. Cape Cod structures have a rectangular or 1 -plan, side gable roofs, sometimes with an intersecting gable often with dormers. There is often an accentuated front door, with a decorative crown (pediment) supported by pilasters or extended forward and supported by slender columns to form a small entry porch. Windows typically are with double -hung sashes, usually with multi -pane glazing on one or both sashes, frequently in adjacent pairs. Cape Cod Figure 1 Primary roof S nclary roofs Primar-v and Secondary Roof Forms Figure 2 Large porch and unbroken width dominate form massing Massing broken into smaller increments with porches and proiectine forms existing one story residence- / Not appropriate More appropriate Create visual linkages Offset building walls and roof lines Incorporate similar roof forms and smaller design elements (Note: The intent of this drawing is not to indicate that full-length porches are not acceptable for multi -family dwellings, but that design features must be considered along with overall form and massing to achieve compatibility.) Figure 5, LODS 24.000, Old Town Design Standards CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO APPROVED STREET TREE PLANTING LIST TREES FOR PLANTING STRIP SIZE UP TO 4' Tree Species Height Spread Structure Foliage Flowers Fall Color Frui Crimson Sentry Norway Maple / Acer platanoides 'Crimson Sentry' Allegheny Serviceberry / Amelanchier laevis Pyramidal Serviceberry / Amelanchier canadensis Pyramidalis 25' 25' 30' 12' 15' 12' Very Upright Dense Upright Oval Very Upright Red Green Dark Green White Clusters White Racemes Maroon to Reddish - Bronze Orange Brilliant Reds & Oranges Purpli Blue Maroo Purple Heavy Lavelle Hawthorn / Crataegus X Lavellei Crimson Cloud Hawthorn / Crataegus laevigata 'Crimson Cloud' Columnar Hawthorn / Crataegus monogyna stricta Flowering Ash / Fraxinus ornus 30' 25 30' 30' 20' 18' 10' 15' Upright to Vase Oval Tightly Upright Pyramidal to Round Dark Green Glossy Green Green Medium Green White Clusters Bright Red White Centers Double White Off White Heavily Bronze Fruits Ora gt to Red Bri ht g Red Yellow Red Yellow Columnar Goldenrain / Koelreuteria paniculata Fasti' ata 30' 6' Narrow Fastigiate Green Scented Yellow Yellow Yellow Pods Goldenchain / Laburnum Vossi Blireiana Plum / Prunus X Blireiana Newport Plum / Prunus cerasifera'Newport' Japanese Tree Lilac / Syringa reticulata Trident Maple / Acer buer Branum Paperbark Maple / Acer griseum 30' 20' 20' 25' 25' 30' 20' 20' 20' 15' 20' 20' Upright to Vase Round Oval to Round Pyramidal Oval to Round I Round Green Purple - Green Dark P le Green Dark Green Green above & Silvery Yellow Racemes Bright Pink Light Pink White Panicle Yellow Reddish - Bronze Reddish Yellow Brown Yellow Orange Bright Red - Orange under Amur Maple / Acer ginnala 20' 20' Upright Round Green Yellow Hedge Maple / Acer cam entre 25' 25' Round Dark Green Yellow Glorybower Tree / Clerodendrum trichotomum 20' 20' Round Dark Green White Fragrant Blue - Green Clusters Rocky Mountain Glow Maple / Acer grandidentatum 'Schmidt' 25' 15' Oval Dark Green Bright Red CITY OF FAKE OSWEGO APPROVED STREET TREE PLANTING LIST TREES FOR PLANTING STRIP SIZE 4' TO 5 1/2' Tree Species Height Spread Structure Foliage Flowers Fall Color Frui; Lavalle Hawthorn / 30' 20' Upright Dark White Bronze Red Crataegus X Lavellei Green Red Flowering Ash / 30' 15' Pyramidal Medium Off White Yellow Fraxdnus ornus to Round Green Fragrant Pyramidal Hornbeam l 35' 20' Broadly Dark Yellow Carpinus betulus fastigiata Oval Green Olmsted Columnar Norway 40' 20' Upright Dark Yellow Maple / Acer platanoides Green columnar 'Olmsted' Armstrong II Red Maple 45' 15' Narrow Light Yellow Acer rubrum 'Armstrong' Fastigiate Green Orange - Red Gerling Red Maple 35' 20' Pyramidal Green Orange - Acer rubrum 'Gerling' Red Saratoga Ginkgo 30' 30' Compact Greenish Yellow Ginkgo biloba 'Saratoga' Spreader - Gold Columnar Sargent Cherry 30' 10' Fastigiate Green Deep Pink Orange - Prunus sar entii columnans Red Glorybower Tree 20' 20' Round Dark White Blue - Clerodendrum trichotomum Green Fragrant Green Clusters Globe Sugar Maple / Acer 15' 20' Round Medium Yellow & saccharum globosum Green Orange Globe Serviceberry / 20' 20' Round Green White Bright Maroo Amelanchier canadensis Yellow - Purple oblon ' olia I Red Magnolia soulangiana 20' I 20' Upright- Green Red/ Yellow - Saucer magnolia Rounded White Brown CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO APPROVED STREET TREE PLANTING LIST TREES FOR PLANTING STRIP SIZE UTO 8' Tree Species I Height Spread Structure Foliage Flowers Fall Color Fruit Crimson King Norway Maple / Acer platanoides 'Crimson Kine' 40' 35' Round Deep Purple Reddish Orange Superform Maple / Acer platanoides 'Superform' 45' 40' Oval Medium Green Yellow Red Sunset Red Maple/ Acer rubrum 'Franksred' October Glory Maple/Acer rubrum 'October Glory' Embers Red Maple / Acer rubrum 'Embers' 45' 40' 50' 35' 35' 40' Oval Broadly Oval Open Dark I Green Medium Green Green Orange Red Red to Purple Bright Red Magnolia soulangiana Saucer ma olia ' Douglas -fir, Pseudotsuga menzi,esii 20' I 100' 20' upright- Rounded Green Dark sen Red/ W -bite Yellow - Brown evergreen Lodgepole Pine, Pinus contorta 100' Dark green Shore pine, Pinus contorta uar.contorta 25' upright- Irre ar Dark een evergreen Western red cedar, Thuja olicato 100'- Pvramidal evergreen Grand fir, Abies grandis 100'- I Dark evergreen green Noble fir, Abies procera 90' Bluish _ evergreen sen Sitka spruce, Picea sitchensis Western hemlock, Tsuga hetero hvlla 100' Narrow- vramidal ever een evergreen Incense cedar, Libocedrus decurrens 90' Narrow- vramidaI Dark sen evergreen CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO APPROVED STREET TREE PLANTING LIST TREES FOR PLANTING STRIP SIZE 8 1/2' .A2ND LARGER Tree Species Height Spread Structure Foliage Flowers Fall Color Fruit Catalpa / Catalpa speciosa 75' 50' Round Green White Fellow Rataura Tree / Cercadiphyllum japonicum 40' 35' Oval Bluish • Green Yellow to Scarlet Sourwood / OsydendrumI arboreum 50' 25' P,,.-ramidal Green White Brilliant Scarlet Golden 7.3 Draft December 2001 with Consolidation Comments City of Lake Oswego Community Development Code A Proposed Administrative Consolidation of LOC 48 — Zoning Code, LOC 49 — Development Code, and LODS — Development Standards Lake Oswego City Council to Consider December 2001 Draft at: Workshop — January 8, 2002, 6:00 p.m. Public Hearing — February 5, 2002, 6:00 p.m. Lake Oswego City Hall, Council Chambers 380 A Avenue Lake Oswego, OR 97034 A Project of Lake Oswego Planning Department and City Attorney's Office DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Press Release For Immediate Release For More Information: Evan P. Boone 503-635-0225 December 11, 2001 City Land Llse Regulations Proposed To Be Reorganized; City Council to Hold Work Session and Public Hearing The City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission has recommended combining the City's land use development codes and standards into a new, consolidated, Community Development Code. Currently, the land use regulations are found in three separate documents: the Zoning Code, the Development Code, and the Development Standards. The Community Development Department's code consolidation efforts are in response to concerns expressed by development applicants and interested parties, that the codes and standards are difficult to navigate when preparing or responding to a development application. "This Code consolidation should simplify the use of our land use regulations. This should make it easier for anyone involved in the land use process, from developer to someone concerned about a particular project, to locate the relevant standards for development and use of real property," Hamid Pishvaie, Development Review Manager, stated. Although no substantive regulations have been added or removed, the ability to use the land use regulations is expected to be improved by: • Combining the Zoning Code, Development Code, and Development Standards into one code. • Providing a "flow" of the chapters that will be more understandable. • Eliminating duplicate language. • Adding cross-references to assist in locating sections that are interrelated. The Lake Oswego Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed Community Development Code on November 26, 2001. The Lake Oswego City Council is scheduled to hold a workshop session on the proposed Community Development Code on January 8, 2002, at 6:00 p.m., City Hall Council Chambers, 380 A Avenue, Lake 380 A Avenue • Post Office Box 369 • Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 Planning Division: (503) 635-0290 • Building Division: (503) 635-0390 • Engineering Division: (503) 635-0270 • I \X (503) 635-0269 Oswego. A public hearing is tentatively scheduled before the City Council on February 5, 2002, at 6:00 p.m.. The public is welcome to attend. The Community Development Department's Development Review Division and the City Attorney's Office have been working on integrating the Zoning Code, Development Code and Development Standards, to make the regulations more accessible for developers, residents, and even city staff. The last reorganization of the land use regulations was in 1982. A proposed version of the Lake Oswego Community Development Code, containing comments explaining the proposed revisions, can be reviewed at City Hall, Community Planning Dept., (third floor), or at the City's website: Www. ci.Oswego. or.us, Planning Department. A copy of the proposed Community Development Code can also be obtained by either picking one up at City Hall or contacting the Community Development Department by telephone: 503.635.0270 or email: planning@ci.oswego.or.us. Revisions included through 10/05/00 Code Publication) Ord. 2301 - First Addition and the Lake Grove Building Height and Roof Pitch Overlay, eff. 9/6/01 Ord. 2302 - Special Street Setback, eff. 12/6/01 Ord. 2306 - East End Commercial Dwelling Minimum Unit Revision, eff. 12/6/01 Draft December 2001 with Consolidation Comments City of Lake Oswego Community Development Code A Proposed Administrative Consolidation of LOC 48 — Zoning Code, LOC 49 — Development Code, and LODS — Development Standards Lake Oswego City Council to Consider December 2001 Draft at: Workshop —January 8, 2002, 6:00 p.m. Public Hearing — February 5, 2002, 6:00 p.m. Lake Oswego City Hall, Council Chambers 380 A Avenue Lake Oswego, OR 97034 A Project of Lake Oswego Planning Department and City Attorney's Office Please submit comments to: Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney 503.635.0225 email: eboone Mci.oswego.or.us Page 1 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code Index to 2001 Community Development Code — December 2001 Draft New Code Article 50.01 Article Name Title Purpose, and Authority Old Code Section 50.01.005 Title 48.02.005 50.01.010 Purpose 49.16.010 50.01.015 Official Action 48.02.045 50.01.020 Authority of City Manager 49.16.010 50.01.025 Development Permits Restricted for Unlawful Uses 49.16.040 50.01.030 Development Restricted on Illegal Lot 49.16.045 Article 50.02 Definitions 50.02.005 Definitions 48.02.015; 49.16.015 Article 50.03 Applicability of Community Development Code 50.03.005 Application of Code 49.16.020 50.03.010 Compliance 48.02.020 50.03.015 Maintenance of Minimum Ordinance Requirements 48.20.500 50.03.020 Relationship to Other Laws and Private Agreements; Prior Approvals and Conditions of Approval 48.02.070 Article 50.04 Rules of Interpretation 50.04.005 Interpretation, Regulations and Procedures, Delegation _ 48.02.025 50.04.010 City Manager Interpretations 49.16.060 50.04.015 Authorization for Similar Uses 48.02.095 Article 50.05 Zoning Designations, Boundaries and Maps 50.05.005 Zoning Districts 48.02.115 50.05.010 Zoning ap 48.02.080 50.05.015 Interpretation of District Boundaries 48.02.085 50.05.020 Zoning of Annexed Areas 48.02.090 Page 1 - Index to 2001 Community Development Code — December 2001 Draft 50.05.025 Comprehensive Plan Map Designations Automatically Applied Upon Annexations; Exceptions 49.62.1600 Article 50.06 _ Residential — Medium and High Density R-0, R-2, R-3, R-5, WR Zones 50.06.005 Purposed Reserved N/A 50.06.010 Permitted Uses; R-0, R-2, R-3, and R-5 Zones_ 48.04.120 50.06.010 Conditional Uses: R-0, R-2, R-3, R-5 Zones _ 48.04.125 50.06.015 Permitted Uses in WR Zone 48.04.127 50.06.020 Maximum Density, Density Bonus _ 48.04.130 50.06.025 _ Minimum Density 48.04.132 50.06.030 Lot Size, Density Transfer 48.04.135 50.06.035 _ Lot Coverage 48.04.140 50.06.040 Unified Site Plan Required _ 48.04.145 50.06.045 _ Setbacks, Buffers _ 48.04.150 50.06.050 _ Height of Structures 48.04.155 Article 50.07 _ Residential - First Addition Zoning District R-6 50.07.005 Purpose 48.05.010 50.07.010 Permitted Uses 48.05.015 50.07.015 Conditional Uses 48.05.020 50.07.020 Lot Size, Lot Dimensions, Density Transfer 48.05.025 50.07.025 Setbacks 48.05.030 50.07.030 Height of Primary Structures 48.05.035 50.07.035 Lot Coverage/Floor Area Ratios 48.05.040 50.07.040 _ Single Family Dwelling Design _ 48.05.045 50.07.045 Accessory Structures in R-6 zone 48.05.050 50.07.050 Parking 48.05.055 50.07.055 Alleys in R-6 Zone 48.05.060 50.07.060 _ Street Trees in R-6 Zone) 48.05.065 50.07.065 Administrative Modification 48.05.070 50.07.070 FAN Advisory Opinion 48.05.075 Article 50.08 Residential, Low Density R-7.5, R-10, R-15 gs 50.08.005 Purpose Reserved 50.08.010 Permitted Uses; R-7.5, R-10, R-15 Zones 48.06.195 50.08.015 Conditional Uses; R-7.5, R-10, R-15 Zones 48.06.200 50.08.020 Maximum Density, Density Bonus 48.06.205 _ 50.08.025 Lot Size; Lot Dimensions; Density Transfer 48.06.210 50.08.030 Setbacks 48.06.215 50.08.035 Height Limits _ 48.06.220 50.08.040 Lot Coverage 48.06.225 Article 50.09 ROjAqjtjKLOld Town Design District 50.09.005 Purpose 48.08.240 _ 50.09.010 Permitted uses 48.08.245 Page 2 - Index to 2001 Community Development Code December 2001 Draft 50.09.015 Conditional Uses 48.08.250 50.09.020 Lot Size, Lot Dimensions, Density 48.08.255 50.09.025 Setback Requirements, Buffers 48.08.260 50.09.030 Height of Structure 48.08.265 50.09.035 Lot Coverage 48.08.270 50.09.040 Development Review 48.08.275 50.09.045 Old Town Advisory inion 48.08.276 50.09.050 Allowable Density and Density Transfer 48.08.280 Article 50.10 West Lake Grove Design District 50.10.005 Purpose 48.09.005 50.10.010 Office-Commercial/Town Home Residential OC/R-2.5 48.09.010 50.10.015 Office CommerciallNeighborhood Commercial OC/NC 48.09.015 50.10.020 Town Home Residential R-2.5 48.09.020 50.10.025 Live/Work Zone R -2.5/W 48.09.025 Article 50.11 Commercial OistrietsZones 50.11.005 Purpose 48.10.300 50.11.010 Uses 48.10.305 50.11.015 Site Development Limitations 48.10.310 50.11.020 Special Requirements 48.10.315 Article 50.12 Campus Institutional 50.12.010 P ose 48.14.390 50.12.015 Permitted Uses 48.14.395 50.12.020 Conditional Uses 48.14.400 50.12.025 Site Development Limitations 48.14.405 50.12.030 S eci,al Requirements 48.14.410 Article 50.13 Industrial Zones 50.13.005 Purpose 48.12.340 �V 50.13.010 Permitted Uses; Industrial Zone 48.12.345 50.13.025 Conditional Uses; Industrial Park Zone 48.12.360 50.13.030 Prohibited Uses; Any Industrial Zone 48.12.365 50.13.035 Site Development Limitations 48.12.370 50.13.040 Special Requirements 48.12.375 Article 50.14 Accesso and Temporary Usesf` 50.14.005 Accessory Uses 48.20.505 50.14.010 Temporary Structures, Uses 48.20.510 50.14.015 Use of Recreational Vehicle as a Dwelling Unit Prohibited 48.20.540 Overlay Zones Article 50.15 Greenway Management Overlay District _ 50.15.005 Purpose, Application 48.16.430 50.15.010 Development Review 48.16.434 Page 3 - Index to 2001 Community Development Code — December 2001 Draft 50.15.015 Permitted Uses 48.16.435 50.15.020 Willamette River Greenway Bound 48.16.436 Article 50.16 Sensitive Lands Overla Z ' 50.16.005 Overview 48.17.005 50.16.010 Purpose 48.17.010 50.16.015 Applicability 48.17.015 50.16.020 Criteria for Designating Property within an Overlay District 48.17.020 50.16.025 Removing an Overlay District Designation 48.17.025 50.16.030 Environmental Review 48.17.100 50.16.035 Delineation of Resource 48.17.105 50.16.040 Modifications to Dimensional Standards and Setbacks of the Underlying Zone 48.17.110 50.16.045 Density Transfer 48.17.115 50.16.050 Resource Conservation (RC) District Environmental Review Standards; Applicability and Purpose 48.17.200 50.16.055 RC District Protection Area 48.17.205 50.16.060 RC District Development Standards 48.17.210 50.16.065 Resource Preservation (RP) District Environmental Review Standards; Applicability and Purpose 48.17.300 50.16.070 RP District Buffer Requirements 48.17.305 50.16.080 Resource Enhancement Projects 48.17.315 50.16.085 Exceptions Where the RP District Prohibits all Reasonable Development Opportunities 48.17.320 50.16.090 Special Standards for the Oswego Canal 48.17.400 50.16.095 Construction Standards 48.17.500 50.16.100 Mitigation; Purpose 48.17.600 50.16.105 Progressive Mitigation Steps Required 48.17.605 50.16.110 Mitigation Requirements 48.17.610 Article 50.17 Planned Development Overlay 50.17.005 Purpose, Applicability 48.18.470 50.17.010 Procedures 48.18.475 50.17.015 Authorization 48.18.476 50.17.020 Special Requirements 48.18.480 50.17.025 Expiration, Revocation 48.18.485 50.17.030 Authority to Approve Changes in Planned Development Approval 48.18.490 Article 50.18 First Addition and -the Lake Grove Building Height and Roof Pitch Overlay 50.18.005 Height of Structure 48.07.010 50.18.010 Minimum Roof Pitch Required in First Addition and Lake Grove Neighborhoods 48.07.015 Page 4 - Index to 2001 Community Development Code — December 2001 Draft Page 5 - Index to 2001 Community Development Code — December 2001 Draft Dam 010 Article 50.20 Flag Lots 50.20.005 Purpose; Applicability 48.19.005 50.20.010 Authorization; Application Requirements 48.19.010 50.20.015 Exceptions 48.19.015 50.20.020 Access 48.19.020 50.20.025 Lot Configuration Requirements 48.19.025 50.20.030 Building and Site Design Standards 48.19.030 50.20.035 Screening,Buffering and Landscape Installation 48.19.035 Article 50.21 Vision Clearance 50.21.005 Vision Clearance 48.20.530 Article 50.22 Exceptions to Site Development Standards: Lot Dimension, Lot Area, Setback, Building Height; and Special Determinations: Yards of Corner Lots 50.22.005 General Exception to Lot Area and Dimension Re uirements. 48.20.515 50.22.010 General Exceptions to Yard Requirements 48.20.535 5 a 50.22.015 General Exception to Structure Height Limitations 48.20.515(2). 50.22.020 One-Year Exception to Height/Seback/Lot Coverage Requirements for New Subdivision Lots 48.20.515(3) 50.22.025 Special Determination of Yards and Yard Requirements 48.20.535; 48.20.525(3) 50.22.030 Oswego Lake 48.20.535 3 50.22.035 Special Street Setbacks 48.20.535(4) 50.05.040 Rooftop Decks 48.20.541 50.22.045 General Exceptions for Building Projections and Decks to Setbacks _ 48.20.520 Article 50.30 Special Requirements for Type of Facility 50.30.005 Home Occupations 48.20.545 50.30.010 Specific Standards for Secondary Dwelling Unit 48.20.547 50.30.015 Specific Standards for Telecommunications Facilities 48.20.560 50.30.020 Specific Standards for Special Use Housing 48.20.549 50.30.025 Specific Standards for Mobile Home Park or Subdivision 48.20.548 GENERAL i DESiG r STANDMCDS Article 50.40 Drainage Standard for Minor Development Page 5 - Index to 2001 Community Development Code — December 2001 Draft 50.40.005 Applicability 12.010 50.40.010 Standards for Approval 12.020 50.40.015 Standards for Construction 12.025 50.40.020 Standards for Maintenance 12.030 50.40.030 Procedures 12.035 50.40.035 Miscellaneous Information 1.2.040 Article 50.41 Drainage Standard for Major Development 50.41.005 Apphcabiliq, 11.010 50.41.020 Standards for Approval 11.020 50.41.025 Standards for Construction 11.025 50.41.030 Standards for Maintenance 11.030__ 50.41.035 _ Procedures 11.035 50.41.040 Miscellaneous Information 11.040 Article 50.42 Weak Foundation Soils 50.42.005 Applicability _ 13.010 50.42.010 Standards for Approval _ 13.020 50.42.015 Standards for Construction 13.025 50.42.020 Standards for Maintenance _ 13.030 50.42.025 Procedures 13.035 50.42.030 _ Miscellaneous Information _ 13.040 Article 50.43 Hillside Protection 50.43.005 Applicability 16.005 50.43.010 Definitions 16.010 50.43.015 Approval Standards 1.6.020 50.43.020 Construction Standards 16.025 50.43.025 Standards for Maintenance _ 16.030 50.43.030 Procedure 16.035 50.43.035 Miscellaneous Information _ 16.040 Article 50.44 Flood Plain 50.44.005 Applicability 17.010 50.44.010 Purpose _ 17.012 50.44.015 -Adoption of Flood Insurance Study 17.013 50.44.020 Standards For Approval 17.020 50.44.025 _ Standards For Construction 17.025 50.44.030 Standards For Maintenance 17.030 50.44.035 Procedures 17.035 Article 50.45 Building Design 50.45.005 Applicability 2.010 50.45.010 Standards for Approval _ 2.020 50.45.015 Standards for Construction _ 2.025 50.45.020 Standards for Maintenance 2.030 50.45.025 Procedure --' 2.035 -- Page 6 - Index to 2001 Community Development Code - December 2001 Draft 50.45.030 Miscellaneous Information 2.040 Article 50.46 Park and Open Space 50.46.005 Applicability 8.010 50.46.010 Standards for Approval 8.020 50.46.015 Standards for Construction 8.025 50.46.020 Standards for Maintenance 8.030 50.46.025 Procedures 8.035 50.46.030 Miscellaneous Information 8.040 Article 50.47 Landscaping, Screening and Bufferin 50.47.005 Applicability 9.010 50.47.010 Standards for Approval 9.020 50.47.015 Standards for Installation and Construction 9.025_ 50.47.020 Standards for Maintenance 9.030 50.47.025 Procedures 9.035 50.47.030 Miscellaneous Information 9.040 Article 50.48 Manufactured Homes 50.48.005 General Provisions 22.010 50.48.015 Manufactured Home Placement Standards 22.015 50.48.020 Placement Permit 22.020 50.48.025 Occupancy Certificate 22.030 Article 50.55 Parking Standards 50.55.005 Applicability 7.010 50.55.010 Standards for Approval 7.020 50.55.015 Standards for Construction 7.025 50.55.020 Standards for Maintenance 7.030 50.55.025 Procedures 7.040 Article 50.56 Transit System 50.56.005 Applicability 6.010 50.56.010 Standards for Approval 6.020 50.56.015 Standards for Construction 6.025 50.56.020 Procedures 6.030 50.56.025 Miscellaneous Information 6.040 Article 50.57 Access 50.57.005 Applicability _ _ _ 18.010 50.57.010 Definitions 18.015 50.57.015 Standards for Approval 18.020 50.57.020 Standards for Construction 18.025_ 50.57.025 Standards for Maintenance 18.030 50.57.030 _ Procedures 18.035 50.57.035 Miscellaneous Information 18.040 Article 50.58 On -Site Circulation - Driveways and Fire Access Page 7 - Index to 2001 Community Development Code - December 2001 Draft 50.58.005 Applicability 19.010 50.58.010 Definitions 19.015 50.58.015 Standards for Approval 19.020 50.58.020 Standards for Construction 19.025 50.58.025 Standards for Maintenance 19.030 50.58.030 Procedures 19.035 50.58.035 Miscellaneous Information 19.040 Article 50.59 On -Site Circulation Standards - Bikeway, Walkways and Accesswa s 50.59.005 Applicability 20.010 50.59.010 Standards for Approval 20.020 50.59.015 Standards for Construction 20.025 50.59.020 Standards for Maintenance 20.030 50.59.025 Procedures 20.035 50.59.030 Miscellaneous Information 20.040 Article 50.60 Street (Pathway, Parkin Lots Lights 50.60.005 Applicability 5.010 50.60.010 Standards for Approval 5.020 Article 59.61 Utili Standard 50.61.005 Applicability 14.010 50.61.010 Definitions 14.015 50.61.015 Standards for Approval 14.020 50.61.020 Standards for Construction 14.025 50.61.025 Standards for Maintenance 14.030 50.61.030 Procedures 14.035 50.61.035 Miscellaneous Information 14.040 Article 50.65 Downtown Redevelopment District Design Standards 50.65.005 Purpose 23.005 50.65.010 Applicability 23.010 50.65.015 Relationship to Other Development Standards 23.015 50.65.020 Definitions 23.020 50.65.025 Building Siting and Massing 23.105 50.65.030 Building Design 23.110 50.65.035 View Protection 23.115 50.65.040 SIGNS - Applicability _ 23.205 50.65.045 SIGN - Sign Regulations 23.201 50.65.050 LANDSCAPING AND SITE DESIGN - Landscaping and Site Design Requirements 23.305 50.65.055 PARKING - Parking Requirements 23.405 50.65.060 Parking Lot Design 23.410 50.65.065 Parking Structures _ 23.415 Page 8 - Index to 2001 Community Development Code - December 2001 Draft 50.65.070 STREETS - Street, Alley and Sidewalk Design 23.510 50.65.075 EXCEPTION TO STANDARDS - Exceptions to Standards 23.605 Article 50.66 Old Town Buildin Desi n Standards 50.66.005 Purpose 24.010 50.66.010 Definitions 24.015 50.66.015 Applicability 24.020 50.66.020 Building Siting and Massmi 24.025 50.66.025 Building Design and Materials 24.030 50.66.030 Fencing and Landscaping 24.035 50.66.035 Garages 24.040 50.66.040 Additional Requirements for Multiple Family Dwellin s 24.045 Article 50.67 West Lake Grove Design District Standards 50.67.005 Purpose 25.010 50.67.010 Applicability 25.015 50.67.015 West Lake Grove Design Standards _ 25.020 50.67.020 Standards Applicable to the Entire District 25.025 50.67.025 Design Standards for the Office Commercial/High Density Residential (OC/R-2.5) Zone _ 25.030; 25.035 50.67.030 Design Standards for the Neighborhood Commercial/ Office Commercial (OC/NC) Zone 25.040; 25.045 50.67.035 Design Standards for the Town Home Residential Zone (R 2.5). 25.050; 25.055; 25.060 50.67.040 Design Standards for the R-2.5/ W Live/ Work Zone 25.065; 25.070 Article 50.68 Variances 50.68.005 Reserved 50.68.010 Variance Standards 49.28.405 50.68.015 Classification of variances 48.24.655 50.68.020 Procedure for Review and Approval of Variances 49.28.400 Article 50.69 Conditional Uses 50.69.005 Intent and Purpose; Effect of Use Under Prior Code Which Is Conditional tinder Current Code. 48.22.550; 48.26.730 50.69.010 Authorization to Permit or Deny Conditional Uses 48.22.555 50.69.015 Procedure 48.22.560 50.69.020. _ Modification of Conditional Use Permit _ 48.22.550 (4)) Page 9 - Index to 2001 Community Development Code — December 2001 Draft 50.69.025 Abandonment of Conditional Use Permit 48.22.560(4)(a)(partial); 48.22.550 (5)) 50.69.030 Review of Condition Use Permits; Amendment 48.22.550(2); and Revocation Procedures 48.22.560 4 50.69.050 Specific Standards for Churches, Convent and 48.22.565 Related Facility 50.69.055 Specific Standards for Nursing or Convalescent 48.22.570 Homes or Other Facilities Classified by the State Department of Health as Long -Term Care Facilities and Covered Under OAR Chapter 333, Division 23, Sections 700-796; the State Fire Code and Chapter 10 of the Uniform Building Code; All Referenced State Rules or Codes as Now or Hereafter Constituted 50.69.060 Specific Standards for Schools 48.22.575 50.69.065 Specific Standards for Telecommunications 48.22.577 Facilities in Residential Zones 50.69.070 Specific Standards for Major Public Facilities 48.22.585 and Institutional Uses Not Covered by Other Specific Standards 50.69.075 Specific Standards for Conditional Uses Listed 48.22.605 in Commercial or Industrial Zones and Not Covered by other Specific Standards 50.69.080 Specific Standards for Non-profit Conditional 48.22.610 Uses in Certain Zones 50.69.085 Specific Standards for non-profit office uses in 48.22.615 Structures on the City's Historical Landmarks List and which are Located on Arterial Streets 50.69.090 Specific Standards for Conditional Uses in the 48.22.625 R-2 and R-6 Zones Article 50.70 Nonconforming Uses and Structures 50.70.005 Non -Conforming Use, Structure Defined; Rights 48.26.700 Granted 50.70.010 Discontinuance of a Non -Conforming Use 48.26.705 50.70.015 Applicability to Approvals, Incompleted 48.26.710 Construction 50.70.020 Destruction, Movement and Replacement of 48.26.715 Structures 50.70.025 Expansion of Non -Conforming Industrial or 48.26.720 Commercial Uses or Structures 50.70.030 Repairs and Maintenance 48.26.725 50.70.035 Reserved 50.70.040 Non -Conforming Characteristics of Use 48.26.735 Article 50.71 Overall Development Plan and Schedule Page 10 - Index to 2001 Community Development Code -- December 2001 Draft 50.71.005 Phasing of Major Development 49.26.300 50.71.010 Overall Development Plan and Schedule ODPS . 49.26.305 50.71.015 Purpose of Overall Development Plan and Schedule 49.26.310 50.71.020 Density Bonus Within Phased Development 49.26.315 50.71.025 Application Procedure 49.26.320 50.71.030 Review of ODPS 49.26.325__-- 50.71.035 .50.71.035 Hearin Body Action 49.26.330 50.71.040 Content of the Approved Final Overall Development Plan and Schedule _ 49.26.335 50.71.045 Changes to the Overall Development Plan and Schedule 49.26.340 Article 50.75 Legislative Decisions 50.75.005 Legislative Decisions Defined 49.6_0.1500 50.75.010 Criteria for a Legislative Decision 49.60.1505 50.75.015 Required Notice to DLCD _ 49.60.1510 50.75.020 Planning Commission Recommendation Re uired 49.60.1515 50.75.025 _ City Council Review and Decision 49.60.1520 50.75.030 _ _ Effective Date of Legislative Decision 49.60.1525 Article 50.76 Development Application Hearing Procedure and Record v 50.76.010 Record of Proceedin s 48.02.100 50.76.015 Concurrent Hearings 48.02.110 50.76.020 Jurisdiction of Hearing Body 49.44.905 Article 50.77 Application Requirements _ 50.77.005 _ Application for Development 49.30.510 50.77.007 Burden of Proof 49.22.200 50.77.010 Method of Application 49.30.500 50.77.015 _ Signature on Application 49.30.505 50.77.020 Preapplication Conference 49.36.700 50.77.025 Neighborhood Contact Required for Certain A lications 49.36.705 50.77.030 Filing an Application; Determination of Com leteness 49.36.710 50.77.035 Extensions or Continuances 49.36.715 50.77.040 Withdrawing an Application 49.36.720 Article 50.79 'Types Of Development And Review Criteria For Each Type Of Development Exempt Development Classification 49.20.100 50.79.005 50.79.010 _ _ Ministerial Development Classification 49.20.105 Page 11 - Index to 2001 Community Development Code — December 2001 Draft 50.79.015 Review Criteria for Ministerial Developments 49.22.210 50.79.020 Minor Development Classification 49.20.110 50.79.025 Review Criteria for Minor Developments 49.22.215 50.79.030 Major Development Classification 49.20.115 50.79.035 Review Criteria for Major Developments 49.22.220 50.79.040 Conditions of Approval 49.22.225 Article 50.80 Review of Ministerial Development Applications 50.80.005 Review by City Manager 49.32.600 Article 50.81 Review of Minor Development Applications 50.81.005 Review by City Manager 49.40.800 50.81.010 Notice of Minor Development Application 49.40.805 50.81.015 Final Decision 49.40.810 50.81.020 Notice of Final Decision 49.40.815 Article 50.82 Review of Major Development Applications and Appeals of Minor Development Decisions 50.82.005 Review by Hearing Body 49.44.900 50.82.010 Applicant's Evidence 49.44.910 50.82.015 Staff Report 49.44.915 50.82.020 Notice of Public Hearing 49.44.920 Article 50.83 Hearings Before a Hearing Body`u 49.46.1000 49.46.1005 50.83.005 Conduct of the Hearing 50.83.010 Time Limits on Testimony 50.83.015 Testimony, Exhibits and Other Evidence 49.46.1010 50.83.020 Objections 49.46.1015 50.83.025 Preservation of Order 49.46.1020 50.83.030 Continuances 49.46.1025 50.83.035 Decision of the Hearing Body 49.46.1030 50.83.040 Notice of Decision 49.46.1035 4� Article 50.84 Filing of Appeals 50.84.005 Appeal of Minor Development Decision 49.40.820 50.84.010 Filing an Appeal of a Hearing Body Decision 49.50.1100 50.84.015 Multiple Appeals; Consolidation 49.50.1105 50.84.020 Withdrawing an A ' eal 49.50.1110 50.84.025 Preparation of Record and Staff Report; Transcript 49.50.1115 50.84.030 Notice of the Appeal Hearing 49.50.1120 50.84.035 Scope of Council Review 49.50.1125 50.84.040 Conduct of the Appeal Hearing 49.50.1130 50.84.045 Time Limits on Testimony 49.50.1135 50.84.050 Presenting Testimony 49.50.1140 50.84.055 Objections 49.50.1145 Page 12 - Index to 2001 Community Development Code — December 2001 Draft 50.84.060 Preservation of Order 49.50.1150 50.84.065 Continuances 49.50.1155 50.84.070 Decision of the Council 49.50.1160 50.84.075 Notice of Decision 49.50.1165 _ Article 50.85 Remands 50.85.005 Remands from the Council to the Hearing Body 49.54.1200 50.85.010 Remands from LUBA to the Cit Council 49p.54.1205 ➢C) �.' �re, 71 C,.ei^' d �.' 1r. k t 1 §l0. w f k .t 1.kY t. ` h i F.. Article 50.86 Effect of Approval or Denial of Development Permit / Modification or Revocation of Permit 50.86.005 Effective Date of a Decision___ 49.56.1300 50.86.010 Effect of Decision to Approve 49.56.1305 50.86.015 Interpretation of Approvals 48.02.100 50.86.020 - Effect Effect of Denial; Resubmittal 49.56.1310 50.86.025 Modification of Approved Permit 49.58.1425 50.86.030 Revocation of Permit 49.58.1430 Article 50.87 Compliance with Approved Permit 50.87.005 Certificate of Occupancy _ 49.58.1400 50.87.010 Preparation and Submittal of Final Plan or Plat 49.58.1405 50.87.015 Review of the Final Plan or Plat, Filing Requirements 49.58.1410 50.877.020 Obligation to Construct Public Facilities; Security; Acce tance of Improvements 49.58.1415 50.87.025 Failure to Fulfill Obligation, Lien Created 49.58.1420 Article 50.88 Fees 50.88.005 _ Fees and Deposits 49.16.030 Arti0c -U. 0 Enforcement and Revocation of Permits and Penalties 50.90.005 Enforcement 48.02.035 50.90.010 Violations; abatement; inunction ---- ------- 49.16.050 50.90.015 Evidence of Violation 48.02.065 50.90.020 Cumulative Remedies 48.02.070 Page 13 - Index to 2001 Community Development Code — December 2001 Draft GENERAL DESIGN STANDARDS Note: * references are NOT located within the Community Development Code but are located in other chapters of the Lake Oswego Code. They are included here as a reminder of other Lake Oswego Code sections which are considered in the design and development approval process. Siting Considerations CDC Page or LOC Ref. Drainage— Minor Development ............................ Drainage— Major Development ........................... WeakFoundation Soils ....................................... HillsideProtection ............................................. FloodPlain ...................................................... Solar Access ....................................................LOC Ch 57* Building and Site Design BuildingDesign .................................................. Tree Removal ...................................................LOC Ch 55)* Parkand Open Space .......................................... Landscaping, Screening and Buffering ..................... Historic Preservation LOC Ch 58 ManufacturedHome .........:.................................. Transportation Off -Street Parking, Loading and Bicycle Access.......... TransitSystem .................................................... Access............................................................... On -Site Circulation — Driveways and Fire Access......... On -Site Circulation — Walking, Bikewaysand Accessways .............................. Streets and Sidewalks ...........................................LOC 42.03 and 42.03.400)* Utilities Street (Pathway, Parking Lots) L.ights................................. Utility.......................................................................... System Development Charges ............................................ LOC Ch 39* Page 14 - Index to 2001 Community Development Code — December 2001 Draft Special District Design Standards' Misc. Downtown Redevelopment District ........................... Old Town Building ............................................... WestLake Grove ................................................. Signs.................................................................LOC Ch 47* Fences...............................................................LOC Ch 45.15* Page 15 - Index to 2001 Community Development Code — December 2001 Draft Reverse Index to 2001 Community Development Code — December 2001 Draft Old Code Article New Code Article Section Title 48.02.005 50.01.005 Title 48.02.010 See 50.01.010 Purpose 48.02.015 50.02.005 Definitions 48.02.020 50.03.010 Compliance 48.02.025 50.04.005 Interpretation, Regulations and Procedures, Delegation 48.02.030 See 50.88.005 Eliminated 48.02.035 50.90.005 Enforcement 48.02.040 See 50.90.010 Eliminated 48.02.045 50.01.015 Official Action 48.02.055 See 50.90.010 Eliminated 48.02.060 See 50.90.010 Eliminated 48.02.065 50.90.015 Evidence of Violation 48.02.070 50.90.020 Cumulative Remedies 48.02.075 50.03.020 Relationship to Other Laws and Private Agreements; Prior Approvals and Conditions of Approval 48.02.080 50.05.010 Zoning Ma 48.02.085 50.05.015 Interpretation of District Boundaries 48.02.090 50.05.020 Zoning of Annexed Areas 48.02.095 50.04.015 Authorization for Similar Uses 48.02.100 50.76.010 Record of Proceedings 48.02.100 50.86.015 Interpretation of Approvals 48.02.110 50.76.015 Concurrent Hearings 48.02.115 50.05.005 Zoning Districts Residential — Medium and High Density R-0, R-2, R-3 R-5 WR Zones N/A 50.06.005 Purposed(Reserved) 48.04.120 50.06.010 Permitted Uses; R-0, R-2, R-3, and R-5 Zones 48.04.125 50.06.010 Conditional Uses: R-0, R-2, R-3, R-5 Zones 48.04.127 50.06.015 Permitted Uses in WR Zone 48.04.130 50.06.020 Maximum Density,Density Bonus 48.04.132 50.06.025 Minimum Density 48.04.135 50.06.030 Lot Size, Density Transfer 48.04.140 50.06.035 Lot Coverage 48.04.145 50.06.040 Unified Site Plan Required 48.04.150 50.06.045 Setbacks Buffers 48.04.155 50.06.050 Height of Structures Article 50.07 First Addition Zoning District R-6 48.05.010 50.07.005 Purpose 48.05.015 50.07.010 Permitted Uses Page 1 - Reverse Index to 2001 Community Development Code — December 2001 Draft 48.05.020 50.07.015 Conditional Uses 48.05.025 50.07.020 Lot Size, Lot Dimensions, Density Transfer 48.05.030 50.07.025 _ Setbacks 48.05.035 50.07.030 Height of Primary Structures 48.05.040 50.07.035 Lot Coverage/Floor Area Ratios 48.05.045 50.07.040 Single Family Dwelling Design 48.05.050 50.07.045 Accessory Structures in R-6 zone 48.05.055 50.07.050 Parkin 48.05.060 50.07.055 Alleys in R-6 Zone 48.05.065 50.07.060 Street Trees in R-6 Zone 48.05.070 50.07.065 Administrative Modification 48.05.075 50.07.070 FAN Advisory Opinion Article 50.08 Residential, Low Density R-7.5, R-10, R-15 50.08.005 Purpose Reserved 48.06.195 50.08.010 Permitted Uses; R-7.5, R-10, R-15 Zones 48.06.200 50.08.015 Conditional Uses; R-7.5, R-10, R-15 Zones 48.06.205 50.08.020 Maximum Density, Density Bonus 48.06.210 50.08.025 Lot Size; Lot Dimensions; Density Transfer 48.06.215 50.08.030 Setbacks 48.06.220 50.08.035 Height Limits 48.06.225 50.08.040 Lot Coverage Article 50.18 _ First Addition and the Lake Grove Building Height and Roof Pitch Overlay 48.07.010 50.18.005 Height of Structure 48.07.015 50.18.010 Minimum Roof Pitch Required in First Addition and Lake Grove Neighborhoods Article 50.09 Old Town Design District 48.08.240 50.09.005 Purpose 48.08.245 50.09.010 Permitted uses 48.08.250 50.09.015 _ Conditional Uses 48.08.255 50.09.020 Lot Size, Lot Dimensions, Density 48.08.260 50.09.025 Setback Requirements, Buffers 48.08.265 50.09.030 Height of Structure 48.08.270 50.09.035 Lot Coverage 48.08.275 50.09.040 Development Review 48.08.276 50.09.045 _ Old Town Advisory O inion 48.08.280 50.09.050 _ Allowable Density and Density,Transfer Article 50.10 West Lake Grove Design District 48.09.005 50.10.005 Purpose 48.09.010 50.10.010 Office-Commercial/Town Home Residential (OC/R- 2.5) 48.09.015 50.10.015 Office Commercial/Neighborhood Commercial (OCNC) 48.09.020— 50.10.020 _ Town Home Residential 48.09.025 50.10.025 Live/Work Zone R -2.5/W Page 2 - Reverse Index to 2001 Community Development Code – December 2001 Dratl Page 3 - Reverse Index to 2001 Community Development Code — December 2001 Draft Article 50.11 Commercial Districts 48.10.300 50.11.005 Purpose 48.10.305 50.11.010 Uses 48.10.310 50.11.015 Site Development Limitations 48.10.315 50.11.020 Special Requirements Article 50.13 Industrial Zones 48.12.340 50.13.005 Purpose 48.12.345 50.13.010 Permitted Uses; Industrial Zone 48.12.350 50.13.015 Conditional Uses; Industrial Zone 48.13.355 50.13.020 Permitted Uses, Industrial Park Zone 48.13.360 50.13.025 Conditional Uses, Industrial Park Zone 48.12.365 50.13.030 Prohibited Uses; Any Industrial Zone 48.12.370 50.13.035 Site Development Limitations 48.12.375 50.13.040 Special Requirements Article 50.12 Campus Institutional 48.14.390 50.12.010 Purpose 48.14.395 50.12.015 Permitted Uses 48.14.400 50.12.020 Conditional Uses 48.14.405 50.12.025 Site Development Limitations 48.14.410 50.12.030 Special Requirements Article 50.15 Greenway Management District 48.16.430 50.15.005 Purpose, Application 48.16.434 50.15.010 Development Review 48.16.435 50.15.015 Permitted Uses 48.16.436 50.15.020 Willamette River Greenway Boundary Article 50.16 Sensitive Lands Overlay Zone 48.17.005 50.16.005 Overview 48.17.010 50.16.010 Purpose 48.17.015 50.16.015 Applicability 48.17.020 50.16.020 Criteria for Designating Property within an Overlay District 48.17.025 50.16.025 Removing an Overlay District Designation 48.17.100 50.16.030 Environmental Review 48.17.105 50.16.035 Delineation of Resource 48.17.110 50.16.040 Modifications to Dimensional Standards and Setbacks of the Underlying Zone 48.17.115 50.16.045 Density Transfer 48.17.200 50.16.050 Resource Conservation (RC) District Environmental Review Standards; Applicability and Purpose 48.17.205 50.16.055 RC District Protection Area 48.17.210 50.16.060 RC District Development Standards 48.17.300 50.16.065 Resource Preservation (RP) District Environmental Review Standards; Applicability and Purpose 48.17.305 50.16.070 RP District Buffer Requirements 48.17.315 50.16.080 Resource Enhancement Projects Page 3 - Reverse Index to 2001 Community Development Code — December 2001 Draft 48.17.320 50.16.085 Exceptions Where the RP District Prohibits all Reasonable Development Opportunities 48.17.400 50.16.090 Special Standards for the Oswego Canal 48.17.500 50.16.095 Construction Standards 48.17.600 50.16.100 Mitigation; Purpose 48.17.605 50.16.105 Progressive Mitigation Steps Required 48.17.610 50.16.110 Mitigation Requirements Article 50.17 Planned Development Overlay 48.18.470 50.17.005 Purpose, Applicability 48.18.475 50.17.010 Procedures 48.18.476 50.17.015 Authorization 48.18.480 50.17.020 Special Requirements 48.18.485 50.17.025 Expiration, Revocation 48.18.490 50.17.030 Authority to Approve Changes in Planned Development Approval Article 50.20 Flag Lots 48.19.005 50.20.005Purpose; Applicability 48.19.010 50.20.010 Authorization; Application Requirements 48.19.015 50.20.015 Exceptions 48.19.020 50.20.020 Access 48.19.025 50.20.025 Lot Configuration Requirements 48.19.030 50.20.030 Building and Site Design Standards 48.19.035 50.20.035 Screening, Buffering and Landscape Installation 48.20.500 50.03.015 Maintenance of Minimum Ordinance Requirements 48.20.505 50.14.005 Accessory Uses 48.20.510 50.14.010 Temporary Structures, Uses 48.20.515 50.22.005 General Exception to Lot Area and Dimension Require ents. 48.20.515(2). 50.22.015 General Exception to Structure Height Limitations 48.20.515(3) None One Year Exception to Height/Setback/Lot Coverage Require ents for New Subdivision Lots 48.20.520 50.22.045 Projections from Building 48.20.525 50.22.025(3) Special Determination of Yards and Yard Requirements 48.20.530 50.21.005 Vision Clearance 48.20.535(1), 2 50.22.025 Special Determination of Yards and Yard Require ents 48.20.535 (3) 50.22.030 Oswego Lake 48.20.535 (4) 50.22.035 S ecial Street Setbacks 48.20.535(5)(a) 50.22.010 General Exceptions to Yard Requirements 48.20.540 50.14.015 Use of Recreational Vehicle as a Dwelling Unit Prohibited 48.20.541 50.22.040 Rooftop Decks Page 4 - Reverse Index to 2001 Community Development Code — December 2001 Draft 48.20.545 50.30.005 Home Occupations 48.20.547 50.30.010 Specific Standards for Secondary Dwelling Unit 48.20.548 50.30.025 Specific Standards for Mobile Home Park or Subdivision 48.20.549 50.30.020 Specific Standards for Special Use Housing 48.20.560 50.30.015 Specific Standards for Telecommunications Facilities Article 50.69 Conditional Uses 48.22.550 50.69.005 Intent and Purpose 48.22.550(2) 50.69.030 Review of Conditional Use Permits; Amendment and Revocation Procedures 48.22.550 (4) 50.69.020 Modification of Conditional Use Permit 48.22.550 (5) 50.69.025 Abandonment of Conditional Use Permit 48.22.555 50.69.010 Authorization to Permit or Deny Conditional Uses 48.22.560 50.69.015 Procedure 48.22.560(4)(a) 50.69.025 Abandonment of Conditional Use Permit (partial) 48.22.560(4) 50.69.030 Review of Conditional Use Permits; Amendment and Revocation Procedures 48.22.565 50.69.050 Specific Standards for Churches, Convent and Related Facility 48.22.570 50.69.055 Specific Standards for Nursing or Convalescent Homes or Other Facilities Classified by the State Department of Health as Long -Term Care Facilities and Covered Under OAR Chapter 333, Division 23, Sections 700-796; the State Fire Code and Chapter 10 of the Uniform Building Code; All Referenced State Rules or Codes as Now or Hereafter Constituted 48.22.575 50.69.060 Specific Standards for Schools 48.22.577 50.69.065 Specific Standards for Telecommunications Facilities in Residential Zones 48.22.585 50.69.070 Specific Standards for Major Public Facilities and institutional Uses Not Covered by Other Specific Standards 48.22.605 50.69.075 Specific Standards for Conditional Uses Listed in Commercial or Industrial Zones and Not Covered by other Specific Standards 48.22.610 50.69.080 Specific Standards for Non-profit Conditional Uses in Certain Zones 48.22.615 50.69.085 Specific Standards for non-profit office uses in Structures on the City's Historical Landmarks List and which are Located on Arterial Streets 48.22.625 50.69.090 Specific Standards for Conditional Uses in the R-2 and R-6 Zones 48.24.650 See 50.68.010 1 Eliminated Page 5 - Reverse Index to 2001 Community Development Code — December 2001 Draft 48.24.655 50.68.015. Classification of variances 48.24.660 See 50.77 Eliminated 48.24.665 See 50.81 Eliminated 48.24.670 See 50.81 Eliminated 48.24.675 See 50.81 Eliminated 48.24.680 See 50.81 Eliminated 48.24.685 See 50.81 Eliminated 48.24.690 See 50.82 Eliminated Article 50.70 Nonconforming Uses and Structures 48.26.700 50.70.005 Non-Conforming Use, Structure Defined; Rights Granted 48.26.705 50.70.010 Discontinuance of a Non-Conforming Use 48.26.710 50.70.015 Applicability to Approvals, Incompleted Construction 48.26.715 50.70.020 Destruction, Movement and Replacement of Structures 48.26.720 50.70.025 Expansion of Non-Conforming Industrial or Commercial Uses or Structures 48.26.725 50.70.030 Repairs and Maintenance 48.26.730 50.69.005(3) Uses Under Conditional Use Provisions Not Non- Conforming Uses 48.26.735 50.70.040 Non-Conforming Characteristics of Use 49.16.005 See 50.01.005 Title 49.16.010 50.01.010 Purpose 49.16.015 50.02.005 Definitions 49.16.020 50.03.005 A2plication of Code 49.16.025 50.01.020 Authority of City Manager 49.16.030 50.88.005 Fees and Deposits 49.16.040 50.01.025 Development Permits Restricted for Unlawful Uses 49.16.045 50.01.030 Development Restricted on Illegal Lot 49.16.055 See 50.90.015 Eliminated 49.16.050 50.90.010 Violations; abatement; injunction 49.16.060 50.04.010 City Manager Interpretations. 49.20.100 50.79.005 Exempt Development Classification 49.20.105 50.79.010 Ministerial Development Classification 49.20.110 50.79.020 Minor Development Classification 49.20.115 50.79.030 Major Development Classification 49.22.200 50.72.007 Burden of Proof 49.22.205 Eliminated 49.22.210 50.79.015 Review Criteria for Ministerial Developments 49.22.215 50.79.025 1 Review Criteria for Minor Developments Page 6 - Reverse Index to 2001 Community Development Code — December 2001 Draft 49.22.220 50.79.035 Review Criteria for Major Developments 49.22.225 50.79.040 Conditions of Approval Article 50.84 Overall Development Plan and Schedule 49.26.300 50.71.005 Phasing of Major Development 49.26.305 50.71.010 Overall Development Plan and Schedule ODPS . 49.26.310 50.71.015 Purpose of Overall Development Plan and Schedule 49.26.315 50.71.020 Density Bonus Within Phased Development 49.26.320 50.71.025 Application Procedure 49.26.325 50.71.030 Review of ODPS 49.26.330 50.71.035 Hearing Body Action 49.26.335 50.71.040 _ Content of the Approved Final Overall Development Plan and Schedule 49.26.340 50.71.045 Changes to the Overall Development Plan and Schedule 49.28.400 50.68.020 Procedure for Review and Approval of Variances 49.28.405 50.68.010 Variance Standards 49.30.500 50.77.010 Method of Application Portion 49.30.500 See 50.88.005 _ *Fees portion eliminated; see also 50.77.010 (portion) 49.30.505 50.77.015 Signature on Application 49.30.510 See 50.77.005 Eliminated Article 50.76 Review of Ministerial Development Applications 49.32.600 50.80.005 Review by City Manager 49.36.700 50.77.020 Preapplication Conference 49.36.705 50.77.025 Neighborhood Contact Required for Certain Applications 49.36.710 50.77.030 Filing an Application; Determination of Completeness 49.36.715 50.77.035 Extensions or Continuances 49.36.720 50.77.040 Withdrawing an Application Article 50.81 Review of Minor Development Applications 49.40.800 50.81.005 Review by City Manager 49.40.805 50.81.010 Notice of Minor Development Application _ _ 49.40.810 50.81.015 Final Decision 49.40.815 50.81.020 Notice of Final Decision 49.40.820 50.84.005 Appeal of Minor Development Decision 49.44.900 50.82.005 Review by Hearing Body 49.44.905 50.82.020 Jurisdiction of Hearing Body 49.44.910 50.82.010 Applicant's Evidence 49.44.915 50.82.015 Staff Report 49.44920 50.82.020 Notice of Public Hearin Page 7 - Reverse Index to 2001 Community Development Code -- December 2001 Draft Global Changes 1. Title of consolidated Code is Community Development Code. Thus references to "Zoning Code", "Development Code", or "this Chapter" have been changed to "Community Development Code" or "this Code." 2. References to "Planning Director" have been changed to "City Manager". 3. References to "Tables" have been changed to "Appendix", because not all of the supplementary information was in the form of a table. The numbering of Appendix is based on the Article it is referencing, rather than the Chapter, so the Appendix will be referenced first by Article, then sequentially. All tables will be re -adopted, to change the numerical designation and their reference as an appendix. Note: Figure 3(c) for the West Lake Grove Design District (50.67) has been revised to change the depicted width of the meandering pathway from 6 feet to 8 feet, to conform to the text of LOC 50.67.020(4). 4. Obvious correction of typos are shown in redline. �. In the LODS sections: a. the "title" sections have been eliminated because the title is already shown. b. the definitions within the LODS have been consolidated into the definition article (50.02), unless the nature of the definition was so unique as to only be relevant to that LODS and it would be easier for the reader to determine the applicability of the LODS by review of the definition immediately at the front of the LODS. 6. Article Index Comment — there is a listing of the contents of the article at the start of each article. This listing is of the OLD article; it does not reflect the reorganized titles of the sections within the chapter. The Article Index is generated automatically by Codemaster when Barb Parr gets the new code set. Page 2 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code TITLE,. PURPOSE AND AU QRITY Sec li 4.Q1 Section 48.02.005 Title. This chapter may be referred to as "the Zoning Community Dcy_ 1 t_Code of the City of Lake Oswego" and is referred to herein as s Code". (Ord. No. 1851, Sec. 1; 11-16-82.) ehapier may he re6e"Development Code of the Gily ofl.ake Oswego" and . 2088, When Codes are consolidated, a second "Title" section is duplicative. Page 3 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code P�n-� fie�e See0en 48.02.010 purpose. This ehaptef htts been drafted in aeeorditnee with the poheies set Orth in Volume 1 ol the Comprehensive Pim fef the Gity of Lake Gswego. it is the 1 purposeoftl<ris ehftpier, !he re, to provide one of the prineipal means for !lie 'ffnrAementettien-tom the t4.wnta-wel`€� Plan. - . 'otle standards. met! !le needs of the GRy residents. 7. ProN'ide fof review of these uses deiefmined to eafty (lie lietenli-i-I for advefse iFfounding Ord. No. 1851, Sec. l; 11-16-82.) When Codes are consolidated, a second "Purpose" section is duplicative. Section 50.01.010 Purpose Section 49.16.010 Purpose. This -el eF. jug=Qo-& has been drafted in accordance with the policies set forth in me -1 a -F -the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Lake Oswego. It is the general purpose of , therefore, to provide one of the principal means for the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan. To fulfill this general purpose Otis elatpte�� is intended to: _ 1. Protect andr tv. convenie ee.and genera.UW9jJ%M 1. Guide future ]and uses, growth and development in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan, _. > =_7 . Provide, for review of those uses determined to carry the potential for a(1ver§A_ Tx1� Son surrounding uses. 2. Assure prompt review of development motions lin- co mplianec with__ llt�prepese ls, and the application of clear and spcci fic standards, 41h de f 10 Yk 3. Provide for public review and comment on development proposals which may have a significant impact on the community, 4. Guide public and private policy and action to assure provision of adequate water, sewerage, transportation, drainage, parks, open space and other public facilities and services for each development and to implement Comprehensive Plan policies concerning the distribution of costs of public facilities and services required to serve development, Page 4 - Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code and- 4. F Qoordinate the timing of deveIQpmment with th�p ,QAadw_mb-hp facilities and services. 5. Provide the Qpportunity for a mixture of housing tvn bj-h_ meet the the City residents 56. Establish procedures, and standards, and review o W. s assuring that the design of site improvements and building improvements are consistent with applicable standards and minimize adverse impacts on surrounding land uses, and yet allow for and encourage flexibility in the design and layout of site improvements and buildings, and innovation in design and construction, 67. Provide for review and approval of the relationship between land uses and traffic circulation in order to minimize congestion, with particular emphasis on not exceeding the planned capacity of residential streets to carry projected traffic; to provide for safe pedestrian and bicycle circulation; to provide for the proper location of street rights-of- way, easement and building lines; to assure provision of adequate internal vehicle circulation; parking, loading and pedestrian walkways, -7$. Minimize pollution and damage to waterways and Oswego Lake; to assure the adequacy of drainage facilities and to protect the natural character and functions of waterways, 89. Provide standards to regulate the impacts of development upon soils, trees and vegetation, distinctive areas and other natural features, 91D. Assure reasonable safety from fire, flood, landslide, erosion or other natural hazards, 11. Pr y�-Qppgr[uniti�,� for economic de_veloom�ttl-of te_ty, and +012. Protect the City's aesthetic beauty and character, 441-3. Promote the conservation of energy through site and building design and orientation, and +214. Protect historic buildings and sites. (Ord. No. 2088, Enacted, 03/03/94) Text of purpose section of Zoning Code combined into text of purpose section of Development Code. Secta� 59�4�Q1,5 Section 48.02.045 Official Action. All officials, departments, and mployees,_mc)_Cotlru»isSions of the City vested with authority to issue permits or grant approvals shall adhere to and require conformance with this —elu,Pterthu .:=-CQdc, and shall issue no permit or grant approval for any development or use which violates or fails to comply with conditions or standards imposed to carry out t13is elnq�terl__G. Any permit or approval issued or granted in conflict with the provisions of th-k. etmpler-thi.s_ Co.dc, whether intentional or otherwise, is void. It is the duty of the person receiving such permit to bring the structure or use subject to the permit into compliance with the terms of t1ti,+-c rAerthi,§,_QQde immediately upon gaining knowledge that the permit is in conflict with the provisions of 449 �his Code. (Ord. No. 1851, Sec. 1; 11-16-82.) Page 5 - Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code SCC.ti9W50.01.020 Section 49.16.025 Authority of Manning Direeto City_Manager. The shall have the authority to interpret, implement and enforce the requirements of this Code, subject to review by the hearing body and/or the City Council pursuant to this Code. The _p may adopt administrative rules to aid in implementing this Code. (Ord. No. 2088, Enacted, 03/03/94) 5t1on 50,01M Section 49.16.040 Development Permits Restricted for Unlawful Uses. No development permit shall be issued for a development or use of land in violation of this code, unless the violation is rectified as part of the development. (Ord. No. 2088, Enacted, 03/03/94) S_e�_5� Section 49.16.045 Development Restricted on Illegal Lot. 1. No development permit shall be issued for the development or use of an illegal lot unless the lot is made legal pursuant to the applicable requirements for creation of a lot in effect at the time of application. The applicant shall demonstrate conformance with applicable legal requirements. This restriction applies regardless of whether the applicant was responsible for creation of the illegal lot. 2. If an illegal lot cannot be made legal pursuant to subsection 1 of this section because it does not comply with lot area or dimensional requirements in effect at the time of application, an application for the creation of the lot shall be exempted from compliance from such lot area or dimensional requirements if the applicant demonstrates that the lot would have complied with lot area and dimensional requirements applicable at the time of creation. 3. If an illegal lot cannot be made legal pursuant to subsections (1) or (2) of this section because it does not comply with applicable lot area or dimensional requirements at the time of application and did not comply with applicable lot area or dimensional requirements at the time of creation, an application for the creation of the lot shall be exempted from compliance with such lot area and dimensional requirements if the applicant demonstrates that development that would be allowed by legal creation of the lot will not have a significant negative impact on the neighborhood in terms of scale, noise, traffic, parking, loss of privacy, obstruction of views, or buffers from existing properties. In determining the degree of impact, the City shall consider the consistency of potential development on a lot with the existing development pattern in the vicinity. The City may impose conditions on development of the lot in order to ensure that legalization of the lot does not have a significant negative impact on the neighborhood. Public notice of an application to legalize a lot pursuant to this subsection shall contain a map of the property illustrating the building envelope. If the lot proposed to be made legal pursuant to this subsection has a lot area or dimension which is less than 65 percent of the size or Page 6 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code length required by the zone at the time of application, the application to create the legal parcel shall be referred to the Development Review Commission for public hearing. (Ord. No. 2088, Enacted, 03/03/94; Ord. No. 2091, Amended, 04/19/94) Cro ; feretice: ee LOC- 4 11-r4r _ iiiQ-.iz sz s Page 7 - Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code Article 50.02 Definitions; Methods of Calculation Title of proposed chapter 50.02 has been changed from "Definitions" to "Definitions; Methods of Calculation" because 50.02.050 has been added, providing for method of calculating maximum residential density. Note: LOC 48.08.280 is proposed to be repealed as a part of the Minimum Density code amendments, which is scheduled for public hearing on January 15, 2002. A work session is scheduled on this Community Development Code on January 8, 2002. If the density guidelines are to be repealed following the Jan. 15, 2002 public hearing, then this Article should be amended for consideration at the public hearing on the Community Development Code on February 5, 2002 by deleting the proposed addition to the title "Methods of Calculation". Terms used other than in the specific section. Ss�ctian S4.Q2,495 Section 48.02.015 Definitions. For the purposes of this elraptefthL o_dc certain terms and words are defined as follows: the words "used for" include "designed for" and vice -versa; words used in the present tense include the future, the singular tense includes the plural and vice -versa; the word "shall" is always mandatory; the word "may" is discretionary; the masculine gender includes the feminine gender, except as otherwise provided. The-deFmitiens in LOG 49.10.015 apply in this ehapter. if' a mni, ot s ... iilffl- ternis, m -e defined in both 1,0C Chapter 49 tuid 49, the iefm shall in Ghaptef 48 tile definition given it ihig y . The following terms shall mean: Since 48 and 49 are being combined physically, there is no need to make a cross - applicability statement. Unless otherwise noted, definitions have been combined from LOC 48 and LOC 49 without redline underlining shown. seetion . . ta: ; -tne pttt jse -a f tkzi ltnpterr eertt�it l-tt t 11 : 4he vat�YEl3—'ttyefl ftj " "-in therewnt- tense tnelude the Future. the 4ingttlar lense i tie! udes-A he- tfltm"ttd-*iee--ver4w tht-word 'hail" Page 8 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code Since 48 and 49 are being combined physically, there is no need to make a cross - applicability statement. Additionally, this section would be duplicative to the above section. Two definitions of "Abut" existed. I have deleted the less specific, less inclusive definition. Abut. Contiguous to; for example, two lots with a common property line. However, "abut" does not apply to buildings, uses, or properties separated by public right-of-way, rivers or canals. Access. The place, means or way by which pedestrians or vehicles have ingress to and/or egress from a lot or use. = [But see Access deft iti�n I)evelonment Standard. LOQ' S0. 7.010.] Accessw�sA strip of land intended fQr use by pedestr^ ians �n bicyclists that provides a direct route where the use of public roads would sig ficantly add to the travel time and/ or distance. This definition is brought from LODS 20. Accessory Building. Any detached building the use of which is subordinate and consistent with that of the main building and which is consistent with the buildings and uses allowed in the zone in which it is located. Adjacent. Touching; across a public right-of-way from; across an easement from; across a small stream or creek from. Aerial. A privately owned and operated antenna for non commercial uses subject to height limitations as specified in Section 4g-?E}fr�Q.,�,Ql For the purposes of this *, "aerial" includes ham radio antennae and is not a "telecommunications facility". Alley. Public right-of-way which provides a secondary means of access to abutting property. Alter. To change or modify the construction or occupancy of a building or structure or use of land. Applicant. The owner of land, a representative designated in writing by the owner, a contract purchaser, City representative or other person requesting some action under the terms of t#tis elictptert is Codi. Page 9 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code This definition is brought from the LODS 19. Average Daily Trip (APPAM. The estimated or known trip average of the number of one-way trips generated by a particular use during a 24 hour period. Typographical error correction Average Daily Traffic. The known average of the number of vehicles which pass a given point in a 24 hour period. _ l The _matc 1acedin a trrnchQvcs =sewer or ater.p�pc,, r o1hcr -lity This definition is brought from LODS 14. ikewav_:_ Anv_t ; � t why whihi,5 pen tQ bicycle travcl_rw,4..9f vwl th r chS ilia m- hLmd sp- d,with otllet 1ransoQrtation modes. This definition is brought from LODS 20. Building. Any structure used or intended for supporting or sheltering any use or occupancy. Building, Envelope. The area within the setback lines required by the-Zeniiig Ordinaneehjfor any lot. Building - Main. A building within which the principal use of a lot is conducted. Building Regulations. The specialty codes as adopted by LOC Chapter 45. Boat Dock. A structure built along the shore of a river, lake, canal or navigable stream for use by boats for moorage and loading and unloading passengers and materials. Boat House. A roofed structure built along the shore of a river, lake, canal or stream for the purpose of storing a boat or other water craft and accessories. Buffer Area (Resource). An area adjacent to a designated RP District resource where development is limited in order to enhance resource functions and values by providing insulation from human disturbances and domestic animals. Cabana. Waterfront single family dwelling or cluster development on pilings. ('qQl: A group of twgor more cpmrp}erti, ncluclirtdltY�w110 share to and from work or other designation on a replarly, Whcd.i�es�:.b� This definition is brought LODS 7. Cemetery. Land used or intended to be used for the burial of the dead and dedicated for cemetery purposes, including columbaria, crematories, mausoleums and mortuaries. Certified Arborist. An arborist who has passed the International Society of A-rborettlitireArboriculture Certification Exam. Correction of typographical error. Page 10 - Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code Cluster Development. A development in which the buildings are placed in groups on lots containing less area per dwelling unit than the minimum required by the zone. Com. The City of Lake Oswego; its officers, employees and agents. This definition was found in LODS 23. Since the Development Standards have generally been combined into a single definitional section, no supplemental definition is necessary. City Manager or Manager. The person holding the position of City Manager or any officer or employee of the City of Lake Oswego. Cleanout: A vertical o enine nrovidineuinment access to the p,_QT_a_sanita>sewer line for pumQau f flusbiiaor " Um 1im This definition is brought from LODS 14. Commission. The City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission or Planning Commission, depending on context. Comprehensive Plan. Volume I of the Comprehensive Plan adopted by the City of Lake Oswego July, 1978 as it now exists or is hereafter amended. Conflicting Uses. A conflicting use is one which, if allowed, could negatively impact a Statewide Planning Goal 5 resource site. Congregate Care Facility. Special use housing provided with common dining facilities and housekeeping services. Convent. A local community or house of a religious order or congregation. _.-=_'Cornice".m.�rls�hs horizontal eleme�lt�rlSli.�J�yatior��bu,�lc�i.tii;�e_miar4�ti�nt*She difference between the pedestrian orienteLlevd on t} a street service space 1�dine areas and l�bbiesi an�4ffce%tesid�ljaf uses sjgycf� �bQYC, This definition is brought from LODS 23. Creek. A natural stream of water typically smaller than and often tributary to a stream or a river. Crown Cover. The area directly beneath the crown and within the drip line of a tree or shrub. The crown consists of the above ground branches, stems, and leaves. Deck. A non -enclosed platform (excluding above -grade entry walkways) constructed on or above the ground and attached to the main dwelling. I GjanL I f�CsgtlrCC - ,.art Itl' �istrjCt str-cam cQ[t idm or wetland. or an 1��',_ )_.I�tra4 ,tcCe grQvc:_dclinc4tcd P-U.rsaant. to LLC 481 +WS50,1.6,03.5, This definition is brought from LODS 8. Delineation (Resource). An analysis of a resource by a qualified professional that determines its boundary to plus or minus 2 feet. A resource delineation includes a survey map of the resource prepared by a professional surveyor or engineer. —1 tT9 LL itin: r,-- ---� n .c—Ti titl3 f' l� den `it{yifHfli Hfiitti rl�t`i tEifi Page 1 1 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code lands or as otherMse provided in L9G 48.08.280. Density Transfer Acre is double defined; once in Chapter 48 and once in Chapter 49. I propose striking the Chapter 48 definition because it is not as detailed in its listing of types of lands that permit Density Transfer Acre. (See below) Density Transfer Acre/Acreage. Potentially hazardous or resource areas within which development may occur or from which density may be transferred to buildable portions of the site, only after it has been demonstrated by the applicant that development can occur in compliance with criteria established by the -DevelopmeniNs Q&i�lttclin�tk►c ale -and -Development Standards, 6GG Ghaptef=49. Density Transfer Acre includes the following: a. Area within the floodway and the floodway fringe as shown on U.S. Army Corp of Engineers flood maps, b. Area of over 25% slope, c. Area in known landslide areas or in areas shown to have potential for severe or moderate landslide hazard, d. Area in the_RC 4rJ�EDistricts,purs.u�1L4_.OS SQQ0,_stream buffer areas of major stream corridors, wetlands and Distinctive Natural Areas, e. Area in public open space and parks. Procedure for site by site density determination is defined by LOC 48.08.24iN , ,Q� The RC and RP Districts provide for density transfer in LOC 48.17.115. This density transfer section was apparently inadvertently omitted as a reference in the Density Transfer Acre/Acreage when the Sensitive Lands Ordinance was adopted. However, since not all parcels are yet subject to the Sensitive bands designation (contested sites), they remain subject to the DNA and LODS 3 and 4 process, so these designations still need to remain in the Density Transfer Acre/Acreage. Development: Any man-made change to improved or unimproved real property, including, but not limited to, construction, installation or alteration of a building or other structure, change of use, land division, establishment or termination of a right of access, storage on the land, grading, clearing, removal or placement of soil, paving, dredging, tilling, excavation, drilling or removal of trees. Development Permit. Written authorization for a development to proceed as described in an application, such authorization having been given in accordance with this ehapterthis Cod . 5_04 7:..50.67, inclusive, of this Community Dvtig1QL=.nt Codc. The Development Standards have been included into this Code, but we needed a shorthand reference to their various chapters. Drainageway. An open linear depression, whether constructed or natural, which functions for the collection and drainage of surface water. It may be permanently or Page 12 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code temporarily inundated. Dripline. The outer limit of a tree*s branches, projected to the ground. The point where water dripping off the canopy will hit the ground. Driveway: A vehicular accessway that has as its nrimarv-.pIpose. the nrQyj, ican cit driYvablc&snn€ Qn_ ctween as structure or Harkinsarea on nriv Xe.p Q9-erty._and the i)uhl' street system. "Driveway" may include nrwatesement roads 4r._:vy,4y,5 n arcus 4 1 L ve iic> Cess,.atkina pawturnaround areas�nd nark AI,�W� Definition moved from LODS 19 Dtiv�Wav annroach: _ h� _� �h dLiY_wU lhgi5__§lt_Vtztcd_in.._t _1z1&ri�bls2f WL Definition moved from LODS 19 :_. J)IiYewav grade: The -ratio of the 'n levation t the chang"n_l]4iizstnSs�1 distac�ce traveled, measurs �l4nb tlic ste_ewIQ_fWt increment alum; th�Gcnterline ofShe — — a.Y�1cSrasl_ar�cXDs�sd in pe� Definition moved from LODS 19 Duplex. A building on a lot designed to contain two dwelling units and used for residential purposes. Dwelling, Multiple. A building on one or more lots designed to contain three or more dwelling units that share common walls or floor/ceilings with one or more units. The land underneath the structure is not divided into separate lots. Multiple dwelling includes structures commonly called garden apartments, apartments and condominiums. Dwelling, Single-Familx. A detached dwelling unit designed and used for that purpose or an attached dwelling unit, located on its own lot, that shares one or more common or abutting walls with one or more dwelling units. The common or abutting wall shall consist of a structural wall which shared for at least 25 percent of the length of the side of the dwelling. An attached house does not share common floor/ceilings with other dwelling units. An attached house is also called a rowhouse, townhouse, or a common -wall house. Dwelling Unit. One or more habitable rooms which are occupied or which are intended or designed to be occupied by one family with housekeeping facilities for living, sleeping, sanitary facilities, cooking and eating. Dwelling, Zero Lot Line. A building providing two dwelling units on two separate lots and used for residential purposes. Easement. A grant of the right to use designated land for specific purposes. ESEE Process Analysis. The Economic, Social, Environmental, and Energy Analysis required under Statewide Land Use Planning Goal 5. The purpose of the ESEE analysis is to balance the relative value of an inventoried natural resource against conflicting uses and thereby determine an appropriate level of protection through land use regulations. The ESEE Analysis that formed the factual basis for the Sensitive Lands Program (LOC Article 48.17 G) and was used initially to designate properties for protection under the program is the Lake Oswego Resource Areas Report and ESEE Analysis, dated April 1, Page 13 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code 1997, as revised on July 15, 1997. Exchange Carrier. A provider of telecommunications services. Facade. All the wall planes of a structure as seen from the one side or view. For example, the front facade of a building would include all of the wall area that would be shown on the front elevation of the building plans. Family. An individual or two or more persons related by blood, marriage, legal adoption, or associated by guardianship, conservatorship or a foster care relationship, or a group of not more than five persons not so related or associated living together in a dwelling unit as a single housekeeping unit. Family Day Care Facility. A day care facility which regularly accommodates 12 or fewer children regardless of full-time or part-time status, in the day care provider's home, including the children of the day care provider. Fenestration. Doors and/or windows. Filling (f 11). A deposit of earth by artificial means. Fish and Wildlife Habitat. Lands that contain significant food, water, or cover for native terrestrial and/or aquatic species of animals. Examples include forests, fields, riparian areas, wetlands, and water bodies. _l ir.�sie:, l� U�aif�mir ad�Lormendq�d_i4QLKhptGr 1_5,,s.an Qth�r�R�licable nrov�ons o OS'_Chanter 1.� Definition moved from LODS 19 F1r��?�lz�rSmenUdelivery vehicle turnarorLd. An area nr�jjn sna.c�for the maneu�rin� of fire fi¢htina_v�_i�Qr�th�desi¢n vehi��r�_th�.�Q�.��li_, 1Qad�a�rc consistgi with LOC Chpwr 15 Uniform Fire j doted), Definition moved from LODS 19 Flag, Lot. A lot located behind another lot that has normal street frontage, and where access is provided to the rear lot via a narrow "flag pole" (i.e. driveway), or where access is provided via an easement. There are two distinct parts of a flag lot; the flag which comprises the actual building site located behind another lot, and the pole which provides access from the street to the flag. A flag lot results from the division of a large lot with the required area and depth for more than one lot, but which has insufficient width to locate all lots on the street frontage. Flood. A general and temporary condition of partial or complete inundation of normally dry land area from the overflow of inland waters or the unusual and rapid accumulation of runoff of surface waters from any source. Floodway. The area within the floodplain which includes the channel of a river or other watercourse and the adjacent land area that must be reserved in order to discharge the base flood without cumulatively increasing the water surface elevation more than one foot. Floodplain. The area bordering a watercourse encompassing both the floodway fringe and the floodway inundated during the 100 year flood, also referred to as the base flood. Floodway Fringe. The area of the floodplain lying outside the floodway. Floor Area. The combined floor area of all stories of a building excluding vent Page 14 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code shafts, court yards, enclosed or covered parking areas, allowable projections, decks, patios, uncovered exit stairs and uncovered, above -grade driveways. Floor Area Ratio (FART. The ratio of the floor area to the net buildable area. _ grcAer_ the ratio, the -greater the density. F91ex e a buildng w_cWytn fo,ur<h of It c itc- areas has a FAR of 0.25 b-uild. -ins mu the FAR to 0:50 PC member Beebe indicated that he thought expressing the FAR in a ratio would be more understandable. The example is taken from the Clackamas County zoning code. Functions and Values (Resource). Functions and values are the benefits provided by resources. The benefits may be physical, environmental aesthetic, scenic, educational, or some other nonphysical function, or a combination of these. For example, the functions and values of a wetland can include its ability to provide stormwater detention for "x" units of water draining "y" acres, and its ability to provide food and shelter for "z" varieties of migrating waterfowl. In addition, an unusual native species of plant in a natural resource Area could be of educational, heritage, and scientific value. Most natural resources have multiple functions and values. Garage, Private. A structure having one or more stories, used for the parking of motor vehicles belonging to tenants, employees or owners of the property for which the parking spaces contained in or on said garage are required by Chapter 49 and are not open for use by the general public. Garage, Public. A publicly or privately owned structure having one or more stories, used for the parking of motor vehicles, and open for use by the general public, either free or for remuneration. Public parking garages may include parking spaces for customers, patrons or clients which are required by Chaptet--49th-i�Code, provided said parking spaces are clearly identified as parking space(s) for the building or use. Garage, Repair. A building used for the care and repair of motor vehicles, including major and minor work such as body and fender work or engine and transmission overhaul, and incidental parking of vehicles. Garage Wall Area. The garage wall area includes the entire area on the specified side of a structure between the ceiling, floor, and walls of the garage, including the garage door. _la �_�hg.s r ht € r_br thin stiff rc qc-mit Ili zt _titc v su-aI fieri Suf iumw.Lvlti,gta to a e��r zasz �n �. _i cQrraf_ort�or L_=.Q �n Yi 1,AertarmPnce Definition from LODS 5 Grade. Whets - used context to..refcr_t4: the gro.ud, The und.isti rbcd natural t ro t�cl suraee. r�ext_,.tu t�--stelur�_.(examzle,,_balt_ wash _(Quttda_tQn�, undcr..,a 41_evated strr►c_turc_(ezcaataple: elevatec_paSi4or_decki�ag), ar _next to a tree _(example to::measurc the hciyltl:of tkte tLee}, _ �.. , _."�rzasie" m,aX�so__lze ttsecl__an coratexi�te r_c�er_ to tl�e..�.lape of, tl�e..grouticl,_.as cxpressiirag_tlic rate of elevation , change -of the,gr9upsl, (->e+t# tteent4-4. ttrtd-# vtt#ttoft#�e fir�ts#3ec� stir4me-f>f tlle-gtc�uttd;-l��ttlg-et-ste#er��tt##e-attltti3-thL arttrbe.�tiaeetr-t�Htit�e#mo--ai�#-t#ie-}�t<>�ty-#itie Page 15 - Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code •�er•� we�rPM!wxW w fj,S,J[•avM"A���:a.,: a:�w�:i�: a+air• a i +:aV.�Ra4[�1i17:/�V r�:w� :�VLa:f�aaiau��:i7i I.1[\:VaLL:Ii�[ •�el[r' The definitions were not revised when the Height of Building definition was amended. "Grade" is no longer used to determine height of building. Grade is used to determine height of deck. (In some cases, grade is used as synonymous with "slope", i.e., street grade, driveway grade. ) Definition from LODS 7 Group Care Home. Any private or public institution maintained and operated for the care, boarding, housing or training of five or fewer physically, mentally or socially handicapped or delinquent, elderly or dependent persons by any person who is not the parent or guardian of, and who is not related by blood, marriage or legal adoption to such persons and excluding foster care of children. Gully. A long, narrow channel worn by the action of water, particularly on a hillside. It is much smaller than a ravine. Several gullies often lead to a ravine. Guest House. An accessory structure of less than 400 square feet with no cooking or kitchen facilities. HAS (Habitat Assessment Score). The numerical ranking applied in an ESEE Inventory which represents the relative wildlife habitat values of a given natural resource site in comparison with other sites in the City. Six features are evaluated to determine the total Wildlife Habitat Assessment Score: 1. Water 2. Food 3. Cover 4. Disturbance 5. Linkage 6. Unique Features Each feature receives a "High, Medium, or Low" description and a numeric ranking as shown in the HAS rankings sheet in the Appendix _,L(? --A, to the SL District. The maximum possible score is 124. A minimum score of 35 is necessary for a site to be considered significant for wildlife values. See the City of Lake Oswego 1994/95 Natural Resource Inventory and ESEE Analysis (on file in the Planning Department) for a detailed explanation of the methodology used in applying the HAS rankings. Hazardous Substances. Any substance listed or described in ORS Chapter 453 (Hazardous Substances). Hazardous substances are toxic, corrosive, irritants, strong sensitizers, flammable, combustible, or generate pressure through decomposition, heat or other means. Hazardous substances or mixture of substances may cause substantial personal injury or illness during, or as a proximate result of any customary or reasonably foreseeable handling or use. Page 16 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code Hearing Body. The Lake Oswego Development Review Commission, Planning Commission or City Council. Height of Building. The vertical distance above a reference point measured to the coping of a flat roof or to the deck line of a mansard roof or to the average height of the gable of a pitched or hipped roof above such point. The reference points are determined as follows: a. On Flat Lots: The elevation of any ground surface at the exterior wall of the building. b. On Sloped Lots: The elevation of any ground surface at the exterior wall of the building prior to construction of any structure which artificially elevates the ground surface. Home Occupation. A lawful use conducted in a residential zone in or on the premises of a dwelling unit, said use being secondary to the use of the dwelling for dwelling purposes. Hotel, Motel. A building or group of buildings used for transient residential purposes containing rental units which are designed to be used, or which are used, rented or hired out for sleeping purposes. Hydrophytic Vegetation. Plant life growing in water or in soil that is at least periodically deficient in oxygen as a result of excessive water content. .J1.Mination. Uniformity of The ratio of Avera€c ill uminat oil Ie,xcLQn _rq-a way_ to the mictimom_ , illutrai. iou at any noit�!_Qn the xoadwaL Definition from LODS 5 Impermeable Surface. Any surface which prevents absorption of water into the ground. Incidental Retail Uses. Retail uses within an Industrial Park (IP) zone that are outright permitted retail uses in the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) zone, when such uses are directly related to the sales of products manufactured, processed, or assembled on the IP zoned site. In-kind Vegetation. Vegetation similar to vegetation found in the impacted resource or resource buffer in type and size. Institutional Use. Private educational, cultural, religious or social welfare facilities. Invasive Plants. Vegetation that displaces or dominates natural plant communities, such as Himalayan blackberry, English ivy, reed canary grass, scotch broom, etc. A list of such plants shall be maintained on file in the Planning Department. Irregular Lot. A lot in which the front and rear lot lines are not parallel. "Lake_Oswggo:,�tyle' _::means, A buildinb dcsi�n that borrows iirt�m 41tc, S.'ity s historic architccturul.traditions in It sttnj;_ihc Ct d.Crafts_j nt;lt5b—Tudor and thc_Oregon.Rustic iu.. cQmpositi.9n.and natt►ra.l materials exoml i_1this bQiQs_ an"css�ri�s aus_..in_Qptzs ix. (450,05-M.. Adhcrencc tQ the 'n'911n-cd 1jt�e h .t9r_1cal.rcpllcatlVll, lvtadcrn dcsigns intcrpretinL',_ aRtin�Qr__trtiliztng._thc b_QY nose ,stylistic_fortns arc_ also encompassed within the delinitio�, Definition from LODS 23 Page 17 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code Land. Includes water surface and the land under water. Large Animal. Horses, cattle, sheep, goats, swine or any other animal which customarily weighs more than 45 pounds at maturity, excluding dogs. The Lake Osweao Redevelonmen ban renew _Up created by the t&A5 7 Definition from LODS 23 m effee! n Duplicative (see below) Lot. A unit of land created in compliance with all legal requirements in effect and applicable at the time of creation. Lot Coverage. The ratio of A to B where A is the area of the polygon formed by the surrounding exterior walls of all buildings or portions thereof including structures which are over 30" in height with or without exterior walls, but exclusive of vent shafts and courtyards; and B is the gross acreage of the site excluding area in street right-of-way, private streets and access easements pursuant to "48.02.015 (Net Buildable Acre}—'_`. Boat houses shall not be included in lot coverage calculations. Deleted because due to consolidation of definition sections, this is now all one section. Lot Depth. The horizontal distance from the midpoint of the front lot line to the midpoint of the rear lot line, except for a flag lot, which shall be measured from the mid- point at the front lot line of the flag area. Lot, Flat. A lot where the proposed highest finished ground surface at the exterior wall of a building or proposed building is not more than ten feet above the lowest such surface. Lot Frontage. That portion of a lot nearest a street. For the purpose of determining yard requirements, all sides of a lot abutting a street shall be considered frontage. Lot Illegal. A unit of land created in violation of one or more legal requirements in effect and applicable at the time of creation. Lot, Interior. A lot other than a corner lot, with frontage on only one street. Lot, Platted. A lot described and identified within a recorded subdivision or partition and remaining the same in size and shape as it was when the subdivision or partition was recorded. Lot of Record. A lot shown as part of a recorded subdivision, partition, or any lot described by metes and bounds in a recorded deed, record of survey or other appropriate document recorded with the county; except that no lot or parcel of land created without compliance with the subdivision or partition requirements in effect and applicable at the time of the lot creation shall be considered a lot of record. Lot, Sloped. A lot where the highest natural or unaltered ground surface at the exterior wall of a building or proposed building is more than ten feet above the lowest natural or unaltered ground surface at the time of building permit application. For the Page 18 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code purposes of determining building height, natural or unaltered ground surface shall mean: The elevation of the existing ground surface or the existing ground surface resulting from a prior approved planned development at the time of building permit application. Lot Line. Boundary lines of a lot. Lot Line, Front. In the case of an interior lot, the lot line separating the lot from the street. In the case of a corner lot, the lot line designated pursuant to LOC 48.04. 3F35Q�(7), 4 l5a08 _03Q(4), 484)S-2.60 9jQ%_Q25(6) or 48.12. fl50.13.035(4). Lot Line, Rear. A lot line which is opposite and most distant from the front lot line, and in the case of an irregular, triangular, or other shaped lot a line ten feet in length within the lot parallel to and at a maximum distance from the front lot line. In the case of a through lot there is no rear lot line, the frontage on each street is a front lot line. Lot, Corner. A lot abutting two intersecting streets, provided that the streets do not intersect on an angle greater than 135 degrees. Lot, Through; Double Frontage Lot. A lot other than a corner lot with frontage on more than one street. Lot Line, Side. Any lot line not a front or rear lot line. Lot Line, Side Street. On a corner lot, the street lot line that is the longer of the two street lot lines. Luminaire: A complete lightine deyice concistine of alight dtceeiaprtenance�a�h_a�iZe3�fltQr.sefr��t�.hou§ir)g and such suppUrl_as is i cgraiwith the housine. The._p_Q.1.9 or br is notes sidercd a part of the 1pmin irs, Definition from LODS 5 Orailj.liD oyided with a heavy cover at t ___ r and or street sur , Definition from LODS 14 Manufactured Homes. A multi -sectional dwelling unit with a Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) label, of not less than 1,000 square feet constructed in an off-site manufacturing facility on or after June 15, 1976, to the standards and requirements of the National Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974, and designed to be used with a foundation as a dwelling unit on a year-round basis with approved connections to water, sewer and electric utility systems. Marina. A facility providing moorage for boats and related repair and supply services. rzL.�Lstons.,._bxlskL4)Sticated stone or emboss worked wall. Definition from LODS 23 _ _Qj;tjjjQ"� ,gip���T Icating, ventilating and air conditioning system,,, transf'o niers, l;enxtors, utility meters, connection_ boxes, satellite dishes, antennas, tanks and other similar features. Definition from LODS 23 Page 19 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code Mitigation. To rectify, repair or compensate for adverse impacts to a resource or resource functions and values caused by development. Mitigation Methods (for Wetlands): a. Wetland Creation: The conversion of a non -wetland area into a wetland. b. Wetland Enhancement: Alteration of an existing wetland to develop new functions or to improve existing conditions c. Wetland Restoration: Re-establishment of lost or impaired functions in a degraded wetland or in a former wetland that no longer functions as a wetland. Mitigation Ratio (for Wetlands). The ratio of the amount of wetland to be created, restored or enhanced compared to the amount of wetland lost due to development. Mixed Use. A development consisting of more than one broad category of use (e.g. commercial, industrial, residential or institutional). Duplicative; deleted "in a complementary manner" because the definition meaning mix of uses doesn't include discretionary element of determining whether the uses are "complementary". LODS 23 (Downtown Redevelopment District Design Standards)/50.65 addresses the design of the structures for complementariness. See 50.65.030. Mobile Home. A unit or units built between January, 1969 and June 15, 1976 in conformance with the American National Standards Institute requirements adopted by the State of Oregon in 1969 and having an Oregon insignia of compliance issued by the Oregon Department of Commerce, Building Codes Division, or a unit built after June, 1976 in conformance with the 1976 HUD requirements. All units shall have a minimum of 900 square feet of living area. The following definitions apply only to mobile homes: a. Accessory structure: An attached or unattached structural addition to a mobile home or mobile home space including, but not limited to: cabanas, awnings, carports, garages, covered porches, storage structures and covered patios. b. Accessway: An unobstructed way of specified width containing a drive or roadway which provides vehicular access within a mobile home park and connects to a public street. c. Awning: A stationary structure used in conjunction with a mobile home, other than a window awning or ramada for the purpose of providing shelter from the sun and rain for patios, porches or yard areas, and having a roof with supports and not more than one wall. d. Cabana: A stationary structure which may be prefabricated or demountable, with two or more walls, used adjacent to and in conjunction with a mobile home, to provide additional living space designed to be moved with the mobile home. e. Carport: A stationary structure consisting of a roof with its supports which is entirely open on two or more sides and is used for sheltering a motor vehicle. f. Mobile Home Park: A parcel of land under common ownership on which two or more mobile homes are occupied as residences and which conforms to the regulations Page 20 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code of this article. g. Mobile Home Subdivision: A subdivision designed for sale of lots for residential occupancy by mobile homes. h. Mobile Home Space or Lot: A plot of ground within a mobile home park or subdivision designed for the accommodation of one mobile home, its accessory structures, parking spaces and required yard areas. i. Stand: A hard surfaced area within a mobile home space or lot designed for placement of a mobile home. Motor Vehicle and Recreational Vehicle Sales Area. A lot used for display, sale or rental of new or used motor vehicles, recreational vehicles or trailers where no repair work is done except minor, incidental repairs or cleaning of motor vehicles, recreational vehicles or trailers to be displayed, sold or rented for use off the premises. Mounting Height: The vertical distance between the roadway surface and the center of the apparent light source of the luminaire. Natural Area. Ano_of land and/or water that has a predominantly undeveloped character. Natural areas may be pristine, or may have been affected by human activity such as vegetation removal, agriculture, grading or drainage if such areas retain significant natural characteristics, or have recovered to the extent that they contribute to the City's natural systems including hydrology, vegetation, or wildlife habitat. atural, Resouru-Areas .N4n-�ksJgn 1 `.Na=al.arga5" ft"it` 48.0-2.015 tha_t.,hav =W-(,d inJ6. Definition from LODS 8 Net Buildable Acre. The residentially designated land remaining in a gross acre of 43,560 square feet after the following areas have been deducted: a. Area in street right-of-way or access easements. For public streets, use the actual acreage if known or 20% of the gross site area. For private streets use actual acreage if known or 40 feet right-of-way. For access easements use actual acreage of easement. b. Acreage in 100 year floodplain as shown on U.S. Arniy Corp of Engineers flood maps. c. Acreage of over 25% slope. d. Acreage in known landslide areas. e. Acreage in stream buffer area of major stream corridors including wetlands located therein. f. Acreage in public open space and parks. Net Developable Acre. Gross acreage (at 43,560 square feet per acre) of residentially designated land, including Density Transfer Acreage, w.+ -definer} -in 1-0C 48.0 �} 49.16.0 i S, less the area in street right-of-way or access easements. For public streets, use the actual acreage if known or 20% of the gross acreage. For private streets use actual acreage if known or 40 foot right-of-way. For access easements use actual acreage of easement. -- xet-114evelc_>rrn1-4e ,aere. G", s seretrge f ttt 3; `�F,A srfittHre Its t t,er �er� 1 e residentially deli c tjtttt l 1 Density -l' e1;; Tell iaT T OE 4 f3? Et 13 �tt�d Page 21 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code r r� Duplicated - deleted because due to consolidation of definition sections, this is now duplicated. Net Loss (Wetland). A permanent loss of wetland area, functions, or values resulting from a development action after accounting for mitigation measures. New Construction. a. Construction of a new structure; or b. Alteration of an existing structure which increases the building footprint by more than 25% or height by more than 10%. For the purposes of this section, an "existing structure" is a structure as it exists on May 7, 1992. For the purposes of this section, "alteration" includes a determination of the cumulative effect on footprint ;in(] height of all alterations to an existing structure which occur after May 7, 1992. Non -Profit Use. A use operated by an organization, corporation or association that distributes no part of its income to its members, directors or officers. Nursing or Convalescent Homes. A home, place or institution which operates and maintains facilities providing convalescent or chronic care, or both, for a period exceeding 24 hours for two or more ill or infirm patients not related to the nursing home administrator or owner by blood or marriage. Convalescent and chronic care may include, but not need be limited to, the procedures commonly employed in nursing and caring for the sick. Occupancy Classification. As defined in Section 501 of the Uniform Building Code, adopted pursuant to LOC Chapter 45. Oven Space. Land to remain in natural or landscaped condition for the purpose of providing a scenic, aesthetic appearance and/or protecting natural processes, p4vtdi� passive recreational uses, and/or maintaining natural vegetation. Open space may-gkt&be R� cntl reservedj_lield its --common 13,y—among the owners of a development, dedicated to the public, or by, Wha appropriate means committed to use by the general public. Combined definitions from LODS 8 and LOC 49 (See below) Duplicative Owner. Where used in relationship to real property, "owner" means the legal owner of record or, where there is a recorded land sales contract in effect, the purchaser thereunder. Page 22 – Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code Parking Area, Private. Property, other than streets and alleys, unless subject to such parking use by grant of a revocable permit by the City, on which parking spaces are defined, designated or otherwise identified for use by the tenants, employees, patrons or owners of the property for which the parking area is required or allowed by Chapter 49 and not open for use by the general public. Parking Area, Public. Property other than streets or alleys on which parking spaces are defined, designated or otherwise identified for use by the general public, either free or for remuneration. Public parking areas may include parking lots which may be required by Chapter 49 -for retail customers, patrons and clients. _ Park Land. Publicor prl�t�_VidinL far_lhe ct ve_recrcatiQnal ds�f he community. Definition from LODS 8 _ 1?islLict;_B di;itrict e blishcd for_5��t�alt�e_Qfgp.�i and dgvelopmo 9S shared parking facilitig5 wbich_serve_thewholc district... Definition from LODS 7 Ear%inp, Tandem, The narkine of a vehi-Q ._ Qnt__Q�_r beh ad anther ye icle which rg�laires one 0 1 vehicluAo_b movedr for th- otbg vehiCl enter_9r�zt.it.. B1sQ called stacked narkine Definition from LODS 7 Partition. To divide an area or tract of land into two or three lots within a calendar year when such land exists as a unit or contiguous units of land under common ownership at the beginning of such year. "Partition" does not include adjustments of lot lines by relocation of a common boundary where no additional lots are created, and the resulting lots satisfy the minimum lot size allowed by the-Cky Illis._Cod � , nor foreclosure proceedings or sales exempted by the definition of "partition" in ORS Chapter 92. a. Major Partition: A partition which includes the creation of a street. b. Minor Partition: A partition that does not include the creation of a street. Pathway. A public or private right-of-way for pedestrian or non -motorized traffic. Patio. An impervious surface on the ground, excluding parking areas and pathways of five feet or less in width adjacent to the main dwelling. 'a cmcJat,.paving, As used in this standard"Pavcmcnt''.m s l l nsi t 4�cr�Yc,_ sptta.ltic cornc.rctc, and niQdular mascmr� pavcmcnt. cr_�atas RaYgn1cnt systems such as_th9sgwn by t r pr.4�2ri�tarv_namesof S,sccrete or Geoweb nrUvidcd that the cellsare fLllgA=K'lth_At1CIA mat�riaJ or veQetat.�n. Definition from LODS 19 Pvd.cstrian/BiCyc�1 . CS _ss, coni cnicnt. I land surfacc(1 l) C(IeSIrian/ Page 23 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code Definition from LODS 7 Psdc.wrian Density, The ratio of pedestrians to sidewalk ares is intended to enckua e increa e �1�51 �.tr� �t1�.1tY_ir�t�er to prom�t� it use and pro vide_comniunrty intfraction. Definition from LODS 7 Person. A natural person, his heirs, executors, administrators, or assigns; a firm, partnership, or corporation, association or legal entity, its or their successors or assigns; and any agent, employee or representative of any of the above mentioned, Planning Depaftmeni. of his or her d '_ All references to Planning Director have been changed to City Manager Plat. A map, containing all the descriptions, locations, specifications, dedications, provisions or other information concerning a subdivision. Practicable. Capable of being done after taking into consideration cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of overall project purposes. pi mor s�rt�hewi .rad_s_,:e in grade, depth of pipe and vLgacurves of streets. Definition from LODS 14 Public Facilities. Any and all onsite and offsite improvements to be accepted for ownership, maintenance and operation by the City, including but not limited to sanitary sewers, pump stations, water lines and hydrants, storm drain systems, streets, alleys, street lights, street name signs and traffic control signs and devices. Public Facility, Major. Any public service improvement or structure developed by or for a public agency that is not defined as a minor public facility. Public Facilites Minor. The following public service improvements or structures developed by or for a public agency: a. Minor utility structures, except substations, but including poles, lines, pipes, telecommunications facilities or other such facilities. b. Sewer, storm drainage, or water system structures except treatment plants, reservoirs, or trunk lines, but including reconstruction of existing facilities, pump stations, manholes, valves, hydrants or other portions of the collection, treatment and distribution systems located within public property. c. Street improvements within existing development including sidewalks, curbs, gutters, catch basins, paving, signs and traffic control devices and street lights. d. Transit improvements, such as shelters or pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements, located within public right of way or on public property. e. School improvements which will not increase the capacity of the school nor create additional traffic or other impact on the surrounding neighborhood. f. Park improvements which will not create additional motor or foot traffic impact on the surrounding neighborhood. Public Service. Any service provided by a public agency including but not limited to Page 24 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code power, water, streets, sewers, parks, recreation facilities, schools, police and fire protection. This term includes utilities provided by regulated utility companies such as telephone, gas and electric power. Public Transportation Facilities. Those facilities that are associated with a transportation system, such as bridges, bus stops, transit centers, light rail, and similar facilities, but excluding public or private streets. Qualified Professional. An individual who has proven expertise and vocational experience in a given natural resource field, as determined by the Planning -DireetorCily M taM. A qualified professional may either be a consultant or a member of the City staff. The following types of expertise are applicable: a. Streams. An individual such as a hydrologist or an engineer who has expertise in analyzing water quality and/or delineating stream corridor boundaries. b. Tree Grove. An individual who has expertise in delineating or surveying tree grove driplines such as a Certified Arborist, professional forester, engineer, architect, landscape architect, surveyor, or similarly qualified person. c. Wetlands. An individual such as a wetland biologist or ecologist who has expertise in applying Federal and/or State -approved methods for wetland delineations and value assessments. Ravine. A small, narrow valley with steep sides that is usually worn by running water. A ravine is larger than a gully. Recreational Vehicles. Towed or self-propelled vehicles such as motor homes, pickup campers and tent trailer campers, travel trailers, intended for human occupancy for vacation and recreational purposes. Recreational Facilities. 1. Active Use Recreational Facilities: Facilities for recreational uses that tend to be more organized and/or that require a greater degree of site development and conversion of natural area, including sports fields, playground equipment, group picnic shelters, hard surfaced pathways, permanent restrooms, accessory parking lots and similar facilities. 2. Passive Use Recreational Facilities: Facilities for recreational uses related to the functions and values of a natural area that require limited and low impact site improvement, including soft -surface trails, signs, pedestrian bridges, seating, viewing blinds, observation decks, handicapped facilities, drinking fountains, picnic tables, interpretive facilities, and similar facilities. Reserved Area. Land to be kept free of buildings or other structures as a condition of development approval. =Kesid�ILt �.turnaroun _ An area nrovidinL space for the manc-Mycring,_o1 A "P." a_8Q dcgrsc change in_d rection with:a Qnt nst s for ark.=m n szr nsz. moxc xh n ;_b ackinb_movcment, Definition from LODS 19 csQurcc SQnserY t (8S _A ric1.R_gsQur44.___A_Irce:_.brovc_prntc ud by -a. W' Dtstricc.S�vcrlay c�nc_,p lc uapt :14 Q.C./lrtrQlc 48.1750_1.6 Definition from LODS 8 Kescurc;c (QnservatiUar�.suurcc Z ' ' Page 25 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code �� en i�gt3tifig .ursuant to LOC=.o �-m�•c 50.16.05 Definition from LODS 8 Resource Enhancement. The modification of a resource or its functions and values to improve the quality or quantity of the resource. It can include actions that result in increased animal and plant species, increased numbers of types of natural habitat, and/or increased amount of area devoted to natural habitat. It may also include improvements in scenic views and sites, increased capacity for stormwater detention and surface water management, changes in water quantity or quality, or similar improvements. A resource enhancement project must result in no loss of any resource functions or values, and the gain of at least one. Qurs_erote _tion ) DisL -A_w91land QLLtTMIS Orxi&LpJQtrcted by a P_ -District overlay zzone nursuant _to LOC ArliclC 48.1-4 L% 4 Definition from LODS 8 Restoration Plant List. A list of plants appropriate for landscaping in resource areas that maintain the natural function and character of resource areas, provide food and shelter for native wildlife, are adapted to local soils and growing conditions, do not require fertilizers or pesticides that may be detrimental to the resource, or do not require long-term irrigation which can increase erosion and sedimentation. The Restoration Plant List shall be kept on file in the Planning Department. Riparian Areas. Lands adjacent to rivers, streams, lakes, ponds, and other water bodies that are transitional between aquatic and upland zones and contain elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. Such lands are characterized by high water tables, soils made up largely of water -carried sediments, and vegetation that requires free (unbound) water or conditions that are more moist than normal. Reversed Frontage Lot. A lot on which the frontage is at right angles or approximately right angles (interior angle less than 135 degrees) to the general pattern in the area. Road. See "Street". _ Sanitary Sewer System A system con, istines�fs1,_1t4�s.yice lines. manholes eleanQyt _. n g.L rignant structures rovid d14l,-tklc 44th yance Dchnition from LODS 14 Secondary Dwelling Unit. A second dwelling unit, either attached or separate, located on a lot already containing a dwelling unit, which complies with LOC Security. A means of guaranteeing the performance of terms and conditions of a development permit. Sensitive Lands. Lands containing natural resources that have environmental significance within the Lake Oswego planning area (Urban Service Boundary) including wetlands, stream corridors, and tree groves. Such lands are more sensitive or easily damaged by development impacts than non -resource lands. Page 26 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code Definition from LODS 14 Service Station. A commercial establishment which provides retail sale of motor fuel and oil for motor or marine vehicles, services batteries, furnishes repair and service, excluding painting, body work, steam cleaning, tire recapping and mechanical car washing equipment capable of washing more than one car at a time, and at which accessory sales or incidental services are conducted. Setback Line. The innermost line of any required yard or reserved area on a lot. Shelters, Waiting An area providing protection from weather, and visual access and physical proximity to arriving transit vehicles; may be as simple as an extended overhang or protected entry or as elaborate as a separate structure complete with furniture. 114)9S 6-f Lee 5().4:7i (ira&._VA_W_Ax_os StrM.__'he slouc, me pipe, or conduit as Ra- M_9LLWa__u_sxm Definition from LODS 7 Special Use Housing. Housing occupied by 7 or more persons who are 1) 60 years of age, or 2) socially, physically or mentally handicapped, or 3) persons needing personal care services or any combination thereof. Specimen Tree:_Particularly "ink a or uual examoleLay_..tr_.}2e_c1 cLu�ii� smaller treks such. dogwood, cherry. or-JavaneseMARk Definition from LODS 8 Standard Details. The_a0_ detail drawings contMRCd._in_thr. City of Lake Osw eo's "Standard Construction Snec�ns Dr wJ.nks' Definition from LODS 19 Storefront. The otrance facade of 4LMitding typi.cally_facing:th. Arco. Definition from LODS 23 Story. That portion of a building included between the upper surface of any floor and the upper surface of the floor next above, except that the topmost story shall be that portion of a building included between the upper surface of the topmost floor and the ceiling or roof above. If the finished floor level directly above a basement or unused under -floor space is more than 6 feet above grade for more than 50 percent of the total perimeter or is more than 12 feet above grade at any point, such basement or unused under -floor space shall be considered as a story. Stream. Flowing surface waters that produce a definable channel or bed. Stream flows can be perennial, intermittent, or ephemeral. Streams do not include ditches, storm Page 27 -- Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code drains, or other artificial watercourses unless they are used to convey streams naturally occurring prior to construction or have come to function as natural water courses, thus contributing to the quality of an area*s overall natural systems. Stream Channel. A definable channel that demonstrates clear evidence of the passage of water and includes but is not limited to bedrock channels, gravel beds, sand and silt beds, and vegetated swales. A stream channel may be a bed with sloping banks or may be a swale with gradually sloping sides. In most cases there is a distinct grade break at the edge of the stream channel. Stream Corridor. A stream corridor is an area of land that includes a stream and a set of natural features generally associated with the stream. These natural features include, stream channels, flood plains, wetlands, riparian vegetation, associated vegetation, steep slopes, and habitat features. A stream corridor generally includes the following: a. Hydrological Characteristics. Physical features that affect stream flow capacity, rates of channel erosion and patterns of sedimentation including but not limited to stream alignment, cross section and profile, roughness of channel and banks, and drainage patterns. b. Plant Communities and Wildlife Habitat. The association of trees, shrubs, ground cover, and aquatic plants that affects the hydrological characteristics of a stream corridor, reduces runoff turbidity, provides shade which lessens thermal pollution, filters out nutrients carried by runoff, protects stream corridor soils and slopes from erosion, and provides habitat for fish, wildlife and aquatic organisms. c. Soils with Potential for Severe Erosion. Soils within stream corridors tend to be very erosion-prone by nature. This feature affects channel erosion rates, patterns of sedimentation downstream, and potential for hazards to property within and adjacent to the stream corridor. d. Ravines and Steep Slopes. Lake Oswego steam corridors frequently include ravines and steep slopes. e. Associated Aquatic Elements. Floodplains and wetlands may be adjacent to or associated with the stream. Stream Corridor Functions and Values: The beneficial characteristics of stream corridors, including, but not limited to: * Protection of wildlife habitat and travel corridors; * Protection of riparian vegetation; * Erosion control; * Flood and storm water control; * Water quality enhancement; * Open space, passive recreation, and visual enjoyment, and; * Cultural, social, education and research values. treet. The entire width between the right-of-way lines of a public way capable of providing the principal means of access to abutting property. Structure. That which is built or constructed, an edifice or building of any kind, or any piece of work artificially built up or composed of parts joined together in some definite manner. Structure, Via le Ujam, a. An existing structure that cQmR1i�S vYaS}t (�km A. A designated historic rrscnu' CC r, T A titruc►ut_thal t5 n�>t likely tc_b_ter.€c��_v_�.lvl.e.ta:�e,i}tact Page 28 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code UUTIM - _ . R 11 / I K4OPM1 ILI)I • ..1 • i Definition from LODS 23 Structural Alteration. A change to the supporting members of a structure including, but not limited to, foundation, bearing walls or partitions, columns, beams, girders or the roof. Subdivide. To divide an area or tract of land into four or more lots within a calendar year, when such land exists as a unit or contiguous units of land under a single ownership at the beginning of such year. For the purpose of computing the number of lots created, each lot created shall be counted as a separate lot notwithstanding the fact they are held in common ownership. Swale. A swale is a depression, sometimes swampy, in the midst of generally level land that conducts surface water. Telecommunications Facilities. Facilities designed and used for the purpose of transmitting, receiving, and relaying voice and data signals from various wireless communication devices. The following definitions apply to the regulation of telecommunications facilities: a. Abandoned Facility. A transmission tower and/or ancillary facilities whose use has been discontinued for a period of at least six months. b. Ancillary Facilities. The structures and equipment required for operation of the telecommunication equipment, including but not limited to antennae, repeaters, equipment housing structure, and ventilation and other mechanical equipment. c. Antenna(e). An electrical conductor or group of electrical conductors that transmit or receive radio waves. d. Attachment. An antenna or other piece of related equipment affixed to a transmission tower. e. Collocated Facility. A new attachment, antenna, or tower placed on existing suitable structures or rebuilt transmission towers or facilities or the addition of new ancillary facilities to an existing transmission tower facility site. f. New Facility. The installation of a new transmission tower. New attachments are not new facilities. g. Pre-existing Towers and Pre-existing Antennas. Any tower or antenna constructed or approved pursuant to City standards in effect prior to the effective date of this ordinance. h. Service Area. The vicinity around a telecommunications facility site that effectively receives signals from and transmits signals to the facility at the strength of signal required by the Federal Communications Commission. i. Shadow. A geographic area that has less than adequate telecommunication service coverage. i. Tower Footprint. The area described at the base of a transmission tower as the perimeter of the transmission tower including the transmission tower foundation and any attached or overhanging equipment, attachments, or structural members but excluding ancillary facilities and guy wires and anchors. k. Tower Pad. The area that encompasses the tower footprint, ancillary facilities, fencing and screening. Page 29 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code 1. Tower Height. The vertical distance measured from the highest point on the transmission tower or other structure, including any antennae, to the original grade of the ground directly below this point. m. Transmission Tower. The guyed tower, lattice tower, monopole, or similar structure on which transmitting or receiving antennae are located. For purposes of thi-S t efthjA Code, ham radio transmission facilities are considered "aerials" and not "transmission towers". i. Guyed Tower. A tower which is supported by the use of cables (guy wires) which are permanently anchored. ii. Lattice Tower. A tower characterized by an open framework of lateral cross members which stabilize the tower. iii. Monopole. A single upright pole, engineered to be self supporting and does not require lateral cross supports or guys. Tx�Dsit FaciliSie , Mludes, but are not_litnil�si Sransil_ 4g�ts�S[ans�,L, t p ,�tk_��d useMations, multi -medal exchange stations. bis lllang-tl►1-pld•Y an it waiting shelve nc1 1Mmjtur----- inf_ormation statiM5, Definition from LODS 6 ,_ Transi�_OrientPd Futures: Features to sunoort.� •�h lev�l_o��Ly�e�. such as sly. ccess_tays. pcdestrian -and bicycle amenities�nsL .lk)ypys within -- Definition from LODS 6 • ••11-1 •I G 11_. • EMPIM, M. .I• • • •• l 1._1. • • •. • • • I • • • •_ • Il : • • • Definition from LODS 6 01111111011VAWLIV• N • • 1 • • • . 11 1 - Definition from LODS 6 Transit 1 , _._� _ w��'oji)prchcnsi� an as an Definition from LODS 6 Tree Grove: A stand of three or more trees (of the same species or a mixture) which form a visual and biological unit, including the area between the forest floor and the canopy, including skyline trees, and including any understory vegetation existing within the canopied area. A stand of trees must be at least 15' in height and must have a contiguous crown width of at least 120' to qualify as a tree grove. a. Associated Tree Grove: A tree grove that is contiguous with the boundaries of a designated stream corridor or wetland and contributes to the resource value of the Page 30 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code riparian area by extending and operating in conjunction with the habitat of the riparian area and providing flood control and water quality enhancement. Such tree groves are located within the buffer areas of a wetland or stream corridor but may extend beyond the buffer. b. Isolated Tree Grove: A grove of trees that is not associated with a stream corridor or wetland as described in subsection a of this definition. Temporary Structure. A structure used for one year or less. Uplands (or upland forestsj: The non -riparian portions of tree groves lying outside of stream corridors, wetlands, and their respective buffers. Use, Accessory. Any use incidental, subordinate and consistent with the primary use on the same lot or in the same building, and which is consistent with the uses allowed in the zone in which it is located. Use, Chane of. A change of the activity on a site which results in a change in the number of parking spaces required by the parking and loading standard. Use, Principal. The main or primary purpose for which land or a structure is arranged, designed or intended, or for which either land or a structure is, or may be, occupied or maintained. Utility. For purposes of ihig elapterWi§,�, a utility is any person (as defined in LOC 49.16.01 `this tion) who is a local exchange carrier or an electric, gas, water, or other public utility, and who owns or controls poles, ducts, conduits, or rights of way used, in whole or in part, for any wire or cable communication. Vanpool: A group of from seven to fifteen commuters, including the driver, who share the ride to and from work or other destination on a regularly scheduled basis. walkwa iA surfao z __sW .lan l� , 11 �sible._Io�ine pui?lic, inipcgv�c Q acGgtllnloda_!Up_cdestri __ traffic- u udi g per its __ eelchairs Definition from LODS 20 Walls, Exterior. Any wall or element of a wall, or group of members, which defines the exterior boundaries or courts of a building and which has a slope of 60 degree or greater with the horizontal plane. Water Bodies: Permanently or temporarily flooded lands which may lie below the deep water boundary of wetlands. Water depth is such that water, and not the air, is the principal medium in which prevalent organisms live, whether or not they are attached to the bottom. The bottom may sometimes be considered non -soil or the water may be too deep or otherwise unable to support emergent vegetation. Water bodies include rivers, streams, creeks, sloughs, drainageways, lakes, and ponds. Water Courses: Water courses are defined as ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial drainageways which exhibit defined channels: a: Ephemeral means water courses which convey water associated with rainfall events. b. Intermittent means water courses whose conveyance of water is seasonal in nature. c. Perennial means water courses which convey water year-round. Water courses also include perennial springs. They may be either the result of natural processes or human -made features such as canals, mill races, and open drainageways which are either historic in nature, or have come to function as natural water courses, thus Page 31 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code contributing to the quality of an Area's overall natural systems including hydrology, vegetation, wildlife habitat. W&=—D ution System: A syst undergrounnines, ,se service lines. valves. hv�r�nts. and other appurtenant scmuctures prov�_����_ir�lna�ission Q.1' Potable water to its point of use Definition from LODS 14 Wetland: An Area that is inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances does support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions, commonly known as hydrophytic vegetation. Wetlands generally include but are not limited to swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar Areas. a. Isolated Wetland: A wetland that is not linked or connected to an adjacent stream corridor, wetland, tree grove, or other wooded Area. Wetland Functions and Values: The beneficial characteristics of wetlands, including but not limited to: a. Wildlife and plant habitat protection b. Protection of sensitive, threatened and endangered species c. Erosion control d. Flood and storm water storage e. Water quality enhancement f. Ground water recharge g. Open space, passive recreation, and visual enjoyment h. Cultural, social, educational, and research values Wrecking Yard. Any premises used for the storage, dismantling or sale of either inoperable motor vehicles, trailers, machinery and/or building materials, or parts of such items. Yard. An open, unoccupied space, other than a court, unobstructed from the ground to the sky, except where specifically provided by this Code, on the lot on which a building is situated. Yard, Front. A yard, the front of which is the front lot line measuring at right angles toward the building the required distance or to the front exterior wall of the building. Yard, Required. The area of land and space between a lot line and a setback line, whether the setback line is established by the terms of iiiis elutpletthis .C�e or by an approval granted pursuant to this-e}�g�►terthis C��dc�r-L(3F=Fi�ter-49.required by the Zoning Code op 1)y a -deye1opfflefl, Duplicative; Definition under LOC 48 more inclusive. Yard, Side. A yard, measured at right angles from the side lot line toward the building, the required distance. Yard, Rear. A yard, measured at right angles from the rear lot line toward the building, the required distance. (Ord. No. 1851, Sec. 1; 11-16-82. Ord. No. 1866, Sec. 2; 05-03-83. Ord. No. 1882, Secs. 1-2; 03-06-84. Ord. No. 1888, Secs. 1-2; 05-15-84, Ord. No. 1908, Sec. 2; 02 -19 - Page 32 - Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code 85. Ord. No. 1980, Sec. 1; 02-07-89. Ord. No. 1987, Sec. 1; 05-02-89. Ord. 2027, Sec. 1; 04-02-91. Ord. No. 2052, Sec. l; 08-18-92. Ord. No. 2053, Sec. 1; 04-07-92. Ord. No. 2148, 07-22-97). (Ord. No. 2075, Amended, 06/01/93; Ord. No. 2096, Amended, 06/21/94; Ord. No. 2099, Amended, 08/01/94; Ord. No. 2100, Amended, 08/01/94; Ord. No. 2149, Amended, 04/17/97; Ord. No. 2148, Amended, 07/22/97; Ord. No. 2166, Amended, 05/19/98; Ord. No. 2172, Amended, 08/06/98; Ord. No. ) (Ord. No. 2088, Enacted, 03/03/94; Ord. No. 2091, Amended, 04/19/94; Ord. No. 2143, Amended, 12/18/96; Ord. No. 2146, Amended, 03/04/97; Ord. No. 2148, Amended, 07/22/97; Ord. No. 2164, Amended, 01/20/98) x -Refer.-ence; Access (Access De�10 meat Standard): See 50.52.414 aoacit_YLtilitY Dq-v-eent_s ndard.): ktM 61,.1.Q Cut or Excavation:. See LOC 50.43.010 n�djdg: _See LOQ5 Erosion. See LO(' 50.43_.014 Eill: See LOC 50.43.019 logre us L41�._5�1 Circulation Development �tlll_dard): Sec HK' 50.58.010 M—ulch: See LQ_50.43,010 Old '1'own_55jyjq§,-_4ee 50.66.010 Potential Severe ErQsion HazgEd Area: See LQC 50.43.010 p�t_entu�l Sc�;ex �ndslide Haz rd Area; Sec LOC 0.43.010 Sediment: See LO.S,' (�, _,Q�Q Vzllatae Cltar� t,_ S e1�QC 50.65.020; Section 50.02,050 Section 48.08.280 MOW fff-(.aleula-tiALAllowable Density-afxl-D"t!rit�ratWer. 1. Except as provided in subsection 2. of this section, this section explains the method for computation of the number of units allowed for each site in the DD, WR, R-0, 5,-R-3, R-5, R -SSR -7.5, R-10 and R-15 zones, except in mixed use zones. a. Compute the area of Net Developable Acre by subtracting from gross acreage (at 43,560 sq.R. per acre) of residentially designated land the area required for street right-of- way. For public streets, use the actual acreage if known or 20% of the gross acreage. For private streets, use actual acreage if known or 40 foot right-of-way. b. For all residential zones except the R-0 zone if there are existing dwellings on the site that will remain as a part of the development, subtract from the area calculated in A, an area amount equal to the minimum lot area per unit required in the zone. For the R-0 zone subtract an area amount equal to 1.2 times the floor area for the existing dwellings. c. Compute the area of Density Transfer Acre by adding together the area of the components listed below. i. Area within the floodway and the floodway fringe as shown on U. S. Army Corps of Engineers' flood maps. Page 33 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code ii. Area over 25% slope. iii. Area in known landslide areas or in areas shown to have potential for severe or moderate landslide hazard. iv. Area in public open space and parks. d. Subtract the area of the Density Transfer Acre from the difference obtained after performing the calculation described in subsection Lb., or if there are no existing dwellings on the site that will remain, from the area of the Net Developable Acre. e. For zones, other than the R-0 zone, calculate the base number of units by dividing the result of the calculation from subsection l.d. by the minimum lot area per unit allowed in the zone. For the R-0 zone, there is no base number of units. The base allowable FAR is 1.2 times the result of the calculation from subsection l .d.. f. The area of the Density Transfer Acre may be added to the area of Net Developable Acre for the purpose of density calculation to the extent that the applicant has demonstrated by site specific information (in specified cases by an engineer's report) that the requirements of the Development Standards will be met for all units proposed to be built. The number of units allocated to the Density Transfer Acreage is computed in the same manner as the base number of units or FAR is calculated pursuant to subsection Le., less any units which cannot be placed due to failure to comply with the requirements of the Development Standards. g. To determine the total number of units or FAR allowed on the site, add to the result of the calculation in subsection Le. the result of the calculation in subsection I.f.., and i are subtracted in subsection or existing dwellin�(s) h. The hearing body will review the above calculations as part of the hearing process on the application. LOC 48.04.1385Q,020(1)(b), 48:06:203 ( Q(1)(b) and 48.08.255 (3)(b) provide that the hearing body will approve the total number of units calculated in subsection l.g. above if the facts presented by the applicant demonstrate that the resulting density can occur within requirements set forth in the Development Standards. 2. LOC n8.^T�04.1 50.06.010, 48.04-130_ O�, (2), 48.06.195, 48.06.205N (2), X50.09.0, LOC Article 450.16. and Development Standard 21, the Residential Energy Conservation Incentives, provide for density bonuses under specified circumstances. The maximum number of units will not exceed the numbers allowed by those sections. (Ord. No. 2088, Enacted, 03/03/94; Ord. No. 2148, Amended, 07/22/97) C'_' '� 1 1 1 �•�r C This section was changed from 50.09.050 (Old Town Design District) to 50.02.050 (Definitions). It "appears to" establish the methodology of calculating maximum density for ALL residential zones. However, the other residential zones and the WR zone contain a section within them that also addresses the method for calculating the maximum density. See 48.06.205 (R-7.5, R-10, R-15); 48.04.48.04.130 (R-0, R-2, R-3, R-5, WR Zones). R-6 zone does not have its own respective section which addresses the method of calculating the maximum density Page 34 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code It is believed that the method of calculating the maximum density under 50.20.050 and the respective zone -specific provisions will result in the same number. Staff recommends that these multiple methods of determining density be addressed in a substantive code revision. (There is also an error in the formula which should be addressed in any substantive code revision of this section. As drafted, it fails to add back in the existing developed area for a residence.) Community Development Planning is considering revision of this section as apart of its "minimum density" ordinance change. It was previously placed in 48.08.280 - the tail end of the Old Town Design District section. Ord. 2088 created the section but did not specify where it should be placed; it was previously in the definition section of the Zoning Code. While staff agrees that it should not be in the definition section, its placement in the Old Town Design District section was difficult for it to be located. Locating an appropriate section for this section is slightly problematical. Other methodologies are found in the definition section, e.g., how to calculate "height of building", and to some degree, when defining a word or phrase where the end result is a number, the methodology of calculating that number will be in the definition. This stated methodology of determining density, however, is complex and lengthy, and therefore is not thought appropriate within a definition section. Therefore, title of proposed chapter 50.02 has been changed from "Definitions" to "Definitions; Methods of Calculation" Internal references within the code to former LOC 48.08.280 have been changed to 50.09.05050.02.050. Cross references will be added to each of the referenced zones, to refer to this methodology section.: High and Medium Density: 48.04.130: Cross -Reference: See 50.02.050 - Method of Calculating Maximum Density R_6: 48.07.025: Cross -Reference: See 50.02.050 - Method of Calculating Maximum Density Low Density: 48.06.205: Cross -Reference: See 50.02.050 - Method of Calculating Maximum Density Old Town Design District: 48.08.255: Cross -Reference: See 50.02.050 - Method of Calculating Maximum Density West Lake Grove Town Home Residential R-2.5: 48.09.020: Cross - Reference: See 50.02.050 - Method of Calculating Maximum Density\ Page 35 - Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code When the R-6 and R-2.5 zones were adopted, after the methodology was adopted, it was an oversight to not include R-6 and R-2.5 within the listing of zones to which this methodology is applicable. Neither R-6 nor R-2.5 have their own methodology. . (Other zones in the West Lake Grove area are mixed use and therefore this section would not be applicable.) "Density Transfer" was removed from the title of the section because it really does not relate to density transfer. Section 1 establishes the method for calculating maximum density. Section 2 references other sections that allow a density bonus and states that the number of units calculated under Section I shall not exceed any applicable density bonuses. 12/03/01: Note: LOC 48.08.280 is proposed to be repealed as a part of the Minimum Density code amendments, which is scheduled for public hearing on January 15, 2002. A work session is scheduled on this Community Development Code on January 8, 2002. If the density guidelines are to be repealed following the Jan. 15, 2002 public hearing, then this Article should be amended for consideration at the public hearing on the Community Development Code on February 5, 2002 by deleting the proposed 50.20.050, and the proposed cross-references. Page 36 - Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code Applicability of Zoning Q nity�)velop-mcnt Code M -M -0 -- Section 49.16.020 Application of Code. Development of real property within the corporate limits of the City of Lake Oswego shall be governed by this Code and by the de-veiepment standards a 1-1-11'"Aawfflt i-8 this -E -c . All provisions in other sections of the Lake Oswego Code which conflict with applicable provisions of this Code or the 9eyelopment Standards are liefebysupersede�l. (Ord. No. 2088, Enacted, 03/03/94) The Development Standards are no longer separate from the Code, they are part of it. Therefore, we do not need to refer to the Development Standards separately. SectiUn_544��Q Section 48.02.020 Compliance. Except as otherwise specifically provided by this-ehftptft1hs Code, no building or other structure shall be constructed, reconstructed, improved, altered, enlarged or moved, nor shall any use or occupancy of premises within the City be commenced or changed, nor shall any condition of or upon real property be caused or maintained after December 16, 1982, except in conformity with the requirements prescribed for each of the several zones and general regulations established hereunder. It shall be unlawful for any person to erect, construct, reconstruct, establish, occupy, alter, enlarge or use, or cause to be used, any building, structure, improvement or use of premises located in any zone described inthis 4 e contrary to the provisions ofs Code.. Where this-ehapte. llis imposes greater restrictions than those imposed or required by other rules or regulations or Code provisions, the provisions of this elwgmer s_Code shall control. (Ord. No. 1851, Sec. 1; 11-16-82.) Section 48.20.500 Maintenance of Minimum Ordinance Requirements. No lot area, yard, or other open space, existing on or after December 16, 1982 shall be reduced in area, dimension, or size below the minimum required by this Code, nor shall any lot area, yard, or other open space which is required by this Code for one use be used as the lot area, yard, or other open space requirement for any other use, except as provided in this Code. (Ord. No. 1851, Sec. 1; 11-16-82.) Page 37 - Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code Segam 50. M2Q Section 48.02.075 Relationship to Other Laws and Private Agreements; Prior Approvals and Conditions of Approval. 1. It is not an intent of this e wFAedbjs-,-Q9d to interfere with, abrogate or annul any easement, covenant or agreement between parties; provided, however, that where this ehapterths Code imposes a greater restriction upon the use of buildings, and premises, upon height of buildings, or requires larger open spaces or similar restrictions than are imposed or required by private agreements, easements and covenants, the provisions of shall govern. 2. Planned unit developments approvals, conditional use permits, variances and Development Review Commission approvals, and conditions attached to those approvals, and conditions attached to zone change approvals, granted prior to December 16, 1982 shall remain in effect until specifically amended or deleted by action pursuant to t13i-S Co4ethis C9C9d . A request to amend approvals or delete or amend conditions of approvals is classified as a request to amend the zoning map and shall be considered as such unless the subject matter of the request is regulated by LOC Chapter 49 in which case the request will be processed pursuant to the provisions of LOC Chapter 49. Those conditions imposed or approvals granted by ordinance under the prior Zoning Code may be amended or deleted by order of the hearing body, or, on appeal, by order of the City Council, without the necessity of adopting an amending ordinance. 3. For the time periods stated below, construction may occur pursuant to the listed types of approvals granted under the prior Zoning Code: a. Conditional use permit - two years from the date of the order granting approval. b. Variances - six months from the date of the order granting approval. c. Planned unit developments - the time period stated in the approved development schedule, unless that schedule is modified pursuant to subsection 2 of this section. The time for filing plats must comply with LOC 49.48.1405, If 15% of the structural construction is not complete within the time periods stated, the approval shall be reviewed as a new application pursuant to the applicable City Code provisions. This subsection applies to uses which conform, to the use requirements of ehttMenhisQQdc- If a conditional use permit, variance or PUD is a non-conforming use under the terms of this ehapteghis C94g it is subject to the provisions of LOC 48.26.5,MUI.5 and not this subsection. (Ord. No. 1851, Sec. l; 11-16-81.) Page 38 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code Rules of Interpretation Article_5004 Section 50.. 05 Section 48.02.025 Interpretation, Regulations and Procedures, Delegation. 1. The City Manager has the initial authority and responsibility to interpret all terms, provisions and requirements of this ehapfer3 is CQde. A request for an interpretation of shall be made in writing and the interpretation given may be appealed to the Planning Commission pursuant to the provisions of LOC 49,16:060n Q 2. The City Manager may develop regulations and procedures to aid in the implementation and interpretation of the provisions of this ehapter C 3. The City Manager may delegate any authority or responsibility identified in this eha1)!m tis Codtr to any suitable person. (Ord. No. 1851, Sec. l; 11-16-82.) Section, 'W.H.010 Section 49.16.060 Planning NireetorCity Manaeer Interpretations. A person may request an interpretation of the City Comprehensive Plan or land use regulations from the . Such an interpretation may be formal or informal, as follows: 1. Formal Interpretation: An applicant may request a formal interpretation as it relates to the proposed development of a specific property owned by the applicant or by a person for whom the applicant is the agent. The application shall be in writing and shall set forth the issues the applicant desires interpreted. A fee set by resolution of the City Council may be charged for an application for a formal interpretation. Notice of a request for a formal interpretation shall be sent in the manner provided for a minor development pursuant to LOC 49:40.8A55Q$i LW, and notice of the interpretation shall be sent in the same manner as notice of a decision on a minor development pursuant to LOC 49.4055 . A formal interpretation may be appealed in the same manner as a minor development pursuant to LOC 49050,4.005. Once a formal interpretation becomes final, it shall be binding on the City as it applies to a future application for development of the subject property unless the provision that is the subject of the interpretation is amended, repealed or construed differently by LUBA or a court of competent jurisdiction prior to the filing of the application for development. Such an interpretation shall not be binding as it relates to development of other properties. 2. Informal Interpretation: Any person may request the f9anrri*g- 4iree!or, planning staff or the City Attorney for an informal interpretation. Such a request may either be oral or in writing, and is not subject to notice, appeal or a fee. Such an interpretation is not a final land use decision, however, and is not binding on City staff or City appellate Page 39 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code authorities as it applies to future land use applications on the subject property or in general. (Ord. No. 2088, Enacted, 03/03/94) SeWo_n-50.04.015 Section 48.02.095 Authorization for Similar Uses. The City Manager may authorize that a use, not specifically named in the permitted, conditional or prohibited uses of a district be included among the allowed uses, if the use 1) is similar to and of the same general type as the uses specifically allowed; 2) is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; and 3) has similar intensity, density, off-site impacts and impacts on community facilities as uses permitted in the zone. However, the City Manager may not authorize a use already specifically permitted in any other zoning district. A person disagreeing with the Lily_ Manager's decision may appeal that decision to the Planning Commission pursuant to LOC 4944-8-z'0.50..$4.005. (Ord. No. 1851, Sec. 1; 11-16-82.) Page 40 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code Zoning Districts, Boundaries and Maps Artigle -045 Section 50 05 00 Section 48.02.115 Zoning Districts. The City is divided into the following zoning districts: Residential Map Designation Residential - Low Density R-15 Residential - Low Density R-10 Residential - Nle4itmi-LMDensity R-7.5 The R-7.5 Zone is listed as Low Density in the Comprehensive Plan Residential - Medium Density(FAN) R-6 This zone is found only in FAN Residential - l-Mesa___tla_ u Density R-5 The R-5 zone is in the "Medium and High Density Residential' category in the Comprehensive Plan; R-5 is the "lowest" of these so it would make sense to say that it is referred to as medium density. Residential - High Density R-3 Res�ntal-_igeAsf�'_(_WC_�__R . Residential - High Density R-2 Residential - High Density R-0 Water Front Cabanas WR Design District (Old Town) DD The WLG R-2.5 zone is a high-density, residential zone (town houses only). It was previously placed in the Management Overlay, but this is not really an overlay; it is the base zone. MiMcd RQSU Commergial Resdenti WLG._:4ffice_ C4jnrnerc iMQwn -- _ IQtxte_Re idential __ OC/R-2.5 WLG._ 4ff)cc Commercial / Ncighborhood Page 41 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code The WLG R -2.5/W, OC/R-2.5, and OC/NC zones (residential/commercial) zones. They were previously placed Overlay, but these are not really an overlay; they are base zones. Commercial Map Designation Neighborhood Commercial NC General Commercial GC Highway Commercial HC Office Campus OC East End General Commercial EC Campus Institutional CI Campus Research & Development CR&D Mixed Commerce MC Industrial Industrial I Industrial Park IP are mixed use in the Management ManagemetilOverlays Planned Development PD Resource Conservation RC Resource Protection RP , .. Willamette River Greenway GM The West Lake Grove zones have been incorporated into the residential and mixed use listing above because they are not really overlay zones, but base zones. "Management" was removed from the listing because it was not necessary to distinguish them as overlays. (Ord. No. 1851, Sec. 1; 11 - 16-82. Ord. No. 1926, Sec. 1; 1-21-86.) (Ord. No. 2143, Amended, 12/18/96; Ord. No. 2148, Amended, 07/22/97; Ord. No. 2187, Amended, 03/16/99) Section 48.02.080 Zoning Map. 1. The boundaries of the zoning districts established in this ehapterthis Codp are indicated on the City zoning map. 2. Amendments to the City zoning map may be made pursuant to LOC 4960. ._. 5. Copies of all map amendments shall be dated with the effective Page 42 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code date of the document adopting the map amendment and shall be maintained without change, together with the adopting document, on file in the office of the City Recorder. 3. The City Manager shall maintain an up-to-date copy of the City zoning map to be revised from time to time so that it accurately portrays changes of zone boundaries. A separate map shall also be maintained and show the location of conditional use permits, planned developments and variances. The City Manager shall index on the appropriate map adjacent to such zone change, conditional use, cluster development or variance, the file number of the document authorizing the same. (Ord. No. 1851, Sec. 1; 11-16-82.) (Ord. No. 2148, Amended, 07/22/97) $ ssi.4 5Q.005.01 Section 48.02.085 Interpretation of District Boundaries. 1. Except as provided in subsection 2. below, where due to the scale, lack of detail or illegibility of the City zoning map or due to any other reason, there is uncertainty, contradiction or conflict as to the intended location of any district boundary, the exact location of district boundary lines shall be determined by the City Manager in accordance with the following guidelines: a. Street Lines. Where district boundaries are indicated as approximately following the centerline or right-of-way line of streets, such lines shall be construed to be such district boundaries. b. Street Vacations. Whenever any street is lawfully vacated, and the lands within the boundaries thereof attach to and become a part of lands adjoining such street, the lands formerly within the vacated street shall automatically be subject to the same zoning district designation that is applicable to lands to which same attaches. c. Lot Lines. Where district boundaries are indicated as approximately following lot lines, such lot lines shall be construed to be said boundaries. If a district boundary divides a lot into two or more districts, the entire lot shall be placed in the district that accounts for the greater area of the lot by the adjustment of the district boundary, provided that the boundary adjustment is for a distance of less than 20 feet. If an adjustment of more than 20 feet is required, the change in the district boundary shall be treated as a change of zone. d. Water Courses. District boundary lines are intended to follow the centerlines of water courses and the shore line of Oswego Lake unless such boundary lines are otherwise fixed on the City zoning map. (Ord. No. 1851, Sec. 1; 11-16-82.) 2. The boundaries of an RP or RC District shall be determined as provided in LOC Article 48.175Q (. (Ord. No. 2148, Amended, 07/22/97) Section.._59.t0.5'.020 Section 48.02.090 Zoning of Annexed Areas. 1. Zoning designations on newly annexed territories shall be imposed as provided in LOC 49.62.1€ 0( 50,OS.Q25, 2. The City may consider the zoning for any area considered for annexation at the Page 43 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code same time the question of annexation for the area is considered. The notice and hearing procedures shall be the same as if the area in question were located within the City limits. The zoning decision shall not be a final decision for the purposes of judicial review until the date that the approval of the annexation of the area has become effective, or the date of the zoning order if that date is later in time. (Ord. No. 1851, Sec. 1; 11-16-82.) (Ord. No. 2148, Amended, 07/22/97) ZoMng-N4*p-nnd Arneoidme -is Upon Annexation An e% , s Section 50,05.025 Section 49.62.1600 Comprehensive Plan Map Designations Automatically Applied Upon Annexations; Exceptions. 1. The Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan Map provides for the future City zoning of all property within the City's Urban Service Boundary. In cases where the Comprehensive Plan Map requires a specific Zoning Map Designation to be placed on territory annexed to the City of Lake Oswego, such a zoning designation shall automatically be imposed on territory as of the effective date of the ordinance annexing such territory to the City. The Plantiing DireetoiCity Manua shall modify the zoning map accordingly. In cases where the Comprehensive Plan Map does not require a specific Zoning Map Designation to be place on territory annexed to the City, the Rlatit-- leetetty Manager shall prepare an application and recommend a specific Zoning Map Designation to the Planning Commission with all due speed following the effective date of an ordinance annexing such territory to the City of Lake Oswego. The Planning Commission shall hear the application pursuant to LOC 49.60.15095075.,x. 2. Where the Comprehensive Plan Map indicates an RP or RC District Designation on territory proposed for annexation, the City shall notify the owners of the annexing territory that they have 15 days from the date of the annexation to request a hearing on the designation pursuant to LOC Article 48.17 Q 6. No fee shall be charged for such review. If following review, the decision maker determines the property was improperly designated, the RP or RC designation shall be removed. 3. When evidence indicates that a resource that potentially qualifies for an RP or RC District Designation exists on territory to be annexed, the City may conduct an ESEE Analysis and determine whether such a zone should be imposed pursuant to LOC Article 48.175D,,U. City staff may request a delay in the effective date of annexation to complete review. (Ord. No. 2088, Enacted, 03-03-94; Ord. No. 2148, Amended, 07-22-97. Ord. 2231, Page 44 - Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code Amended 03/21/2000) Page 45 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code Residential Zones Article 54,,Q Residential - Medium and High Density R-0, R-2, R-3, R-5, WR Zones. ■ ■N■ / /// ■ /i ■ II/■ ��ii4��/���Yti=ii�iimC>S13�Cciir+i��ir�t��l�'�i�iili:■ i1�tiC�a:�iE3i�iiiai� ■1i�hi•��iC 6i�'OI�i90■11/111111111 Is��:iiiloii��(� �O: ia�ilih0l•3�65tllii,� • of • it wouldmake• sav that it is referred to as medium• Sections: 48.04.120 Permitted Uses; R-0, R-2, R-3, and 11-5 Zones. 48.04.125 Conditional Uses: R-0, R-2, R-3, R-5 Zones. 48.04.127 Permitted Uses in WR Zone. 48.04.130 Maximum Density, Density Bonus. 48.04.132 Minimum Density. 48.04.135 Lot Size, Density Transfer. 48.04.140 Lot Coverage. 48.04.145 Unified Site Plan Required. 48.04.150 Setbacks, Buffers. 48.04.155 Height of Structures. [Cross -Reference; Scc West Lake sign Distdgi for West hake Grove WLR 9C/R-2.5;=QC/1\1C.22.5 wnd R -2.5/W zones� �ectign,5U.06.UU5 ,__,___Pur�psg (Reserved) section 50.06.010 Section 48.04.120 Permitted Uses; R-0, R-2, R-3, and R-5 Zones. Uses permitted in the R-0, R-2, R-3, and R-5 zones are as follows: 1. a. Except in the R-2 zone, any type of dwelling unit. b. In the R-2 Zone, the following types of dwelling unit are permitted: i. Single family detached dwellings. ii. Row house dwellings. iii. Zero lot line dwellings. iv. Duplexes. Single family detached dwellings and accessory structures associated with Page 46 – Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code such dwellings located within the boundaries of the First Addition Neighborhood Association, as they now exist or hereafter may be amended by ordinance of the City Council, shall be developed and altered pursuant to the standards for such dwellings contained in LOC 48:05.03050.07.025(2) and (4), 48.05.0455,,.:07,.Q4Q, 48.05:030 42.04, and 48.03-070SQ07. _. 2. Non -Profit social, recreational, educational or cultural facilities and uses such as open space, recreational sites, view points, community centers, swimming pools, tennis courts, and similar uses associated with a planned development, designed and intended for use by residents of the development. 3. Minor public facilities, including collocated telecommunications facilities but excluding new telecommunications facilities. 4. Home occupations. 5. Cluster developments. 6. Group care facilities. 7. Mobile home parks and subdivisions. 8. Secondary dwelling unit (associated with detached single-family dwelling unit only). 9. Special use housing. 10. Family Day Care Facility. (Ord. No. 1851, Sec. 1; 11-16-82. Ord. No. 1882, Sec. 3; 3-6-84. Ord. No. 1980, Sec. 2, 2-07-89.) (Ord. No. 2096, Amended, 06/21/94; Ord. No. 2143, Amended, 12/18/96; Ord. No. 2149, Amended, 04/17/97. Ord. No. 2195, Amended, 07/20/99) [Cross Reference: Accema Structures in R-6 Zone — 50 07.045] Section 5(1..510.010 Section 48.04.125 Conditional Uses: R-0, R-2, R-3, R-5 Zones. Conditional uses in the R-0, R-2, R-3 and R-5 zones are as follows: 1. Request for up to a 25% density bonus for public agency rental housing projects (not special use housing or secondary dwelling units). 2. Major public facilities. 3. Nursing and convalescent homes. 4. Institutional uses. 5. Social, recreational, or cultural facilities, such as swimming pools, recreation centers, or community centers, operated by a non-profit organization made up of a homeowners association or associations, neighborhood groups or an association of such groups or neighbors. 6. New telecommunications facilities. 7. Non-profit office uses in structures on the City's Historical Landmarks List which are located on arterial streets. For the purposes of this section, "office uses" include business and management services, except for medical or dental offices. (Ord. No. 1851, Sec. 1; 11-16-82. Ord. No. 1882, Sec. 4; 3-6-84.) (Ord. No. 2096, Amended, 06/21/94; Ord. No. 2143, Amended, 12/18/96; Ord. No. 2149, Amended, 04/17/97; Ord. No. 2167, Amended, 05/19/98) [Cl'_4SS__$4CSe Specific SlandKds for Conditional se in the2 Zone — 5 ).h�.0, Page 47 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code Sectio"4.06.015 Section 48.04.127 Permitted Uses in WR Zone. The only uses permitted in the WR zone are single-family dwellings or cluster developments erected on piling over the water of Lake -,-Oswego. (Ord. No. 1851, Sec. 1; 11-16-82.) Section 50.06.020 Section 48.04.130 Maximum Density, Density Bonus. 1. (a) The maximum density for each site in the R-0, R-2, R-3, R-5 and WR zones, expressed in number of dwelling units per net developable acre is computed by dividing the net developable acreage by the minimum lot area per unit and rounding down to the nearest whole number. (b) The actual density allowed on a site will be determined at the time of development review, . Maximum density will be allowed to the extent that facts presented to the hearings body show that development at that density can occur within requirements set forth in the Development Standards. 2. The maximum density in the R-0, R-2, R-3, R-5 and WR zones may be increased if specifically allowed by the terms of ihi9 cr l�- — _ The maximum density bonus will be determined by the specific applicable Code provision. However, the total number of allowable units shall not exceed by more than 25% the number of units allowed in the zone, or allowed by the special use housing provisions. (LOC 48.22.595). (Ord. No. 1851, Sec. 1; 11-16-82. Ord. No. 1882, Sec. 5; 3-6-84.) (Ord. No. 2143, Amended, 12/18/96) xQss-reference: See also 50,9�QS4. — Method of Calculati a Allowable Den ill Section 48.04.132 Minimum Density. When lots are created through a partition or subdivision, a minimum density of 80% of the maximum density permitted by the zone is required on parcels of one-half acre or larger in the R-3 and R-5 zones. For purposes of this section, the number of lots required shall be determined by multiplying the maximum density, exclusive of potentially allowable density transfer, by .8. The result shall be rounded up for any product with a fraction of .5 or greater and rounded down for any product with a fraction of less than .5. (Ord. No. 2147, Enacted, 03/18/97) Section 50.06.03.0 Section 48.04.135 Lot Size, Density Transfer. 1. The minimum lot area for each dwelling unit is as follows: Zone Area R-0 no minimum, FAR not to exceed 1.2 Page 48 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code R-2 no minimum, FAR not to exceed 1.2,-.:, ] , R-3 3,375 sq. ft. R-5 5,000 sq. ft. WR 3,375 sq. ft. 2. For projects in all five zones which are reviewed for approval as planned developments, pursuant to LOC 48.18.470 to 48.18.485, there is no required minimum lot area. Units may be placed on any portion of the site as long as the project complies with other requirements of ihis e hpterlkll�Q& and LOC Chapters 45 and 49. 3. For projects on properties subject to an RP or RC District Designation, lot areas may be modified as provided in LOC '' °-.�T 1550_16.04 . (Ord. No. 1851, Sec. 1; 11-16-82.) (Ord. No. 2143, Amended, 12/18/96; Ord. No. 2148, Amended, 07/22/97) st�4... Section 48.04.140 Lot Coverage. Maximum lot coverage for buildings and required parking are as follows: Zone R-0 60% R-2 35% single family detached (excluding parking) 55% row house (excluding parking) 55% duplex (excluding parking) R-3 50% R-5 50% attached 30% detached new construction (excluding parking) 35% detached other than new construction WR 100% subject to compliance with LOC Chapter 45 Building Regulation Requirements (Ord. No. 1851, Sec. 1; 11-16-82. Ord. No. 2027, Sec. 1; 04-02-91. Ord. No. 2053, Sec. 2; 04-07-92.) (Ord. No. 2143, Amended, 12/18/96) Sest�.oa:59.Q�.044 Section 48.04.145 Unified Site Plan Required. All development in the R-0, R-2, R-3, and WR zones and attached development in the R-5 zone will be developed under a unified site plan. The site plan will identify circulation patterns, method of the provision of public services and general placement of lots and structures. Proposals with multiple ownerships shall include a written agreement of all owners that development of the site will occur pursuant to the site plan approved. (Ord. No. 1851, Sec. 1; 11-16-82. Ord. No. 2027, Sec. 1; 4-02-91.) (Ord. No. 2143, Amended, 12/18/96) Sect .on -50.0-6.0-45 Page 49 - Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code Section 48.04.150 Setbacks, Buffers. I . a. Except as otherwise provided in this section, LOC 4944-.H-950,16,040__ of LOC 48.29.-53550,22,010 50,22.025. 5022 030 or 50 22 035, the following setbacks are required for new construction in the R-0, R-3 and R-5 zones: Dwelling Type Front Side Rear .Attached 10' 10' (exterior wall) 10' 0' (attached wall) Detached 20' 10' 20' b. Except as otherwise provided in this section or LOC 4544-.,S45 50.22 9.1221 5._QZ430 or 50.22 0, the required setback in the R-0, R-3 and R-5 zones for alteration that does not qualify as new construction is 10 feet. c. Except as otherwise provided in this section or LOC 4&.4444-S-50.22.010, ,43%_Qt5SU2 3_5, the following setbacks are required in the R-2 zone: Dwelling Type Front Side Rear Duplex 10' 7' (exterior wall) 10' 0' (attached wall) Zero -lot line 10' 7' (exterior wall) 10' 0' (attached wall) Row house 10, 7' (exterior wall) 10' 0' (attached wall) Detached 20' [see subsection 1(d)] 20' d. Side yard Setbacks for Detached Structures in R-2 Zone: i. Single story structures 5 feet ii. Multi -story structures 15 feet cumulative, 5 feet minimum on a side [but see subsection 1(e)]. e. A multi -story detached structure in the R-2 Zone may have a smaller cumulative side yard setback than required in subsection I(d)(ii) where the ground floor is setback a minimum of 5 feet and the remainder of the structure is stepped back from the side building line by at least four feet on each side. 2. Structures shall be setback from a street right-of-way line a minimum of 10 feet, or such greater distance not to exceed the height of the principal structure necessary to accommodate off street parking or provide visual or sound buffering from arterial and collector streets. 3. The Development Review Commission may increase required setbacks as necessary to achieve compliance with the Development Standards-w4opied pursuant to LOG Gh. 49 Development Standards are now part of this Code Page 50 -- Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code 4. a. Where a lot zoned R-0, 3 or 5 abuts a lot with a zone other than R-0, 3 or 5, a setback shall be established on the lot zoned R-0, 3 or 5 of a depth of at least the height of the principal building on the lot zoned R-0, 3 or 5. b. Where a lot zoned R-2 abuts a lot in the R-6, R-7.5, R-10 or R-15 zone, the setback of the abutting yard on the lot zoned R-2 shall be the setback required for such yard in the abutting lower density zone. 5. When a new development or the expansion or reconstruction of an existing development occurs in a R-0, 3 or 5 zone which abuts an existing less intensive residential use, a setback shall be established on the lot zoned R-0, 3 or 5 of a depth of at least the height of the principal building on the lot zoned R-0, 3 or 5. 6. There are no setbacks required in the WR zone, subject to compliance with LOC Ch. 45 Building Regulation requirements. 7. Front lot lines on corner lots may face either street. The City Manager shall determine the front lot line after taking into consideration the orientation of structures on the site and nearby lots, the ability to meet setbacks without variances and physical site or solar access limitations. Street access should be local streets. 8. Setbacks required by this section may be reduced pursuant to the provisions of LOC 57.06.090 without the need to receive a variance pursuant toelrnRtkh..__Qe. (Ord. No. 1851, Sec. 1; 11-16-82. Ord. No. 1908, Sec. 1; 2-19-85. Ord. No. 1974, Sec. 2; 10-18-88. Ord. No. 2053, Sec. 3, 04-07-92.) (Ord. No. 2091, Amended, 04/19/94; Ord. No. 2143, Amended, 12/18/96; Ord. No. 2148, Amended, 07/22/97) . III Iff JJ SectiwLS U6150 Section 48.04.155 Height of Structures. 1. a. On a lot or lots being developed as one project of 1/2 acre or greater in total area for the R-0 and R-3 zones and attached development in the R-5 zone, the structure height may average 40 feet over the entire site with no individual structure exceeding 50 feet. b. On a lot or lots being developed as one project of 1/2 acre or greater in total area for the R-2 zone, the structure height may average 32 feet over the entire site with no individual structure exceeding 35 feet. 2. a. On lots of less than 1/2 acre, or for detached residential structures in the R-0, R-3 and R-5 zones, the height of a structure which qualifies as new construction shall not exceed 28 feet on flat lots or 35 feet on sloped lots. The height of an alteration that does not qualify as new construction shall not exceed 35 feet on flat or sloped lots. b. On lots less than 1/2 acre, or for detached residential structures in the R-2 zone, the height of a structure shall not exceed 28 feet on flat lots or 35 feet on slopped lots. 3. A structure that qualifies as new construction shall not exceed a height of 28 feet on flat lots or 35 feet on sloped lots on any lot in the R-0, 3 or 5 zones if the structure is closer than 60 feet to a lot carrying a residential designation other than R-0, 3 or 5. The height of alteration that does not qualify as new construction shall not exceed 35 feet on flat or sloped lots in the same circumstance. 4. No structure in the WR zone can exceed 24 feet in height. Height is measured Page 51 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code from the surface of the water. (Ord. No. 1851, Sec. 1; 11-16-82. Ord. No. 2027, Sec. 1; 04-02-91. Ord. No. 2053, Sec. 4; 04-07-92.) (Ord. No. 2099, Amended, 08/01/94; Ord. No. 2143, Amended, 12/18/96; Ord. No. 2148, Amended, 07/22/97) Hight Limitation: see ajso_50_45.010(1���_��Q�-_sn�le��il�y dvv�jji�s Height Measure: See also 50.18.005 and 50.18.010 for First Addition and the Lake Grove Building Height and Roof Pitch Overlay Page 52 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code Residenfik- First Addition Zoning District (R-6). Sections: 48.05.010 Purpose. 48.05.015 Permitted Uses. 48.05.020 Conditional Uses. 48.05.025 Lot Size, Lot Dimensions, Density Transfer. 48.05.030 Setbacks. 48.05.035 Height of Primary Structures. 48.05.040 Lot Coverage/Floor Area Ratios. 48.05.045 Single Family Dwelling Design. 48.05.050 Accessory Structures. 48.05.05.5 Parking. 48.05.060 Alleys. 48.05.065 Street Trees. 48.05.070 Administrative Modification. 48.05.075 FAN Advisory Opinion. Section �.4,47,4.4� Section 48.05.010 Purpose. The FAN R-6 7erritig-13+stfiet- Qi1 _is intended to implement the land use policies of the First Addition Neighborhood Plan. The purpose of this Distriet-Zone is to ensure the design quality of proposed development in the neighborhood by: 1. Ensuring that proposed building designs are visually compatible with the character of existing structures, maintain adequate light and air between structures, and complement the neighborhood's architectural character. 2. Minimizing the visual impact of garages from the street, and to continue established alley uses and functions such as access to garages, off-street parking and trash removal. 3. Encouraging compatible and sensitive remodeling and renovation of existing residences. 4. Preserving the small-town character of the existing streetscape by allowing single family development that is human scale and pedestrian oriented. 5. Enhancing the natural environment of the neighborhood as one of its dominant characteristics. 6. Preserving FAN's historical and architectural character by encouraging infill development that is compatible in design character to Landmark structures on abutting lots. Page 53 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code (Ord. No. 2143, Enacted, 12/18/96) "Zoning District" and "District" has been changed to "Zone" for consistency with other zones, and to contrast it with the use of "districts" for overlay districts and design districts. Section 50.07,414 Section 48.05.015 Permitted Uses. Uses permitted in the R-6 zone are as follows: I . One single family dwelling per lot. 2. Zero lot line dwellings. 3. Raising of produce provided no sales office is maintained on the lot. 4. Animals kept for owner's use with no commercial activity allowed. 5. Home occupations. 6. Minor public facilities, including collocated telecommunications facilities but excluding new telecommunications facilities. 7. Cluster developments. 8. Group care facilities. 9. One secondary dwelling unit per lot. 10. Special use housing. 11. Family day care facility. (Ord. No. 2143, Enacted, 12/18/96; Ord. No. 2149, Amended, 04/17/97) Section 50.07.015 Section 48.05.020 Conditional Uses. Uses Allowed. Conditional uses in the R-6 zone are as follows: 1. Institutional uses. 2. Major public facilities. 3. Private recreational uses that are predominately of an open space character, such as golf courses, hunt clubs, or other similar uses. 4. New telecommunications facilities. 5. Non-profit office uses in structures on the City's Historical Landmarks List which are located on arterial streets. For the purposes of this section, "office uses" include business and management services, except for medical or dental offices. (Ord. No. 2143, Enacted, 12/18/96; Ord. No. 2149, Amended, 04/17/97; Ord. No. 2167, Amended, 05/19/98) Cross Rcfur :=,� ecific St ands for Cunditi�ual l'scs in tl�c R (� /.unr 50.09.0901 Section 48.05.025 Lot Size, Lot Dimensions, Density Transfer. 1. Except as otherwise provided in this section, the mininnum lot size and Page 54 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code dimensions in the R-6 Zone are as follows: a. Minimum lot area per single family unit: 6,000 sq. ft. b. Minimum lot width at the building line: 50 feet c. Minimum lot depth: 100 feet. 2. Lot sizes and dimensions may be reduced for projects reviewed as planned developments, pursuant to Agip 50.17, and as provided by subsection (3) of this section. However, the overall density allowed on the site may not be exceeded except as allowed by LOC 48:455QA._Q2Q(2) and subsection (3) of this section. 3. Up to a 25% reduction in minimum required lot area for each dwelling unit shall be allowed in the R-6 zone to permit the relocation of a designated historic landmark, when relocation has been approved by the designated hearing body in conformance with the provisions of LOC Chapter 58. 4. For projects on properties subject to an RP or RC designation, lot areas may be modified as provided in LOC 48.17.11✓SO1f�Q_�. (Ord. No. 2143, Enacted, 12/18/96; Ord. No. 2148, Amended, 07/22/97) Ct ss- eferell�e: See also SQ,42� 50 - MethQcl_Q Ming Allowable DSn4i y Section 50.07.025 Section 48.05.030 Setbacks. 1. Except as otherwise provided in this section, LOC 48,17.11A�ji _.Q4Q 50.21010. 5 .2� 2.0?5. or 144G 50.22.030. or 50,22.035, the following minimum setbacks are required for development in the R-6 zone. a. Front Yard: 20 feet. b. Side Yard Adjacent to a Street: 20 feet on arterials and collectors. 10 feet on local streets. c. Other Side Yards: i. Single Story Structures: 5 feet. ii. Multi -Story Structures: 15 feet cumulative, 5 feet minimum on a side, except as provide in subsection 3 of this section. d. Rear Yards: 20 feet. 2. A projecting covered front porch may extend into the Front yard setback up to 6 feet. 3. A multi -story structure may have a smaller side yard setback than required in subsection 1(c)(ii) of this section where the ground floor is setback a minimum of 5 feet and the remainder of the structure is stepped back from the side building line by at least Page 55 - Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code four feet on each side. 4. Eaves, bay windows, chimneys and other decorative features that do not expand the plane of the primary exterior wall may extend into the setback areas as long as minimum fire code distances are met. (Ord. No. 2143, Enacted, 12/18/96; Ord. No. 2148, Amended, 07/22/97) SWI 54,QZ44 Section 48.05.035 Height of Primary Structures. Primary Structures shall not exceed 28 feet in height. (Ord. No. 2143, Enacted, 12/18/96) Cross Reference: Height Measure: See also 50.18.005 and 50.18.010 for First Addition and the Lake Grove Building Height and Roof Pitch Overlay 5gs4n :0.47,43,4 Section 48.05.040 Lot Coverage/Floor Area Ratios. 1. Structures on lots of 6,000 square feet or less shall not exceed 35 percent in total lot coverage and shall not exceed a 0.51. Floor Area Ratio (FAR). PC Member Beebe thought that expressing FAR in terms of it ratio was more understandable. 2. For lots from 6001 square feet to 15,000 square feet, the percentage of allowable lot coverage shall be reduced by 1% and the allowable total FAR shall be reduced by .02 1.. for each 1-1000 square foot increment that the lot exceeds 6,000 square feet. PC Member Beebe thought that expressing FAR in terms of a ratio was more understandable. 3. For lots larger than 15,000 square feet, maximum allowable lot coverage shall be 25% and the maximum allowable FAR shall be .3.;=L. PC Member Beebe thought that expressing FAR in terms of a ratio was more understandable. 4. Decks less than 5 feet above grade, stairs, pergolas, trellises or other landscaping structures, and concrete slabs shall be exempt from lot coverage and FAR calculations. 5. No more than 60% of the lot may be covered with impervious surfaces. (Ord. No. 2143, Enacted, 12/18/96) Section 50.07.040_ Section 48.05.045 Single Family Dss elling Design. Page 56 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Codc 1. Roof Design. The minimum roof pitch for primary roof forms of a single family dwelling shall be 6:12. Shed type and flat roofs are not permitted as primary roof forms on single family dwellings. Secondary roof forms, such as sunrooms, balconies, dormers, porticos, or bays may be flat or shed roof types (See T "n BL- 2. Front Porch Required. All new dwellings shall include a projecting covered front porch a minimum width of 50% of the building width at the front building line and six feet deep. Porch supports shall be provided and shall be wood or masonry or a solid material with the appearance of wood or masonry. (Ord. No. 2143, Enacted, 12/18/96) Cross Reference: Roof Pitch: See also 50.18.005 and 50.18.010 for First Addition and the Lake Grove Building Height and Roof Pitch Overlay Section 5Q.07,045 Section 48.05.050 Accessory Structures 1. In General: a. Floor Area: A single accessory building shall not exceed 600 sq. ft. in ground floor area or the square footage of the ground floor area of the primary structure, whichever is less. b. Height: The maximum height of an accessory structure shall be 24*, except that no accessory structure shall be taller than the primary structure. c. Setbacks: The side and rear setbacks for an accessory structure no more than 15 feet tall shall be 5 feet. Taller accessory structures shall meet the setback requirements of the primary structure. Accessory structures on abutting lots may not be built with common party walls. d. Roof: Roof pitch on an accessory structure shall either match the pitch of the primary structure or be a minimum pitch of 6:12. 2. Gar_ ages. In addition to compliance with subsection 1 of this section, a garage shall comply with the following requirements. a. Garages shall be accessed from an alley, if available. b. For interior lots, garages shall be located so that the side of the garage facing the street is set back a minimum of 15 feet behind the front building line of the house excludin See T"B1 � ( g a porch). ). _ ^8 " ( t1zpt_Q�47_-0. c. Detached garages may be set back a minimum of 5 feet from alleys. 3. This section shall not apply to secondary dwelling units, which shall be governed by the requirements for the primary structure and LOC 4.804750,34 Q10.(Ord. No. 2143, Enacted, 12/18/96) Section -59,07, 050 Section 48.05.055 Parking. 1. Required off street parking spaces shall be paved with concrete, masonry, asphalt, gravel, grasscrete products or a combination of listed materials. 2. Defined parking areas may be created anywhere between the abutting property line and 3 feet from the edge of the existing paved travel lane, except that a designated parking area shall not conflict with an existing pedestrian walkway. If this area is Page 57 - Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code currently paved with asphalt or other hard surface material, it may remain hard surfaced. Otherwise, on street parking shall be paved with gravel.(Ord. No. 2143, Enacted, 12/18/96) SI A -S.4 AM Section 48.05.060 Alleys. Alleys shall be surfaced in the following manner: 1. Alleys that serve single family residences only shall be paved with gravel or permeable material. 2. Alleys that serve commercial, multi -family, town house, row house, or duplex development or institutional uses shall be paved with asphalt or concrete. (Ord. No. 2143, Enacted, 12/18/96) SWen,_VX60 Section 48.05.065 Street Trees. Two (2) street trees for every 50 feet of street frontage are required as a condition of approval of a new structure. Existing street trees can be counted in order to comply with this requirement, as long as the type, location and viability of the existing trees are sufficient to provide a full streetscape of trees. (Ord. No. 2143, Enacted, 12/18/96) Section 48.05.070 Administrative Modification. 1. Notwithstanding LOC Article 48.2450.68 (Variances), the Planning Direet(o. Up p may grant an administrative modification to the lot coverage, height, front, rear and side yard setback requirements of the underlying zone, in the following amounts: a. Lot coverage: Up to 200 sq. ft. b. Front Yard Setback: Up to 2 feet. c. Garage front yard setback: Up to 10 feet 2. The granting authority may grant an administrative modification pursuant to 1(a), (b) or (c), above, if: a. The proposed development makes desirable visual linkages between surrounding buildings by repeating or incorporating similar ridge lines, eaves, window and door openings; or b. The requested modification results in a development that is designed more compatibly with the topography and/or physical limitations of the site; or c. The requested modification will enhance or better protect a significant natural feature(s) on the site (9NA&Q Qycirlav districts. buffer, tree, Wee grove or ); or The DNA (Designated Natural Area) has been replaced with the Sensitive Land Overlay of RP (Resource Protection) and RC (Recourse Conservation) designations. Page 58 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code d. The proposed development provides visual continuity and cohesiveness with any abutting historic landmarks through the incorporation of style features, proportions and massing of the landmark structure. 3. An administrative modification shall be processed as a minor development pursuant to the review procedures for minor development contained in LOC fester 49Article 59.79. (Ord. No. 2143, Enacted, 12/18/96) Section 50.07.014 Section 48.05.075 FAN Advisory Opinion. The City Manager may request an advisory opinion from the First Addition Neighborhood Association regarding interpretation or application of standards and requirements of the R-6 zone. (Ord. No. 2143, Enacted, 12/18/96) [Cross -Reference: none. Page 59 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code Article 48.0650M Residential - ,114ed*um and -Low Density R-7.5, R-10, R-15 Zones. �® 00=00 ®®0770]00 =®0 Deleted "medium" because under the comp plan, these are_all low density. 0®®® Hyphen -.added after "residential" for consistency with other zone designations; "Zones" added to indicate that this is about zones, and for consistency Sections: 48.06.195 Permitted Uses; R-7.5, R-10, R-15 Zones. 48.06.200 Conditional Uses; R-7.5, R-10, R-15 Zones. 48.06.205 Maximum Density, Density Bonus. 48.06.210 Lot Size; Lot Dimensions; Density Transfer. 48.06.215 Setbacks. 48.06.220 Height Limits. 48.06.225 Lot Coverage. 50.08.095.-- -Purpose (ReserYed) 50.08.014 Section 48.06.195 Permitted Uses; R-7.5, R-10, R-15 Zones. Uses permitted in the R-7.5, R-10 and R-15 zones are as follows: 1. One single family dwelling per lot. Single family detached dwellings and accessory structures associated with such dwellings located within the boundaries of the First Addition Neighborhood Association, as they now exist or hereafter may be amended by ordinance of the City Council, shall be developed and altered pursuant to the standards for such dwellings contained in LOC 4805.0305Q,97 _(2) and (4), SQ2&M, 48.05.04 0,9_L,�, and 48:03 070�Q,QZ._Q.;zS. 2. Zero lot line dwellings. 3. Raising of produce, provided no sales office is maintained on the lot. 4. Animals kept for owner's use with no commercial activity allowed. Large animals are permitted only in the R-10, R-15 zones and only under the following conditions: a. The lot area shall be a minimum of one acre. The total number of large animals allowed on a specific property shall be determined by dividing the total area of the property by 15,000 square feet per animal over the age of six months. b. Animal runs or barns shall not be closer than 70 feet from the front property line and not closer than 35 feet from a side or rear property line. c. Animals shall be properly housed and proper sanitation shall be maintained with food, other than hay or fodder, stored in metal or other rodent -proof receptacles. Page 60 -- Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code 5. Home occupation. 6. Minor public facilities, including collocated telecommunications facilities but excluding new telecommunications facilities. 7. Cluster developments. 8. Group care facilities. 9. One secondary dwelling unit per lot. 10. Special use housing. 11. Family day care facility. (Ord. No. 1851, Sec. l; 11-16-82. Ord. No. 1882, Sec. 6; 3-6-84. Ord. No. 1980, Sec. 3; 2-07-89.) (Ord. No. 2143, Amended, 12/18/96; Ord. No. 2149, Amended, 04/17/97, Ord. No. 2195, Amended, 07/20/99) 50.08.015 Section 48.06.200 Conditional Uses; R-7.5, R-10, R-15 Zones. Conditional uses in the R-7.5, R-10 and R- 15 zones are as follows: 1. Institutional uses. 2. Golf course, hunt club, or other similar open land private recreational uses. 3. Major public facilities. 4. New Telecommunications Facilities. 5. Non-profit office uses in structures on the City's Historical Landmarks List which are located on arterial streets. For the purposes of this section, "office uses" include business and management services, except for medical or dental offices. (Ord. No. 1851, Sec. 1; 11-16-82. Ord. No. 1882, Sec. 7; 3-6-84.) (Ord. No. 2149, Amended, 04/17/97; Ord. No. 2167, Amended, 05/19/98) 5048 020 Section 48.06.205 Maximum Density, Density Bonus. 1. (a) The maximum density for each site in the R-7.5, R-10, and R-15 zones, expressed in number of dwelling units per net developable acre is computed by dividing the net developable acreage by the minimum lot area per unit and rounding down to the nearest whole number. (b) The actual density allowed on a site will be determined at the time of development review, . Maximum, density will be allowed to the extent that facts presented to the hearings body show that development at that density can occur within requirements set forth in the Development Standards. 2. The maximum density in the R-7.5, R-10 and R-15 zones may be increased if specifically allowed by the terms of this ehapteq]1t��Q�. 9. The maximum density bonus will be determined by the specific applicable Code provision. However, the total number of allowable units shall not exceed by more than 25% the number of units allowed in the zone, or allowed by the special use housing provisions. (LOC 48.22.595) (Ord. No. 1851, Sec. 1; 11-16-82. Ord. No. 1882, Sec. 8; 3-6-84.) ss -Ref retic S t e hQ Qf Ca cid izaa 114watilc Tien ity SQ,48.425 Page 61 - Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code Section 48.06.210 Lot Size; Lot Dimensions; Density Transfer. 1. Except as otherwise provided in this section, the minimum lot area for each dwelling unit and minimum lot dimensions for each zone are as follows: Lot Area Lot Width at Lot Zone Lot Area Building Line Depth R-7.5 7,500 sq. ft. 50' 100' R-10 10,000 sq. ft. 65' 100' R-15 15,000 sq. ft. 80' 100' 2. Lot sizes and dimensions may be reduced for projects reviewed as planned developments, pursuant to Article_ 5917, and as provided by subsection (3) of this section. However, the overall density allowed on the site may not be exceeded except as allowed by LOC 48.06:20550,0%Q20_(2) and subsection (3) of this section. 3. Up to a 25% reduction in minimum required lot area for each dwelling unit shall be allowed in the R-7.5, R-10 and R-15 zones to permit the relocation of a designated historic landmark, when relocation has been approved by the designated hearing body in conformance with the provisions of LOC Ch. 58. 4. For projects on properties subject to an RP or modified as provided in LOC 49.17.11550_16.045. (Ord. No. 1851, Sec. 1; 11-16-82. Editorial change 2, 3-14-90.) (Ord. No. 2148, Amended, 07/22/97) 50.08,030 Section 48.06.215 Setbacks. RC designation, lot areas may be 1-15-85. Ord. No. 2007, Secs. 1 & 1. a. Except as otherwise provided in this section, LOC 48. l 7. H (5Q.J-6,_Q40 , S012 .22,025, , the following setbacks are required for new construction in each zone: Zone Front Yard Ad.acent to a Street R-7.5 25 feet 20' on arterial and collector 10' on local streets R-10 25 feet 20' on arterial and collector 15' on local streets R-15 1 25 feet I 20' on arterial and collector 15' on local streets Zone Other Side Rear Yards Yards Page 62 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code R-7.5 10 feet 30 feet R-10 15 feet 30 feet R-15 15 feet 30 feet b. Except as otherwise provided in this section, or LOC 48.0: —3-5 2 . 50,22,025, 50,22.030 or 50.22.035, the following setbacks are required for in each zone for an alteration that does not qualify as new construction: Zone Front Yard Adjacent to a Street R-7.5 25 feet 20' on arterial and collector R-7.5 5 ft. 10' on local streets minimum R-10 25 feet 20' on arterial and collector combined 10' on local streets width 15 R-15 25 feet 20' on arterial and collector R-10 10 feet 10' on local streets Zone Other Side Rear Yards Yards R-7.5 5 ft. 25 feet minimum width, total combined width 15 feet R-10 10 feet 25 feet R-15 10 feet 25 feet 2. Zone lot line units must comply with all required setbacks except for the area of the common wall or walls. 3. Setbacks for a planned development will be determined at the time of review pursuant toLOG 48.18.470 to 48.18f t1__.1�17. The maximum setback that can be required by the Board is 35'. 4. Front lot lines on corner lots may face either street. The City Manager shall determine the front lot line after taking into consideration the orientation of structures on the site and nearby lots, the ability to meet setbacks without variances, and physical site or solar access limitations. Street access should be to local streets. 5. Setbacks required by this section may be reduced pursuant to the provisions of LOC 57.06.090 without the need to receive a variance pursuant to thiy�t4edh ,Cp ie. (Ord. No. 1851, Sec. 1; 11-16-82. Ord. No. 1908, Sec. 1; 2-19-85. Ord. No. 1974, Sec. 3; 10-18-88. Ord. No. 2027, Sec. 1; 04-02-91. Ord. No. 2053, Sec. 5; 04-07-92.) (Ord. No. 2148, Amended, 07/22/97) Page 63 – Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code 5U08.035 Section 48.06.220 Height Limits. 1. R-7.5: New construction shall not exceed 28 feet in height on a flat lot or 35 feet on a sloped lot. An alteration that does not qualify as new construction shall not exceed 35 feet in height on a flat or a sloped lot. 2. R-10: New construction shall not exceed 30 feet in height on a flat lot or 35 feet on a sloped lot. An alteration that does not qualify as new construction shall not exceed 35 feet on a flat or a sloped lot. 3. R-15: New construction shall not exceed 35 feet in height on a flat lot or a sloped lot. An alteration that does not qualify as new construction shall not exceed 35 feet on a flat lot or a sloped lot. (Ord. No. 1851, Sec. 1; 11-16-82. Ord. No. 2053, Sec. 6; 04-07- 92.) (Ord. No. 2099, Amended, 08/01/94) Cross Reference: Height Measure: See also 50.18.005 and 50.18.010 for First Addition and the Lake Grove Building Height and Roof Pitch Overlay X4.4$040 Section 48.06.225 Lot Coverage. 1. Lot coverage shall not exceed the following maximums: Zone % Coverage R-7.5 New Construction: 25% Alteration that does not qualify as new construction: 35%, for interior lot, 40% for corner lot. R-10 New Construction: 25% Alteration that does not qualify as new construction: 30% R-15 New Construction: 25% Alteration that does not qualify as new construction: 30% 2. In cluster developments, lot coverage requirements may be applied with reference to the project as a whole and not on a lot by lot basis. (Ord. No. 1866, Sec. 1; 5-3-83. Ord. No. 2053, Sec. 7; 04-07-92.) [Cr9ss-lRefereoce_. u9nd Page 64 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code Article 48.0850.09 Residenti8l _ Design Distriet (Old Town j?esign Distrlc) p . Lake Oswego now has several design districts, so designating one, in parenthesis, Is no longer appropriate "Residential" added to indicate that this zone was residential (as opposed to mixed use or commercial), and for consistency with other titles to residential zones. "Zone" added to title to indicate that this really is a zone, rather than a design district for which there would be an underlying zone, although I agree that it is odd to have a "design district zone". Nevertheless, currently uses the term "DD zone", which accurately reflects that this is a zone, not a design district. Sections: 48.08.240 Purpose. 48.08.245 Permitted uses. 48.08.2.50 Conditional Uses. 48.08.255 Lot Size, Lot Dimensions, Density. 48.08.260 Setback Requirements, Buffers. 48.08.265 Height of Structure. 48.08.270 Lot Coverage. 48.08.275 Development Review. 48.08.276 Old Town Advisory Opinion. 48.08.280 Allowable Density and Density Transfer. Section 50,0,005 Section 48.08.240 Purpose. 1. The purpose of this disifiet—zoj.ic_,is to assure that single-family homes are protected from noise, light, glare and reduction in privacy to the maximum extent possible during the area's transition to higher density residential use, to facilitate good architectural design and site planning which maintains residential choices of unit size, cost and other amenities and supports the economic feasibility of new construction and development, and to assure protection and compatibility of all land uses, including commercial, residential, park, open space and historic sites. 2. The DD zone is intended for use in low density residential districts which are undergoing transition to increased densities, and which have scenic, historic, natural or residential features which should be preserved and integrated with the new development. (Ord. No. 1851, Sec. l; 11-16-82.) Although there are "zoning districts", there is a distinction between design districts, with underlying zones, and base zones. In this circumstance, it is a zolie — as reflected throughout the text of this chapter, by the use of the reference "DD Page 65 — Drafl December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code zone". Thus the change of "district" to "zone" is for accuracy and consistency. Frankly, it would be better to move away from the use of "design district" (DD) as a designation for a zone, and replace it with another reference, example: Old Town (OT), but we think this should be considered separately from code consolidation because of its effect on the zoning map and the long history of referring to the "DD zone". Section %Q2.00 Section 48.08.245 Permitted uses. Uses penmitted in the DD zone are as follows: 1. Single-family dwelling. 2. Zero lot line dwelling. 3. Duplex. 4. Multiple dwelling. 5. Raising of vegetables and produce, provided no premises. sales office is maintained on the 6. Home occupations. 7. Minor public facilities, including collocated telecommunications facilities but excluding new telecommunications facilities. 8. Request for up to a 25% density bonus for public agency rental housing projects (not special use housing or secondary dwelling units.) 9. Cluster developments. 10. Group care facilities. 11. One secondary dwelling unit per lot. 12. Special use housing. (Ord. No. 1851, Sec. 1; 11-16-82. Ord. No. 1882, Sec. 9; 3-6-84.) (Ord. No. 2149, Amended, 04/17/97) Section _50,04.015 Section 48.08.250 Conditional Uses. Conditional uses in the DD zone are as follows: 1. Institutional uses. 2. Major public facilities. 3. Nursing and convalescent homes. 4. New Telecommunications Facilities. 5. Non-profit office uses in structures on the City's Historical Landmarks List which are located on arterial streets. For the purposes of this section, "office uses" include business and management services, except for medical or dental offices. (Ord. No. 1851, Sec. 1; 11-16-82. Ord. No. 1882, Sec. 10; 3-6-84.) (Ord. No. 2149, Amended, 04/17/97; Ord. No. 2167, Amended, 05/19/98) Section 50,09.014 Section 48.08.255 Lot Size, Lot Dimensions, Density. 1. The minimum lot area shall be 5,000 sq. ft. for single-family dwellings or Page 66 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code duplexes. 2. Except for structures which have been determined by the State or the National Register of Historic Places as being of historic significance, the minimum lot area for a multiple dwelling development shall be 15,000 sq. ft. 3. (a) The maximum density for each site in the Old Town Design District._Z=.., expressed in number of dwelling units per net developable acre is computed by dividing the net developable acreage by 2,000 sq. ft. and rounding down to the nearest whole number. (b) The actual density allowed on a site will be determined at the time of development review, purstiant to 60G Gh 49. Maximum density will be allowed to the extent that facts presented to the hearings body show that development at that density can occur within requirements set forth in the Development Standards. 4. For projects on properties subject to an RP or RC designation, lot areas may be modified as provided in LOC 49.117.1155_0.1f_,_Q4_�. (Ord. No. 1851, Sec. 1; 11-16-82. Ord. No. 1882, Sec. 11; 3-6-84. Ord. No. 1951, Sec. 1; 7-21-87.) (Ord. No. 2148, Amended, 07/22/97) Cr4s i3c�t'�_�__15(? 40��_=i_h4_sQfleuln�llows�hlc D.en.siy The chauge f "iii, trio" Q_�zQ "J fgr accuracy_ D:, �nsi.steney,, SeStiW-NIVAL Section 48.08.260 Setback Requirements, Buffers. 1. Except as otherwise provided in this section or LOC 48.20.5-155D,22 10, 5_9It.025. 50.22=030�or 502.;a, the required setback in the DD zone is 10 feet. 2. Structures shall be setback from a street right-of-way line a minimum of 10 feet, or such greater distance required to accommodate off street parking. Exception: On lots abutting Durham Street, front yard setbacks for new structures may be reduced to 3 feet for up to 50% of the building facade along Durham Street. The remaining 50% of the building may be between 5 feet and 10 feet from the front property line. The design of new structures along Durham Street must be compatible with LODS Section 24 (Old Town Design Standards). 3. The Development Review Commission may increase required setbacks as necessary to achieve compliance with the develol nient—Develop"Ipiit!+ttmdftrd-9 Stan aryl . 4. Where a lot zoned DD abuts a lot zone EC or RO-EC, a setback shall be established on the lot zoned DD of a depth equal to the setback required for the abutting yard in the abutting zone. On the lot zoned DD, a landscaped buffer a minimum of 5 feet in width is required in the setback area abutting the EC or RO-EC zone. The purpose of the landscaped area is to provide a vegetative screen. Plan material used for screening and buffering shall be of a size that will achieve sufficient height within three years of the date of planting to provide adequate screening. 5. a. When a new multi -family development or the expansion or reconstruction o1' Page 67 – Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code an existing multi -family development occurs in a DD zone subject to DRC review as provided in LOC 48-08-2-755M9.020(2)(a)(2)ii) which abuts an existing less intensive residential use, the proposed multifamily structure shall be set back from the boundary of the less intensive use by at least the amount of feet equal to the height of the multi -family structure. b. A setback of 15 feet will be required for new duplex development, or the expansion or reconstruction of an existing duplex development in the DD zone subject to DRC review as provided in LOC �'°.�3 0.79.020(2) (IU)f�-?, when the proposed development: 1) is greater than 28 feet in height, and 2) abuts an existing, less intensive residential use. c. Developments subject to subsection 5(a) or 5(b) of this section shall provide a landscaped area at least five feet wide within the setback area abutting the less intensive use. The purpose of the landscaped area is to provide a vegetative screen. Plant material used for screening and buffering shall be of a size that will achieve sufficient height within 3 years of the date of planting to provide adequate screening. 6. Front lot lines on corner lots may face either street. The City Manager shall determine the front lot line after taking into consideration the orientation of structures on the site and nearby lots, the ability to meet setbacks without variances, and physical site or solar access limitations. Street access should be to local streets. 7. Setbacks required by this section may be reduced pursuant to the provisions of LOC 57.06.090 without the need to receive a variance pursuant to tlri eH t this_Codc. (Ord. No. 1851, Sec. 1; 11-16-82. Ord. No. 1908, Sec. 1; 2-19-85. Ord. No. 1974, Sec. 4; 10-18-88.) (Ord. No. 2091, Amended, 04/19/94; Ord. No. 2148, Amended, 07/22/97; Ord. No. 2156, Amended, 09/16/97; Ord. No. ) Section _5umo Section 48.08.265 Height of Structure. 1. On a lot or lots being developed as one project of 1/2 acre or greater in total area, structures shall not exceed 35 feet in height. Exception: Structure height may average 40 feet over the entire site, with no individual structure exceeding 50 feet in the following circumstances: a. 25% or more of the gross site area is constrained by steep slopes, floodplain or mapped sensitive lands; or b. the development is for a Special Use Housing Project; and c. Structures taller than 35 feet are set back at least 50 feet from a public street. 2. On lots of less than 1/2 acre, the height of a structure shall not exceed 35 feet. 3. No structure shall exceed 35 feet on any lot in the DD zone which is closer than 60 feet to a lot carrying a residential zone other than DD, R-0, 3 or 5. (Ord. No. 1851, Sec. 1; 11-16-82.) (Ord. No. 2156, Amended, 09/16/97; Ord. No. ) C r9 Rcfcrcncc;, tcighl.:Limitat aQa: tt 1w a4.5-0 J 00)(a) Page 68 - Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code Height Measure: See also 50.18.005 and 50.18.010 for First Addition and the Lake Grove Building Height and Roof Pitch Overlay SStion Section 48.08.270 Lot Coverage. 1. Maximum lot coverage for single family, detached dwellings in the DD zone is 35%. 2. Maximum lot coverage (including parking areas) for duplex or zero lot line developments in the DD zone is 60%. 3. The following maximum amounts of impervious surface coverage shall be permitted in the DD zone: Maximum Impermeable Dwelling Type Surface Allowed: Single Family Detached 60% Duplex, zero lot line 65% Multi -family and rowhouse 70% (Ord. No. 1851, Sec. 1; 11-16-82.) (Ord. No. 2091, Amended, 04/19/94; Ord. No. 2129, Amended, 04/02/96; Ord. No. 2156, Amended, 09/16/97; Ord. No. ) Section_54.42,445 Section 48.08.276 Old Town Advisory Opinion. The City Manager may request an advisory opinion from the Old Town Neighborhood Association regarding interpretation or application of standards and requirements of the DD zone. (Ord. No. 2156, Enacted, 09/16/97; Ord. No. ) Page 69 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code Article 48.095Q 10 West Lake Grove Design Overlay District 7on-es. Deleted "overlay" because this is not really an overlay district but base zones Added "zones" to the title because this is not just a design district, but it also establishes 4 underlying zones. Sections: 48.09.005 Purpose. 48.09.010 Office-Commercial/Town Home Residential (OC/R-2.5). 48.09.015 Office Commercial/Neighborhood Commercial (00NC). 48.09.020 Town Home Residential (R-2.5). 48.09.025 Live/Work Zone (R -2.5/W). Section_50�10:4.4.5 Section 48.09.005 Purpose. 1. The purpose of the West Lake Grove Design Overlay- District is to implement the Design District Plan by specifying the zones, permitted land uses, and site development limitations. This article applies to all lands within the boundaries of the Design District (see Article 50_.67 - Figure 1). 2. The purposes of this Design District shall be accomplished through the following zones: West Lake Grove Design District Zoning Designations; Office- Commercial/Town Home Residential (OC/R-2.5); Office-Commercial/Neighborhood Commercial (OC/NC); and Town Home Residential (R-2.5) and Live/Work Residential (R -2.5/W). (Ord. No. 2187, Enacted, 03/16/99) Sc�ti B51M 19 Section 48.09.010 Office-CommerciaUTown Home Residential (0011-2.5). Uses permitted in the OC/ R-2.5 zone area are as follows. a. Residential uses at a net site density of 2,500 square feet/lot area per unit are allowed in conjunction with office uses in the same building. b. Attached, residential town -home uses, subject to the following conditions, in addition to the other provisions of ihis ehitt terlhis Code: i. The minimum net density area for attached town -home housing is 2,500 square feet/lot area per unit. ii. The minimum required lot width shall be 17 feet. The maximum lot coverage shall be 60%, excluding parking. iii. Each unit of attached town -home housing shall be constructed on a separate lot. When a combination of Office -Commercial and attached town -home residential Page 70 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code uses are proposed together on the same site and in separate buildings, the commercial structure(s) shall front on Boones Feng Road. Residential buildings shall occupy the rear portion the parcel which is most proximate to the surrounding residential zoning districts. c. Professional Offices. Offices with limited customer or client traffic intended to attract and serve customers or clients on premises, such as: Attorneys, physicians, dentists, counselors, insurance, travel agents, investment and financial services, real estate, studios (photography, commercial art, advertising), architects, landscape architects, engineers, or other design businesses, research, software development, corporate offices, medical testing laboratories, specialty medical services. d. Services. Elder care, special use housing, assisted and convalescent care. e. Site Development Limitations. i. A single building which provides for any of the permitted uses shall be limited to a total floor area of 8,000 square feet in a multi -story building, with no more than 5,000 square feet on any floor. ii. Setbacks. A. Office Commercial and Office Commercial/Residential structures: Setbacks of structures abutting residential zones 25 ft. Structures shall be set back at least six feet from the meandering pathway or sidewalk along Boones Ferry Road (see _ Alic1G...9-G7 (Figure 2(c)). B. Attached Town Homes Front Setbacks. The following exterior wall setbacks from the property line shall be required: Front (from property line) 10 ft. Rear (abutting a single family residential district) 25 ft. Rear (not abutting a single family residential district) 10 ft. Side (abutting a single family residential district) 25 ft. Side (not abutting a single family residential district) 10 ft. iii. Height of Structures (Measured from grade at the exterior wall of the building to the ridge of the roofline) 35 ft. (Ord. No. 2187, Enacted, 03/16/99) x4 3G�QxFn G _ I hi =1�im1 iQ __ w_Q_ A5.010(1)(41= non-sinele j -oily dw9lLits 5P,r,dQn_5.4,.1.0,015 Section 48.09.015 Office Commercial/Neighborhood Commercial (OC/NC). Uses permitted in the Office Commercial/Neighborhood Commercial(OC/NC) Zone Page 71 – Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code are as follows: a. Professional -Office: i. Offices with limited customer or client traffic intended to attract and serve customers or clients on premises, such as: Attorneys, physicians, dentists, counselors, insurance, travel agents, investment and financial services, real estate, studios (photography, commercial art, advertising), architects, engineers, or other design businesses, research, software development, corporate offices, medical testing laboratories, specialty medical services. ii. A single building which provides for any of the permitted uses shall be limited to a maximum building footprint of 5,000 square feet. b. Services - Educational and Care - limited to 5,000 square feet or less in area: i. Day care, kindergartens, preschools and other private or public educational institutions. ii. Other educational uses associated with private or public institutions. c. Retail Sales - Food, Restaurants and Drinking Places: i. Restaurants - with or without associated lounge: Service of food and beverages shall be primarily to persons seated within the building and designated outdoor areas. The total size of seating area , both in -doors and outdoors, of any restaurant allowed in this zone shall be limited to 1,500 square feet. ii. Delicatessen — with no table service and minimal on-site cooking of food. iii. Bakery — where baked foods manufactured elsewhere or on-site baked goods are sold on the premises. Consumption may also be allowed on site provided the seating area is 700 square feet or less. iv. Specialty food stores such as a coffee shop or juice bar. d. Retail Sales - General Merchandise. General retail sales under 5,000 square feet such as apparel and accessories, small hardware store, nursery, florist, furniture and appliance stores and office supplies. e. Personal Services - Limited to 1,000 square feet or less in area, such as hair salons and personal care such as massage, pedicure and manicure. f. Specialty Retail - Limited to 5,000 square feet or less in area, such as: i. Antique stores. ii. Art galleries. iii. Jewelers. g. Site Development Limitations. i. Setbacks. A. Buildings shall be set back at least six feet from the sidewalk along Boones Ferry Road (see609S Charier _ . A,t- d -c., Q,67, Figure 2(c)). it. Height of Structures. A. The maximum height of any structure shall not exceed 35 feet, measured from grade at the exterior wall of the building to the ridge of the roofline. The maximum height of the wall plane shall be no greater than 30 feet measured from grade at the exterior wall of the building to the gutter line. (Ord. No. 2187, Enacted, 03/16/99) Cross -Reference: He,l& Limitation dee also 50,45 010(1)(x)_ (0r xi01�-single-family Page 72 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code dwallin Scoon 50.10.020 Section 48.09.020 Town Home Residential (R-2.5). Uses permitted in the R-2.5 zone are as follows. a. Attached for -sale residential town -homes subject to the following special conditions, in addition to the other provisions of this eltipterthB_=Cg&: i. The minimum allowed density is 2,500 square feet/lot area per unit. ii. The minimum required lot width shall be 17 feet. The maximum lot coverage shall be 60%, excluding parking. iii. Each unit of housing shall be constructed on a separate lot. b. Site Development Limitations. i. Setbacks. The following exterior wall setbacks shall be required in the R-2.5 zone: Front (from property line) 10 ft. Rear (abutting a single family residential district) 25 ft. Rear (not abutting a single family residential district) 10 ft. Side (abutting a single family residential district) 25 ft. Side (not abutting a single family residential district) 10 ft. ii. Height of Structures. The maximum height of any structure in the R-2.5 zone shall not exceed 35 feet as measured from grade at the exterior wall of the building to the ridge of the roofline. (Ord. No. 2187, Enacted, 03/16/99) C_'o_ss-l(tef rcu_e_- H1zig)lt_ L nuMion _ a also 50.45,0100_)(a) foj-- Qfl in le_fnilY dwell' Meila4�£S�u.lgzwl?el?sity Strct9�_5.9=_19,�25 Section 48.09.025 Live/Work Zone (R -2.5/W). Uses permitted in the R -2.5/W Zone are as follows: a. Attached for -sale residential town -homes that meet the following standards: i. The required density shall be 1,700 square feet of lot area per unit. ii. The minimum required lot width shall be 17 feet. The maximum lot coverage shall be 75%, excluding parking. iii. Each unit shall be constructed on a separate lot. b. Professional -Office. Offices with limited customer or client traffic intended to attract and serve customers or clients on premises, such as Sole practitioner attorneys, counselors, Page 73 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code investment and financial services, studios such as photography, artists, commercial art, advertising, architects, landscape architects, engineers, or other design businesses, computer software development and information technology services. c. Personal Services, such as hair salons and personal care. d. Specialty Retail, such as: i. Antique Stores. ii. Art galleries. iii. Jewelers. e. Conditions for Commercial Use. i. A person who conducts business within the R -2.5/W zone must also reside within the same building. No more than one additional employee is allowed. ii. The business must be conducted in a specifically delineated area on the first floor of the structure and occupy no more than 700 square feet. f. Site Development Limitations. i. Setbacks. The following exterior wall setbacks are required within the R-2.5 zone: Front (from property line) 10 ft. Rear (abutting a single family residential district) 25 ft. Rear (not abutting a single family residential district) 10 ft. Side (abutting a single family residential district) 25 ft. Side (not abutting a single family residential district) 10 ft. ii. Height of Structures as measured from grade at the exterior wall of the building to the ridge of the roofline, 35 ft. (Ord. No. 2187, Enacted, 03/16/99) Crq"i7 = -Height Limitation; see also 50 45 010(1)0) Page 74 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code Article 48.105Q 11 Commercial Distrietsh As trsl ``zopg�' ��eMilt' be��us ihi ._is_nQt_a flesh-, [ct ii O etabus ttnlvinQ commercial use zog Sections: 48.10.300 Purpose. 48.10.305 Uses. 48.10.310 Site Development limitations. 48.10.315 Special Requirements. 48.10.316 to 9 reserved. eco 59, 1.005 - Section 48.10.300 Purpose. 1. Neighborhood Commercial - to provide land near or within residential areas for commercial activities. The uses listed for the Neighborhood Commercial zone in LOC 48. i 0.30550.11.010 and 48-.o- .31 §=_=(6), (7) have been determined to implement the Neighborhood Commercial policies of the Comprehensive Plan. 2. General Commercial - to provide lands for commercial activities supplying a broad range of goods and services to a market area which includes the planning arca identified in the Comprehensive Plan. 3. Highway Commercial - to provide lands for commercial activities which meet the needs of the traveling public as well as other highway -oriented retail uses which require access to a market area larger than the general commercial zone. This district is not intended for regional shopping centers. 4. Office Campus - to provide lands for major concentrations of regionally oriented offices and employment opportunities for a market area larger than the planning area. 5. East End General Commercial - to implement comprehensive plan policies directing revitalization of the East End Business District. The district should guide and encourage development and redevelopment of the East End Business District. 6. Campus Research & Development - to provide a mix of clean, employee - intensive industries, offices and high-density housing with associated services and retail commercial uses in locations supportive of mass transit and the regional transportation network. 7. Mixed Commerce - to provide for a mix of uses requiring highway access and which provide a strong visual identity. Intended uses include local and regional convention type facilities, office uses and supporting retail uses. Supporting retail uses shall be limited to less than 60,000 square feet of gross leasable area per building or Page 75 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code business in the MC Zone. (Ord. No. 1851, Sec. 1: 11-16-82. Ord. No. 1926, Sec. 2; 1-21-86. Ord. No. 1978, Sec. 1; 12-20-88.) (Ord. No. 2186, Amended, 07/06/99). Section 50.11.010 Section 48.10.305 Uses. Uses: P C X GC, HC, OC, NC tCR & D Permitted Uses permitted Uses uses. upon the grant of specifically approval of a prohibited. conditional use permit. [Qr4-xtrencc12 OlQ_.025 foramnus Insti_IuIignal_us] 1. Residential: A. Special Uses. Uses: C X NC, GC, EC HC, OC, CR&D, and MC B. Residential use at R-0, R-3, and R-5 density except as specifically allowed in LOC 155-4,_1.1�M. Use not allowed on ground floor in GC zones. Uses:P C X NC, GC, HC, OC I EC, CR&D, MC GC, HC, OC, NC tCR & D EC (See 48..0-305sub c€cdpn(D) below, MC C. Residential use at R-7.5, R-10 and R-15 density. Use not allowed on ground floor in GC zones. Uses: I P I X NC, GC, HC, OC I EC, CR&D, MC D. Residential use at R-0 density with a maximum 3.0 : 1. FAR (4 unit minimum) on parcels greater than 6,000 square feet in size. For parcels 6,000 square feet in size or smaller, there is no minimum unit requirement when residential development is proposed. Use not allowed on ground floor in EC: zone south of "B" Avenue or east of "2nd" Street. Reflects changes by Ord. 2306, effective 12/6/01. _PC member Beebe suggested expressing the FAR in terms of a ratio Page 76 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code Uses: P X NC, GC, HC, EC, MC I OC, CR&D EC NC, GC, HC, OC, MC, and CR&D 2. Retail Sales - Food: A. Markets, over 25,000 sq. ft. Uses: P X NC, GC, HC, EC, MC I OC, CR&D GC, HC, EC, MC NC, OC (In the MC Zone, any and retail uses shall be limited CR&D to less than 60,000 square feet of gross leasable area per building or business B. Markets under 25,000 sq. ft. ff P X ENC, GC, HC, EC, MC OC, CR&D C. Delicatessen, no table service. Uses: I P NC, GC, HC, OC, EC, CR&D and MC D. Specialized food stores. Uses: I P I X NC, GC, HC, EC,CR&D and MC NC, GC, HC, EC, MC I OC, CR&D E. Bakery - where baked foods manufactured elsewhere are sold on the premises. Uses: F P NC, GC, HC, OC, EC, CR&D and MC F. Bakery, manufacturing - where on-site baked foods are sold on the premises (less than 5,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area). Uses: P X NC, GC, HC, EC,CR&D and MC OC G. Bakery, manufacturing - where on-site baked foods are sold on the premises (5,000 sq. ft. or more gross floor area). Uses: I P I X Page 77 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code GC, EC I NC, HC, OC, CR&D and MC 3. Retail Sales - General Merchandise: A. Over 20,000 sq. ft., including apparel and accessory, department stores, building supply, garden, sporting goods, furniture, etc. Uses: P X X GC, EC, MC (In the MC NC, HC, GC, EC Zone, any retail uses shall OC and OC, EC,CR&D MC be limited to less than CR&D 60,000 square feet of gross leasable area per building or business B. 10,000 - 20,000 sq. ft., including apparel and accessory, department stores, building supply, garden, sporting goods, furniture, etc. Uses: P X X GC, HC, EC, CR&D NC, OC and MC C. Under 10,000 sq. ft., including apparel and accessory, department stores, building supply, garden, sporting goods, furniture, etc. Uses: P NC, GC, HC, OC, EC, CR&D and MC D. Auto sales. Uses: P X C GC, EC NC, HC, OC, CR&D and MC 4. Retail Sales - Restaurants, Drinking Places: Uses: I P NC, GC, HC, OC, EC, CR&D and MC B. Restaurants - take out only; or which include a drive-in window. Uses: X C tlitCNC, OC, EC,CR&D MC GC C. Bar or cocktail lounge not associated with restaurant; use with retail malt beverage license. Page 78 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code 5. Services - Personal: A. Laundries & cleaning places. B. Tailor shops & related services. C. Barber & beauty shop, personal care. D. Clothing rental. E. Mortuaries. F. Upholstery shop. G. Radio & television repair shop. Pa Uses: P X GC, HC, EC, MC NC, OC, and CR&D Uses: Uses: P X NC, GC, HC, OC, EC, CR&D and MC NC, GC, HC, EC,CR&D and MC OC Uses: P X NC, GC, HC, OC, EC, CR&D and MC NC, GC, EC, CR&D and MC HC, OC Uses: P X NC, GC, HC, OC, EC, CR&D and MC Uses: P X GC, EC NC, HC, OC, CR&D and MC NC, GC, EC HC, OC, CR&D and MC Uses: P X X GC, EC NC, HC, OC, CR&D and MC Uses: P X NC, GC, EC HC, OC, CR&D and MC Uses: ge 79 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code P X NC, GC, EC HC, OC, CR&D and MC H. Home appliance repair shop. Uses: P X NC, GC, EC HC, OC, CR&D and MC 6. Services - Business: A. Sign shop. Uses: P X GC, EC NC, HC, OC, CR&D and MC B. Adjustment & collection agencies. Uses: P X X OC, EC, NC t;H C'nd MC C. Advertising agencies, including commercial artists. Uses: P X GC, HC, OC, EC, NC CR&D and MC , HC, OC, EC, tC:R&D and MC NC D. Truck & trailer rental and sales of accessories. Uses: P I X GC, HC, OC, EC, NC CR&D and MC HC INC, GC, OC, EC, CR&D and MC E. Auto rental (vehicle storage off site in CR&D, MC, EC and GC zones). Uses: P X C X GC, HC, OC, EC, NC CR&D and MC F. Business and management services. Uses: P NC, GC, HC, OC, EC, CR&D, and MC G. Car wash. Uses: P C X HC I GC, EC NC, OC, CR&D, and MC Page 80 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code H. Credit agencies. Uses: P X GC, HC, OC, EC, NC CR&D and MC GC, HC, OC, EC, CR&D and MC NC I. Duplicating, addressing, blueprinting, photocopying, mailing & stenographic services. Uses: P X GC, HC, OC, EC, NC CR&D and MC GC, HC, OC, EC, CR&D and MC NC J. Employment agencies. Uses: P X GC, HC, OC, EC, CR&D and MC GC, HC, OC, EC, NC CR&D and MC K. Office equipment rental & repair agencies. Uses: P X GC, HC, OC, EC, CR&D and MC NC L Equipment rental. Uses: P X GC, EC, CR&D, MC I NC, HC, OC GC NC, HC, OC, EC, CR&D and MC M. Equipment service & repair places, appliance small engine. Uses: P I X GC, EC, CR&D, MC I NC, HC, OC GC, EC NC, HC, OC, CR&D and MC N. Offices housing personnel who provide special services to businesses. Uses: P NC, GC, HC, OC, EC, CR&D, and MC O. Private off-street parking facilities (sole use on site, parking garages, etc.). Uses: F P I X GC, EC, CR&D, MC I NC, HC, OC P. Services to buildings (including dwellings), cleaning & exterminating. Page 81 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code Uses: I P I X GC, EC GC, HC, EC, MC I NC, OC, CR&D Q. Telephone answering service. Uses: P NC, GC, HC, OC, EC, CR&D and MC R. Miscellaneous business services, including auctioneers, bondsmen, drafting, detective agencies, notary public & other like services. Uses: P NC, GC, HC, OC, EC, CR&D and MC S. Vehicle repair shops (located entirely within an enclosed building). Uses: I C I X GC, EC I NC, HC, OC, CR&D, MC T. Auto service stations (primary use only). Uses: P C X GC, HC, OC, EC, CR&D and MC GC, HC, EC NC OC, CR&D, MC U. Accounting, auditing & bookkeeping. Uses: I P I NC, GC, HC, OC, EC, CR&D and MC V. Computer services. Uses: P NC, GC, HC, OC, EC, CR&D and MC W. Printing, publishing & lithographic shop. Uses: P C GC, HC, OC, EC, CR&D and MC NC X. Commercial photographic studios. Uses: P NC, GC, HC, OC, EC CR&D and MC Page 82 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code Y. Research and testing facilities. Uses: P C GC, HC, OC, EC, CR&D and MC NC 7. Services_- Finance. Insurance and Real Estate: A. Financial and banking institutions. UsetCGRC&D P C , HC, OC, EC, NC and MC B. Insurance and bond carriers, agents, brokers and services. Use P NC, GC, HC, OC, EC, CR&D and MC C. Real estate brokers, agents & services. Uses: I P NC, GC, HC, OC, EC, CR&D and MC 8. Services Lodging Places: A. Hotels, motels and associated retail uses located within the hotel or motel that are intended to serve the guests. Uses: I P I X GC HC, EC, MC I NC, OC, CR&D 9. Services - Medical & Health: A. Hospitals. Uses: I P I X GC EC I NC, HC, OC, CR&D, MC B. Clinic, outpatient. Uses:P UsetCRNC, X GC, EC, &D, MC HC, OC C. Medical and dental laboratories. Page 83 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code Uses: P X GC, OC, EC, CR&D, MC NC, HC D. Orthopedic equipment & supplies, rental, sale & service. Uses: P X GC, EC, CR&D, MC NC, HC,OC E. Veterinarian's facilities, totally enclosed. Uses: I P I X GC, EC I NC, HC,OC CR&D, MC F. Other veterinarian facilities. Uses: P X GC NC, HC,OC, EC, CR&D, and MC G. Ambulance service. Uses: P X NC, GC, EC HC, OC, CR&D, MC 10. Services - Professional Offices: A. Architectural. Uses: P NC, GC, HC, OC, EC, CR&D and MC B. Artists studios. Uses- _ P NC, GC, HC, OC, EC, CR&D and MC C. Engineering, including surveying. Uses: P NC, GC, HC, OC, EC, CR&D and MC D. Law. Page 84 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code Uses: P NC, GC, HC, OC, EC, CR&D and MC E. Landscape architecture. Uses: P NC, GC, HC, OC, EC, CR&D and MC F. Professionals, other. Uses: P NC, GC, HC, OC,EC, CR&D and MC G. Regional offices & corporate headquarters. Uses: P X OC, EC, NC 11. Services - Amusement: A. Art galleries. B. Billiard and pool parlors. C. Bowling alleys. Uses: P X GC, EC NC, HC, OC, CR&D MC D. Dance studios and dance schools. E. Skating rinks, ice and/or roller. Page 85 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code Uses: P C X GC, HC, CR&D and MC GC, EC, MC Uses: P C X GC, EC, MC NC HC, OC, CR&D Uses: P C X GC, EC NC HC, OC, CR&D, MC Uses: P C X GC, EC NC 1-1C, OC, CR&D, MC Uses: P I X X GC, EC NC, HC, OC, CR&D, MC F. Racquet clubs, health clubs (within building, except paths and tennis courts allowed). Uses: P C X GC, HC, EC, MC GC, EC, CR&D MC NC HC, OC G. Theaters, indoor. Uses: P X X GC, HC, EC, MC NC, OC, CR&D H. Recreation facility/indoor or outdoor pool, athletic fields. Uses: P I X X CR&D NC, GC, HC,OC, EC, MC I. Outdoor commercial amusement. Uses: P X X MC NC, GC, HC, OC, EC and CR&D 12. Services - Educational: A. Nursery, day care centers. Uses: P NC, GC, OC, EC, CR&D and MC B. Private or public educational institutions. Uses: P C X GC, EC INC' HC, OC, CR&D, MC C. Vocational schools. Uses: P C X GC, EC NC HC, OC, CR&D, MC Page 86 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code D. Music schools. Uses: P C X GC, HC, OC, EC, CR&D and MC GC, EC NC I HC, OC, CR&D, MC 13. Services - Membership Organizations, Officers: A. Business and professional. Uses: P X GC, HC, OC, EC, CR&D and MC NC B. Civil, social and fraternal. Uses: I P X X J�GC,11C,EC, NC, OC CR&D and MC C. Charitable. Uses: P X GC, HC, OC, EC, NC CR&D and MC GC, HC, OC, EC, CR&D and MC NC D. Labor. Uses: P X X GC, HC, OC, EC, NC CR&D and MC E. Political. Uses: P X GC, HC, OC, EC, CR&D and MC NC F. Religious, not including churches. Uses: P X GC, HC, OC, EC, CR&D and MC NC 14. Public Service & Facilities: A. Major public facilities. Uses: I C I P Page 87 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code NC IGC, HC, OC, EC, J CR&D and MC B. Minor public facilities. —Uses: P NC, GC, HC, OC, EC, CR&D and MC IS. Alterations or expansions of non -conforming uses: —Uses: C NC, GC, HC, OC, EC, CR&D and MC 16. Li¢bt Manufacturing, Processing or Assembly of Product: Uses: P X CR&D NC, GC, HC, OC, EC, MC 17. Manufacturina: Uses: P I X CR&D I NC, GC, HC, OC, EC, MC (Ord. No. 1851, Sec. l; 11-16-82. Ord. No. 1926, Sec. 3; 1-21-86. Ord. No. 1935, Sec. 1; 7-1- 86. Ord. No. 1965, Sec. 1; 5-3-88. Ord. No. 1978, Secs. 2 & 3; 12-20-88. Ord. No. 2186, Amended, 07/06/99) Sectign 50.1 1,5 Section 48.10.310 Site Development Limitations. (1) Except as modified by LOC 48.10.3135Q—l-LQ20 the following site development limitations apply in each zone: 1. Required Yard Adjacent to residential zone: F M-S=>are 2�_fc_et NC, GC, HC, UC, and l;�,C zones FtQtt�i_tJ4 feet Fr.Qt11._y=1 11r 5.�___9ct acccs;;w Page 88 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code ��!►Ai�����ti\/\i�XA STI 1 Information placed in table format An accessway shared by property zoned commercial and residential is not subject to the yard requirement. 2. FAR Maximum NC = 4.25_x, (except as determined by the Comprehensive Plan)(= Appc_n ix 50,11-A) OC = 0.30_L EC = 3.0_;—L PC member Beebe suggested that expressing the FAR in terms of ratio would make it easier to understand. 3. Lot coverage: ,r •1 � 1 ,MII1M RMN Information shown by table method 4. Vehicle Trip Max: OC = 10.2/1000 sq. ft. floor area 5. Height* Page 89 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code NQ, QQ, HC, OC S=Uums placed closer N JAXjMWn - Mmu"ng Kh fQpt less than 6D the than 6 brQperly line of a lot which carries any residential zone residmtialwne, data A-U-oth-ercwcumstan es NC 55: = GC-- 45-fg.et Lot Abuts D .zone V 40 feel LQt is within 120 feet of a 35 feel lot zoned R-6 or R-7.5 Ut is within- 120 feet and 24�f as lot zoned R-6 45_&M All othcLIQ15 60 feet Information shown by table method *Hewek,ef, in all zenes eNeept !he EG ?one, stfuetures pliteed elogei- than 601 to the properly line of a lot whieh ea"ies aiiy fesidential Yone designation sliall hilve it maximum heigigi ol'40'mintiq one fee! fet- eaeli foot less than 604he 9trueture is f�om t residential zone. in !he EG zone, !he maxiintim height ",ithin ! 20, oF a l0i zoned R 7.5 is 45, -and -!he maxinium height between 120' and 240 of it !at -oto -is 45. The measured distance is exclusive of intervening public right-of-way if any exists. This paragraph applies to LOC 48.10-31550,11.02 - If a dimension or requirement is not shown it means there is no minimum or maximum, but that a requirement may be established at the time of Development Review Commission review. (2) CR&D Zone. A. Required yards Minimum Perimeter Setback: Fifteen (15) feet. (1) The following uses may be allowed within a Perimeter setback area which fronts on a public road: a. landscaping b. bikeways, trails, pedestrian walks and plazas c. access driveways d. bus shelters and other pedestrian amenities, and, Page 90 - Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code e. identification signs. (2) The following uses may be allowed within perimeter setback areas which are adjacent to other site areas: a. landscaping b. bikeways, trails, pedestrian walks, patios, courts c. on-site directional signs d. coordinate joint -use circulation drives, parking, loading, recreational activity areas, plazas, and e. coordinated joint -use structures, subject to provisions of the Uniform Building Code. B. (Repealed by Ord. No. 1953, Sec. 2; 8-4-87.) C. Lot Coverage. The maximum lot coverage for all structures shall be fifty-five (55) percent of the net site area, after any required dedications for roadway purposes. A minimum of twenty-five (25) percent of the developed site area shall be used for landscaping, natural areas or outdoor recreational use areas. D. Height. (1) For each CR&D zone the average height of all structures shall not exceed 78'. One structure is allowed a maximum structure height of 158'. No other structure shall exceed 104'. For the purpose of applying these height restrictions, all adjacent lots with a Comprehensive Plan designation of CR&D, regardless of ownership, shall be considered as being located in one CR&D zone. (2) Within 120' of property zoned R-7.5, R-10 or R-15 no structure shall exceed GO'. E. Access. No direct access from a lot shall be allowed to Kruse Way or to Kruse Woods Drive. F. (Repealed by Ord. No. 1978; 12-20-88.) G. No major trees (a tree with a trunk diameter of at least 8" at 24" above grade) located within 30' of the Kruse Way right-of-way may be removed. (3) MC Zone A. Required Yards (1) Minimum Front Yard Setback: Fifteen (15) feet. Structures on corner lots shall observe the minimum setback on both streets. (2) Minimum Rear Yard Setback: None required except when rear yard abuts a more restrictive zone. When rear yard abuts a more restrictive zone setbacks shall be fifteen (15) feet. Ten (10) feet shall be added to the rear yard setback for each ten (10) foot increment in building height over thirty-five (35) feet. (3) Minimum Side Yard Setback: None required except when side yard abuts a more restrictive zone. When side yard abuts a more restrictive zone, setbacks shall be fifteen (15) feet. Ten (10) feet shall be added to the side yard setback for each ten (10) foot increment in building height over thirty-five (35) feet. B. (Repealed by Ord. No. 1953, Sec. 3; 8-4-87.) C. Lot Coverage - no limit. D. Height. 95' maximum, except in the MC zone located south of Kruse Way and east of Bangy Road, within which zone for no more than two structures the maximum allowable height is 175'. For the purpose of applying these height restrictions all adjacent Page 91 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code lots zoned MC, regardless of ownership, shall be considered as being located in one MC zone. E. Access. No direct access from a lot shall be allowed to Kruse Way or to Kruse Woods Drive. F. (Repealed by Ord. No. 1978; 12-20-88.) G. No major trees (a tree with a trunk diameter of at least 8" at 24" above grade) located within 30' of the Kruse Way right-of-way may be removed. (Ord. No. 1851, Sec. 1; 11-16-82. Ord. No. 1866, Sec. 3; 5-3-83. Ord. No. 1911, Sec. 1; 3-5-85. Ord. No. 1926, Secs. 4, 5, 1-21-86. Ord. No. 1953, Secs. 2, 3; 8-4-87. Ord. No. 1978, Secs. 4, 5; 12-20-88.) (Ord. No. 2091, Amended, 04/19/94; Ord. No. 2129, Amended, 04/02/96) [Crops -Reference; In EC zone . a alsoDowmtQwu_ g*vclaptrte. es Standards. LQCArticle 50 65.� Iicight Limitation_ see also 50.45.OW sk"OOD-3-0 >l_L UO Section 48.10.315 Special Requirements. 1. All business, service, repair, processing, storage or merchandise displayed on property abutting or adjacent to a residential zone shall be conducted wholly within an enclosed building unless screened from the residential zone by a buffer area planted with year -around sight obscuring landscaping at 6 feet high. 2. Motor vehicle, recreational vehicles, boat or trailer rental or sales lots shall be drained and surfaced with pavement except in those portions of the lot maintained as landscaped areas. 3. Development of any site in the office campus zone requires an overall Development Plan and Schedule, pursuant to LOG eh. 4"Art,ic_ le__ 50,.71, showing the distribution of the proposed use(s), the general circulation pattern within all lots included in the site and general utility and drainage provisions. The site may be developed in phases, based on the overall site plan. 4. All development in any commercial zone will be developed under a unified site plan. The site plan will identify circulation patterns and access points, method of provision of public services and general placement of lots and structures, general area and type of uses. Proposals with multiple ownerships shall include a written agreement of all owners that development of the site will occur pursuant to the site plan approved. 5. Each commercial area identified on the City's Comprehensive Plan Map also is described in - e-1z1atiAppendix _ 50,117A. The specific conditions for each area, other than those areas identified in subsections 6, 7 and 8 of this section, are by this reference made a part of this eliHpte this CQdc. and are conditions and limitations of each zone. "Text of Volume I of the Comprehensive Plan" is actually a reference to the prior Comprehensive Plan. For ease of use, the relevant sections of the prior Comp Plan has been added as an appendix Page 92 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code 6. Mountain Park Town Center Site. A maximum of 40,000 sq, ft. of retail and service use building area are allowed on the 32 -acre site for the uses. The building height limitation is 45 ft. and lot coverage is 50%. There are no floor area ratio (FAR) requirements. The uses allowed are those allowed in the NC zone plus the following: adjustments and collection agencies; advertising agencies (including commercial artists); credit agencies; duplicating, addressing, blueprinting, photocopying, mailing and stenographic services; employment agencies; office equipment rental and repair, equipment service and repair places (appliance, small engine); services to building (cleaning, exterminating); financial and banking (no more than 3,500 sq. ft.); regional offices, corporate headquarters; offices of all types of service and membership organizations. A maximum of 492 dwelling units are permitted at a density equal to that allowed in the R-0 zone. A maximum of 3.55 acres on the site will be allowed for church parking facilities. The requirements of the R-0 zone apply to the residential use. 7. MonroeBoones Ferry Site. A maximum of 131,535 sq. ft. of retail, service uses and office uses are allowed on the 13 acre site. Retail uses shall not exceed 60,000 sq. ft. The uses allowed are those allowed in the NC zone, plus the retail, service and office uses listed in (6) above, and a totally enclosed veterinarian facility. Building height limitation is 45 ft., lot coverage is 50%. There are no floor area ratio (FAR) requirements. 8. I-5/Kruse Way Highway Commercial Site. A maximum of 20 acres of the 35 acre site may be developed. A minimum of 15 acres of the site, including stream corridors and associated wetlands, shall be retained as open space. As a part of the development process, floor area maximums shall be placed upon the development. The site shall be developed by methods that insures that the traffic generated by the 35 acre site will not exceed the capacity of the intersection of the site with Kruse Way. The City Manager may require traffic management plans in conjunction with any development request under LOC Chapter 49 for this site in order to preserve the capacity of Kruse Way. The maximum building height on the site is 75 feet with the overall average building height on the 35 acre site not to exceed 60 feet. Buildings which exceed 60 feet in height shall be located no closer than 120 feet to the boundary of the site. The boundary of the site is defined as the centerline of Kruse Oaks Boulevard on the east, the Kruse Way right-of-way boundary on the south, the State of Oregon right-of-way boundary on the west and the centerline of Bull Creek on the north. The traffic management provisions of subsection 10 of this section apply to this site. 9. Development on the block located in the EC district bounded by A Avenue, Second Street, Evergreen Road and Third Street is not subject to the height limitation stated in LOC 48.10.3 105QALQ15 if the following conditions are satisfied; a. The use of the structure is a mixed use containing dwelling units. b. The street level commercial uses are designed to provide a "village atmosphere" by the use of landscaping, emphasis on pedestrian access and small scale retail uses. c. The structure contains parking areas made available to the public and other uses in the area. 10. The following traffic management requirements apply to all uses in the CR&D, MC, OC, GC and HC zones located in the Kruse Way Corridor (the area north of Bonita Road, south of Melrose -Carman, west of Boones Ferry Road and east of 1-5, including Page 93 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code the S.W. Quadrant of the Kruse WayBoones Ferry intersection and the property located between Kruse Way and Galewood Drive). A. It is the purpose of these transportation management provisions to require that traffic generation limitations will be placed on all development in order to assure the functioning of Kruse Way and the adjacent street system within Seplice Level "D" at p.m. peaks. An ODPS, revised ODPS, planned development or any phase of a development shall not be approved if the traffic volumes, after development consistent with the approval occurs, are projected to exceed the maximum access volumes planned for each intersection identified on Figure A-5, page 77 of the 1983 Buttke Traffic Study. B. A Traffic Management Program (TMP) shall be submitted with each initial or revised development application. The program may include, but is not limited to, the following TM mechanisms: physical site controls on existing traffic, p.m. peak hour exiting traffic limitations; traffic monitoring, restrictions on the number of parking spaces, flextime, staggered working hours, transit ridership programs, car and van pools, and similar ride share programs. C. At the time of review of any phase of a development, the developer will provide information from a registered traffic engineer on the then current p.m. peak service level status and volume to capacity ratio of the intersections identified in Figure A-5, page 77 of the Buttke Traffic Study that the City identifies as being affected by the development, and also provide information on the p.m. peak traffic that will be generated by the proposed phase of the development and the total development constructed to date. D. Owners and employers shall be encouraged to implement TMP's at time of approval. However, when the traffic at an affected intersection consistently exceeds "C" level of service, the TMP must be implemented. E. A Traffic Management Plan Task Force will be formed, including a representative of each major complex within the Kruse Way Corridor, employers of more than 50 employees, major landowners, representatives of City, Tri -Met and any other person identified by the City. The task force will have authority to review TMP's of members and recommend TM when appropriate. F. Notwithstanding the traffic management achievements reached by implementation of the provisions of paragraphs A-E, as development increases along the Corridor and the traffic flow on the street system, with the improvements identified in the 1983 Buttke Study, exceeds "C" level of service, the City may assert its authority to regulate the use of land to assure all affected property owners, as well as through traffic, are allowed their appropriate share of the traffic capacity. The 1983 Buttke Study, together with any subsequent study adopted by the City Council, will be the guide in assigning appropriate shares of the highway capacity to through traffic and to affected property landowners (jointly). Necessary measures will be taken to assure a functioning traffic system at Service Level "D" or better and may include, but are not limited to: a. Green time regulation to facilitate through traffic. b. Access fees. c. Fines related to access volumes exceeding allocations. 11. (Repealed by Ord. No. 1953, Sec. 1; 8-4-87.) 12. a. For the 8 acre site bounded by Kruse Way, Kruse Way Place and Boones Page 94 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code Ferry Road and zoned Office Campus, the maximum FAR of 0.30,,- .30, ;_1, is allowed if development consists of a maximum of 20,255 square feet of retail commercial use and the balance of the allowable square footage is in non -retail commercial use; For every square foot of reduction of retail use there results a proportional increase in the allowable FAR to a maximum of 4.38--L as described in the following chart. SEE TABLEAppendix 48 -450d -L-A (Floor Area Ratio Graph). PC member Beebe suggested that expressing FAR in terms of ratio would be more understandable. b. The allowable FAR will be fixed at the time a development permit approval is given by the Development Review Commission. c. Each property owner is entitled to a pro rata share of the allowable retail and non -retail commercial square footage based on each owner's percentage ownership of the entire 8 acre parcel. The allocation to each property owner is transferable to another property owner. d. The lot coverage of building and parking areas shall not exceed 70%. There shall be a 20' setback from the property line along the site's frontage on Kruse Way and Boones Ferry Road. e. No access will be allowed from Boones Ferry Road. The main access shall be from Kruse Way Place. A `right -in, right -out' access on Kruse Way may be used only as a secondary access to the site. 13. Boones Ferry Road/Jean Road Site: The following restrictions and requirements shall apply to the approximately 4.45 acre parcel located at the intersection of Boones Ferry Road and Jean Road (Tax Lot 2400 of Tax Map 2 1 E 1 SBD). The intent of these restrictions and requirements is to create an aesthetically pleasing entry into Lake Oswego. The site and building design shall create an aesthetically pleasing entry by creating a distinct design with features that celebrate entry to the community. The design elements should signal the transition from the city of Tualatin and shall create a sense of separation. Building design elements and landscaping shall communicate a sense of quality, vitality and community. This may be accomplished through the use of visually identifying elements such as building shapes and features, colors, kiosks, flagpoles, signs, landscaping, parking and other design details. Berms and mature trees (such as fir and cedar) shall be incorporated into the design. The following specific restrictions and requirements shall apply to the site: a. The uses allowed shall be those allowed in the NC zone, plus the following: adjustment and collection agencies; advertising agencies (including commercial artists); credit agencies; duplicating, addressing, blueprinting, photocopying, mailing and stenographic services; employment agencies; office equipment rental and repair; equipment services and repair places (appliances, small engines); services to building (cleaning, exterminating); financial and banking; regional offices, corporate headquarters; offices of all types of service and membership organizations. b. The retail use building area to be located on the east side of Jean Road (i.e., on the parcel consisting of approximately 1.9 acres) shall not exceed 23,000 square feet. The retail use building area to be located on the west side of Jean Road (i.e., on the parcel consisting of approximately 2.5 acres) shall not exceed 31,000 square feet, and no one Page 95 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code user shall exceed 26,500 square feet. c. No building or parking shall be located within 25 feet of Boones Ferry Road right-of-way or within 15 feet of the Jean Road right-of-way. In addition, any loading area located to the west of Jean Road shall not be located within 10 feet of Jean Road. d. Signs shall be limited to monument and wall signs (excluding signs on awnings) only. Monument signs may be located within the 25 foot setback along Boones Ferry Road and within the 15 foot setback along Jean Road. e. A minimum of 20% of the net buildable area shall be devoted to landscaping. f. All utilities shall be located underground. g. The main access points for the site shall be from Jean Road. A "right -in" only secondary access arnymay be provided from boonesBoones Ferry Road for the west portion of the site (i.e., the approximately 2.5 acre parcel). h. Any fir or cedar tree with a trunk diameter of more than 5 inches which is removed pursuant to development of the site shall be replaced by a specimen tree of the same variety. The replacement tree shall be of similar size as the tree removed. If a replacement tree of the size of the tree cut is not reasonably available on the local market or would not be viable, replacement may be provided with more than one tree with no individual tree less than 4 inches in diameter. The number of replacement trees required shall be determined by dividing the caliper of the tree cut by the caliper of viable replacement trees. 14. Jean Way Site: The following restrictions and requirements shall apply to the approximately .34 acre parcel and the approximately 0.65 acre parcel located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Jean Road and Jean Way. The intent of these restrictions and requirements is to create an aesthetically pleasing entry into Lake Oswego. The sites and building designs shall create an aesthetically pleasing entry by creating a distinct design with features that celebrate entry to the community. The design elements should signal the transition from the city of Tualatin and shall communicate a sense of quality, vitality and community. This may be accomplished through the use of visually identifying elements such as building shapes and features, colors, kiosks, flagpoles, signs, landscaping, parking and other design details. Berms and mature trees (such as fir and cedar) shall be incorporated into the design. The following specific restrictions and requirements shall apply to the sites: a. The uses allowed shall be those allowed in the NC zone, plus the following: adjustment and collection agencies; advertising agencies (including commercial artists); credit agencies; duplicating, addressing, blueprinting, photocopying, mailing and stenographic services; employment agencies; office equipment rental and repair; equipment services and repair places (appliances, small engines); financial and banking; regional offices, corporate headquarters; offices of all types of service and membership organizations. b. The retail use building area to be located on Jean Way shall not exceed 4,200 square feet for each parcel, or a combined 8,400 square feet for development contained on both parcels. c. No building or parking shall be located within 15 feet of the Jean Way right- of-way. d. Signs shall be limited to monument and wall signs (excluding signs on awnings) only. Monument signs may be located within the 15 foot setback along Jean Page 96 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code Way. e. A minimum of 20% of the net buildable area shall be devoted to landscaping. f. All utilities shall be located underground. g. Regardless of the sequence of development of the 0.34 acre or 0.65 parcels, vehicular connectivity shall be provided between the 1.9 acre site to the north, and the development on the 0.34 acre and 0.65 acre parcels. A single, shared point of access shall be provided from Jean Way to serve the 0.34 acre and 0.65 acre parcels. h. Any fir or cedar tree with a trunk diameter of more than 5 inches which is removed pursuant to the development of the site shall be replaced by a specimen tree of the same variety. The replacement tree shall be of similar size as the tree removed. If a replacement tree of the size of the tree cut is not reasonably available on the local market or would not be viable, replacement may be provided with more than one tree with no individual tree less than 4 inches in diameter. The number of replacement trees required shall be determined by dividing the caliper of the tree cut by the caliper of viable replacement trees. 15. Boones Ferry Road/Opposite Jean Way Site: The following restrictions and requirements shall apply to the approximately 2.84 acre parcel located at the intersection of Boones Ferry Road and Jean Way (Tax Lot 600 of Tax Map 21E18BD). The intent of these restrictions and requirements is to create an aesthetically pleasing entry into Lake Oswego. The site and building design shall create an aesthetically pleasing entry by creating a distinct design with features that celebrate entry to the community. The design elements should signal the transition from the city of Tualatin and shall communicate a sense of separation. Building design elements and landscaping shall communicate a sense of quality, vitality and community. This may be accomplished through the use of visually identifying elements such as building materials and feature, colors, flagpoles, signs, landscaping, parking and other design details. Trees (such as fir and cedar) may be incorporated into the design. The following specific restrictions and requirements shall apply to the site: a. The uses allowed shall be those allowed in the NC zone, plus the following: adjustment and collection agencies; advertising agencies (including commercial artists); credit agencies; duplicating, addressing, blueprinting, photocopying, mailing and stenographic services; employment agencies; office equipment rental and repair; equipment services and repair places (appliances, small engines); services to building (cleaning, exterminating); financial and banking; regional offices, corporate headquarters; offices of all types of service and membership organizations. b. The total building area to be located on the site shall not exceed 21,850 square feet. c. No building or parking shall be located within 25 feet of the Boones Ferry Road right-of-way. d. Signs shall be limited to monument and wall signs (excluding signs on awnings). Monument signs may be located within the 25 foot setback along Boones Ferry Road. c. A minimum of 20% of the net buildable area shall be devoted to landscaping. f All utilities serving any new on-site development shall be located underground. g. There shall be two main access points for the site from Boones Ferry Road. Page 97 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code One shall be directly across from Jean Way and the other shall be northeast of the wetland. The northeast access may be a shared access with the adjacent property. An applicant for development of the northeast portion shall make a good faith effort to obtain a joint access prior to proposing a separate access. If such an effort is unsuccessful, however, a separate access may be approved. h. Any fir or cedar tree with a trunk diameter of more than 5 inches which is removed pursuant to the development of the site shall be replaced by a specimen tree of the same variety. The replacement tree shall be of similar size as the tree removed. If a replacement tree of the size of the tree cut is not reasonably available on the local market or would not be viable, replacement may be provided with more than one tree with no individual tree less than 4 inches in diameter. The number of replacement trees required shall be determined by dividing the caliper of the tree cut by the caliper of viable replacement trees. i. The approximate .068 acre wetland and the 25 foot setback from the perimeter shall not be developed and remain in its natural state. The one exception to this is where the sidewalk adjacent to Boones Ferry Road encroaches into the 25 foot setback area. (Ord. No. 1851, Sec. 1; 11-16-82. Ord. No. 1886, Sec. 1; 4-17-84. Ord. No. 1926, Secs. 6, 7 and 8; 1-21-86. Ord. No. 1941, Sec. 1; 9-17-86. Ord. No. 1944, Sec. 1; 11-18- 86. Ord. No. 1953, Sec. 1; 8-4-87. Ord. No. 1993, 11-02-89. Ord. No. 2069, Sec. 1; 10- 20-92.) (Ord. No. 2073, Amended, 01/19/93; Ord. No. 2074, Amended, 04/20/93; Ord. No. 2082, Amended, 11/16/93; Ord. No. 2091, Amended, 04/19/94; Ord. No. 2128, Amended, 12/19/95; Ord. No. 2131, Amended, 03/05/96; Ord. No. 2171, Amended, 07/07/98) Y oss dcrcm.-An EC zone. see also Downtown R_gyglo cnt_D_odYn S�ds, I.,QC Article 50X25-1 -c t Limitation see also 50.A4 AOf -4) Attachment: S=-n-grgial District Policies Page 98 --- Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code Artk1C_550J2 Campus Institutional Zone Added "zone" to the for consi4tencv in title With 00-cr nam Sections: 48.14.390 Purpose. 48.14.395 Permitted Uses. 48.14.400 Conditional Uses. 48.14.405 Site Development Limitations. 48.14.410 Special Requirements. 48.14.411 to 48.14.429 reserved. Section 48.14.390 Purpose. The purpose of the Cl zone is to provide zoning regulations for the Marylhurst Campus in order to provide land were public or institutional uses can be provided for in a unified campus setting. (Ord. No. 1851, Sec. 1; 11-16-82.) SVViQn 5Q'MW_S Section 48.14.395 Permitted Uses. 1. Educational agency structures and related accessory uses. 2. Religious agency structures and related accessory uses. 3. Private social service agency structures and related accessory uses. 4. Facilities for residence and care of the socially, mentally or physically handicapped or other special care needs. 5. Special use housing. 6. Agricultural use. 7. Retail and personal service establishments which directly and primarily provide goods and services to persons employed in the zone. 8. Commercial office space in buildings existing on December 16, 1982. 9. Minor public facilities. (Ord. No. 1851, Sec. 1; 11-16-82.) Section, 5.0,12,02Q Section 48.14.400 Conditional Uses. 1. Major public facilities. 2. Studios and offices for use in conjunction with authorized on-site radio Page 99 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code transmission and receiving towers and earth stations. (Ord. No. 1851, Sec. 1; 11-16-82.) Section 50.12.025 Section 48.14.405 Site Development Limitations. 1. Required yards are those established by LOC Chapter 45. Greater required yards may be required to maintain the appearance and character of the Marylhurst Campus. 2. There are no minimum lot area or dimensions. 3. Maximum height of a structure is 45 feet. (Ord. No. 1851, Sec. 1; 11-16-82.) Section 50.12.030 Section 48.14.410 Special Requirements. The approved plan for the Marylhurst Campus Institutional Area is contained in Volume 1 of the C-Of"Pirehensive A-enddi 50.12-A. The land use designations and conditions of that portion of the Plan are by this reference made a part of this Code. And are conditions and limitations of the zone. (Ord. No. 1851, Sec. 1; 11-16-82.) " Volume I of the Comprehensive Plan" is actually a reference to the prior Comprehensive Plan. For ease of use, the relevant sections of the prior Comp Plan has been added as an appendix LIM W. MA T_11>�91 Seeflon• .316 • .339 • Page 100 - Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code Article 4850.13 Industrial Zones. Sections: 48.12.340 Purpose. 48.12.345 Permitted Uses; Industrial Zone. 48.12.350 Conditional uses; Industrial Zone. 48.12.355 Permitted Uses; Industrial Park Zone. 48.12.360 Conditional Uses; Industrial Park Zone. 48.12.365 Prohibited Uses; Any Industrial Zone. 48.12.370 Site Development Limitations. 48.12.375 Special Requirements. 48.12.376 to 48.12.389 reserved. Section 48.12.340 Purpose. 1. Industrial district - the purpose of the industrial district is to provide land where general industrial development can he located. 2. Industrial park - to provide lands where primarily light industrial and accessory uses can occur in a campus -like setting under controls to make activities mutually compatible and also compatible with existing uses bordering the district. (Ord. No. 1851, Sec. 1; 11-16-82.) Seclim 50.1 1010 Section 48.12.345 Permitted Uses; Industrial Zone. 1. Manufacturing, repairing, compounding, processing or storage and accessory office use. 2. Dwelling for a caretaker or watchman working on the property. 3. Railroad tracks and facilities such as switching yards, spur or holding tracks, freight depots. 4. Wholesale distributor or outlet. 5. Commercial uses which require large land areas for display or storage is such as lumber yards, nursery stock production and sale, transportation facilities, equipment rental agencies, car washes, hospitals and vehicle and boat sales. 6. Major and minor public facilities. 7. Commercial recreational facility wholly conducted within an enclosed structure. 8. Recreational vehicle storage. 9. Truck and trailer rental. (Ord. No. 1851, Sec. l; 1 1-16-82.) Sect iou-50, 13,015 Section 48.12.350 Conditional uses; Industrial Zone. 1. Alterations or expansion of non -conforming uses. Page 101 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code 2. Animal boarding facilities. (Ord. No. 1851, Sec. 1; 1 1-16-82) Section 50.13A20 Section 48.12.355 Permitted Uses; Industrial Park Zone. 1. Research facilities, testing laboratories. 2. Facilities for the manufacturing, processing or assembling of products. 3. Offices accessory to manufacturing, warehousing or research uses. 4. Vocational schools. 5. A dwelling for caretaker or watchman. 6. Recreational vehicle storage. 7. Major and minor public facilities. 8. Professional office space not to exceed 15% of gross site area. 9. Remanufacturing or repair of vehicle engines and electrical systems provided that: a. The use is limited to 18 or less service bays. b. The use is located in an enclosed building. c. No outdoor storage of parts, materials, or partially or totally dismantled vehicles is allowed. d. The provisions of LOC 48.12.3755.0,_11040(4) are met. 10. Incidental retail uses. (Ord. No. 1851, Sec. 1; 11-16-82. Ord. No. 1919, Sec. 1; 6-4-85. )(Ord. No. 2166, Amended, 05/19/98) Section- 50-13 X5 Section 48.12.360 Conditional Uses; Industrial Park Zone. 1. Professional office space which meets the Industrial Park guidelines in the nendix 50-.12----. Comprehensive Plan" is actually a reference to the pfior Comprehensive Plan. For ease of use, the relevant sections of the prior Comp Plan has been added as an appendix 2. Retail establishments which directly and primarily provide goods and services to employees and businesses in the industrial park. 3. Commercial transportation facilities. 4. Commercial recreational facilities. 5. Animal boarding facilities. 6. Alteration or expansion of non -conforming uses. 7. Retail sales of tires, batteries and motor vehicle accessories. (Ord. No. 1851, Sec. 1; 1 1-16-82. Ord. No. 1883, Sec. 1; 3-20-84.) Section 50, 13.030 Section 48.12.365 Prohibited Uses; Any Industrial Zone. Uses whose primary function is the storing, utilizing or manufacturing of explosive materials. (Ord. No. 1851, Sec. l; 11-16-82.) Page 102 - Drat December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code a tion 50.13 m Section 48.12.370 Site Development Limitations. 1. Required yards: I = Determined by LOC Chapter 45 (20' minimum setback adjacent to residential zone) Front; any yard with street frontage: IP = 20' Side: IP = 10' Rear: IP = 10' 2. FAR Maximum: I = 1.0yL 3. *Height: I = 60', IP = 45' *Structures placed closer than 60' from the property line of a lot which carries any residential zone designation shall have a maximum height of 40' minus one foot for each foot less than 60 feet the structure is from the residential zone. 4. Front lot lines on corner lots may face either street. The City Manager shall determine the front lot line after taking into consideration the orientation of structures on the site and nearby lots, the ability to meet setbacks without variances, and physical site or solar access limitations. Street access should be to local streets. If a dimension or requirement is not shown it means there is no minimum or maximum, but that the requirements may be established by the Development Review Commission at the time of review. (Ord. No. 1851, Sec. 1; 1 1-16-82. Ord. No. 1908, Sec. 1; 2-19-85.) (Ord. No. 2091, Amended, 04/19/94) S-edion 50.13.04Q Section 48.12.375 Special Requirements. 1. Each industrial area identified on the City's Comprehensive Plan Map also is described in --P-P-QT1.d.i& 0.12_A . The specific conditions for each area are by this reference made a part of tki9-e} q►tt his C-Qde., and are conditions and limitations of each zone. "text of Volume I of the Comprehensive Plan" is actually a reference to the prior Comprehensive Plan. For ease of use, the relevant sections of the prior Comp Plan has been added as an appendix 2. There is a maximum floor area ratio of 1.0 _;=1 in the Lake Grove Industrial Park. The area of the Lake Grove Industrial Park is described in the Comprehensive Plan. 3. Manufacturing, repairing, compounding, processing or storage uses permitted in the I zone shall operate in continuing compliance with the requirements of Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 340 and City Codes and regulations. 4. Research facilities, testing laboratories, manufacturing, processing or assembling of products, and incidental retail uses in the IP zone shall not emit noise, smoke, glare, vibration, fumes or other environmental effects which adversely affect people, property or uses beyond the property lines of the IP site. Page 103 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code 5. Incidental retail uses in the IP sites shall not exceed a total of 3,000 square feet for all such uses on site. In addition, incidental retail uses are considered part of the manufacturing business and are not allowed additional signage. 6. The creation of an incidental retail use within an existing structure shall be processed as a change of use pursuant to LOC 49.20-11050J9,020(2)(ij). 7. Incidental retail uses in IP sites within 200 feet of residentially zoned property may be open from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m. on Friday and Saturday. (Ord. No. 1851, Sec. l; 11-16-82.) (Ord. No. 2166, Amended, 05/19/98) Page 104 - Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code Accessory an TeMDorary_�LJ Section 48.20.505 Accessory Uses. 1. Accessory uses are allowed in conjunction with the principal use and shall comply with the requirements of this section and all requirements for the principal use, except where specifically modified by thisehapteghis� . 2. A greenhouse or hothouse may be maintained accessory to a dwelling only if there are no sales. 3. A guesthouse may be maintained accessory to a dwelling provided there is no kitchen space or cooking facilities in the guesthouse and the square footage is less than 400 square feet. 4. Pool covers shall not exceed 15 feet in height. 5. A side or rear yard setback may be reduced to three feet for an accessory structure in a residential zone if the structure complies with the following three criteria: a. The accessory structure is erected more than sixty-five feet from any street. For the purposes of this section, an alley shall not be considered a street. The side and rear setbacks for a detached garage obtaining access from an alley may be reduced to 3 feet or to the degree the garage maintains access that provides an outside front wheel turning radius of at least 25 feet, whichever is greater. b. The accessory structure is detached from other buildings by five feet or more. c. The accessory structure does not exceed a height of ten feet nor an area of six hundred square feet. The setback exception authorized by this subsection does not apply to setbacks required by LOC ' 48.�0Tn5-0.22.M (Special Setbacks). The setback exception also does not apply to noise producing accessory structures such as heat pumps, swimming pool motors, etc. Flag Lots. The setback exception authorized by this subsection does not apply to flag lots. However, a side or rear yard accessory structure setback may be reduced to six feet on a flag lot when the above criteria (a -c) are met. G. "Dish" type antenna may only be placed in rear yards, on the ground, and must be screened by landscaping. 7. Except as provided in LOC Article 48.17S9, l b, boat houses and docks along Oswego Lake and its canals may be placed on a property line. Page 105 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code below. This is not really code requirement but legislative history; see Leg. History note (Ord. No. 1851, Sec. 1; 11-16-82. Ord. No. 2053, Sec. 9,04-07-92.) (Ord. No. 2100, Amended, 08/01/94; Ord. No. 2148, Amended, 07/22/97; Ord. No. 2172, Amended, 8/6/98;_ ordinance drafter's nQtqL Sectio$ oL_Q1d 48.2Q,5.O5 Npe_b_4a No. 2100. Src. 3: 08/01/94. j_�_►'o� Reference.;_ Acc_�sQ� Structures in R-6 Zone-�Q,g7,�gSj Section -5-0-J4,0 10 Section 48.20.510 Temporary Structures, Uses. Temporary structures and uses are permitted only as follows: 1. In any zone: a. Temporary structures and use of recreational vehicles for temporary shelter for relief of victims of a disaster or emergency; b. One temporary construction office not to exceed 1,000 square feet located on the construction site. This use does not include real estate sales or promotion; c. Structures in conjunction with installation or maintenance of utilities. d. Temporary structures for public or non-profit education, fund-raising, athletic or other program uses. Such use shall not exceed 1,200 square feet or remain for more than 30 days unless approval is granted by the Commission. "Weekend fair" type of events occurring between a Friday and the next following Monday are exempt from square foot restrictions. 2. In commercial and industrial zones: a. A tent, trailer or other portable structure for sales, promotional or educational events; such use not exceed two consecutive weeks and a total of 14 days in any six month period. b. Seasonal retail sales as detailed below: i. Christmas tree sales from November 26 to December 31. ii. Outdoor restaurant uses in conjunction with an existing indoor year-round restaurant. No additional parking is required for the outdoor use. iii. "Pushcart" vendors in the EC and GC zones. Food vendors will have all required Health Department licenses and certificates. Such uses limited to food and flowers. iv. "Saturday Market" type sales of produce from temporary sales shelters (including vehicles) from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on Saturdays and 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Sundays. Such sales may locate in only one location each in the East End and West End Commercial Districts and Lake Grove Industrial Park District and shall have sufficient parking on-site or shall arrange to utilize the parking areas of an adjacent business which does not normally operate on weekends. v. In the GC and EC zones, one sidewalk sale each calendar quarter when located in area abutting the seller's permanent business. All produce, shelters and debris will be removed at the end of the business day. Business licenses are required for all the above temporary commercial activities. Page 106 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code 3. In residential zones: a. Overnight use of tent or similar structure, but not a trailer or recreational vehicle, for family use within the rear yard of a dwelling. (Ord. No. 1851, Sec. 1; 11-16-82. Ord. 2240, Amended, 4/04/2000). Uctiou50.14.015 Section 48.20.540 Use of Recreational Vehicle as a Dwelling Unit Prohibited. A recreational vehicle shall not be used as a dwelling unit. This section prohibits any use of such facilities for dwelling purposes for more than 72 hours in any seven day period. (Ord. No. 1851, Sec. 1; 11-16-82.) Page 107 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code Article 450,15 Greenway Management Overlay D19rist "District" added for consistency, and it is consistent with the use of "district" throughout this section. Sections: 48.16.430 Purpose, Application. 48.16.434 Development Review. 48.16.435 Permitted Uses. 48.16.436 Willamette River Greenway Boundary. 48.16.440 (Renumbered 48.16.434, Ord. No. 1884; 3-20-84.) 48.16.441 to 48.16.441.469 reserved. Section_ 50,15.4.05 Section 48.16.430 Purpose, Application. 1. The purpose of the Greenway Management Overlay District (GM) is the following: a. To protect the natural, scenic and recreational qualities of lands along the Willamette River in Lake Oswego, b. To preserve and allow for the restoration of historical sites, structures, and facilities along the Willamette River, c. To implement the goals and policies of the State of Oregon's Willamette River Greenway Program, d. To implement the goals and policies of the Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan Greenway Element, e. To establish standards and requirements for the use of lands within the Willamette River Greenway Compatibility Review Boundary in Lake Oswego, and f. To provide for the review of any intensification of use, change of use, or development on properties located within the GM ever4ty-ftilay_ as indicated on the official zoning map. Uses of the land and water not compatible with the Greenway and not provided for in tis--ehapteFthi's_ Code, shall be prohibited within the GM .1ayQYgdU. 2. This everltf-Qypdgy_district establishes the Greenway Compatibility Review Boundary and is intended to superimpose additional protection and regulation upon property which may alter the requirements of the underlying zone. The boundary extends 150' shoreward from the ordinary low waterline of the Willamette River and to those areas within the river that are within the Lake Oswego City limits. 3. The provisions of 1.0(' "8:-T6 43F�-- 4_;6tljj$._A t cle_ -shall apply to lands in the Willamette River Greenway Compatibility Review Boundaries in Lake Oswego in addition to any standards and requirements of the primary zoning district to which this designation may apply. Nothing in, . t-4-. this ,A,rtidc shall be construed to constitute a waiver or suspension of the provisions of any zoning district within the GM Overlay. In the case of any conflict between the provisions of this section and the provisions of any other section of 1444-e4ffrterthis_Codc., the more restrictive Page 108 - Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code provisions shall apply. (Ord. No. 1851, Sec. 1; 11-16-82. Ord. No. 1884, Secs. 1, 2, 3; 3- 20-84. Ord. No. 1976, Sec. 1; 11-1-88. ) Section 50.15.010 Section 48.16.434 Development Review. 1. All development within the GM Overlay District shall be reviewed pursuant to the provisions of LOG Ghapteg-49Articles 50.79 - 50 83. 2, In reviewing applications in the GM Overlay, in addition to the requirements of LOG Chapter--49Ar1icles 50.79 , the Development Review Commission shall consider the following objectives and shall make findings as applicable. a. Significant fish and wildlife habitats will be protected. b. Significant natural and scenic areas, viewpoints and vistas will be protected and enhanced. c. Areas of ecological, scientific, historical or archeological significance will be protected, restored, or enhanced to the maximum extent possible. d. The quality of the air and water in and adjacent to the river will be maintained or enhanced in the development, change of use, or intensification of use of land within the GM Overlay. e. Areas of annual flooding, water areas, and wetlands will be retained in their natural state to the maximum possible extent to provide for water retention, overflow and other natural functions as well as protect the health, safety and welfare of the public. Areas subject to the 100 year flood level are also regulated by the Flood Plain Standard. f. The natural vegetative fringe shall be maintained or enhanced to assure scenic quality, protection of wildlife, protection from erosion and screening of uses from the river. g. Areas considered for development, change or intensification of use which have erosion potential will be protected from erosion by means compatible with the natural character of the Greenway. h. Recreational needs will be satisfied by public and private means in a manner consistent with the natural limitations of the land. Conflicts with adjacent land uses will be minimized. i. Public safety and protection of public and private property will be provided to the maximum extent practicable, especially from vandalism and trespass. j. Non -water related or dependent structures shall be located west of and no closer than 25' to the following setback lines; i. For property located from the northern City limits to the northern bank of Oswego Creek (in George Rogers Park), the setback line is the contour elevation line that establishes the Army Corps of Engineers 50 year flood plain line. ii. For property located in George Rogers Park from the southern bank of Oswego Creek to the southern boundary of the Park, the setback line is the western edge of the paved pedestrian path. iii. For property located from the southern boundary of George Rogers Park to the southern City limits, the setback line is the western right-of-way line for Old River Road. The Compatibility Review Boundary Line becomes the setback line at any point where the above-described setback lines lie to the west of the Compatibility Review Page 109 - Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code Boundary Line. k. Necessary public access will be provided to and along the river including pedestrian, bicycle and water related uses. 3. To meet the intent of the objectives set forth in subsection 2, the Comprehensive Plan and/or fl mod, reasonable conditions may be imposed by the Development Review Commission in approving a change of use, development or intensification proposal. Guarantees and evidence may be required of the applicant to provide that such conditions will be or are being complied with. 4. In addition to the notification required by LOC L 5qW__ 5Z, the City shall notify the Oregon State Department of Transportation by certified mail immediately upon receipt of a complete application for development, change or intensification of use in the Greenway Compatibility Review Boundary area and shall notify the department of final actions taken on the applications. (Ord. No. 1851, Sec. 1; 11-16-82. Ord. No. 1884, Secs. 4 and 5; 3-20-84.) (Ord. No. 2091, Amended, 04/19/94) SCc1i_Qn5k_t5M5 Section 48.16.435 Permitted Uses. The following uses are permitted within the GM District. 1. The placing, by a public agency on public lands, of signs, markers, aids, etc., to serve the public or signs on private lands to identify private property. Such signs shall be in conformance with the sign code. 2. Activities to protect, conserve, enhance and maintain scenic, historical and natural uses on public lands. 3. Parks and other recreational facilities as designated in the Comprehensive Plan. Any other recreational development shall be reviewed by the Development Review Commission. 4. Erosion control operations not requiring a permit from the Division of State Lands. 5. The cutting of trees for public safety, erosion control, or personal non-commercial use, subject to LOC Chapters 49Article 50.79 — 50.83= and L 0.C_CW-9 ,55. 6. Reasonable emergency procedures necessary to protect an existing use or facility for the safety or protection of persons or property. 7. Maintenance and repair as necessary for the continuance of an allowed existing use or improvement. 8. Landscaping, construction of driveways, modifications of existing structures and the construction or placement of such accessory structures or facilities which are usual and necessary to the use and enjoyment of existing improvements and which are established in a manner compatible with the intent of skis-t+apterth. s CQd ,. 9. Other uses legally existing on December 16, 1982; provided, however, that any change or intensification of such use shall require review as provided by th+s'eftptertlti$ Cod_c_ 10. Single-family dwellings. (Ord. No. 1851, Sec. 1; 11-16-82.) (Ord. No. 2091, Amended, 04/19/94) Page 110 -- Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code Sc0i.m541. ,42_4 Section 48.16.436 Willamette River Greenway Boundary. The Willamette River Greenway Boundary as adopted, and as it may be amended by the Land Conservation and Development Commission, is hereby adopted as the Greenway Boundary in the City of Lake Oswego. (Ord. No. 1884, Sec. 7; 3-20-84.) (Cross_-Referee-ce n_otcs -n also underJ.yi _teas � Page 111 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code Article 48.1-'�50J ¢ Sensitive Lands Overlay Districts. Sections: 48.17.005 Overview. 48.17.010 Purpose. 48.17.015 Applicability. 48.17.020 Criteria for Designating Property within an Overlay District. 48.17.025 Removing an Overlay District Designation. 48.17.100 Environmental. Review. 48.17.105 Delineation of Resource. 48.17.110 Modifications to Dimensional Standards and Setbacks of the Underlying Zone. 48.17.115 Density Transfer. 48.17.200 Resource Conservation (RC) District Environmental Review Standards; Applicability and Purpose. 48.17.205 RC District Protection Area. 48.17.210 RC District Development Standards. 48.17.300 Resource Preservation (RP) District Environmental Review Standards; Applicability and Purpose. 48.17.305 RP District Buffer Requirements. 48.17.310 RP District Development Standards. 48.17.315 Resource Enhancement Projects. 48.17.320 Exceptions Where the RP District Prohibits all Reasonable Development Opportunities. 48.17.400 Special Standards for the Oswego Canal. 48.17.500 Construction Standards. 48.17.600 Mitigation; Purpose. 48.17.605 Progressive Mitigation Steps Required. 48.17.610 Mitigation Requirements. Section 50.16.Qt5 Section 48.17.005 Overview. LOC Article 48.17 QU creates the Resource Protection (RP) and Resource Conservation (RC) District overlay zones to protect environmentally sensitive natural resources such as wetlands, stream corridors, and tree groves. 1. Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Maw The overlay districts shall be designated on the Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Map. The purpose of these maps is to give a general overview as to the location of the districts and is not intended to show the precise location of the district boundaries. 2. Sensitive Land Atlas: The boundaries of the districts shall be shown on individual property maps at a scale of 1:200 in the Sensitive Lands (SL) Atlas. The SL Atlas is intended to govern the applicability of LOC Article 48.1-750,1.6 pursuant to LOC 48.17.01559,16.0-15. The SL Atlas shall be adopted as part of the City*s Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Maps. Page 112 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code (Ord. No. 2148, Enacted, 07/22/97) Sectio,5-0 1010 Section 48.17.010 Purpose. The purpose of Article 48.175_ ]_¢ is to: 1. Manage the impacts of development on lands with environmental and natural resource significance in order to protect the functions and values of wetlands, stream corridors, and tree groves within the Lake Oswego City Limits. 2. Establish design and development standards that allow reasonable use of private property while protecting important natural resources through innovation in site planning and design and by allowing for density transfer and application of flexible development standards. (Ord. No. 2148, Enacted, 07/22/97) aW4 5.0,1011-5 Section 48.17.015 Applicability. 1. This Article applies to all lands designated as RP or RC on the Sensitive Lands Map and Atlas. Development that would result in any land disturbance within the RP or RC District, or within 35 feet of the RP District boundary as shown on maps in the Sensitive Lands Atlas shall be subject to the standards and criteria of LOC Article 48.1 . This Article shall also apply to land divisions, mitigation proposals, and adjustments of a District Boundary. To the degree that any requirement of LOC Article 48.17 conflicts with a requirement of the underlying zone, Article 48.1 50.16 shall prevail. 2. Exception: The provisions in LOC Article 484450 shall not apply to a resource located within the boundaries of a partition, subdivision, Planned Development, or lot line adjustment, approved prior to August 21, 1997 if: a. The resource was identified and protected pursuant to regulations in effect at the time of approval; and b. The proposed development is in compliance with the conditions protecting the resource imposed at the time of approval. Any modification of the prior approved partition, subdivision, or planned development that would impact or modify any protection measures imposed at the time of original approval shall be subject to the standards and criteria of �- Article 48.1-7. 3. Wetlands, stream corridors, and tree groves that are not contained within a RP or RC District shall not be subject to the regulations of 600 is Article 48.17. However, an application for development that impacts a stream corridor or wetland may still be subject to state or federal wetland or stream regulations. Notice of such applications will be sent to the Division of State Lands (DSL) or the Army Corp. of Engineers. 4. In addition to the notification required for the particular development by Chapier 4950.80 - 5, the City shall notify the Oregon Division of State Lands and the Army Corp. of Engineers upon receipt of a complete application for development, change or intensification of use within an RP District that impacts a wetland or stream corridor. 5. If development occurs in violation of LOG Article 48.17, the violator shall Page 113 - Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code not only be subject to any and all enforcement and penalties that can be brought or imposed for violation of t�>hi,� Code, he or she shall be responsible for mitigating any damage caused by the violation to a protected resource pursuant to LOC . 50.16.100 to .l 10. (Ord. No. 2148, Enacted, 07/22/97) S-eclio_n50,16`020 Section 48.17.020 Criteria for Designating Property within an Overlay District. 1. Goal 5 Analysis Required. In order to include an individual property, a portion of a property, or a group of properties within an RP or RC Overlay District, the reviewing body shall find that the resource on the site or sites has been ranked and evaluated through a ESEE analysis in compliance with Statewide Land Use Planning Goal 5 and merits a Resource Protection (RP) and/or Resource Conservation (RC) designation. 2. Procedure. An RP or RC designation may be imposed, modified or removed pursuant to either a City or area -wide Goal 5 analysis or a Goal 5 analysis of a single property or small number of individual properties. The former shall be processed as a legislative Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Map amendment pursuant to LOC Chapter 49 60.150050.75.0_.00(1), and the latter shall be processed as a quasi-judicial Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Map amendment pursuant to LOC 49.60.150050 _75005(2). 3. Lake Oswego ESEE Analysis Methodology to be Utilized. The City shall utilize the Wildlife Habitat Assessment Score (HAS) and Methodology developed in the City of Lake Oswego Resource Areas Report and ESEE Analysis for evaluation and comparison of inventoried sites pursuant to Statewide Land Use Planning Goal 5. The HAS is a numerical ranking applied in an ESEE Inventory which represents the relative wildlife values of a given natural resource site. Six features are evaluated to determine the total Wildlife Habitat Assessment Score: Water; Food; Cover; Disturbance; Linkage; Unique Features. In addition, the City shall consider the scenic value of the resource pursuant to the methodology established in the ESEE Analysis. See A9nen0a_i-f, The Appendix provides the method for establishing stream corridors, which is the method that has been followed since the program was started. See 50.16.035. 4. Applicability of RP Overlay District: The Resource Protection (RP) Overlay District shall protect environmentally significant stream corridors and wetlands. The following resources may be placed within the RP District: a. Stream corridors and wetlands that have a HAS ranking of 50 or more (defined as "Class I" stream corridors and wetlands). b. Stream corridors and wetlands that have a HAS ranking of 35-49 or have a "high" ranking for scenic values (defined as "Class II" stream corridors and wetlands). 5. Applicability of RC Overlay District: The Resource Conservation (RC) Overlay District shall protect significant tree groves. A tree grove may be placed within an RC District if the tree grove has: a. A HAS ranking of at least 35 in the 1994/95 ESEE study; or b. A "high" ranking for scenic values in the study; or Page 114 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code c. Is associated with a stream corridor or wetland that has an RP ranking. (Ord. No. 2148, Enacted, 07/22/97) S��tiQn.16.025 Section 48.17.025 Removing an Overlay District Designation. 1. In order to remove an overlay District designation the review body shall find that one of the following criteria are met: a. As a result of natural occurrences or evolution the resource has been degraded to the extent that the subject property no longer meets the criteria for designation found in Section 49.17.20(a) 5Q.l6. (4J=QL );and a re-application of the ESEE analysis demonstrates that the designation is no longer justified; or As best I can tell from the original ordinance, it was intended to refer to the criteria for designating RP and RC zones; unfortunately they are in subsection 4 and 5 above, not just a reference to the RP zone, which has subsections (a) and (b), but the RC zone has subsections (a), (b), and (c). b. There was a mistake in the analysis of quality, quantity or location in the original designation of the resource and a re-application of the ESEE analysis demonstrates that the designation is no longer justified. 2. An overlay district designation shall not be removed as a result of damage caused by the property owner, another party, or other than natural causes. 3. A removal application shall be processed in the same manners as a designation application pursuant to LOC 48.17N., .020. (Ord. No. 2148, Enacted, 07/22/97) cc-tim X0.16.030 Section 48.17.100 Environmental Review. An applicant for a development subject to LOG this Article 48.17 -pursuant to LOC 48.1-7 0.16.015 shall comply with the environmental review requirements in LOC 48.17. 50010,035 to 48.17.11550,16,Q45 and LOC 48.17-3AA50.16.0 0 to 49.17. 50,1 .060 (for RC Zones), LOC to 48.17 -420a]6,085 -.a 17-420SQ, ]6 085 (for RP Zones) or LOC 48.17.49 0.10M (Special Standards for Oswego Canal), whichever sections are applicable. (Ord. No. 2148, Enacted, 07/22/97; Editorial,correction„10/16/98; Ord. No. ) Section 48.17.105 Delineation of Resource. 1. Preparation/Criteria. Except as provided in subsection 4 of this section, an applicant for a development subject to environmental review shall first delineate the resource. A delineation is a more precise, site specific determination of the location of the resource prepared by a qualified professional. The delineation shall include a map showing the delineated boundary to plus or minus 2 feet. The delineation map shall also Page 115 - Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code show the buffer area, if required for the particular resource. Resource boundaries shall be delineated as follows: a. Tree Groves. The boundary of a tree grove shall be measured at the outer edge of a contiguous tree canopy based on aerial photos and/or visual field observations. b. Wetlands. A wetland boundary shall be measured or delineated in accordance with the 1987 Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands or equivalent methodology approved by the City, and must include soils testing. c. Stream Corridors. A stream corridor boundary shall be measured or delineated based on topographic maps, hydrology maps, and/or field observations, pursuant to LOG 48-35Q 16-A, "Methods for Establishing Stream Corridor Boundaries". 2. Review of Delineation. The Planning -BireeterQ1LM Manaeer shall compare the applicant's delineation maps with the 1994/1995 ESEE Study and the SL Atlas, and shall inspect staked, delineated resource boundaries. The Plannitig Direete+filY.Mn shall approve the delineation if he or she finds that the delineated boundary more accurately reflects the location of the resource than the boundary as shown in the SL Atlas. If the Planning Direete=: jq anaeq finds that the evidence is contradictory or does not support the proposed delineation, he or she shall deny the application. In the alternative, the— M 1 may continue the application for additional information if: a. The applicant agrees to conduct a new delineation by an expert selected by the f'lsmntng Dire et C y_ at the applicant's expense; and b. The applicant waives the applicable statutory deadline for completing a local decision on the application for the period of time necessary to conduct the new delineation. 3. Adjustment of Overlay District Boundaries to Reflect Approved Delineation. An approved delineated boundary shall replace the boundary in the Sensitive Lands Atlas for the purposes of review of the development proposal for compliance with th_ s{;0,G Article 49.17. If and when the proposed development receives final approval, including resolution of any appeals, the boundary of the RP or RC district as shown in the SL Atlas and SL Map (if necessary), shall be modified to be consistent with the delineated boundary. 4. Re-delineation not Required; Exceptions. An applicant for a development subject to 1✓AGLhia=Article 48.17-shall not be required to delineate the resource pursuant to this section if the resource has been previously delineated pursuant to an earlier development application subject to L-9FS,Article 48.17. Exception: The Planning DkireetofCity Marta.ger may require a new delineation if: a. The applicant desires to demonstrate that the previously delineated boundary is no longer accurate; b. There is evidence of a substantial change in circumstances on the property that has affected the location of the resource as previously delineated; or c. The City Council has adopted new delineation standards or requirements since the previous delineation. 5. Delineation in the Absence of a Development Application. An applicant may apply to delineate a resource in absence of an application for a specific development. In this circumstance, an application to delineate a resource shall be processed as a Page 116 - Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code ministerial development pursuant to LOG Article 49-.405M. (Ord. No. 2148, Enacted, 07/22/97) swion 50.16.040 Section 48.17.110 Modifications to Dimensional Standards and Setbacks of the Underlying Zone. 1. Except as provided in subsections 2 and 3 of this section, an applicant for development subject to environmental review may vary from the lot dimensional standards (building setbacks, lot dimensions, size, width, and depth) otherwise applicable without a formal variance pursuant toLOG '._ +00IgJ%yR, if the applicant demonstrates that: a. Compliance with the applicable dimensional standard or standards would cause the proposed development to disrupt lands within an RP or RC District or within a required buffer, or would preclude or reduce the transfer of allowable density from RP or RC zoned areas of the property to non RP or RC zoned areas; b. The proposed development will result in greater protection of the resources identified on the site than would occur without the dimensional modification; and c. In the case of a Planned Development, the criteria of LOC 48.18:4 50,17,015 have been met. 2. An application to vary from standards other than the dimensional standards above or that does not comply with the criteria contained in subsection 1 of this section may be processed pursuant to the formal variance process contained iM_-, . 9AArticle 50.68. 3. Where the request is not part of an application subject to the notice requirements of a minor or major development (either LOC 49.40.8 5_Q.8101 or LOC 9?A59,a .9??�1�, and the proposed development would be located within 20 feet of an existing primary structure on abutting property, written approval from the abutting property owner shall be required. (Ord. No. 2148, Enacted, 07/22/97) SMiQ�50.11.5 Section 48.17.115 Density Transfer. 1. Density transfer shall be permitted on residentially -zoned lands subject to an RC or RP District pursuant to this section. 2. Density Transfer Ratios. a. Density otherwise allowable pursuant to the underlying zoning designation may be transferred from RP District lands to contiguous non -resource zoned lands in the same ownership at a 1:1 ratio. b. Density otherwise allowable pursuant to the underlying zoning designation may be transferred from RC District lands to contiguous non -RC lands on the same ownership at a 1:1 ratio for the portion of the RC District which is to remain undeveloped (the Protection Area). 3. When an applicant chooses to transfer density from one area or parcel to another contiguous area or parcel, the area or parcel that is protected shall no longer be eligible Page 117 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code for additional density. In order to put future property owners on notice, the applicant shall execute a covenant running with the land that effects this restriction. (Ord. No. 2148, Enacted, 07/22/97) Section 48.17.200 Resource Conservation (RC) District Environmental Review Standards; Applicability and Purpose. In addition to compliance with LOC 48.17.10 50,16, 4S? to 49-.47.11 applicants for development subject environmental review pursuant to LOC 48.17-5Q.�.015 on property containing an RC District shall comply with the standards contained in LOC 48.17.200 .16.00 to AO -m—'050.16.060, in order to: 1. Ensure that new development and alterations are compatible with and maintain the functions and values of resources within the RC District; and 2. Limit the amount of disturbance allowed within RC Districts, while permitting reasonable development of property. (Ord. No. 2148, Enacted, 07/22/97) S�ctiQn_5_Q I�i,_45� Section 48.17.205 RC District Protection Area. 1. The applicant for a major or minor development permit on a property containing an RC District shall designate a minimum of 50% of the RC District after delineation as the "RC Protection Area". The applicant for a development that does not otherwise require a major or minor development permit pursutuii to 60C Oitipter.41)-may designate a Protection Area as part of the application, but such application shall be processed as a minor development . 2. Except as otherwise provided in LOC 48.17.2105Qj._f 0 i4, no development shall be pennitted within the Protection Area. The area outside of the Protection Area may be fully developed pursuant to applicable regulations. 3. Except as provided in subsection 4 of this section, the location of the Protection Area shall be based upon the following criteria: a. The Protection Area shall link to other RP or RC lands on the development site and on abutting properties, if such lands are present; b. The largest trees within an RC District shall be included in the Protection Area.; c. The location of the Protection Area shall be designed to protect development from blow -down hazards; d. The Protection Area shall protect steep slopes and resources close to water areas from potential erosion and water quality impacts; e. The Protection Area shall protect wildlife habitat and travel corridors; f. The Protection Area shall include the area the highest HAS ranking, if more than one resource is located on the property; g. The Protection Area shall be designed to protect a contiguous canopy and a clustered configuration that does not fragment lands within an RC District; h. The Protection Area shall maintain an ecologically viable plant and wildlife Page 118 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code community; i. The Protection Area shall maintain the scenic qualities of the site. 4. It is recognized that all of the criteria listed in subsection 3 of this section may not be applicable to every site. In some cases, the criteria may conflict on a given site. In such cases, the reviewing authority shall balance the applicable criteria in order to protect the most environmentally significant portion of the RC District. 5. Once a Protection Area has been identified and protected pursuant to LOC Article 48.175D,10 and approval becomes final, no future reduction in the RC Protection Area shall be permitted, unless the property owner files for a modification to the original permit and establishes a new Protection Area in compliance with subsection 3 of this section that is at least as large as the previously designated protection area, or demonstrates that the Protection Area as originally designated has degraded through natural causes pursuant to LOC 4&.44 029�Q.16.020. 5. The 1 shall note the establishment of a Protection Area in the SL Atlas, along with a reference to the application in which the Protection Area was created. 6. In order to put future property owners on notice, the applicant shall execute a covenant running with the land that references the Protection Area and the City of Lake Oswego Department of Planning application file in which the Protection Area was established. (Ord. No. 2148, Enacted, 07/22/97; Editorial,correction„10/16/98; Ord. No. ) Sect4tt_5_Q,16s4�Q Section 48.17.210 RC District Development Standards. In addition to compliance with any other applicable regulations, development on properties containing an RC District shall be subject to the standards set forth in this section. Except as provided in subsection 8 of this section, a criterion applicable to the RC Protection Area shall apply to the entire RC District if no Protection Area has been established pursuant to LOC r 49.' -.o-',05 Q._l6 Q5S. 1. Streets, Driveways and Public Transportation Facilities. Public or private streets, driveways or public transportation facilities shall not be placed through the RC Protection Area to access buildable areas of the property unless there is no other practicable method of access. If allowed pursuant to this criterion, the applicant shall comply with the following requirements: a. Roadways, driveways and bridges shall be the minimum width necessary to protect resources within the Protection Area while also allowing for safe passage of vehicles and/or pedestrians. b. The amount of disturbance in the Protection Area shall be minimized through use of shared access for abutting lots and access through easements for adjacent lots; c. The applicant shall plan for future extension of shared access, access easements, or private streets to access potential new building sites in order to avoid subsequent encroachments into the Protection Area; d. The applicant shall mitigate for loss of Protection Area by increasing the size of the protection area, where feasible, or by complying with the mitigation requirements in LOC Sections 48.17.6005Q,_1,E 100 to 48.17.01()5_Q,16,1 l 5. 2. Setbacks from Protection Area. New structures, parking areas, active use Page 119 - Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code recreational facilities, and driveways shall be set back at least 5 feet from the Protection Area boundary in order to protect tree roots. Accessory structures, decks, and similar structures meeting the criteria of LOC 48..20.50550.14.90(5)(a -c) and LOC 48.20.520(2)50.22.Q are permitted within the 5 foot setback area so long as they are placed no closer than 3 feet from the Protection Area boundary. 3. Fences. Fences shall not be placed in a Protection Area unless they are constructed to allow wildlife passage. 4. Passive Use Recreational Facilities in Protection Area. Passive use recreational facilities, including soft surface trails and pedestrian bridges, may be located within the RC Protection Area. If construction of such facilities disturbs any adjacent land within an RC Protection Area, the disturbed area shall be restored and revegetated with plants identified on the Restoration Plants List. 5. Utilities. Public or private utilities shall not be placed in or through the RC Protection Area unless there is no other practicable alternative. If allowed to be located within an RC District, the applicant shall restore and revegetate the disturbed area with plants identified on the Restoration Plants List and mitigation shall be required pursuant to LOC Sections 48.17.60(50.16.10 to 48.i7,61050.1-6,11.5. When applying Step I (avoidance) of the mitigation process: a. Sanitary sewer, water, power, gas, telecommunications, cable and storm drain lines shall be maintained in public rights of way and routed around significant resources, rather than through a resource wherever possible; b. Tunneling under a resource shall be permitted where tree roots can be avoided. 6. Resource Enhancement Projects. Resource enhancement projects shall remove only invasive vegetation, and shall plant only vegetation within the RC District or Protection Area, if one has been established, listed on the Restoration Plants List. Any pathways or structures proposed as part of a resource enhancement project shall retain existing trees. 7. Hazardous and Noxious Materials. The site shall be inventoried for hazardous materials, debris and noxious materials, and these materials shall be removed prior to the development of the site. 8. Landscaping. a. Plants. Plants used for landscaping within a Protection Area shall: i. Be adapted to local soils and growing conditions; ii. Require no fertilizers or pesticides detrimental to the resource; iii. Not be dependant on long-term irrigation, which can increase erosion and sedimentation. (Irrigation necessary for initial establishment of the plants is not considered long term irrigation); and iv. Provide food or cover for wildlife. b. The City shall maintain a Restoration Plant List on file in the Planning Department listing species that comply with the criteria in subsection 8(a) of this section. If a plant is listed on the Restoration Plant list, it shall be presumed to comply with subsection 8(a) of this section. The Restoration Plant List is not intended to be an exclusive listing of allowable landscaping materials, but shall be used as a guideline and may be updated by the Wig-Direeio Qjy_M_anaggt from time to time as new plants in compliance with subsection 8(a) of this section are discovered or become available. An Page 120 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code applicant may utilize a plant not on the Restoration Plant List as long as it complies with the criteria in subsection 8(a) of this section. c. Removal of vegetation identified on the Restoration Plant List is not permitted from a protection area. d. No herbicides or pesticides shall be used except for control of invasive plants as identified on the Invasive Plants List maintained in the Planning Department. e. New landscaping shall not include any plants on the City's Invasive Plants list. f. Existing Landscaping: Non -conforming formal landscaped area including ornamental gardens and lawns located within a Protection Area and in existence at the time of the adoption of these standards, may be maintained, altered or the modified pursuant to LOC 48-26 50.70.005. However, a non -conforming landscaped area may not be expanded pursuant to LOC 49-26-72050,70M. 9. Tree Removal. Tree removal on property within the RC District shall be subject to the following criteria: a. Tree removal in a RC district that has not established a RC Protection Area shall be subject to a Type 11 permit pursuant to LOC 55.02.042(2) and 55.02.080 (Tree Cutting). If the trees are proposed for removal pursuant to LOC 55.02.080(3), the approving authority shall consider the cumulative impact on the size of the resource resulting from a series of tree removals over time when determining whether the proposed tree removal will have an unacceptable negative impact on the area. b. Tree removal within a designated RC Protection Area shall be subject to a Type II tree removal permit pursuant to LOC 55.02.042(2) in compliance with LOC 55.02.080(1) or (2). Tree removal pursuant to LOC 55.02.080(3) is prohibited in a Protection Area. c. Tree removal outside of the Protection Area shall comply with LOC Chapter 55. d. These limitations are not intended to prohibit removal of trees in an emergency pursuant to LOC 55.02.042(3). (Ord. No. 2148, Enacted, 07/22/97; Editorial correction, 10/16/98; Editorial correction 10/21/99.) S-Wion 50 1 O Q 5 Section 48.17.300 Resource Preservation (RP) District Environmental Review Standards; Applicability and Purpose. In addition to compliance with LOC 48.1 7.10054,.10Q _0 to 48.17.11550j" applicants for development subject environmental review on property containing an RP District shall comply with the standards contained in LOC 48-1 a-3005Q,.16.,0.G5 to 48-17. 50,,, G,M, in order to: a. Prohibit new development within an RP District following delineation of the resource or resources, except as provided in this section. In the event that development is allowed within an RP District, the applicant shall mitigate for the loss of or damage to the RP resource pursuant to 48.17.00050_,_1 x,,100 to 48.17.610510,16 -115; b. Ensure that new development and alterations are compatible with and maintain the total land area and the functions and values of resources designated as RP; c. Allow for development opportunities for at least one single family home in residential zones where an RP District occupies most or all of an individual property, Page 121 - Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code pursuant to applicable mitigation criteria of 48-17.6f3A(S� 6 144 to 4 8 5. (Ord. No. 2148, Enacted, 07/22/97) Section 54b16.070 Section 48.17.305 RP District Buffer Requirements. 1. Buffer areas shall be provided around delineated RP resources. The purpose of the buffer area is to ensure that the resource is protected for the shelter, food, travel, and nesting needs of wildlife and to provide continuity of the resource for aesthetic, surface water quality, slope protection, and flood protection functions and values. The buffer area shall be shown on the delineation map prepared pursuant to LOC 4 8.1 -10 5 5-Q. LCA _43-5. 2. The following buffer areas, measured outward from the edge of a delineated RP resource, shall be provided: a. Class I Wetlands and Class II Wetlands abutting Class I Stream Corridors_t___ - 30* b. Other Class II Wetlands - 25* c. Class I Stream Corridors - 30* d. Class II Stream Corridors - 25* 3. Exceptions/Modifications to Buffer Requirements: a. Development abutting a Class I Resource. The review authority may allow portions of the required buffer abutting a Class I resource to be reduced to a minimum of 15' if: i. A qualified professional demonstrates that such an adjustment will not reduce the functions and values of the resource as a whole; and ii. The width is increased in other areas to maintain a 30* average buffer width. b. Development abutting a Class 11 Resource. The review authority may allow portions of the required buffer abutting a Class II resource to be reduced to a minimum of 10' if.. i. A qualified professional demonstrates that such an adjustment will not reduce the functions and values of the resource as a whole; and ii. The width is increased in other areas to maintain a 25* average buffer width. c. The review authority may permit a buffer width that is less than the average minimums required in Subsections 3(a) or 3(b) of this section when a qualified professional shows that such an adjustment will not damage the system as a whole, and one of the following conditions exist: i. The presence of an existing topographic feature or human -made development physically precludes establishment of the minimum buffer width required; or ii. The size or configuration of the subject parcel is insufficient to provide the minimum buffer width required. 4. The review authority shall not permit a reduction in buffer width solely for the purpose of maximizing development of the site. Page 122 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code (Ord. No. 2148, Enacted, 07/22/97; Editorial,correction„10/16/98; Ord. No. ) SCsfim5=QA 75_ Section 48.17.310 RP District Development Standards. Except as provided in LOC 47-17.3?05016,085, all development subject to environmental review shall comply with the following standards. The original code reference really should have been 48.17.320 1. Landscaping. The delineated RP Resource and buffer zone shall maintain the natural function and character of resource area, which provides food and shelter for native wildlife. Landscaping within these areas shall therefore comply with the following criteria: a. Plants: Plants used for landscaping within a delineated resource and buffer area shall: i. Be adapted to local soils and growing conditions; ii. Require no fertilizers or pesticides detrimental to the resource; iii. Not be dependant on long-term irrigation, which can increase erosion and sedimentation. (Irrigation necessary for initial establishment of the plants is not considered long term irrigation); and iv. Provide food or cover for wildlife. b. The City shall maintain a Restoration Plant List on file in the Planning Department listing species that comply with the criteria in subsection 1(a) of this section. If a plant is listed on the Restoration Plant list, it shall be presumed to comply with subsection 1(a) of this section. The Restoration Plant List is not intended to be an exclusive listing of allowable landscaping materials, but shall be used as a guideline and may be updated by the Planning from time to time as new plants in compliance with subsection 1(a) of this section are discovered or become available. An applicant may utilize a plant not on the Restoration Plant List as long as it complies with the criteria in subsection 1(a) of this section. c. Removal of vegetation identified on the Restoration Plant List is not permitted from a delineated resource or buffer area. d. No herbicides or pesticides shall be used within the delineated resource or buffer area except for control of invasive plants as identified on the Invasive Plants List maintained in the Planning Department. e. New landscaping within the delineated resource or and buffer area shall not include any plants on the City's Invasive Plants list. f. Existing Landscaping: Non -conforming formal landscaped areas including ornamental gardens and lawns located within a delineated resource or buffer area and in existence at the time of the adoption of these standards, may be maintained, altered or the modified pursuant to LOC 48-26-7001 However, a non -conforming landscaped area may not be expanded pursuant to LOC 48.26.72050.70, . 2. Tree Removal. Tree removal within an RP District requires a Class II tree removal permit or an Emergency Tree Removal Permit, in accordance with Article 55.02.042(2) and 55.02.080 (Tree Cutting), except that a tree removal pursuant to LOC Page 123 - Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code 55.02.080(3) shall only be permitted for those limited development activities allowed and approved pursuant to this section. 3. Utilities. a. Public or private utilities shall not be placed within an RP district or buffer unless there is no other practicable alternative. If allowed within an RP District, mitigation shall be required pursuant to LOC Sections 48-4-7:t4MH 6_100 to 48.1-7.6105Q.16.115. When applying the mitigation process to this section: i. Step #1 Avoidance Sanitary sewer, water, power, gas, cable, telecommunications and storm drain lines shall be maintained in public rights of way and routed around significant resources, rather than through a resource wherever possible, except that tunneling under a resource shall be permitted where tree roots can be avoided and the functions and values of a resource will be maintained. ii. Step #2 Minimization Sanitary sewer, water, storm drain line and other subsurface crossings shall be made within 30 degrees of perpendicular to the stream where practical or feasible. 4. Streets, Driveways and Public Transportation Facilities. Public or private streets, driveways or public transportation facilities shall not be placed through an RP Resource or buffer area to access buildable areas of the property unless there is no other practicable method of access. If allowed pursuant to this criterion, the applicant shall comply with the following criteria. a. Streets, driveways and bridges shall be the minimum width necessary to protect resources within the RP district or buffer while also allowing for safe passage of vehicles and/or pedestrians. b. Stream and/or wetlands crossings shall be avoided if practicable. Where unavoidable, the applicant shall use bridges or arched culverts that are wildlife friendly and do not disturb the natural stream bed. The number of stream or wetland crossings shall be minimized through use of shared access for abutting lots and access through easements for adjacent lots; c. The applicant shall plan for future extension of shared access, access easement, or private streets to access potential new building sites in order to avoid subsequent encroachments into the RP District or Buffer; d. The applicant shall mitigate for loss of any portion of an RP Resource pursuant to LOC 4F.1600f 06.100 to 48.17.6105-0 . 5. Structures, Parking Areas, Pathways, Driveways Lighting and Fences. a. Except as provided in subsection 4 above, new structures, parking areas, active use recreation facilities, hard surfaced pathways, streets and driveways shall be set back at least 10 feet from an RP District buffer. Accessory structures, decks, and similar outdoor facilities meeting the criteria of LOC 48:2.50-55 l4,_ 45(5)(a -c) and LOC are permitted within the 10 foot setback area so long as they are placed no closer than 3 feet from the resource buffer boundary. b. Passive use recreation facilities, such as soft surface trails and pedestrian bridges, may be located within the RP district or its buffer. Any disturbed land area shall be restored with plants as described on the Restoration Plants List. c. Exterior lights shall be hooded and positioned so that light does not shine directly into the RP District. d. Fences shall not be placed in a resource or its buffer, unless they are Page 124 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code constructed to allow wildlife passage. 6. Resource Alterations. a. Streams shall not be impounded or diverted from their natural channels unless the applicant demonstrates: i. The diversion or impoundment will cause minimum degradation or loss of natural features in the stream corridor; ii. The diversion will not cause erosion or otherwise cause damage downstream of the development site; and at least one of the following criteria are met: A. A diversion would return a previously altered stream to its original location; or B. A stream channel occupies all or most of a legally created lot; or C. An impoundment is designed to reduce flooding or improve water quality. b. A wetland shall not be impounded or the hydrology of the wetland modified through such activities as draining the resource or enlargement of the resource to create a pond, unless it can be demonstrated that the criteria for allowing resource enhancement in LOC 48.17.315 have been met. 7. Hazardous Materials. The site shall be inventoried for hazardous materials, debris and noxious materials, and these materials shall be removed prior to the development of the site. 8 Land Divisions. The following standards apply to applications for land divisions including partitions, subdivisions, and Planned Developments (PC)s): a. All new lots proposed on lands that include an RP District shall have designated sites for buildings, vehicular access, and utility service that are located outside of the delineated RP resource and buffer area. Exception: This standard shall not apply to lots established as open space tracts, for transfer to a public agency or private trustee to manage as a natural area, or where the entire lot is included in a conservation easement that prohibits development on the site; and b. Permanent signage is required in planned developments and subdivisions to identify the RP District and buffer area where any common open space protects an inventoried natural resource through conditions of approval. The signage shall be installed before any occupancy permit is issued. Such signage shall be reviewed as part of the development review process, and shall meet the standards of LOC Chapter 47. (Ord. No. 2148, Enacted, 07/22/97; Editorial,correction„10/16/98; Ord. No. ) wliu 50.16M9 Section 48.17.315 Resource Enhancement Projects. Resource enhancement projects such as bank stabilization, restoration plantings, in - channel habitat improvements, and similar projects which propose to improve or maintain the quality of a natural resource within RP Districts shall be approved if the applicant demonstrates that all of the following criteria are met: 1. The project will cause the minimum degradation, or loss of natural features in the stream corridor necessary to accommodate the enhancement project; and 2. There will be a significant improvement in the quality of at least one function or value of the resource; and Page 125 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code 3. Only vegetation described in the Restoration Plant List shall be planted. For the purpose of this section, "resource enhancement project" does not include required mitigation pursuant to LOC Sections 487-.(,0(-I59jA1 100 to 48.1 7.61 050.16,115. (Ord. No. 2148, Enacted, 07/22/97; Editorial; correction., 10/16/98; Ord. No. _ _ ) Section 50.16 085_ Section 48.17.320 Exceptions Where the RP District Prohibits all Reasonable Development Opportunities. 1. When a delineated RP District Resource occupies most or all of an individual property in any residential district and thereby prevents reasonable development opportunity on such a parcel, the property owner shall be permitted development of at least one single family home. All other applicable City Codes and Development Standards shall be complied with, and the mitigation criteria of LOC Sections 48-17.600K�.16.100 to 48. l 7.61054A6.115. shall also be applicable. 2. A parcel from which density has been or may be transferred to another area in contiguous ownership shall not be eligible for this exception. (Ord. No. 2148, Enacted, 07/22/97; Editorial,correction„10/16/98;) Sect Qn.50AW 4 Section 48.17.400 Special Standards for the Oswego Canal. 1. Purpose. The Oswego Canal was original constructed and continues to be used for conveying water from the Tualatin River to Oswego Lake for the purpose of enhancing and maintaining the lake. Although originally artificial, certain portions of the Oswego Canal have acquired the characteristics of a RP Class I and Class II stream corridor. The Canal provides the primary source of water to Oswego Lake for the purposes of recreation, navigation, scenic value, irrigation, maintenance and enhancement of water quality and to produce hydroelectric power. It is also an important element of flood and storm water control for Oswego Lake and surrounding areas and it serves as the route for a sanitary sewer interceptor which is necessary to provide sewer service to several areas of Lake Oswego. LOC mss _Article 48.17 is applicable to the portions of Oswego Canal described as beginning immediately south of the Bryant Road bridge and extending to the Tualatin River as illustrated by ' 'TOC TahleAppg,48- 650_16-B, These regulations are intended to preserve the community -wide benefits of the natural resource functions and values of the Canal, but are not intended: a. To prevent the Lake Oswego Corporation from exercising its water rights to ensure an unimpeded supply of water to Oswego Lake; b. To prevent the Lake Corporation from undertaking necessary management and maintenance activities to ensure water quality of the Canal or Oswego Lake, or c. To prevent the City of Lake Oswego or the Lake Corporation from repairing, maintaining or making necessary improvements to essential public facilities and flood management measures within the Canal per 1_099 17.00 LO rtick50,4_.4 Flood Plain, applicable Federal Emergency Management Association (FEMA) regulations, and any other City codes or standards that are applicable. Page 126 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code 2. Exempt Activities. The following activities within the Oswego Canal Stream Corridor are exempt from the requirements of LOG this Article 48.17 when undertaken by the City of Lake Oswego or the Lake Corporation: a. Operation of the Oswego Canal headgate, including variation of water flow rates and emergency or routine maintenance and repairs of the headgate, approaches to the headgate, associated banks and channel including ripraped areas, reinforcement areas, gabions and other features; b. Emergency and routine removal of fallen trees, siltation, slides and other debris from the channel and banks of the canal and buffer areas as needed to ensure a continuous flow of water to Oswego Lake and to prevent flood damage; c. Treatment of waters or flows of water for water quality purposes, and the control or eradication of aquatic weeds and similar threats to the aquatic environment of Oswego Lake; d. Emergency and routine repair and maintenance of failing or collapsed sections of the canal bank or buffers, including removal of contributing vegetation; e. Maintenance, major repair of the Oswego Canal sanitary sewer interceptor and any service laterals connecting to the sewer. 3. Activities Approved Pursuant to a Maintenance and Management Plan. Activities other than those described as exempt above, or incidental thereto, shall be reviewed as a minor development by the _ when proposed by the City of Lake Oswego or the Lake Corporation and when as part of an approved maintenance and management plan. Activities approved pursuant to a maintenance and management plan are subject to the minor development review criteria of LOC 4442-.2-1-550.79-025 and any other City Codes or Standards that are applicable. These projects are exempt from the RP District requirements. 4. Environmental Mitigation Required. Any effects of the above activities which impact the Canal*s stream corridor functions and values as determined by the adopted ESEE analysis, whether conducted either as part of an approved maintenance and management plan or in the course of an emergency shall be mitigated pursuant to a plan approved by the Pituining DifeetofQV- _�—�n_ The mitigation plan shall be appropriate to the scale of disturbance, conform to the Oregon Division of State Lands and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers requirements and shall also, to the extent practical, replace plant communities and wildlife habitat disturbed by the above activities. 4. Boat Houses. Boat houses and docks shall not be placed within the portions of the Oswego Canal stream corridor or its buffer areas as described in LOC 8.17. 1A50,16-09 above and illustrated by 1-OG TabieApppnd x 48-6,50.1-C (Ord. No. 2148, Enacted, 07/22/97; Editorial; correction;, 10/16/98) Section 50. l (�,925 Section 48.17.500 Construction Standards. Following approval of an application but prior to any grading, clearing, or construction on a development site which contains a RP or RC District, the applicant shall submit a construction plan and narrative which demonstrates to the satisfaction of the City Engineer that the following standards will be met: Page 127 - Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code 1. RC Protection Areas or RC Districts where no Protection areas been approved and delineated RP Resources and buffers shall be protected during construction with a minimum 4* tall chain link fencing secured with a minimum of 4* tall steel posts. The fencing shall be in place and maintained for the duration of construction. In addition, temporary signage shall be placed on the fencing which shall clearly identify the resource District and shall state the penalty for violations of this Article. 2. RC protection boundaries, delineated resource boundaries and buffer boundaries, as applicable, shall be located and staked by a qualified professional prior to placement of fencing and other protective measures. 3. No construction, demolition, grading, or site clearing shall begin until after protective measures, signs, and erosion control measures are in place and have been inspected and approved by the Piamiitig-9ireetef!Q Manaeet and all applicable permits have been issued. Fencing and other protective measures shall not be removed, even temporarily, without the permission of the Planning Direeto CiSy_ ager. 4. No stockpiling of fill materials, or parking or storage of construction equipment shall be allowed within a resource District. 5. When transportation facilities, pathways, utilities, or structures are approved within a delineated RP resource, they shall be constructed in such a way that a minimum of excavation is required and so that no draining or filling of a stream corridor or wetland will occur. 6. Any additional construction requirements imposed as conditions of approval or which may be required by the Lake 9swege-Development Standards, the Lake Oswego Building Code (LOC Chapter 45) or the Erosion Control Code (LOC Chapter 54). (Ord. No. 2148, Enacted, 07/22/97) Qwo_ Rgp�iSiti9�1_d Avoie Review�eauirements ofL,4� 50.16.100 to ----- Reference to Lake Oswego not necessary; see definition now of Development Standards S UDj150 -UQ-Q Section 48.17.600 Mitigation; Purpose. 1. Purpose. Mitigation is a way of repairing or compensating for adverse impacts to the functions and values of a natural resource caused by a development. Mitigation may consist of resource area creation, restoration, or enhancement. Some examples of mitigation actions are construction of new wetlands to replace an existing wetland that has been filled, replanting trees, and restoring stream side vegetation where it is disturbed. LOC 48.17.60050,1,6.,1.00 to 48.17.6r1050,,16_11.5 recognizes that true replacement of mature or complex natural resource systems is difficult and can take many years. Mitigation is discouraged by first requiring that avoidance of development siting within the resource be explored. Then, if that is not possible, actions should be taken to minimize damage to the resource. Mitigation ratios are established according to the type of mitigation proposed and the value of the resource. Maintenance and monitoring of the Page 128 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code mitigation measures is also required. (Ord. No. 2148, Enacted, 07/22/97) Section 5s9sl.f�,19� Section 48.17.605 Progressive Mitigation Steps Required. The approving authority shall permit development allowable within an RC Protection Area or a delineated RP resource pursuant to LOC 48. 7.2105 ? 16�QoQ or A5 -0,16M through 48�7.320S51(z,44 , whichever is applicable, only if it finds that the following progressive steps have been met: 1. Step #1 -Avoidance: The applicant shall endeavor to avoid detrimental impacts on the resource altogether by providing alternative site plans along with the development proposal demonstrating that alternative designs have been explored. If disturbance of a resource district resource is proposed, the applicant shall first demonstrate that intrusion into the resource district can not be avoided by a reduction in the size or configuration of the proposed development or by changes in the design that would avoid adverse effects on the resource while still allowing development of the property. 2. Step #2 -Minimization: If the applicant has endeavored to avoid detrimental impacts on the resource according to subsection 2(a), above, and the review authority finds that detrimental impacts cannot be avoided; then the applicant shall minimize impacts by demonstrating that: a. Alternative and significantly different site plans and development locations on the subject site have been considered, and that the alternative chosen is the least environmentally damaging; and b. When mitigation is proposed, there will be no net loss of resource area, functions, or values as a result of development actions pursuant to LOC Section 48.1-7:61 50,16.115(5) or (6), whichever is applicable. (Ord. No. 2148, Enacted, 07/22/97) Sect%Qn_54�1 G 1�0 Section 48.17.610 Mitigation Requirements. 1. Mitigation Plan. When mitigation is proposed or required as part of a development application, the applicant shall provide a mitigation plan prepared by a qualified professional that: a. Demonstrates compliance with LOC 48.17-60550, 16, 105.and this section. b. Includes a maintenance and monitoring plan to ensure the viability of the mitigation over time. As part of the monitoring plan, the applicant or other legally responsible agent shall provide an annual report to the Planning-Dir-ft-wrCity Manager on October 31st of each year for a 3 year period. The report shall be prepared by a qualified professional and shall document site conditions with narrative and pictures. c. Provisions for regular maintenance and periodic monitoring of the mitigation site. Failure to comply with an approved mitigation plan shall be deemed a violation of thialthis ,Codtr. and a public nuisance and may be enforced pursuant to LOC Articles 34.04 and 34.08. Page 129 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code 2. If a Division of State Lands (DSL) wetland permit, Army Corp. of Engineers, or other State or Federal permit is also required, the City shall not issue a building permit until all applicable State and Federal wetland permit approvals have been granted. 3. Mitigation shall be completed prior to a final inspection, issuance of a final occupancy permit, or acceptance of a public improvement. 4. On-site mitigation is required where possible, taking into consideration the existing natural and human -made features of a site. If the review authority finds that on- site mitigation is not possible, then off-site mitigation shall be permitted according to the following priorities: a. Within the same drainage system (as defined by the Lake Oswego Surface Water Management Plan or the Winterowd Natural Resources Inventory) and within the City limits; or b. Outside of the drainage system, but inside the City limits; or c. Outside the drainage system and City limits, but within the Lake Oswego Urban Services Boundary. 5. Stream corridors and tree groves: When mitigation is proposed, the review authority shall require a minimum mitigation ratio (area of resource District created or enhanced to area of resource District lost) of 1:1 for stream corridor and tree grove resources. 6. Wetlands: When wetland mitigation is proposed within an RP Class I or Class II District, the review authority shall require minimum mitigation ratios (area of wetland created or enhanced to area of wetland lost) as follows: a. Wetlands Creation or Restoration - 2:1 ratio b. Wetlands Enhancement - 3:1 ratio c. Wetlands Creation, Restoration or Enhancement- 5:1 ratio where the wetland is a Class I RP District and is forested or contains a sensitive, threatened or endangered species as identified in an adopted ESEE inventory. 7. Vegetation restoration shall be required to mitigate the loss of plant communities disturbed by development activities. In-kind vegetation shall be required for all mitigation projects, including trees, shrubs, and ground cover plants as identified on the Restoration Plants List (on file in the Planning Department). The restoration plant community chosen shall recreate a diverse and healthy environment which is compatible with the resource. 8. Initial 3 Year Bonding Period. a. Except as provided in subsection 8(d) of this section, the applicant or property owner of a development subject to an approved mitigation plan shall post a performance bond or a letter of credit to the City that is equal to 120% of the value of the improvements installed pursuant to the plan for a 3 year period. The bond shall be posted prior to the issuance of a building permit to ensure the success of mitigation improvements and the survival of plant materials. b. The performance bond or the letter of credit will be released by the City after three (3) years upon receiving proof that the mitigation measures have been successfully implemented according to approved plans. Following release of the financial guarantee, the property owner(s) or other designated party (such as a homeowners association) shall remain responsible for maintenance of the resource. c. If mitigation improvements fail during the bonding period and the responsible Page 130 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code party does not replace said improvements after notification by the City, the bond shall be forfeited and shall be used by the City to correct the problem pursuant to the Mitigation Plan and the Conditions of approval. d. Property owners of individual tax lots that are lots of record which are zoned for single family residential use, are not large enough to be further divided, and were in existence prior to the date this Article becomes effective shall be exempt from these bonding requirements. (Ord. No. 2148, Enacted, 07/22/97) Page 131 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code Article 48.1850.17 Planned Development Overlay Vii. "District" added for consistency, since this is not a base zone Sections: 48.18.470 Purpose, Applicability. 48.18.475 Procedures. 48.18.476 Authorization. 48.18.480 Special Requirements. 48.18.485 Expiration, Revocation. 48.18.490 Authority to Approve Changes in Planned Development Approval. Section 48.18.470 Purpose, Applicability. 1. The purpose of the Planned Development Overlay 1)jst g�_ tiff -arc to provide greater flexibility in development of land as compared to a standard subdivision, encourage variety in the development pattern of the community, encourage developers to use a creative approach in land development, conserve natural land features, facilitate a desirable aesthetic and efficient use of open space, create public and private common open spaces, and provide for flexibility and variety in the location of improvements on lots. If these public purposes are accomplished, exceptions to certain zoning standards may be granted as provided by LOC 48.18.47650.17.015. 2. Use of the Planned Development Overlay (PD) is allowed in any zone for proposals classified as major development pursuant to LOC 49.20.11550 -, 79- 039. Use of the PD Overlay is required in any zone for a residential development proposal of 20 or more units or four or more acres that is classified as a major development pursuant to the terms of LOC ^ 9�-1550-M . (Ord. No. 1851, Sec. 1; 11-16-82. Ord. No. 2027, Sec. 1; 4-02-91. Ord. No. 2063, Sec. 1; 08-18-92.) "Districts" added for consistency, since this is not a base zone, and verb changed to match change from singular to plural. S.QQtion 54.12 Section 48.18.475 Procedures. 1. The establishment of a PD Overlay for projects containing more than one phase shall occur in conjunction with the approval by the Planning Commission of an Overall Development Plan and Schedule (ODPS) pursuant to the provisions of LOC Article 654�Z1. The ODPS shall contain a section which identifies the zone requirements to be applied in the PD Overlay. These requirements may be adopted by referring in the Final Order to existing provisions of tlds ehapten _ ode, or by creating special zoning standards pursuant to the Planned Development Overlay section. (LOC 4 ( 50,1,7_,0O5 to 48.18.49(503 6,0125). 2. A request for a PD overlay for a project that will contain only one phase may be Page 132 - Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code considered by the Development Review Commission. No ODPS shall be required, but the requirements of subsection (1) of this section for the adoption of zone requirements in the Final Order shall be complied with. 3. Following approval of a PD Overlay, any subsequent request for exceptions to the zone requirements adopted under LO 48.1,8. sub g onL(l) and (2) abQMshall be processed as variances according to LOG 48.24.44--4-8.2-4. An p 50.68. (Ord. No. 1851, Sec. 1; 11-16-82. Ord. No. 1984, Sec. 1; 3-21-89. Ord. No. 2063, Sec. 1; 08-18- 92.) (Ord. No. 2091, Amended, 04/19/94) SWon 50.17.015 Section 48.18.476 Authorization. 1. In considering an application for a PD Overlay, the hearing body shall apply the height, Floor Area Ratio (FAR), lot coverage, use, open space and density requirements of the underlying zone and, if applicable, the setback requirements of LOC 48.04-13FI5Q M (5). The FAR and lot coverage requirements may be applied with reference to the total area of the project as a whole and not on a lot by lot basis. 2. Except for the special setback requirements of LOC 48.4 4.1 5050A,Q45(5), the hearing body may grant exceptions to the lot size, lot dimension and front and rear setback requirements of the underlying zone if the applicant demonstrates that the proposed PD provides the same or a better sense of privacy, appropriate scale and open space as a PD designed in compliance with the standard or standards to which an exception is sought. In making this determination, the hearing body may consider: a. Whether the applicant has reserved or dedicated more than the minimum amount of open space required by the Park and Open Space Development Standard. b. Whether the requested exception allows the lots to be designed in a manner that provides better access to common open space areas from within and/or outside the PD, better protects views, allows better solar access, maintains or improves relationships between structures, maintains or improves privacy and/or improves pedestrian or bicycle access to surrounding neighborhoods. c. Whether the requested exception will allow a more attractive streetscape through use of meandering streets, access through alleys or shared driveways, provision of median plantings, or other pedestrian amenities. d. Whether the requested exception will enhance or better protect a significant natural feature on the site, such as a wetland, a tree or tree grove, or a stream corridor. e. Whether the requested exception will provide better linkage with adjacent neighborhoods, parks and open space areas, pathways, and natural features. f. Whether the requested exception will allow the development to be designed more compatibly with the topography and/or physical limitations of the site. 3. If the proposed PD is part of an approved ODPS as described in LOC Article 49-2650,,7.1, requirements of the ODPS approval regarding arrangement of uses, open space and resource conservation and provision of public services, will be considered when reviewing the considerations in subsection (1) for the PD. 4. Except as required by LOC 484)4.!.S(5 ._UG.0.45(5), the hearing body may grant exceptions to the minimum side yard setbacks of the underlying zone, without the Page 133 - Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code necessity of meeting the requirements of 17.9Gt&-48-.24,6W Article -AM (variances) if the requirements of 48.18.4765-OA7 W are met, and: a. Proposed lot sizes are less than the minimum size required by the underlying zone, or b. Lesser setbacks are necessary to provide additional tree preservation or protection of abutting natural areas. (Ord. No. 2027, Sec. 1; 4-02-91. Ord. No. 2063, Sec. 2; 08-18-92.) (Ord. No. 2148, Amended, 07/22/97) a990 n 50.17.020 Section 48.18.480 Special Requirements. If common private open space or common buildings are included in the plan, a homeowner's association or similar organization must be established to provide for maintenance of the facilities or open space. The bylaws of such organization shall be included in the application. (Ord. No. 1851, Sec. 1; 11-16-82.) ��ctio�50,�Z,Q2� Section 48.18.485 Expiration, Revocation. If 15% of the structural construction of the planned development has not occurred within three years of the date of the order granting approval for the PD Overlay or if development has occurred in violation of the approval granted, the P4mff +rte E hearing-bDmay initiate a review of the Planned Development Overlay at a public hearing to determine whether or not its continuation in whole or in part is in the public interest. The Commission may decide that the Planned Development Overlay is to be removed and the plan or plat be resubmitted and made to conform to the requirements of the underlying zone, that the approval be retained, or that the approval be modified in any manner consistent with laws in effect at that time. (Ord. No. 1851, Sec. 1; 11-16-82,) Once a Planned Development is approved, it is a "development permit'. LOC Page 134 - Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code 49.58.1425 duplicated all of the above provision, including criteria. LOC 48.19.490 does not specify that the modification approved by the City Manager shall be handled as a minor development, but that is how this section has been consistently applied. The provision stating that "Requests to modify zone requirements shall be processed pursuant to 48.18.475(4)" duplicates 48.18.475(3) [50.17.010(3)]; a cross-reference will be added to 49.58.1425 [50.86.025] to that effect. (Ord. No. 1851, Sec. 1; 11-16-82. Ord. No. 1984, Sec. 2; 03-21-89.) Page 135 -- Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code 50.18 First Addition and the Lake Grove Building Height and Roof Pitch Overlay 50.18.005 Height of Structure 48.07.010 1. This zoning overlay requirement shall be applicable to single family structures and zero lot line dwellings in residential zones located in the First Addition Neighborhood and the Lake Grove Neighborhood as shown in LOC TA13L+8-A__ end_iX 48-75=-A and 48-850.18-B. 2. Notwithstanding LOC A8.02.0155 -002Q45, Height of Building definition, the method for determining the height of buildings shall be as follows: a. On Flat Lots: The vertical distance from any ground surface at the exterior wall of the building to the highest point of the roof. b. On Sloped Lots: The vertical distance from any ground surface at the exterior wall of the building prior to construction of any structure which artificially elevates the ground surface, to the highest point of the roof. Ord. 2301 - Effective September 6, 2001 50.18.010 Minimum Roof Pitch Required in First Addition and Lake Grove Neighborhoods 48.07.015 1. This zoning overlay requirement shall be applicable to single family structures and zero lot line dwellings in residential zones located in the First Addition and Lake Grove Neighborhoods as shown in LOC TAB6E—,-A4-75Q_ ]8and 48- 850 =1 g=B. 2. The minimum roof pitch for primary roof forms of a single family or zero lot line dwelling shall be 6:12. Shed type and flat roofs are not permitted as primary roof forms on single family and zero lot line dwellings. Secondary roof forms, such as sunrooms, balconies, dormers, porticos, or bays may be flat or shed roof types (See TA F �Penc ix 48-35,0,0.7_-,A). Ord. 2301 - Effective September 6, 2001 Article 50.19 Reserved Page 136 - Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code Article 48..1-950,20 Flag Lots. Sections: 48.19.005 Purpose; Applicability. 48.19.010 Authorization; Application Requirements. 48.19.015 Exceptions. 48.19.020 Access. 48.19.025 Lot Configuration Requirements. 48.19.030 Building and Site Design Standards. 48.19.035 Screening, Buffering and Landscape Installation. Seet�iQa_54,,24.9� Section 48.19.005 Purpose; Applicability. 1. The purpose of the Flag Lot Ordinance is to: a. Enable the efficient use of residential land and public facilities and services, b. Provide standards for site and building design compatibility of new development with the existing neighborhood character, c. Reduce the area of impervious surface resulting from redundant access paving, and improve the appearance where pavement is necessary, and d. Minimize the disturbance of natural resources. 2. The provisions of LOC 48.19.00550. Q W5 through 49.19.035 shall apply to all land divisions creating flag lots, and to any development occurring on a flag lot created subsequent to the adoption of this ordinance. 3. The creation of flag lots is permitted only in residential zones. (Ord. No. 2172, Enacted, 8/6/98) Section 50.20.010 Section 48.19.010 Authorization; Application Requirements. 1. Flag lots shall comply with the requirements of the underlying zone except where noted in this article. A land division creating a flag lot shall also comply with any specific residential design criteria contained within an applicable adopted neighborhood plan. 2. In addition to the general application requirements for land divisions, an application to create a flag lot shall include a conceptual plan of complete parcelization of the subject property, and shall include a site plan illustrating the location of existing structures on adjacent parcels. The reviewing authority may impose conditions in order to ensure that parcelization of the subject property will not preclude the development of surrounding properties. Such conditions may be related (but not limited) to access, circulation, building location, utility availability, and natural resource protection. (Ord. No. 2172, Enacted, 8/6/98) Page 138 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code $_cction 50.2Q,41 Section 48.19.015 Exceptions. 1. For land divisions, the reviewing authority may allow exceptions to this Article without the need to obtain a formal variance pursuant to Articles 48.24 or 49.28, in one or more of the following circumstances: a. Landscaping required by LOC 48.19.0355-0,20.035.(1) as separation between driveways, which would not result in screening or buffering as intended due to topography, lot configuration, or existing natural resources which would be preserved, may be modified or may not be required; b. Setback adjustments of up to 2 feet which are necessary to site a dwelling in compliance with this Article, or will result in additional separation from existing dwellings on surrounding lots, may be permitted; c. Minimum driveway widths of 12 feet required by LOC 48.19.2 5- ) 024(3) may be reduced, when approved by the City of Lake Oswego Fire Marshall. (Ord. No. 2172, Enacted, 8/6/98) Scct�Qn-54.20 420 Section 48.19.020 Access. 1. For land divisions creating flag lots, the reviewing authority shall require that access to the flag lots shall be consolidated into a single shared driveway wherever practicable, including consolidation with the access of the parent lot. 2. Flag lots shall have access to a public or private street; however, actual street frontage shall not be required. 3. Driveway widths shall be a minimum of 12 feet. Driveway length, construction standards, and turnaround requirements shall be determined by -LOOS, { hu pier 19AM* SQ,S$ "On site Circulation - Driveways and Fire Access Roads". 4. No more than two driveways shall be permitted within a distance equal to the minimum lot width of the underlying zone, or within 50 feet of each other if no minimum exists, as measured from the closest edge of each driveway. 5. All buildings on flag lots must post an address at the beginning of the driveway. The address shall be no less than 6" tall, must be on contrasting background, plainly visible, and must indicate the direction to the building. (Ord. No. 2172, Enacted, 8/6/98) Scction-50 2002.5. Section 48.19.025 Lot Configuration Requirements. 1. Determination of Front Yard: At the time of land division review for a flag lot creation, the front yard shall be determined as follows: The front yard of a flag lot is measured from the lot line that is most parallel and closest to the street, excluding the pole portion of the flag lot. If this standard is not practicable due to placement of structures on adjacent lots, topography, lot configuration, or similar reasons, then the front yard will be measured from a property line that abuts the access portion of the flag or easement. Page 139 - Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code 2. Lot Width: Lot width shall be measured by a line connecting two points on opposite side yard property lines, that will result in a line parallel to the front yard. 3. Lot Depth: The lot depth shall be measured at the mid -point of the front and rear property lines of the "flag". 4. Lot size: Area of access easement or flagpole shall be deducted from the gross acreage of the flag lot. The "flag" portion of the lot shall be equal to or exceed the square footage of the underlying zone. (Ord. No. 2172, Enacted, 8/6/98) •M 7;1 ,• • �t_ �. •� • •� •5 • • �• • Sq LtQJL5QiQ 030 Section 48.19.030 Building and Site Design Standards. 1. Building Orientation: For land divisions the reviewing authority shall require that buildings be oriented to provide the maximum separation and privacy from existing and future dwellings on adjacent lots. The reviewing authority may require conditions of approval to include measures such as specific building locations, increased setbacks, additional height restrictions, location and orientation of windows and other openings. 2. Garage placement shall be reviewed at the time of building permit application to ensure minimum visibility of the garage from the street. Garage placement shall meet the following requirements: a. Be side -loading where a turning radius can be provided that allows for a minimum of 24' separation from the garage door and any obstructions or property lines, or b. Be placed such that no more than 40% of garage wall area is visible from the intersection of the flag lot driveway and street. c. When a garage is visible from the street, the front or side of the exposed garage building wall shall have more than one plane, or shall include fenestration equal to at least 10% of the facade visible from any point at the intersection of the driveway and the public street. To demonstrate compliance with this standard, building elevations shall be submitted which depict the facade area visible from the street at a width equal to the access easement. The area of a specific facade of a building is determined by adding the square footage of surface area of each section of wall visible from that perspective. For buildings with more than one wall (plane) along one facade (for example, rooms jutting out from the main building or a building where each floor is set back from the floor below), all of the walls are included in the total area. The total area does not include any roof area. 3. Height Requirement: Single family residential structures and accessory structures shall not exceed the average height of all dwellings on lots abutting the flag lot. Where a vacant abutting lot is present, a height of 16 feet shall be used in calculating the average. Where an existing structure on an abutting lot exceeds the maximum height allowed by the underlying zone, then the maximum height permitted by the underlying zone shall be Page 140 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code used for purposes of calculating the average. 4. Where a flag lot abuts a lot in a residential district of lower density, the greater setback requirements of the more restrictive district shall apply for those yards which have abutting property lines. (Ord. No. 2172, Enacted, 8/6/98) Section 50.20.035 Section 48.19.035 Screening, Buffering and Landscape Installation. 1. For land divisions, a minimum six foot landscape strip shall be provided as separation between driveways that are within 10 feet of each other (as measured from the closest edge of each driveway) and where a driveway is within 10 feet of an adjacent residential structure. Where land area is not sufficient to accommodate a 6 foot wide landscaped buffer between the new driveway and an existing dwelling, the review authority may impose conditions of approval to include measures that will provide effective buffering and screening. These measures may include landscaped islands, fencing, and meandering driveways. The reviewing authority shall require the landscape strip to be planted with trees and shrubs in order to mitigate the visual impact of wide expanses of pavement, and to provide a visual and noise buffer between the driveway and the affected dwelling(s) located on adjacent parcels. Plant materials used for screening and buffering shall be of a size to provide an effective screen within two years of planting. Trees shall be a minimum 2" caliper, and shrubs shall be a minimum of 5 gallon at time of planting. Maintenance of the buffer is an ongoing obligation of the property owner. 2. For land divisions, existing mature vegetation and trees shall be integrated as screening where practicable. The review authority may require dwelling and garage placement or orientation in a manner that will minimize the removal of specific trees, hedges, or other vegetation that would serve to screen the proposed structures from existing and potential surrounding homes. 3. The rear and side yards of the lot where the new development occurs shall be screened from adjacent property with a six foot tall fence, except where a four foot fence is required by LOC 45.15.020(1) of the Building Code, and except where the abutting property owner agrees in writing that a fence is not necessary along the common property line. In addition, a landscaped buffer within the rear yard setback a minimum of six feet in width shall be created along the rear property line and planted with a deciduous or evergreen hedge, a minimum four feet in height at planting which shall grow to a height of six feet within two years and shall be maintained at a minimum of that height, except where the abutting property owner agrees in writing that a landscaped buffer is not necessary. The above requirements pertaining to the "rear yard" are not applicable where the rear yard abuts Oswego Lake. 4. Tree removal mitigation: A minimum of one evergreen or deciduous tree, of a species which will attain a minimum of thirty feet in height, shall be planted at a 1:1 ratio where practicable in order to mitigate the removal of existing trees necessary for site development. Deciduous trees at planting shall be a minimum of 2" caliper and evergreen trees shall be a minimum of eight feet tall. Page 141 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code (Ord. No. 2172, Enacted, 8/6/98) Page 142 — prafl December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code Article 50.21 Vision Clearance Section 50.21.005 Section 48.20.530 Vision Clearance. 1. The "vision clearance triangle" is that area enclosed by the lines formed by the outside edges of the intersecting pavements or driving surfaces and a straight line drawn diagonally across the corner, connecting those lines at the various distances specified below. The measured distance along the pavement is the "vision clearance distance". Measurement shall be from the point of intersection of the tfWeNedtXglW surfaces. See :FAB6F 4,&452,1-A, (Vision Clearance Triangle Graph.) 2. Standards: a. Within the vision clearance triangle, it shall be unlawful to install, set out or maintain, or to allow the installation, setting out or maintenance of, any sign, fence, hedge, shrubbery, natural growth or other obstruction to the view, higher than 30" above the level of the centerline of the adjacent pavement. b. The dimensions of the vision clearance triangle, as measured from the point of intersection of the travel led lid surfaces, shall be as follows: (1) At intersections governed by existing traffic control devices, or at locations where a major development accesses to an arterial or collector street and generates in excess of 100 ADT, the vision clearance triangle shall be determined by an engineering study using REF 1965 Rural AASHO Standards. (2) At the non -controlled intersection of two streets, the vision clearance distance along each travel! edlraveled surface shall be a minimum of 60 feet. (3) At an intersection of an alley and a street, the vision clearance distance shall be 10 feet along the alley and 60 feet along the street. (4) At an intersection of a driveway and a street, the vision clearance distance along each traveileftgygW surface shall be 10 feet. 3. Exceptions. The requirements of subsection 2 do not apply to: a. Public utility poles; b. Vegetation trimmed (to the trunk) from the ground to a line at least eight feet above the level of the pavement; c. Official warning signs or signals; d. Signs mounted nine feet or more above the ground and supported by a single support with a maximum cross section of 12"; e. Earth -formed obstructions, including retaining walls, at intersections which were existing on December 16, 1982. (Ord. No. 1851, Sec. 1; 11-16-82.) Page 143 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code Page 144 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code Speeial Street SethaeltExceptiow to Site Ment Stan 1'1.9t_Arn.,5gtb_a_c B_ttightLmSve_ciaLD.Wrmictatim; Xadi Qf Ar►teir Lob Section 50.2210 Section 48.20.515 General Exceptions. 1. General ltxeeptito Lot Area and Dimension Requirements. A lot which does not comply with the minimum lot area or dimensional requirements required by the-thWCode at the time of application for development may be occupied by a permitted use in the zone in which the lot is located. Any proposed use of the lot must comply with all other applicable code provisions, including but not limited to setbacks, height limits, and lot coverage requirements. The lot lines of a lot which does not comply with the minimum lot area or dimensional requirements of 6ie­JWLCode at the time of application may be adjusted as long as the adjustment does not increase the degree of noncompliance. S.�ction 50.22,.Q10 Section 48.20.535(5)(a) General Exceptions to Yard Requirements. Except as provided in 8eetier—?LOC 50.20.105121, the following exception to the front yard requirement for a dwelling is authorized for a lot in any zone. If there are dwellings on both abutting lots with front yards of less than the required depth for the zone, the front yard for the lot need not exceed the average front yard of the abutting dwellings. If there is a dwelling on one abutting lot with a front yard of less than the required depth for the zone, the front yard for the lot need not exceed a depth one-half way between the depth of the abutting lot and the required front yard depth. The front yard setback for a single family detached dwelling in the R-5, R-7.5, R-10 or R-15 zones shall not be reduced to less than 15 feet. (Ord. No. 1851, Sec. 1; 11 - 16-82. Ord. No. 2044, Sec. 1; 11-19-91. ) Because 48.20.535 was split into various sections, it was necessary to refer to the specific new code reference for what used to be section 2 SeetiL&,2 2.015 Section 48.20.515(2). General Exception to Structure Height Limitations. The following type of structures or structural parts are not subject to the structure height limitations of this Code; chimneys, tanks, church spires, belfries, domes, monuments, fire and hose towers, observation towers, masts, ham radio aerials, cooling towers, elevator shafts, smokestacks, flagpoles, radio and television towers, and other similar projections. Aerials other than ham radio aerials are permitted to 10 feet over the Page 145 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code building height maximum in a residential zone. Collocated telecommunication facilities in residential zones may exceed the height limits of the underlying zone, but shall not exceed ten (10) feet above the existing structure height. Collocated telecommunication facilities in commercial and industrial zones may exceed the height limits of the underlying zone, but shall not exceed twenty (20) feet above the existing structure height. TI WMITM 1 1� Section 48.20.515(3) One Year Exception to Height/Setback/Lot Coverage Requirements for New Lots. A residential building permit applied for within one year of the date of recordation of the final plat of a subdivision er—paitierr,—ems w , shall be reviewed pursuant to the setbacks, height and lot coverage standards in effect at the time of the application for part.. ring of ihc_subdivision. (Ord. No. 1851, Sec. 1; 11-16-82. Ord. No. 2053, Sec. 8; 04-07-92. Ord. No. 2052, Sec. 2; 08-18-92.) (Ord. No. 2149, Amended, 04/17/97) The reason this subsection was adopted in 1992 was to provide a phase-in period for subdivisions that were already approved or that were in the application process. The phase-in period of Ordinance 2053 (New Construction/Alteration) has long since passed; "effective date of this ordinance" was May 7, 1992. Therefore, this section could be deleted in its entirety. However, we are recommending that this section be modified so that it is applicable to subdivisions only, to incorporate the provisions of ORS 92.040(2),(3)[1995] into the Code. This statute reads as follows: "(2) After September 9, 1995, when a local government makes a decision on a land use application for a subdivision inside an urban growth boundary, only those local government laws implemented under an acknowledged comprehensive plan that are in effect at the time of application shall govern subsequent construction on the property unless the applicant elects otherwise." "(3) A local government may establish a time period during which decisions on land use applications under subsection (2) of this section apply. However, in no event shall the time period exceed 10 years, whether or not a time period is established by the local government." The recommended revision will thus implement ORS 92.040(2) and (3) by: stating that subdivisions may use the standards that are in place for construction, for a term less than 10 years, to wit: 1 year, following approval. ORS 92.040(2) is only applicable to subdivisions, based on its express term and the legislative Page 146 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code history of HB 2648 and SB 245 [1995]. It should be noted that subdivisions developed under the Planned Development regulations already receive a "permanent lock -in" of the construction standards that are approved as part of the planned development approval. Section 50. Section 48.20.535 Speeial betHRSnecial Determination Reauirements 1. Corner Lots. a. In the case of corner lots with more than two street frontages, the City Manager shall determine the front yard requirements, subject to the following limitations: (1) at least one front yard shall be provided having the full depth required generally in the distrietzone; (2) No other front yard on such lot shall have less than half the full depth required generally. Correction of mis-referenced between "district" and "zone". 2. Through Lots. Unless the prevailing front yard pattern on adjoining lots indicates otherwise, front yards shall be provided on all street frontages. Where one of the front yards that would normally be required on a through lot is not in keeping with the prevailing yard pattern, the City Manager may waive the requirements for the normal front yard and substitute therefor a special yard requirement which shall not exceed the average of the yards provided on adjacent lots. [Section 48.20.5251 Determination of Front Yard for Flag Lots CtrgatePrior to September 6. 1998 and Lots Accessing by Easement. The front yard shall be the area abutting the property line of the "flag" portion of the lot parallel to the street providing access to tlie-"ag. lot _cEC.atcd._grigr t4-mbe_r, b, 122. If this standard is not practical due to placement of structures on adjacent lots, topography or similar reasons, then the front yard will be that portion of the lot abutting the property line of the greatest length abutting the access portion of the flag or easement. (Ord. No. 1851, Sec. 1; 11-16-82.) This section was meant to only apply to flag lots created prior to adoption of Flag Lot Ordinance (Article 50.20], August 1998, so clarifying text was added.. Section 50 22 UQ Section 48.20.535(3) Oswego Lake. Except for a boathouse, a building shall be set back a minimum of twenty-five feet from Oswego Lake, its bays and canals, measured from the property line in all zones except in the WR zone. Section 48.20.535(4) Special Street Setbacks. Page 147 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code tr)L Purpose. To preserve an obstruction -free area along public rights-of-way in anticipation of future street improvements, such as additional lanes, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, transit facilities, drainage management improvements, lighting, and street landscaping. 13,)Z Establishment of Special Street Setback Reference Line. A "special street setback reference line" is hereby established for the streets identified in subsection (f), below. On these streets, required yards shall be measured from the special street setback reference line. e)3, Method of Measurement. The reference line shall be established by measuring the prescribed distance from the center of the right-of-way or as described in the special street setback requirement. dA Priority of Other Plans. Special street setbacks are minimums. If a greater amount of additional right-of-way is warranted by improvements identified in a traffic impact study, corridor study, or transportation system plan, then the greater amount shall prevail. 0 , The special street setbacks set forth LOC ^ ° 20 5'KC1141L(f6) shall not be reduced. Special Street Setback List Affected Street From To Special Setback Bangy Rd. South of Alyssa 30 feet Terrace Ber is Rd. Cornell St. Stafford Rd. 30 feet Ber is Rd. Cornell St. Sk lands Dr. 25 feet Boones Ferry Road Mercantile Dr. West Sunset Dr. 50', but will be superceded by the Rd. City Council's adoption of a corridor stud Bonita Rd. 30 feet Bryant Rd. Boones Ferry Rd. Lake View Blvd. 40 feet Bryant Rd. Lake View Blvd. Childs Rd. 30 feet Burma Rd. 25 feet "C" Ave State St. aIle Country Club Rd. 30 feet Carman Drive North and east of 30 feet Kruse Way Carman Drive South and west of 40 feet Kruse Way Cornell St. Larch St. Ber is Rd. 30 feet Egan Way East/west le only 20 feet Fielding Page 148 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code Rd. 20 feet Page 148 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code Firwood Road 30 feet between Boones Ferry Rd. and Waluga Dr.; 20' west of Walu a Dr. Gassner Ln 20 feet Inverurie Rd. North of Washington Ct. 20 feet Knaus Rd. from Country Club Rd. North City Limits 30 feet Lake Grove Ave 20 feet Lake View Blvd. Bryant Rd. Iron Mt. Blvd. 25 feet Lamont Way 20 feet Lanewood St. Through south leg of Douglas Circle 20 feet Laurel St. Der St. Hallinan St. 30 feet Lower Dr. 20 feet McVey Avenue State Street South Shore Blvd. 40 feet Madrona St Boones Ferry Bryant Rd. (south from railroad r/w 50 feet North Shore Rd. Abutting the railroad right-of-way 30' measured from the south line of the railroad right-of- way -Oakridge Rd. Quarry Rd. Bonaire Ave. 25 feet Oakridge Rd. Quarry Rd. Boones Ferry Rd. 30 feet Overlook Dr. 30 feet Pilkington Road South of Rosewood St Special street setback line shall be measured 30' from the east line of Rosewood Plat Quarry Rd. Boones Ferry Rd. Galewood St. and extension to Carman Dr. 30 feet Reese Rd. Boones Ferry Rd. Upper Drive 30 feet Rosewood St. Pilkington Rd. Tualatin St. 25 feet South Shore Blvd. 40 feet Stafford Rd South Shore Blvd south City limits 40 feet State Street 50 feet Summit Dr. Lake View Blvd. Ridgewood Rd 20 feet Sunset Dr. 20 feet Tualatin St. 20 feet Twin Fir Rd. Boones Ferry Rd. Upper Dr. 30 feet Upper Dr. Iron Mt. Blvd. City limits 25 feet Waluga Dr. South of Firwood Rd 20 feet West Sunset Dr. West of Lake Grove 20 feet Page 149 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code This reflects the changes pursuant to Ordinance 2302, effective 12/6/01; changes proposed as a result of creating it as its own section, rather than a subsection. Section 50.22 04Q Section 48.20.541 Rooftop Decks Rooftop decks are prohibited on the pitched portion of any roof exceeding two percent slope. Decks on flat roofs shall not extend above the coping of the roof. (Ord. 2242, Add, 7/05/2000) SectiQ.u_50,22,045 48.20.520 GepexOl _� iQns_f�r � Id Projections fretnr Bntld+tz attd �?v�ktjc� .tz —k 1. Projections from Buildings. Cornices, eaves, canopies, sunshades, gutters, chimneys, flues, belt courses, leaders, sills, pilasters, lintels, ornamental features, and other similar architectural features may project not more than two feet into a required yard or into required open space as established by coverage standards. 2. Patios and decks which are no more than 30 inches above grade may project into a required yard, but may not be closer than three feet to any property line. Such intrusion into the required yard are to be undertaken solely at the risk and expense of the owner. Any structure which is placed in a required yard, and is required to be moved for any reason, shall be moved without expense to the City and the person who bears such cost shall have no recourse against the City to recover such cost. (Ord. No. 1851, Sec. 1; 11 - Editorial Correction in title Articles 50,23 - 50.29 Rocrved Page 150 -- Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code Design District I Boundary This reflects the changes pursuant to Ordinance 2302, effective 12/6/01; changes proposed as a result of creating it as its own section, rather than a subsection. Section 50.22 04Q Section 48.20.541 Rooftop Decks Rooftop decks are prohibited on the pitched portion of any roof exceeding two percent slope. Decks on flat roofs shall not extend above the coping of the roof. (Ord. 2242, Add, 7/05/2000) SectiQ.u_50,22,045 48.20.520 GepexOl _� iQns_f�r � Id Projections fretnr Bntld+tz attd �?v�ktjc� .tz —k 1. Projections from Buildings. Cornices, eaves, canopies, sunshades, gutters, chimneys, flues, belt courses, leaders, sills, pilasters, lintels, ornamental features, and other similar architectural features may project not more than two feet into a required yard or into required open space as established by coverage standards. 2. Patios and decks which are no more than 30 inches above grade may project into a required yard, but may not be closer than three feet to any property line. Such intrusion into the required yard are to be undertaken solely at the risk and expense of the owner. Any structure which is placed in a required yard, and is required to be moved for any reason, shall be moved without expense to the City and the person who bears such cost shall have no recourse against the City to recover such cost. (Ord. No. 1851, Sec. 1; 11 - Editorial Correction in title Articles 50,23 - 50.29 Rocrved Page 150 -- Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code Special Requirements for Type of Facility Artic-le9-J-0 Section 50.30.QQ5 Section 48.20.545 Home Occupations. A home occupation may be conducted where allowed by other provisions of t4is eltapter_this C & if the following conditions are continuously complied with: 1. The use does not alter the residential character of the neighborhood nor infringe upon the right of residents in the vicinity to the peaceful enjoyment of the neighborhood. 2. A current and valid business license is maintained. 3. No employees other than family members who reside at the dwelling. 4. No outside storage of goods or materials other than vegetation. 5. No more than 25% of the dwelling is devoted to non-residential use. (Ord. No. 1851, Sec. 1; 11-16-82.) SeC1JWL5UQ.M Section 48.20.547 Specific Standards for Secondary Dwelling Unit. A secondary dwelling unit may be allowed in conjunction with a single-family dwelling by conversion of existing space, by means of an addition, or as an accessory structure on the same lot with an existing dwelling, when the following conditions are met: 1. The site is large enough to allow one off-street parking space for the secondary unit in addition to the required parking for the primary dwelling. 2. Public services are to serve both dwelling units. 3. The number of occupants is limited to no more than two persons in the secondary unit. 4. The unit does not exceed one bedroom and an area of 800 square feet, or a total FAR of 0.4,1,for all buildings. No more than one additional unit is allowed. PC Commissioner Beebe suggested expressing FAR in terms of ratio. 5. The unit is in conformance with the site development requirements of the underlying zone and LOC Chapter 45. 6. The following minimum area standards shall be met: 1 person - 250 square feet 2 persons - 500 square feet 7. One unit shall be occupied by the property owner. The owner shall be required to record a declaration of restrictive use in the appropriate county clerk deed records prior to issuance of a building permit for the secondary dwelling unit on the lot. The declaration shall state that use of the parcel is subject to compliance with the City of Lake Oswego's secondary dwelling unit requirements (LOC 58��0.5475Q,,3SL_01 ), including the Page 151 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code requirement that one of the dwellings on the lot be occupied by the property owner to permit usage of a secondary dwelling unit on the lot. 8. The reviewing authority may impose conditions regarding height modifications, landscaping, buffering and orientation of the secondary unit to protect privacy of the neighbors. (Ord. No. 1851, Sec. 1; 11-16-82. Renumbered Ord. No. 1882, Sec. 14; 3-6-84.) (Ord. No. 2189, Amended, 06/01/99) SC&4i154- Section 48.20.560 Specific Standards for Telecommunications Facilities. 1. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to establish design and siting standards for telecommunication facilities that: a. Reduce visual impacts of towers and ancillary facilities through careful design, siting, and vegetative screening; b. Avoid damage to adjacent properties from tower failure and falling ice, through engineering and careful siting of tower structures; c. Maximize use of any new transmission tower and any existing suitable structures to reduce the need for additional towers; and d. Allow transmission towers in residential areas only when necessary to meet functional requirements of the telecommunications industry. 2. Applicability. These standards shall apply to new telecommunication facilities and collocated telecommunication facilities and not pre-existing towers or pre-existing antennae. 3. Approval Criteria for Collocated Facilities. a. Site Size. No minimum lot size shall apply when a telecommunications facility is collocated on an existing building or structure. Telecommunications facilities collocated on existing towers or reconstructed existing towers shall not decrease the setback of the existing tower. For the purposes of this section, an increase in tower circumference to accommodate collocated facilities shall not be deemed to decrease setbacks. b. Suitable Facilities for Collocation: i. Towers or attachments may be placed on existing structures such as athletic field light poles, utility poles, utility towers and tall buildings provided that the addition of the antenna equipment will not interfere with the normal operation of utilities or existing transmission facilities and the collocated facility complies with the height limit in subsection 3(c) of this section. ii. Existing structures may be replaced or structurally enhanced when necessary to permit collocation as long as the setback of the reconstructed structure is not decreased as described in subsection 3(a) of this section and as long as the height of the reconstructed facility complies with height limit contained in subsection 3(c) of this section as applied to the existing structure prior to replacement or reconstruction. c. Height Limit: Collocated facilities are exempt from the height limits of the underlying zone, but shall be no more than ten (10) feet taller than the existing structure in a residential zone or no more than twenty (20) feet taller than the existing structure in a commercial or industrial zone. Exceptions: A collocated facility shall be no taller than the existing facility where the Page 152 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code height of the existing facility has previously been increased in excess of the height limit of the underlying zone as a result of approval of a prior collocation application pursuant to this section. d. Visual Impact: i. All ancillary facilities shall be screened, hidden or disguised. ii. Antennae shall be screened, hidden or disguised, or shall be painted or colored to blend into the structure or surroundings. e. A proposed collocated facility that does not comply with subsection 3 of this section shall be processed as a new facility. 4. Approval Criteria for New Facilities. a. Site Size. A new facility shall be sited on a parcel of a size and shape that complies with the following criteria: i. Setbacks: The tower footprint shall be set back at least two-thirds the tower height from any property line. This setback may be reduced if the applicant can demonstrate that: A. The shape or configuration of the parcel prevents compliance with the setback standard or that a reduction in setback is necessary to take advantage of screening opportunities (such as tall trees, tree groves, buildings, or other tall elements) not available within the required setback area; B. The reduction in setback is the minimum required to best camouflage the facility; C. Adequate clearance between the facility and property line can be provided to accommodate landscaping and fencing; and D. The reduction in setback will not cause a greater visual impact to adjacent uses. ii. The tower pad shall be sited in a location that permits additional expansion to accommodate future collocated ancillary facilities. The tower shall be located centrally on this pad. This standard shall not apply to antennae attached to existing structures or towers located on rooftops. iii. A licensed structural engineer*s analysis shall be submitted to demonstrate that the potential impact of tower failure and ice falling from the tower will be accommodated on site. iv. Separation from pre-existing towers. New towers shall be separated from existing towers by at least the following distances, measured in a straight line from the base of the proposed new tower to the base of any pre-existing tower: Lattice Guyed Monopole >80' Monopole <80' in height in height Lattice 5,000 5,000 1,500 750 Guyed 5,000 5,000 1,500 750 Monopole 1,500 1,500 1,500 750 >80'in height Page 153 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code Monopole 750 750 750 750 <80' in height b. Collocation to be Explored: Accommodated. i. Before an application for a new transmission tower is accepted, applicants shall demonstrate that they have exhausted all practicable collocation options within the proposed service area pursuant to:;OG'ry `�irii $��t1441 (5)(a) and (d) including placement of antennae on existing tall structures and placing multiple antennae or attachments on a single tower. No need to refer to the internal subsections in the "third person". ii. New towers shall be constructed so as to accommodate future collocation, based on expected demand for transmission towers in the service area. Towers shall be designed so as to accommodate a minimum expansion of three two-way antennae for every 40 vertical feet of tower. iii. Multiple Attachments on Utility Towers. In conformance with the Telecommunication Act of 1996, Section 703, a utility shall provide any telecommunications carrier with nondiscriminatory access to any pole, duct, conduit, or right of way owned or controlled by it, unless there is insufficient capacity or access cannot be granted for reasons of safety, reliability, and generally applicable engineering purposes. c. Height. New telecommunication facilities shall not exceed the height limits of the underlying zone, unless the applicant demonstrates that: i. There is a service area need for the proposed facility at the proposed location; ii. The increase in height above the maximum allowed height for the zone is the minimum increase necessary to eliminate service shadows; iii. that providing coverage with telecommunications facilities which comply with the height requirements of the zone would result an unacceptable proliferation of such facilities. For the purposes of this subsection, "unacceptable proliferation" means an increase in the number of transmission towers by a factor of four in order to achieve the same level of adequate service. An increase in the number of transmission towers shall not include facilities or towers that would qualify as collocated facilities; iv. the negative visual impacts on adjacent properties can be minimized by screening or disguising the facility. The applicant may be required to pay for an independent Radio Frequency Engineer or similar consultant to verify the need for this request. d. Visual Impact. The applicant shall demonstrate that telecommunications facilities will have the least practicable visual impact on the environment, considering technical, engineering, economic, and other pertinent factors. i. The height and mass of the telecommunications facilities shall not exceed that essential for its intended use and public safety, as demonstrated in a report prepared by a licensed structural engineer. ii. Telecommunications facilities 200 feet or less in height shall be camouflaged to ensure the facility is visually subordinate to surrounding objects and Page 154 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code colors. iii. Towers more than 200 feet in height shall be painted in accordance with the Oregon State Aeronautics Division and Federal Aviation Administration. Applicants shall attempt to seek a waiver from OSAD and FAA marking requirements. When a waiver has been granted, towers shall be painted and/or camouflaged in accordance with subsection ii, above. e. Accessory Uses. Accessory uses shall include only building facilities that are necessary for transmission function and associated satellite ground stations, and shall not include broadcast studios (except for emergency broadcast), offices, vehicle storage areas, nor other similar uses not necessary for the transmission or relay function. No unenclosed storage of materials is allowed. f. Lighting. No lighting shall be permitted on transmission towers except that required by the Oregon State Aeronautics Division or Federal Aviation Administration. This standard shall not prevent shared use or replacement of an existing light pole. For collocation on existing or replaced light poles, the transmission tower shall have no net increase to the spread, intensity, or direction of the existing light source. g. Fences and Landscaping. i. The tower(s) and ancillary facilities shall be enclosed by a six foot fence meeting the requirements of LOC 45.15. ii. Landscaping shall be placed outside of fences and shall consist of fast growing vegetation placed densely so as to form a solid hedge with a minimum planted height of six feet. iii. For new towers, landscaping and fencing shall be compatible with other nearby landscaping and fencing. iv. Where antennae or towers and ancillary facilities are to be located on existing buildings or structures and are secure from public access, landscaping and fencing requirements may be waived. h. Signs. One non -illuminated sign, not to exceed 2 square feet, shall be provided at the main entrance to the facility stating a contact name and phone number for emergency purposes. Signs shall not be placed on towers and antennae. 5. Supplemental Application Requirements. a. Collocated Facilities: In addition to standard required application material, the applicant shall submit the following information in conjunction with an application for a collocated facility: i. Documentation demonstrating that the collocated facility will comply with non -ionizing electromagnetic radiation (NIER) emissions standards adopted by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). ii. Documentation addressing the specific criteria for compliance contained in subsection 3 of this section. b. New Facilities: In addition to standard required application material, the applicant for a new facility shall submit the following information in conjunction with an application for a new facility: i. A site reconnaissance study containing, at a minimum: A. A vicinity map depicting the proposed extent of the service area. B. A graphic simulation showing the appearance of the proposed tower and accessory structures from five points within the impacted vicinity. Such points are to Page 155 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code be mutually agreed upon by the Planning -Btrteetei Maraa.r and applicant. C. An inventory within the applicant*s proposed service area depicting the height and location of non-habitable structures, including poles, towers, and appurtenances that could accommodate collocation of the proposed antennae. ii. Recognizing that technology in this field is changing rapidly, a demonstration that an alternative technology that does not require the use of new towers, such as a cable microcell network using multiple low-powered transmitters/receivers attached to a wireline system, or any other less visually obtrusive method, is unsuitable. For the purposes of this subsection, a "less visually obtrusive method" means a reasonably practicable alternative technology that will better accomplish the purposes of this section as set forth in 1:;0G s—ubsection (l ). Costs of alternative technology that exceed new tower or antenna development shall not be presumed to render the technology unsuitable. No need to refer to the internal subsections in the "third person". iii. A landscape plan drawn to scale showing proposed landscaping, including type, spacing, size and irrigation methods. iv. Evidence demonstrating collocation has been explored and is impractical on existing structures, existing transmission towers, and existing tower facility sites for reasons of safety, available space, or failing to meet service coverage area needs. v. A report containing the following information: A. A description of the proposed tower and reasons for the tower design and height. B. Documentation to establish the proposed tower has sufficient structural integrity for the proposed uses at the proposed location in conformance with minimum safety requirements as required by the State Structural Specialty Code, latest adopted edition. C. Ice hazards and mitigation methods which will be employed, including increased setbacks, and/or deicing equipment. D. The general capacity of the tower in terms of the number and type of antennae it is designed to accommodate. E. Documentation demonstrating compliance with non -ionizing electromagnetic radiation (VIER) emissions standards adopted by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). F. A signed agreement stating that the applicant will allow collocation with other users, provided all safety and structural requirements are met. This letter shall also state that any future owners or operators will allow collocation on the tower. This agreement is not necessary if the applicant does not own the facility or structure; however, a consent to allow the owner to grant access to other users for the same structure or facility shall be required. G. A soils report if the property contains weak foundation soils or has landslide potential. H. Identification of any other antenna sites owned or operated by the applicant in the City. 6. Abandoned Facilities. A telecommunication facility that is unused for a period of Page 156 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code six consecutive months or longer is hereby declared abandoned. Abandoned facilities shall be removed by the property owner no later than 90 days from date of abandonment. Failure to remove an abandoned facility is declared a public nuisance and is subject to the penalties established by LOC 34.04. Upon written application, prior to the expiration of the six month period, the City Manager shall, in writing, grant a six month extension for reuse of the facility. Additional extensions beyond the first six month extension may be granted by the City Manager subject to any conditions required to bring the project or facility into compliance with current law(s) and make compatible with surrounding development. (Ord. No. 2149, Enacted, 04/17/97) Section 50.UM Section 48.20.549 Specific Standards for Special Use Housing. 1. General Conditions - The conditions in this subsection apply to all types of special use housing. a. The building shall be designed or renovated specifically for special use housing. Any required State licenses must be obtained before the building is occupied by special use residents. b. Occupancy shall be residential. Periodic visits by medical or nursing personnel, such as Visiting Nurse Associations, or personal physicians for medical or therapeutic care are permitted. c. Public services must have capacity to serve the proposed development. d. The housing may be provided as a family setting, as congregate care or as separate apartment units or any combination thereof. e. Walkways shall be paved and lighted and shall not exceed 8 percent in grade f. Buffering of noise and screening of lighting shall be required. g. Adequate fire protection shall be available to each dwelling unit. h. The requirements of the zone are to be met unless specifically modified by this section. i. Occupancy of special use housing designed for the elderly is limited to persons 58 years of age and older for publicly funded projects and 60 years of age and older for non -publicly funded projects. Each unit shall be occupied by at least one person who has reached the minimum required age. If a unit is occupied by more than one person and one occupant dies or is forced to move from the premises and the remaining occupant(s) does not meet the minimum age requirement, that remaining occupant(s) shall be entitled to continue to occupy the premises. For projects receiving financial assistance from a program administered by the State of Oregon, the age restriction may be reduced to no lower than age 55 if such a reduction is certified by the State as being necessary for the economic survival of the project. This restrictive condition shall be recorded in the county deed records. This age restriction does not apply to housing designed for classes of residents other than the elderly. (Ord. No. 1882, Sec. 17; 3-6-84.) j. The site must be at least one-half an acre in size. k. Proposals shall be presented according to the requirements of the PD Overlay District. Page 157 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code 1. Services such as shopping and other commercial needs, medical and dental care, library, churches, etc., shall be available to the project through one or more of the options below: i. Services within walking distance of one-half mile or less on paved walkway of less than 8% grade. ii. Services available through access to at least hourly scheduled regional public transit system. Public transit stops shall be within one quarter mile of the project via paved walkway of less than 8% grade, and shall be located at traffic light controlled crossings on four -lane streets. Two-lane street crossings may use a non -controlled crosswalk provided that safe site distance, as calculated by ITE Standards for Safe Stopping Distance, can be provided. When projects are located on streets having greater than 10,000 ADT a traffic study may be required to show that safe sight distance and adequate traffic "gaps" exist to allow safe crossing. iii. Private or public community bus system which provides on-site service such as Dial -a -Bus or Senior Citizens' bus. 2. Density and applicable conditions for special use housing in the DD, R-0 and R-3 zones. a. DD, R-0: 45 units for the first net buildable acre; 30 units allowed for each additional net buildable acre. R-3: 30 units for the first net buildable acre, 26 units for each additional net buildable acre. For lots larger or smaller than a full net buildable acre, the number of units will be changed in the same proportion as the lot is greater or less than a full acre. b. The occupancy of the units located in the R-0 and R-3 zones, other than congregate care units, will be limited to low and moderate income residents. (Ord. No. 1985, Sec. 1; 3-21-89.) c. For congregate care facilities, 1/2 parking space will be provided for each unit. For other type projects one parking space per unit will be provided. d. Landscaping/open space shall be 30% of the site, unless it can be shown that other alternatives for open space are available. 3. Density and Applicable Conditions for Special Use Housing in the R-5, R-7.5, R- 10 and R-15 Zone. a. Projects are allowed in any R-5 zone with occupancy limited to low and moderate income residents. In the R-7.5, R-10 and R-15 zones, projects are allowed only if the property on which the project is to be built is located adjacent to property zoned DD, R-0, R-3, R-5, or any commercial or industrial zone. All property which is in one ownership or the subject of a joint application is considered to be one lot. The maximum intrusion into the R-7.5, R-10 and R-15 zones from the property line adjacent to the DD, R-0, R-3, R-5, commercial or industrial zone is 400 feet. Allowed densities in the R-5, R- 7.5, R-10 and R-15 zones are 30 unit for the first net buildable acre and double the density of the underlying zone for each additional net buildable acre. For lots larger or smaller than a full net buildable acre the number of units will be changed in the same proportion as the lot is greater or less than a full acre. b. One parking space per unit will be provided. 4. In commercial zones the requirements of the particular zone are applicable. The density of the project is determined by application of those requirements, there being no absolute number of allowable units. For congregate care facilities, one-half parking space Page 158 -- Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code will be provided for each unit. For other type projects one space per unit will be provided. 5. The terms "low income" means an income level which makes a household eligible for the HUD Section 8 Housing Assistance Payments Program. The term "moderate income" means an income level for a household that is below the statewide median family income. (Ord. No. 1851, Sec. 1; 11-16-82. Renumbered Ord. No. 1882, Sec. 16; 3- 6-84. Ord. No. 1882, Sec. 18; 3-6-84.) Section 50.30.025 Section 48.20.548 Specific Standards for Mobile Home Park or Subdivision. I . Must be located in the R-0, R-3 or R-5 zones. 2. Maximum project size of 10 acres; 1/2 acre minimum project size. 3. Must be located on arterial or collector street. 4. Public services must have the capacity to serve the proposed development. 5. Must be separated from other mobile home parks or subdivisions by either; a. A distance of one mile or, b. By a permanent topographic or vegetative buffer such as a hill or wooded area which completely screens one mobile home park from another or from existing residential development. If newly planted, the screening must be of a size to form an effective screen in five years. (Ord. No. 1851, Sec. 1; 11-16-82. Renumbered Ord. No. 1882, Sec. 15; 3-6-84.) L �r1a.c1���31.�Q.�9 eserve Page 159 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Note: *This index also includes chapters outside of Chapter 50, Community Development Code, because they are of interest frequently when considering a development application. Siting Considerations Drainage - Minor Development 50,40 a, Drainage - Major Development--__ SO,N _—Weak Foundation Soils 50.42 Hillside Protection_^ 50.43 _-.,__.-,_._. __Flood Plain- _50,44 ...-Solar Access _ _ _ _ _ _ *LOC Chapter 57* Building and Site Design Building Design.__ _ X0.45 —Tree Removal � *LOC Chapter 55 __Park and Open Space_ 50,44 Landscaping, Screening and Buffering ___50.47 Historic Preservation . *LOC Chapter 58 _Manufactured Home_ _ 50,48 Transportation _ _Off -Street Parking, Loading and Bicycle Access,___^NQS Transit System-- -- -_- _-- _ -i --- - 50:56 Access _ 5007 _ _On -Site Circulation - Driveways and Fire Access 5QJI;8 On -Site Circulation - Bikeways, _Wl1 y -._- and Accessways- --- - ?n C9 Streets and Sidewalks _*LOC 42.03 and 42.03.400 Utilities --,Street (Pathway, Parking Lots) Lights —30160 Utility - _,._ ., __� .54'6a __s._—._System Development Charges _ *LOC Chapter 39 Page 160 - Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code Special District Design Standards Downtown Redevelopment District— Old Town Building__ West Lake Grove Misc. Signs _ _ *LOC chapter 47 Fences _ *LOC Chapter 45.15 Page 161 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code Section 50.40 Drainage Standard for Minor Development The title of thi4 standard is "Drainftge Standard for Mitior Reyelol�ment4". Section AQ,.44=- 12.010 Applicability. Theseis stsr . fir, -shall be applicable to all Mjai��.and minor developments within the City. LODS 12 was a standard to be reviewed for ministerial developments. 49.22.210/50.79.015. But on the face of LODS 12, it would appear not to apply to ministerial developments. Se�tioa_�4s4Q,(L1Q. 12.020 Standards for Approval. 1. Drainage Pattern Alteration. Development shall be conducted in such a manner that alterations of drainage patterns (streams, ditches, swales, and surface runoff) do not adversely affect other property. Section 5�40IU5 12.025 Standards for Construction Same as for section 11.025.50-41,025 ��ctia_n 50.44,�,2 12.030 Standards for Maintenance. Same as for Section i 2. Site Discharge. Where conditions permit, individual lots shall be developed to maximize the amount of storm water runoff which is percolated into the soil and to minimize direct overland runoff into streets, drainage systems, and/or adjoining property. Storm water runoff from roofs and other impervious surfaces should be diverted into swales terraces, and/or water percolation devices on the lot when possible. Page 162 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code Section 50.40.030 12.035 Procedures. The applicant shall submit the following information: I . General Information. Information concerning clearing, grading, vegetation preservation and drainage improvements. 2. Hydraulic Characteristics. When a watercourse is present on the site, information regarding its hydraulic characteristics shall be submitted. Swim .4�. 12.040 Miscellaneous Information. None. Page 163 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code Section 50.41 Drainage Standard for Major Development 11.010 Applicability. This .offndard Art d applies to all major developments. ----1. ff y 1'ss, .runoff►"ttnd-t"-0mftq+ a spe..�ft7 Page 164 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code ......... .. ...... • s. ................... - Seetl".41.020 11.020 Standards for Approval. 1. All drainage management measures, whether located on private or public property, shall be accessible at all times for City inspection. When these measures have been accepted by the City for maintenance, access easements shall be provided at such a width to allow access by maintenance and inspection equipment. 2. Storm Water Runoff Quality. All drainage systems shall include engineering design features to minimize pollutants such as oil, suspended solids, and other objectionable material in storm water runoff. 3. Drainage Pattern Alteration. Development shall be conducted in such a manner that alterations of drainage patterns (streams, ditches, swales, and surface runoff) do not adversely affect other properties. 4. Storm Water Detention. Sufficient storm water detention shall be provided to maintain runoff rates at their natural undeveloped levels for all anticipated intensities and durations of rainfall and provide necessary detention to accomplish this requirement. 5. Required Storm Water Management Measures. The applicant shall provide sufficient storm water management measures to meet the above storm water runoff requirements. The applicant shall provide designs of these measures taking into account existing drainage patterns, soil properties (such as erodibility and permeability) and site Page 165 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code topography. ectiu 50.41.025 11.025 Standards for Construction. 1. Landscaping: and Topography. Detention or retention areas shall, where possible, use natural topography and existing vegetation. In addition to or as replacement for existing vegetation these areas shall be landscaped with ecologically compatible trees, shrubs, and permanent ground cover. Basin or pond side slopes shall be grassed and mulched to prevent erosion. 2. Outlet Structures. Outlet control structures shall be designed as simply as possible and shall require little or no attention for proper operation. 3. Sideslopes. The sideslopes of all man-made detention or retention basins or retention ponds shall be sufficiently sloped or treated so as not to create a safety hazard, or maintenance problem. 4. Emergency Overflow or Bypass. All storm water storage areas shall be provided with some means of emergency overflow or bypass in accordance with one of the following standards: a. Emergency Overflow. An appropriate surface or subsurface drainage system shall be provided as a method of emergency overflow in the event that a storm in excess of the 50 -year frequency storm occurs. This emergency overflow system shall be designed to function without attention and shall direct this excess flood water to an appropriate existing drainage pattern. b. Bypass. A surface or subsurface drainage system shall be installed with adequate capacity to convey around the storage area the storm water runoff from all upstream tributary areas. This "bypass" channel shall be designed to carry the peak rate of runoff from a 50 -year storm. No habitable or storage structures shall be constructed within bypass channels; however, streets and parking or playground areas and utility easements shall be considered compatible uses. C. Hydraulic calculations. Shall be submitted to substantiate all design features. 5. Secondary Uses. Storm water detention or retention areas may be designed to serve a secondary purpose for recreation, open space, or other types of uses that will not be adversely affected by occasional or intermittent flooding. 6. Release Rate Outlet. The outlet opening controlling the release rate of detained storm water runoff shall be: Sized so as not to exceed the water conveyance capacity of the Page 166 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code downstream drainage system. b. Small enough to cause storm water runoff to be detained from a storm of at least the undeveloped ten-year frequency. Designed to prevent siltation or clogging of the outlet opening, and, Provided with a means of adjusting the size of the outlet openings. Required Detention Volume for Developments. Detention volume shall be the maximum difference between: a. The storm water runoff produced from the proposed development site by a 50 -year storm, and The storm water runoff produced from the pre -development site area by a 10 -year storm. Detention Basins. a. Low Flow. A positive method of carrying the low flow through detention ponds shall be provided. This method shall have a positive gravity outlet to a downstream drainage system with adequate capacity. b. Maximum Depth. Maximum depth of detention ponds shall not exceed four feet unless the existing natural ground contours and other conditions lend to greater storage depth, which may be approved by the City Manager. C. Minimum Sideslopes. The minimum sideslopes of detention ponds shall be 50 to 1 (two percent) or sufficient to ensure complete drainage of said sideslopes within a reasonable period of time. d. Paved Areas. If a portion of a detention basin area is to be paved for parking or recreational purposes, the paved surface shall be placed at the highest possible elevation within the storage area. Paved areas shall have minimum grades of one per cent and shall be restricted to storage depths of nine inches maximum. 9. Retention Ponds Shoreline protection shall be provided to prevent erosion from wave action. b. The margins of all retention ponds shall be provided with an under water shelf having a maximum slope of four to one (25%) to a depth of three feet. Other safety treatments may be allowed as approved by the City Manager. C. To minimize growth of aquatic vegetation, the water depth beyond the underwater shelf shall be at least three to four feet. Page 167 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code d. If possible, a method shall be provided to drain retention ponds by gravity flow to allow cleaning and maintenance. ection 50.41.030 11.030 Standards for Maintenance. 1. Maintenance. All detention or retention areas shall be properly maintained by the owner such that they do not become nuisances. Nuisance conditions shall include: improper storage resulting in uncontrolled runoff and overflow; stagnant water with concomitant algae growth, insect breeding, and odors; discarded debris; and safety hazards created by the facility's operation. Storm water storage areas shall be designed with sufficient access to allow adequate, safe and efficient maintenance as determined by the City Manager. SUtion05 41035 11.035 Procedures. I. All drainage management measures shall be prepared by a registered engineer to meet City standards and specification. These plans must be approved by the City Engineer. 2. The applicant shall submit information regarding existing drainage systems, storm water runoff under existing and proposed development site conditions, and the effect of site runoff on adjoining properties. Such information includes: a. General Information. Information concerning clearing, grading, vegetation preservation, drainage improvements and maintenance of storm drainage systems. b. Impact Analysis. An analysis of both upstream and downstream impacts that would result from the development. This shall include: i. Ten Year Storm: The amount (volume) and rate (in cubic feet per second) of storm water generated from the project site during a 10 -year frequency storm for the undeveloped condition of the site. ii. Fifty Year Storm: The amount and rate of storm water generated from the project site during a 50 -year frequency storm for the proposed development on the site. iii. Drainage System Impacts. The effects of increased development runoff on existing drainage systems including potential downstream erosion and/or sedimentation, capacities of existing downstream storm conduits and potential flooding areas downstream and upstream. C. Hydraulic Characteristics. When a watercourse is present on the site, information regarding its hydraulic characteristics shall be submitted. Storm Water Detention Feasibility. When, as determined by the City Page 168 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code Manager, on-site detention is not feasible, practical or required by the City, the applicant shall: a. submit a plan to mitigate any adverse effects (such as erosion and flooding of culverts) resulting from increased runoff and, b. construct these mitigating measures. Cross Reference; See City Engineer's Surface Water awy, Men1�D,cs z L S"JiQn-5-4 4L440 11.040 Miscellaneous Information. 1. Joint development of drainage facilities is encouraged, especially where individual developments cannot feasibly provide on-site facilities. The City may participate in joint drainage facilities. 2. Options for meeting detention requirements include on-site detention areas, joint detention areas shared by several developers, off-site detention in City detention areas shared by several developers, off-site detention in City detention areas, or off-site detention in areas provided by the applicant. 3. Examples of storm water management measures include: french drains, porous pavement, precast concrete lattice blocks and bricks, grass lined channels, dry wells, seepage ditches, and detention areas. Page 169 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code Weak Foundation Soils The SCLTG Section 50.42.005 13.010 Applicability. This stwidard A,Ltittlqapplies to all development which will involve proposed structures located in areas identified as "Potential Weak Foundation Soils. S-_9Aolt A42,Q1.Q 13.020 Standards for Approval. The presence of weak foundation soil is not a cause for denying development, but may cause density to be reduced, structural modifications to be required, or structures to be relocated. 13.025 Standards for Construction. None._(rescrycd) SSM.x.020 13.030 Standards for Maintenance. None. (rrscry d) $---0iQn JQ.32..0?S 13.035 Procedures. Page 170 - Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code Confirmation of Weak Foundation Soil The applicant shall be responsible for confirming whether or not the soils in the proposed development site are actually Weak Foundation Soils. 2. If a development is located in an area of potential weak foundation soils, the applicant shall provide the City Manager a report prepared by a registered professional soils engineer or engineering geologist. This report shall describe the nature, distribution, and strength of the soils, including findings regarding the adequacy of the soils to support the intended types of structures. 3. If soils characteristics are determined to be adequate for the proposed use, no further consideration of compensating design shall be necessary. 4. The engineering report shall include conclusions and recommendations for design criteria for corrective measures, which are appropriate to the soils and types of proposed structures. 5. The application materials shall include description of the design or engineering features which will compensate for the soils in accordance with the recommendations of the engineering report. The proposed design shall be certified by a registered professional engineer. 6. The City Manager shall specifically review design or engineering features in the development application which are intended to compensate for Weak Foundation Soils. 7. The City Manager may require modifications in the proposed design or engineering where necessary to assure adequate structural support, prior to submission of the application for public hearing or approval of a Development Permit. Section_54,42,03-0. 13.040 Miscellaneous Information. 1. Weak foundation soils are identified in the "Engineering Geology" report supplement and accompanying map of the Lake Oswego Physical Resources Inventory, March 1976. These soils are also identified and described in the report entitled. "Soil Survey Interpretations for Land Use Planning and Community Development, Lake Oswego Area, Oregon", USDA Soil Conservation Service, December 1975. The SCS map units which correspond to the Engineering Geology units above are listed in "Table I1: Characteristics and Limitations of Earth Materials" in the Lngineering Geology Report of L..O.P.R.I. Page 171 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code ;r 1 Hillside Protection Section 0.43.005_ 16.005 Applicability. This standard Article applies to all development which includes hillsides or areas with erosion potential. Section_ 5043.010 16.010 Definitions. (Rev. R-92-48; 10-06-92) For purposes of this Article, the following definitions shall apply: 1. Cut or Excavation: Any act by which soil or rock is cut into, dug, quarried, uncovered, removed, displaced or relocated. 2. Erosion: Detachment and movement of soil or rock fragments by water, wind, gravity, frost and ice or by mechanical action caused by development activities. 3. Fill: Placement of any soil, sand, gravel, clay, mud, debris and refuse or any other material, organic or inorganic. 4. Mulch: Application of plant residue, netting, plastic sheeting or other suitable materials to the land surface to conserve moisture, hold soil in place and aid in establishing plant cover. Plastic mulch may be used only temporarily, during construction activities. 5. Potential Severe Erosion Hazard Area: Surface areas where erosion can be easily caused by removal of vegetation cover, stripping topsoil or by placement of fill, whether by natural causes such as streams or surface runoff or by development activities. The placement of any new fill in such an area shall be considered as creating a potentially severe erosion hazard. (Known Potential Severe Erosion Hazard Areas are described and mapped in the Engineering Geology chapter of the Lake Oswego Physical Resources Inventory, March, 1976, on file at City Hall; specifically in Table II, "Characteristics and Limitations of Earth Materials" and "Engineering Geology" map.) 6. Potential Severe Landslide Hazard Area: Areas where earth movement or failure, such as slumps, mud flows, debris slides, rock falls or soil falls, are likely to occur as a result of development activities. These activities include excavation which removes Page 172 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code support of soils by changes in runoff or groundwater flow or vibration loading such as pile driving or blasting. 7. Sediment: Any organic or mineral material that is in suspension, is being transported or has been moved from its site of origin by water, wind, or gravity as a product of erosion. 8. Stripping_ Any activity which disturbs vegetated or otherwise stable soil surface, including clearing and grubbing operations. Section 80.4IM 16.020 Approval Standards. (Rev.: R-92-48; 10-06-92) 1. All developments shall be designed to minimize the disturbance of natural topography, vegetation and soils. 2. Designs shall minimize cuts and fills. 3. Cuts and fills shall conform to the minimum requirements of LOC Chapter 45. 4. Development Prohibited. a. Where landslides have actually occurred, or where field investigation confirms the existence of a severe landslide hazard, development shall be prohibited except as provided in subsection b. b. Exceptions. A registered Soils Engineer or Engineering Geologist may certify that methods of rendering a known hazard site safe for construction are feasible for a given site. The granting authority shall determine whether the proposed methods are adequate to prevent landslides or damage to property and safety. The granting authority may allow development in a known or confirmed landslide hazard area if specific findings are made that the specific provisions in the design of the proposed development will prevent landslides or damage. The granting authority may apply any conditions, including limits on type or intensity of land use, which it determines are necessary to assure that landslides or property damage will not occur. 5. Cuts and Fills. On land with slopes in excess of 12 percent, cuts and fills shall be regulated in accordance with LOC Chapter 45, and as follows: a. Toes of cuts and fills shall be set back from boundaries of separate private ownerships at least three feet, plus one-fifth of the vertical height of the cut or fill. Where a variance is required from that requirement, slope easements shall be provided. b. Cuts shall not remove the toe of any slope where a severe potential landslide or erosion hazard exists (as defined in this standard). Page 173 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code C. Any structural fill shall be designed by a registered engineer, in accordance with standards engineering practice; the engineer shall certify that the fill has been constructed as designed and in accordance with the provisions of LOC: Chapter 45. d. Retaining walls shall be constructed in accordance with Section 2308(b) of the Oregon State Structural Specialty Code. 6. Roads shall be the minimum width necessary to provide safe vehicle access, minimize cut and fill, and provide positive drainage control, all in accordance with LOC Chapter 44. 7. Land over 50 percent slope shall be developed only where density transfer is not feasible. The development will provide that: a. At least 70 percent of the site will remain free of structures or impervious surfaces. b. Emergency access can be provided. C. Design and construction of the project will not cause erosion or land slippage. d. Grading, stripping of vegetation, and changes in terrain are the minimum necessary to construct the development. ectQ_0�4,0�4 16.025 Construction Standards. (Rev.: R-9248; 10-06-92) 1. All development activity shall minimize stripping or other soil disturbance and shall provide prevention measures in accordance with LOC Chapter 15, Erosion Control Standards. Slope stabilization and re -vegetation measures: a. No grading, clearing or excavation of any land shall be initiated prior to approval of the grading plan. The plan shall be approved by the City Manager as part of the Development Permit. b. The developer shall be responsible for the proper execution of the approved grading plan. C. No more than 65 percent of area in slopes of 20-50 percent shall be graded or stripped of vegetation. Sestiq�.50�43�9�5 16.030 Standards for Maintenance. (Rev. R-92-48; 10-06-92) Entire Section Repealed. IJKV. rvedI Section. -50,43,030 16.035 Procedures. (Rev. R-92-48; 10-06-92) Page 174 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code I . Use of Survey Information. A survey is required for Major Development Permit Applications and is to be used to provide accurate topographic information for site and building designs which will minimize disturbance or removal of soils during construction. A survey may be required for a Minor Development Permit if the City Manager determines that the information is needed to know whether the standard is being met. 2. Removal of Vegetation. All development applications shall show areas where grubbing, clearing or removal of vegetation is to occur, and shall describe provisions to protect soils during construction in accordance with LOC Chapter 15, Erosion Control Standard. 3. Potential Severe Erosion of Landslide Hazard Areas. Where development is to occur on a Potential Severe Erosion or Landslide Hazard area, a report evaluating soil conditions and potential hazards shall be submitted to the City Manager. The report shall be prepared by a registered soils engineer or engineering geologist and shall contain the following: a. Evidence that a field investigation was made to determine the actual hazard. b. Statements regarding the exact nature and extent of the hazard. C. Recommendations on site preparation and construction methods to minimize the effects of the hazard. d. If erosion hazard exists, a specific erosion control plan to be approved by the City Manager, in accordance with LOC Chapter 15, Erosion Control Standard. e. A description of any hazard area which should not be disturbed by construction. f. If landslide hazard exists, a statement as to whether or not a proposed development constructed in accordance with the recommended methods is reasonably likely to be safe and to prevent landslide or damage to other property. 4. Plan Filing. The Erosion Control Plan shall be filed with the Development Permit. 5. All development proposed on land with existing slopes greater than 20 percent shall provide a survey showing specific contours, location and types of trees, soils, rock outcroppings or surface rock, and drainage ways. 6. For all development proposed on land with slopes greater than 20 percent, a specific grading plan shall be provided and approved which shows all proposed changes in natural terrain, including the following: Page 175 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code a. Site contours at two -foot intervals. b. Location of existing structures and buildings, including those within 100 feet of the development site on adjacent property. C. Limiting dimensions or finish contours of proposed grading, including all cut and fill slopes, proposed drainage and related structures or construction. d. Description of all methods to be employed in disposing of soils or other materials to be removed, including location of disposal site. 7. All proposed cuts, fills or retaining walls shall be shown on development applications. Section 50.43.035 1-.6.040 Miscellaneous Information. Known Potential Severe Landslide Hazard Areas are described and mapped in the Engineering Geology chapter of the Lake Oswego Physical Resources Inventory, March 1976, on file at City Hall; specifically in Table II, "Characteristics and Limitations of Earth Materials" and "Engineering Geology" map. Page 176 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code ►�nii�� Flood Plain 4,he title Of this sts"dard is "Flood Section 50.445 17.010 Applicability. This standard Article shall apply to all development within "Areas of Special Flood Hazard". 17.012 Purpose. The purpose or these standards is to regulate development within flood plains to: Protect Life and Pteperly-pr9p-grty,from the hazards of flood waters. 2. Designate flood plains as Protection Open Space, where it will encourage land use ideally suited to flood plains. These uses include: wildlife refuges, parks, greenway buffers, trails, wetland retention, etc. 3. Preserve the natural features of these lands, preserving the natural systems and yet allowing development compatible with them. 4. Maintain the Hydraulic Characteristics of these lands by controlling filling, excavation and other development to minimize: a. Rises in the base flood elevation, b. changes in direction of flood water flow, C. increases in flood water velocity, d, reduction of flood plain storage capacity, and e. other increases in flood hazard. Require development proposals to: a. be consistent with the need to minimize flood damage; b. provide an adequate drainage system to reduce exposure to flood hazards; C. have public utilities and facilities such as sewer, gas, electrical, and water systems located and constructed to minimize flood damage. Page 177 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Codc Section 50.44.015 17.013 Adoption of Flood Insurance Study. The areas of special flood hazard identified by the Federal Flood Administration a scientific and engineering report entitled "The Flood Insurance Study for the City of Lake Oswego, Oregon" dated August 4, 1987," with accompanying Flood Insurance Maps is hereby adopted by reference and declared to be a part of this standard. When base flood elevation data has not been provided in accordance with the above adopted "Flood Insurance Study", the City shall obtain, review, and reasonably utilize any base flood elevation and floodway data available from federal, state or other sources in order to administer this standard. When base flood elevation data has not been provided or is not available from another authoritative source, it shall be generated by the applicant for development proposals and other proposed developments which contain at least 50 lots or 5 acres (whichever is less)". 4-i-11—iiiii, -a -U, Mn iisOgn—,-.n.�■.a.���acnuw�.: _ _— tglTt �Mtt�t tMtYllyytNlrttsft+ttt�it' 'ttpnl 44y -i4 Page 178 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code :wrwr�rG� . ..... t.......:.:��ir:uiu:����: r:ri�:r n:�s�����:�ar•urr:�.. .. � y IiY1W1Y�1I.............. . ...I. . IYNY IIY elm 14. ll',., Section 50,44,020 17.020 Standards For Approval. 1. Permit Review. The City shall review all development permits to determine that all necessary permits have been obtained from those Federal, State, or local governmental agencies from Page 179 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code which prior approval is required. 2. Encroachment within Floodways. Encroachment, including fill, new construction, substantial improvements, or other development within a floodway shall be prohibited unless certification by a registered professional engineer is provided demonstrating that encroachment would not result in any increase in the flood levels during the occurrence of the base flood. Restrictions within Flood Plains. Development may be allowed by the City within a flood plain, including a floodway when the following conditions are satisfied: The development is consistent with the need to minimize flood damage. b. Applications for building permits have been reviewed to assure that proposed construction will be reasonably safe from flooding. Every attempt is made to locate, group, and/or cluster all development outside the flood plain or upon the highest ground within it as possible. d. The development is located and oriented to minimize obstruction to flood flows. Vegetation alteration which would increase flood flow velocity, erosion potential or other flood hazards is minimized. The methods used to elevate structures and any filling or excavating shall be based on the need to maintain the storage capacity of the flood plain and to minimize impacts on the natural features within the flood plain. Filling and excavating in excess of 10 cubic yards may be allowed only after alternatives to filling and excavating have been demonstrated to be infeasible. 4. Vehicular Access and Circulation. Where possible, all vehicular access shall be designed and constructed to approach structures and/or building sites from the direction upland from the flood plain to minimize restriction of such access during periods of flooding. Storage. a. Development providing for the storage or processing of materials that are buoyant, flammable, explosive, toxic, or that could be injurious to human, animal, or plant life in time of flooding shall be prohibited in a flood plain. Page 180 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code b. Storage of other materials or equipment may be allowed in a flood plain if not subject to major flood damage, if firmly anchored to prevent flotation, or if readily removable from the area within the limited time available after flood warning. 6. Alteration Of Watercourses. When alteration of a watercourse is proposed within a flood plain: a. The City shall notify adjacent communities and the Oregon Division of State Lands prior to any alteration or relocation of a watercourse, and submit evidence of such notification to the Federal Insurance Administration, and The applicant shall: i. demonstrate that the carrying capacity of the watercourse is not diminished, and ii. provide for City approval a plan to maintain the carrying capacity of the watercourse. Residential Construction. a. New construction and substantial improvement of any residential structure shall have the lowest floor (including basement) elevated to at least one foot above the base flood elevation. b. Fully enclosed areas below the lowest floor that are subject to flooding are prohibited, or shall be designed to automatically equalize hydrostatic flood forces on exterior walls by allowing for the entry and exit of flood waters. Designs for meeting this requirement must either be certified by a registered professional engineer or architect or must meet or exceed the following minimum criteria: A minimum of two openings having a total net area of not less than one square inch for every square foot of enclosed area subject to flooding shall be provided. ii. The bottom of all openings shall be no higher than one foot above grade. Iii. Openings may be equipped with screens, louvers, or other coverings or devices provided that they permit the automatic entry and exit of flood waters. Nonresidential Construction. New construction and substantial improvement of any commercial, industrial or other nonresidential structure shall: a. have the lowest floor (including basement) elevated to at least one foot above the base flood elevation and shall meet the standards for enclosed areas below the Page 181 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code lowest floor as described in Residential Construction (17.020l��Q,44 � (�); or b. together with attendant utility and sanitary facilities, shall: i. be flood proofed so that below the base flood elevation the structure is watertight with walls substantially impermeable to the passage of water; and ii. have structural components capable of resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads and effects of buoyancy, and Section 50.44.025 17.025 Standards For Construction. Certification of Elevation and Flood Proofing. The following information shall be documented on the "Elevation Certificate" form provided by and recorded with the City. a. The actual as -built elevation in relation to mean sea level, of the lowest floor (including basement) of all new and substantially improved structures, and whether or not the structure contains a basement. This information shall be certified by a Registered Professional Engineer, Registered Professional Architect, or Registered Professional Land Surveyor. b. The actual as -built elevation in relation to mean sea level, to which any structure has been flood proofed. This information shall be certified by a Registered Professional Engineer, Registered Professional Architect, or Registered Professional Land Surveyor. C. The design and methods of construction for any nonresidential structure are in accordance with the standards of practice for meeting provisions of the nonresidential construction section based on their development and/or review of the structural design, specifications, and plans. This certification shall be provided by a Registered Professional Engineer or Registered Professional Architect. Anchoring. All new construction and substantial improvements shall be anchored to prevent flotation, collapse, or lateral movement of the structure. Construction Materials and Methods. a. All new construction and substantial improvements shall be constructed with materials and utility equipment resistant to flood damage. b. All new construction and substantial improvements shall be constructed using methods and practices that minimize flood damage. 4. Utilities. Page 182 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code a. All utilities, such as sanitary sewer, storm drain, water, gas, and power shall be designed, located and constructed to minimize or eliminate flood damage. b. All new and replacement water supply systems shall be designed and constructed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of flood waters into the system. C. All new and replacement sanitary sewer systems shall be designed and constructed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of flood waters into the systems and discharge from the systems into flood waters. d. On-site waste disposal systems shall be located to avoid impairment to them or contamination from them during flooding. e. Electrical, heating, ventilation, plumbing, air-conditioning equipment, and other service facilities shall be designed and/or otherwise elevated or located so as to prevent water from entering or accumulating within the components during conditions of flooding. Uniform Building Code. All development within a flood plain shall conform with the flood proofing standards of Chapter 56 of the Unified Building Code. Manufactured Homes. All manufactured homes to be placed or substantially improved within a flood plain shall be elevated on a permanent foundation such that the lowest floor of the manufactured home is at least one foot above the base flood elevation and securely anchored to an anchored foundation system in accordance with the provisions of the section on anchoring above. ScOion_50-4s03P 17.030 Standards For Maintenance. None. (reserved SeclQn_�4�4._4�. 17.035 Procedures. Information Required. The following information shall be submitted for City staff review at a pre - application conference. This information shall be obtained by an on site survey by a Registered Professional Land Surveyor or Registered Professional Engineer. The required information shall include the following: The boundary lines for the 100 -year flood plain and floodway; Page 183 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code b. The elevation in relation to mean sea level, of the 100 -year flood plain and the datum used; The location of all stream channel banks; d. The existing and proposed topography at the two foot contour interval in those areas where development is proposed (including fill, excavation, and stockpile areas); The location and description of natural features such as wetlands, streams, trees, vegetative cover types, wildlife habitat features, etc.; The location of existing and proposed structures, utilities, streets, and other development; g. The elevation in relation to mean sea level, of the lowest floor (including basement) of all existing and proposed structures; h. The elevation in relation to mean sea level, to which any structure has been flood proofed. Variances. In addition to satisfying the requirements of LOC 49.5 1-A5.O,¢$ 0N.. and 49.61 5$_4 , variances to the provisions of this standard shall not be granted without the prior written approval of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Tracking the original ordinance, 2088, I believe the reference to 49.510 was really to 49.12.5 10 (Variance Standards) and that the reference to 49.615 was really to 49.14.615 (Burden of Proof for development applications). (LOC 49.14.615 was amended to combine the intent of the two sections into what is now to be 50.77.007). Records. The City shall maintain, for public inspection, the record of proceedings subject to this Standard. Page 184 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code Building Design -��f�.•\fRflf�\.•n>nf\�.• l��tJ•\•f�\••f.,)•t�fy,\•N\rl avctio.[i__50A5.005 2.010 Applicability. (Res. 98-05; 1/6/98) This standard is applicable to development involving a structure for commercial, industrial, institutional, multi -family residential, attached single-family (three or more units) residential development, and to all minor development within the DD Zone. This standard is also applicable to exterior modifications of a structure which does not qualify as a ministerial development pursuant to LOC 49,20. i950.a0_LQ(2)(c). S-eMtis2]t X4,.010 2.020 Standards for Approval. (Res. 98-05; 1/6/98) 1. Buildings shall be designed and located to complement and preserve existing buildings, streets and paths, bridges and other elements of the built environment, and to assure accessibility for bicyclists, pedestrians, and users of other transportation modes. a. Design buildings to be complementary in appearance to adjacent structures of good design with regard to: shall be designed to: i. Materials ii. Setbacks (for retail/commercial part specifically) iii. Roof lines iv. Height V. Overall Proportions Where existing buildings are to remain on site, new development Integrate the remaining buildings into the overall design, or Page 185 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code ii. Provide separate landscaping, remodeling or other treatment which establishes a distinct character and function for the remaining buildings. Where a residential building is to remain, a lot meeting the zone requirements must be provided. C. Design bus shelters, drinking fountains, benches, mail boxes, etc., to be complementary in appearance to buildings. d. Design those elements listed below to be complementary in appearance to those buildings or structures upon which they are located. Windows Doors Downspouts Utility Connections and Meters Chimneys Lights Signs Awnings Foundations Mailboxes Mechanical Equipment Vents Stairs Decks and Railings Weather vanes, aerials, and other appendages attached to the roof or projecting above the roofline e. Design awnings, signs, and lights at a specific height to define the first floor or retail cornice height. f. Use trees and other natural elements to help define building proportion relationships and to provide scale to the structure as a whole. g. Limit the variety of styles of building elements. h. Screen mechanical equipment from view, or place in locations where they will generally not be visible. i. Every attempt shall be made to design and locate buildings to provide access to desirable views, while not blocking the views of others unnecessarily (density reduction not required). 2. Buildings shall be designed and located to complement and preserve existing natural land forms, trees, shrubs and other natural vegetation. a. Consider land forms and trees as design elements which must relate to building elevations to determine scale and proportion. b. Design foundations to match the scale of the building being supported. Berming, resiting, or sheathing the foundation structure with wall siding are examples of methods which accomplish this purpose. Use decks, railings, and stairs to relate a building to the contours of Page 186 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code the land. 3. Buildings shall be designed to minimize the personal security risks of users and to minimize the opportunities for vandalism and theft. Building hardware that discourages forced entry and provides approved egress capability shall be used. 4. Building shall be designed and constructed to reduce noise impacts on interior occupied spaces and adjacent Property. a. Use solid barriers such as fences, berms, natural land forms and structures to reduce sound levels. The effectiveness of the barrier increases as barrier height increases and as it is moved closer to either the source or the receiver. b. Minimize the window surface on sides facing adverse sound sources, where possible. C. Heat pumps, or similar mechanical equipment shall be located so that operating noise does not affect use of living areas such as bedrooms, outdoor decks or patio areas and adjacent property. 5. Buildings shall be designed and constructed with roof angles, overhangs, flashings, and gutters to direct water away from the structure. 6. Buildings shall incorporate features such as arcades, roofs, alcoves, porticoes and awnings to protect pedestrians from the elements. These projections shall maintain a minimum vertical clearance of 13"-6" where over fire lanes. 7. Building orientation shall be designed to encourage pedestrian access from public streets and make the street pedestrian friendly. Building orientation shall include: a. Locating buildings within 30 feet of a public street except where prevented by topographic constraints, existing natural resources, or where, in multi -building complexes, the configuration of the lot prevents locating all buildings within 30 feet of a public street. b. Buildings that are within 30 feet of a public street shall have a public entrance directly from the street. C. Buildings located on sites adjacent to a transit street shall have at least one public entrance within 30 feet of the transit street. d. Buildings located on sites with multiple frontages on public and/or transit streets shall provide at least one public entrance within 30 feet of the transit street. Cross Rdercn.ce_ Parkin Se.ctioin.54.45.015 2.025 Standards for Construction. Page 187 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code None. SectiQn_50245 O 2.030 Standards for Maintenance. None. S"iion_50.45,025 2.035 Procedures. None. Section 50.45.030 2.040 Miscellaneous Information. Nonc, Page 188 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code Article $0.46 Park and Open Space The title of this standard i4 "Park fttid Open ,. Section 50.46.005 8.010 Applicability. This stmdart -&Ii&-is applicable to all major development. Page 189 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code Section 50,46,414 8.020 Standards for Approval. (Res 97-11; 05-20-97) 1. All major residential development and office campus development shall provide open space or park land approved by the City in an aggregate amount equal to at least 20 percent of the gross land area of the development. Commercial and industrial development shall provide open space or park land approved by the City in an aggregate amount equal to at least 15 percent of the gross land area of the development. 2. Open space and park land in commercial, industrial and office campus areas may be provided as a combination of reserved land and landscaping. Where no RP or RC District Resources or public park land is located on the site, the park and open space requirement can be met by protecting non -designated natural resource areas and/or providing landscaping which meets the requirements of the Landscaping Standard. Srctl"- 5446415. 8.025 Standards for Construction. None. rcierved) Section M 46M9 8.030 Standards for Maintenance. None. Ve.Wrvgd) Sestot► 59�46s4�5 8.035 Procedures. (Res 97-11; 05-20-97) 1. Development applications shall include a scaled plan which identifies the site's proposed open space or park land. 2. Open space or park land shall be clearly and accurately depicted on the final plat map or development plan and documented in the development permit record. If not dedicated by plat and the land is to be in public control, the conveyance shall be by document acceptable in form to the City Attorney. 3. Final approval of open space or park land boundaries shall be made by the hearing body at the time of the public hearing on the development proposal. 4. Lands shall be selected by the City for reservation as open space areas or parks in accordance with the following priorities: a. Delineated RP resources and buffer area. b. RC District Protection Areas. C. Proposed Public Open Space and Parks including intra -city bike/pedestrian pathways. d. Woodlands, tree groves. C. Specimen trees. Page 190 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code f. Natural meadows. g. Topographic variations, such as rock outcrops, cliffs, extreme slopes, riverbanks. h. Conveniently located areas where recreation opportunities can be created. Examples include trails, nature study sites, picnic areas, or view points. i. Scenic views and vistas. j. Others, 5. The decision on whether land is acceptable by the public for control and maintenance for park or open space purposes is to be made by the City Manager and is solely in his discretion. Formal acceptance of parks and open space lands shall be by City Council resolution. Lands may be approved by the City to be counted toward meeting the park and open space requirement that are not acceptable to the City for public control and maintenance. Options for Meeting Park and Open Space Requirements a. The entire amount of the required percentage of park/open space land may be approved as open space or park. In such a case, the park and open space acquisition fee may be waived; the development fee will be charged. b. If the entire amount of land is approved and developed, according to the Comprehensive Plan and City standards, both the acquisition fee and the development fee may be waived. If the project were not developed, the City Council will, after public hearing, assess the development charge. C. If only a portion of the required percent of park and/or open space land is approved by the City then a pro -rated share of the acquisition fee may be waived. The development fee will be charged. d. If, in the situation described in c above, the approved portion is developed under the Plan and City standards, a pro -rated share of the acquisition fee and of the development fee may be waived. e. If no park or open space lands are approved, the full amount of both the acquisition and the development fees will be assessed. 7. Payment of Fees The required fees shall be paid prior to issuance of a development permit. Granting of Partial Rights to Open Space Lands Up to 100% of the open space requirements may be met by the granting of partial rights or reservations, such as: a. Scenic or view easements or cross easements, or b. Imposition of deed restrictions such as tree cutting restrictions in Page 191 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code yards or special setback requirements. (Amended Res. R-83-10; 2- 15-83). SectiQ"0,44,4 4 8.040 Miscellaneous Information. Density Transfer Allowed Open space and park land may be included in the net site area when determining the maximum allowable density. Structures that otherwise might have been located on open space and park land may be transferred to other portions of the site, and lot areas may be reduced to offset for land reserved as open space, as long as the overall density remains within the maximum permitted by the zone. 2. The he�rAglkdy may require active play areas in major residential developments. The DRB is now called the DRC, but by referring to the "hearing body", it refers to the appropriate body to hear the application, whatever that may be in the future. See "hearing body" definition, 50.02. Page 192 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code Articl -5k47 Landscaping, Screening and Buffering The title of this sts"dard is "LaTiddseeri-mg, Sereening and . StsWU_AX.00S 9.010 Applicability. This standard Article is applicable to all major development. SectiguMAM410 9.020 Standards for Approval. 1. Commercial and industrial development, other than in the Office Campus zone, shall provide 15 percent of net buildable area in landscaping and/or open space, including courtyards, planters, raised beds, espaliers, etc. Office campus developments shall provide 20 percent. 2. Multi -family and mobile home park development must provide 20 percent of net buildable area in landscaping in addition to the park and open space requirements. 3. Public and semi-public use must meet 1 or 2 above, depending on use. 4. All development abutting streets shall provide street trees at the proper spacing for the species. 5. Parking lot plantings shall be designed to allow surveillance of the lot from the street at several points. 6. Screening and buffering shall be required to: a. Mitigate noise, lighting or other impacts from adjacent transportation routes or dissimilar uses. b. Screen public or private utility and storage areas; and parking lots. Page 193 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code As a separation between dissimilar uses 7. Any development in the EC zone that is abutting dissimilar uses in the DD zone, must provide a minimum of 15' of landscaped area to act as a separation and to screen and buffer noise, lighting or other impacts between the dissimilar uses. (Rev. R-96-12; 2-20- 96) The following standards apply to PD and cluster developments: a. Lots which are located on the perimeter of a development located in a R-0, R-3, R-5, R-7.5, R-10 or R-15 zone, and which are adjacent to lots in an R-7.5, R-10 or R-15 zone upon which are constructed single-family dwellings, may be not less than 75% of the minimum lot area per unit of the adjacent zone. b. Housing types located on the perimeter lots described in a. shall be single-family, zero lot line or duplex dwellings, except three attached dwelling units may be placed on three lots which abut at a common point with the middle lot being a corner lot. C. In a PD or cluster development located in a R-0, R-3 or R-5 zone which abuts a R-7.5, R-10 or R-15 zone and which does not contain separate lots for the dwelling units, the building setbacks shall meet the requirements of the zone in which the development is located. (Res. R-84-19, Sec. 2; 4-17-84.) 9. Group care homes which include paved outdoor recreational space shall provide screening for adjacent properties. (Res. R-84-20, Sec. 4; 4-17-84.) Svc. 09 n-59A7,_Qi=5 9.025 Standards for Installation and Construction. 1. All plant materials shall conform in size and q-al.y-grade to the American Standard for Nursery Stock, current edition. Added "quality" to "Grade", to reflect that in this instance "grade" is being used as a method of measuring quality. 2. All plant material shall be installed according to Sunset Western Garden Book, current edition. 3. All planting shall have an irrigation system installed to meet standards of Turf Irrigation Manual current edition, unless the applicant can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Development Review Board that such system is not necessary. 4. Existing vegetation may be used in a landscaping plan. Constriction shall not be allowed within the drip lines of trees which are to remain. Finish grade shall be at the original grade or a well or planter constructed equal in size or greater than the drip line. Rare and endangered species as identified below shall be preserved. Marsh or Sessilc Trillium - "Trillium chloropetalum" Page 194 - Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code Fawn Lily - "Erythronium oreganum" White Larkspur - "Delphinium leucophaeum" 6. Topsoil removed during construction shall be replaced with topsoil. 7. Plant materials for use in parking lots and streets shall have a mature height of less than 25' in areas where overhead utilities are present. 8. Plant materials listed below prohibited: Acer macrophyllum Big -leaf Maple Leaves block drainage, roots buckle sidewalks Acer negundo Box Elder Insects, weak wooded Acer rubrum Red Maple Shallow rooted Acer saccharinum Silver Maple Shallow rooted, weak wooded Aesculus hippocastanum Common Horsechestnut Messy fruits Betulus species Birches Insects, weak wooded Carya species Hickories Fruits cause litter and safety problems Catalpa species Catalpas Seed pods cause litter problems Corylus species Filberts Fruits cause litter and safety problems Crataegus species Hawthorns Thorns, fruits cause litter and safety problems Fraxinus species Seeds pods cause. litter problem Gleditsia triaeanthos Seed pods cause litter problem Juglans species Fruits cause litter problem Ashes Honey Locust (species) (does not include horticultural variants) Walnuts Page 195 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code Morus species Mulberries Fruits cause litter and safety problems Populus species Poplars Weak wooded, shallow roots Robinia species Locusts Weak,wooded, suckers Salix species Willows Weak wooded, shallow roots Ulmus fulva Slippery Elm Insects, weak wooded, shallow roots Ulmus pumila Siberian Elm Weak wooded, shallow roots 9. Metal grating, non -mortared brick, grasscrete or similar material shall be installed at grade over the planting area around street trees; or raised planters shall be constructed to prevent soil compaction and damage to the trunk 10. Plant material used for screening and buffering shall: a. be of a size to provide an effective screen within two to five years of the planting date. b. be planted in a single row on centers equal to one-half mature width of the plant material or in staggered multiple rows. C. shall be a minimum of 6' high at maturity; or as determined by the Manager to buffer or screen a specific situation except as prohibited by LOC 50.350. 9.030 Standards for Maintenance. All landscape materials shall be guaranteed by the owner for a period of one twelve month growing season from the date of installation. Security in the amount of 5%, of the total landscaping cost shall be provided to ensure necessary replacement. A schedule of continuing maintenance of plantings shall be submitted and approved for industrial, multi- family and commercial developments. Section_ 50.47,025 9.035 Procedures. None. Section $0,47,_030 Page 196 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code 9.040 Miscellaneous Information. None. "!K% rogawmal i M-4 K',1,SuKq1L&jF i•_•� 11 1.1 Page 197 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code A_rtide-50,48 Manufactured Homes The tial_ of thig standard and i4gLd.... of ftet..red Home Olttee.,._, mt" Section 50.4&M 22.010 General Provisions. Manufactured Homes Permitted on Individual Lots and Parcels: Manufactured homes are permitted on individual lots or parcels in R-15, R- 10, R-7.5, and R-5 residential zones in accordance with the placement standards set forth in Section 22.010 and all other provisions of pm ethic C -d-c which apply to conventionally built dwellings. 2. Deed Covenants or Restrictions: Nothing in these provisions shall be interpreted as superseding deed covenants or restrictions. Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards (HUD Code): Title VI of the 1974 Housing and Community Development Act (42 USC 5401 et sequential) as amended and rules and regulations adopted thereunder, and; including information supplied by the manufacturer which has been stamped and approved pursuant to HUD Rules by a "Design Approval Primary Inspection Authority," and; regulations and interpretations of the Act by the Oregon Department of Commerce; all or which became effective for mobile/manufactured home construction on June 15, 1976 shall be utilized as the minimum construction standard of the City of Lake Oswego to which all manufactured home placements shall comply except as provided other wise by this Article. State Standards: Where standards for Manufactured Home Construction and placement are established by state law or Department of Commerce Administrative Rules, such requirements shall apply in addition to those of this Article. 5. For purposes of tart-lrn�terthi,5 Article only, the definitions of terms used herein and not defined in th] S',pde �l�rrptc'r�1,�; 1 of the Xotim E'<+d�shall be as defined in ORS Chapter 446 or OAR Chapter 918, Div. 500 as amended. Page 198 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code Section X0.48.415 22.015 Manufactured Home Placement Standards. 1. All manufactured homes on individual lots placed within the City of Lake Oswego shall comply with the following standards: (Rev. 06-07-93; ba) a. The manufactured home shall be multi -sectional and enclose a space of not less than 1,000 square feet. b. Bear an insignia of compliance with the Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Code and be: i. A new or not previously occupied unit, or; ii. Be found upon inspection to be in excellent condition and free of structural, electrical, mechanical, and plumbing defects, any of which must be corrected prior to placement. C. Transportation mechanisms including wheels, axles and hitch must be removed. The manufactured home shall be placed on an excavated and back-filled foundation and enclosed at the perimeter such that the finished floor elevation of the manufactured home is located not more than 12 inches above grade. The perimeter enclosure shall be a non -reflective material and give the outward appearance of a concrete, stone or masonry foundation. This material shall be of weather resistant, non-combustible or self extinguishing materials. The materials below grade and for a distance of six inches above finish grade shall be resistant to decay or oxidation. All load bearing foundations, supports, and enclosures shall be installed in conformance with the Oregon Department of Commerce regulations (OAR, Chapter 814, Division 23) and with the manufacturer's installation specifications. d. Have utilities connected in accordance with City of Lake Oswego and Oregon Department of Commerce requirements and manufacturers specifications. e. The manufactured home shall have a pitched roof at a minimum of three feet in height for each 12 feet in width. Eaves must extend at least one foot from the intersection of the roof and the exterior walls. f. The manufactured home shall have exterior siding and roofing which is similar to the exterior siding and roofing material commonly used in the community or which is comparable to the predominant materials used on surrounding dwellings (greater than 50%) within 300 feet of the subject property. g. The manufactured home shall have either an attached or detached garage constructed at the same time the manufactured home is placed on the site or prior to occupancy. The garage shall be constructed of like materials as the manufactured home. An attached carport shall be allowed if more than 50 percent of homes within 300 feet of the Page 199 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code subject do not have garages. Garages and carports shall be constructed to the Oregon State Structural Specialty Code. h. If new or previously unoccupied, the manufactured home shall be certified by the manufacturer to have an exterior thermal envelope meeting performance standards which reduce heat loss levels equivalent to the performance of single family dwellings constructed under the state building code as defined by ORS 455.010. S.Ution 50.48M 22.020 Placement Permit. Requirements: Prior to the location, relocation, or establishment of any manufactured home, the homeowner, or authorized representative shall secure from the Building Official a Placement Permit which states that the building and its location conform with these and other relevant standards of Jhi5,Code. Each application for a Placement Permit shall be accompanied by: a. A plot plan as required for all dwelling units and elevations or photographs of all sides of the home; drawings showing exterior dimensions; information illustrating the type of roofing and siding materials, foundation support system, and; foundation enclosure method and materials. A copy of the manufacturer's approved instructions to be used for installation purposes. C. An agreement signed by the homeowner or authorized representative pledging compliance with the terms set by the Building Official in the Placement Permit and other information as may be required for enforcement of these standards. Issuance of Permit: Following receipt of the required information, the Placement Permit shall be issued by the Building Official within ten days if all requirements have been met. Denial and Revocation of Placement Permit: The Building Official shall deny a Placement Permit which does not provide the proper information or which proposes to site a manufactured home not in conformance with the requirements of this code. The Building Official shall revoke a Placement Permit when such permit was issued on the basis of incorrect or misleading information. In this case the applicant shall cease work on the placement and/or occupancy of the unit and reapply for a Placement Permit and pay the required fees within five days of written notification of revocation by the Building Official. if the Building Official determines that it is not possible for placement of Page 200 - Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code the manufactured home or the unit itself to meet the requirements of this code, then it shall removed from the site within fifteen working days of written notice. Section 50.48.025 22.030 Occupancy Certificate. 1. Occupancy Reguirement: Prior to the occupancy of any manufactured home, the homeowner or authorized representative shall request from the Building Official a Certificate of Completion stating that all requirements of this code have been complied with. The building official shall inspect the property and if all requirements have been complied with, an Occupancy Certificate shall be issued. If the applicant has not met the required conditions and standards, the Building Official may issue a temporary Occupancy Certificate along with a written statement of requirements to be met. The Temporary Occupancy Permit shall not exceed thirty days. The Building Official may also elect not to issue the Certificate of Occupancy if there is a substantial degree of non-compliance with the standards of this code. The manufactured home shall not be occupied until these standards have been complied with. (Rev. 06-07-93; ba) GENERAL DFSIGN STANDARDS Artlde,s 5_49 brQugb=5Q.,54 R_ouv Page 201 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code Parking Standards Section 50.55.005 7.010 Applicability. (Res. 98-05; 1/6/98) The provisions of this ehapter Article -shall apply to all development which generates a parking need. This shall include the construction of new structures, the remodeling of existing structures and a change of use which increases on-site parking or loading requirements or which changes access requirements. (CT9ss R -e r�_Parki��R-S�._Z0nv=_59s47 50 lestriftn�bieyele ��wwiw . ........... Up"RWR rM. pr-UPEN I : OPINION r�v4��iQI�Q�d, 7.020 Standards for Approval. (Res. 98-05; 1/6/98) Page 202 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code Vehicle Parking: a. Required parking spaces shall be available for the parking of operable passenger vehicles of residents, customers, patrons and employees and shall not be used for the storage of vehicles or materials or for the loading and unloading or parking of vehicles used in conducting the business or use. b. Number of Required Parking Spaces: i. Refer to Table®1.tipendix 745D�J-A to determine the number of parking spaces required. The number of parking spaces specified for each type of use are the minimum standards. Fractional space requirements shall be counted as the next highest whole space. ii. Except for residential parking requirements, the maximum number of parking spaces shall not exceed 125 percent of the minimum number of required spaces. iii. Handicapped parking and ramps shall be provided in accordance with the Uniform Building Code. iv. In the case of mixed uses, the total requirements for off-street parking facilities shall be the sum of the requirements for the various uses computed separately. On -Site Location of Required Parking Spaces: i. All required parking shall be off-street. Parking may not be located in a required yard or special street setback, except where driveways for single-family residential use constitute the required parking area. ii. Except for tandem parking in residential developments of single-family detached and attached dwelling units, duplexes, and zero lot line dwelling units, design shall insure that the parking of any vehicle shall not interfere with the parking or maneuvering of any other vehicle. d. Parking Options: i. Within commercial, industrial and campus institutional zones parking may be provided on lots which are within 500' of the property line of the use to be served. Within the EC (East End General Commercial) zone only, unless otherwise prohibited, employee parking may be allowed within 1,000 feet of the property line of the use to be served. ii. Shared parking is allowed if the application can demonstrate that the combined peak use is provided for by a parking study that demonstrates: Page 203 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code a. there are a sufficient number of parking spaces to accommodate the requirements of the individual businesses; or b. that the peak hours of operation of such establishments do not overlap, and C. that an exclusive permanent easement over a delineated area has been granted for parking space use. Reduction for Parking Space Requirements: i. Parking space requirements may be reduced in developments where compensating factors exist which would offset the parking demand (such as availability of mass transit). Refer to TableA_gpendix -7-4 50.55-C for reduction options. ii. Within the East End General Commercial zone only, additional parking modifiers may be available. Refer to "C=lmptef-24A�iQ 50-1.053 Downtown Redevelopment District Design Standards" 21.4H5.50 05.055 for reduction options. Parking Dimensions: i. Refer to TableAp2.oft 44 , 55__R to determine the minimum dimension and layout of parking spaces. ii. The minimum dimension to meet single family residential parking space requirements shall be eight feet six inches wide and 18 feet six inches long for each space. iii. Up to 50% of the total parking requirement may be provided in compact car spaces. All parking spaces designated for compact vehicles shall be signed or labeled by painting on the parking space. g. Loading: Loading berth in sufficient numbers and size to adequately handle the needs of the development shall be required. The off-street parking areas to fulfill the requirements of this standard shall not be used for loading and unloading or the storage of vehicles or materials or parking of trucks used in conducting business or use. h. Employee Carpool and Vanpool Parking: Commercial and industrial development which requires a total of 50 or more parking spaces shall designate at least five (5) percent of the number of parking spaces as employee carpool or vanpool parking. The carpool/vanpool spaces shall be full sized parking spaces. The spaces shall be clearly marked "Reserved -Carpool/VanpooI Only" with hours of use. Except for designated handicapped parking spaces, employee carpool and vanpool parking spaces shall be located as follows: Page 204 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code i. Where employee parking spaces are designated, the designated carpool and vanpool parking spaces shall be the closest employee parking spaces to the entrance normally used by employees. ii. Where employee parking spaces are not designated, designated carpool and vanpool parking spaces shall be located in close proximity to the building entrance normally used by employees. Bicycle Parking: a. Bicycle parking shall be provided for all new multiple family residential developments (4 units or more) and commercial, industrial and institutional uses, except seasonal uses, such as fireworks stands and Christmas tree sales; drive-in theaters; and self -storage facilities are exempted. b. The minimum number of required bicycle parking spaces are listed in TableApg-c-nd-ix 7 -45 -M -5-7D. C. Modifications which increase the size of existing commercial, industrial or institutional buildings by more than ten (10) percent or a change of use shall provide bicycle parking spaces to meet the requirements of TableE1ppodix 74-SQ,.5.-_D for the entire development. For the purposes of this section, an "existing building" is a building as it exists on (date of adoption of ordinance). d. Bicycle parking shall be separated from car parking and vehicular traffic by a physical barrier or sufficient distance to protect parked bicycles from damage by vehicles. e. Bicycle parking for multiple uses may be clustered in one or several locations meeting all other requirements specified in this section for bicycle parking. f. One hundred percent (100%) of all required bicycle parking spaces for residential and industrial categories shall be covered. These required bicycle parking spaces may be provided within a building. Bicycle parking spaces for employees of commercial and institutional uses are encouraged to be covered and secured. Cover for bicycle parking may be accommodated by building or roof overhangs, awnings, bicycle lockers, bicycle storage within buildings or dwelling units or free standing shelters. g. Required bicycle parking inside a building shall be provided in a well -illuminated, secure location within 50 feet of a building entrance. h. Outdoor bicycle parking spaces shall be clearly visible and shall be located within 50 feet of the public entrance to the building unless clustered pursuant to 1. 4—= 7.QOs.ubsecAion_(2)(e) in which case the parking spaces shall be no more than 100 feet from a public entrance. Internal references within section need not be referenced in the "third person" If the required bicycle parking spaces cannot be provided on-site Page 205 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code within the EC (East End General Commercial) zone, bicycle parking racks may be provided on the sidewalk adjacent to the property's frontage providing a minimum five foot unobstructed sidewalk width is maintained. j. Bicycle parking spaces shall be a minimum of six feet long and two feet wide, and provide a minimum five foot access aisle. For covered spaces the overhead clearance shall be at least seven feet. • •� •-.KOO SectiQll-4,��.-X41.5. 7.025 Standards for Construction. 1. The surface of the parking and maneuvering area shall be constructed as a durable surface. The use of gravel in low use areas, such as church parking lots, recreational vehicle storage in a residential zone or outside equipment storage or fleet vehicles in industrial zones, may be approved, so long as the gravel is contained, the parking area is clearly defined, and where grade permits. Refer to 1,09 '" 02-S OC SO.5�.,= 6) for additional paving surface specifications. Bicycle Parking. a. Areas set aside for required bicycle parking shall be clearly marked and reserved for bicycle parking only. If the bicycle parking is not visible from the street or main building entrance, a sign shall be posted indicating the location of the parking facilities. b. Rack types and dimensions. i. Bicycle racks shall hold bicycles securely by the frame and be anchored. ii. Bicycle racks shall accommodate both: a. Locking the frame and one wheel to the rack with a high -security U-shaped shackle lock; and b. Locking the frame and both wheels to the rack with a chain or cable not longer than 6 feet. Se._rJi9 5%55.Q24 7.030 Procedures. Applicant shall provide scaled parking plan with dimensions and number of spaces accurately depicted. 5Sct01-1Q S�5 7.040 Miscellaneous Information. Page 206 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code None. Page 207 -- Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Conununity Development Code Article 50.56 Transit System 50.56.00_5 6.010 Applicability. (Res. 98-05; 5/18/98) This standard is applicable to all new subdivisions, planned developments, residential developments of four units or more, and new commercial, institutional and industrial developments located on a transit street or within one-quarter mile of a transit street. %5 6.020 Standards for Approval. (Res. 98-05; 5/18/98) 1. All applicable development as defined by 6..OIOL C 50.5of this geetion shall be required to provide transit -facilities and transit -oriented features. Page 208 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code a. The extent of the transit oriented features and transit facilities required for a particular site on a transit street shall be determined by the City, in coordination with Tri -Met, based upon an analysis of: i. Level of existing and projected adjacent transit facilities. ii. Proximity of other ridership attractors, such as bus routes. iii. Size and trip generation potential of proposed development adjacent to transit street (within 1/4 mile of a transit street). iv. Expected transit ridership generated by a development. b. Transit -oriented features for a site within 1/4 mile of a transit street shall be provided to connect the development with: i. The nearest adjacent transit street, or ii. To adjacent paths which lead to the nearest transit street. C. Where a proposed development creates or contributes to a need for transit stops, pullouts, or other transit facilities, as identified by the City in coordination with Tri -Met, easements or right-of-way dedication may be required. 50156XV5 6.025 Standards for Construction. None. 50.5,024 6.030 Procedures. None. 50,56,4Z_5 6.040 Miscellaneous Information. None. Page 209 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code Access r ="WVnrWW. Wff Sss��a:?Q,S_It4Q� 18.010 Applicability. This standard-Article_is applicable to all major developments and to all partitions of land. se-c�[an_5.9..5M9 18.015 Definitions. Access: Area within public right-of-way directly affected by the traffic generated by the particular development and necessary to provide safe and efficient ingress and egress to the property. �€s�a�Q.5�Q15 18.020 Standards for approval. (Rev. R-97-23; 9-2-97) 1. Every lot shall abut a street for a width of at least 25 feet. Exception: The street frontage of a lot created pursuant to approval of a row house development may be reduced to 17 feet in the R-0, D -D, R-2, R-3 and R-5 zones. Access design shall be based on the following five criteria: a. Topography. b. Traffic volume to be generated by the development. C. Classification of the public street from which the access is taken (residential, collector or arterial). d. Traffic volume presently carried by such street. e. Projected traffic volumes. 3. Direct permanent access from a development to an arterial street is prohibited where an alternate access is either available or is expected to be available. A temporary access may be allowed. Direct access from a development or a structure to a residential street is Page 210 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code required unless such access is not available. 5. The City may require shared access with a neighboring site or an extension of residential streets across adjacent properties to provide access to the development if necessary to prevent adverse impacts on traffic flow. 6. If no satisfactory access from a public street to a development is available, the City shall require postponement of the development until such time as a satisfactory access becomes available. Section 50.57.02.4 18.025 Standards for Construction. None. Se�tiQn�4s57•U25- 18.030 Standards for Maintenance. None. Sev-09- 5-4,57,9.3.9 18.035 Procedures. 1. Determination of the location and configuration of an access shall be based on a traffic study, unless otherwise approved by the City Manager. Scefio-n,14_ J57JQ35 18.040 Miscellaneous Information. 1. The expense related to modification of an existing street to accommodate proposed access including all traffic control devices and lighting, shall be paid for by the developer. 2. Access from a major development to a collector or an arterial shall be not less than 100 feet from the nearest intersection of street center lines. l-Cros$-reference., _ _._ Alli -s Page 211 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code On -Site Circulation — Driveways and Fire Access Section 50.58.005 19.010. Applicability. This standard -&_his applicable to all development proposing a new use or an increased use on a site when the development will result in the construction of or the increased use of private streets, driveways, or parking lot aisles. SQs�i9a_�4�$,O 10_. 19.015. Definitions. 1. AASHT0. rri�ttett Oi-t rc i fi ls. 2. Design vehicle: A selected motor vehicle, the weight, dimensions, and operating characteristics of which are used in highway design. In this stHndardArticle, design vehicle categories are those adopted by the City's "Standard Details", defined below. -MM 6. Fire tech ot-amended by 144 Page 212 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code 8. Increased use: An increase in trip generation or parking requirement. �.WNW 19.020. Standards for Approval. Driveway Approaches—Locational Limitations and Restrictions a. On corner lots where the adjacent streets are fully improved to their anticipated ultimate width, the nearest edge of a proposed driveway to the intersection shall be no closer than 30 feet when measured from the projected curb of the street that is the most parallel to the alignment of the proposed driveway. b. On corner lots where the adjacent streets are not fully improved to their anticipated ultimate width, the nearest edge of a proposed driveway to the intersection shall be no closer than 30 feet when measured from the lot corner, or if the corner is a radius, from the point of intersection of the tangents. If right-of-way dedication is required as a condition of approval, the lot lines after dedication shall be used as the basis for determining compliance with this standard. C. On lots with less than 75 feet of continuous frontage on a single public street, only one driveway shall be permitted along that frontage. d. All driveway approaches shall be located and designed so that the driver entering or exiting the driveway can see approaching traffic for a sufficient distance to make a safe entrance and exit. AASHTO standards shall be used in determining compliance with this standard. e. The maximum width of a driveway approach, measured where the edges of the driveway meet the right-of-way, shall be governed as follows: i. Single family residential with garage door(s) facing the street: 12 feet per garage or carport stall, or surface parking space, but not to exceed 30 feet. ii. Single family residential with side -loading garage: 24 feet. Page 213 – Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code 19.020. Standards for Approval. Driveway Approaches—Locational Limitations and Restrictions a. On corner lots where the adjacent streets are fully improved to their anticipated ultimate width, the nearest edge of a proposed driveway to the intersection shall be no closer than 30 feet when measured from the projected curb of the street that is the most parallel to the alignment of the proposed driveway. b. On corner lots where the adjacent streets are not fully improved to their anticipated ultimate width, the nearest edge of a proposed driveway to the intersection shall be no closer than 30 feet when measured from the lot corner, or if the corner is a radius, from the point of intersection of the tangents. If right-of-way dedication is required as a condition of approval, the lot lines after dedication shall be used as the basis for determining compliance with this standard. C. On lots with less than 75 feet of continuous frontage on a single public street, only one driveway shall be permitted along that frontage. d. All driveway approaches shall be located and designed so that the driver entering or exiting the driveway can see approaching traffic for a sufficient distance to make a safe entrance and exit. AASHTO standards shall be used in determining compliance with this standard. e. The maximum width of a driveway approach, measured where the edges of the driveway meet the right-of-way, shall be governed as follows: i. Single family residential with garage door(s) facing the street: 12 feet per garage or carport stall, or surface parking space, but not to exceed 30 feet. ii. Single family residential with side -loading garage: 24 feet. Page 213 – Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code iii. All other uses: 24 feet unless otherwise justified by the recommendations of a traffic study. 2. Driveway Widths a. Driveways shall conform to the minimum width requirements of LOC 15.06.610 (Uniform Fire Code Adopted) and 1=998 4Article 50.55. "Ofll Sireet Parking; Standard§". Title of Article has been shortened b. When the Fire Marshall determines that an on-site staging area is necessary pursuant to the Fire Code, a minimum unobstructed surface of 24 feet shall be provided for a length and location as determined by the Fire Marshall. shall be 20%. Driveway Slopes a. The maximum grade of a driveway serving a single family structure b. The maximum grade of a driveway for all other uses shall be 15%. C. For all uses except residential structures of four units or less, there shall be a landing area where a driveway used by multiple drivers meets the public street. The landing area shall be a minimum of 25 feet long and shall have a maximum grade of five (5) percent. The length and grade of the landing area described in this subsection presupposes that the abutting street has been fully improved to its ultimate anticipated width. If a driveway is proposed on a street that is not fully improved, and the development proposal is anticipated to proceed prior to the improvement of the street, the City Engineer shall determine the location and grade of the future street improvement and the applicant shall design the driveway and site grading so that this standard will not be compromised when the street is improved in the future. d. Along the traveled way, grade breaks shall not exceed an algebraic difference of nine (9) percent unless accomplished by the construction of a vertical curve complying with the City's Standard Details. e. The maximum cross -slope of a driveway shall be five (5) percent, except for that portion of a driveway which must blend with an adjacent street grade that exceeds five (5) percent. When blending is necessary, the length of the blended section shall be limited to 30 feet. 4. Fire Access Lanes a. All developments shall comply with the minimum requirements for fire access roads as stipulated by the Uniform Fire Code and LOC Chapter 15. b. The paved improvement of fire lanes, their associated turnarounds Page 214 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code and right of way dimensions shall comply with the City's Standard Details. C. When a fire access road is required to be used as a primary or alternate access route for the provision of emergency services to or through an abutting property, the fire lane shall be declared as such on a legal instrument to be recorded against the title of the affected property(ies). A declaration on a plat or on a recorded development plan may also be used to satisfy this standard. 5. Turnarounds , a. If a dead-end driveway exceeds 150 feet in length, it shall provide a fire department turnaround in compliance with the City's "Standard Details". b. Except where a continuous forward exit can be made out of the site, all developments with on-site loading and delivery areas shall provide a turnaround for delivery vehicles in compliance with the City's "Standard Details". c. Required turnarounds shall not overlap a required parking space. 6. Special Provisions—Schools a. Schools and similar institutional or instructional uses with a total enrollment of 25 or more students on any given day shall provide an on-site driveway that allows a continuous forward flow of vehicles through the site for the loading and unloading of children. 7. Easements Required a. Driveways and their associated parking areas and turnarounds shall be located on the site or, if located off-site, in an easement. b. A copy of the easement shall be submitted to the City as part of the development application. If the easement has not yet been obtained at the time of application, the applicant shall supply a letter of commitment from the party who has the authority to grant the easement indicating that the easement will be granted contingent upon the development's approval by the City. C. Easements shall state the purpose of the easement, identify the benefiting and burdened properties, state the duration of the easement rights granted, and stipulate the maintenance responsibilities of the parties. Section 50.58.020 19.025. Standards for Construction. 1. All driveways that serve as fire lanes or fire access roads shall be paved, unless modified below, and shall be designed to support the design vehicle load. The City may require an engineered pavement section and soil test to ensure compliance with this standard. Page 215 – Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code 2. Driveway approaches in the right-of-way shall be constructed according to the City's "Standard Details". 3. In locations where there is a slope adjacent to a driveway edge, there shall be a minimum two -foot shoulder or other means of protecting the driveway and the adjacent land from the adverse effects of erosion. 4. Stormwater running off a driveway shall be managed and disposed of in compliance with the applicable drainage standards for minor or major development, and the Uniform Plumbing Code. 5. Where a driveway approach needs to cross a roadside ditch, a culvert of 10" minimum diameter shall be used. The City may require a larger culvert if warranted by the hydrology of the upstream drainage basin. 6. All driveways shall be paved with a material that does not generate dust. Hard pavement is required except in the following circumstances: a. Low -use driveways, such as one serving a parking area for recreational vehicle, boat trailer, or access to a storage building or storage area. b. Where a driveway grade changes less than 10 percent from the street to the parking area serving a single-family residence. C. Existing unpaved driveways, when there is an existing use on the site that is rated at 10 or less average daily trips per weekday pursuant to the applicable ITE (Institute of Transportation Engineers) category, and the rating will not be increased with the proposed development. d. When the requirement for a paved driveway is waived, a paved approach shall be constructed to prevent the tracking of loose gravel onto the public street. e. Temporary construction access driveways. f. Combustible materials, erodable materials, or floatable materials shall not be approved as acceptable driveway surfaces (i.e. wood chips, bark dust, shredded tire rubber). Section 50.58.025 19.030. Standards for Maintenance. Driveways that serve as fire lanes shall be maintained in a state of good repair and free of obstruction for their entire length and width. They shall also be kept free of overhead obstructions for a vertical clearance of 13-1/2 feet. , Iwon 50.58.030 19.035. Procedures. Applications shall include a scaled site plan containing sufficient dimensions and Page 216 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code spot elevations to demonstrate compliance with this standard. Section 50.58.035 19.040. Miscellaneous Information. For additional requirements pertaining to parking, refer to ',^ro "Article 50.55. 9" Parking, Loading, and Bieyeie Aeeess Standard§". Title of Article has been shortened Page 217 - Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code On -Site Circulation - Bikeways, Walkway and Accessways Section 50.59.005 20.010. Applicability. This standard is applicable to all minor and major development involving the construction of a new structure other than a detached single family dwelling, duplex, or accessory structure, and subdivisions and planned developments. This standard is also applicable to modifications which increase the square footage of commercial, industrial or institutional buildings by more than ten (10) percent. For the purposes of this section, an "existing building" is a building as it exists on (date of adoption of ordinance). 'WIN im. W11 Section 50.59.010 20.020. Standards for Approval. 1. Commercial, industrial and institutional developments of one acre or more shall provide a pedestrian circulation plan for the site. a. Pedestrian connections between the proposed development and existing development on adjacent properties other than connections via the street system shall be identified and implemented, where feasible. Page 218 - Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code 2. Walkways shall connect at least one public entrance of each building accessible to the public to the nearest public walkway or other walkway leading to a public walkway. Walkways shall also connect to other areas of the site, such as parking lots and outdoor activity areas, to other building entrances, to adjacent streets and nearby transit stops. 3. Walkways shall meet accessibility standards of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards as found in UBC Chapter 31. Walkways within the site, connections to the public sidewalk, and external connections off site shall provide convenient, accessible, and the most practical direct, barrier -free route design. 4. Portions of walkways shorter than 30 feet across driveways, parking lots or walkways crossing surfaces shared by fork lift or heavy truck traffic may use a painted crossing zone. Otherwise, walkways crossing driveways, parking areas, and loading areas shall be clearly identifiable through the use of a different paving material, raised elevation, or other similar method. a. Where walkways are adjacent to vehicle travel areas, they shall be separated by a raised curb, bollards, buttons, landscaping or other physical barrier. If a raised walkway is used, the ends of the raised portions shall be equipped with curb ramps. 5. Accessways for use by pedestrians and bicyclists shall be required when necessary to provide direct routes not otherwise provided by the existing right-of-way. Developments shall not be required to provide right-of-way for accessways off-site to meet this requirement. If right-of-way is otherwise available off-site, the developer may be required to improve an accessway off-site to the nearest transit route. Section 50.59.015 20.025. Standards for Construction. 1. The surfacing of walkways, bikeways and accessways shall consist of either two inches of asphaltic concrete over a minimum of four inches of compacted crushed rock, or of four inches of concrete, as determined by the City Manager. Other materials must be specifically approved by the City Manager. 2. Walkway surfacing shall be five feet in unobstructed width, unless specifically otherwise approved by the City Manager, and never less than four feet in unobstructed width. 3. Walkways without stairs shall have and -a maximum cross slope of two percent and a maximum slope of eight percent. If the existing grade exceeds an Page 219 - Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code eight percent slope and the walkway construction requires an erosion control permit pursuant to LOC 52.02.040(1), and construction of stairs are impracticable, then the pathway may follow the existing grade. 4. Ramps for handicapped use are required on all walkways used by the public at all points where a path intersects a curb. 5. Walkways, bikeways and accessways must be constructed in such a way as to allow the surface drainage to sheet flow across them, and not flow along them longitudinally. 6. An accessway shall include at least a 15 -foot wide right-of-way or easement and an 8 -foot wide hard surface. For safety, accessways shall be as straight as practicable. Bollards, buttons, or landscaping shall be used to block motor vehicular access. Section 50.59.020 20.030. Standards for Maintenance. Maintenance of walkways, bikeways or accessways shall be the responsibility of the owner or owners of the land abutting or through which the way passes. If the maintenance is proposed to be by an association or other entity, the maintenance agreement or by-laws, as the case may be, shall be subject to the review and approval by the City. Section 50.59.025 20.035. Procedures. Applications shall include a scaled site plan containing sufficient dimensions and spot elevations to demonstrate compliance with this standard. Section 50.59.030 20.040. Miscellaneous Information. None. Page 220 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code Street (Pathway, Parking Lots) Lights Tile title efthis stattdard is " . Section 50.60.005 5.010 Applicability. This standard -Article is applicable to all development which includes public and private streets, public pathways and accessways, or parking lots. 5.01 — DeRnMons. Section 50.60.010 5.020 Standards for Approval. Residential Streets Equipment Standards i. The type of luminaire to be used shall be approved by the City Manager. ii. The luminaire shall have a protective finish. iii. The lamp post may be wood, anodized aluminum or other materials as approved by the City Manager. b. Lighting Standards Page 221 – Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code The maintained level of illumination on all public and private streets shall be between 0.15 average footcandles and 0.40 average footcandles (measure on the street). ii. The uniformity of illumination ratio shall be between 4:0 and Changed from small case "L"0 to 10. i�. Cut-off light distribution luminaires will be utilized. Typographical error Arterial and Collector Streets Street lighting standards for arterial, and collectors shall be determined by the City Manager, who may require an independent engineering study to determine the appropriate lighting system. Public Pathways and Accessways Low level lighting of less than 0.3 average footcandles; and with a maximum uniformity of illuminating ratio not to exceed 20:1, shall be required unless the applicant can show that no night use of such facilities is planned. 4. Parking Lots Page 222 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code Article 50.61 Utility Standard ction._50.61.005 14.010 Applicability. All development requiring connection to utilities. Section_ .61.010 14.015 Definitions. 3. Ca aci : The effective ability of a pipe, conduit or other structure usually related to a sanitary sewer or water distribution system to carry the substance being transmitted by that system. Is usually expressed in gallons per minute or cubic feet per second. MOW Page 223 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code SC0190 59.61.015 14.020 Standards for Approval. 1. Utilities Required. The following utilities, whether on or off site, shall be provided to all development in the City of Lake Oswego, in accordance with City Standards, Plans and Specifications: a. Sanitary sewer systems b. Water distribution systems C. Sidewalks and any special pedestrian ways and bicycle paths d. Street name signs e. Traffic control signs and devices f. Street lights, which shall be served from an underground source of power g. Underground utility and service facilities, as required h. Streets i. Provision for underground T.V. cable. The City Manager may require that utility designs be prepared by a registered engineer. 2. Easements or right-of-way for utilities and associated and related facilities shall be provided by the property owner. Easements for anticipated future utilities or extensions may be required by the City Manager. 3. Sanitary sewers shall be installed to serve the development and to connect the development to existing mains. 4. Design shall take into account the capacity and slopes to allow for desirable future extension beyond the development, and where required by the City Manager, extended to the upstream property line to allow for such future extension. 5. All sanitary sewers and appurtenant structures shall be designed and constructed in conformance with City of Lake Oswego Standard Plans and Specifications, and shall include, but not be limited to, such items as: i. Pipe size and materials ii. Manholes iii. Cleanouts iv. Backfill requirements V. Service laterals. 6. All development shall be served by service lines, main water lines and fire hydrants which are connected to City mains or the water mains of water districts which provide service within the City. Page 224 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code 7. Design of water system improvements shall take into account provision for extension beyond the development to adequately grid or loop the City system. 8. One water service line shall be provided to each lot in a development, or if the development does not include lots, to each building in the development. The system shall be designed to supply fire flow requirements of LOC Chapter 45. ,Section 50.61.020 14.025 Standards for Construction. 1. Utility easement widths shall be the minimum width possible to facilitate utility installation and maintenance, and shall be a minimum of 10 feet (5 feet on each side) in width on easements not adjacent to a street right-of-way. 2. Utility construction within easements shall minimize disturbance to existing conditions, especially trees and other vegetation. 3. Any disturbed areas within easements shall be restored to a condition similar to the condition prior to construction, including the replacement of plants of similar species as those removed or damaged. Replacement trees shall be of similar species and be a minimum of 1 1/2 caliper. 4. Utilities Shall be Installed Underground. Utilities shall be installed underground (unless exempted by the City Manager). Specific exemptions are as follows: i. Developments which need multi -phase voltages or high KVA demands may develop with pad transformers where underground transformers are not feasible. Pad mounted transformers shall be buffered from sight by landscaping or other suitable methods. ii. Pad mounted transformers are allowed in major single-family developments, but shall be buffered from sight by landscaping or other suitable methods. iii. Above ground telephone and cable television junction boxes are allowed. 5. Sanitary Sewers. Capacity, grade and materials shall be as approved by the City Manager. Minimum size shall be 8 inch diameter with 6 inch diameter allowed at the terminus of a sewer line. 6. All sanitary sewers and appurtenant structures shall be designed and constructed in conformance with City of Lake Oswego Standard Plans and Specifications, and shall include, but not be limited to, such items as: a. Pipe size and materials b. Manholes C. Cleanouts Page 225 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code d. Backfill requirements e. Service laterals 7. Service Laterals. One service lateral shall be provided to each lot in a development, or if the development does not include lots, to each occupied building in the development. 8. Design, including materials, size and location of water mains, service lines, valves and hydrants, shall be in accordance with City of Lake Oswego Standard Plans and Specifications and be approved by the City Manager. Hydrants shall be a located at intersections and at intervals of no more than 500 feet from intersections in major developments with the exception that multi-family units shall locate a hydrant within 500 feet of residential buildings. For major or minor partitions which create a new lot or lots, a hydrant shall be no farther than 1,000 feet from any of the lots. 9. All facilities as described in this section shall be constructed in compliance with the rules and regulations of the City Manager, and the rules and regulations of the Public Utility Commissioner of the State relating to the installation and safety of underground lines, plant, system, equipment and apparatus. Section 50.61.025 14.030 Standards for Maintenance. None. Section 50.61.030 14.035 Procedures. 1. A scaled utility plan of existing and proposed utilities shall be furnished to the City as part of any major development plan application and shall include at least the following at 1" = 100' scale. 2. Easements shall be recorded in the final plat or plan to serve the development and each lot therein. Section 50.61.035 14.040 Miscellaneous Information.. The cost of all utility improvements shall be borne by the developer. ICross-Reference: See also L Ql; Chapter 39 System Development Chargesl 50.62 — 50-64 reserved Page 226 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code Downtown Redevelopment District Design Standards 23.005 Purpose. The purpose of this Article. the Downtown Redevelopment District Design Standard, is to guide the redevelopment of downtown Lake Oswego in a manner that creates a feeling of vitality and sense of place in order to attract private investment and redevelopment of the area and create a community center that reflects and enhances the character of the City of Lake Oswego. 52-0-90 23.010 Applicability. Except as otherwise expressly provided below, the following developments within the Downtown Redevelopment District are subject to the requirements of this (Ivnpterfll��: Construction of a new building. 2. Substantial remodeling of an existing building. For the purposes of 44.9 Fhapterthis Article "substantial remodeling" means: a. Exterior remodeling that changes the appearance of more than 50 percent of any building elevation; or b. A restaurant building expansion of more than 100 square feet or any other expansion of a building of more than 300 feet, except for an expansion that is solely designed and constructed: vestibule); To provide for accessibility to the disabled; ii. To provide for energy conservation (e.g. addition of an entry iii. To provide for screened recycling or trash storage; or iv. To relocate or screen visible exterior mechanical equipment so that such equipment is no longer visible. Page 227 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code 3. Any development funded or partially funded utilizing a financial incentive granted, provided by or obtained through the authority of the City of Lake Oswego or LORA. As used in this section, a "financial incentive" includes a grant, fee waiver, revolving loan, tax abatement, property exchange or similar financial incentive provided by or secured through the City of LORA. 4. Construction or mo ificahon o a sign (60E)S 23-205 .. 23 _ .n jQL CU r47 onlvl. 50.65.015 23.015 Relationship to Other Development Standards. I . 098 21.105 2.4 .1 ! cLU�' 50.65.025 to 50.65,035 supersede 14)98 Chapter 2Article 50.45 in its entirety for developments subject to this (=apterJhiLAiid 2 6098 24.'^`LOC 50.65,050 shall apply in addition to the requirements of LODS Chapter 9 (Landscaping, Screening and Buffering), but exceptions to the requirements of L998 9Article 50.55 may be anted as provided in ` 9 - Y 6n' P 5Q.65,47�• 3. The Parking Standard (14 498 Article 50.55) applies in full, but the requirements of 17998 GhaptArticle 50.55 may be modified as provided in 6998 5LOC 50.65.055, and exceptions of 1,099F1apter-Article 50.55 may be granted as provided in H4!)S 23zsA3LOC 50.65.075. 4. 1.,014` 23 LOC 50.65.070 shall apply in addition to street standards contained in the remainder of thei§ ""r,d trCode. 5. In the event of conflict between [:;()DS G#teptUlis Article and any other provision of this Code, the provisions in this Giapterthis, A icl ., shall apply. 50.65.020 23.020 Definitions. As used in this (=1 ptefthis Article, 1. . 1 {x!`•____._11 _____�_ .L_ L__..__�._1 _1_-_._� .l_ 1 __.._.' ___ _I`_ 1__ '/_Y'__. Page 228 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code deritikien. 4. "LORA" means the Lake Oswego Redevelopment Ageney, an tirban fetiewal _. , wffbL , tankq and other similar features. 7. "Mixed use" meting a building or gife that houses raore thatt otte broad eategory . "Viableprovide eonit 10. , e. A trdeture that is not likely io he redeveloped due to use, eonstmeiion or other, 9imflar faetors (e.g. CiPy- 1 19H, Nlain Fitv Station, Bank Building M 4(h and A, Oregon Pioneeir Building at 2nd and R� 1-1. "Village Character" means a community of small scale structures that appears and operates like a traditional small town. A village is typically composed of an assembly of smaller mixed used structures often centered on a square of other public space or gathering area, such as a body of water, a transportation route or a landmark building. Adherence to village character is not intended to require an historical reproduction of a turn of the century small town, but rather to encourage the development of a sophisticated small city that is pedestrian friendly, creates a sense of community and attracts people to the downtown in the same manner and using similar design concepts as historic small towns and neighborhood centers. BUILDING DESIGN REQUIREMENTS ,(5,025 23.105 Building Siting and Massing. Building siting and massing shall create a village character by compliance with the following requirements: Complex Massing Required. New buildings shall use the siting and massing Page 229 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code characteristics of the Lake Oswego Style such as complex massing and asymmetrical composition (see illustrations, Appendix F50.65-,. 2. Pedestrian Oriented Siting. New commercial buildings shall be sited in order to maximize the amount of building frontage abutting pedestrian ways. 3. Roof Forms. New buildings shall use gable or hipped roof forms. Flat roofed building shall only be allowed pursuant to 6099 23.60- LOC 50.65.075. 4. Number of Stories. New buildings shall be at least two stories tall, and new and remodeled building shall be no greater than three stories tall, except: a. A fourth story shall be allowed if: The fourth story is residential and is contained within a gabled or hipped roof, ii. The site is sloping and the structure has three or fewer stories on the uphill side; iii. The fourth story is significantly stepped back from the building plane created by the lower stories; or iv. Fourth story design elements are used break up the mass of a building, create visual interest and variety, hide mechanical equipment, define an entry or define a particular building's function. Examples of such design elements include dormers, towers, turrets, clerestories, and similar features. b. One story construction shall only be allowed if: i. It is limited to a small portion of a taller structure, such as an entry area, canopy over an outdoor restaurant, building ends or wings which relate to open space or as a step down to an adjacent one story viable existing structure; or ii. When a minimum height of 20 feet is maintained at the right-of- way or street side building edge. 5. Height Limit. No building shall be taller than 51 feet in height. No flat roofed building shall be taller than 41 feet in height. Height shall be measured pursuant to iiie l�J ike Oswego Xoni ibis,Code. 6. Entrances. When a new building is constructed or an existing building is substantially remodeled, the primary building entrances shall be oriented to pedestrian ways along streets to encourage increased pedestrian density on existing streets, sidewalks and other public ways. Secondary building entrances or tenant space shall be required along alleys to take advantage of and enhance the intimate scale of the alley space (see Appendix F=50•(�5-A, Figure 3). 7. Street Corners. New strictures shall be located to preserve or create strong Page 230 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code building edges at street corners. Structures may "cut the corner" to create a building entry or to provide pedestrian space but shall use building design elements to create a structured corner (see Appendix F50.65-A, Figure 2). 50.65.030 23.110 Building Design Building elements shall be designed to create a village character through compliance with the following requirements: 1. Lake Oswego Style Required. New and substantially remodeled buildings shall be designed using building design elements of the Lake Oswego Style to create distinctive buildings which richly textured, visually engaging facades (see illustrations, Appendix F W. 2. Storefront Appearance Required. New or substantially remodeled buildings fronting on streets or alleys designed for pedestrian use shall create a storefront appearance on the ground floor. This may be accomplished by changing buildings planes, materials or window patterns, or by creating a break in awning or canopy construction at intervals of about 25 feet (see Appendix F50.65-6, Figure 4). In addition, such design shall maximize the opportunity for window shopping through compliance with the following requirements: a. A minimum of 80% (linear measurement) of the exterior ground floor abutting pedestrian ways shall be designed as storefront with display windows and entry features. b. The bottom edge of windows along pedestrian ways shall be constructed no more than 30 inches above the adjacent walkway surface and shall be no closer than 12 inches above the walkway surface. C. Sufficient interior or soffit lighting to allow night-time window shopping shall be provided. 3. Materials. a. Ground floor. New or substantially remodeled buildings shall use masonry as the predominant building material for walls on the ground floor. "Masonry" includes fabricated bricks, blocks, stucco and glass. The design of these materials shall create an historic or vernacular Lake Oswego Style appearance. b. Upper stories. New or substantially remodeled buildings shall use wood and glass as the predominant building materials for upper stories. These materials are intended to soften the appearance of a building that sits on a heavier appearing masonry/glass base and thereby effectively creating a mixed-use village appearance. Wood siding or cedar shingles may be used. C. Roof. New buildings or substantial remodeling that involve modifications to the roof shall use the foilowing roofing materials: Page 231 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code i. Slate, tile, shakes or wood shingles, or synthetic materials (e.g. concrete, pressed wood products, metal or other materials) that are designed to and do appear to be slate, tile, shake or wood shingles. ii. Copper or zinc roofing materials in styles representative of period architecture in the Lake Oswego Style. Metal roofs other than cooper and zinc shall only be allowed in subdued colors and on small roof sections, not as a whole roof application. iii. I If new or remodeled building utilizes a flat roof, materials that will not cause roof repairs (patching) to be readily visible. d. Prohibited Materials. The following exterior building materials or finishes are prohibited: 1. Plastic, except when use to replicate old styles (e.g. vinyl clad windows, polyurethane moldings, plastic columns, etc.) ii. Metal or vinyl siding. iii. Mirrored glass. iv. T-111 Type plywood. V. Corrugated metal or fiberglass. vi. Standard form concrete block (not including split faced, colored or other block designs that mimic stone, brick or other similar masonry). vii. Back -lighted fabrics, except that awning signs may be backlit fabrics for individual letter or logos. 4. Ground Floor Design. New and substantially remodeled buildings shall have a strong ground floor cornice designed to separate the ground floor functions and materials from the upper story or stories and to provide continuity with cornice placement on abutting buildings (see Appendix F .65-A, Figure 5). Methods for compliance with this requirement include but are not limited to: a. Use of the same or similar building materials and/or colors from storefront to storefront or building to building; or b. Painting the wood elements in the first floor storefront areas white, black, dark brown, dark green or greyblue. This color range is not intended to be an exclusive list, but is recommended to create compatibility and design strength at the ground floor storefront level while encouraging diversity with multi -tenant buildings and in large lot (whole block) developments. 5. Molding Design. Moldings, window casings and other trim elements shall be designed in a dimension and character reflecting the Lake Oswego Style. Larger dimensions may be used to exaggerate or illustrate a creative design concept or to match the scale of the new Page 232 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code building. Moldings shall match or compliment the detailing of adjacent buildings that comply with 1.09S-Ghapter`2-4this Article. 6. Enclosure or Screening of Mechanical Equipment. Mechanical equipment shall be mounted within gable or hip roof attics where possible. Roof mounted mechanical equipment on flat roofed structures shall be screened by parapet walls to the maximum degree possible. Site located mechanical equipment shall be installed in below grade vaults where possible. Other building mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened from view to the maximum degree possible. ' 7. Awnings. New or substantially remodeled buildings shall provide awnings or canopies for weather protection extending six feet from window walls. Awnings shall be shed type with opened or closed ends (see Appendix F50.6S-A, Figure 4). Curved awnings shall not be allowed. Awnings may have a front valance. 8. Outdoor Relationships. New or substantially remodeled buildings shall be designed to open up to outdoor seating and display areas that are intended to be accessory to an indoor use, such as a restaurant or cafe. 9. Mixed Use Residential. New or substantially remodeled mixed use buildings with a residential component shall define the residential portion of the structure through the use of design elements such as decks, balconies, landscaping, chimneys, dormers, gable or hipped roofs or step backs above the second story to provide upper story deck areas (see Appendix 50.65 -AF=, Figures 5 and 7). Masonry should be used for chimney construction. 10. Corner Buildings. New or substantially remodeled buildings located on street corners shall: a. Shall be designed to compliment and be compatible with other corner buildings at the same intersection by repeating or echoing the same pattern of corner treatment by creating similar focal points such as entries, towers, material or window elements, signage, etc. b. Reinforce building comers by repeating facade elements such as signs, awnings and window and wall treatments on both "Avenue" and "Street" sides. C. If the building "cuts" the corner at ground level, anchor the corner with a column supporting the upper levels or roof or with a free-standing column or obelisk. The area of the "cut" corner shall be equal to or greater than the public area in the abutting sidewalk (see Appendix 50.65 -AF, Figure 2). 11. Alley Space. Alley space shall be designed to minimize service functions, to screen trash/storage areas and to enhance pedestrian/patron use. Outdoor cafe seating, landscaping, signage, lighting and display features shall be included in alley design where feasible. 23.115 View Protection. Page 233 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code New development shall preserve and enhance any available views of Mount Hood and Lakewood Bay by compliance with the following requirements. These regulations are not intended as a guarantee that a view will be preserved or created, only to require special and significant efforts to maintain and provide views. 1. Street trees on A Avenue shall be selected and located to preserve views of Mt. Hood. 2. New structures shall be designed and located to preserve and enhance views of Lakewood Bay from the south end of Block 138 and from the Lakewood Bay bluff. 3. Restaurants, outdoor cafes, housing and hotels shall be oriented to available views, especially views of Lakewood Bay, where feasible. Public gathering places shall be designed to maximize any available toward Lakewood Bay. 4. Staff may require site sections, photographs, view diagrams, survey spot elevations, view easements and other similar tools in order to ensure compliance with the requirements of this section. SIGN8 (Reserved) (Reserved) 5.0 (Reserved) LANDSCAPING AND SITE DESIGN 50.65.05Q 23.305 Landscaping and Site Design Requirements. All developments subject to shall comply with the following landscape and site design requirements. 1. Street Furniture and bighting. New and substantially remodeled buildings shall incorporate street furniture and lighting within the public right-of-way and in private areas open to public pedestrian activity. Street furniture and lighting shall comply with designs approved by the City of Lake Oswego (see Appegdix 50.65 -AS, Figure 8). 2. Street Trees. Street trees shall be required to be installed in compliance with the Downtown Street Tree Plan as a condition of approval. 3. Brick Paving. Where a subject development is proposed adjacent to a sidewalk or intersection, brick paving shall be required for sidewalk surface detail panels on numbered streets and at primary building entrances as shown in the paving detail diagrams. Brick pavers shall be used to provide color and texture on north -south streets. The use of brick, cobbles or flagstones as pavement for other pedestrian ways, courtyards or parking lots is encouraged, but is not required. Walls. New and substantially remodeled existing buildings shall use natural Page 234 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code stone (preferably Columbia River Basalt) for retaining walls, courtyard walls or similar landscape applications (see Appendix 50.65-AF, Figure 10). 5. Gates and Hangers. Decorative iron gates and hangers for signs, flags and hanging baskets shall be required as part of the landscape plan and shall be designed in the Arts and Crafts style. 6. Hanging Baskets. Any required landscaping shall include seasonal hanging flower baskets placed within Marking lots and along streets and sidewalks. 7. Art. The site design for a new or substantially remodeled existing building shall include locations for placing public or private art. 8. Protecting Pedestrians. In areas of potential vehicle/pedestrian conflict, City approved street furniture or bollards (see Appendix 50.65-AF, Figure 8) shall be used to help create a "protected zone" for the pedestrian. 9. Landscape Design. a. Where new or substantially remodeled buildings are set back from property lines and sidewalks, intervening landscaping shall be designed to invite the public in, not to provide separation. b. Where non-pedestrian space is placed between a building and a sidewalk, benches, low sitting walls or other street furniture shall be placed in order to enliven the sidewalk. C. Small areas of landscaping and paving in courtyards, entryways, building nooks and other areas shall use materials and designs similar to adjacent public spaces where such use will make the area appear larger or more inviting. This requirement is intended to minimize the transition from public to private space, but is not intended to restrict changes in material where it is functionally necessary or where it will avoid visual monotony. d. Drinking fountains, display windows or other street furniture shall be located in stopping areas created outside of pedestrian circulation areas. Stopping areas may be created by an enclosure, a change in grade or a change in paving materials (see Appendix 0.0- ,6G, Figure 7). 10. Undergrounding of Utilities. Overhead utilities shall be placed underground in conjunction with the construction of a new building. PARKING 23.405 Parking Requirements. Parking shall be designed to provide adequate, but not excessive, space while preserving and enhancing the village character of Lake Oswego, through compliance with the following criteria. Page 235 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code 1. Number of Spaces. New uses shall provide the number of parking spaces required under the City of Lake Oswego Parking Standard (' "aptArticle 50,55), modified as follows: a. Because of the layout of Downtown Lake Oswego and the ready availability of on -street parking and transit, the minimum parking requirement shall be .75 of the total required for each use pursuant to 1:;$D8 Chapte 7 Andc 50.55, b. New,uses within existing buildings may demonstrate compliance with the parking requirement through the use of existing spaces on adjacent property if the applicant complies with all of the following criteria: i. The applicant demonstrates that the proposed use has substantially different peak period parking needs than uses served by the parking spaces on the adjacent property. Evidence necessary to support such demonstration may include a by -the -hour parking study, patron use evidence from register tapes, or written employees transportation and parking policies. ii. The applicant demonstrates that he or she has permission of the owner of the adjacent property to utilize his or her property for parking, either by an easement or a parking agreement or leases that will last for the life of the use. iii. The location of the adjacent property complies with Subsection 2 of this section. C. High turnover eating or drinking establishments such as coffee shops, ice cream parlors and "take -and -bake" food services may vary from the parking requirements for restaurants by providing evidence that demonstrates the short term nature of their employee and patron parking needs. In no case, however, shall parking be reduced below the number of spaces that would be required for an equal size retail store. d. Retail uses within 1,000 feet of 100 or more residential units may further reduce their total parking requirements to .9 of the total spaces required after all other adjustments are made pursuant to Subsection 1 of this section. e. Existing on -street parking along the property frontage shall be used to calculate parking requirements. f. In the portion of the downtown shopping and business district shown on map (see Appendix 50.65 -AE, Figure 1) no parking shall be required for existing or proposed uses when: A retail use locates in an existing structure, or ii. An existing structure is expanded and the ground floor footprint does not increase in area. 2. Employee and Patron Parking Restrictions. Employee and patron parking shall be restricted to available parking within the commercial district as follows: Page 236 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code site. business site. a. On-site parking. b. Owner or easement parking for patrons within 500 feet of the business Owned or easement parking for employees within 1,000 feet of the d. On street parking along the property frontage. 50.65.060 23.410 Parking Lot Design Parking shall be designed in compliance with the following criteria: 1. Parking configuration and circulation shall be designed to provide access from streets within the District. Off-site, signal or signage improvements may be required if needed to direct traffic away from residential districts. 2. Driveways to parking areas shall be located to avoid breaking the storefront pattern along primary pedestrian ways. First Street south of "B" Avenue shall be considered a primary pedestrian way. 3. Parking lots and structures shall be sited and designed to mitigate adverse lighting and noise impacts on residents. The reflection of sound by the Lake surface shall be specifically considered. 50.65.065 23.415 Parking Structures. In addition to compliance with the requirements of 1,014 2.4. 10LQC 50.65.060, a proposed parking structure or garage shall comply with the following design standards: 1. Retail storefronts at the ground level of parking structures shall be located at the periphery of parking areas and structures. The street side of residential parking structures may contain facilities or services for residents, such as laundry rooms, lobbies, or exercise rooms. 2. Building materials shall compliment abutting building materials (see Appendix 50.65 -AF, Figure 11). In cases where a parking structure extends to the periphery of a site, the design of the structure shall reflect the massing, fenestration and detailing of adjacent and abutting buildings. 3. Architectural elements such a frieze, cornice, trellis or other device, shall be continued from a residential portion of the building onto a parking structure. 4. Entries shall be designed to be subordinate to the pedestrian entry in scale and detailing. If possible, parking structure entries shall be located away from the street, to the side or rear of the building. Page 237 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code 5. If possible, parking structures should be designed so that portions of the parking structure decks are used for landscaping or entry courts to abutting buildings. 6. Parking structures shall be detailed at ground level in a manner similar to adjacent or abutting buildings in order to create a strong/emphasized base. STREETS 23.510 Street, Alley and Sidewalk Design. Street, sidewalk and alley design shall safely and efficiently provide for vehicular and pedestrian travel while enhancing village character through compliance with the following design standards. These standards shall apply in addition to any other City requirements for street, alley or sidewalk design. In the event of a conflict, the provisions of this Owpiet his Article shall control. 1. Compliance with Comprehensive Plan. Development shall comply with the Major Street System Policies contained in the Goal 12, Transportation Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. Pursuant to this element, "A" Avenue and State Street are classified as major arterials, "B" Avenue from State Street to Fifth Street and First through Fifth Streets from "A" to `B" Avenues are classified as major collectors. 2. "A" Avenue. Any improvements to "A" Avenue shall be designed and constructed in conformance with the 1994 Concept Plan as it exists now or may in the future be amended by LORA. This plan identifies turn lane configuration, island location, signal location and general scope of the project. "A" Avenue shall be designed to blend with and continue the design themes of the Demonstration Street Project (see Appendix 50•GS AF, Figure 12) or in conformance with the completed construction plans for the next phase if such plans are available and have been approved by LORA. Intersection Design. a. Intersections on "A" and "B" Avenues shall create crosswalks in a different material and texture than the street paving (e.g. concrete, cobbles, or brick) to bridge the intervening streets. b. Curb extensions shall be created at all intersections where feasible from a traffic management standpoint and unless such extensions would interfere with the turning and stopping requirements of Emergency Service Vehicles (e.g. Fire Trucks, ambulances), buses or delivery vehicles. Such extensions will be designed to accommodate the turning and stopping requirements of such vehicles. 4. Sidewalks. Sidewalk design shall consider and encourage opportunities for outdoor cafes, pushcart vendors, seasonal sidewalk sales, festivals and similar uses and activities which enliven pedestrian walkways. Alleys. Alleys shall be incorporated into design plans as pedestrian and Page 238 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code vehicular accessways. 6. Undergrounding of Utilities. Utilities shall be placed underground where feasible. 7. Angle Parking. On numbered streets, angle parking shall be installed when it will maximize the number of spaces provided and still comply with the capacity, service level and safety requirements of the street system. EXCEPTION TO STANDARDS 59.0,Q75 23.605 Exceptions to Standards. 1. The reviewing authority may allow exceptions to this Ghttpterthis Article and to other Lake Oswego Community Development Code, Zoning Code and Developmen! ltM's provisions applicable to developments subject to this standard without the need to obtain a formal variance pursuant to 144' Articley A8.24 of "".'O in one or more of the following circumstances: a. The applicant demonstrates that the physical characteristics of the site or existing structure make compliance impractical. b. New buildings or substantial remodels may vary from the design requirements in 1.09S " 105 to " 1 15LOC 50.65.025 to 50.65.035 if: i. The applicant demonstrates that the design should vary in order to create a complimentary relationship with an abutting viable existing structure that is not designed in the Lake Oswego Style; ii. The applicant demonstrates that the alternative design is exceptional in the quality of detailing, appearance or materials and/or creates a positive unique relationship to other structures, views or open space in a manner that accomplishes the purpose and goals f the Downtown Redevelopment District Design Standards. There are no goals of the Design Standards C. The applicant demonstrates that the alternative design accomplishes the purpose of the Urban Design Plan in a manner that is equal or superior to a project designed pursuant to this standard. There are no Comprehensive Plan provisions regarding the 2. A request for exception under this provision may be processed as part of the underlying application or separately as a major development pttrmtiitt-tet f,4 (X Flittptet-49. Page 239 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code Page 240 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code Old Town Building Design Standards mop-M-Woffn r PF -VM IbIr"W"MoMrV rwr maw& 07MMM 50.6 24.010 Purpose. The purpose of this 9tandard Article is to develop a cohesive and orderly relationship between existing and proposed buildings in the Old Town Neighborhood by providing visual connections defined by the predominant architectural characteristics of the Old Town Styles (Appendix f3I0.66_A). Copying the existing building styles is not the intention of these guidelines. While a new development may have a distinctive identity, its overall effect should support and reinforce the Old Town Styles. 50.66.O1,Q, 24.015 Definitions. Old Town Styles. Building appearance which borrows from the vernacular (gable front) style, craftsman bungalow style and Cape Cod (neo-colonial) style, which are the predominant historic styles in the DD District. These buildings are characterized by simple massing and composition, use of natural building materials, window and door openings emphasized with trim, and gable and hip roof forms. (Appendix 50.66-A1:3). SO.G6.015 24.020 Applicability. This standard is applicable to'Major Development or Minor Development within the DD (Design District) Zone that is required to be reviewed by the Development Review Commission as described in LOC 48.08-2:7350.79.020(2)(a). 50.06.(2( 24.025 Building Siting and Massing. Simple Massing Required. New buildings shall utilize massing and composition characteristic of the Old Town Styles (See Appendix 50.66 -AB) and shall be compatible with existing structures of Page 241 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code the Old Town Styles located on the block face where the proposed structure will be located as well as those structures of the Old Town Styles in the block face across the street from where the proposed structure will be located. In addition to the other requirements of this section, rowhouse or townhouse units shall be differentiated from one another through the use of varied setbacks for each unit or groups of units and/or varied roof lines and heights to provide visual interest and create the appearance of a single family development pattern along the street. Abutting rowhouse or townhouse units shall not have identical facades. 2. Roof Form and Pitch. New structures shall be designed with gable and hip roof forms. Flat or shed roof forms are prohibited for primary structures, but may be allowed for secondary building projections such as dormers or porches. (Appendix 50.66_,1:3, Figure 1). Roof pitch shall be similar to typical pitches of Old Town Styles. In no case shall pitch be less than 6':12' for the primary roof form. Structures located on the same block face as the proposed development as well as on the block face across the street, that are examples of the Old Town Styles, shall also be considered in determining preferable roof pitch. For corner lots, structures in the Old Town Styles on both block faces of the proposed development, as well as adjacent blocks across these streets, shall be considered. H.O.025 24.030 Building Design and Materials. 1. Old Town S le Required. New buildings shall be designed using the building design elements described in the Old Town Styles, to create buildings which blend with existing structures in these styles located on the same block face as the proposed development and on the block face across the street. 2. Materials. a. Moldings. Moldings, window casings and other trim elements utilized on buildings shall be similar to those represented in the Old Town Styles. Where possible, they shall match or compliment the detailing of structures on the same block face as the proposed development and on the block face across the street, which are designed in the Old Town Styles. b. Siding. The predominant exterior siding materials in the Old Town Styles are: (1) horizontal wood siding, (3 to 8 inch wide shiplap or clapboard), (2) board and batten siding, and (3) stone, brick or stucco of a type used in the Old Town Styles, and 4) plain or patterned wood shingles as described in the Old Town Styles. These materials may be used alone or in combination. Development should use traditional materials as discussed in the Old Town Styles Page 242 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code Description, but may include representations of the actual materials in pressed wood products, vinyl or metal. Traditional masonry materials, or concrete or other products made to appear like brick or stone, may also be used. C. Prohibited Siding Materials. Grooved, presawn plywood, (e.g., T-111), corrugated metal, diagonally applied or vertically oriented siding materials, with the exception of (2)(b)(2), above, are prohibited. d. Roofing Materials. Composition shingles, wood shingles or ceramic tiles, or materials which have the appearance of composition or wood shingles, or ceramic tiles, shall be used. e. Chimneys Chimneys shall be brick or stone, or boxed -in with the predominant siding material of the building. f Windows. The general window shape and typical window placement and trim of the Old Town Styles shall be followed. Sash materials shall be wood, or vinyl, or other material with the appearance of wood. g. Entrances and Stairs. i. Entrances: New buildings should have a minimum of one principal entry clearly visible from the street. This entry should be accentuated by characteristic elements of the Old Town Styles to make it a visual focal point. Where an entry to an additional unit is not directly visible from the street, its location should be clearly marked by some identifying feature such as an entry trellis, or entry gate with a visible address. ii. Stairs: Front entry stairs shall contain no more than seven (7) risers between each landing. 50,66.03.0 24.035. Fencing and Landscaping. 1. Fencing. Fencing is not required. When fencing is included in the front yard, it shall be used in an ornamental or symbolic way rather than as a visual barrier. Metal chain link fencing is prohibited within the front yard setback. The maximum height of fencing within Page 243 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code the front yard setback area shall be 48". Maintenance of existing stone fences is encouraged when new development is proposed. Construction of new stone fences that are of similar height and character to existing stone fences is also encouraged. 2. Trees and Landscaping. a. Mature trees or tree groves shall be preserved and incorporated into the site plan for new development, where feasible, unless doing so would substantially reduce development options on the bite. b. Two (2) street trees for every 50 feet of street frontage are required as a condition of approval of a new structure. Existing street trees can be counted in order to comply with this requirement, as long as the type, location and viability of the existing trees are sufficient to provide a full streetscape of trees. New street trees shall be selected from the City of Lake Oswego Draft "Approved Street Tree Planting List," (Appendix 50.6 AAK Figure 5). [Cross Reference: Streel Trus in R-6 Zone - 50.07.0601 50.60.03 24.040 Garages. If a garage is provided, it shall meet the following siting requirements: (Also see Appendix 5O,00 -A$, Figure 4) Minimize the visual impact of garages and parking from the street by: a. Facing the garage door(s) on a separate street frontage from the front door of the primary structure, or b. Setting back the side of the garage facing the street a minimum of five feet behind the front building line of the primary structure, when the garage doors are parallel to the same street frontage as the primary structure, or feasible. C. Accessing the garage or parking area from the rear of the lot, where 2. Garages shall have the same roof pitch as the primary struclurc. 9 66._40 24.045 Additional Requirements for Multiple Family Dwellings. Due to the potential size of multi -family structures, attention should be given to incorporating design forms and elements of surrounding buildings that are in the Old Town Styles, so that new structures are visually reduced in scale and relate to nearby residential structures and neighborhood scale in general. In addition to compliance with 24.025 24.04 SJ_QC 50.66.020 - 50,(16.030, multi -family projects shall also be subject to the following considerations: (See Appendix � GG -AR, Figures 2 and 3) Page 244 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code 1. Create visual linkages with surrounding buildings in the Old Town Styles by repeating or incorporating similar ridge lines, eaves, window and door openings. 2. Offset building walls and roof lines to approximate width and height ratios of surrounding buildings. 3. Incorporate similar roof forms and gables, and smaller elements like porches, dormers or bays, to reduce the scale of new buildings and better relate them to nearby residential structures. Roof pitch may be less steep than 6':12' if a reduction results in visually reducing the scale of the proposed structure and better relates the proposed structure to those surrounding structures in the Old Town Styles. 4. Use landscape buffers between parking areas and the street as well as abutting residences. 5. Create visual interest along the street by breaking walls into smaller planes with windows, entrances, dormers or other appropriate design elements (Appendix 50.66-613, Figure 3). 6. Break large parking areas into smaller groupings, where possible. Minimize the width of driveway curb cuts. Screen parking from the street with landscaping. Locate parking under, or at the sides and rear of buildings. Page 245 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code Article 50.�i7 West Lake Grove Design District Standards 25.010 Purpose. These provisions are intended to implement the Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan and the West Lake Grove Design District (Appendix D50.Q-A, Figure 1) by specifying allowed land uses and providing design and development standards to ensure: 1. The characteristics of allowed land uses are appropriate for this location in terms of function, transportation characteristics, and compatibility with nearby residential uses; 2. Development of specific transportation improvements necessary to: a. Minimize impacts on adjacent local streets through measures such as site planning, building design and building orientation. b. Allow for efficient and safe shared access to Boones Ferry Road to minimize traffic conflicts; C. Ensure cohesive internal circulation and cross easements between all properties at full development; and d. Provide for pedestrian, bike and public transit facilities. 3. Effective buffering and screening occurs between land uses allowed within the West Lake Grove Design District and existing single-family residential neighborhoods. 4. The creation of a built environment complementary to the existing character of Lake Grove which includes: a. The creation of an aesthetic entry to the City; b. Architecturally designed structures of high design quality sited to orient towards the public streets; C. Conservation of existing mature Douglas Fir trees and other significant trees to retain the landmark status imparted by these resources; Page 246 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code 5. High quality site planning and designed landscapes. 50.67.010 25.015 Applicability. The provisions of apply to all development in the West Lake Grove Design District which consists of four zones — Office Commercial/High Density Residential (OC/R-2.5), Office Commercial /Neighborhood Commercial (OC/NC), Townhome Residential (R-2.5) and Live/Work Residential (R -2.5/W) as described below. Allowed land uses shall be developed in accordance with the design and development standards within in addition to all other applicable Lake Oswego codes, standards and regulations. In the event of a conflict between and other Lake Oswego codes, standards and regulations, the West Lake Grove Design District standards shall apply. 50.67.015 25.020 West Lake Grove Design Standards. Thio ehapterThis Article provides for two levels of design and development standards to implement the West Lake Grove Design District. The first level are those overall design and development standards which apply to the entire District. The second are those standards which apply specifically to the OC/R-2.5, OUNC, R-2.5 and R -2.5/W zones. 25.025 Standards Applicable to the Entire District. 1. General Requirements: Development which occurs within the West Lake Grove Design District (Appendix 50.67-69, Figure 1) shall create an aesthetically pleasing entry into Lake Grove through the following design elements: a. Architecturally designed structures of high design quality that are in scale with the site, in proportion to similar buildings in the West Lake Grove Design District and which utilize a pleasing variety of harmonious earth and muted tone materials, colors, finishes and textures; b. Conservation of mature Douglas fir trees and other significant trees to retain the landmark status imparted by these resources; C. Orientation of building entrances shall conform to the provisions of 1,O2HLOC 50.45.010. d. Buildings design and orientation shall be provide for effective screening and buffering of the subject properties from adjacent residential neighborhoods; High quality designed landscapes involving native plant materials or Page 247 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code those which have naturalized to the locale, which will grow to significant size and impart seasonal color and interest. 2. Streets and Circulation: Access to Boones Ferry Road, new streets, internal vehicular driveways, parking, pedestrian and bike facilities shall be provided and developed in accordance with the Streets and Circulation Element of the West Lake Grove Design District [Appendix 50.67_ ®14, Figures 2(a), "Auto Trapsportation and Circulation", 2(b), "Internal Parking and Circulation" and 2(c), "Street Pedestrian Facilities and Pathways"]. Through provision of shared access and driveways, parking and pedestrian system, development shall occur in a manner to ensure the phased construction of the planned circulation and access system and in no circumstance shall prevent the development of a cohesive access and circulation system. Furthermore, public bike and pedestrian facilities shall be provided on both sides of Boones Ferry Road as illustrated by Appendix 5 D, Figures 2(a), 2(b), and 2(c). Appendix 50.67 -AH, Figures 3(a), 3(b), 3(c), 3(d) and 3(e) illustrate the desired design treatment of West Sunset Street, Lower Boones Ferry Road and a pedestrian path intended to serve a portion of the R-2.5 Town Home Residential Zone. The number of access points on Boones Ferry Road shall be minimized through the use of consolidated driveways sufficiently wide enough to allow for simultaneous ingress and egress. This shall require property owners to agree to construct, or share in the cost of consolidated driveways either: a. At the time of development; or b. At such future time when sufficient land area is developed to make driveway consolidation practical. If it is impractical, due to the timing ot'development, to develop consolidated driveway access for more than one parcel, the location of future consolidated access shall be determined by the approval authority based upon the: i. Streets and Circulation Element of the West Lake Grove Design District [Appendix 50.67 -AB, Figures 2(a), 2(b), and 2(c)]; ii. The ability to serve the maximum number of land uses and properties; iii. Traffic safety and operational characteristics; and iv. Use of more than one property to ensure future consolidated access, such as at property lines. The approval authority may approve interim individual driveways access to Boones Ferry Road subject to the findings of a traffic analysis and the condition that when adjoining properties develop, permanent shared access be developed pursuant to this article. In circumstances where the location of permanent shared access is not in the same location as an interim driveway, the driveway shall be removed and the area landscaped or otherwise integrated into the design of the subject site under the provisions of this ehapte+JhLq. Page 248 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code Driveway consolidation shall require the execution of reciprocal, non- revocable easements in a form necessary to ensure unimpeded property access and driveway maintenance. All driveways shall include safety features such as changes in surface material, signage and lighting to alert drivers to the potential presence of pedestrians. 3. Off -Street Pafkine: In order to maximize the development potential within the West Lake Grove Design District, shared parking between different business and land uses shall be allowed pursuant to 126LOC 50.55.010 (d)(ii)a-c as follows: Parties involved in shared parking arrangements shall enter into reciprocal agreements, acceptable to the City for such use, by legal instrument which shall also provide for continuing maintenance of jointly used parking facilities. 4. Pedestrian and Bicycle System: Continuous and connecting hard-surface pedestrian pathways, including a continuous meandering pathway on both sides of Boones Ferry Road, a minimum of eight feet in width and accessible to the public, shall be provided throughout the West Lake Grove Design District pursuant to Appendix 50.67-AD, Figure 2(c). The location and radii of the pathway shall ensure a sufficient setback from Boones Ferry Road to allow for amenities such as effective landscaping, street trees and lighting. These pathways shall provide access to all Design District properties and to the public pedestrian system in the surrounding residential neighborhoods and Lake Grove Commercial District. Pedestrian pathways shall be a minimum of six feet from the exterior wall of any structure. A walkway shall be developed as illustrated by Appendix 50.67-AD, Figures 2(c) and 3(d) to provide continuous pedestrian access to townhomes developed within the north portion of the R-2.5 townhome residential zone. Figure 3(c) has been revised to reflect the 8' feet noted in the text. The original adopted version of Figure 3(c) showed the meandering pathway width at 6 feet, rather than 8 feet. If inadequate right-of-way exists within which to construct the above eight foot wide meandering pathway, then property owners shall be required to provide a public easement of sufficient size for pathway construction and maintenance. 5. Intersection Design: Intersections shall serve as design focal points through the application of landscaping, surface treatments and appropriately scaled lighting. Buildings adjacent within the OUR 2.5 zone shall, where feasible, orient entrances to intersecting streets to facilitate Page 249 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code pedestrian usage. Buildings within the OC/NC Zone shall orient entrances to intersecting streets as illustrated by Appendix 50.67 -Aft, Figure 4, Building Massing. 6. Public Safety: Intersection design and improvements shall enhance pedestrian safety and ease of crossing Booties Ferry Road and other streets within the Design District. Street lighting of a consistent style shall be provided within the Design District. I Landscaping Standards: Landscape development shall reinforce the informal "village" scale and character of Lake Grove. The following appropriate landscape styles shall be emphasized for residential, office/commercial and neighborhood commercial development within the Design District: • Informal massing and arrangement of plant materials around buildings, parking lots, and within required landscaped buffers; • Rows of street trees within areas designated for neighborhood commercial; • Meandering pedestrian pathways; • Wide concrete or brick sidewalks adjacent to buildings designated as Office Commercial/Neighborhood Commercial; • Use of trees which grow to a significant size including native evergreen trees where possible, and avoiding use of columnar form hybrids. Parking, Area Landscaping Buffering -and Screening,: The overall design themes for parking lot landscapes shall emphasize development of a natural appearing landscape, which utilizes plant materials that are either native or have naturalized to the locale. Off-street parking areas shall be designed and landscaped to: Be buffered and screened from adjoining residential uses; ii. Ensure that trees are integral to parking lot design to provide for aesthetics and shade; iii. Be an integral part of a development's overall site plan, taking into special consideration the requirement to preserve significant vegetation; iv. Visually mitigate large expanses of paving and allow for alternative surface treatments, such as the use of gravel and other pervious surfaces to preserve existing mature trees; V. Preserve existing significant vegetation, especially existing mature Douglas firs and other significant vegetation. Page 250 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code b. Minimum Parking Lot Landscaping Standards: All parking lots shall be landscaped to conform to the following minimum standards: i. Trees planted to meet the landscaping requirements for parking lots shall be deciduous shade trees of at least three inches in caliper which reach a minimum mature height of at least 30 feet and have the canopy and structure necessary to cast moderate to dense shade'. ii. Where adequate room is available, large scale evergreen trees such as western red cedar, western hemlock, California incense cedar, and Douglas fir of at least four to six feet in height and reach a mature height of at least 70 feet shall be incorporated into the landscape theme. iii. Exceptions to requirements (i) and (ii) above may be allowed for circumstances that limit placement of trees such as overhead lines, underground utilities and confined spaces. iv. Parking areas shall be divided into bays of not more than eight parking spaces. Between and/or at the end of each parking bay there shall be curbed planters of at least five (5) feet in width. Each planter shall contain one shade tree of at least three inches in caliper. The planter shall also be planted with appropriate ground cover or shrubs at a rate of two 2 -gallon plants for every 20 square feet of landscape area. The intervening area between plantings shall be mulched with an appropriate material to a minimum depth of three inches. V. Parking lots fronting a driveway, sidewalk, pathway or public street shall be bordered by a minimum five (5) foot wide landscaped area. Within this area, shade trees shall be planted every thirty feet. Planting of shrubs and ground cover and mulching shall occur pursuant to Subsection 7b(iv) above. vi. Parking areas shall be separated from the exterior wall of a structure by a minimum of a 10 -foot buffer which may include a pedestrian pathway and/or landscaped strip. Parking areas or driveways shall be separated from abutting residential zones by a minimum 15 -foot landscape buffer pursuant to Subsection 11(b) underground irrigation. vii. All parking area landscaping shall be provided with Site Landscaping_ All new development shall install landscaping on at least twenty (20) percent of the development site on which buildings are constructed. This is inclusive of landscaping required for parking lots, and landscaping within required buffer areas. Landscaping may include courtyards, raised beds and planters, espaliers, arbors and trellises. The landscape plan shall incorporate large-scale evergreen tree such as Douglas fir, western red cedar, hemlock or California incense cedar. Page 251 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code Planting plans shall emphasize development of an informal, natural appearing landscape, which utilizes drought resistant plant materials that are either native or have naturalized to the locale. Existing significant vegetation, which is preserved as part of an approved development application shall be counted towards fulfillment of this section. d. Minimum Site Landscape Requirements: Minimum landscaping shall be as follows: i. Tree Size and Quantity; One tree, a minimum of 2 to 3 inches in caliper at four and one-half (4 1/2') feet above grade for every 500 square feet of landscaped area. Where site conditions warrant, evergreen trees such as western red cedar, western hemlock and Douglas fir of at least three inches in caliper and which reach a mature height of at least 70 feet shall be planted. ii. Shrub Size and Quantity: At least fifteen shrubs of a minimum two gallon in size for every 500 square feet of landscaped area. All remaining areas shall be treated with suitable mulch applied to a depth of no less than three inches. iii. Irrigation: All landscaping shall be provided with underground irrigation. iv, Street Trees: One street tree shall be provided within or immediately adjacent to the public right-of-way an average of every thirty linear feet along the entire development site frontage. Street trees shall be a minimum of three (3") inches in caliper, measured four and one-half feet above grade when planted. When trees are not planted in a planter strip or landscaped area, tree wells, with approved grates that provide a minimum of sixteen square feet of surface area, shall be provided for each tree. Alternative arrangements to a linear street pattern may be implemented at the discretion of the approval authority. Existing preserved trees within 20 feet of the public right-of-way shall be counted towards fulfillment of this standard. In order to provide for a more natural and informal setting, groupings of trees may be allowed. V. Exemptions from Street Tree Requirements: Exemptions from street tree requirements may be granted by the approval authority provided the following conditions exist: underground utilities. or; Trees would create problems with existing above or Trees would conflict with clear vision requirements, There is inadequate space in which to plant trees. Page 252 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code However, the approval authority may require the applicant to plant street trees elsewhere within the Design District in lieu of trees which would normally be required for a specific development. If trees cannot be planted due to inadequate space or line clearance, the commensurate planting of shrubs or small trees more appropriate to the area may be required. 8. Unifying Design Elements: Development shall incorporate landscape features which contribute to a unifying design theme and continuity within the West Lake Grove Design District such as paving materials and textures, lighting, street furniture, signage and plant material selection, especially trees. 9. Preservation of Mature Douglas Fir Trees and Other Significant Vegetation: a. Development plans shall preserve existing mature, evergreen trees and other significant vegetation to the extent practicable. b. The approval authority shall have the discretion to allow modifications or require changes to the paving standards, such as the use of pervious surfaces, to preserve mature trees. C. Tree removal shall be mitigated. Where possible, the caliper inches of trees, with a trunk diameter of five inches or greater, which are removed shall be replaced with trees of the same or approved variety, of no less than three caliper inches in diameter each, to equal or exceed the caliper inches of trees removed. Where complete mitigation is not practicable, payment shall be made into the City of Lake Oswego Tree Fund pursuant to LOC 55.02.135. d. A protection and maintenance plan to promote the continued survival of preserved trees shall be submitted for approval in conjunction with any development application. 10. Buffer Areas: Adjoining residential land uses shall be buffered and screened from land uses within the Design District as follows: a. Separation by kight-of-Waw Where the boundary of the West Lake Grove Design District is adjacent to a residential zone but separated by a public right of way, buffering requirements shall be met by setback requirements. b. Landscape Buffering: There shall be a minimum 15 foot wide landscaped buffer along the entire edge of the West Lake Grove Design District where it abuts a residential zone and along the property boundaries of new commercial and town home residential development Page 253 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code which abut existing single family dwellings within the Design District. A buffer area may only be occupied by utilities, screening and landscaping. No buildings, access ways or parking areas shall be allowed in a buffer area except where an access way has been approved by the approval authority. The buffer area is required to be landscaped as follows: i. One row of 2 to 3 inch caliper deciduous trees, spaced no more than 15 feet apart; or one row of evergreen trees not less than six feet tall and spaced no more than 15 feet apart, or a mix of evergreen and deciduous trees planted 15 feet apart. ii. Ten shrubs planted�a minimum of 5 feet from each other which shall attain a height of at least six feet within three years of planting. iii. The remaining area shall be planted in ground cover and mulched with a suitable material to a depth of three inches. C. Screening: Screening shall be provided by a six-foot tall wood or masonry, sight obscuring fence or wall. The unfinished or structural side shall face the use to be screened. 11. Noise Mitigation: The approval authority shall require a noise mitigation plan when the proposed development is reasonably expected to produce noise that can be heard in the abutting single-family residential districts above ambient residential levels. The development proposal shall incorporate noise reduction designs into construction of the development, and/or provide for additional noise reduction procedures to be implemented in order to reasonably reduce noise from the development so that it cannot be heard in the abutting residential district above ambient residential levels. 12. Ste: Signs shall be limited to monument, blade and wall signs pursuant to LOC Chapter 47. Entrances to parking areas shall be specifically indicated through pedestrian - scale signage and lighting. 13. Undergrounding of Utilities: All public and private utility services shall be placed underground. 14. Building Design: Buildings shall be architecturally designed with a residential character and theme that reflect the architecture types that are historically indigenous to Lake Grove and Lake Oswego. Building character should reflect the residential English Country or Cottage style, borrow from the Arts and Crafts tradition, English Tudor style and the American Rustic Style. Elements of these styles which can be used for both residential, office/commercial and commercial uses within the design district include: Page 254 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code • Complex Massing; • Asymmetrical composition; • Masonry and wood as exterior cladding materials; • An intimate, pedestrian friendly scale; • Richly textured and visually engaging facades, and • Lush landscaping and border plantings. Evaluation of the appearance of buildings and their conformance with these standards shall be based on the quality of design and relationship to the surroundings. The following building design standards shall apply to all office and neighborhood commercial development which occurs within the West Lake Grove Design District: a. Monotony of design in single or multiple building projects shall be avoided. Variation of detail, form, and siting shall be used to provide visual interest as follows: i. No continuous blank walls shall be allowed along pedestrian and vehicular ways and shall not exceed 25 linear feet without recess or change of plane. Pursuant to Appendix 50.67-614, Figure 5 at least 50 % of the ground floor walls within the OC/NC Zone shall consist of windows. Windows types shall consist of double hung or divided lights. Large Plate glass windows and simulated divided lights are not allowed. ii. Buildings shall use materials that are architecturally harmonious for all walls and exterior components. Materials shall be durable and of high quality. Materials for building walls may consist of: • Wood Shingle; • Brick; • Stone -granite or concrete at street level of Office- Commercial/Neighborhood Commercial at street level only; • Horizontal lap siding • Stucco and timbers on gable ends only. The following exterior materials are not allowed: •EIFS or other synthetic stucco material; *Metal panels; *Flagstone; *Plywood Paneling; •Vinyl Cladding; *Composite wood siding of any kind; *Mirrored glass •Standard form concrete block (not including split faced, colored or other block designs, which mimic stone, brick or other masonry), and Page 255 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code •Back -lighted fabrics ii. Buildings which abut the office and neighborhood commercial zones shall incorporate a combination of the following design elements to foster a comfortable and interesting pedestrian experience: and compatible color accents; • Modulations of scale; • Definitive indoor -outdoor relationships; • Harmonious materials and earth and muted tone colors • Outdoor Lighting and other design treatments. Other architectural features such as awnings, arcades, bay windows, projecting balconies shall be required. iv. Pitched roofs are required and includes pitched gable end or hipped roofs. Small areas of flat roof not visible by the public or from adjoining residential areas may be allowed where necessary to accommodate mechanical equipment. Roof materials shall consist of either cedar shingles or three tab composite shingles in dark grey, green or black colors. Metal roofs, colored roofs (red, blue or tan colors), and mansard or decorative roof forms are prohibited. V. Building entrances shall be located for visibility and ease of pedestrian use. Entrances to upper floors shall be located so as not to conflict with street level activities and pedestrian use. vi. Building vents and mechanical devices shall be screened from view with materials harmonious to the building. Exterior site elements such as storage, trash collection areas and noise generating equipment shall be located away from abutting residential districts and sight obscuring fencing and landscaping shall be used to screen and buffer these features. vii. Building components, such as windows, doors, eaves and parapets shall have proper proportions and be placed in relationship to one another. viii. Exterior building lighting shall be designed as part of the architectural concept. Fixtures, standards and exposed accessories shall be of the proper scale and compatible with the building and overall site design. ix. Building rain protection is encouraged throughout the Design District and shall be afforded to the Office-Commercial/Neighborhood Commercial lone pursuant to Appendix 50.67-69, Figure 6. Rain protection shall consist of fabric awnings or metal canopies. Vinyl awnings are prohibited. 15. Street and Pathway Lighting: Street and pathway lighting shall be provided per Appendix 50,67-a, Figure Page 256 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code 7. Street and parking lot lighting shall consist of historic style fixtures. Cobra -head and contemporary fixtures are prohibited.: a. Street Lighting: Additional street lighting on Boones Ferry Road made necessary by new development shall be deten-nined by the approval authority, who may require a street lighting study commensurate with a development review application to determine the appropriate level of lighting. b. Lighting of Sidewalks, Public and Private Pathways, and Access ways: Low level pedestrian -scale lighting of less than 0.3 average foot-candles, and with a maximum uniformity of illumination ratio not to exceed 20:1 shall be required. On-site lighting shall be of a pedestrian scale and of a continuous style that is maintained throughout the Design District. C. Lighting Equipment: All street and pathway lighting equipment shall be approved by the approval authority. d. Shielding of Lighting from Adjoining Properties: Lighting shall be designed so that light is directed away and screened from adjoining residential properties and/or streets. 16. No outdoor storage is allowed. 17. No Drive through businesses are allowed in the West Lake Grove Design District. 18. Storm drainage and surface water management facilities shall be required pursuant to Articles 50.40 and 50.41 and shall ensure storm water is not directed onto adjacent residential neighborhoods. .7 2 25.030 Design Standards for the Office Commercial/High Density Residential (OC/R- 2.5) Zone. The purpose of this zone is to provide for the development of office commercial land uses along with opportunities for attached town home residential housing. Housing may occur in the same building as office uses. The design character and theme of this district is intended to foster a residential architectural character, site design and scale. 25.035— 2, Required Design Elements Reformatting to reflect that this subsection is related to the OUR 2.5 zone. i-: A. Development within this district shalt create a viable pedestrian scale streetscapes and public places inclusive of pedestrian ways, parking areas, interior courtyards and public and private spaces. These areas shall be designed to foster the comfort and enjoyment of pedestrians and other users. In addition the streetscape/public place shall Page 257 – Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code provide for "layers" of design elements such as benches and walls, landscaping, street trees and walkways. Windows should be numerous and placed at the pedestrian level to provide building occupants with a visual connection to the streetscape/public place. Dwelling units shall provide connections to the streetscape/public place with design elements such as balconies and windows. 2. b. Building design shall foster interest and compatibility between adjoining buildings through appropriate scale relationships. This shall be accomplished through a combination of the following: a. Exterior building wall designs that provide distinct and separate areas with balconies and/or dormers; h: ii, Setting back parts of the facade to reduce the mass of large buildings or row of attached dwellings; e- iii. Architectural features that provide a variety of harmonious colors, textures, material changes in rooflines eaves, gables, trim details, bay windows, balconies and verandas. 3 c. The expanse of large facades and building planes shall be broken down both horizontally and vertically into smaller units through a mix of the following design elements: e i. Recessed or projected entries and porches; 1} ii. Mixing roof gables and eaves facing on public sides of the building(s); iii. Appropriate use of windows to provide scale; d- iv. Dormer$ to break up roof expanses, and; e- v, Balconies. 25.040 Design Standards for the Neighborhood Commercial/Office Commercial (OC/NC) Zone. Reformatting to reflect Purpose and Required Design Elements of Zone This zone is intended to provide for a mix of professional office and neighborhood commercial uses to serve the frequently reoccurring needs of the Lake Grove and Rural Lake Grove Neighborhoods and serve as an activity focus for the West Lake Grove Design District. 25.04.51 Required Design Elements. a. The design theme of the OC/NC zone is intended to reflect the residential character and scale of the surrounding OC/R-2.5 and R-2.5 zones through the Page 258 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code incorporation of common building elements and to also create a store -front character. This shall be achieved through the use of design elements and features in Sections 25.02350.67.02Q and 23:83350.67.025(2) above. 2- D. The architecture of buildings shall establish a strong design relationship to one another to create a visually compatible ensemble. This relationship shall be especially reinforced at all four corners of the intersection of Boones Ferry Road and West Sunset Drive (Appendix 50.67-60, Figures 4 and 5). 3- C. A clear visual distinction shall be made between the pedestrian oriented ground floor and upper stories through the use of an ample cornice above the first floor, a change of building materials, a row of clerestory windows, arcade or overhang; 4- d. Main public entrances shall be located directly off a sidewalk abutting the public street. Entries shall be sheltered and emphasized through the use of canopies or overhangs (Appendix 50.67-A0, Figures 4 and 6). 50.67.0.35 25.050 Design Standards for the Town Home Residential Zone (R 2.5). Reformatting to reflect Purpose and Required Design Elements of Zone 25.05-5 1. Purpose_ The purpose of this zone is to provide for the development of medium density town home residential housing. The design character and theme of this zone is intended to foster a residential architectural character, site design and scale which is harmonious with the surrounding office, commercial and single-family residential districts. 25.060 2, Design Elements. 4- a. Future development in this zone shall create a viable pedestrian scale streetscape, or public place which includes pedestrian ways, parking areas, interior courtyards and public and private spaces which are designed to foster the comfort and enjoyment of pedestrians and other users. b. The streetscape/public place shall provide for "layers" of design elements such as benches, walls, landscaping, street trees and walkways. c. Building design shall foster interest and compatibility between adjoining buildings through appropriate scale relationships. This shall be accomplished through a combination of the following design elements: ai. Exterior building wall designs that provide distinct and separate areas with balconies and/or dormers; h . Setting back parts of the facade to reduce the of a row of attached dwellings; Page 259 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code iiie. Architectural features that provide a variety of harmonious colors, textures, material changes in rooflines, eaves, gables, trim details, bay windows, balconies, porches and verandas. 4. d. The expanse of large facades and building planes shall be broken down both horizontally and vertically into smaller units through a mix of the following design elements: a i. Recessed or projected entries and porches; ii. Mixing roof gables and eaves facing on public sides of the building(s); r.: iii. Appropriate use of windows to provide scale, where the amount of fenestration or glazing shall be proportional to the mass of the building facade; _ iv, Dormers to break up roof expanses, and; e: N-. Balconies or projected bays. 50.67.040 25.065 Design Standards for the R -2.5/W (Live/Work) Zone. Reformatting to reflect Purpose and Required Design Elements of Zone L Pumose. The purpose of this district is to provide an opportunity for persons to operate a business out of their residence consistent with the range of professional office, retail and service uses allowed within the Office Commercial/Neighborhood Commercial (OC/NC) zone. 2-5:070-2. Required Design Elements. +7 _ Q. The design therpe of the R -2.5/W zone is intended to reflect the residential character and scale of the surrounding OC/R-2.5 and R-2.5 zones. Buildings shall also incorporate design elements which reflect the store -front character of the adjacent OC/NC zone. . The residential character and theme shall be reinforced through the application of design elements and features listed in Sections 23-00 and 23:05050.67.035 and supplemented by the following; a- i. Building walls shall create a visual relationship between activities within the building and the streetscape by: _ The use of transparent windows and doorways which allow views into and from the portion of a building that is used as a business, and; ii-. (2) Awnings, fixed overhangs, arcades and recessed entries to provide dimension and a sheltered transition between the sidewalk and Page 260 — Draft December 2001 Labe Oswego Community Development Code buildings; b-. ii. On -street parking and regularly spaced street trees shall be provided to separate the pedestrian and sidewalk activities from moving traffic and create a well-defined pedestrian corridor. e- iii. The architecture of buildings within the zone shall establish a clear design relationship to one another to create a visually compatible ensemble. d_. iv. A strong visual distinction shall be made between the pedestrian oriented ground floor and upper stories through the use of an ample cornice above the first floor, a change of building materials, a row of clerestory windows and an arcade or overhang. e- V. Main public entrances shall be oriented toward public street. Entries shall be sheltered and emphasized through the use of canopies or overhangs. Page 261 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code Page 262 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code APPENDIX 50.67-60, FIGURES Figure No. Title 1 West Lake Grove Design District 2(a) Auto Transportation and Circulation 2(b) Internal Parking and Circulation Plan 2(c) Pedestrian Facilities and Pathways 3(a) Street Sections — West Sunset Street (Section A -A) 3(b) Street Sections — West Sunset Street (Section B -B) 3(c) Street Sections — Lower Boones Ferry Road (Section C -C) 3(d) Walkway (Section D -D) 3(e) Street Sections - Lower Boones Ferry Road (Section E -E) 4 Building Massing 5 Building Window Openings and Blank Walls 6 Building Rain Protection 7 Required Street Lighting Page 263 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code Article 494855 Variances. Sections: 49.28.400 Variances; Classifications. 49.28.405 Variance Standards. Sections: 48.24.650 Authorization. 48.24.655 Classification of variances. 48.24.660 Application. 48.24.665 Notice Procedures for Class 1 Variances. 48.24.670 Review of Application. 48.24.675 Authority of Manager, Class 1 Variance. 48.24.680 Action on Class I Variance Application. 48.24.685 Class 1 Appeals. 48.24.690 Action on Class 2 Variance, Appeals. =47- : Rqv F -.Vvvm . .............. ....... OIBL Ni • - Page 264 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code Duplicative, combined with LOC 49 Variance Standard Section 50.68.010 Section 49.28.405 Variance Standards. 1. The granting authority may grant a variance from the elevelepmer��qdg standards, except as prohibited by subsection 3, if it is established that: A. The request is necessary to prevent unnecessary hardship; and, B. Development consistent with the request will not be injurious to the neighborhood in which the property is located or to property established to be affected by the request; and, C. The request is the minimum variance necessary to make reasonable use of the property; and, D. The request is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. In evaluating whether a particular request is to be granted, the granting authority shall consider the following, together with any other relevant facts or circumstances: A. Relevant factors to be considered in determining whether a hardship exists include: i. Physical circumstances related to the piece of property involved. ii. Whether a reasonable use similar to like properties can be made of the property without the variance. iii. Whether the hardship was created by the person requesting the variance. iv. The economic impact upon the person requesting the variance if the request is denied. B. Relevant factors to be considered in determining whether development consistent with the request is injurious include: i. An analysis of the physical impacts such development will have, such as visual, noise, traffic and the increased potential for drainage, erosion and landslide hazards. ii. The perceptions of residents and owners of property in the neighborhood Page 265 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code concerning the incremental impacts occurring as a result of the proposed variance. C. A determination of whether the standards set forth in subsection (1) are satisfied necessarily involves the balancing of competing and conflicting interests. The considerations listed in subsection (2) A and B are not standards and are not intended to be an exclusive list of considerations. The considerations are to be used as a guide in the granting authority's deliberations. D. Prior variances allowed in the neighborhood shall not he considered by the (Ord. No. 2088, Enacted, 03/03/94) •• • iL•X17[•7itiiF��Y�r[•l�•7i�11Tai��DlifT•i�[b�iL11Ci`17[�[�L��ii�Yl�fi� ! ! Combined from LOC 48 Section 50.68.015 Section 48.24.655 Classification of variances. A variance which would allow development not in conformance with the requirements of the development standards may be granted. 1. Class 1 Class 1 includes minor variances which are small changes from the Code requirements and which will have little or no effect on adjacent property or users. Administrative approval by the City Manager of Class 1 variances may be granted. Class 1 variances include: a. Variances from setback. requirements for single family dwellings and accessory structures. b. Variances from setback requirements for structures other than those described in subsection (1)(a) of this section of two feet or less in side and front yards and five feet or less in rear yards. c. Variances from minimum lot width or depth of five feet or less. d. Variances in lot coverage, building height, or FAR for single-family residential dwellings and accessory structures. e. Variations from maximum fence height restrictions. L Variation to 25 foot street frontage requirement. Pa. Variation to the maximum grade of a private street or driveway. h. Variation to 1.000 foot (300 meter) limitation on cul-de-sac length. LOC 42.03.085(3), which sets the standards for cul-de-sacs, references the distance in feet (1000), not meters. i. Variations frorn driveway width reguirements. •1 from the lrcuuirements fordistance of drivewaysfrom intersections, k. Omission of • recuirements. 1. • 1 to reguirement for1. access. W. •1 ill ty2e of •I Page 266 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code Underlined sections transferred from LOC 49 Variance section when combined. 2. Class 2 Class 2 includes variances which are significant changes from the Code requirements and are likely to create impacts on adjacent property or users. A Class 2 variance may be granted by the Commission -tearing body. See "hearing body" definition, LOC 50.02. Class 2 variances include: a. Variances from minimum lot width or depth of more than five feet; b. Variances in setback requirements for structures other than those described in subsection (1)(a) of this section of more than two feet in side and front yards and more than five feet in rear yards; c. Variances in lot coverage, building height, or FAR for other than single family residential dwellings and accessory structures. d. Variance requests to allow the siting of a structure in the RP Zone or buffer or RC Protection area. e. Variances to any requirement of not expressly classified pursuant to subsections (1) or (2) of this section-, or coming within the classification of similar variances in subsection (1)(11). except density and use restrictions. Modified to reflect that additional variances might be permitted pursuant to subsection 1(n), due to folding in the variances in LOC 48 and 49. 3. The City Manager shall decide the classification of any variance application. 4. For Class 1 variances, the City Manager shall have the authority to require an applicant to fulfill the requirements of LOC 49.36.705JQ.Z ,= at his/her discretion. This authority is solely at the discretion of the City Manager and is not subject to appeal. (Ord. No. 1851, Sec. 1; 11-16-82. Ord. No. 2020, Sec. 1; 12-18-90. Ord. No. 2053, Sec. 10; 04-07-92.) (Ord. No. 2091, Amended, 04/19/94; Ord. No. 2148, Amended, 07/22/97) Section 50.68.020 Section 49.28.400 Procedure for Review and Approval of Variances, Chis ...1atieny. 1. ' r-manee- wttl3—the a-lrnve l+ttle ern efl;o , Page 267 - Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code Combined variances sections; see above. —2. A Glass ICIA§s I variance may be granted by the City Manager and considered under the procedures provided for minor developments set forth in 49.40.820& icle 50.81. Gasq 11CIasa,2 variances may be granted after consideration at a public hearing held by a hearing body pursuant to Articles " and 49.46.103 550,83. An application for a Class 4-2,variance shall also be processed pursuant to the minor development procedures, however, the decision on the application is to be made by a hearing body and not the City Manager. However, any variance which is being requested as a part of a major development approval shall be considered in that process and not as prescribed by this section. For either type of variance, the granting authority must determine that the requirements of 49.28:403LQL. 50.68.010 are met. (Ord. No. 2088, Enacted, 03/03/94) z IA 2V -V RW ;. .. Page 268 – Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code Section deleted because it would be controlled by the minor/major development application procedures. -MIM-1 M*IA. IWI•. Section deleted because it would be controlled by the minor/major development application procedures. Section deleted because it would be controlled by the minor/major development application procedures. MELL AMU •v 1,11 Section deleted because it would be controlled by the minor/major development Page 269 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code application procedures. Mitt 24 ealendef days o pproval established -by Section deleted because it would be controlled by the minor/major development application procedures. NUN ir Section deleted because it would be controlled by the minor/major development application procedures. Seetieit 48. . , , Appe Section deleted because it would be controlled by the minor/major development application procedures. Page 270 -- Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code Conditional Use Permits Article 4834 Conditional Uses. Sections: 48.22.550 Intent and Purpose. 48.22.555 Authorization to Permit or Deny Conditional Uses. 48.22.560 Procedure. 48.22.565 Specific Standards for Churches, Convent and Related Facility. 48.22.570 Specific Standards for Nursing or Convalescent Homes..... 48.22.575 Specific Standards for Schools. 48.22.577 Specific Standards for Telecommunications Facilities in Residential Zones. 48.22.580 (Renumbered 48.20.546) 48.22.585 Specific Standards for Major Public Facilities and Institutional Uses Not Covered by Other Specific Standards. 48.22.590 (Renumbered 48.20.547) 48.22.595 (Renumbered 48.20.549) 48.22.600 (Renumbered 48.20.548) 48.22.605 Specific Standards for Conditional Uses Listed in Commercial or Industrial Zones and Not Covered by other Specific Standards. 48.22.606 to 48.24.649 reserved. 48.22.610 Specific Standards for Non-profit Conditional Uses in Certain Zones. 48.22.615 Specific Standards for non-profit office uses in Structures on the City's Historical Landmarks List and which are Located on Arterial Streets. 48.22.625 Specific Standards for Conditional Uses in the R-2 and R-6 Zones. Section 50.69.005 Section 48.22.550 Intent and Purpose; 1. A conditional use is an activity which is permitted in a zone but which, because of some characteristics which are not entirely compatible with other uses allowed in the zone, cannot be permitted outright. A public hearing and review of the proposed conditional use by the and the imposition of conditions, if necessary, is intended to insure that the use proposed will be as compatible as practical with surrounding uses., and is in conformance with the purposes and requirements of the district, if any, and with other applicable criteria and standards of the City. See definition of "hearing body", LOC 50.02. • ed to determi- Commissionwhethef or not the eonditions applied tire o he The Planning i, or -to provide -f w-+1trther tures; Page 271 - Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code oil Subsection moved; see 50.69.030 3;. An alteration in a use which was classified by the prior zoning code as a permitted use that is by this ehapie his C,2de classified as a conditional use shall conform to the requirements of shall be used by the Gity Manager in d vhether it reque9t to modify is Subsection moved; see 50.69.020 Subsection moved; see 50.69.025 (Ord. No. 1851, Sec. 1; 11-16-82.) Section 50.69.010 Section 48.22.555 Authorization to Permit or Deny Conditional Uses. 1. An application for a conditional use shall be allowed if, a. The requirements of the zone are met; and i ns o 22.5 8.22.615 b. Special conditions found in =���a3 ... 50.69.050 to S.i9.085, if applicable, are met; and, c. The site is physically capable of accommodating the proposed use; and, d. The functional characteristics of the proposed use.are such that it can be made to be reasonably compatible with uses in its vicinity. 2. In permitting a new conditional use, or the modification of an existing conditional use, the hearinu body, or the City Manager in the case of a minor modification, may impose conditions which are suitable and necessary to assure Page 272 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code compatibility of the proposed use with other uses in the vicinity. These conditions may include, but are not limited to: See "hearing body" definition, 50.02. a. Limiting the manner in which the use is conducted, by restricting the time an activity may take place and by minimizing such environmental effects as noise, vibration, air pollution, glare and odor; b. Establishing a special yard, setback, lot area or other lot dimension. c. Limiting the height, size or location of a building or other structure. d. Designating the size, number, location and design of vehicle access points. e. Increasing roadway widths, requiring street dedication, and/or requiring improvements within the street right-of-way. f Designating the size, location, screening, drainage, surfacing or other improvement of a parking area or truck loading area. g. Limiting or otherwise designating the number, size, location, height and lighting of signs. h. Limiting the location and intensity of outdoor lighting, requiring its shielding, or both. i. Requiring berming, screening or landscaping and designating standards for its installation and maintenance. j. Designating the size, height, location and materials for fences. k. Protecting and preserving existing trees, soils, vegetation, water resources, wildlife habitat or other significant natural resources. 1. On and off-site public improvements. The number of residential units allowed by the provisions of thiselvafrterthis Code on a site may be reduced only if it is found that development to that number will result in a violation of the standards stated in subsection 1 of this section. (Ord. No. 1851, Sec. 1; 11-16-82.) (Ord. No. 2096, Amended, 06/21/94; Ord. No. 2167, Amended, 05/19/98) lection 50.69.015 Section 48.22.560 Procedure. 1. Application. Application for a conditional use shall be made on forms provided by the City for that purpose and shall be signed by the property owner, or shall be accompanied by the owner's written authorization. The application shall include. a. Name, address and telephone number of applicant, b. Map number and/or subdivision block and lot. c. Narrative concerning the proposed request explaining how the applicable criteria are complied with. d. Copy of deed, signed earnest money agreement, or other document showing ownership or interest in property. e. Vicinity map. f. Comprehensive Plan and zoning designations. g. One map showing existing uses and a second map drawn in the same scale Page 273 - Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code showing proposed development, placement of lot lines, etc. A survey map is not required. h. Detailed plans for the specific project (working drawings are not required). i. Names and addresses of property owners whose property is within 300 feet of the applicant's property which is the subject of the application or contiguous property owned by the applicant. j. Proof of payment of the applicable fees. k. Additional drawings, topographic surveys, photographs or other material necessary to understand the proposed use, and of its relationship to surrounding properties, may be required. The Cj y_Manager shall determine the completeness of an application within seven days. Variances may be applied for and considered concurrently with a conditional use application. All notifications for the conditional use application or hearing shall specifically state that variances have been applied for and clearly describe the proposed variances in terms understandable to a person of ordinary intelligence. 2. The CitLManager shall prepare a report to the Plamiifl evaluating the application for conformance with applicable requirements and standards, including the City Manager's recommended conditions of approval and commission action. The staff report shall be made available to the applicant, the Plimnin Commisgionhearine body, the public and the affected recognized neighborhood association, not less than 10 days prior to the public hearing. The staff report shall contain factual findings and information supporting its conclusions and recommendations. 3. The ' hearing body shall hold a public hearing within approximately 30 days of the filing of a completed application for conditional use in LOG nrti nn nn accordance with the hearings and notification procedures in ��� steles–�„tt 4946Articles 50.82 and 50.83.. See "hearing body" definition, 50.02 LQQ 5Q.62, —A request by the conditional use Hermit holder to substantially modify a conditional use permit shall be processed in the same manner as a request for a conditional use permit. Minor modifications of permits may be approved by the City Manager. The criteria set forth in LOC 48.18.490 50.86.025 shall be used by the City Manager in determining whether a request to modify is substantial or minor. From LOC 48.22.550(4) ! .•• •! •• ! .1•.1% W =7.•11 !• N. 1l e. ! ! 1. •! 1•u .! ! .! • 1.1 ill" • 1 • i•. !. ! 10 , 1! " %.1 ! 1! • " ! • 1 . 1 • ' T941 -11-M-44 • 11 • • ► ffi-RIIII'M IP11114 I . Page 274 – Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code re Baled. as it._duplicatees the general provision for mod_ ifving any development permit. 50.8 .t(�; 25 LQQ F, —1. A conditio-11 use permit._ shall be void after two years if 15`%. of the st jgtUMj construction has not QQcUrred pur_sUant._t he anarov_al.-_'hg _two year lin_titation does no ;tt X to permits issued for maior >�l�_facilities. From (LOC 48.22.5Q(4)(a)(partial)). 2. I a use operating pursuant tQ a:c n itional use permit is Qr-a._pgjr of at least six months any further use of the property shall confirm Q the reauirements of this Code. Such a onjiilio ul use_�}s gall t drat without first obtaining a new n itio al use permit. From LOC 48.22. 50(5) LUQ 50.69.030 48.22.560(4) err, � S"=: 3 - � T -tea- n - .;, tis+•..K. -. --- -1-- eve n' ihbri� ll�s8e`titLitt:,Amen�men Revocation Procedures. 1. Uses operating pursuant to a con i�nal use permit may be rcvicwal Ig &1gternline whether or not the conditions applied:re matin in Q be m From LOC 48.22.550(2) 2. The hearing body is authorized to amend a conditional_ttse Hermit �r r vi e for fug her conditions to more adequately assure compatibility of such uses to adiacent land uses, public facilities or other requirements ofthis Code, or to terminate a perniit. if it is found that the apalicable reguirementsgr conditions are not being met. tt. A eenditionai use permit shall be -void after two years if 15% of the siruetura4 eenstruetion has no! oeettrred purstiant to the appreyel. 441e two year limitation does not A conditional use permit may be revoked or modified by the Plannifig hod_ if the applicable conditions or the specific requirements of this e tapterthis C are not continuously met and also for the reasons stated in LOC 4�9�-1H3Q. New language is from 48.22.550(2) Deleted portion is found in Abandonment, 50.69.025 Deletion of LOC 48.02.015: LOC 48.02.105 was repealed in 1997, Ord. 2148. By examining what text was repealed (revocation criteria) and finding it elsewhere in the Development Code,1 have referenced the Development Code section. 3. ® viii t "r Revoex*iefifi revocation u ' pnS bsecttan• may only occur after a hearing before the Platifling body at which the permit holder and interested persons have been given an opportunity to be heard on the question. Page 275 – Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code This procedure is not exclusive and is in addition to any other procedure allowed by law. b. The owner of record of the affected property shall be notified, by certified mail, and notice shall be posted on or within 50 feet of the property not less than 10 days prior to the date of the Ga -r mission hearing of the public hearing. The notice shall specify the non-conformance alleged and the actions which may be taken if non- conformance is confirmed. c. The Planning shall hold a hearing pursuant to the provisions of LOC Article 49:46",. After consideration of all evidence presented at the public hearing, the Cit,Manager's report, the applicable Code provisions, the use permit requirements, and the criteria set forth in LOC 48:02.1-f450.8 L= the Commissien-hearing body may revoke, terminate, allow continuation of the use, tnodi€y the use permit, or may grant additional time to bring the use into conformance. If additional time is granted, specific direction may be given setting forth the changes required to achieve conformance. An appeal to the City Council may be taken pursuant to LOC Article 49305x. d. The Coni hearing bodv's action shall be transmitted to the owner of the affected property by mail, together with an explanation of the procedures for appeal to the City Council. (Ord. No. 1851, Sec. 1; 11-16-82.) See "hearing body" definition, LOC 50.02 "Modify" was changed to "amend" for consistency Section 50.69.050 Section 48.22.565 Specific Standards for Churches, Convent and Related Facility. 1. Access streets have capacity to carry the projected traffic volumes. 2. The site has adequate area for proposed parking needs. 3. The structure may exceed the maximum height limitation of the zone, to a structure height of no more than 50 feet, provided that the FAR for the project does not exceed 1.5_, and the requirements of subsection 4 are met. PC member Beebe thought that expressing the FAR in terms of a ratio would be more understandable. 4. The lot is sufficient size to allow all required yards to be equal to at least two- thirds the height of the principal structure. 5. Public services are adequate to serve the facility. (Ord. No. 1851, Sec. 1; 11-16- 82.) Section 50.69.055 Section 48.22.570 Specific Standards for Nursing or Convalescent Homes..... Specific Standards for Nursing or Convalescent Homes or Other Facilities Classified by the State Department of Health as Long -Term Care Facilities and Covered Under OAR Chapter 333, Division 23, Sections 700-796; the State Fire Code and Chapter 10 of the Uniform Building Code; All Referenced State Rules or Codes as Now or Hereafter Constituted. Page 276 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code I . Public services are adequate to serve the facility. 2. Facilities will access on arterial or collector streets. 3. Setbacks are the greater of 25 feet or the setback in an adjacent residential zone. 4. Maximum height shall not exceed 45 feet. 5. Buffering of noise and light from adjacent streets and between adjacent properties may be required. 6. Sites which could cause hazard to disoriented patients through proximity to heavily frayelledgy9W streets, water hazards or ravines or steep slopes shall not be approved unless the applicant can satisfy the Commission that safety measures will be used to prevent injury to patients. 7. On parcels surrounded by existing dwellings, additional conditions may be necessary to: a. Mitigate the effects of traffic caused by shift changes, particularly regarding noise at night, and safety of school children in transit. b. Maintain neighborhood scale, particularly regarding size of structure, width of driveway, signs, exterior lighting and placement of parking facilities. 8. Conversion of existing dwellings may be allowed if State Codes and rules can be met and the conditions of this section are satisfied. (Ord. No. 1851, Sec. 1; 11-16-82.) Section 50.69.060 Section 48.22.575 Specific Standards for Schools. (Public, private or parochial, elementary, secondary, preschools, nursery schools, kindergartens and day-care centers are included.) 1. Public elementary or secondary schools shall provide the site area/pupil ratio required by State law. Other schools shall provide one acre of site area for each 75 pupils of capacity or for each two and one-half classrooms, whichever is greater except as provided in subsection 2. 2. Preschools, nursery schools, day-care centers or kindergartens shall provide a fenced, outdoor play area of at least 75 sq. ft. for each child of total capacity, or a greater amount if so provided by State law. In facilities where groups of children are scheduled at different times for outdoor play the total play area may be reduced by one-half. 3. Walkways, both on and off-site, will be provided as necessary for safe pedestrian access to schools. 4. Sight -obscuring fence of four to six feet in height shall be provided to separate the play area from adjacent residential uses. 5. Public services are adequate to serve the facility. 6. Safe loading and ingress and egress will be provided on and to the site. (Ord. No. 1851, Sec. 1; 11-16-82.) Section 50,69.065 Section 48.22.577 Specific Standards for Telecommunications Facilities in Residential Zones. In addition to compliance with the approval standards in LOC Section 50.33.005(4) and (5) and the general conditional use criteria in LOC Article 48.22, telecommunications facilities designated as a conditional use shall comply with the following standards: Page 277 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code 1. New telecommunications facilities shall not be located on a parcel containing an existing single family dwelling, duplex, rowhouse or zero lot line dwelling. 2. Antenna(e) must be located no closer than 35 feet from any habitable structure. Tower guy anchors must meet the normal setbacks of the underlying zone. 3. If the proposed facility will exceed the 50 foot height limitation of the Lake Oswego Charter in a residential zone, the applicant shall demonstrate that: i. The facility could not feasibly be located outside of a residential zone; ii. There are no alternatives available to meet the required coverage area; and iii. The height is no taller than necessary to provide adequate transmission. (Ord. No. 2149, Enacted, 04/17/97) Section 48.22.585 Specific Standards for Major Public Facilities and Institutional Uses Not Covered by Other Specific Standards. 1. Utilities, streets or other necessary improvements to the public facility or institutional use shall be provided by the agency constructing the use. 2. When located in a residential zone, access should be located on a collector street if practical. If access is to a local residential street, consideration of a request shall include an analysis of the projected average daily trips to be generated by the proposed use and their distribution pattern, and the impact of the traffic on the capacity of the street system which would serve the use. A traffic study will be required of the applicant to identify the projected average daily trips to be generated and their distribution pattern. Uses which are estimated to generate fewer than 20 trips per week shall be exempted from the requirements of this subsection 2. 3. When located in a residential zone, lot area shall be sufficient to allow required yards which are at least two-thirds the height of the principal structure. 4. The height limitation of a zone may be exceeded to a maximum height of 50 feet provided the FAR does not exceed 1.5 Viand subsection 3 is met. 5. Noise generating equipment shall be sound buffered when adjacent to residential areas. 6. Lighting shall be designed to avoid glare on adjacent residential uses. 7. Levels of operations shall be adjusted to avoid conflict with adjacent uses where practical. (Ord. No. 1851, Sec. 1; 11-16-82.) ceeEit►rr48.22.1;9'; - (Retmini ered-08.20.549) �-- Seetloi 48.22.600 et ._ 48) Page 278 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code Section 50.69.075 Section 48.22.605 Specific Standards for Conditional Uses Listed in Commercial or Industrial Zones and Not Covered by other Specific Standards. 1. The site will be designed so that ingress and egress will not cause hazardous turning movements, traffic slow -downs or blockages due to storage of vehicles waiting for services. 2. Public services are or can be provided at the site. 3. All outdoor lighting except security lighting shall be extinguished at the close of business hours. 4. Any adverse impacts on adjoining residential uses such as noise, lights, loss of privacy will be mitigated by landscaping, screening or increased setbacks. 5. Parking shall meet the parking standards and may be increased if additional spaces are shown to be necessary. 6. For retail tire, batteries and accessory sales, the following criteria also apply. a. Must be located on an arterial street; b. Must be within one mile by road of an I-5 interchange. c. Must provide service to the industrial park uses as well as retail service to the general public. Such industrial service shall be included in routine advertising for the business; d. Site and building design shall give attention to the specialized requirements of industrial park users by such mechanisms as review of turning radii, height and width of service doors, dimensions of storage parking for vehicles waiting to be serviced, and internal site circulation; e. Only one two-way access to the arterial is allowed. A one-way internal street with two access points located at least 100' apart may be approved as an alternative. (Ord. No. 1851, Sec. 1; 11-16-82, Ord. No. 1883, Sec. 2; 3-20-84.) Section 50.69.080 Section 48.22.610 Specific Standards for Non-profit Conditional Uses in Certain Zones. An application for a conditional use permit to locate a non-profit social, recreational, educational, or cultural facility or use such as recreational sites, community centers, swimming pools, tennis courts and similar uses, in the R-0, R-3 or R-5 zone 50.06.010(5) shall comply with the following standards. 1. The proposed facility or use shall be located on property adjacent on at least one side to a property of equal or larger size that is already developed with a non-profit use permitted outright or as a conditional*use in the zone. 2. Members of the organization proposing and which will use the non-profit facility or use shall reside in adjacent planned developments or within 1/4 mile of a planned development with participating residents and shall not be separated from the proposed development or each other by a freeway, a major or minor arterial or the urban service boundary of the City of Lake Oswego. 3. Adequate utilities, streets or other improvements shall be provided by the Page 279 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code developer of the facility or use. 4. When located in a residential zone, lot area shall be sufficient to comply with the lot coverage, setbacks and yards required by the zone. 5. Sound barriers, buffers or reduction techniques shall be required for noise generating activities, facilities or equipment located on properties adjacent to residential areas. 6. Lighting shall be designed to avoid glare on adjacent residential uses. 7. The time, manner or nature of operation shall be adjusted to avoid conflict with adjacent uses. (Ord. No. 2096, Enacted, 06/21/94) Section 50.69.085 Section 48.22.615 Specific Standards for non-profit office uses in Structures on the City's Historical Landmarks List and which are Located on Arterial Streets. 1. Public services are adequate to serve the facility. 2. The site has adequate area for the anticipated parking needs or off-site, shared use parking is available within 500 feet of the site. 3. Access should be located on an arterial street, if practicable. If access is to a local residential street, consideration of a request shall include an analysis of the projected average daily trips to be generated by the proposed use and their distribution pattern, and the impact of the traffic on the capacity of the street system which would serve the use. A traffic study will be required of the applicant to identify the projected average daily trips to be generated and their distribution pattern. Uses which are estimated to generate fewer than 20 trips per week shall be exempted from the requirements of this subsection 3. 4. Noise generating equipment shall be sound buffered when abutting a residential use. 5. Exterior lighting and signage shall be designated to avoid glare onto adjacent residential uses. 6. Levels of operations shall be adjusted to avoid conflict with adjacent uses, where practicable. 7. The historical designation of the property shall be maintained throughout the period of the conditional use. The property owner shall provide a deed restriction with the application which ensures that the property owner will not remove the property from the City's Historical Landmark List for the duration of the conditional use permit. Request for removal from the list shall void the conditional use permit. (Ord. No. 2167, Enacted, 05/19/98) Section 50.69.090 Section 48.22.625 Specific Standards for Conditional Uses in the R-2 and R-6 Zones. In addition to the criteria contained in LOG Article 48.2250.85 (Conditional Uses), an application to establish a new conditional use in the R-2 or R-6 zones must comply with the following criteria: 1. A new conditional use shall not be located on a street with a traffic level that exceeds the functional classification of the street as set forth in the Lake Oswego Page 280 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code Comprehensive Plan Goal 12. 2. If the street upon which the new use will be located is an arterial or collector and is currently operating with in the parameters of its functional classification as set forth in the Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan Goal 12, the use shall not cause the street to exceed the allowable amount of traffic for its functional classification. 3. If the street upon which the new use will be located is a local street and is currently operating within the parameters of its functional classification as set forth in the Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan Goal 12, the use shall not generate more than ten additional Average Daily Traffic (ADT) trips when the projected ADT or increased ADT of the proposed conditional use is divided by a figure equal to the square footage of the lot or parcel on which the conditional use will be located divide by 2000 in the R-2 Zone or 6000 in the R-6 zone. 4. Where available, a conditional use shall take access from collector or arterial streets and not from local streets. Exception: A conditional use may take access from a local street if a professional traffic analysis indicates that across to the local street would improve public safety or traffic management when compared to access From the available collector or arterial. (Ord. No. 2143, Enacted, 12/18/96) Page 281 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code Nonconforming Uses and Structures Article 48.2650.70 Non -Conforming Uses. Sections: 48.26.700 Non -Conforming Use, Structure Defined; Rights Granted. 48.26.705 Discontinuance of a Non -Conforming Use. 48.26.710 Applicability to Approvals, Incompleted Construction. 48.26.715 Destruction, Movement and Replacement of Structures. 48.26.720 Expansion of Non -Conforming Industrial or Commercial Uses or Structures. 48.26.725 Repairs and Maintenance. 48.26.730 Uses Under Conditional Use Provisions Not Non -Conforming Uses. 48.26.735 Non -Conforming Characteristics of Use. 48.26.736 to 48.26.749 reserved. Section 50.70.005 Section 48.26.700 Non -Conforming Use, Structure Defined; Rights Granted. 1. A use or structure is considered a nonconforming use or structure if the use or structure was lawfully established, but does not comply with or would not be permitted to exist under a subsequent enactment or amendment to this Code. 2. a. A use or structure for which a variance was granted under the zoning code provisions is not considered non -conforming solely by the fact that the characteristic of the use or structure for which the variance was granted fails to comply with the requirements of this ehapiefthia Code.. The existence of such variance does not prevent the use or structure from being classified as non -conforming if some other characteristic of the use or structure fails to comply with the requirements of this ehaptefJW1fgk. b. A residential structure which is classified as a non -conforming structure by this section may be enlarged, expanded or reconstructed in a manner which does not increase the degree of non -conformity. 3. Subject to the provisions of this Artjg, and except as otherwise provided by this ehapterlhis Code., a non -conforming use or structure may be continued and maintained in reasonable repair so long as it remains otherwise lawful, but it shall not be altered in a manner to enlarge or expand or reconstruct the use or structure. (Ord. No. 1851, Sec. 1; 11-16-82. Ord. No. 2027, Sec. 1; 4-02-91. ) [Cross Reference: (Section 48.26.3050.69.00501 Uses Under Conditional Use Provisions Not Non -Conforming Uses.) Section 50.70.010 Section 48.26.705 Discontinuance of a Non -Conforming Use. If a non -conforming use is discontinued for a period of at least six months, further use Page 282 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code of the property upon which the use was located shall conform to the requirements of this e1iapte is Code.. (Ord. No. 1851, Sec. 1; 11-16-82.) Section 50.70.015 Section 48.26.710 Applicability to Approvals, Incompleted Construction. This ehapterThis Code does not require any change in plans, construction or use of a non -conforming use or structure for which a final development approval, of a type listed below, was received prior to the date that the use or structure became nonconforming if construction of project structures, or completion of the development where no structures are involved, is completed and use established no later than one year after the date that the use or structure became non -conforming, or in accordance with an approved development schedule. The type of approvals effected by this section are: 1. A major development, 2. A minor development not requiring a building permit, or 3. A building permit. All rights granted by this section are extinguished if the development permit or building permit is revoked or for any reason becomes void. The structure or use shall thereafter conform to all applicable provisions of this code. All rights granted by this section are extinguished if a development permit or building permit is revoked or for any reason becomes void. The structure and use shall thereafter conform to all applicable provisions of . (Ord. No. 1851, Sec. 1; 11- 16-82. Ord. No. 2027, Sec. 1; 4-02-91.) Section 50.70.020 Section 48.26.715 Destruction, Movement and Replacement of Structures. 1. If a non -conforming structure is damaged or destroyed by any means to the extent that the cost of rebuilding the damaged portions would exceed 50% of the then current replacement cost of the entire building, the rebuilding shall conform fully to City Codes and Standards. Determination of the rebuilding costs shall be made by the City Manager, who may utilize an appraisal or other suitable method to determine current replacement costs. If the damage is 50% or less of the current replacement costs, the rebuilding or reconstruction need not comply with the terms of only to the extent that the destroyed portions of the structure failed to conform. In order to utilize the rights granted by this subsection the reconstruction must be commenced within one year of the date of the damage and completed within two years of such date. 2. If a non -conforming use is moved for any reason from the property on which it is located for any distance it shall thereafter conform with the requirements of this ehapterj ,�Q��. (Ord. No. 1851, Sec. 1; 11-16-82.) Section 50.70.025 Section 48.26.720 Expansion of Non -Conforming Industrial or Commercial Uses or Structures. A non -conforming industrial or commercial use or structure located in a commercial or industrial zone may be altered, enlarged or expanded after a conditional use pen -nit has been issued for such activity. (Ord. No. 1851, Sec. 1; 11-16-82.) Page 283 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code Section 50.70.030 Section 48.26.725 Repairs and Maintenance. On any non -conforming structure or portion of a structure containing a non- conforming use, normal repairs or replacement on non-bearing walls, fixtures, wiring, or plumbing may be performed in a manner not in conflict with the other provisions of the City Code. Nothing in this ekaptefthis Code shall be deemed to prevent the strengthening or restoring to a safe condition of any building or part thereof declared to be unsafe by any official charged with protecting the public safety, upon order of such official. (Ord. No. 1851, Sec. 1; 11-16-82.) Moved to 50.69.005(3) Section 50.70.040 Section 48.26.735 Non -Conforming Characteristics of Use. Any matter regulated by not directly related to a structure or type of use, that does not conform to the requirements of this eha is C2dg may continue, but shall not be increased, enlarged, expanded or reconstructed. Any changes in such characteristics of use must not increase the nonconformity, but may take place to decrease the non -conformity. The rights granted by this section do not apply to the matters regulated by LOC "°050.21.005 (vision clearance). Any eharaetefistie!of use existing on December 16, 1982 which does not comply with LOC "- i054050.21.M must conform by December 16, 1983. (Ord. No. 1851, Sec. 1; 11-16-82.) Page 284 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code P WNW ;. fm M-1991" = - Moved to 50.69.005(3) Section 50.70.040 Section 48.26.735 Non -Conforming Characteristics of Use. Any matter regulated by not directly related to a structure or type of use, that does not conform to the requirements of this eha is C2dg may continue, but shall not be increased, enlarged, expanded or reconstructed. Any changes in such characteristics of use must not increase the nonconformity, but may take place to decrease the non -conformity. The rights granted by this section do not apply to the matters regulated by LOC "°050.21.005 (vision clearance). Any eharaetefistie!of use existing on December 16, 1982 which does not comply with LOC "- i054050.21.M must conform by December 16, 1983. (Ord. No. 1851, Sec. 1; 11-16-82.) Page 284 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code Article 49.265( Overall Development Plan and Schedule. Sections: 49.26.300 Phasing of Major Development. 49.26.305 Overall Development Plan and Schedule (ODPS). 49.26.310 Purpose of Overall Development Plan and Schedule. 49.26.315 Density Bonus Within Phased Development. 49.26.320 Application Procedure. 49.26.325 Review of ODPS. 49.26.330 Hearing Body Action. 49.26.335 Content of the Approved Final Overall Development Plan and Schedule. 49.26.340 Changes to the Overall Development Plan and Schedule. Section 50.71.005 Section 49.26.300 Phasing of Major Development. A major development may be planned and constructed in phases. A separate development permit shall be approved for each phase. (Ord. No. 2088, Enacted, 03/03/94) Section 50.71.010 Section 49.26.305 Overall Development Plan and Schedule (ODPS). 1. Development permits for individual phases within a major development shall be approved and conditioned in accordance with the ODPS. Development permits for each phase shall assure that the development plans conform to the ODPS, as well as the Comprehensive Plan and Development Standards. 2. The Planning Commission shall approve mixed use ODPS applications prior to consideration of a related development permit application. The ODPS may be considered concurrently with a zoning application. Single use ODPS applications shall be reviewed and approved by the Development Review Commission. (Ord. No. 2088, Enacted, 03/03/94; Ord. No. 2146, Amended, 03/04/97) Sgction 50.7 1.015 Section 49.26.310 Purpose of Overall Development Plan and Schedule. The purpose of the ODPS is to: 1. Assure that the proposed development, considered as a whole, will conform to the Comprehensive Plan and Development Standards; 2. Assure that individual phases will be properly coordinated with each other and can be designed to meet the Development Standards; 3. Provide preliminary approval of the land uses, maximum potential intensities or densities, arrangement of uses, open space and resource conservation and provision of Page 285 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code public services of the proposed development; and 4. Provide the developer a reliable assurance of the City's expectations for the overall project as a basis for detailed planning and investment. (Ord. No. 2088, Enacted, 03/03/94) Section 50.71.020 Section 49.26.315 Density Bonus Within Phased Development. Density bonuses, identified and allowed by the Zoning Code and Development Standards, may be granted for any phase of a development provided the cumulative bonuses for any total development may not exceed, by more than 25%, the density and intensity determination of the ODPS. (Ord. No. 2088, Enacted, 03/03/94) Section 50.71.025 Section 49.26.320 Application Procedure. 1. Prior to submitting an application the applicant will schedule one or more preapplication conferences with staff. A check list of items discussed shall be compiled during the conference. The applicant shall receive a copy of the check list. 2. The application shall be submitted at least 30 days prior to the requested hearing date. Such application shall include: a. Vicinity map. b. Maps and narrative indicating present use of land, including all natural and man-made features. A survey is not required. c. Maps and narrative indicating types and location of land uses to be provided including park and open space sites or other reserved land. d. General layout of streets, utilities and drainage management measures including areas reserved for water improvements. e. General layout or siting of public transit, bicycle and pedestrian circulation. f. Maps and/or narrative showing off-site improvements necessary to serve the proposed development. g. An overall schedule of phasing; and the development to occur in each phase. h. The City Manager may require additional information related to the particular circumstances of an ODPS. All maps except vicinity and detail maps shall be at the same scale. 3. Upon receipt of the application the City Manager shall review for completeness and shall accept or return with a written list of omissions within seven calendar days of the date of filing. The date of acceptance of the completed application shall be noted on all documents. (Ord. No. 2088, Enacted, 03/03/94) Section 50.71.030 Section 49.26.325 Review of ODPS. The City Manager shall review the ODPS for conformance with the Comprehensive Page 286 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code Plan, the zoning code and ibis elftpterthis Code. Within seven calendar days after acceptance of the complete application the City Manager shall determine whether the information in the ODPS is adequate to allow the Planning Commission or the Development Review Commission to make the determinations required by LOC 49.26:330J9.71.035. If the information is insufficient the applicant shall be so informed by written notice listing the deficiencies. If the information is adequate the City Manager shall submit a report with comments, recommendations and recommended conditions to the Planning Commission or the Development Review Commission. (Ord. No. 2088, Enacted, 03/03/94; Ord. No. 2146, Amended, 03/04/97) Section 50.71.035 Section 49.26.330 Hearing Body Action. The appropriate hearing body shall consider the ODPS at a public hearing conducted pursuant to Article 50.83 and notice shall be given in accordance with LOC 49.44.920J0.82.020. The hearing body shall approve the proposed ODPS only if it finds that the plan and schedule will satisfy the requirements of LOC "9' '��.-2-050.79=, and, 1. Provides an overall general site plan which is properly related to and preserves natural features and resources consistent with the provisions of LOC Chapter 48 and this ehspterthis Code, 2. Provides for land uses and intensities that are consistent with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, LOC Chapter 48, this ehapteghis Cgde, and with the planned capacities of public facilities, 3. Provides clear guidance for the specific design and coordination of future phases. (Ord. No. 2088, Enacted, 03/03/94; Ord. No. 2146, Amended, 03/04/97) Section 50.71.040 Section 49.26.335 Content of the Approved Final Overall Development Plan and Schedule. The approved overall Development Plan and Schedule shall consist of the following documents: 1. A site plan showing location and type of all land uses proposed, approximate acreage and approximate number of units or square footage of uses. 2. A general utility plan showing streets, utilities, drainage management measures, bike and pedestrian ways and transit locations. 3. A statement acknowledging need for off-site improvements as required. 4. A schedule of the overall phasing and development to occur within each phase. These documents shall be prepared subsequent to hearing body approval and shall be approved by the City Manager. If the City Manager finds that the final submittal does not accurately reflect the hearing body action, then the documents shall be returned to the hearing body for approval. Upon approval, the documents will be stamped "Approved Final Plan" and filed in the ODPS project file. Page 287 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code (Ord. No. 2088, Enacted, 03/03/94) Section 50.71.045 Section 49.26.340 Changes to the Overall Development Plan and Schedule. The City Manager shall have the authority to approve minor changes to the ODPS, including the transfer of densities within the project as a whole, which do not change the overall land uses, densities, amount of open space, decrease public facility capacities or affect the relationship of the development to adjacent land uses. Any other changes must be processed as a new application pursuant toLOG 49.26.300 to this Article. (Ord. No. 2088, Enacted, 03/03/94) Page 288 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code Article 49:6050.75 Legislative Decisions. Sections: 49.60.1500 Legislative Decisions Defined. 49.60.1505 Criteria for a Legislative Decision. 49.60.1510 Required Notice to DLCD. 49.60.1515 Planning Commission Recommendation Required. 49.60.1520 City Council Review and Decision. 49.60.1525 Effective Date of Legislative Decision. Section 50.75.005 Section 49.60.1500 Legislative Decisions Defined. 1. A "legislative Legislative Decision" is an amendment to the policies, procedures, standards, criteria or Map designations of the Comprehensive Plan, and this Community Zoning Ordinanee, Development Cod , unless such amendment applies to a small number of identified properties only or is required to effect a particular development permit application. 2. An amendment to the policies, procedures, standards, criteria or Map designations of the Comprehensive Plan, or this Community Zoning Oftlintmee, Development Code Of .'evelopment Standards which is not a "legislative decision" as defined in subsection 1 of this section shall be considered "quasi-judicial" and shall be processed as a major development. (Ord. No. 2088, Enacted, 03/03/94; Ord. No. ) .. ..rqr rwa oral• As Development Standards are now a part of the Code, and must be therefore be adopted by ordinance (as required by M56), no need to address specially the manner of adopting or amending Development Standards. Section 50.75.010 Section 49.60.1505 Criteria for a Legislative Decision. A legislative decision is generally a policy decision which is up to the discretion of the City Council, but shall: 1. Comply with any applicable state law; Page 289 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code 2. Comply with any applicable Statewide Planning Goal or Administrative Rule adopted pursuant to ORS Chapter 197; and 3. In the case of a legislative amendment to the Zoning Code, Development Code e Developmetil this Community Development Code, comply with any applicable provision of the Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan. (Ord. No. 2088, Enacted, 03/03/94; Ord. No. ) section 50.75.015 Section 49.60.1510 Required Notice to DLCD. 1. Except as provided by subsections 2 and 3 of this section, any proposed amendment or addition to the City's acknowledged Comprehensive Plan or land use regulations shall be forwarded to the Director of the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) at least 45 days before the first evidentiary hearing on adoption. The City shall include the text of the proposed amendment and any supplemental information that the City believes is necessary to inform the Director as to the effect of the proposal. The notice shall include the date set for the first evidentiary hearing. 2. Advance notice to the Director of DLCD is not required when the City determines that the Statewide Planning Goals do not apply to the proposed amendment or new regulation. 3. The City may submit the proposed amendment or new regulation with less than 45 days' notice where the City determines an emergency exists requiring expedited review. 4. Not later than five working days following a final decision pursuant to subsections 1, 2 or 3 of this section, the City shall mail a copy of the adopted text and the findings to the Director of DLCD. If the text of the amendment as adopted differs substantially from that sent to the Director of DLCD pursuant to subsection 1 of this section, the Planning Direeter City Manager shall note the changes that have been made in the notice to the Director of DLCD. If the text and findings are mailed, they shall include a signed statement by the person mailing them indicating the date of deposit in the mail. 5. On the same day that the text and findings are mailed or delivered, pursuant to subsections 1, 2 or 3 of this section, the City shall also mail notice of the decision to all persons who participated in the hearings leading up to the decision who have filed a written request for notice of the final decision with the City Recorder. The notice shall: a. Briefly describe the decision; b. State the date of the decision; c. If delivered by mail, include a certificate of mailing containing a statement signed by the person mailing it indicating the date the notice was deposited in the mail; d. State the date, time and place where the decision, including the text and the findings, may be reviewed; and e. Explain the requirements for appeal of the decision pursuant to ORS 197.830 to 197.845. (Ord. No. 2088, Enacted, 03/03/94; Ord. No. 2231, Amended 03/21/2000) Page 290 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code Section 50.75.020 Section 49.60.1515 Planning Commission Recommendation Required. 1. Except in cases where a legislative amendment is mandated by state statute, a legislative decision shall be referred to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation. In cases where a legislative amendment is mandated by state statute, referral to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation is not required. If an amendment is not referred to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation, a copy of the proposed amendment shall be sent to the Planning Commission, along with notice of the City Council's hearing on the proposed amendment. In cases where part of a proposed amendment is mandated by state statute but part is not, the legislative decision shall be referred to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation pursuant to this section. 2. The Planning Commission shall hold at least one public hearing on the proposed legislative decision. 3. Notice. Notice of a Planning Commission hearing on a legislative decision shall be published at least once in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Lake Oswego at least ten days in advance of the hearing. Notice shall also be mailed at least ten days in advance to the Committee for Citizen Involvement and to all recognized Neighborhood Associations. The notice shall include: a. The time, date and place of the public hearing; b. A brief description of the proposed legislative amendment; and c. A phone number for obtaining additional information. _4. Conduct of the hearing. The Chair of the Planning Commission shall follow the following procedures when conducting a legislative decision hearing: a. The Chair shall briefly explain the nature of the legislative decision. b. The Chair shall call for the staff report. The staff shall explain the applicable criteria, if any, and the reasons for the proposed legislative amendment. c. The Chair shall open the public hearing and take testimony or evidence presented. Any person may appear and be heard. d. The Chair shall close the public hearing and return the matter to the table for deliberation and decision. The hearing body may ask questions of staff or any member of the public during deliberations. 5. Time Limits on Testimony. The following time limits on testimony shall be observed, subject to the right of the Chair, with Planning Commission consent, to modify or waive the time limits: 5 minutes each for individuals and 10 minutes each for recognized neighborhood organizations, homeowner associations, government or governmental agency or other incorporated public interest organizations. The time limits shall not include time taken up by questions and response from the Planning Commission. Any person in attendance may cede his or her time for testimony to another person, but in no case shall any person's testimony be increased to greater than 10 minutes. 6. Recommendation of Planning Commission. The Planning Commission shall make a preliminary decision recommending enactment, enactment with modifications, or rejection of the proposed amendment. Within a reasonable time after making its preliminary decision, the Planning Commission shall adopt an order setting forth its recommendation and explaining the reasons for its decision. Page 291 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code 7. A final recommendation of the Planning Commission shall be forwarded to the Council for review. (Ord. No. 2088, Enacted, 03/03/94) Section 50.75.025 Section 49.60.1520 City Council Review and Decision. 1. The City Council shall hold at least one public hearing on the proposed legislative decision. 2. Notice. Notice of a City Council hearing on a legislative decision shall be published at least once in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Lake Oswego at least ten days in advance of the hearing. Notice shall also be mailed at least ten days in advance to the Committee for Citizen Involvement, to all recognized Neighborhood Associations and to all persons who appeared either orally or in writing at the Planning Commission hearing. The notice shall include: a. The time, date and place of the public hearing; b. A brief description of the proposed legislative amendment; and c. A phone number for obtaining additional information. 3. Conduct of the hearing. The Mayor shall follow the following procedures when conducting a legislative decision hearing: a. The Mayor shall briefly explain the nature of the legislative decision. b. The Mayor shall call for the staff report. The staff shall explain the applicable criteria, if any, the Planning Commission's recommendation, and the reasons for the proposed legislative amendment. c. The Mayor shall open the public hearing and take testimony or evidence presented. Any person may appear and be heard. d. The Mayor shall close the public hearing and return the matter to the table for deliberation and decision. The Council may ask questions of staff or any member of the public during deliberations. 4. Time Limits on Testimony. ' The following time limits on testimony shall be observed, subject to the right of the Mayor, with Council consent, to modify or waive the time limits: 5 minutes each for individuals and 10 minutes each for recognized neighborhood organizations, homeowner associations, government or governmental agency or other incorporated public interest organizations. The time limits shall not include time taken up by questions and response from the Council. Any person in attendance may cede his or her time for testimony to another person, but in no case shall any person's testimony be increased to greater than 10 minutes. 5. Decision. The Council may approve, reject or modify the proposed amendment in whole or in part. Within a reasonable time after making its preliminary decision, the Council shall adopt findings setting forth its decision and explaining the reasons for such decision. The legislative decision shall be enacted by ordinance. The Ordinance adoption procedures of the Lake Oswego Charter shall be followed. 6. When Decision Becomes Final For Purposes of Appeal. The legislative decision shall become final for purposes of appeal on the date of enactment of the ordinance pursuant to the Lake Oswego Charter. (Ord. No. 2088, Enacted, 03/03/94, Ord. No. 2195, Amended, 07/20/99) Page 292 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code ction 50.75.030 Section 49.60.1525 Effective Date of Legislative Decision. 1. A legislative decision becomes effective on the 30th day from the date of enactment of the ordinance, or immediately if adopted by emergency, pursuant to the Lake Oswego Charter, unless a stay of application is granted by LUBA pursuant to ORS 197.845. 2. A decision on an application subject to a legislative amendment that is effective pursuant to subsection (1) of this section, but which has not been acknowledged pursuant to ORS 197.610 to 197.650, shall include findings of compliance with those statewide land use planning goals applicable to the legislative amendment. The issuance of a permit under an effective but unacknowledged comprehensive plan or land use regulation shall not be relied on to justify retention of improvements so permitted if the comprehensive plan or land use regulation does not gain acknowledgment. (Ord. No. 2088, Enacted, 03/03/94, Ord. No. 2195, Amended, 07/20/99) Page 293 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code . ,. . 1 MIR I. e. 1 11 .1. e_ . 1, V Section 50.76.010 Section 48.02.100 Record of Proceedings, 1. The City Manager shall maintain a record of all proceedings on requests processed pursuant to this ehaptefthia Code. The record of proceedings leading to approval of a request shall be maintained for a period of time to be determined by the City Manager, which shall not be less than two years from the date of the approval. (Ord. No. 1851, Sec. 1; 11-16-82.) Section 50.76.015 Section 48.02.110 Concurrent Hearings. When more than one approval is sought for a particular property the City Manager may allow the requests to be processed concurrently. The City Manager may refuse to allow concurrent consideration if it is determined that such a process would be impractical or cumbersome, tend to create confusion before the hearing body or require a potentially unnecessary use of City resources. (Ord. No. 1851, Sec. 1; 11-16-82.) Section 50.76.020 Section 49.44.905 Jurisdiction of Hearing Body. The hearing body shall be the Planning Commission, the Development Review Commission (DRC) or the Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB). 1. Except as provided by subsection 4 of this section, the Planning Commission shall hear: a. Applications to develop pursuant to a mixed-use Overall Development Plan and Schedule (ODPS); and b. Applications for a quasi-judicial zone change or quasi-judicial Comprehensive Plan or Code amendment. 2. Except as provided by subsection 4 of this section, the HRAB shall hear applications as provided by LOC Chapter 58 (Historic Preservation). 3. Except as provided by subsection 4 of this section, the Development Review Commission shall hear all other applications for a major development, including Conditional Use and single use ODPS applications and appeals of decisions of the City Manager on minor development applications. 4. Consolidated Review: If a person desires to apply for a development which requires hearings before the Planning Commission, DRC, and/or the HRAB, the City Manager may either consolidate the proceedings before one hearing body or schedule the hearings in such a manner that a decision on the development can be made within the time period for final action established by state law. The City Manager has the sole discretion to determine which hearing body shall hear the application. As a non-binding guideline, the City Manager should refer the consolidated proceeding to the Planning Page 294 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code Commission if the City Manager believes that the application raises significant policy issues. The City Manager should refer the consolidated proceeding to the DRC if the City Manager believes the primary issue involves siting or design. The City Manager should refer the consolidated proceeding to the HRAB if the City Manager believes that the primary issue involves a change or alteration to a property that has been placed on the Landmark Designation List pursuant to LOC Chapter 58. (Ord. No. 2088, Enacted, 03/03/94; Ord. No. 2091, Amended, 04/19/94; Ord. No. 2146, Amended, 03/04/97; Ord. No. 2160, Amended, 11/18/97) Page 295 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code Article 49:3850.77 Application Requirements. Sections: 49.30.500 Method of Application; Fees. 49.30.505 Signature on Application. 49.30.510 Application for Development. Section 50.77.005 Section 49.30.510 Application for Development. An application for a ministerial, minor or major development shall be made on such forms and contain such information as the City Manager may require. (Ord. No. 2088, Enacted, 03/03/94) Section 50.77.007 Section 49.22.200 Burden of Proof. The applicant for a development permit shall bear the burden of proof that his or her application complies with all applicable review criteria or can be made to comply with applicable criteria by imposition of conditions of approval. Cross -Reference Note: See additional Greenway Management Overlay review - 50. i 50.15.010, if applicable]. Section 50.77.010 Section 49.30.500 Method of Application; -Fee . An application for a development permit shall be filed with the Planning DireeterCjly Manage . The may charge an application fee to process a development permit application. Fees shall be set by resolution of the City Goutteil,--bw applieation fees annually and shall reeommend preposed fees itfid fee ehanges to the C-Owieii. Fees are addressed in LOC 50.88. Section 50,77.015 Section 49.30.505 Signature on Application. Page 296 - Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code The applicant shall sign the application. If the applicant is not the owner of the property subject to the development application, the property owner shall authorize the application in writing before the may accept the application for review. For the purposes of this section, "owner" includes a public body or public agency with authority to exercise the power of eminent domain. (Ord. No. 2088, Enacted, 03/03/94) .. :: 011 lhpr"M" The application requirements are in LOC 50.77 Section 50.77.020 Section 49.36.700 Preapplication Conference. 1. A preapplication conference with the City Manager is required for the following development permit applications: a. Minor developments described in LOC 50.79.02044:-20-, H-0 (2)(e,)(+g). b. Major developments described in LOC 50.79.03049 --NE . H3 (2)(d) through (h). 2. A preapplication conference is not required for other development applications, but may be scheduled at the request of the applicant or when required by the City Manager. 3. The purpose of the preapplication conference is to discuss the proposal, the applicable criteria and the requirements for completing an application. (Ord. No. 2088, Enacted, 03/03/94; Ord. No. 2129, Amended, 04/02/96) Section 50.77.025 Section 49.36.705 Neighborhood Contact Required for Certain Applications. Prior to submittal of an application for a partition, subdivision or a major development, the applicant shall contact and discuss the proposed development with any affected neighborhood as provided in this section. The City Manager may require neighborhood contact pursuant to this section prior to the filing of an application for any other development permit if the Director deems neighborhood contact to be beneficial. 1. Purpose. The purpose of neighborhood contact is to identify potential issues or conflicts regarding a proposed application so that they may be addressed prior to filing. This contact is intended result in a better application and to expedite and lessen the expense of the review process by avoiding needless delays, appeals, remands or denials. The City expects an applicant to take the reasonable concerns and recommendations of the neighborhood into consideration when preparing an application. The City expects the neighborhood association to work with the applicant to provide such input. 2. The applicant shall contact by letter all recognized neighborhood associations whose boundaries contain all or part of the site of the proposed development and all Page 297 - Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code property owners and residents within 300 feet of the site. If no recognized neighborhood association is established, but one is in the process of forming, the applicant shall contact the forming association. For the purpose of this section, a "forming association" is a group that has approached the City in writing and begun the process to form a recognized neighborhood association, as determined by the City Manager. 3. The letter shall be sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the Chair of the neighborhood association or forming association, and shall be sent by regular mail to the other officers of the association and the residents within 300 feet. The letter shall briefly describe the nature and location of the proposed development, and invite the association and interested persons to a meeting to discuss the proposal in more detail. The meeting shall be scheduled during the evening after 6:00 p.m. or on the weekend not less than 20 days from the date of mailing of the notice. The meeting shall be held at a location open to the public within the boundaries of the association or at a public facility within the City of Lake Oswego. If the meeting is held at a private residence or business, it shall be posted at the time of the meeting as the meeting place and shall note that the meeting is open to the public and all interested persons may attend. 4. On the same date the letters described in subsections 1 through 3 of this section are mailed, the applicant shall provide and post notice on the property subject to the proposed application. The notice shall be posted at a location visible from the public right of way. The notice shall state that the site may be subject to a proposed development (e.g. subdivision, variance, condition use) and shall set forth the name of the applicant and a telephone number where the applicant can be reached for additional information. The site shall remain posted until the conclusion of the meeting. 5. An application shall not be accepted for filing unless and until the applicant demonstrates compliance with this section by including with the application: a. A copy of the certified letter to the neighborhood association or forming association, with the a copy of return receipt; b. A copy of the letter to officers of the association and to property owners and residents within 300 feet, including an affidavit of mailing and a copy of the mailing list containing the names and addresses of such owners and residents; c. A copy of the required posted notice, along with an affidavit of posting; and d. A copy of the minutes of the meetings, which shall include a record of any verbal comments received, and copies of any written comments from property owners, residents, and neighborhood association members. The applicant shall also send a copy of the minutes to the Chair of the neighborhood association. The Chair shall be allowed to supplement the record with any additional comments regarding the content of the meeting, as long as such comments are filed before the record is closed. (Ord. No. 2088, Enacted, 03/03/94) Section 50.77.030 Section 49.36.710 Filing an Application; Determination of Completeness. 1. A minor or major development Application shall be filed along with the number of copies required by the City Manager, and the applicable filing fee. 2. The City Manager shall review the application and determine whether it is complete. A final decision on an application, including resolution of all appeals, shall be Page 298 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code rendered within 120 days, after the application is deemed complete pursuant to ORS 227.178 (referred to herein as the "120 Day Rule"). The City Manager shall mail a written notice of such determination within 30 days of the date of filing of the application. If the City Manager determines that the application is incomplete, the Director shall inform the applicant in the written notice of the additional information necessary to make the application complete. The application shall be deemed complete at such time as the additional information is submitted. The applicant shall have 180 days to complete the application. If the City Manager fails to mail notice of the determination within 30 days from the date of filing of an application the application shall be deemed complete on the 31st day following filing of the application for the purposes of the 120 Day Rule. If the applicant refuses to submit the additional information, the application shall deemed complete for the purpose of 120 Day Rule on the 31 st day. 3. Nothing in this section shall be deemed to be a limitation on the City's ability to render a final decision on a land use application after the expiration of 120 days. (Ord. No. 2088, Enacted, 03/03/94) Section 50.77.035 Section 49.36.715 Extensions or Continuances. The applicant for a major or minor development may request an extension for filing a complete application or for a continuance of review of a complete application. A request for an extension or continuance shall be deemed a waiver of the 120 final action deadline contained in ORS 227.178 for the period of the extension or continuance, and for any additional time required for rescheduling or re -noticing review proceedings. (Ord. No. 2088, Enacted, 03/03/94) Section 50.77.040 Section 49.36.720 Withdrawing an Application. An applicant may withdraw an application at any time prior to adoption of a final City decision on the application. Proceedings on the application shall terminate as of the date of withdrawal. The City Manager may refund all or part of the application fee, depending on how much staff work had been completed at the time of withdrawal. (Ord. No. 2088, Enacted, 03/03/94) Page 299 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code Article 49.2050.79 TYPES OF DEVELOPMENT: Sections: 49.20.100 Exempt Development. 49.20.105 Ministerial Development. 49.20.110 Minor Development. 49.20.115 Major Development. Section 49.20.100 Exempt Development Classification. No development permit pursuant to this code is required for exempt development. Exempt Developments ineludeinclude: 1. Landscaping or landscape alterations, unless such landscaping or alterations would modify or violate a condition of approval of a prior permit. In such instance, the permit shall be processed as a modification of the prior permit. 2. Normal or emergency repair or maintenance of public or private buildings, structures, landscaping or utilities. 3. Construction of a structure that does not require a building permit. 4. Interior remodeling which does not change a structure's occupancy classification or change the structure to a use that does not qualify as a permitted use in the zone. 5. Exterior remodeling of a structure that does not require a building permit. 6. Street vacations. 7. Temporary structures and uses listed in LOC 48.20.51050.14.010 or which are for relief of victims of disaster or in an emergency. (Ord. No. 2088, Enacted, 03/03/94) Section 50.79.010 Section 49.20.105 Ministerial Development Classification. 1. A ministerial development is a development which requires a permit from the City where the decision: a. Is made pursuant to land use standards which do not require interpretation or the exercise of policy or legal judgemeWjjj�; b. Approves or denies a building permit issued under clear and objective land use standards; or c. Determines final engineering design, construction, operation, maintenance, repair or preservation of a transportation facility which is otherwise authorized by and Page 300 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code consistent with the comprehensive plan and land use regulations. 2. Ministerial developments include: a. Exterior modification of single family detached dwellings, duplexes or zero lot line dwellings or modification of an accessory structure in the DD zone. b. Construction or exterior modification of a detached single family dwelling, duplex, zero lot line dwelling or a structure accessory to such structures which: i. Is not located within a delineated RP resource or buffer area [unless the applicant desires to modify the buffer pursuant to LOC in which case the application shall be processed as a minor development] or RC protection area pursuant to LOC Article 48:-I-7UJ� . ii. Does not impact an Historic Landmark designated pursuant to LOC Chapter 58. iii. Does not change the nature of the use or occupancy classification to a use that does not qualify as a permitted use in the zone or as an approved conditional use; or iv. Does not require special design review by the zone, design district, prior development approval or Overall Development Plan and Schedule (ODPS) for the development in which the subject property is located. v. Is not located on weak foundation soils as identified in I ^�40LOC 50.42.030(1)• vi. Is not located in a "Known Potential Severe Landslide Area" as defined in LODE 16.01 OLOC 50.43.010. vii. Is not located in "Areas of Special Flood Hazard" as defined in ► ^nc i 744 i 5. Definition of Areas of Special Flood Hazard now found in the Definition section, 50.02; no need to specifically refer to the definitional section. c. Exterior modification of a structure other than a detached single family dwelling, duplex, zero lot line dwelling or structure accessory to such structures which: i. Does not increase building footprint or height; or ii. Does not modify more than 25% of the facade or, if the property abuts property zoned for residential use, does not modify any portion of the facade visible from the residentially zoned property; and iii. Complies with LOC 49.20. -4559.22. ,LQ(2)(b)(i) through (vii). d. Lot line adjustments which do not increase the allowable density on a site. —ig. Resource enhaneemnetgnhanceWr,11t projects in an RP or RC District. Passive use recreational facilities within an RC or RP District if such a facility would otherwise qualify as a ministerial development. ef. Construction or alteration of public transportation or utility facilities consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and land use regulations and is not located in a delinateddelineated RP Resource or buffer or RC protection tine -area pursuant to LOC Article 48.17S�Q,, . 1g. Building permits for structures approved pursuant to a prior approved major or minor development. gh. A change of use from one permitted use to another that does =increase on- site parking or loading requirements or change access requirements pursuant to L -044S Page 301 – Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code Chapter (7)6rticle 50.55 and will not result in the construction or the increased use of private streets, driveways or parking lot aisles pursuant to LODS Ghapter (I �3 Z••..$ - N. Collocated Telecommunications Facilities. ij. Delineation of a resource boundary pursuant to LOC 48.17.1 0550.16.035(5). 3. Ministerial decisions are made without notice or the opportunity for appeal. (Ord. No. 2088, Enacted, 03/03/94; Ord. No. 2092, Amended, 03/15/94; Ord. No. 2129, Amended, 04/02/96; Ord. No. 2132, Amended, 07/02/96; Ord. No. 2149, Amended, 04/17/97; Ord. No. 2148, Amended, 07/22/97; Ord. No. 2156, Amended, 09/16/97; Ord. No. 2164, Amended, 01/20/98) TWIMPT41-1 711,1111-13010T, .1,110,130040- r6rorl'i- M1639 Wal Section 50.79.015 Section 49.22.210 Review Criteria for Ministerial Developments. A ministerial development shall comply with the requirements of the zone in which the subject lot or parcel is located, and shall comply with the following sections of the Development Standards: 1. TSS— .020 LOC 50.55.010(1), (2), (7), and (8)(a)(i); 4-.G2-5UJ .Qj,S; WW 7.039 _ . There is no LODS 7.035 2. Article 50.40. 3. i ^6.2ALOC 50.43.015(3),(4),(5); 16.0235Q.43.02Q; 16.03550.43,Q&5), (6),(7). 4. L098 19 02 LOC 50.58.020. 5. If the ministerial development involves placement of a manufactured home, 1=8 LOC 5Q,4E. (Ord. No. 2088, Enacted, 03/03/94; Ord. No. 2092, Amended, 03/15/94) Section 50.79.020 Section 49.20.110 Minor Development Classification. 1. A Minor Development is a development which requires a permit from the City that requires a more discretionary level of review than a ministerial decision. "Minor Development" is intended to include decisions defined as "limited land use decisions" pursuant to ORS 197.015(12). 2. "Minor Development" includes: a. In the DD zone: (i) Construction of new single family detached dwellings, duplexes. Page 302 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code exteriormodification of •ntaining a non -conforming use that requiresbuilding • _t o! or reconstructiou Qf the structuresin • •l ••• tc III1 e !UM" • wMar4 . 1.11 1' ' 111111" • • • 1 a.l '.• _! • MM 11M. ralromerowl This alternative is found in LOC 48.08.275(1)[Old Town Design District]; I have combined the two via this section: 1. Construction of new detached single-family dwellings, duplexes, zero lot line and multi -family dwellings and exterior modifications to structures containing non -conforming uses that require a building permit; 2. Expansion or reconstruction of the structures listed in subsection 1. above, that result in a change of use (e.g. from single family to duplex) or in an expansion of floor area of an existing structure by more than 50%. (Ord. No. 1882, Sec. 12; 3-6-84.) b. Construction or exterior modification of a detached single family structure, duplex, zero lot line dwelling or a structure accessory to such structures which: i. Does not qualify as a ministerial decision pursuant to LOC 49.20.1 550.79.410(2)(b)(i) through (xi);Jg1 ii. Requires one or more Class 1 Zoning Code or Glass 1 9eyelopffient Code variances,; -or 4i. Involves a determination by the that a use not expressly permitted in the zone may be allowed pursuant to the considerations contained in LOC 48.02.04550.04.015. In such case, the required notice shall include a description of the proposed use and the reasons for the 's determination. We believe that this subsection is actually (c), rather than a subset of (b). However, it should be noted that there is an ` oe, in the sentence above. SL— Involves an improvement to an existing park or school facility that will increase the capacity of the park or school facility, generate additional traffic, or generate significant additional noise or other negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood. eg. Secondary dwelling units. elf. Construction of a structure other than a detached single family dwelling, duplex, zero lot line dwelling or accessory structure, or an exterior modification of such a structure which does not qualify as a ministerial development pursuant to LOC 49,x, .105517MIQ(2)(c). eg. Lot line adjustments which require one or more Class 1 Zoning Code or (AttsH 1 Develepm Code Variances or which would increase allowable density on the site. f]}. Partitions, including partitions which require one or more Class 1 Z-offt tg Code Variances. Page 303 - Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code gi. Subdivisions, including subdivisions which require one or more Class 1 Zoning Code or Class 1 Code Variances. lei. Review of development phases subject to an ODPS. ii. A change of use from one permitted use to another that increases on-site parking or loading requirements or which changes access requirements pursuant to 6998 Chapter (7-) Article 50.55 or that will result in the construction or the increased use of private streets, driveways or parking lot aisles pursuant to L698Chapter (I hAg g U2. ih. Determining an RC District protection arga pursuant to LOC 4-17 05UJ. =. 3. Minor developments are initially decided by the Nimning• f)ireetef ty Manaeer subject to notice, the opportunity to request a hearing, and appeal as provided by LOC 49.40.800 to LOG 49.40 Article 50.81. (Ord. No. 2088, Enacted, 03/03/94; Ord. No. 2092, Amended, 03/15/94; Ord. No. 2129, Amended, 04/02/96; Ord. No. 2148, Amended, 07/22/97; Ord. No. 2156, Amended, 09/16/97; Ord. No. 2164, Amended, 01/20/98) Section 50.79.025 Section 49.22.215 Review Criteria for Minor Developments 1. A minor development shall comply with: a. The requirements of the zone in which it is located; b. The Development Standards applicable to minor developments; c. Any additional statutory, regulatory or Lake Oswego Code provisions which may be applicable to the specific minor development application, such as the variance provisions, the Streets and Sidewalks Ordinance (LOC Chapter 42), the Tree Cutting Ordinance (LOC Chapter 55), the Solar Access Ordinance (LOC Chapter 57), and the Historic Preservation Ordinance (LOC Chapter 58); and ed. Any applicable condition of approval imposed pursuant to an approved ODPS or prior development permit affecting, the subject property. €g. The Building Design Standard (LODS 50.45) for developments in the DD Zone. 2. For the purpose of application of the Development Standards and 1::;ttke Oswego E;ede-pr-oN,isions pursuant to subsections 1(b) and 1 (c) of this section, partitions involving the creation of a public or private street, construction or alteration of structures as described in LOC 4n�H 05 79.020(2)(42) and subdivisions shall be considered to be "major developments." (Ord. No. 2088, Enacted, 03/03/94; Ord. No. 2092, Amended, 03/15/94; Ord. No. 2129, Amended, 04/02/96; Ord. No. 2156, Amended, 09/16/97; Ord. No. 2164, Amended, 01/20/98) Page 304 - Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code Section 50.79.030 Section 49.20.115 Major Development Classification. 1. A Major Development is a development which requires a permit from the City involving the greatest level of review. 2. "Major Development" includes: a. Construction or exterior modification of a permitted use, a permitted accessory structure or an prior approved conditional use in the zone in which the property is located which requires one or more Class 2 Zoning Code or Class 14 Developm Code variances. b. Lot line adjustments which require one or more Class 2 Zoning Code or Class, 11 Development Code Variances. c. Partitions which require one or more Class 2 Zoning Gede or Gags 14 De-velepmeni Fede Variances. d. Subdivisions which require one or more Class 2 Zoning Code or Class 14 Development ESVariances. e. Conditional uses. f. Planned Developments (PD). g. Any development defined as major development pursuant to this section which is proposed to be phased pursuant to adoption of an Overall Development Plan and Schedule (ODPS). h. Any development which requires a Comprehensive Plan or Development or Zoning Code map or text amendment. i. Construction of any public or private road, or major transportation or utility facility within a delineated RP District or buffer or RC protection area. 3. A Major Development is subject to public notice, hearing and opportunity for appeal as described in LOG 49.44 to 49.466giElg5 50.82 and 50.83. (Ord. No. 2088, Enacted, 03/03/94; Ord. No. 2148, Amended, 07/22/97) Section 49.22.220 Review Criteria for Major Developments. 1. A major development shall comply with: a. Any applicable regulatory policies of the Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan; b. The requirements of the zone in which it is located; c. The Development Standards applicable to major developments; d. Any additional statutory or Lake Oswego Code provisions which may be applicable to the specific Major development application, such as the variance provisions, the Streets and Sidewalks Ordinance (LOC Chapter 42), the Tree Cutting Ordinance (LOC Chapter 55), the Solar Access Ordinance (LOC Chapter 57), and the Historic Ordinance (LOC Chapter 58); and e. Any conditions of approval imposed as part of an approved ODPS or prior development permit affecting the subject property. Page 305 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code (Ord. No. 2088, Enacted, 03/03/94; Ord. No. 2164, Amended, 01/20/98) Section 50.79.040 Section 49.22.225 Conditions of Approval. 1. The reviewing authority may impose conditions of approval on a major or minor development permit in one or more of the following circumstances: a. The condition is necessary to bring the application into compliance with applicable approval criteria. b. The condition is required as a condition of approval, construction or implementation by the development standards, the Lake Oswego Code or state statute. c. The condition is reasonably related to alleviation of a need for public services or facilities created or contributed to by the proposed development. As used in this section, "public services or facilities" includes sewer, water, surface water management, parks, open space, streets, sidewalks, and pathways. d. The condition is reasonably related to eliminating or mitigating a negative impact on natural features or processes or on the built environment of the neighborhood which is created or contributed to by the proposed development. As used in this section, "natural features or processes" includes Distinctive Natural Areas, stream corridors and natural drainage ways, significant tree or trees, wetlands, and other natural areas. 2. Conditions of approval contemplated by subsection 1 of this section include, but are not limited to: a. Imposition of a development schedule. b. Requiring reservation or protection of land for open space or to protect significant natural features. c. Requiring dedication of property, rights-of-way, easements or conservation easements for public facilities such as streets, utilities, pathways, sidewalks, surface water management and street trees, or for protection of Distinctive Natural Areas, wetlands, stream corridors or other natural features. Dedications of property or property rights pursuant to this subsection must be based upon findings pursuant to subsections 1(c) or 1(d) of this section. d. Requiring on-site and off-site construction of or improvements to public facilities where necessary to ensure adequate capacity and where service demand will be created or increased by the proposed development. The costs of off-site improvements may be pro -rated between the applicant and the City in proportion to the increased service demand which will be created by the project when compared to the demand existing if the project were not constructed. e. Requiring construction and maintenance guarantees to ensure that required public facilities are constructed to and will comply with City standards, regulations or conditions. f. Requiring modifications in the design or intensity of a proposed development or to require or prohibit certain construction methods. g. Requiring approval, inspection, or evaluation by another agency, jurisdiction, public utility or consultant. h. Limiting the number, location or design of street accesses to a proposed development to maintain street capacity, improve safety, or otherwise comply with an Page 306 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code approval criterion. i. Requiring covenants, conditions or restrictions to be recorded against the property. It shall be a violation of this code for a property owner or homeowner's association to amend or rescind or fail to comply with any covenant, condition or restriction required by the City pursuant to a development approval without approval of the City. (Ord. No. 2088, Enacted, 03/03/94) Page 307 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code Article 49.32 0.8 I&Xiew of Ministerial Development Apniications. Sections: Section 50.80.003 49.32.600 Review by Planning DlreeterQU.MAUM. Ministerial Developments annlications shall be reviewed and approved by the pursuant to LOC 49�2 1 050.79.015. (Ord. No. 2088, Enacted, 03/03/94) What is being reviewed and approved is the application; for consistency we deal with "applications". Page 308 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code Article 49:405= Review of Minor Development Applications. Sections: 49.40.800 Review by Planning 00reet&rCLa_X"=. 49.40.805 Notice of Minor Development Application. 49.40.810 Final Decision. 49.40.815 Notice of Final Decision. 49.40.820 Appeal of Minor Development Decision. Section 50.81.005 Section 49.40.800 Review by Planning D'ree4erQtLhJ1D=. Minor development permit applications shall be reviewed and decided by the Planning DifeelefQLy.MMAM. In the alternative, the Planning DireetofCay.MAUAM may refer a minor development application directly to a hearing body for public hearing and decision pursuant to Articles 50.82 and 4 .46.1000 to 49.46.103550,,83. (Ord. No. 2088, Enacted, 03/03/94; Ord. No. ) Section 50.81.010 Section 49.40.805 Notice of Minor Development Application. 1. Prior to making a final decision on a minor development permit application, the shall provide written notice to owners of property within 300 feet of the entire contiguous site for which the application is made. The list shall be compiled from the most recent property tax assessment roll. Notice shall also be sent to any recognized neighborhood association whose boundaries include the site. The shall certify that such notice was given. 2. The notice required by subsection 1 of this section shall: a. Provide a 14 -day period for submission of comments prior to the decision; b. State the place, date and time that comments are due; c. State that issues which may provide the basis for an appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals shall be raised with sufficient specificity to enable the City to respond to the issue; d. List, by commonly used citation, the applicable criteria for a decision; e. Set forth the street address or other easily understood geographical reference to the subject property; f. State that copies of all evidence relied on by the applicant are available for review, and that copies can be obtained at cost; and g. Include the name and phone number of the Planning -DireetofCity Manaeer or such other City staff person as may be assigned by the Planning DireetorCiLy Manaeer to review the application. Page 309 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code (Ord. No. 2088, Enacted, 03/03/94; Ord. No. Renumbered 07/02/96; Ord. No. ) Section 50.81.015 Section 49.40.810 Final Decision. The Planning shall make a final decision on a minor development application following expiration of the 14 -day comment period. The Planning F)iiee!eiCiJX Manager shall approve, approve with conditions or deny the application based upon the applicable criteria and the evidence submitted by the applicant and other interested persons during the comment period. Approval or denial of an application shall be accompanied by written findings that explain the criteria and standards considered relevant to the decision, state the facts relied upon in rendering the decision and explain the justification for the decision based on the criteria, standards and facts set forth. The date of the decision for purposes of appeal is the date on which the Planning Direete Zity Manager signs the written findings. (Ord. No. 2088, Enacted, 03/03/94) Section 50.81.020 Section 49.40.815 Notice of Final Decision. The Pianning DireetefCiLy h1aaaM shall send notice of a final decision on a minor development application to the applicant, all persons and neighborhood associations entitled to notice of the application pursuant to LOC 49.40.80350.81 QI (1), and any other persons who submitted comments during the comment period provided by LOC 44:40.8035,0& 1.010(2). The notice of decision shall: 1. Include the file number, date of the decision, and the name and address of the applicant; 2. Include an easily understood geographical description of the property and a map, if applicable; 3. Briefly summarize the decision making process and the decision made; 4. State that a copy of the decision is available for review, and that a copy can be obtained at cost; and 5. State that the decision may be appealed by filing a written request for a hearing before the appropriate hearing body with the City Recorder within fifteen calendar days of the date of the final decision. In addition, the notice shall contain the requirements for requesting a hearing pursuant to LOC 49:40:82050.84.005. The name, address and phone number of the City Recorder shall be included in the notice. (Ord. No. 2088, Enacted, 03/03/94) Page 310 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code Article 49.44, Review of Major Development Applications and Appeals of Minor Development Decisions. Sections: 49.44.900 Review by Hearing Body. 49.44.905 Jurisdiction of Hearing Body. 49.44.910 Applicant's Evidence. 49.44.915 Staff Report. 49.44.920 Notice of Public Hearing. 5cction 50.82.005 Section 49.44.900 Review by Hearing Body. An application for a major development, minor developments in the DD zone pursuant to LOC or an appeal of a decision of the Pititi»iiig DireeterCity Ma aeer regarding a minor development application shall be decided by a hearing body following a public hearing held pursuant to this ehttpterthis Code. (Ord. No. 2088, Enacted, 03/03/94; Ord. No. 2129, Amended, 04/02/96) Section 50.82.010 Section 49.44.910 Applicant's Evidence. All documents or evidence relied on by the applicant for a development shall be submitted to the City and be available for inspection by the public at no cost. (Ord. No. 2088, Enacted, 03/03/94; Ord. No. 2127, Amended, 01/03/96) Section 59.8 .015 Section 49.44.915 Staff Report. The Planning DireetefCiLy Jjdag= shall prepare a staff report on the application. The staff report shall contain an analysis of the applicable criteria and the evidence in the record. Based upon this review, the Planning v Manager shall recommend approval, approval with conditions, denial, or continuance of the application. The staff report shall be completed and shall be available for public inspection at no cost at least ten days prior to the date of the public hearing. (Ord. No. 2088, Enacted, 03/03/94) section 50.82.020 Section 49.44.920 Notice of Public Hearing. 1. Notice of a public hearing before a hearings body shall be mailed at least twenty Page 311 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code days before the initial public hearing: a. To the applicant and the owners of record on the most recent property tax assessment roll of property located within 300 feet of the subject property; b. To any recognized neighborhood association whose boundaries include the subject property; and c. If the hearing regards an appeal of a decision on a minor development application, to the appellant if different than the applicant and any person not otherwise required to be notified by this section who submitted comments during the 14-day comment period provided by LOC 49.40.89§50.81.M(2). 2. Nothing in subsection 1 of this section shall preclude the Planning DireeterQLy Manage from providing additional public notice as Planning E)ireetorQtX_hJW1A= deems appropriate. 3. The notice shall: a. Explain the nature of the application and the use or uses which could be authorized; b. List the applicable criteria from the ordinance and plan that apply to the application at issue; c. Set forth the street address or other easily understood geographical reference to the subject property; d. State the date, time and location of the hearing; e. State that failure of an issue to be raised in a hearing, in person or by letter, or failure to provide statements or evidence sufficient to afford the hearings body an opportunity to respond to the issue precludes appeal to the City Council and the Oregon State Land Use Board of Appeals on that issue; f. Include the name and phone number of the City staff person assigned to the application from whom additional information may be obtained; g. State that a copy of the application, all documents and evidence submitted by or on behalf of the applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and will be provided at reasonable cost; h. State that a copy of the staff report will be available for inspection at no cost at least ten days prior to the hearing and will be provided at reasonable cost; and i. Include a general explanation of the requirements for submission of testimony and the procedure for conduct of the hearing. 4. At the time notice is mailed pursuant to subsection 1 of this section, a notice shall be posted on the site subject to the application at a location readily visible from a public right-of-way, if available. The notice shall state that the site is subject to an application for a development permit and the telephone number of the City department to call for further information about the application. 5. The failure of a person entitled to notice as provided in this section to receive notice shall not invalidate such proceedings if the Phmnittg Direeto City Manager can demonstrate by affidavit that such notice was given. (Ord. No. 2088, Enacted, 03/03/94; Ord. No. 2127, Amended, 01/03/96) Page 312 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code Article 49-.465= Hearings Before a Hearing Body. Sections: 49.46.1000 Conduct of the Hearing. 49.46.1005 Time Limits on Testimony. 49.46.1010 Testimony, Exhibits and Other Evidence. 49.46.1015 Objections. 49.46.1020 Preservation of Order. 49.46.1025 Continuances. 49.46.1030 Decision of the Hearing Body. 49.46.1035 Notice of Decision. Section 49.46.1000 Conduct of the Hearing. The Chair of the hearing body shall conduct the initial evidentiary hearing on a major development application or an appeal of a decision on a minor development as follows: 1. The Chair shall open the hearing by stating the general nature of the application, followed by a summary of these procedures. 2. The Chair shall ask whether any member of the hearing body has any potential bias, conflict of interest, or had ex parte contact. "Ex parte contact" is any contact regarding the subject application outside of the public hearing, including a site visit. Ex parte contact does not include contact with city staff members. Any member of the hearing body who has bias, a conflict of interest, or has had an ex parte contact shall explain the nature of such bias, conflict or ex parte contact. 3. The Chair shall next ask if there is any challenge to a hearing body member's right to consider the application. Unless the challenged is based upon information revealed pursuant to subsection 11(b) of this section, a challenging party must deliver a written document setting forth the reasons and authority for such challenge to the member challenged and the hearing body chair at least 24 hours prior to the hearing. 4. The chair shall next call for presentation of the staff report. Staff shall list the applicable substantive criteria and shall explain the reasons behind the Pittnfiing 's recommendation or decision, in the case of an appeal. 5. The Chair shall state that evidence and testimony must be directed to the applicable criteria described by staff or to other criteria in the Comprehensive Plan or land use regulations which the person believes to apply to the decision. The Chair shall also state that failure to raise an issue accompanied by statements or evidence sufficient to afford the decision maker and the parties an opportunity to respond precludes appeal to the City Council or LUBA on that issue. 6. The Chair shall call for the applicant's testimony. 7. The Chair shall call for other evidence or testimony in support of the application. 8. The Chair shall call for evidence or testimony in opposition to the application. 9. The Chair shall call for neutral evidence or testimony. Page 313 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code 10. The Chair shall call for rebuttal by the applicant. The applicant's rebuttal is limited to responding to testimony previously submitted and shall be based solely on the evidence in the record. If the applicant submits new evidence in aid of rebuttal, the Chair shall allow any person to respond to that evidence, and provide for final rebuttal by the applicant. 11. Prior to the conclusion of the initial evidentiary hearing, any participant may request an opportunity to present addition evidence or testimony regarding the application. The hearing body shall grant such request by continuing the hearing pursuant to paragraph (a) of this subsection or leaving the record open for additional written evidence or testimony pursuant to paragraph (b) of this subsection. a. If the hearing body grants a continuance, the hearing shall be continued to a date, time and place certain at least seven days from the date of the initial evidentiary hearing. An opportunity shall be provided at the continued hearing for persons to present and rebut new evidence and testimony. If new written evidence is submitted at the continued hearing, any person may request, prior to the conclusion of the continued hearing, that the record be left open for at least seven days to submit additional written evidence or testimony for the purpose of responding to the new written evidence. b. If the hearing body leaves the record open for additional written evidence or testimony, the record shall be left open for at least seven days. Any participant may file a written request with the City for an opportunity to respond to new evidence submitted during the period the record was left open. If such a request is filed, the hearings body shall reopen the record for a specific period of time. During this period, any person may submit written testimony raising new issues which relate to the new evidence, testimony or criteria for decision-making which apply to the matter at issue. c. A continuance or extension granted pursuant to this section shall be subject to the 120 Day Rule (ORS 227.178), unless the continuance or extension is requested or agreed to by the applicant. 12. Unless waived by the applicant, the hearing body shall allow the applicant at least seven days after the record is closed to all other parties to submit final written arguments in support of the application. The applicant's final submittal shall be considered part of the record, but shall not include any new evidence. 13. If no continuance is granted and the record is not left open, or at the conclusion of such continuance or open record period and/or any additional seven day rebuttal period granted to the applicant pursuant to subsection 12 of this section, the Chair shall return the matter to the table for deliberation and decision. The hearing body's deliberations may include questions to or testimony by City staff regarding the criteria, evidence and testimony in the record. The hearing body may also direct questions to any person present. If any person other than City staff is questioned or allowed to make comments during deliberation, the Chair shall allow any other person to respond to such comments. 14. For purposes of this section: a. "Argument" means assertions and analysis regarding the satisfaction or violation of legal standards or policy believed relevant by the proponent to a decision. "Argument" does not include facts. b. "Evidence" means facts, documents, data or other information offered to demonstrate compliance or noncompliance with the standards believed by the proponent to be relevant to the decision. Page 314 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code (Ord. No. 2088, Enacted, 03/03/94; Ord. No. 2127, Amended, 01/03/96) Section 50.83.010 Section 49.46.1005 Time Limits on Testimony. 1. The purpose of time limits on testimony is to provide all interested persons with an adequate opportunity to present and respond to testimony while at the same time ensuring that the hearing can be conducted in an efficient and expeditious manner. The following time limits on testimony shall be observed during a hearing conducted by a hearings body, subject to the right of the Chair, with hearing body consent, to amend or waive the time limits: a. 20 minutes for the applicant's presentation; b. 10 minutes for a representative of a recognized neighborhood association, government or government agency, or other incorporated public interest organization. c. 5 minutes for other persons. d. 5 minutes for rebuttal. 2. The time limits set forth in subsection 2(a) of this section shall not include time taken up resolving objections or by questions or response to questions from the hearing body. 3. As a general guideline, if the Chair decides to increase or decrease the time limits for testimony, the chair shall do so in equal proportion for both the appellant and the applicant. The Chair may increase the time limit for rebuttal without increasing other time limits on testimony, however, in cases where the testimony in opposition is so complex or extensive that 5 minutes would not give the applicant an adequate opportunity to respond to the testimony. 4. Any person in attendance at the hearing may cede his or her time for testimony to a representative or another person and thereby increase that representative's or other person's time for testimony. No person's or other representative's testimony may be increased to greater than 10 minutes. No person may cede his or her time to the applicant or the appellant. (Ord. No. 2088, Enacted, 03/03/94) Section 50.83.015 Section 49.46.1010 Testimony, Exhibits and Other Evidence. 1. Any person may present testimony at public hearing before a hearing body on a major development application or appeal of a minor development decision. 2. Any person may submit exhibits or written comments prior to or at the public hearing. Written comments or exhibits submitted prior to the public hearing must be received by the Planning DireeterCay MAU= by 5:00 p.m. on the day of the scheduled hearing to be submitted by staff at the hearing. Written comments or exhibits submitted at the hearing must be filed with the recording secretary and placed before the hearing body. Exhibits or written comments that are merely referred to in testimony but which are not placed before the hearings body pursuant to this section shall not become part of the record of the proceedings. 3. The hearing body may take official notice of all adjudicative facts and law which may be judicially noticed pursuant to ORS 40.060 to 40.090, including an ordinance, Page 315 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code comprehensive plan, resolution, order, written policy or other enactment of the City of Lake Oswego. Matters officially noticed need not be established by evidence and may be considered by the hearing body in determination of the matter. (Ord. No. 2088, Enacted, 03/03/94) Section 50.83.020 Section 49.46.1015 Objections. The purpose of the hearing procedures set forth in this eede-Code is to provided all interested persons a reasonable opportunity to participate in the hearing process and to provide a full and impartial hearing on the application or appeal before the hearing body. Any question concerning the proper conduct of a hearing held pursuant to this code may be raised by any person during the proceeding by making an objection. The Chair shall rule on any objection, subject to the right of the hearing body to overturn the Chair's ruling by majority vote. (Ord. No. 2088, Enacted, 03/03/94) Section 50.83.025 Section 49.46.1020 Preservation of Order. The Chair shall preserve order and decorum, discourage personal attacks, and confine debate to the material issues. The Chair may eject from the hearing any person in attendance who becomes disorderly, abusive or disruptive, or who fails or refuses to obey a ruling of the Chair. The Chair may summon assistance of the Lake Oswego Police to assist in maintaining order. (Ord. No. 2088, Enacted, 03/03/94) Section 50.83.030 Section 49.46.1025 Continuances. 1. The hearing body shall continue a public hearing or leave the record open when required to do so pursuant to LOC 49.46.18AA,5J83.005(11). 2. The hearing body may elect to continue a hearing one or more times on its own motion or at the reasonable request of a party. Any continuance or extension of the record requested by an applicant shall result in a corresponding extension of the time limitations of the 120 Day Rule (ORS 227.178). If the initial evidentiary hearing has not been completed pursuant to LOC 49 46.100( 50,83,005, the continued hearing shall resume at the point in the proceedings at which the hearing was continued. If the initial evidentiary hearing has been concluded and the hearing body desires a continuance to reopen the record for additional testimony, the continued hearing shall be conducted as provided in subsection 3 of this section. In the later case, the hearing body may limit evidence or testimony to a particular issue or issues, but any person shall be allowed to raise new issues which relate to the new evidence, testimony or criteria for decision making for which the hearing body continued the hearing. 3. Except as otherwise provided in subsection 2 of this section, a continued hearing shall be conducted as follows: Page 316 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code a. The Chair shall open the continued hearing. b. The shall give a staff report which shall include the reason for the continuance. c. If applicable, the Chair shall state that testimony at the hearing is limited to addressing the new documents or evidence described by staff and any new issues which relate to such documents or evidence. d. The Chair shall call for the applicant's testimony. e. The Chair shall call for testimony from persons in favor of the application. f. The Chair shall call for testimony from persons opposed to the application. g. The Chair shall call for testimony from persons neutral on the application. h. The chair shall call for rebuttal by the applicant. i. Unless an extension of the record is requested pursuant to LOC 49.46400050.8=(11)(a) and or the applicant exercise his or her right to final rebuttal pursuant to LOC 49.4649W5Q.83.005(12), the Chair shall return the matter to the table for deliberation and decision as described in LOC 49:464HH 1QJLS,(13). If an extension of the record is requested pursuant to LOC 49.468HH50.83.005(11)(a) and/or the applicant exercises his or her right of final rebuttal pursuant to LOC 49.464000JQ, J=(12), the Chair shall continue deliberation to a time, date and place certain following final closure of the record. 4. Notice. No additional notice of a continued hearing is required if the hearing body continues the hearing to a date, time and place certain. If a public hearing must be continued due to lack of a quorum of the hearing body, no additional notice of the continued hearing is required if all entrances to the hearing location are posted by the time and date of the originally scheduled hearing with a conspicuous written notice setting forth a date, time and place certain for the continued hearing. In all other cases, public notice of a continued hearing shall be given pursuant to LOC 4050.82.020. (Ord. No. 2088, Enacted, 03/03/94; Ord. No. 2127, Amended, 01/03/96) Section 50,83.035 Section 49.46.1030 Decision of the Hearing Body. 1. At the conclusion of deliberations, the hearing body shall make a preliminary oral decision to approve, approve with conditions or deny an application based upon the applicable standards and criteria and the evidence and testimony in the record. The preliminary oral decision is not a final decision. At any time prior to the adoption of the final order pursuant to subsection 2 of this section, the hearing body may modify or change its decision or choose to reopen the hearing. 2. The hearing body shall adopt a final written order either immediately after making its preliminary oral decision or at a public meeting within a reasonable time after making the preliminary oral decision. The final written order shall consist of a brief statement that explains the criteria and standards considered relevant, states the facts relied upon in rendering the decision and explains the justification for the decision based upon the criteria, standards and facts set forth. The order shall also contain or incorporate by reference any conditions of approval deemed necessary or appropriate by the hearing body. A proposed order may be prepared by the Planning-B+reeterCity Manager or may be prepared by the prevailing party subject to review and approval of the P4wmiing The Hearing Body shall amend the proposed order if it finds that Page 317 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code the proposed order does not accurately articulate the hearing body's decision. Except as provided in subsection 3 of this section, the written order is the final decision on the application and the date of the order for purposes of appeal is the date on which it is adopted by the hearing body. 3. In the case of a major development which requires an amendment of the Comprehensive Plan or Zoning or Development Code text or map, the hearing body's order adopted pursuant to subsection 2 of this section shall be considered a recommendation to Council and not a final decision. The Notice of the hearing body's decision provided pursuant to LOC 49.46.10355Q&3,Q40 shall be modified to note that the decision is a recommendation which will be forwarded to the Council for public hearing and final decision. The Council shall review the recommendation pursuant to LOC 49�TS�Q,$4,� to 4930-1 a 65 U .Q�5__, except that, for p purposes of the hearing in LOC 404+3EI 4.4 , the applicant shall proceed with testimony, followed by persons in favor of the application, opponents, and rebuttal by the applicant. 4. Motions for reconsideration of either a preliminary decision or final order filed by a party shall not be allowed. The Plannitig DireetofClLy blaudger may recommend reconsideration prior to adoption of the final order if the r.!1g-94eetofCL Manaeer, in consultation with the City Attorney, believes reconsideration is necessary to correct a procedural error that prejudiced a party's substantial rights. (Ord. No. 2088, Enacted, 03/03/94) $fiction 50.83.040 Section 49.46.1035 Notice of Decision. Notice of the decision shall be sent to the applicant and to all persons who testified either orally or in writing before the hearing body. The notice of decision shall: 1. Include the File number, date and brief summary of the final decision; 2. Include the name and address of the applicant; 3. Include an easily understood geographical reference to the subject property and a map, if applicable; 4. State that a copy of the decision is available for review, and that a copy can be obtained at cost; and 5. State that the decision may be appealed by filing a written Notice of Intent to Appeal with the City Recorder within fifteen calendar days of the date of the final decision. The notice shall include the requirements for filing a Notice of Intent to Appeal contained in LOC 49.50.110050.84.Q10. The name, address and phone number of the City Recorder shall be included in the notice. (Ord. No. 2088, Enacted, 03/03/94) Page 318 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code Section 50.84.005 Section 49.40.820 Appeal of Minor Development Decision. 1. A final decision of the City Manager on a minor development application may be appealed to a hearing body by the applicant or any person aggrieved by the decision. An appeal shall be made by filing a written request for a hearing with the City Recorder within fifteen calendar days of the date of decision. 2. A written request for a hearing shall contain: a. A reference to the City application number and date of the final decision; b. A request that a hearing be held on the application; c. The name, address, and signature of the appellant; and d. A filing fee. The filing fee shall be set by resolution of the City Council, but shall be no more than authorized by state law. The filing fee shall be refunded if the appellant prevails at the hearing or on a subsequent appeal. The filing fee requirement shall not apply to appeals filed by the Oregon State Department of Land Conservation and Development or to appeals filed by recognized neighborhood associations whose boundaries include the subject property. 3. The City Recorder shall reject the appeal if it is not filed within the 15 -day appeal period set forth in subsection 1 of this section, is not filed in the form required by subsection 2 of this section, or does not include the filing fee required by subsection 2 of this section. If the City Recorder rejects an appeal, the City Recorder shall so notify the appellant by letter. This letter shall include a brief explanation of the reason why the City Recorder rejects the appeal. A decision of the City Recorder to reject an appeal pursuant to this section is final and is not subjdct to appeal to the hearing body or the City Council. An appeal rejected pursuant to subsection 2 of this section may be corrected if it is refiled within the 15 -day appeal period set forth in subsection 1 of this section. 4. An appeal of a City Manager decision regarding a minor development shall be heard de novo by the hearing body pursuant to . "-.GNArticles " and 1=. (Ord. No. 2088, Enacted, 03/03/94) Section 50.84.010 Section 49.50.1100 Filing an Appeal of a Hearing Body Decision. 1. A final decision of a hearing body may be appealed to the Lake Oswego City Council by the applicant or any person who appeared before the hearing body either orally or in writing regarding the application. An appeal shall be made by filing a Notice of Intent to Appeal with the City Recorder within fifteen calendar days of the date of the hearing body's final decision. 2. A Notice of Intent to Appeal shall be in writing and shall contain: Page 319 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code a. A reference to the City application number and date of the final decision; b. A statement that demonstrates the appellant is the applicant or appeared either orally or in writing in front of the hearing body; c. The name, address, and signature of the appellant or the appellant's representative; d. An appeal fee, if applicable; and e. A discussion of the specific issues raised for Council's consideration and the specific reasons why the appellant contends that the hearing body decision is incorrect or not in conformance with the applicable criteria. 3. The appeal fee shall be set by resolution of the City Council. The appeal fee shall be reasonable and shall be no more than the average cost of such appeals or the actual cost of the appeal. 4. The City Recorder shall reject the appeal if it is not filed within the 15 -day appeal period set forth in subsection 1 of this section, is not filed in the form required by subsection 2 of this section, or does not include the filing fee required by subsections 2 and 3 of this section. If the City Recorder rejects an appeal, the City Recorder shall so notify the appellant by letter. This letter shall include a brief explanation of the reason why the City Recorder rejects the appeal. A decision of the City Recorder to reject an appeal pursuant to this section is a final City decision as of the date of the letter and is not subject to appeal to a hearings body or the City Council. The appellant shall be allowed to correct a failure to comply with subsections 2 or 3 of this section if the correction can be made and is made within the 15 day appeal period provided in subsection 1 of this section. (Ord. No. 2088, Enacted, 03/03/94) Section 50.84.015 Section 49.50.1105 Multiple Appeals; Consolidation. 1. If more than one person files a Notice of Intent to Appeal a specific hearing body decision, the appeals shall be consolidated into one proceeding. The appeal fee shall be divided equally among the multiple. appellants; any amount deposited in excess of the amount determined by the City Recorder to be owed shall be refunded on a pro rata basis. 2. The appellants shall share the.appellant's time for testimony equally or may make such other split as they mutually agree, or the appellants may elect to have one person represent all appellants. If appeals are filed by opposing parties (i.e. an applicant for a project and a person opposed to the project), they may be consolidated into one proceeding but shall be heard separately prior to the decision. The Mayor, with Council consent, may decide to alter the time limits for testimony depending on the circumstances. (Ord. No. 2088, Enacted, 03/03/94; Ord. No. ) Section 50.84.020 Section 49.50.1110 Withdrawing an Appeal. A Notice of Intent to Appeal may be withdrawn at any time prior to a final decision. Proceedings on the appeal shall terminate as of the date of withdrawal. The City Page 320 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code Manager may refund the appeal fee either in full or in part, depending on the amount of staff work has been expended preparing the appeal for hearing. (Ord. No. 2088, Enacted, 03/03/94; Ord. No. ) Section 50.84.025 Section 49.50.1115 Preparation of Record and Staff Report; Transcript. 1. Record of Hearing Body Proceedings. Following receipt of a Notice of Intent to Appeal filed in compliance with LOC 4939-14.8950.84.005, the City Manager shall prepare a record for Council review containing: a. All staff reports and memoranda prepared regarding the application that were presented to the hearing body; b. Minutes of all hearing body proceedings at which the application was considered; c. All written testimony and all exhibits, maps, documents or other written materials presented to and not rejected by the hearing body during the proceedings on the application; and d. The final written order of the hearing body. 2. Staff Report. The City Manager shall prepare a staff report on the appeal explaining the basis for the hearing body's decision as relates to the reasons for appeal set forth in the Notice of Intent to Appeal, and such other matters related to the appeal as the Director deems appropriate. The staff report shall be available for public inspection at least ten days prior to the appeal hearing. 3. Transcriut. A verbatim transcript of the hearing body proceedings is not required. Any person who appeared before the hearing body on the application may prepare a certified verbatim transcript of all or part of the hearing body proceedings at that person's own expense. The City Manager may prepare a certified verbatim transcript of all or part of the hearing body proceedings at the City's expense if the Director deems a transcript necessary or advisable. A certified transcript prepared pursuant to this subsection shall be considered to be part of the record of the hearing body proceedings, and, if offered, shall be accepted into evidence and considered by the City Council. (Ord. No. 2088, Enacted, 03/03/94; Ord. No. ) Section 50.84.030 Section 49.50.1120 Notice of the Appeal Hearing. 1. Written notice of the appeal hearing before the City Council shall be sent by regular mail no later than 14 days prior to the date of the hearing to the appellant, the applicant if different from the appellant, and all persons who testified either orally or in writing before the hearing body. 2. Notice of the hearing shall: a. Reference the applicable Planning Department File Number or Numbers; b. Set forth the street address or other easily understood geographical reference to the subject property; c. State the date, time and location of the hearing; Page 321 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code d. State that an appeal has been filed, set forth the name of the appellant or appellants and contain a brief description of the reasons for appeal; e. State that City Council review is confined to the record before the hearing body, that only persons who testified either orally or in writing before the hearing body may testify before the City Council, and that the only issues that may be raised before the council are issues that were raised before the hearings body with sufficient specificity to enable the hearing body to respond. . f. Include the name and phone number of the City staff person assigned to the application from whom additional information may be obtained; g. State that a copy of the decision being appealed, the application, all documents and evidence contained in the record, and the applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and will be provided at reasonable cost; and h. Include a general explanation of the requirements for submission of testimony and the procedure for conduct of the hearing. (Ord. No. 2088, Enacted, 03/03/94; Ord. No. ) Section 50.84.035 Section 49.50.1125 Scope of Council Review. 1. Except as provided in subsections 2 and 3 of this section, Council review is limited to the evidence in the record before the hearing body. No new evidence may be presented at the hearing before the Council and no person may testify before the Council unless that person appeared either orally or in writing before the hearing body. No issue may be raised on appeal to the Council that was not raised before the hearing body with sufficient specificity to enable the hearing body and the parties to respond. 2. The City Council may take official notice of all adjudicative facts and law which may be judicially noticed pursuant to ORS 40.060 to 40.090, including an ordinance, comprehensive plan, resolution, order, written policy or other enactment of the City of Lake Oswego. Matters officially noticed need not be contained within the record and may be considered by the hearing body in determination of the matter. 3. The Council may reopen the record and consider new evidence if such a request is made prior to or at the Council hearing by the appellant or any person who testified before the hearing body, and the requesting party demonstrates: A. That the hearing body committed a procedural error that prejudiced the requesting party's substantial rights and that reopening the record is the only alternative to remanding the application to the hearing body to correct the error; or B. That new evidence material to the decision on appeal exists and could not have been presented to the hearing body. A requesting party may only qualify for this exception if he or she demonstrates that the new evidence concerns an unanticipated event which occurred after the close of the hearing before the hearing body. This exception shall be strictly construed by the Council in order to ensure that all relevant evidence and testimony is submitted to the hearing body. (Ord. No. 2088, Enacted, 03/03/94; Ord. No. ) Section 50.84.040 Page 322 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code Section 49.50.1130 Conduct of the Appeal Hearing. The Mayor shall conduct an hearing on appeal pursuant to the requirements of this section. For the purposes of 1:;()C 49.5 )tWs Article, "Mayor" includes the Council President or any other Councilor who serves as presiding officer of the Council in the Mayor's absence. 1. The Mayor shall open the hearing by stating the general nature of the appeal, followed by a summary of these procedures. 2. The Mayor shall ask whether any member of the Council has any potential bias, conflict of interest, or had ex parte contact. "Ex parte contact" is any contact regarding the subject application outside of the public hearing, including a site visit. Ex parte contact does not include contact with city staff members. Any Councilor who declares bias, a conflict of interest, or an ex parte contact shall explain the nature of such bias, conflict or ex parte contact. 3. The Mayor shall next ask if there is any challenge to a councilor's right to consider the appeal. Unless the challenge is based upon information revealed pursuant to subsection I(b) of this section, a challenging party must deliver a written document setting forth the reasons and authority for such challenge to the member challenged and the hearing body chair at least 24 hours prior to the hearing. 4. The Mayor shall next call for presentation of the staff report. 5. The Mayor shall state that City Council review is confined to the record before the hearing body, that only persons who testified either orally or in writing before the hearing body may testify before the City Council, and that the only issues that may be raised before the council are issues that were raised before the hearings body with sufficient specificity to enable the hearing body to respond. 6. The Mayor shall call for the appellant's testimony. 7. The Mayor shall call for other testimony in support of the appeal. 8. The Mayor shall call for testimony in opposition to the appeal, beginning with the applicant if the applicant is not the appellant. 9. The Mayor shall call for neutral testimony. 10. The Mayor shall call for rebuttal by the appellant. The appellant's rebuttal is limited to responding to testimony previously submitted and shall be based solely on the evidence in the record. 11. The Mayor shall return the matter to the table for deliberation and decision. The Council deliberations may include questions to or testimony by City staff regarding the criteria, evidence and testimony in the record. The hearing body may also direct questions to any person present. If any person other than City staff is questioned or allowed to make comments during deliberation, the Mayor shall allow any other person who testified during the hearing to respond to such comments. (Ord. No. 2088, Enacted, 03/03/94; Ord. No. ) Section 50.84.045 Section 49.50.1135 Time Limits on Testimony. 1. The purpose of time limits on testimony is to provide all interested persons with an adequate opportunity to present and respond to testimony while at the same time ensuring that the hearing can be conducted in an efficient and expeditious manner. The Page 323 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code following time limits on testimony shall be observed during an appeal hearing conducted by the Council, subject to the right of the Mayor, with Council consent, to amend or waive the time limits: a. 15 minutes for the appellant's presentation; b. 15 minutes for the applicant's presentation, if the applicant is not the appellant; c. 10 minutes for a representative of a recognized neighborhood association, homeowner association, government or government agency, or other incorporated public interest organization. d. 5 minutes for other persons. e. 5 minutes for rebuttal. 2. The time limits set forth in subsection 2(a) of this section shall not include time taken up resolving objections or by questions or response to questions from the Council. 3. As a general guideline, if the Mayor decides to increase or decrease the time limits for testimony, the Mayor shall do so in equal proportion for both the appellant and the applicant. The Mayor may increase the time limit for rebuttal or for testimony in response to the appeal without increasing other time limits on testimony, however, in cases where the testimony in favor or in opposition to the appeal is so extensive that the allotted time period would not give the appellant or the applicant an adequate opportunity to respond to the testimony. 4. Any person in attendance at the hearing and entitled to testify on appeal may cede his or her time for testimony to another person entitled to testify and thereby increase that person's time for testimony. No person's testimony may be increased to greater than 10 minutes. No person may cede his or her time to the applicant or the appellant. (Ord. No. 2088, Enacted, 03/03/94; Ord. No. ) Section 50.84.050 Section 49.50.1140 Presenting Testimony. 1. Any person who testified either orally or in writing before the hearing body may testify either orally or in writing before the Council on appeal. Such testimony shall be limited to argument regarding issues raised before the hearing body, and shall be based solely upon the record of the proceedings before the hearing body. Enlargements, illustrations, Maps or other exhibits may be submitted as long as they are part of the record or are entirely derived from evidence in the record. 2. Written testimony may be submitted prior to or at the public hearing. Written testimony submitted prior to the public hearing must be received by the City Recorder by 5:00 p.m. on the day of the scheduled hearing to be submitted by staff at the public hearing. Written testimony submitted at the hearing must be filed with the recording secretary and placed before the City Council. Written comments that are merely referred to read in testimony but which are not placed before the hearings body pursuant to this section shall not become part of the record of the proceedings. Written comments that attempt to present new evidence or raise new issues not presented or raised before the hearing body shall be rejected. (Ord. No. 2088, Enacted, 03/03/94; Ord. No. ) Page 324 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code Section 50.84.055 Section 49.50.1145 Objections. The purpose of the hearing procedures set forth in this code is to provided all interested persons a reasonable opportunity to participate in the hearing process and to provide a full and impartial hearing on the application or appeal before the hearing body. Any question concerning the proper conduct of a hearing held pursuant to this code may be raised by any person during the proceeding by making an objection. The Mayor shall rule on any objection, subject to the right of the Council to overturn the Mayor's ruling by majority vote. (Ord. No. 2088, Enacted, 03/03/94; Ord. No. ) Section 50.84.060 Section 49.50.1150 Preservation of Order. The Mayor shall preserve order and decorum, discourage personal attacks, and confine debate to the material issues. The Mayor may eject from the hearing any person in attendance who becomes disorderly, abusive or disruptive, or who fails or refuses to obey a ruling of the Mayor. The Mayor may summon assistance of the Lake Oswego Police to assist in maintaining order. (Ord. No. 2088, Enacted, 03/03/94; Ord. No. ) Section 50.84.065 Section 49.50.1155 Continuances. 1. The Council may elect to continue a hearing one or more times on its own motion or at the reasonable request of a party. No continuance shall be granted at the request of the applicant unless the applicant waives the 120 Day Rule in writing or on the record. If the hearing has not been completed pursuant to LOC 49.iQ443050•g4.M, the continued hearing shall resume at the point in the proceedings at which the hearing was continued. If the hearing has been concluded and the Council desires a continuance to reopen the hearing for additional testimony, the continued hearing shall be conducted as provided in subsection 2 of this section. In the later case, the Council may limit testimony to a particular issue or issues. If the appeal hearing has been concluded and the Mayor has returned the matter to the table for deliberations, the Council may continue deliberations to a date, time and place certain. 2. If an appeal hearing is continued to reopen the record for additional testimony, it shall be conducted as follows: a. The Mayor shall open the continued hearing. b. The City Manager shall give a staff report which shall include the reason for the continuance. c. The Mayor shall call for the appellant's testimony. d. The Mayor shall call for testimony from persons in favor of the appeal. e. The Mayor shall call for testimony from persons opposed to the appeal, beginning with the applicant, if the applicant is not the appellant. f. The Mayor shall call for testimony from persons neutral on the appeal. Page 325 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code g. The Mayor shall call for rebuttal by the appellant. h. The Mayor shall return the matter to the table for deliberation and decision as described in LOC 49.59. H4050.84.040(11). 3. Notice. No additional notice of a continued hearing is required if the Council continues a hearing to a date, time and place certain. If a public hearing must be continued due to lack of a quorum of the Council, no additional notice of the continued hearing is required if all entrances to the hearing location are posted by the time and date of the originally scheduled hearing with a conspicuous written notice setting forth a date, time and place certain for the continued hearing. In all other cases, public notice of a continued hearing shall be given pursuant to LOC 49.50 4-2HJQJL4,=. (Ord. No. 2088, Enacted, 03/03/94; Ord. No. ) Section 50.84.070 Section 49.50.1160 Decision of the Council. 1. At the conclusion of deliberations, the Council shall make a preliminary oral decision. The Council may affirm, reverse or modify the hearing body's decision in whole or in part, or may remand the decision back to the hearing body for additional evidence or consideration. The preliminary oral decision is not a final decision. At any time prior to the adoption of the final order pursuant to subsection 2 of this section, the Council may modify its decision based upon the record or choose to reopen the hearing. 2. The Council shall adopt a final written order either immediately after making its preliminary oral decision or at a public meeting within a reasonable time after making the preliminary oral decision. The final.written order shall consist of a brief statement that explains the criteria and standards considered relevant, states the facts relied upon in rendering the decision and explains the justification for the decision based upon the criteria, standards and facts set forth. The order shall also contain or incorporate by reference any conditions of approval deemed necessary or appropriate by the Council. A proposed order may be prepared by the City Attorney or may be prepared by the prevailing party subject to review and approval of the City Attorney. The Council shall amend the proposed order if it finds that the proposed order does not accurately articulate the Council's decision. The written order is the final decision on the application and the date of the order for purposes of appeal is the date on which it adopted by the Council. 3. Motions for reconsideration of either a preliminary decision or final order filed by a party shall not be allowed. The City Manager may recommend reconsideration prior to adoption of the final order if the City Manager, in consultation with the City Attorney, believes reconsideration is necessary to correct a procedural error that prejudiced a party's substantial rights. (Ord. No. 2088, Enacted, 03/03/94; Ord. No. ) Section 50.84.075 Section 49.50.1165 Notice of Decision. Notice of the Council's decision shall be sent by regular mail to the appellant, the applicant if different from the appellant, and to all persons who testified either orally or in writing before the Council. The notioe of decision shall: Page 326 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code 1. Include the File number, date and brief summary of the final decision; 2. Include the name and address of the applicant; 3. Include an easily understood geographical reference to the subject property and a map, if applicable; 4. State that the decision is available for review, and that a copy can be obtained at cost; and 5. State that the decision may be appealed by filing a written Notice of Intent to Appeal with the Oregon State Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) within 21 days of the date of the final decision. The address and telephone number of the Land Use Board of Appeals shall be included in the notice. (Ord. No. 2088, Enacted, 03/03/94; Ord. No. ) Page 327 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code Remands. Sections: 49.54.1200 Remands from the Council to the Hearing Body. 49.54.1205 Remands from LUBA to the City Council. Section 50.85.005 Section 49.54.1200 Remands from the Council to the Hearing Body. 1. An order of the City Council remanding an application to a hearing body is a final decision for purposes of appeal to LUBA. If not appealed, all issues resolved by the remand order shall be considered decided and may not be revisited on remand, unless addressing the remanded issues results in amendments to the application which change the criteria or the factual basis on which the Council based its decision regarding an issue or issues not remanded. 2. The hearing body shall issue public notice and hear the application on remand as provided inIzOG 49.44.900 to j":020Article 50.82, except that issues shall be limited as provided in subsection 1 of this section. (Ord. No. 2088, Enacted, 03/03/94; Ord. No. ) Section 50.85.010 Section 49.54.1205 Remands from LUBA to the City Council. When a final decision of the City Council is remanded to the City by the State of Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA), the City Council shall either: 1. Hold a hearing on remand if the issue upon which LUBA remanded the decision can be resolved by the City Council without reopening the record for additional evidence. Notice of the hearing on remand shall be given pursuant to LOC 49.50. 050.84.030 to all persons who testified before the City Council at the public hearing or hearings that led to the decision remanded by LUBA. Instead of the explanation contained in LOC 49:30.4-205Q,b4.030(2)(d), the notice shall set forth issues on remand that will be considered by the Council. The hearing shall be conducted pursuant to LOG 49.46. 100-0 taArticle 50.83, except that testimony shall be limited to the issues upon which LUBA remanded the decision to the City, unless the application is amended on remand in a manner which changes the applicable criteria or the factual basis on which LUBA or the City Council based its decision regarding an issue or issues not remanded. 2. Remand the application to the hearing body if the issue upon which LUBA remanded the decision requires reopening the record for additional evidence. Notice of the hearing on remand shall be given pursuant to LOC 50,82.020 49.44.920and the hearing shall be conducted pursuant to Article 50.83, except that the notice of the applicable criteria and the testimony shall be limited to the criterion or criteria or the issue or issues upon which LUBA remanded the decision to the City, unless the application is modified in a manner which changes the applicable criteria or the factual basis on which LUBA'or the City Council based its decision regarding an issue or issues not remanded. A decision of the hearing body on remand may be appealed to the City Council pursuant to LOC 4930-110050,84,010. Page 328 - Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code (Ord. No. 2088, Enacted, 03/03/94; Ord. No. ) Page 329 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code Article 49.5650.86 Effect of Approval_QL><Denial of Development Permit !Modification or Revocation of Permit. Sections: 49.56.1300 Effective Date of a Decision. 49.56.1305 Effect of Decision to Approve. 49.56.1310 Effect of Denial; Resubmittal. Section 50.86.005 Section 49.56.1300 Effective Date of a Decision. 1. Except as provided by subsection 2 of this section, a final decision approving a development permit becomes effective upon expiration of the local appeal period, unless an ordinance amendment is required in order to implement the approval. In the latter case, the approval becomes effective at the time the ordinance becomes effective pursuant to the Lake Oswego Charter. The filing of an appeal automatically stays the decision until resolution of the appeal by City appellate authorities. 2. A final decision of the City Council approving a development permit is effective immediately and is not stayed by appeal to LUBA, unless LUBA so orders pursuant to ORS 197.845. (Ord. No. 2088, Enacted, 03/03/94; Ord. No. ) &aWn 50.86.010 Section 49.56.1305 Effect of Decision to Approve. An approved and effective development permit is binding upon the City, the applicant and successors in interest, unless it expires, is amended or is revoked pursuant to this code. (Ord. No. 2088, Enacted, 03/03/94; Ord. No. ) Section 50.86.015 Section 48.02.100 Interpretation of Approvals. 2. The City Manager shall interpret the meaning and scope of approvals granted based on the record of the proceeding. (Ord. No. 1851, Sec. 1; 11-16-82.) lection 50.86.020 Section 49.56.1310 Effect of Denial; Resubmittal. 1. A final decision denying a development permit is effective immediately. Page 330 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code 2. If an application is denied and is not appealed, or the denial is affirmed on appeal, no new application for the same or a substantially similar proposal shall be filed within six months after the date of final denial. A new application shall not be considered "the same or substantially similar" if it can be modified, and is modified, to address the reasons why the original application was denied. (Ord. No. 2088, Enacted, 03/03/94; Ord. No. ) Section 50.86.025 Section 49.58.1425 Modification of Approved Permit. The City Manager may approve minor changes in any development permit, provided that such change: 1. Does not increase the intensity of any use, or the density of residential use; and, 2. Meets all requirements of the development standards and other legal requirements; and, 3. Does not significantly affect other property or uses; will not cause any deterioration or loss of any natural feature, process or open space; nor significantly affect any public facility; and 4. Does not affect any condition specifically placed on the development by action of a hearing body or City Council. Any change not meeting the criteria set forth above shall be processed as a new application. A change meeting the criteria shall be processed as a minor development. (Ord. No. 2088, Enacted, 03/03/94; Ord. No. ) Section 50.86.030 Section 49.58.1430 Revocation of Permit. Upon referral by the Planning DifeeterCA Manaeer, the Development Review Commission may hold a hearing pursuant to Articles 50.82 and �= to consider revocation of an approved permit and/or revocation of a certificate of occupancy. The DRC may revoke any permit approval or certificate of occupancy based upon one or more of the following findings: 1. The applicant or the applicant's representatives either intentionally or unintentionally committed a material misrepresentation of fact in the application or the evidence submitted in support of the application. For the purposes of this section, "material misrepresentation of fact" means a misstatement of factual information that: a. Was submitted by the applicant in support of the application; b. Could have been corrected by the applicant at the time of application; and c. Formed the sole basis for approval of the application pursuant to an applicable approval criterion. A "material misrepresentation of fact" does not include misstatements of fact made by City staff or caused by failure by another party to appear or adequately testify. 2. The applicant or successor in interest failed to complete the work within the time Page 331 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code or in the manner approved without obtaining an extension of time or modification of the permit from the granting authority. 3. The applicant or successor in interest failed to maintain or use the property in accordance with the approved permit or conditions of approval. (Ord. No. 2088, Enacted, 03/03/94; Ord. No. 2091, Amended, 04/19/94; Ord. No. ) Page 332 - Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code Compliance with Approved Permit. Sections: 49.58.1400 Certificate of Occupancy. 49.58.1405 Preparation and Submittal of Final Plan or Plat. 49.58.1410 Review of the Final Plan or Plat, Filing Requirements. 49.58.1415 Obligation to Construct Public Facilities; Security; Acceptance of Improvements. 49.58.1420 Failure to Fulfill Obligation, Lien Created. 49.58.1425 Modification of Approved Permit. 49.58.1430 Revocation of Permit. Section 50.87.005 Section 49.58.1400 Certificate of Occupancy. In order to assure completion of the work in the manner and at the time approved, the premises shall not be used or occupied for the purposes set forth in the permit until the City has issued a Certificate of Occupancy following completion of the work in substantial conformance to the permit. Prior to the final completion of all work, a certificate of occupancy may be issued for a portion of the premises or conditioned upon further work being completed by a date certain. (Ord. No. 2088, Enacted, 03/03/94; Ord. No. ) Section 50.87.010 Section 49.58.1405 Preparation and Submittal of Final Plan or Plat. 1. The final plan or plat shall be submitted within one year of the date of the order setting forth the final decision. Upon written application, prior to expiration of the one year period, the City Manager shall, in writing, grant a one year extension. Additional extensions may be requested in writing and will be submitted to the hearing body for review of the project for conformance with the current law, development standards and compatibility with development which may have occurred in the surrounding area. The extension may be granted or denied and if granted may be conditioned to require modifications to bring the project into compliance with then current law and compatibility with surrounding development. 2. A final plan or plat shall include all information required by the final decision on the Plan. 3. A final plan or plat for a subdivision shall accurately reflect the preliminary approval granted by the hearing body, with all conditions satisfied and shall also contain the following information: A. The proposed name of the subdivision. The name shall not duplicate or Page 333 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code resemble the name of another subdivision in the Urban Service Area. B. Location of the subdivision by section, township and range. C. Reference points of the existing surveys identified, related to the plat by distance and bearings, and reference to a field book or map as follows: i. stakes, measurements or other evidence found on the ground and used to determine the boundaries of the subdivision. ii. adjoining corners of adjoining subdivisions. iii. other monuments found or established in making the survey of the subdivision or required to be installed by provisions of this ordinance. D. The location and width of streets and easements intercepting the boundary of the tract. E. Tract, block and lot or parcel boundary lines and street rights-of-way and center lines, with dimensions, bearings and deflection angles, radii, arcs, points of curvature and points of tangency. Flood plain or high water line for major water bodies. Plat accuracy shall be determined by the County Surveyor. F. The width of the portion of streets being dedicated and the width of existing rights-of-way. For streets on curvature, curve data shall be based on the road center line. In addition to the center line dimensions, the radius and central angle shall be indicated on each right-of-way line. Also, arc and chord data shall be shown on each line for all lots as applicable. G. Easements, clearly identified and, if already of record, their recorded reference. If an easement is not definitely located of record, a statement of the easement shall be given. The width of the easement, its length and bearing, and sufficient ties to locate the easement with respect to the subdivision lines shall be shown. If the easement is being dedicated by the plat, it shall be property referenced in the owner's certificates of dedication. H. Lot number beginning with the number "1" and numbered consecutively in each block in the subdivision. 1. Block numbers beginning with the number "1" and continuing consecutively without omission or duplication throughout a subdivision. The numbers shall be solid, of sufficient size and thickness to stand out and so placed as not to obliterate any figure. Block numbers in an addition to a subdivision of the same name shall be a continuation of the numbering in the original subdivision. J. Identification of land to be dedicated to the public and a specific statement of the purpose of the dedication. K. The following certificates may be combined where appropriate: i. certificate signed and acknowledged by all parties having any recorded title interest in the land (excluding lien holders), consenting to the preparation and recording of the plat. ii. certificate signed and acknowledged as above, dedicating all land intended for public use except land which is intended for the exclusive use of the lot owners in the subdivision or their lessees, tenants, employees and visitors. iii. certificate with the seal of and signed by the engineer or the surveyor responsible for the survey and final map. iv. certificate for execution by the chairman of the Development Review Commission. Page 334 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code v. certificate for execution by the County Surveyor. vi. certificate for execution by the County Tax Collector. vii. certificate for execution by the County Assessor. viii. other certifications now or hereafter required by law. L. Other information as required by ORS Chapter 92. M. Deed restrictions and covenants shall be submitted as a separate document at the time as the final plat is submitted. (Ord. No. 2088, Enacted, 03/03/94; Ord. No. 2091, Amended, 04/19/94; Ord. No. ) Section 50.87.015 Section 49.58.1410 Review of the Final Plan or Plat, Filing Requirements. 1. Staff shall determine whether the final plan or plat conforms to the final decision of the hearing body, including all conditions, and other applicable state statutes and city codes. 2. If staff determines that the plan or plat is in conformance, then the appropriate signatures shall be affixed to the plan or plat, such signatures signify City approval of the plan or plat. Final plats shall be recorded with the appropriate County within 30 calendar days of signature. Acceptance by the City of the land dedicated to the public by means of a plat occurs upon the recording of the plat. Any plat not so recorded is void. 3. If staff determines that the final plan or plat does not conform, the applicant shall be advised by a written notice which $hall list the reasons for the decision. 4. The applicant shall have 30 calendar days to correct the plan or plat or to schedule a review of the final plan or plat by the Development Review Commission. When the differences have been resolved and the plan or plat approved, the procedure in subsection (2) of this section shall be followed. 5. Approval of a final plan or plat authorizes the issuance of development permits for actions or uses as approved therein. (Ord. No. 2088, Enacted, 03/03/94; Ord. No. 2091, Amended, 04/19/94; Ord. No. ) Section 50.87.020 Section 49.58.1415 Obligation to Construct Public Facilities; Security; Acceptance of Improvements. 1. When an applicant for a development permit has an obligation to construct or improve public facilities imposed as a condition of the permit, the obligation shall be fulfilled prior to the issuance of a permit for building construction on the site unless the City Manager has granted a waiver in writing of this requirement and the applicant has filed with the City Manager an acknowledgment of the obligation. The acknowledgment shall state the nature of the obligation, the time within which the obligation is to be met, identify the property subject to the obligation and contain a security deposit in a form acceptable to the City Manager and in an amount equal to 120 percent of the cost of fulfilling the obligation as estimated by the City Manager for the year in which fulfillment of the obligation is anticipated. A sufficient performance bond, cash deposit or letter of credit are acceptable forms of security. Return of the security deposit shall be conditioned upon the applicant carrying out the obligation. Page 335 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code 2. As an additional and separate part of the acknowledgment, the applicant shall agree to maintain the public facility for a period of one year following acceptance by the City Manager, to include but not be limited to repair, replacement and all things necessary to insure the operational integrity of the facility, and shall provide the City with security in the amount of 10 percent of the cost of the improvement to insure the fulfillment of this obligation. 3. The security shall be forfeited to the City if the applicant does not fulfill the requirements stated in the acknowledgment. The City may use the security to complete the obligation or any part of it. Until the obligation is completed the security shall remain in the custody of the City or shall be placed in an escrow account subject to City control. 4. Upon receipt of written notice to the City Manager that the public facility has been completed and is ready for final inspection and acceptance, the City Manager shall within ten (10) calendar days make such inspection. If the City Manager finds the work to be acceptable, there shall promptly be issued a final certificate stating that the work has been completed and is accepted. (Ord. No. 2088, Enacted, 03/03/94; Ord. No. ) Section 50.87.025 Section 49.58.1420 Failure to Fu1R11 Obligation, Lien Created. 1. If the City Manager determines that an applicant has failed to fulfill the obligations referred to in Section9- 58.141550,87.020, written notice shall be given detailing the failure and stating the City's intention to use the security given to complete the obligation. If the City completes the obligation and the security required by Section 438.+41350.87.020 is not sufficient to compensate the City for costs incurred, the excess amount due to the City, plus a 10% administrative charge, is a lien in favor of the City and upon the real property subject to the obligation. 2. The lien attaches upon entry in the City lien docket and the giving of notice of the claim for the amount due for the completion of the obligation. The notice shall demand the amount due, allege the insufficiency of the bond or other security to compensate the City fully for the cost of the fulfillment of the obligation, and allege the applicant's failure to complete the required obligation. , 3. The lien may be foreclosed in the manner prescribed by ORS Chapter 223 for foreclosing liens on real property. (Ord. No. 2088, Enacted, 03/03/94; Ord. No. 2091, Amended, 04/19/94; Ord. No. ) Page 336 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code Fees Combined into 50.88.005 Section 50.88.005 Section 49.16.030 Fees and Deposits. The City may charge fees for applications, plan reviews, inspections, appeals, or any other action pursuant to this eedeC&. Such fees shall be no greater than the actual cost to the City to process a permit or the average actual cost of processing a class of permits. Such fees shall be established by resolution of the City Council. The City Manager shall review aonlication fees annually and shall recommend nronoaed fees and fee changes to the Council. New text came from 49.30.500. (see below) (Ord. No. 2088, Enacted, 03/03/94) �IYIi Ilf Page 337 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code Enforcement and reveent f Permits and Penalties Revocation is addressed in the Conditional Use permit area. Section 50.90.005 Section 48.02.035 Enforcement. It is the duty of the City Manager to enforce the provisions of this ehap g. (Ord. No. 1851, Sec. 1; 11-16-82.) Duplicative; see 50.90.010(1). 50.90.010 Section 49.16.050 Violations; abatement; injunction. 1. A violation of any provision of this cls is a civil violation and shall be enforced pursuant to the provisions of LOC 34.04. 101 to 34.04.145. Each day that the violation exists shall constitute a separate violation. 2. Any development which occurs contrary to the provisions of this ehapterlLj Code or contrary to any permit or approval issued or granted hereunder is hereby declared to be unlawful and a public nuisance, and may be abated pursuant to LOC 34.08.400 to 34.08.490. 3. Upon request of the Planning Direete Zity ManageL, the City Attorney may institute an appropriate action in any court to enjoin the maintenance of any use, occupation, building or structure which is in violation of any provision of this-ehapterilli§ 4. The rights, remedies and penalties provided in thig ehapterthis Qgdg are cumulative, are not mutually exclusive, and are in addition to any other rights, remedies and penalties available to the City under any other provisions of law. (Ord. No. 2088, Enacted, 03/03/94; Ord. No. 2125, Amended, 09/19/95. Ord. 2231, Amended, 03/21/2000) Page 338 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code : ., WIN Duplicative; see 50.90.010(1). 50.90.010 Section 49.16.050 Violations; abatement; injunction. 1. A violation of any provision of this cls is a civil violation and shall be enforced pursuant to the provisions of LOC 34.04. 101 to 34.04.145. Each day that the violation exists shall constitute a separate violation. 2. Any development which occurs contrary to the provisions of this ehapterlLj Code or contrary to any permit or approval issued or granted hereunder is hereby declared to be unlawful and a public nuisance, and may be abated pursuant to LOC 34.08.400 to 34.08.490. 3. Upon request of the Planning Direete Zity ManageL, the City Attorney may institute an appropriate action in any court to enjoin the maintenance of any use, occupation, building or structure which is in violation of any provision of this-ehapterilli§ 4. The rights, remedies and penalties provided in thig ehapterthis Qgdg are cumulative, are not mutually exclusive, and are in addition to any other rights, remedies and penalties available to the City under any other provisions of law. (Ord. No. 2088, Enacted, 03/03/94; Ord. No. 2125, Amended, 09/19/95. Ord. 2231, Amended, 03/21/2000) Page 338 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code Duplicative — see 50.90.010(2) Duplicative — see 50.90.010(3) Section 50.90.015 Section 48.02.065 Evidence of Violation. Proof of a violation of this ehapterthis Code or permit, or approval issued or granted hereunder shall be deemed prima facie evidence that such violation is that of the owner of the property upon which the unlawful use, activity, condition, building, structure or other development exists. Prosecution, or lack thereof, of the owner of the property, the occupant, or other person in possession or control of property shall not be deemed to relieve any other responsible person. (Ord. No. 1851, Sec. 1; 11-16-82.) Duplicative Section 50.90.020 Section 48.02.070 Cumulative Remedies. The rights, remedies and penalties provided in this ehapte his Code are cumulative, are not mutually exclusive, and are in addition to any other rights, remedies and penalties available to the City under any other provisions of law. (Ord. No. 1851, Sec. 1; 11-16- 82.) Page 339 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code "Leftover Sections"\ Chapter 48 ZONING CODE Articles: 48.02 Administrative Procedures. 48.04 Residential - High Density R-0, R-2, R-3, R-5, WR Zones. 48.05 First Addition Zoning District (R-6). 48.06 Residential, Medium and Low Density R-7.5, R-10, R-15. 48.08 Design District (Old Town). 48.09 West Lake Grove Design Overlay District. 48.10 Commercial Districts. 48.12 Industrial Zones. 48.14 Campus Institutional. 48.16 Greenway Management Overlay. 48.17 Sensitive Lands Overlay Districts. 48.18 Planned Development Overlay. 48.19 Flag Lots. 48.20 Supplementary Provisions. 48.22 Conditional Uses. 48.24 Variances. 48.26 Non -Conforming Uses. 48.28 Repealed. 48.30 Repealed. Article 48.02 Administrative Procedures. Sections: 48.02.005 Title. 48.02.010 Purpose. 48.02.015 Definitions. 48.02.020 Compliance. 48.02.025 Interpretation, Regulations and Procedures, Delegation. 48.02.030 Fees and Deposits. 48.02.035 Enforcement. 48.02.040 Penalties. 48.02.045 Official Action. 48.02.050 (Repealed by Ord. No. 1910,3-5-85.) 48.02.055 Violations Declared a Public Nuisance, Abatement of Violations. 48.02.060 Injunctive Relief. Page 340 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code 48.02.065 Evidence of Violation. 48.02.070 Cumulative Remedies. 48.02.075 Relationship to Other Laws and Private Agreements; Prior Approvals and Conditions of Approval. 48.02.080 Zoning Map. 48.02.085 Interpretation of District Boundaries. 48.02.090 Zoning of Annexed Areas. 48.02.095 Authorization for Similar Uses. 48.02.100 Record of Proceedings, Interpretation of Approvals. 48.02.105 Repealed 48.02.110 Concurrent Hearings. 48.02.115 Zoning Districts. Section 48.02.050 (Repealed by Ord. No. 1910, 3-5-85.) Section 48.02.105 Repealed (Ord. No. 2148, Repealed, 07/22/97) Article 48.20 Supplementary Provisions. Sections: 48.20.500 Maintenance of Minimum Ordinance Requirements. 48.20.505 Accessory Uses. 48.20.510 Temporary Structures, Uses. 48.20.515 General Exceptions. 48.20.520 Projections from Buildings. 48.20.525 Determination of Front Yard for Flag Lots and Lots Accessing by Easement. 48.20.530 Vision Clearance. 48.20.535 Special Setbacks. 48.20.540 Use of Recreational Vehicle as a Dwelling Unit Prohibited. 48.20.545 Home Occupations. 48.20.546 (Repealed by Ord. No. 1889, Sec. 2; 5-15-84.) 48.20.547 Specific Standards for Secondary Dwelling Unit. 48.20.548 Specific Standards for Mobile Home Park or Subdivision. 48.20.549 Specific Standards for Special Use Housing. 48.20.560 Specific Standards for Telecommunications Facilities. Section 48.20.546 (Repealed by Ord. No. 1889, Sec. 2; 5-15-84.) Page 341 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code Article 48.28 Repealed. Sections: 48.28.750 Repealed. 48.28.755 Repealed. 48.28.760 Repealed. 48.28.761 to 48.28.799 Repealed. Section 48.28.750 Repealed. (Ord. No. 2088, Repealed, 03/03/94) Section 48.28.755 Repealed. (Ord. No. 2088, Repealed, 03/03/94) Section 48.28.760 Repealed. (Ord. No. 2088, Repealed, 03/03/94) Section 48.28.761 to 48.28.799 Repealed. (Ord. No. 2088, Repealed, 03/03/94) Article 48.30 Repealed. Sections: 48.30.800 Repealed. 48.30.801 Repealed. 48.30.805 Repealed. 48.30.810 Repealed. 48.30.815 Repealed. 48.30.820 Repealed. 48.30.825 Repealed. 48.30.830 Repealed. 48.30.835 Repealed. 48.30.840 Repealed. Section 48.30.800 Repealed. (Ord. No. 2088, Repealed, 03/03/94) Section 48.30.801 Repealed. (Ord. No. 2088, Repealed, 03/03/94) Section 48.30.805 Repealed. (Ord. No. 2088, Repealed, 03/03/94) Page 342 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code Section 48.30.810 Repealed. (Ord. No. 2088, Repealed, 03/03/94) Section 48.30.815 Repealed. (Ord. No. 2088, Repealed, 03/03/94) Section 48.30.820 Repealed. (Ord. No. 2088, Repealed, 03/03/94) Section 48.30.825 Repealed. (Ord. No. 2088, Repealed, 03/03/94) Section 48.30.830 Repealed. (Ord. No. 2088, Repealed, 03/03/94) Section 48.30.835 Repealed. (Ord. No. 2088, Repealed, 03/03/94) Section 48.30.840 Repealed. (Ord. No. 2088, Repealed, 03/03/94) Chapter 49 DEVELOPMENT CODE Articles: 49.02 Repealed. 49.04 Repealed. 49.06 Repealed. 49.08 Repealed. 49.10 Repealed. 49.12 Repealed. 49.14 Repealed. 49.16 Development Procedures, Generally. 49.20 Types of Development. 49.22 Review Criteria. 49.26 Overall Development Plan and Schedule. 49.28 Variances. 49.30 Application Requirements. Page 343 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code 4932 Application Procedures - Ministerial Development. 4936 Application Procedures - Minor and Major Developments. 49.40 Review of Minor Development Applications. 49.44 Review of Major Development Applications and Appeals of Minor 49.02.025 Development Decisions. 49.46 Hearings Before a Hearing Body. 49.50 Appeal to the City Council. 49.54 Remands. 49.56 Effect of Approval[Denial of Development Permit. 49.58 Compliance with Approved Permit. 49.60 Legislative Decisions. 49.62 Zoning Map and Amendments Upon Annexations. Article 49.02 Repealed. Sections: 49.02.005 Repealed. 49.02.010 Repealed. 49.02.015 Repealed. 49.02.020 Repealed. 49.02.025 Repealed. 49.02.030 Repealed. 49.02.035 Repealed. 49.02.040 Repealed. 49.02.045 Repealed. 49.02.050 (Repealed by Ord. No. 1910; 3-5-85.) 49.02.055 Repealed. 49.02.060 Repealed. 49.02.065 Repealed. 49.02.070 Repealed. 49.02.075 Repealed. 49.02.080 Repealed. 49.02.085 Repealed. 49.02.090 Repealed. 49.02.095 Repealed. 49.02.096 Repealed. 49.02.097 Repealed. Section 49.02.005 Repealed. (Ord. No. 2088, Repealed, 03/03/94) Section 49.02.010 Repealed. (Ord. No. 2088, Repealed, 03/03/94) Page 344 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code Section 49.02.015 Repealed. (Ord. No. 2088, Repealed, 03/03/94) Section 49.02.020 Repealed. (Ord. No. 2088, Repealed, 03/03/94) Section 49.02.025 Repealed. (Ord. No. 2088, Repealed, 03/03/94) Section 49.02.030 Repealed. (Ord. No. 2088, Repealed, 03/03/94) Section 49.02.035 Repealed. (Ord. No. 2088, Repealed, 03/03/94) Section 49.02.040 Repealed. (Ord. No. 2088, Repealed, 03/03/94) Section 49.02.045 Repealed. (Ord. No. 2088, Repealed, 03/03/94) Section 49.02.050 (Repealed by Ord. No. 1910; 3-5-85.) (Ord. No. 2088, Repealed, 03/03/94) Section 49.02.055 Repealed. (Ord. No. 2088, Repealed, 03/03/94) Section 49.02.060 Repealed. (Ord. No. 2088, Repealed, 03/03/94) Section 49.02.065 Repealed. (Ord. No. 2088, Repealed, 03/03/94) Section 49.02.070 Repealed. (Ord. No. 2088, Repealed, 03/03/94) Section 49.02.075 Repealed. (Ord. No. 2088, Repealed, 03/03/94) Section 49.02.080 Repealed. (Ord. No. 2088, Repealed, 03/03/94) Page 345 -- Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code Section 49.02.085 Repealed. (Ord. No. 2088, Repealed, 03/03/94) Section 49.02.090 Repealed. (Ord. No. 2088, Repealed, 03/03/94) Section 49.02.095 Repealed. (Ord. No. 2088, Repealed, 03/03/94) Section 49.02.096 Repealed. (Ord. No. 2088, Repealed, 03/03/94) Section 49.02.097 Repealed. (Ord. No. 2088, Repealed, 03/03/94) Article 49.04 Repealed. Sections: 49.04.100 Repealed. 49.04.105 Repealed. 49.04.110 Repealed. 49.04.115 Repealed. 49.04.120 Repealed. 49.04.125 Repealed. 49.04.130 Repealed. 49.04.135 Repealed. 49.04.140 Repealed. 49.04.145 Repealed. 49.04.150 Repealed. 49.04.151 tbrougb 49.04.199 Repealed. Section 49.04.100 Repealed. (Ord. No. 2088, Repealed, 03/03/94) Section 49.04.105 Repealed. (Ord. No. 2088, Repealed, 03/03/94) Section 49.04.110 Repealed. (Ord. No. 2088, Repealed, 03/03/94) Page 346 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code Section 49.04.115 Repealed. (Ord. No. 2088, Repealed, 03/03/94) Section 49.04.120 Repealed. (Ord. No. 2088, Repealed, 03/03/94) Section 49.04.125 Repealed. (Ord. No. 2088, Repealed, 03/03/94) Section 49.04.130 Repealed. (Ord. No. 2088, Repealed, 03/03/94) Section 49.04.135 Repealed. (Ord. No. 2088, Repealed, 03/03/94) Section 49.04.140 Repealed. (Ord. No. 2088, Repealed, 03/03/94) Section 49.04.145 Repealed. (Ord. No. 2088, Repealed, 03/03/94) Section 49.04.150 Repealed. (Ord. No. 2088, Repealed, 03/03/94) Section 49.04.151 through 49.04.199 Repealed. (Ord. No. 2088, Repealed, 03/03/94) Article 49.06 Repealed. Sections: 49.06.200 Repealed. 49.06.205 Repealed. 49.06.210 Repealed. 49.06.215 Repealed. 49.06.220 Repealed. 49.06.225 Repealed. 49.06.226 through 49.06.299 Repealed. Section 49.06.200 Repealed. (Ord. No. 2088, Repealed, 03/03/94) Page 347 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code Section 49.06.205 Repealed. (Ord. No. 2088, Repealed, 03/03/94) Section 49.06.2 10 Repealed. (Ord. No. 2088, Repealed, 03/03/94) Section 49.06.215 Repealed. (Ord. No. 2088, Repealed, 03/03/94) Section 49.06.220 Repealed. (Ord. No. 2088, Repealed, 03/03/94) Section 49.06.225 Repealed. (Ord. No. 2088, Repealed, 03/03/94) Section 49.06.226 through 49.06.299 Repealed. (Ord. No. 2088, Repealed, 03/03/94) Article 49.08 Repealed. Sections: 49.08.025 Live/Work Zone (R -2.5/W). 49.08.300 Repealed. 49.08.301 Repealed. 49.08.305 Repealed. 49.08.310 Repealed. 49.08.315 Repealed. 49.08.320 Repealed. 49.08.325 Repealed. 49.08.330 Repealed. 49.08.335 Repealed. 49.08.336 through 49.08.399 Repealed. Section 49.08.300 Repealed. (Ord. No. 2088, Repealed, 03/03/94) Section 49.08.301 Repealed. Page 348 - Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code (Ord. No. 2088, Repealed, 03/03/94) Section 49.08.305 Repealed. (Ord. No. 2088, Repealed, 03/03/94) Section 49.08.310 Repealed. (Ord. No. 2088, Repealed, 03/03/94) Section 49.08.315 Repealed. (Ord. No. 2088, Repealed, 03/03/94) Section 49.08.320 Repealed. (Ord. No. 2088, Repealed, 03/03/94) Section 49.08.325 Repealed. (Ord. No. 2088, Repealed, 03/03/94) Section 49.08.330 Repealed. (Ord. No. 2088, Repealed, 03/03/94) Section 49.08.335 Repealed. (Ord. No. 2088, Repealed, 03/03/94) Section 49.08.336 through 49.08.399 Repealed. (Ord. No. 2088, Repealed, 03/03/94) Article 49.10 Repealed. Sections: 49.10.400 Repealed. 49.10.405 Repealed. 49.10.410 Repealed. 49.10.415 Repealed. 49.10.420 Repealed. 49.10.425 Repealed. 49.10.430 Repealed. 49.10.435 Repealed. 49.10.440 Repealed. 49.10.441 through 49.10.499 Repealed. Section 49.10.400 Repealed. (Ord. No. 2088, Repealed, 03/03/94) Page 349 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code Section 49.10.405 Repealed. (Ord. No. 2088, Repealed, 03/03/94) Section 49.10.410 Repealed. (Ord. No. 2088, Repealed, 03/03/94) Section 49.10.415 Repealed. (Ord. No. 2088, Repealed, 03/03/94) Section 49.10.420 Repealed. (Ord. No. 2088, Repealed, 03/03/94) Section 49.10.425 Repealed. (Ord. No. 2088, Repealed, 03/03/94) Section 49.10.430 Repealed. (Ord. No. 2088, Repealed, 03/03/94) Section 49.10.435 Repealed. (Ord. No. 2088, Repealed, 03/03/94) Section 49.10.440 Repealed. (Ord. No. 2088, Repealed, 03/03/94) Section 49.10.441 through 49.10.499 Repealed. (Ord. No. 2088, Repealed, 03/03/94) Article 49.12 Repealed. Sections: 49.12.500 Repealed. 49.12.510 Repealed. 49.12.511 through 49.12.599 Repealed. Section 49.12.500 Repealed. (Ord. No. 2088, Repealed, 03/03/94) Section 49.12.510 Repealed. (Ord. No. 2088, Repealed, 03/03/94) Page 350 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code Section 49.12.511 through 49.12.599 Repealed. (Ord. No. 2088, Repealed, 03/03/94) Article 49.14 Repealed. Sections: 49.14.600 Repealed. 49.14.605 Repealed. 49.14.610 Repealed. 49.14.615 Repealed. 49.14.620 Repealed. 49.14.625 Repealed. 49.14.630 Repealed. 49.14.635 Repealed. 49.14.640 Repealed. Section 49.14.600 Repealed. (Ord. No. 2088, Repealed, 03/03/94) Section 49.14.605 Repealed. (Ord. No. 2088, Repealed, 03/03/94) Section 49.14.610 Repealed. (Ord. No. 2088, Repealed, 03/03/94) Section 49.14.615 Repealed. (Ord. No. 2088, Repealed, 03/03/94) Section 49.14.620 Repealed. (Ord. No. 2088, Repealed, 03/03/94) Section 49.14.625 Repealed. (Ord. No. 2088, Repealed, 03/03/94) , Section 49.14.630 Repealed. (Ord. No. 2088, Repealed, 03/03/94) Section 49.14.635 Repealed. (Ord. No. 2088, Repealed, 03/03/94) Section 49.14.640 Repealed. Page 351 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code (Ord. No. 2088, Repealed, 03/03/94) Article 49.16 Development Procedures, Generally. Sections: 49.16.005 Title. 49.16.010 Purpose. 49.16.015 Definitions. 49.16.020 Application of Code. 49.16.025 Authority of Planning-DireeWrCity Manager. 49.16.030 Fees and Deposits. 49.16.035 Development Permit Required. 49.16.040 Development Permits Restricted for Unlawful Uses. 49.16.045 Development Restricted on Illegal Lot. 49.16.050 Violations; abatement; injunction. 49.16.055 Evidence of Violation. 49.16.060 Planning -Direet@irQty Manaeer Interpretations. Page 352 — Draft December 2001 Lake Oswego Community Development Code TABLE 48-3 A p P-P_�k X _150,07-4 (LOC 48.05.045) primary roof Secondary roofs TABLE 48-4 4,P P -e (LOC 48.05.050) COMMERCIAL LAND USE POLICIES OBJECTIVE: TO ENCOURAGE DEVELOPMENT OF COMMERCIAL FACILITIES ADEQUATE TO SATISFY COMMUNITY NEEDS AND TO FOCUS SOCIAL INTERACTION AND COMMUNITY IDENTITY IN CONJUNCTION WITH THOSE COMMERCIAL FACILITIES. GENERAL POLICIES I. The City will encourage development of commercial areas to meet the community's consumer needs. H. The City will plan for a mix of social, cultural, commercial, and governmental activities within commercial centers, so that these centers are attractive community focal points. III. The City will plan for the development of commercial districts scaled in size to the area to be served. IV. The City will assure provision of adequate streets, public facilities and consistent governmental policies, which will encourage private investment in the development of Lake Oswego's commercial centers. V. The City will assure minimal negative impacts of commercial development on adjacent residential areas. Specific Policies For General Policy I: Encourage development of commercial areas to meet the community's consumer needs. The City will: 1. Limit the amount of commercial land to that needed to serve the expected population at full development, in an amount which will: - promote revitalization of existing business districts - provide for proportional increases in commercial space as population increases - encourage investment in new commercial facilities - reduce length and number of vehicle shopping trips - create minimum intrusion into residentially developed neighborhoods 2. Maps for the planned commercial land areas appear on following pages. 3. Encourage more intense land coverage and pedestrian circulation within commercial areas. For General Policy II: Plan for commercial centers as community focal points. The City will: 1. Plan land use patterns which will guide commercial and service activities into groups of establishments, which will be mutually supporting and convenient to the public. 2. Prevent additional strip development along arterials and make provisions for parking, rear access and redevelopmen4 to minimize the negative impact of existing strip development. 3. Adopt design policies which encourage site plans which are in keeping with the general character of the community, and which will make sound healthy business centers. - 97 - 4. Encourage development of tree East End Commercial District and the West End Commercial District as centers of commer;,ia; and social activity and employment opportunities. Encourage a mix of residential, commercial and service activides in commercial centers. 6. Encourage the development of intra -city transportation alternatives (such as mass transit) to serve the commercial centers. For General Policy III: Plan for the development of commercial districts scaled in size to the area served. The City will: Develop Commercial District Policies which outline the objectives, specific policies and strategies which will guide development in each Commercial District, including: East End Business District West End Business District Mt. Park "Town Center" site MonroeBoones Ferry site I-5/Kruse Way Highway Commercial/Kruse Way Campus Research and Development Grimm's Corner Neighborhood Commercial Rosewood Neighborhood Commercial Kruse -North Neighborhood Commercial Other Commercial sites in Mt. Park Include in Commercial District Policies: a. identified service area, where applicable. b. gross leasable sq. ft., building coverage or Floor Area Ratio desirable c. land area designated commercial for full development d. standards to apply to zone changes, include: — necessary on-site circulation pattern — site and building design criteria to fulfill community policies — location criteria for access to sweets and parking and public transportation e. type of activities desirable (e.g. comparison or convenience shopping) Make zone changes subject to conditions which meet the Commercial District Policies, including preservation of the capacity of streets and intersections. For General Policy IV: Encourage private investment in planned commercial centers. The City will: Provide public facilities plans and development policies which will encourage: a. revitalization of the east erd commercial area b. revitalization of the west et:d commercial area c. neighborhood commercial ;;enters which maximize the advantages and minimize the disadvantages of neighbor%ood living adjacent to commercial activity d. development of the "Town (:.enter" site compatible with community goals and street system e, development of highway --nted commercial facilities at I-5 and Kruse Way which are compatible with commun::, goals and street system f. private investment in sha - harking and access facilities - 98 - 2. Provide incentives which encourage developers to renovate and expand existing buildings, compatible with community policies such as: a. decrease on—site parking requirements if equivalent public parking is available. b. re—define landscaping requirement, to include street trees, bike paths, public benches, conversation spots or other publicly desired amenities c. allow waiver of height restrictions when appropriate d. encourage two level parking facilities where appropriate e. revise fire code standards to encourage commercial development in keeping with city revitalization policies as well as safety. 3. Establish a development corporation to encourage continuing vitality in the commercial area. The corporation could: a, enable cooperative planning, problem solving, and investment b. enlist community support c. encourage private investment d. seek public funds (federal, state and local) For General Policy V: assure minimum commercial intrusion on residential areas. The City will: 1. Develop a major street network which minimizes through traffic on neighborhood streets. 2. Locate commercial activity on collector and arterial streets only and consider traffic impacts prior to siting new commercial activities. 3. Design and construct commercial development to minimize the impacts on residential areas from traffic, lights, visual appearance of parking and loading areas, building bulk and height, noise and drainage. Such means as landscaping, berms, fencing, trees, open space, cul—de--sacs, building orientation, lower intensity of commercial uses (e.g., offices) should be utilized. 4. Where feasible, pedestrian and bikeway paths should connect commercial development with adjacent residential areas. Specific Policies SPECIFIC COMMERCIAL DISTRICT POLICIES For General Policy III: Plan commercial districts scaled in size to the area served. In order to assure development of commercial districts in accord with policies set forth in this Plan, Commercial District Policies are defined as Specific Policies to implement the Comprehensive Plan. These specific Commercial District Policies will be implemented by Development Conditions attached to all commercial zone changes, and through Development Conditions attached to Development Review and building Permit approval. Specific Commercial District Policies are outlined for the following Commercial Districts: East End Community Business District and Subarea a. Existing East End Communitv Business District b. Riverfront Subarea (PA 06-36-02-383, 10/17/86) II. Grimm's Comer Neighborhood Commercial District III. Rosewood Neighborhood Commercial District Revised 10/86 IV. West End Community Businer.s District and sub areas: a. Existing West End Business District b. Oakridge Mixed Use Area c. Bryant to Reese, North of Sunset d. Southwest Quadrant of Y --use WayBoones Ferry Intersection e. Office Campus Northwest Quadrant of Kruse WayBoones Ferry Intersection f. East Side of Boones Ferr. Road at Kruse Way V. Highway Commercial District and CR&D, Kruse Way Area: a. Northeast Quadrant b. Bangy Road c. CR&D, South of Kruse VI. Kruse Way North Neighborhood Commercial District VII. Mountain Park Commercial Areas a. Mt. Park Town Center Site b. MonroeBoones Ferry site c. Other Mt. Park commercial and office sites IA. East End Community Business District (PA 06-86-02-383, 10/17/86) Lake Oswego's Central Business District has traditionally been the focal lx)int of the community, as the location of City Hall, commercial shopping, Fire Department, and banking; the Library, Post Office and Adult Community Center have been located near this commercial district, focusing community identity. The streets of this business district have also served as major routes for commuter traffic, to and from Portland. In recent years, traffic congestion has increased, causing problems for neighborhood residents and for business owners. Citizens and City officials have established goals to encourage revitalirabon of the business district, to solve the State Street traffic problem, and to assure the residential living environment of adjacent neighborhoods. To carry out these goals and policies in the East End Community Business District, the City will: Provide for a 5.52 acre expansion of the East End Community Business District. This expansion will be maximum district expansion and will be limited on the north by "C" Street, on the west by the alley between Fifth and Sixth, and include land bounded by Fourth, Evergreen and Third, except that major developments fronting State Street and abutting the Old Town Design District may be allowed necessary minimal expansion to the east, but only in accord with conditions set forth in the Old Town Design District Policies. (PA 5-84-151) Revised 10/86 NEREW East End Commercial District Z. Develop, adopt and implement an East End Business District Revitalization Plan. This action plan will be developed jointly with private business interests, the City, the Chamber of Commerce, and the Lake Oswego Development Corporation and should include: a. steps necessary to prevent deterioration and encourage redevelopment b. methods to implement solutions already proposed in previous studies, both short range solutions to be implemented immediately, and long range solutions c. the involvement of property owners and the City, in stimulation of private investment d, criteria for the intensification of commercial activity in appropriate locations (see Design Standard, Specific Policy 9 and 10) e. a schedule for provisions of needed public improvements, including traffic and parking improvements, pedestrian facilities, street trees f, criteria for re-examination of commercial requirements, should a substantial portion of present commercial iand located east of State Street be eliminated from commercial use, or should industrial area use change g. as re -development occurs on State Street and "A" Avenue, encourage development to re- orient toward alleys and interiors of blocks 3. Plan for adequate delineation of adjacent residential neighborhoods to enhance living environment and neighborhood stability. This includes the following: a. peripheral traffic circulation plan which separates commercial and through traffic from residential neighborhood b. specific land use designations and district boundaries, which specify allowed uses and densities, adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan c. means to provide separation of incompatible uses, which will be developed as conditions of zone change, conditional use, and Development Review approval, such as: i, tree planting, hedges, fences, walls or open space ii. walkways and alleys iii. landscaped parking lots d. restriction of new commercial uses on the west side of Fifth Street and the south side of "C" Street to non—retail commercial e. means to buffer residential properties from the noise, glare and visual appearance of commercial activity (both residential and commercial property owners will be encouraged to use landscaping and site design to screen residential property from commercial activities f, considering commercial uses in residential zones to be nonconforming uses g. see Residential Policies East End Community Business District Through Traffic Routes 4. Develop a peripheral street circulation pattern, to guide shoppers to and from the commercial area and into appropriately sited parking facilities. This circulation pattern will include the following components: a. peripheral street circulation pattern, which will: i. define and limit the commercial district to the squared configuration Ii. allow convenient vehicular access to parking in all areas of commercial district iii. provide uncongested access from the commercial district into through streets iv. include necessary measures to protect neighborhood streets from through traffic V. route southbound to westbound through traffic as follows: west from State into "D" to First, then south to "C", up "C" to Fifth Avenue and south into "A" Avenue (see Through Traffic Routes) 5. Encourage the development of an Interconnecting network of bicycle and pedestrian ways, to encourage shoppers to leave their cars and circulate easily among shops, restaurants, cultural and civic activities. This net%writ could include: — 102 — a. covered walkways and mid -block pedestrian paths where feasible b. alleys as paths, places for benches, outdoor eating, kiosks, and landscaping c. bike racks and lockups, covered where feasible d. sidewalk extensions (using up to eight feet of parking lane at street corners) to decrease street width pedestrians must cross e. stairways or possible elevated streets crossings, to connect adjacent properties which are at different elevations. 6. Develop a traffic engineering plan incorporating appropriately located parking facilities, to assure that State Street can best handle expected future traffic. This plan will include at least the following: a. State Street as a five -lane street with center lane designated as a left turn sanctuary b. traffic signalization system, programmed for maximum flow of traffic on major streets during peak hours c. widening of Oswego Creek Bridge to handle through traffic in each direction d. removal of all parking from State Street e. additional parking lot space of equal the number of spaces removed from State Street, North Shore to "B" Avenue (See Parking Facility Policies, following) f. parking spaces sited conveniently to State Street between: i. "A" and "B" on west side ii. "A" and railroad on west side iii. railroad and North Shore and west side iv. Village Shopping Center and Foothills Road on east side g. continued pursuit of a way to accomplish a grade separation of the railroad at State Street h. negotiations with Southern Pacific, to minimize railroad crossing during peak commuter hours (7-9 a.m.; 3:30-6:00 p.m.) and assure that switching of cars will be accomplished between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. i. a relocation of the access to Foothills Road, as far south of "A" as possible, to provide adequate left turn sanctuary for left tum from State onto "A" Avenue 7. Require adequate parking space to be provided to serve each business and public activity. Businesses will be required to provide such parking either on-site or in shared facilities. The City's role in provision of such facilities will be determined by the Citv_ Council, and may include such actions as the following: a. planning, designing, and approving location b. administration of parking time limits on -street and in municipal facilities, in order to increase the availability of parking for shoppers c. acquisition of land for such facilities d. construction of some public facilities e. arranging financing of such facilities by appropriate means, such as: i. bonds payable out of revenue from said facilities ii, business tax on all properties in the business district iii, local improvement district with assessments on appropriate properties iv, state or federal grants or aid V. general property taxes vi. parking fees or special charges derived from users or commercial enterprises benefited - 103 - Should Council determr, :.hat a Civic and Cultural Center will be located within the East End Community Busine . District, policies to guide its development will be made a part of this Plan. Policies will line criteria to guide development of the center as an integral part of downtown revitalizat ... Criteria should cover: a. location of compone:::s (e.g. City Hall, Police and Fire administrative offices, meeting rooms, City Court, ezaibition space, Library, public parking, etc.) b. size, location, and sitc design c. traffic and pedestriar; circulation d, orientation to the Lake and to commercial activity Public Facilities Element and Capital Improvements Program will outline components, acquisition and development priorities and schedule and methods of financing. 9. Provide design standards which encourage revitalization of the business district, including: a. fire code standards which encourage commercial development in keeping with revitalization policies as well as safety b. height and setback standards to facilitate pedestrian convenience and appropriate site design c. business or floor area standards to encourage more intense use of land, within the limits of available parking. Floor Area Ratio may be increased and on-site parking decreased when provisions are made for customer parking in shared facilities. d. procedures to allow for transfer of development rights between private owners (or other available means) to allow more intense use of certain lands in Mum for public view easements adjacent to the Lake or Lakewood Bay e. standards which encourage: i. combined landscaping projects to protect significant features ii. substitution of significant trees for larger landscaped areas iii. multi -story buildings where compatible iv. mixed uses including handicrafts, housing and cottage businesses V. signs which are adequate to inform potential customers and provide aesthetic appearance vi. joint use and central parking facilities f. implementation of these standards as a condition of zone change and/or Development Review approval. 10. Develop design standards which will improve the social interaction and aesthetics of the commercial district, including requirements for the provision of: a. views of the lake, river, and Mt. Hood (could include open space, roof or other on - building public view points) b. pedestrian orientation to distinctive features, particularly recognizing the aesthetic value of the Lake c. street trees to provide shade and aesthetic relief from concrete and asphalt d. pedestrian walkways (covered where possible) and bikepaths in alleys and walkway easements e. street furniture and landscaped areas situated to encourage people to rest awhile for conversation (could include publicly owned pocket parks) f. lineal parks (could be developed in alleys like court yards, with potted trees and furniture) g. implementation of these standards as a condition of Development Review approval 11. Attach specific conditions to new commercial use approval, where appropriate, to assure that development is in accord with Specific Commercial District Policies. Such commercial use approval include: - 104 - a. zone change b. conditional use and expansion of conditional use c. conversion of a residential structure to commercial use d. development review IB. Riverfront Subarea The Riverfront Subarea located south of Foothills Road and east of State Street along the Willamette River, as shown on the East End Commercial Business District Map, page 101, is well suited to a combination of high intensity uses, residential, commercial, office and retail, including river oriented public open space and major public facilities. The subarea could accommodate a plaza or an esplanade adjacent to the river, providing views and a focal point_ Such a facility, in combination with a variety of commercial/retail/office uses and a residential component, could create an attractive center that would benefit the entire East End Business District. The residential use is intended to be at a high density (R4) with mixed uses allowed either on the first floor or in separate buildings. Physical constraints include access to and traffic capacity of State Street, the City's desire to retain views of Mt. Hood from the business and residential districts to the west, the railroad tracks running through the property, the Willamette River Greenway, steep slopes and the demolition required to clear the site. The unique characteristics of the site include river access and Mt. Hood views, which should be developed in a manner that assures: 1. Public access to the river 2. Protection of Mt. Hood views from 'A' Avenue 3. Opportunities for views of Mt. Hood and the Willamette river from the site 4. Provision for a pathway allowing for a future connection to Tryon Creek and George Rogers parks 5. Public open spaces and major public use facilities The City—owned Roehr Park and old sewage treatment plant are located within this subarea and may provide opportunities for land exchange to secure at least equivalent public neer access within the subarea and to facilitate development_ Residential development may be clustcrcJ to preserve open space while securing views for residents. The on—site improvements will be planned as part of the Overall Development Plan and Schedule (ODPS) that must be approved for the entire 45+ acre site prior to the division of land, or the development of any structure. Any divisions of land related to the State Street Improvement project will be exempted from this provision, GENERAL POLICIES The 45+ acre Riverfront Subarea is designated R--0/GC to allow for a mix of high density residential, commercial, retail and office uses. II. The opportunity for development of at least 500 dwelling units shall be included as the-- residential heresidential component of the Subarea. Revised 10/86 — 105 — III. The Subarea shall be developed only pursuant to an Overall Development Plan and Schedule (ODPS) which will provide for: A. Significant public access to the river, B. Protection of Mt. Hood views from 'A' Avenue and the Bluff, C. Protection of the views of Mc. Hood and Willamette River from the Subarea, D. A future pathway allowing access to public pathways connecting the Subarea to Tryon Creek and George Rogers Parks, E. Major public use facilities such as an esplanade, amphitheater, public square or plaza which provides for connection to and views of the waterfront, F. The reasonable opportunity for development of 500 dwelling units through the allocation of sufficient land for residential purposes to accommodate the units. IV. Roehr Park/old sewage treatment plant acreage may provide opportunities for some land exchange to facilitate private development; however, any such change of ownership will assure at least equivalent public access to the river and public facilities. (PA 06--8642- 383, 10/17/86) II. Grimm's Corner Neighborhood Commercial District Grimm's Corner is a historic neighborhood commercial district located at the intersection of early market roads and a strategic center for the Palisades -South Town area which it serves with gas stations, a grocery, dry cleaners, appliance repair, etc. A variety of more intense uses have developed over the years, including lumber yard. bark dust storage, and bowling alley. Public facilities nearby include the National Guard Armory, Fire Station and tennis courts. Lakeridge High School to the south, generates traffic through this area also. This volume of activity has created traffic congestion and conflicts between uses, which increase as development of the area continues. Grimm's Corners Neighborhood Commercial In order to make possible de• t:opment of commercial and residential property, while providing an intersection which can handle expected traffic, the following policies will direct further development of the commer:..-.: district. Revised 10/86 - 105a - Commercial land use will be extended south into the floor of the quarry, but not south to include properties fronting on Pine Street (approximate 0.7 acre expansion). When the McVey/South Shore intersection is re -designed, the following criteria will be considered: a. adequate travel lanes in each direction on McVey, plus left turn lanes where necessary b. adequate through travel lanes on South Shore, with left and right turns where necessary c. adequate site distance and safe access (in some cases this may require transfer of property or development rights between public right-of-way and private property) d. signalization of intersection e. public transit stop f. pedestrian and vehicle safety g. adequate access to McVey from commercial land. For land southeast of McVey and south of Parrish Street, direct access can be developed: - 105b - i. at the vicinity of Parrish Street ii. opposite South Shore, as part of a signalized intersection di. at least 200 feet south of South Shore intersection h. needs for bikeways, sidewalk, utility, landscaping and access and traffic signals will dictate the design of the street, right-of-way needs and ultimate pavement width New commercial development will provide goods and servi= to serve principally residents of the neighborhood area. 4. Access to McVey Street will be limited, to assure safety of the intersection and convenience for through traffic. a. Land uses and their expected auto trip generation will not exceed the capacity of the intersection as designed. b. Patton access should be realigned. 5. Floor .Area Ratio of new development will not exceed .25 for the site, except in the southeast quadrant, because of unique topographic problems. In that case, more intense use will be limited within the design capacity of the intersection. 6. Bikeway and pedestrian paths should be provided to assure safe passage through the intersecton. These should include: a. sidewalk on both sides of McVey, one side of South Shore b. bike lane on southeast side of McVey and south side of South Shore. c, alternate bike route via Conifer, City -owned open space at Patton, and Oak Street, to bypass the intersection ?. All development or redevelopment will be required to conform to these policies and to pay a pro - rata share of street improvements, commensurate with need created by the development and the benefit gained, and to dedicate adequate right -.of -way to make these improvements possible. (The public will assume some responsibility for a pro -rata share. See Definitions and Transportation Element.) 8. City -owned Douglas fir grove north of Laurel, adjacent to the Patton Street right-of-way, should be maintained as a natural area, with benches and a bikeway -pedestrian trail along the streamway, as a focal point for neighborhood commercial district. 9. Adjacent residential neighborhood will be protected from the negative effects of commercial activity. Methods include: a. Pedestrian/Bikeway only should connect commercial area at Hemlock, for neighborhood convenience. b. Redesign of the intersection should discourage through traffic into neighborhood. c. Conditioning redevelopment of quarry area to eliminate the truck traffic and bark dust operation, in favor of more compatbile uses d. Encouraging both commercial and residential property owners to provide structural and landscape barriers to separate incompatible uses in. Rosewood Neighborhood Commercial District The Rosewood Neighborhood Commercial District serves an approximately 1.3 square mile residential area and a portion of the adjacent industrial area, with convenience goods and services. Commercial activity includes drugs, groceries, florist, fast food and office space. Within five blocks of a junior high and an elementary school, Rosewood Center serves many bike and pedestrian shoppers. The site is significant as the location of a distinctive grove of fir crew, valued by residents, as well as a meeting place at the center of a largely developed single-family ne:.uhborhood. The surrounding 1.3 square mile area can be expected to grow to approximately 6,000 people at full development. Rosewood Neighborhood Commercial District Commercial development in this area should be designed to assure the following: Uncongested streets with safe intersections and adequate parking. 2. Total commercial use in the area to be within the traffic carrying capacity of adjacent streets. 3. Shared access away from intersections, and redesign and straightening of some intersections. 4. Safe access by bike riders and pedestrians. 5. Protection of the Douglas fir grove and significant trees in parking lots. 6. A neighborhood commercial area, providing goods and services for residents of the immediate area, and scaled as a part of that neighborhood with a FAR not to exceed .25. 7. A minimum amount of impermeable surface, and adequate storm drainage management. IV -A. West End Business District Specific Commercial District Policies will guide development in the Lake Grove area to support businesses and new investment, to satisfy community needs, to encourage social interaction, to provide for proper vehicle access and to protect neighborhood living environment. The City will: 1. Limit the amount of new commercial land area in the Lake Grove area to an appropriate portion of Planning Area need. The City will plan for local needs, not for regional draw retail facilities. 2. Provide for pedestrian, bike, and auto traffic to connect new mixed use and commercial areas to the existing commercial district. This circulation should: a. prevent isolation and/or deterioration of the existing commercial areas b. encourage private development of a "village shopping center" in Lake Grove 3. Provide Specific Commercial District Policies for sub -areas of the West End Commercial District, to guide Zone Change, Development Review, and Building Permit approval. - 107 - Plan for a rear access and parking configuration on both sides of the current strip commercial development., to promote: a, more intense use of deep lots fronting Boones Ferry b. viability of the existing commercial center, so it can be redeveloped to remain competitive c. modification of the negative effects of existing strip development d. vehicle access constructed in a manner which protects adjacent neighborhood living environment e. preservation of neighborhood residential property values f. foot traffic within the commercial and neighborhood area Encourage private development of: a. joint -use parking facilities b. land uses with size, floor area, and traffic generation compatible with the district's access and adjacent uses buildings with height and setback standards compatible with the district d. aesthetically pleasing entry into Lake Grove at Kruse Way and Boones Ferry Road e. street trees to provide shade and aesthetic relief from concrete and asphalt F, preservation of significant Lees as a subsutute for larger landscaped areas tAKt GROVE AVEN HR - Ccnefil C0n.mcrCia� Commercial/M Residential MILCd Use Ares Westend Commercial District g. combined landscaping protects of significant size h. buffer system which separates adjacent residential uses from noise, traffic and congestion i. bike racks j. pedestrian walkways and 'bike paths in alleys and walkway easements k. altemate surfacing materials for parking areas which encourage on-site water retention, softened visual impact, noise absorption, etc. 1. each property's share of connecung pathways to parks, recreation, shopping, work, parking m. sleet furniture and landscaped areas situated to encourage people to rest awhile for conversation in pleasant surroundings - 108 - Plan for adequate protection for residentially developed neighborhoods to enhance neighborhood living environment, and neighborhood stability. This protection will include: a. specific land use designations and district boundaries, with allowed uses and densities specified, and adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan. Structural boundaries will be planned and developed as conditions of development approval (i.e. street endings, structural buffers, tree planting, hedges, walkways, or other means to develop a permanent separation of incompatible uses) b, buffeting of residential properties from the noise, glare, and traffic congestion of the adjacent commercial area c. encouraging residential property owners to provide trees and significant vegetation on their property, and other means to buffer their property from commercial areas Provide incentives for private investment in compatible mixed uses, which will bring residents to the West End Business District during days and evenings for social or recreational purposes as well as to shop. Such incentives could include: a. revision of zoning code to allow additional approved uses in commercial areas, such as residential care facilities, apartments, handicraft industry, recreation facilities b. construction of safe bike and pedestrian routes. Encourage development of adequate access and parking facilities. a. On—street parking will be prohibited from collectors, arterials, and local streets which are not wide enough to safely afford parking, vehicle travel, and turning refuge. Adequacy of a street to handle on—street parking will be determined by the Planning Commission, with analysis by Public Works and Planning Departments. b. All parking demand created by new structures or uses, additions to existing structures or uses, and change of use in existing structures shall be accommodated on the premises entirely off— street or in shared parking facilities. c. Required parking spaces for each business may be reduced, if: i. business shares a parking lot with a use which has peak use at a different time of day ii. public parking is provided within walking distance adequate to meet the parking need thus created. iii. business shares construction costs of bikeway serving the property. d. Encourage provision of ac;,ess and/or parking facilities which aid in decreasing the number of direct access points on arterials. The City's role in provision of such access or facilities will be determined by the City Council in accord with Oregon Law (including ORS 223.105; 223,805--880; 281.510) and may include the following: i, grant permission for private construction and provision of such facilities ii. plan, design, and locate parking facilities iii. construct, alter or maintain such facilities iv, contract with any person, firm, or corporation for such services V. acquisition of such facilities by lease, purchase, condemnation, exchange or other lawful manner vi. make possible financing of such facilities: — by bonds payable out of revenue from said facilities — by local improvement district with assessments on appropriate properties — by state or federal grants or aid — by general property taxes — by parking fees or special charges from users or commercial enterprise benefited Protect the function and service level of Boones Ferry Road as an arterial street. a. Use of off-street parking spots for businesses located on the arterial shall not require backing into the public way. b. There shall be no more than one point of access to the arterial per 155 feet of street frontage. If necessary to meet this requirement, users shall arrange for shared access. (Existing uses will be encouraged to meet this standard.) 0. Businesses providing for rear access to another street may be granted the right to more intense lot coverage, waiver of height restncuon, variance from appropriate setbacks, or decrease in landscaping requirement, if compatible with adjacent properties and necessary to the public welfare. 10. Protect the function and service level of Kruse Way as an arterial: a. All access to Kruse Way will be planned to serve the adjacent properties while minimizing the frequency and severity of traffic conflicts. b. Aesthetic natural entry into Lake Grove from Kruse Way will be preserved. c. Access points already designated by Clackamas County may be the basis for the street planning which may provide shared access at these points. Land owners will be required to plan for frontage roads or unified site and street plans which implement the City's Transportation Plan. d. Should comprehensive traffic analysis and site planning indicate a need to alter Kruse Way ingress or egress patterns, the City will plan such access, and the City Council will seek County implementation of adopted plan. e. Property owners will pay for street improvements, traffic controls, and public facilities necessary to their development (including intersections). IV -B. Oakridge Mixed Use Sub Area The Oakndge area is a planned commercial and residential area served by Quarry, Oakridge, and Boones Ferry. it is an expansion of the existing commercial district, and as such should be developed in a manner which assures: a. revitalization of the adjacent businesses on Boones Ferry by improving traffic circulation, parking access, and pedestrian circulation b, proper vehicle access and stre--t design C. pedestrian paths and bikeways which connect Waluga Park, Lake Grove School, and the commercial district to the residential areas to the west d. shared parking and street access where possible, to relieve traffic congestion e, protection of adjacent residential areas from the noise and bright lights of commercial activity f, proper vehicle, pedestrian and bike access to the Post Office at Oakridge and Boones Ferry g. equitable sharing of the costs of necessary streets and public facilities h, preservation of major trees in the area. The commercial area bounded by Bryant, Boones Ferry, Reese, and the pedestrian easement north of Sunset will share a rear access connecting parking lots to Bryant and Reese Roads, to provide relief of traffic congestion on Boones Ferry. IV -C. Bryant to Reese, North of Sunset Commercial properties in this area will It developed in a manner which assures: a. access of each property to an internal access route from Bryant to Reese Roads. This route should not be developed as a straight Lh.ough high speed road but should meander through connected parking areas. - 110 - b. access to Bryant ata point opposite the Lake Grove Shopping Center, between 300-330 feet south of Boones Ferry C. access to Reese at a point opposite Lake Grove Street d. more intense use of deep lots between the six-foot pedestrian easement and lots fronting Boones Ferry Road e, careful building location, structural buffets, trees and shrubs to minimize the negative impacts on adjacent residential area f. separation of commercial and residential uses along the line of the pedestrian easement g, protection of Sunset from through traffic h, convenient pedestrian and bikeway access from residential areas at Bryant and Reese i. a decrease in the number of direct access points ,o Boones Ferry j, effective site development, with appropriate variances granted to assure the access, parking, circulation and site features outlined in these policies k. preservation of the major trees, by such means as setbacks, clustering of structures, protection of root systems IV -D. Southwest Quadrant of Kruse WaviBoones Ferry Intersection The Southwest Quadrant at Kruse Way/Boones Ferry is an area planned for residential and commercial uses to meet a variety of community needs in an area with good access to arterials, mass transportation and diverse public facilities, including wooded open space, school, park, post office and the Lake Grove Swim Park. The commercial uses are intended to serve local, as opposed w regional shoppers. This area is an expansion of the existing Lake Grove Commercial District, and as such should be developed in a manner which assures: 1. Designation of approximately 20 acres of commercial use south of Kruse Way and north of Collins Way, and approximately three acres of commercial land use between Lake Grove School and Collins Way. Residential development is appropriate within the commercial area, particularly in the westerly portion of Tax Lots 1300 and 2200 of Tax Map 2 lE 8BC Supplemental and Tax Lots 2000 - 2200 of Tax Map 2 IE 8BB. Any building over 20,000 sq. ft. shall occur north and east of Mercantile Drive. 2 Preservation of the capacity of Kruse Way and Boones Ferry to carry projected through traffic and to provide adequate access for all planned land uses in the vicinity of the intersection. 3. Proper location of access points and an internal circulation system which provides for vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle movement. a. The City will determine the location of access points and prepare a circulation plan to meet the needs of all development within the quadrant, prior to zone changes. b. The City will vacate the necessary street segments to provide for internal circulation and site plans. c. The preferred internal circulation route design should be integrated with parking areas rather than as a separate street. 4. Limited access to Kruse Way and Boones Ferry. 5. Principal access to residential development from Galewood. 6. Connection by pedestrian ar i bicycle paths with the residential areas, and to the rest of the Lake Grove Commercial District, vith safe passage across Kruse Way to the office campus development to the north. 7. Appropriate dedication of n( -essary rights-of-way to provide for traffic projected for Boones Ferry, Kruse Way, Douglas. ,Tresham, Galewood and Quarry. 8. payment of a pro -rated shag :)f costs of streets, traffic control improvements (i.e., intersections and signals) and necessary ; its -of -way, parking, bikeways and pedestrian ways, by property developments creating the : -d for those facilities. 9, Preservation of the quality of lif, , in the single-family residential area to the west, particularly by the landscaping and placement ouildings and parking areas. 10. Building area or Floor Area Ratic,s may be designated as necessary to limit vehicle trip generations within the capacity o: adjacent streets. 11. Preservation of major trees, sui : TV—F. Office/Residential Mixed Use Area — East Side of Boones Ferry at Kruse Way The area on the east side of Boones Ferry Road between the existing commercial district zone boundary and Spring Lane is designated as a mixed use Office Campus and R-3 density residential area. Low intensity Deleted 12/28/82 This designation permits Office Campus uses or residential structures in portions of this district which lie between Springbrook Creek and Boones Ferry Road. Land in this district which lies east of the Creek is to be used solely for residential uses in accord with the residential policies and Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan. 1228/82 Development in this district will be required to: a. utilize a rear access route on Red Cedar Way, Division Street, Boones Way and Spring Lane with no driveway access allowed on Boones Ferry Road b. dedicate the necessary right—of—way to connect Division Street to Bermes Way and dedicate needed right—of—way on Boones Ferry Road. C. develop each parcel with mixed use potential under unified site plarLS to assure adequate access, circulation, parking and screening d, protect the Spnngbrook Creek stream corridor and its deep ravine from development encroachment e. take access only onto the rear access route described in a., above and not onto Twin Fir Road f, preserve major trees, with an effort to maintain wooded character g, allow mixed uses within buildings on the west side of Springbrook Creek h. dedication or acquisition of right—of—way east of Boones Ferry and Kruse Way intersection will be arranged prior to development. Land is necessary for a future additional left turn lane from Kruse Way north into Boones Ferry. — 113 — I-SINE Kruse Commercial District V-A. Highway Commercial District I-5 and Kruse Way Northeast Quadrant The northeast quadrant of the I-5 and Kruse Way intersection has been designated for highway oriented commercial land uses. This area is separated by slope and major trees from residential lands to the east, thereby protecting residential areas from the traffic congestion of such a commercial district. The site of this Commercial District includes two streamway ravines and associated wet areas, one on the north edge and one across the lower third of the site. For this reason, the 35 -acre site has been designated for 20 gross acres of commercial activity, which will allow landscaping, protection of streamways and major trees to occur in the remaining 15 acres. Commercial activity at this location should be designed in a manner which assures: a. a highway oriented commercial district, with minimal disruption of adjacent residential areas b. a limit on the intensity of commercial activity on this site, to an amount which preserves the capacity of Kruse Way and the I-5 intersection for other public and private uses outlined in the Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan C. one access point to Kruse Way, preferably east of a point 1500 feet from the Bangy Road intersection d, payment of costs of streets, street improvements, intersections, necessary rights-of-way, parking, bikeways and pedestrian ways by property development creating the need for those facilities e. Planning and Development Review procedures which assure: i. adequate vehicle access and street design ii. protection of adiacent residential areas from the noise, bright lights and air pollution of commercial activity iii. protection of the stream corridors, as major functioning parts of basin wide storm drainage system and as aesthetic features at the entry way into the Lake Oswego area V -B. Highway Commercial District Bangy Road and I-5 Highway oriented commercial activities and gas stations have located over the years along Interstate -5, with access via Bangy Road to Kruse Way and 1-5. As the lands to the north and east of Bangy Road develop, an increasing number of vehicles will use the Bangy Road/Kruse Way intersection, including industrial traffic from Tigard and Lake Oswego industrial areas, north and southbound to I-5. -114- 'These specific policies apply to the area south of Kruse Way, west of Bangy and south of Kruse Way and east of Bangy for approximately 1700 feel T he area includes the 'Liberty Park' project approved by Clackamas County and additional area south of that project. (12/18/85 -PA 4,5.6-85) Commercial development in this area should be planned to assure: a. minimum congestion on Bangy Road which must serve through traffic b. minimum number of vehicle accesses from commercial development C. no on -street parking on Bangy Road, Kruse Way, Meadows Road or Bonita Road (12(18185 -PA - 4,5,6 -85) d. adequate off -sweet parking for commercial uses e, adequate varying setbacks, landscaping and signage and major vee preservation to provide safe sigh[ distance and atrracuve boulevard like setting (12/18/85 -PA -4,5,645) f. appropriate dedication of righ[-of-.vay along Bangy and Bonita Roads, to accommodate road widening necessary for full development of the area. g. Require parking areas to be screened from view from Kruse Way. h. Encourage employers to provide employee incentives for the use of public transit such as: - providing bus shelters and turnouts - mass transit fare reimbursement programs - providing preferred reserved spaces for car pool parking - posting transit route and scheduling information Traffic generation will be limited so as not to exceed the planned capacity of the surrounding public street system. Encourage major employers on the site to schedule shifts so as to reduce peak hour traffic congestion when feasible. (1'2118/85 - PA 4,5,6-85) Sow 1-5/Bangy Commercial District - ,15 - V -C. Kruse Way Campus Research and Development District. These specific district policies will assure the Kruse Way Campus Research and Development District develops in a manner consistent with the City's General Commercial land Use Policies as well as other Comprehensive Plan elements. The policies are categorized under General Site Development and Design, and Traffic and Circulation. General Site Development & Design Policies. a. Development intensity will be limited to that allowed under the Buttke Kruse Way Corridor Transportation Program (1983). b. Development of the distract will occur through the use of a unified general site plan. The unified general site plan will be required and will include: 1. A general internal circulation plan for the overall site. 2. A general plan for adequate drainage and all utilities needed to serve the site. 3. Consideration of the site development and design policies in the Comprehensive Plan. 4. Development intensities. The unified general site plan could be approved as part of a -none change, subdivision or planned development for the site. If desired, property owners or developers could submit a unified general site plan for approval apart from these three specific types of applications. c. Benefitted property owners will be required to pay costs for installation of all public utilities, with City financial participation in oversizing. d. Major allowed uses in the Kruse Way Campus Research and Develc?ment District will include: 1. light manufacturing, assembly uses 2. research, experimental and testing laboratories 3. general office 4. retail commercial SPA 6-88-615, 11-16-88) 5, recreation facilities e. Require landscaping and preservation of existing vegetation to assure a park -like setting will be maintained. Traffic and Circulation Policies f. Limit the number of access points to the minimum necessary, consistent with efficient traffic circulation, and assure access points are coordinated with the City's Major Streets Plan and Transportation Policies. g. Require a complete and efficient internal circulation system with adequate access to all development portions of the site. - 115a - h. Require parking areas to be screened from view from Kruse Way. i. Provide adequate parking, loading and maneuvering space for employees, visitors, and trucks. j. Encourage employers to provide employee incentives for the use of public transit such as: - providing bus shelters and turnouts - mass transit fare reimbursement programs - providing preferred reserved spaces for carpool parking - posting transit route and scheduling information k. Streets should be designed to accommodate large trucks. 1. Traffic generation will be limited so as not to exceed the planned capacity of the surrounding public street system. M. Encourage major employers on the site to schedule shifts so as to reduce peak hour traffic congestion when feasible. VI Kruse - North Neighborhood Commercial District A residential area is planned for the 1 -34 -acre area north of Kruse Way, bounded by Melrose Street and properties fronting Fosberg Road and Carman Drive. A neighborhood commercial center of three acres or less is planned to serve this residential area, located centrally within the residential area, not on Kruse Way. This neighborhood commercial center should be designed to assure: location of not more than 35,000 square feet of retail commercial activity, to serve the shopping needs of the adjacent residential areas shared access points on collector streets and a unified site plan for the three acre site, to assure internal circulation and to prevent traffic congestion on residential streets development standards which encourage private development in accord with: — height and setback compatible with the district and adjacent residential areas — structural and vegetation buffers to separate adjacent residential areas from noise, traffic and congestion — pedestrian walkways, bikeways and safe bike storage, providing a convenient safe alternative to auto travel — street furniture and landscaped areas situated to encourage social interaction — shared parking facilities and walkways to encourage pedestrian circulation throughout the site. Parking lots should be designed with adequate trees and landscaping, in accord with Air Quality and Quiet Environment Elements of this Plan. — public transit service. Mt. Paris Commercial Distri(I VII. Mountain Park Commercial Areas The areas designated as "General Commercial" in the development ordinance for Mountain Park Planned Unit Development (Ordinance No. 1411) are redesignated as Neighborhood Commercial, to ensure that retail commercial uses principally serve the residents of Mountain Park. The City will assure that, in accordance with the policies in VII -A, VII -B and VII -C, below specifically defined maximum building area limits for commercial land uses are established. Neighborhood Commercial in Mountain Park may provide for a range of retail, personal services, restaurant and cultural uses. Offices may provide for professional business services, financial, institutional and other uses. VII -A. Town Center Site (PA 149-713; 10-04-89) 1. The 32 -acre Town Center site is designated for a mix of high-density (D), residential and retail commercial uses. The following maximum intensities will apply: a. Up to 492 residential dwelling units. b. Up to a total of 40,000 sq. ft. of retail space. 2. Pedestrian access to the site should be provided for to encourage walking from adjacent residential areas. 3. Development will pay a pro -rated share of the costs of improving Kerr Parkway and providing traffic signaliration which shall be required because of Town Center generated traffic. VII -B. MonroeiBoones Ferry Site (PA 3-92; 10-08-92) 1. The 13 acre site is designated for retail and office commercial uses. The overall building area on the site shall not exceed 131,535 sq. ft. The site development plan approved as part of the PUD should be revised to permit commercial uses which would be appropriate for present needs for types of commercial uses. 2. Pedestrian access should be provided. 3. Development will pay a pro -rated share of the cost of improvements to Boones Ferry Road, and providing traffic signalization which may be required because of traffic generated from the site. 4. On-site drainage retention may be required, as feasible, to protect Springbrook Creek. VII -C. Other Mt. Park Commercial Sites 1. The following sites are designated neighborhood commercial: i. Two parcels on Touchstone (± 1 acre each) ii. Parcel on Kerr Road across from Portland Community College (+ 2.5 acres) iii. Parcel on Jefferson Parkway at its intersection with the proposed Kingsgate Street L 1 acre) iv. Parcel on Jefferson Parkway adjacent to Mt. Park Recreation Center (+ 2 acres) (Rev. 0742-93; ba) S O Q. ki Industrial Land Use Policy Elommt- BACKGROUND I WQWT ION Industrial land uses have existed In Lake Oswego all through its history. They originally developed on the Willamette River where proximity to water transportation attracted heavy Industry such as Iron smelting and now cement production. Light Industrial land use developed relatively late In Lake Oswego'; hl story. In the early 1960's, a IIght Industrial park zone was established by the City on Boones Ferry Road, adjacent to 1-7. Despite this expansion of Industrial zoning, Industrial development remains a relatively Insignificant part of Lake Oswego's overall character. Since 1970, the City's residentlel growth has outpaced any other type of development, and Lake Oswego has become a suburban residential community with few local employment opportunities. In examining Its future through comprehensive planning, the City found major adverse fiscal effects woul occur if future growth were solely residential. The high per unit cost of public services for low dens) residential development and the failure of such development to supply adequate revenues are the causes o this situation. This finding led citizen task forces, Planning Commission, and City Council to conclude that additional industrial development would be desirable. Analysis also showed that public policies aro needed to improve existing Industrial developments In order to maintain and enhance their value. Summary of Major Issues issues related to industrial land use which were resolved through the comprehensive planning process Include: -- Could Lake Oswego's future growth include.•additional industrial development in order to counteract adverse fiscal effects of residential growth? -- Could additional employment opportunities be provided In the Lake Oswego area to help reduce commuting distances for future residents? -- Could additional area be designated for industrial development without degrading environmental quality in the community? -- Could the City take actions to encourage improvements in existing industrial areas? aummary of Major Conclusions The industrial land use policies are a product of extensive analysis by city staff, recommendstlons of a citizen task force, and review and modification by the City Council. The emphasis on Incresslnq the amount of Industrial development represents a major shift In previous development policies for Lake Os Conclusions reached In this process Include: - Additional Industrial development is needed to help balance the fiscal effects of the community's growth. - Light Industrial park development can have a positive aesthetic and economic Impact on the coamunity while also not overburdening the transportation system - Suitable locations for a planned Industrial park development exist in the Kruse Way Corridor. - Specific city actions are needed In the existing Lake Grove Industrial Park to stimulate improvement upgrading, and code compliance. -119- L.O. Comp. Plan/113Z Summary of Supporting Documents The following list includes supporting documents related directly to the development of the Industrial land use policies. For a complete bibliography, refer to supporting documentation. Lake Oswego Community Goals, 1974 Industrial Task Force Report, 1976 Fiscal Impacts of Urban Development in Lake Oswego, (preliminary findings), 1976. Minutes from Public Meetings of Industrial Task Force, 1976 Lake Oswego Populatlon Study, 1976 0OJECTIVE TO ENCOURAGE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT COMPATIBLE WITH THE COMMUNITY IN ORDER TO INCREASE LOCAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES AND MAINTAIN A HEALTHY LOCAL. ECONOMY. GENERAL POLICIES: I. The City will encourage environmentally compatible industrial development located in visually attractive structures In landscaped settings. II. The City will encourage Industrial development by assuring that adequate streets, utilities and public services exist to serve existing and proposed Industrial areas. III. The City will encourage industrial development by establishing clear, concise and unified development standards In order to minimize time for processing development applications. IV. Tho City will encourage Industrial development by designating industrial park arses In appropriate locations In the Comprehensive Plan. Specific Policies FOR GENERAL.. POLICY is Encourage environmentally compatible Industrial development. � The City will: I. Establish specific district policies for each industrial district to accommodate the w 1pw conditions existing in each and use these speci+ic district policies as conditions 'or actual development approval. These areas are: a. Lake Grove Industrial Park b. Wlllarnette River Industrial District (Specific Policy c deleted 12/18/85) 2. Assure compliance with local, state and federal standard for noise, water quality, air quality, fire hazards, material storage and screening. 3. Initiate a program of code enforcement for all existing Industrial areas to Improve the areas' aesthetic quality and protect individual Investments In buildings and landscaping. 4. Establish methods assuring the continued care and maintenance of buildings and grounds in the City's industriol areas. 5. Establish ordinances enabling the City to monitor and control impacts from changes or expansions in use in industrial districts. 6. Require all manufacturing operations In Industrial parks to be conducted within an enclosed bullding. -120- L.O. Comp. Plan/113z/51 7. Work with property owners in the Willamette River Industrial Area, In the event any major plant closures occur during the next 20 years, to plan in advance for a transition In land use that is: ( a. Economically feasible for the industrial property owners, and b. Compatible with the City's long range plans for the East End Business District B. Plan adequate storm water runoff management systems and facllitles In lndustrlal dlstrlcts and require developments to conform to city storm drainage policies. 9. Require exterlor lighting in Industrial districts to be designed so as not to shine beyond property lines adjacent to residential zones. 10. Require all outdoor storage in industrial parks to be screened from public view. 11. Require preservation of major tree stands wherever feasible. FOR GENERAL POLICY It: Encourage Industrial development by assuring adequate streets, utilities and public services. The City will: I. Place high priority on water system improvements which wlII assure adequate water volumes and pressure for the City's existing and proposed industrial areas. 2. Develop and implement a detailed Lake Grove Industrial Park Improvement program in conjunction with property owners. 3. Assure timely completion of the Boones Ferry widening project and integrate this improvement with the local circulation system In Lake Grove industrial Park. (Specific Policy 4 deleted 12/18/85 -PA 4-85) FOR GENERAL POLICY III: Encourage lndustrlal development by establishing clear development standards to minimize time for processing development applications. The City will: I. Refine design guidelines for Industrial park areas to clarify requirements for development review approval. (See Strategies for General Policy 1) 2. Assist Industrial park development proposals in obtaining DEQ indirect source permits. 3. Work cooperatively with individual Industrial park development proposals to assist In complying with city and state regulations. 4. Review and revise all regulations affecting industrial development in the city and assure they are clear, concise and equitably enforced. -121- L.O. Comp. Plan/I13z/56 FOR GENERAL. POLICY IV: Encourage industrial development by designating new industrial park areas in appropriate locations in the Comprehensive Plan. The :Ity will: i. Expand the existing Lake Grove Industrial Park in a manner compatible with neighboring residential areas. (Recommended expansion is shown on map below.) 2. Require the new Kruse Way Industrial Park to be developed consistent with unified overall plan. Proposals for individual parcel development will not be considered prior to city approval of an overall plan for the total site. This overall plan will include, but not be limited to stream protection, internal circulation Dian, and preservation of major open spaces. (Speciflc Policy 2 deleted and 3 renumbered 12/18/85 -PA 4-85) Spec!fic Policies Spec`flc Industrial District Policies. FOR GENERAL POLICY I: Encourage environmentally compatible industrial development. The following three sets of specific district policies wll! guide development in the existing and proposed Industrial districts in the Lake Oswego Urban Service Area. Each district has unique uoncltlons, thus individual policies are needed for each. Lake Grove Industrial Park District -122- -..0. Comp. Plan/113x/57 I. Lake Grove Industrial Park District Policies a. Realign the Jean RoadB oones Ferry Road intersection as part of the Boones Ferry Road widening project to assure adequate truck turning radius. b. Initiate measures to solve circulation and drainage problems, enchance the area's general appearance, and Identify the southwestern entrance to the City. c. Preserve major stands of trees where feasible. d. Encourage developments on small parcels to develop shared access with adjacent parcels wherever feaslble. e. Assure adjacent residential areas are protected from adverse effects of industrial activities and land use. f. Revise the existing "IP Zone" statutes in the Lake Oswego Code to require: -- compliance with the currently adopted noise performance standards and regulations of the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. -- levels of maintenance of buildings and grounds. Willamette River Industrial District 2. Willamette River Industrial District Policies a. Investigate feasib111ty of moving the Foothills Road/State Street Intersection further south to reduce traffic conflicts with the existing railroad crossing. b. Require all proposed changes in use or expansions in use to provide the City with information on existing and projected truck and auto traffic levels. c. Work with property owners to determine feasibility of a proposed trail along the Willamette River from Tryon Creek to George Rogers Park. d. Encourage general improvement of the area's visual quality. (See Willamette River Greenway, Natural Resource policies). e. Investigate possibility of new or alternative access points to the Willamette River Industrial District. f. Coordinate future planning for the East End Business District with the development In Willamette River Industrial Area. i:ruse Way Industrial Park District Policies and map deleted 12/18/85 -PA -4,5,6-85) -123- L.O. Comp. Plan/113z/58 Appendix 50.16-A Lake Oswego Resource Areas Report and ESEE Analysis, dated April 1, 1997, as revised on July 15, 1997. On file with the Lake Oswego Community Planning Department TABLE 4$*- (LOC 48.17.105) DELINEATING STREAM CORRIDORS _r Methods for Establishing Stream Corridor Boundaries. The stream corridor shall be delineated in the field by a qualified professional and surveyed by a registered professional surveyor. Stream corridor' boundary maps shall then be prepared by a registered professional land surveyor or engineer, and verified as accurate by the Planning Director. In order to establish the exact location and width of an inventoried stream corridor, one of the following methods described below shall be applied, depending on the nature of the terrain adjacent to the stream. 1. Flatland Stream Corridor. The stream corridor boundary shall be either, 10 feet as measured from each side of the centerline of the stream, or the edges of the stream channel, whichever is greater. Refer to Figures A, and A,. 2. Streams with associated Wetlands. The stream corridor boundary shall include delineated wetlands of which any part is within or abutting the stream corridor. Refer to Figure B. 3. Streams with associated Ravines or Steen Slopes. The stream corridor boundary shall include associated ravines and steep slopes up to the "natural slope break" at the top of the ravine or steep slope. The "natural slope break" is at the intersection of the plane of the flat land at the top of the ravine and the plane of the steep slopes of the ravine. Refer to Figure C. 4. Streams with Tonouanhic Variations. Topographic variations are areas where the topographic contour of the site has been altered to the due to natural processes or by human activity. These may include slides, slumps, local depressions, cuts, or fills. When such an alteration has obscured the definable stream corridor boundary, the stream corridor boundary shall then be defined by connecting clearly definable stream corridor boundary points from upstream and downstream of the altered area utilizing the methodology in No. 3 above. Refer to Figures D, and DZ. (Ord. No. 2148; 06117/97.) O� irw �O Streom Corridor 10' 10' Buffer FLATLAND STREAMS Edge of Channel Figure A, (NO WETLANDS, FLOOD PLAINS, OR STEEP SLOPES) Stream Corridor -" n, rf„r 10, t'- 10, Buffer Figure A 2 FLA TLA ND S TREA MS 1--dge of Channel (NO WETLANDS, FLOOD PLAINS, OR STEEP SLOPES) VN V oir rMIA01f I& Buffer Wetland Edge of -- Channel Buffer Figure B STREAMS WITH ASSOCIATED WETLANDS Buffer Stream Corridor Buffer -I Natural Slope Break Plane of Flat land Natural Slope Break 09 q 6 _ SPP a`� S1 Cf. a O l i TI Figure C STREAMS WITH RAVINE'S OR STE'E'P SLUFF ' S STREAMS WITH TOPOGRAPHIC VARIATIONS STREAMS WITH c=� O Lo O TOPOG - Defineable Downstream Point "Projection of Clearly Deflneable Stream Corridor Boundary Points From Upstream and Downstream" Definea�le Upstream Point Figure D 2 RAPHIC VARIATIONS b, L41171010 ;;fo. fj_Ate TABLH 4 (LOC 48.20.330► VISION CLEARANCE TRIANGLE —` VIIION C46ANANCL 011 iA IIC[ ,_I -- LOO[ OF FVI/t, OR ONIVINO ION/ACL n - n i VIIIOM----$-----VIOIOM TNIANOLLL s CLLANANCt 011 TANCL • • N J LODS ;A20_- TABLE ;A' -C9, 9S - Minimum Off -Street Parking Space Requirements* Type of Use (A) Residential (1) Single-family dwelling and duplex (2) Secondary dwelling unit (3) Multi -family (i) Studio/Efficiency (ii) 1 Bedroom (iii) 2 or more Bedrooms (4) Rooming and boarding house; Bed and Breakfast (B) Commercial Residential (1) Hotel or Motel (2) Assisted living facility (3) Hospital (C) Places of Public Assembly Parking Spaces Required 1 space per dwelling unit 1 space per unit (in addition to 1 space required for main dwelling unit) Twenty-five percent (25%) of the required parking for multi -family use shall be located to provide for common or visitor use 1 space per unit 1.25 spaces per unit 1.5 spaces per unit I space per each guest room plus one for owner 1 space per unit 0.5 space per unit plus one per three employees 1.5 spaces per bed (1) Churches, clubs, lodges, meeting rooms 1 space per 4 seats of maximum and auditoria capacity, or 1 space for each 5 occupants based on maximum capacity as calculated under the provisions of the Uniform Building Code (2) Library, reading room, museum, art gallery (3) Nursery, day or child care facility, kindergarten Table 7.1, Off -Street Parking Requirements • Revised. 9/97 Page I of 4 1.88 spaces per 1,000 square feet plus one space per two employees on the peak shift 2.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet G.F.A. (4) Elementary or middle school, or equivalent private or parochial school (5) Senior high and equivalent private or parochial school (6) College; Commercial school for adults (7) Schools such as martial arts, music, dance, gymnastics (D) Commercial Amusements (1) Stadium, arena, theater (2) Bowling alley 16.6 spaces per 1,000 square feet G.F.A. in the auditorium or 2 spaces per classroom, whichever is greater .2 space per number of students and staff 3 spaces per 1,000 square feet G.F.A. (excluding dorms) 1 space per 100 square feet G.F.A. of lesson activity floor area plus .5 space per employee 1 space/4 seats (fixed seating) 3 spaces per lane plus .5 space per employee (3) Sports club/Recreation facilities, ? spaces per 1,000 square feet G.F.A including billiard and pool parlors, video arcades, dance hall, gymnasium, health club (E) Commercial (1) Office, including business and 3.33 spaces per 1,000 square feet management services, except medical or G.F.A. dental (2) Medical and Dental Offices or clinics 3.9 spaces per 1,000 square feet G.F.A. including accessory laboratories for medicine, dentistry, veterinarian practice or other practices of the healing arts (3) Bank (4) Supermarket (5) Convenience food store (6) Specialty food stores, such coffees, bagels, juice bars (Take-out food/drink primarily) (7) Eating or drinking establishment Table 7. 1, Off -Street Parking Requirements - Revised, 9/97 Page 2 of 4 2.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet G.F.A. 2.9 spaces per 1,000 square feet G.F.A. 2.2 spaces per 1,000 square feet G.F.A. 6.6 spaces per 1,000 square feet G.F.A. 13.3 spaces per 1,000 square feet G.F.A. (8) Eating or drinking establis"IMent with 9.9 spaces per 1,000 square feet G.F.A. drive up window (9) Barber shop, beauty salon, ~Iersonal care 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet G.F.A. services, such as nail, tannir:g, and plus .5 space per station therapeutic massage salons (10) Retail sales and rentals, except as 3.3 spaces per 1,000 square feet G.F.A. otherwise specified herein (11) Heavy equipment rentals, such as yard 1 space per 1,000 square feet G.F.A. and tool equipment plus .5 space per employee (12) Service or repair shop, such as electronic 1.6 spaces per 1,000 square feet G.F.A. and home appliance repair, upholstery (13) Automotive repair garage and service 1.6 spaces per 1,000 square feet G.F.A. station plus .5 space per employee (14) Mortuary 1 space per five seats based on maximum auditorium capacity plus .5 space per employee (F) Bulk merchandise (11 T'urniture, appliance store building 2 spaces per 1,000 square feet G.F.A. materials (2) Auto, boat or trailer sales 1 space per 1,000 square feet G.F.A. of building plus .5 space per employee (3) Truck, trailer and automobile rental .75 space per employee on largest shift parking lot (G) Industrial (1) Light industrial, industrial park, 1.6 spaces per 1,000 square feet G.F.A. Manufacturing (2) Storage, warehouse, wholesale 1 space per 1,500 square feet G.F.A. or establishment, freight terminal, truck or .75 space per employee based on auto storage maximum shift, whichever is greater (3) Mini -storage facility 3.33 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross office floor area plus one space for resident manager Table 7.1, off -Street Parking Requirements - Revised, 9197 Page 3 of 4 (H) Uses Not Specifically Mentioned Parking requirements for uses not specifically mentioned in this section shall be determined by the requirements for off-street parking facilities for the listed use which, as determined by the City Manager, is most similar to the use not specifically mentioned, or by a parking study. RIiURS Per LODS 7.020(1)(b)(i) Per LODS 71020(1)(b)(ii) Table 7. 1, Off Street Parking Requirements - Revised, 9/97 Page 4 of 4 Fractional space requirements shall be counted as the next highest whole space. Except for residential parking requirements, the maximum number of parking spaces shall not exceed 125 percent of the minimum number of required spaces. I' A Parking Angle E Module Width (no bumper overhang) B Stall Width F Bumper Overhang C Stall Depth (no bumper overhang) D Aisle Width between Stall Lines, except for fire lanes, which are regulated by LOC Chapter 15, "Fire Protection". Parking Matrix - 9/96 So , S S�- R LODS 7.020 - TABLE 7.2 Off -Street Parking Matrix Required Space and Aisle Dimensions in Feet COMPACT SIZE VEHICLES STANDARD SIZE VEHICLES Stall Stall Aisle Module Bumper Stall Stall Aisle Module Bumper Angle Width Depth Width Width Overhang Width Depth Width Width Overhang (A) (B) (C) (D) (F) (F) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) 00 (parallel) 8.0 20.0 N/A N/A N/A 8.0 24.0 N/A N/A N/A 450 8.0 15.5 11.0 42.0 2.0 8.5 17.5 13.0 48.0 2.0 9.0 17.5 1 12.0 47.0 2.0 600 8.0 17.0 14.0 48.0 2.5 8.5 19.0 18.0 56.0 2.5 9.0 19.0 16.0 54.0 2.5 "50 8.O 17.5 21.0 56.0 2.5 8.5 19.5 25.5 64.5 2.5 9.0 19.5 23.0 62.0 2.5 900 8.0 16.0 20.0 52.0 1.5 8.5 18.5 26.0 63.0 2.5 9.0 18.5 24.0 61.0 2.5 I' A Parking Angle E Module Width (no bumper overhang) B Stall Width F Bumper Overhang C Stall Depth (no bumper overhang) D Aisle Width between Stall Lines, except for fire lanes, which are regulated by LOC Chapter 15, "Fire Protection". Parking Matrix - 9/96 LODS 7.020 - TABLE 7.3 Sb . SS'- L. Parking Requirement Modifiers Reduction for Access to Transit Facilities Commercial and Industrial Uses (Based on Development Size on a Single Site (DS)) Gross Floor Area Multi2lier 0 - 20,000 square feet No reduction 20,000 plus square feet .85 x requirement Availability of Transit Access (TA) Transit shelter more than 500 feet from building No reduction Transit available with shelter within 500 feet of building .95 x requirement Transit available on fronting street without shelter .90 x requirement Transit available on fronting street with shelter within 50 feet .85 x requirement of building Reduction for Pedestrian and Bicycle Access (PA) Commercial and Industrial Uses Multiplier No hard surfaced pedestrian/bicycle access No reduction Hard surfaced pedestrian and bicycle access to 100 or more .90 x requirement residential units within 1000 feet of the site. Reduction Permitted within the Downtown Redevelopment District Refer to Lake Oswego Development Standard Chapter 23, Downtown Redevelopment District Design Standard, [LODS 23.405] for special parking requirement modifications permitted within the District. Reduction Permitted Based on Parking Study The Parking Study shall demonstrate sufficient number of parking spaces: a. For shared parking with other multiple uses per LOC 7.020(1)(d)(ii) b. Based on similar uses elsewhere in the City or the same use at other sites. Parking requirement modification shall be calculated as followed: Minimum requirement by type use x DS (Development Size) x TA (Transit Access) x PA (Pedestrian Access) = modified parking requirement. Definitions: Transit Access: Availability of transit services as delineated above. Pedestrian Access: The means by which pedestrians have safe, adequate and usable ingress and egress to a property or use. Parkine Mod. - Revised. 9/97 LODS 7.020 - TABLE 7A Ste' S S Minimum Required Bicycle Parking Spaces Use Categories Specific Uses Number of Required Spaces Residential Cateeories Household Living Multi -family 1 per 4 units Group Living 2, or 1 per 20 residents Dormitory I per 8 residents Institutional Categories Preschool 2, or Ir- per classroom Schools Grades 1 through 5 2 per classroom Grades 6 through 12 6 per classroom Colleges Excluding dormitories 2, or 1 per 20,000 square feet G.F.A. (see Group Living, above) Transit Centers Park & Ride Lots 5% of auto spaces Religious Institutions 2, or 1 per 4,000 square feet G.F.A. Hospitals 2, or 1 per 40,000 square feet G.F.A. Libraries, Museums, etc. 2, or 1 per 4,000 square feet G.F.A. Commercial Retail Sales and Services includes Groceries and 2, or 1 per 2,500 square feet G.F.A. Financial Institutions Auto -oriented Services with or without Mini -Market 2, or 1 per 5,000 square feet G.F.A. Office includes Doctor, Dentist 2, or 1 per 5,000 square feet G.F.A. Restaurant includes Drive -Ins 2, or 1 per 5,000 square feet G.F.A. Theaters, Auditoriums 1 per 60 seats Industrial Cateeories Warehouse & Freight 2, or I per 40,000 square feet G.F.A. Movement Manufacturing & Production 2, or 1 per 15,000 square feet G.F.A. Industrial Park Other than manufacturing & 2, or 1 per 10,000 square feet G.F.A. warehousing NOTES: 1. Wherever this table indicates two numerical standards, such as 2, or I per 3,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area, the larger number applies. 2. One hundred percent (100%) of all required bicycle parking spaces for residential and industrial categories shall be covered. These bicycle pari:ing spaces may be provided within a building. Bicycle parking spaces for employees of commercial and institutional categories are encouraged to be covered and secured. [LODS 7.020(2)(f)] 3. Fractional space requirements shall Sr counted as the next highest whole space. [LODS 7.020(1)(B)(i)] 4. G.F.A. (Gross Floor Area): The are: included within the surrounding exterior walls of a building or portion thereof excluding allowable project., .s, decks, patios, uncovered exit stairways or uncovered above -grade driveways. [LODS 7.015(2)] Bicycle Parking Spact Requirements - Revised, ENYDAX $ OLD TOWN STYLES DESCRIPTION APPENDIX B , OLD TOWN STYLES DESCRIPTION Old Town Style Building appearance which borrows from the vernacular, (gable front) style, craftsman bungalow style and Cape Cod (neo-colonial) style. These buildings are characterized by simple massing and composition, use of natural materials, window and door openings emphasized with trim and gable and hip roof forms. Vernacular Style: One or two story with moderately pitched gable front or side shape, often with a partite or full width front porch with shed or hip roof. Vernacular house forms include square, rectangular, L- or T -plan with intersecting gables. These houses include symmetrical placement of doors and double hung sash windows, which are emphasized by window trim. They are typically sided with shiplap, clapboard or other wood horizontal siding. Typically, there is little or no decorative detailing. On the more complex structures with intersecting gables, the roof ridge of one of the gables is sometimes higher than the other adjacent wing. A typical vernacular "worker cottage" in Old Town Neo -Colonial (or Cape Code): This is one of the styles built in America since 1940. The neo-colonial is a simplified form loosely based on the previously popular colonial of the 20's and 30's. This style grades into preceding Colonial Revival style but differs in showing less concern for precisely copying Colonial prototypes. Free interpretations of colonial door surrounds and colonnaded entry porches are often used. Facades, although usually symmetrical, also lack the regularly spaced patterns of window placement seen in Georgian and Adam houses. Cape Cod structures have a rectangular or 1 -plan, side gable roofs, sometimes with an intersecting gable often with dormers. There is often an accentuated front door, with a decorative crown (pediment) supported by pilasters or extended forward and supported by slender columns to form a small entry porch. Windows typically are with double -hung sashes, usually with multi -pane glazing on one or both sashes, frequently in adjacent pairs. Cape Cod Figure 2 Large porch and unbroken width dominate form massing Massing broken into smaller increments with porches and projecting forms existing one story residenr— Not appropriate More appropriate Create visual linkages Offset building walls and roof lines Incorporate similar roof forms and smaller design elements (Note: The intent of this drawing is not to indicate that full-length porches are not acceptable for multi -family dwellings, but that design features must be considered along with overall form and massing to achieve compatibility.) Figure 5, LODS 24.000, Old Town Design Standards CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO APPRM7ED STREET TREE PLANTING LIST TREES FOR PL-ANTING STRIP SIZE UP TO 4' Tree Species Height Spread Structure Foliage Flowers Fall Color Crimson Sentry Norway 25' 12' Very Red Maroon to Maple / Acer platanoides Upright Reddish - 'Crimson Sen Dense Bronze Allegheny Serviceberry / 25' 15' Upright Green White Orange Amelanchier laevis Oval Clusters Pyramidal Serviceberry / 30' 12' Very Dark White Brilliant Amela.nchier canadensis Upright Greer Racemes Reds & PyramidaliB Oranges Lavalle Hawthorn / Crataegus 30' 20' Upright to Dark White Bronze X Lavellei Vase Green Clusters Crimson Cloud Hawthorn ! 25' 18' Oval Glossy Bright Crataegus laevigata 'Crimson Green Red White Cloud' Centers Columnar Hawthorn ! f 30' 10' Tightly Green Double Yellow Cratae us monogyna stricta I Upright White Flowering Ash / 30' 15' Pyramidal Medium Off White Yellow Fraxnnus ornus to Round Green Heavily Scented Columnar Goldenrain / 30' 6' Narrow Green fellow Yellow Koelreuteria paniculats Fastigiate F asti' ata Goldenchain / 30' 20' Upright to Green Yellow Yellow Laburnum Vossi Vase Racemes Blireiana Plum / 20' 20' Round Purple - Bright I Reddish - Prunus X Bhreiana i Green Pink I Bronze Newport Plum / 20' 20' Oval to Dark Light Reddish Prunus cerasifera 'Newport' Round Purple Pink Japanese Tree Lilac J I 25' 15' Pyramidal Green White Syringa reticulata Panicle Trident Maple / 25' 20' Oval to Dark Yellow Acer buer eranum Round Green Orange Paperbark Maple / 30' 20' Round Green Bright Red Acer griseum above & - Orange Silvery under Amur Maple / 20' 20' Upright Green 'Fellow Acer ginnala Round Hedge Maple / 25 25' Round Dark Yellow Acer cam entre Green Glorybower Tree ! 20' 20' Round Dark White Clerodendrum trichotomum Green Fragrant Clusters Rocky Mountain Glow Maple ? ` 25' 15' Oval Dark Bright Red Acer grandidentatum Green 'Schmidt' CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO APPROVED STREET TREE PLANTING LIST TREES FOR PLANTING STRIP SIZE 4' TO 5 1/2' Tree Species Height Spread Structure Foliage Flowers Fall Color Frui Lavalle Hawthorn / 30' 20' upright Dark White Bronze Red Crataegus X Lavellei Green Red Flowering Ash / 30' 15' Pyramidal Medium Off White Yellow Frax nus ornue to Round Green Fra ant Pyramidal Hornbeam 1 35' 20' Broadly Dark Yellow Carpinus betulus fasti 'ata Oval Green Olmsted Columnar Norway 40' 20' upright Dark Yellow Maple / Acer platanoides Green columnar 'Olmsted' Armstrong II Red Maple 45' 15' Narrow Light Yellow Acer rubrum 'Armstrong' Fastigiate Green Orange - Red Gerling Red Maple 35' 20' Pyramidal Green Orange - Acer rubrum 'Gerlin ' Red Saratoga Ginkgo 30' 30' Compact Greenish Yellow Ginkgo biloba'Sarato a' Spreader - Gold Columnar Sargent Cherry 30' 10' Fastigiate Green Deep Pink Orange - Prunus sar enth columnaris Red Glorybower Tree 20' 20' Round Dark White Blue - Clerodendrum trichotomum Green Fragrant Green Clusters Globe Sugar Maple / Acer 15' 20' Round Medium Yellow g eaccharum globosum Green Ori Globe Serviceberry / 20' 20' Round Green White Bright Maroo Amelanchier canadensis ' Yellow - Purple oblon olia Red Magnolia soulangians 20' 20' upright- Green Red/ Fallow. Saucer magnolia Rounded White Brown CITY OF MAKE OSWEGO APPROVED STFEET TREE PLANTING LIST TREES FOR P',A-"TTING STRIP SIZE UTO 8' Tree Species Height I Spread Structure Foliage Flowers Fall Color Crimson king Norway Maple / 40' 35' Round Deep Reddish Acer platanoides 'Crimson Purple Orange King' Superform Maple / Acer 45' 40' Oval Medium Yellow latanoides 'Suverform' Green Red Sunset Red Maple / Acer 45' 35' Oval Dark Orange rubrum `Franksred' Green Red October Glory Maple / Acer 40' 35' Broadly Medium Red to rubrum 'October Glorv' Oval Green Purple Embers Red Maple / Acer 50' 40' Open Green Bright Red rubrum 'Embers' Magnolia soulangiana 20' 20' upright- Green Red/ Yellow - Saucer magnolia Rounded White Brown * Douglas -fir, Pseudotsuga 100' Dark evergreen menziesii green Lodgepole Pine, Pinus contorta 100' Dark sen Shore pine, Pinus contorta 25' upright- Dark _ evergreen var.contorta Irregular green * Western red cedar, Thuja 100'+ Pyramidal evergreen Licata * Grand fir, Abies grandis 100'+ Dark evergreen sen Noble fir, Abies procera 90' Bluish evergreen sen Sitka spruce, Picea sitchensis evergreen * Western hemlock, Tsuga 100' Narrow- evergreen heterophylla pyramidal Incense cedar, Libocedrus 90' Narrow- Dark evergreen decurrens I pyramidal green CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO APPROVED NATIVE TREE LIST (All requiring, a minimum 6' wide planting strip) Conifers Douglas -fir, Pseudotsuga menziesii Lodgepole/Shore pine, Pinus contorta Western red cedar, Thuja plicates Grand fir, Abies grandis Noble fir, Abies procera Sitka spruce, Picea sitchensis Western hemlock, Tsuga heterophylla Incense cedar, Libocedrus decurrens Deciduous trees Bigleaf maple, Acer m.acrophvllum Vine maple, Acer circinatum* Black hawthorn, Crataegus douglasii* Oregon crab apple, Malus diversifoha* Oregon white oak, Quercus garrvana. Serviceberry, Amelanchier sp." *These trees do not mature into large trees and may be planted in planting strips 4-6' Bride. APPENDIX 50.67 -AD, FIGURES Figure No. Title 1 West Lake Grove Design District 2(a) Auto Transportation and Circulation 2(b) Internal Parking and Circulation Plan 2(c) Pedestrian Facilities and Pathways 3(a) Street Sections — West Sunset Street (Section A -A) 3(b) Street Sections — West Sunset Street (Section B -B) 3(c) Street Sections — Lower Boones Ferry Road (Section C -C) 3(d) Walkway (Section D -D) 3(e) Street Sections - Lower Booties Ferry Road (Section E -E) 4 Building Massing 5 Building Window Openings and Blank Walls 6 Building Rain Protection 7 Required Street Lighting Page 247 —Draft May 2001 Lake swego Community Development Code (n (Il (11 UI 01 .n C) C) •h W () 11) ro n (.J w C">W cn �� w u1 q) (n (.) (� I[ MADRUNA 16 410 (n U1 (n UI (n o Ln r, 16428 ' 16444 5��6 16472 so corn 7'Y 16508 16514 r71 Ln n C1J UI UI y 1662x' ru ry M J c, $ u C, ..LA (T OUl t( r 1 V ID b !' � r 4 r 16666 V °� �,yy�� 16 71 5245 P � �• , ,, , r'x 1 5'41 1,1 �a D ED Ell W 2 N TON CT (P 't1r11� >11f . 1• E r UI �+'� - " '• � ^ \ \11\1 A A u-) OD 16275 16286 r � P OD 01) P " D D N i LIN D —� is .. . � o 0 D O i D •.0 CD O COUNTY LAKE OSWECO / ■ T r. X11 rll West Lake f Grove Design r� District 9�4 D A p n �0 Cp f Ui CD .DD p N �O 6902 N 9,,, m �'4 WE= OCTOBER 1998 h I ! I Boone$ FarrylMadrons Street Intersection Four Way Intersection aligned with drive access t 20 foot wide connecting alleyway l between off-street parking areas Future Transit Stop i! Re -alignment of West Sunset Drive t I t t !1 i �Lxtens�cSIIS: i Ufi1 V!d I allow for right toms only t� 11300nesFerry/West Sunset Drive interwilen > -I-our Way intersection with left tun / I `T rhannelization t,.... _ _t i i"' SII Illlill New Roadway with on -street parking . I haffic Signal Future Transit Stop Fxtension ofinedians to alhhw for right turns (wily ', ! -•� ' r`1 �--''� 20 foot wide connecting alleyway ' -. between off-street parking areas '- __--�—'� West l ,akc (:rovc Design 1)•strict Boone$ Ferry/Waebingion Court loler$cellon ��� , 1 i t1 h `�� Fahr Way Intersection aligned with drive access � '•` t '\/ _�j �� , , � 1, t� Antn'llanspnhlnlihna J('hrnlulfnn 1 .• �?' j-, hf J ! �, 4� 'l This illustration was prepared atter the adoption of the + West Lake Grove Desi n District INITIMAL PARKING & CIRCULATION PLAN West Lake Grove Design District Lake Oswego, Oregon ~ Off -Street Po/khonLm u Parking \ \ Figure 2(c) TGA42uicl; Restxmse — Pedestrian Facilities and Pathways Pedestrian Walkway Treatment \ i I r It I I I I men uenng r-euesmen womway i West Lake Grove Design District Lake Oswego, Oregon 0 • / i •� Q . Neighborhood Commercial Street Leuend: Upper case letters A,. n, C, 1) and 1e; refer to the corresponding street sections 3(n), 3(b), 3(c), 3(d) And 3(e) TGM ;quick ResponseWest Lake Grove Design DWrict STRI_--F.T SECTIONS q� Lake Oswego. Oregon AT 1D, West Sunset Street Typical Street Section A -A C"AMIAI 1. ARAMIM A PC ---- Figure 3(b) TGM Quick Rinse STREET SECTIONS _ Wes( Luke Grove Design Disirici L.akeOswego, Oregon 7!" 1, tot 1. 101 4,50 ,_011 West Sunset Street Typical Street Section H-13 .•L4.i/MGN 1►�Ai(�►►uicicl;cs�nlnsc_____—--------- _.. s-rIM-TI r r r LI ON -- -11A11 AMA1.11011A (•L F igm o C IVcsl I_nlic Grove Dcsi6►► Disl►ict I.nla oswcao. Clrcgom► Am c q•t•44�J • ► .�_`_IfLS`.111...--5d�.li....�'""``�—Ylu�`al� ••.--'+-• � -► � 1 Vii► !!1 11 ► 51 61 !01 Iti �•---- D-IbY � dti7l'i1�';'� --- - -- l-Owi!r Llooliesf eery Ilow 'TVl,ical Street Section C -C, SO.4?.dzo(y) toys :r.Qz.r�ly) 1 So.6�.oToLy� cons t c.oz n'+� 9 a► TGX4 Quick Response WALKWAY SECTION Figure 3(d) AW"'1 Y SE,iP71W- z - G s7�,tfwe IF��O�Y i A1//V//111�i1 J Typical Walkway Section n -D West Lake Grove Design District Lake Oswego, Oregon ignre . Mm tluir It Restwnse _ - _ West Lake Grove Design District 3Ce))) � Lake Oswego, Oregon STREET SECTIONS Ae o ? 2 V 1.11mrC �oMAf• - Ad ' f" -/L 10 6► 5► II' r -- - ------ --- �� G► IIS II 6t S. 10 Lower Boo nes Ferry Road Typical Street Section E -E C PANUAIL APA/A11111A PC ."- Figure 4 iC, M Oil it I? lznjxnlsf BUILDING MASSING l ill 1-7 I lI r1�> FF -T -T ;7,N 0- v UInlintins 10'Selback IUexirnwn . Setback \Vcst Lake Grove Design District t,ahc Oswego, Oregon ;7,N 0- v UInlintins 10'Selback IUexirnwn . Setback \Vcst Lake Grove Design District t,ahc Oswego, Oregon [r igurt TGM Quicit Response _--------------- -- --- — -- BUILDING WINDOW OPENINGS AND 111-ANK WA -S C.PANDAti APAMPIIIA PC Wal L-ahe Grove Design L)islricl L-ake Oswego, Oregon Minimum 6DX around Floor Window Openlnp■ 1 Figure 6 TGM hick Response BUILDING RAIN PROTEcrION West Lake Grove Desi ng District lAc Oswego, Oregon Required Continuous Awnings and/or Canopies Isom L_ West Lake Grove Desi ng District lAc Oswego, Oregon Required Continuous Awnings and/or Canopies Figure TGA -,..ich Response IWO Lake Grove Design District Lake Oswego, Oregon REQUIRED S-TREET LIGHTING Required P$d*strlsn Lighting SPPcl8I Intersection Lighting CRANDALt MAMMA PC 7.4 02/05/02 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY MEETING DATE: February 5, 2002 SUBJECT: Planning Commission Deliberations Regarding Density Guidelines, ZC 7-98 (A) RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve ZC 7-98(A), Density Guidelines and direct staff to prepare Findings, Conclusions and Order and finalize Ordinance 2309. EST. FISCAL IMPACT: BUDGETED: ATTACHMENTS: • ,January 28, 2002 Heisler Staff Report PUBLISHED NOTICES (Date): .January 3, 2002 Ordinance No. 2309 Y N Previous Council FUNDING SOURCE: consideration: September 15, 1998, Study Session .1anuary 8, 2002, 1'estinumy taken at hearing; on January 15, 2002. DEPT. DIRECTOR 02- Signoff/date ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER Signoff/date LACase Files\I998\ZC 7-98/2001 Activity/Council Cover Memo - Feb. 5. 2002 delihcruions doc CITY M NAGER 12 OL Signoff date I J i TO: FROM CITY OF LAKE OSWE(;O COUNCIL REPORT Douglas J. Schmitz, City Manager Jane Heisler. Project Plann /31ILL SUBJECT: ZC 7-98, Density Guidelines, Additional Information Requested by Council DATE: January 28, 2002 ACTION: This report provides an updated list of exhibits, additional written testimony submitted since the January 15, 2002 City Council meeting and additional information requested by Council in preparation for its deliberations on ZC 7-98, scheduled for February 5, 2002. The minutes of the January 8, 2002 Study Session on Density Guidelines are found in Exhibit F-6. Exhibit F-7 contains a memo from David Powell, dated January 31, 2002, as requested by Councilor Hoffman after the hearing on January 15, 2002. DISCUSSION: 1. Exhibits submitted at the January 15, 2002 hearing are attached, from Exhibit E-2 to E-4 and Exhibits G-3-6 to G-3-18. 2. Additional written testimony submitted between January 16 — January 29, 2002 is attached in Exhibits G-3-19 to G-3-25. 3. Additional information requested by the Council: a) Revised Metro Exception Language: See Exhibit F-8, Memo from Stephan Lashbrook, Community Development Director, dated January 30, 2002. b) Review of Metro's Enforcement Authority for Non-compliance with Urban Growth Management Functional Plan. See Exhibit F-9, Memo from David D. Powell, City Attorney, dated January 31, 2002. C) Ordinance 2309. The Council requested that staff provide two versions of the Density Guidelines Draft Ordinance. Attached is Exhibit F-10, which applies Page 1 of 2, Council Supplemental Memo for 1-28-02 Deliberations on Density Guidelines 13 is minimum densities to subdivisions only, and Exhibit F-11, which applies minimum densities to partitions and subdivisions. P/casefiles/1998/zc 7-98/Council Supp memo 1-28-02 134 Page 2 of 2, Council Supplemental Memo for 1-28-02 Deliberations on Density Guidelines . NAFT of characteristics on page 61 was consistent with the subcommittee s intent direction. Mayor Hammerstad said that the subcommittee looked at this list as a goal statement and the statement on page 49 as a mission statement. She emphasized that they were not regulatory statements. Councilor Hoffman reiterated that he saw a tension between DLCD's direction and the Steering Committee's discussion of its vision for the future. Mr. Powell pointed out that DLCD's letter did not oppose the idea of celebrating the idea of the neighborhood's single-family nature and desiring to preserve it. He explained that DLCD objected to regulatory provisions that made that harder or impossible to achieve. He concurred that the Task Force did not see the character statement as violating DLCD's direction; it was a statement declaring the neighborhood's aspirations. Mayor Hammerstad recalled that DLCD wanted the neighborhood plan to allow for any type of housing. She indicated that the lack of that allowance was what DLCD based its objections on. She spoke to leaving the statement in, citing the numerous compromises by the patient neighborhood, which was been willing to work these issues through. Councilor Hoffman concurred that the plan was a good piece of work. Mr. Powell referenced a sentence on page 66 and several policies under Goal 10, which stated a goal of encouraging the maintenance of single-family residential uses as the predominant land use, as long as other housing types were not unduly excluded. He held that that was consistent with the neighborhood character statement. Councilor Rohde asked if RAM 9 (page 91) was the only reference to the parking problems in the area. Mr. Sin noted that it was also addressed under major issues in regulation 6. Doug Schmitz, City Manager, indicated that this was a compromise between making a policy versus a recommended action measure (RAM). Mr. Sin confirmed that the neighborhood did this before the subcommittee formation. Mayor Hammerstad mentioned the public hearing on February 5. 3.4 Planning Commission Recommendation for Approval of Density Guidelines (ZC 7-98) June Heisler, Community Planning Manager, reviewed the history of the density guidelines, starting in 1996 with the adoption by Metro of its Urban Growth Management Functional Plan that required all cities and counties to change their Comprehensive Plans and Zoning Codes to meet the Functional Plan requirements. She mentioned that many of those requirements did result in more efficient use of urban land, the infrastructure, transportation system and open space as a preventative against the expansion of the urban growth boundary. Ms. Heisler mentioned the City Council's 1997 adoption of regulating language for R-3 and R-5 zones, which the proposed amendment deleted because it applied to lots created by subdivision or by partition. She explained that later Metro explained that the minimum that the City had to do to meet its requirements was apply the guidelines to subdivisions, which the proposed amendment did. Ms. Heisler noted that the second proposal in 1999 to apply the guidelines to the rest of the residential zones including applying minimum density to any proposed lot with a minimum of a half acre size. She recalled that Council asked staff to meet with Metro to discuss the City's options and a possible exception; Metro did not find an exception feasible because the City could not meet its density targets within the city limits. Ms. Heisler indicated that this proposal, heard by the Planning Commission on November 14, 2001, did what Council requested by justifying application of the guidelines to subdivisions. She noted the Planning Commission findings (Exhibit A, pages 115 — 116). She reviewed the arguments that the Commission heard during public testimony. She summarized the Commission's response to the testimony as the City was trying to do its part in terms of regional 13 rj goals, and that long-range planning involved looking at the future. City Council Study Session Minutes January 8, 2002 EXHIBIT F-6 Ms. Heisler mentioned that staff originally proposed not including the R-2, R-0 and DD zones because those three zones based the maximum number of units on floor area ratio rather than on minimum lot sizes. She explained that staff put them back in when Metro argued that the City was not dealing with all its residential zones. She observed that doing so was also more in keeping with the Council's direction to apply the minimum density requirements to subdivisions. Ms. Heisler mentioned the Commission's concern that a property owner could circumvent the minimum density requirements through a series of partitions over more than one calendar year. She discussed the Commission's solution of requiring a `future development plan,' by which the City would not lose the opportunity for minimum density on the entire parcel. Ms. Heisler used an overhead projector graphic to demonstrate how the future development plan worked. She described a scenario of a person applying to partition into two lots, land that was four times the minimum lot size. The person would draw up a future development plan that showed how the parcel could be developed at minimum density over time; the City would record the notice of the future development plan so that any property owner would know about it as well as the City, and both could use it as a guide for future development. Ms. Heisler described another scenario of a property owner with a lot with an existing house on it who wanted to partition it into two lots and build another house; he/she had to locate the house on the second lot in such a manner that it would not preclude the future partitioning of the remaining lot. Councilor Turchi asked if this requirement precluded a property owner with two acres of land from partitioning his/her property to give half to his/her children to build a house on and use the other half to build his/her dream house, nestled in the trees in the center of the property. Ms. Heisler agreed that there was a potential for this requirement to impose a size restriction and a location restriction on homes, even if the property was not ever subdivided. Mr. Vizzini concurred, arguing that the zone itself established the restriction because it determined how many lots could occupy the space, as well as the building envelope through setbacks. Ms. Heisler confirmed to Councilor Turchi that a person building on Lot 2 would have to pick out which of the potentially available lots he/she would put his/her house on. She concurred that a dream house could not be located in the woods in the center of the property. Councilor Turchi commented that this was different from his general notion of minimum density, which has been that it was not a big deal, as a person could partition his/her property into three lots. He pointed out that this proposal allowed the partitioning into three lots but then required building on the property as though it were a subdivision. Mr. Vizzini stated that a person had to build in keeping with the zone. Mr. Vizzini described the friction as arising from saying, on one hand, that the property owner needed to plat his/her property according to the zone requirements, and on the other, that he/she could not build on multiples of the lots once they were platted, because that meant building incompatibly with the zone. He argued that trying to put a building that normally fit on an R-10 zone in an R-5 zone raised neighborhood compatibility issues. He commented that he heard concern about the idea that people could not build across lots, once they were platted, and that this proposal required the building envelope to fit within a single lot on the plat. Councilor Turchi said that he understood that intellectually but he had a problem with the larger pieces of land in Forest Highlands. He observed that many Forest Highlands property owners only wanted to partition their land to build a second house on it; they did not want to subdivide. He argued that this requirement did not allow them to partition their property and use it as though it were a one -acre lot. Mayor Hammerstad referenced the Atherton Heights development on Derby Street. She pointed out that the developer did cluster the houses towards the front of the five acres, thus City Council Study Session Minutes January 8, 2002 13 O leaving the back land for future development, which was a good decision in light of preserving the urban growth boundary. She held that it would have been a better decision if it had been a rule. Mr. Vizzini mentioned another possibility of not dividing the property but simply placing a secondary structure on the acreage. Councilor Turchi commented that he supported the urban growth boundary and Lake Oswego taking its fair share of growth and development in the Portland metro area but he wanted to be sure that lie understood the ramifications of the proposal. Ms. Heisler concluded that the language stating `two lots' meant that her idea of building a secondary dwelling unit within the square footage of the home or as an accessory structure would not work. Mr. Powell discussed the concern of the Forest Highland property owners, who were not as interested in building secondary dwelling units on the same lot, as they were in partitioning the land and giving half of it to their children. He observed that clearly the Council had a difficult choice. The Council could either go strictly with Metro's minimum requirements and allow the opportunity for serial partitions to get around the minimum density requirement or it could use the Commission's ingenious solution of requiring a shadow plat for partitions. Mayor Hammerstad held that, from a practical standpoint, the market would drive the issue. She argued that property owners would put the maximum number of dwelling units possible on the land in order to achieve the maximum profit in the long run. She pointed out that Lake Oswego was already developing at more than 80%n density. Councilor McPeak observed that one reason why the Council let this subject simmer as long as it has was because of its lack of welcome by possibly the majority of the Council. She concurred that the Council overall supported the concept of the urban growth boundary, which she did not want to expand more rapidly than necessary. She stated that she would wait to be convinced that this was a good idea. Councilor McPeak argued that if they made this change for the small number of likely serial partitions, they would be adding to a controversial solution. She described the idea as `difficult to defend.' She said that she found it hard to support the idea at this time. She held that, in trying to achieve this perfectly efficient use of land, the Council could harm its chances of achieving a good but not perfect use of land. Councilor McPeak stated that if Mctro did not ask this of the Council, then she was not yet convinced that they should ask it of themselves. Shc held that the gains were small and the negatives were large. Ms. Heisler put up a graphic showing what other communities have done. She noted that some cities have achieved 50% minimum density because they were so close to meeting their targets while others have included partitions because they could not meet their targets if they restricted it to subdivisions. Mr. Lashbrook presented the research staff did per Council's request this morning. He reported that there were four jurisdictions still pending before Metro on compliance with this issue: Lake Oswego, Oregon City, Durham and Multnomah County. He indicated that Oregon City was still working on it, Durham asked for an extension because it did not want to do it, and Multnomah County was doing it through a participatory process with its cities. Ms. Heisler clarified that Multnomah County did not provide urban services; therefore, it used an intergovernmental agreement process with its cities to achieve compliance, which it needed to finish. Mr. Lashbrook reviewed the three questions he asked of individuals at each of the cities, including whether they applied it to land partitions and whether they had a method of phasing it City Council Study Session Minutes January 8, 2002 in. He noted that, while most of the cities were already doing more than the minimum Metro requirements, they were not all doing them the same. Councilor Schoen concurred with Councilor McPeak's comments. He commented that he had come in with the understanding that the City would not apply minimum density to partitions. He stated that he could not support the proposal. He spoke to doing what Metro required the City to do, which would be an easier sell. He recalled that the number of developable parcels in the city were not enough to create a battle over partitions versus future development plans for partitions. Mayor Hammerstad commented that if this provision was going to be a fatal flaw in the support of the ordinance, then the Council wanted to see an ordinance with this part deleted. Councilor Hoffman asked what problem the City was trying to solve with the future development plan. Mr. Lashbrook summarized the comments of Mr. Johnson and Mr. Sandblast, the two Planning Commissioners most strongly supporting the future development plan. He indicated that these two gentlemen have been around the business long enough to have seen developers using a series of partitions to get around subdivision requirements. He mentioned a scenario of a developer asking for a two-lot partition on December 30 and another two-lot partition two weeks later. Mr. Vizzini clarified that the Commission thought it unfair to allow two different standards for identical properties abutting each other. He noted that one coming under the subdivision requirements had one set of standards while the other coming under a series of partitions had another set of standards, which reeked of unfair application of the requirements. Mr. Vizzini indicated that he did not see this as an issue of Metro compliance but rather as a logical extension of the zoning map. He argued that the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map established a given area of town for development at a certain density level, which also achieved neighborhood compatibility. Mr. Vizzini pointed out that this proposal did not apply to all partitions but only those that met the four times the minimum lot size requirement. He emphasized that they were not talking about small lots dividable into two to three parcels but only lots large enough to divide into four or more parcels. He mentioned that this issue was personal to him because of the situation on the large parcel in back of his house, in which the property owner built a large house that was incompatible with the neighborhood and proposed dividing the property in two and building a second incompatible house. Mr. Vizzini cited the development behind his house as an example of the problem that could result from serial partitioning. He conceded that looking at the situation in terms of an owner wanting to give his/her children a piece of the property was one way to look at it. He argued that another way was to see that serial partitioning allowed the opportunity for incompatible developments that were at odds with the underlying zone and the Comprehensive Plan. Mayor Hammerstad described a scenario, using the graphic, in which a property owner demolished a little house on his/her land and built a big house under the County standards. Then the owner wanted to annex into the City and subdivide, which presented a problem because of the house location. She held that this was happening along the major streets, especially in Forest Highlands, where a huge house took up a large amount of land and made it almost impossible to put in development compatible with the neighborhood. Mayor Hammerstad argued that they could prevent this scenario by using the shadow platting, so that they knew where the house could go. She spoke of doing an intergovernmental agreement with the County with respect to the minimum density requirements for the region. Mayor Hammerstad concurred with Councilor Turchi that for these examples, the market was not working. Councilor McPeak referenced the Mayor's earlier comment that market forces supported the concept. She argued that zoning was supposed to put ultimate limits on the use of City Council Study Session Minutes January 8, 2002 130 the land but not force people towards a limit. She held that minimum density did force people with respect to the use of the land, while zoning simply laid out the boundaries. Councilor Hoffman disagreed, contending that zoning was a forced use of the land, regulations that came into existence because the market was not working. Councilor McPeak clarified that she was speaking of a single piece of property. She pointed out that zoning allowed a property owner to divide a large piece of property up into a certain number of pieces but it did not force the property owner to divide it. Mayor Hammerstad conceded the point but argued that minimum density did not force anything either. Councilor McPeak disagreed, arguing that a shadow plat prohibited a property owner from building a big house. She said that zoning currently allowed a person to have one house on a big piece of land. She contended that the shadow plat added another restriction on the land use by saying that the property owner could not build a big house on that piece of land. Mr. Vizzini pointed out that the restriction was what was allowed in the zone. Councilor McPeak reiterated that zoning was not intended to force that, rather it limited a lot to a certain size under the zoning and allowed the property owner to build up to whatever the zone allowed. Councilor Hoffman agreed, commenting that zoning forced the size of the building as well as the type of development. Councilor McPeak argued that this went beyond that. Mr. Vizzini pointed out that the Mayor's scenario used an undivided lot with the dream house built on the back of the lot; then the owner came into the city in order to divide the lot. He described the situation as a `grandfathered situation,' in asking the question of what did the minimum density rule require of the property owner when he/she came into the city to divide the land. Mr. Vizzini mentioned his and Ms. Heisler's search through the exceptions to see if, under this circumstance, the owner could divide the remaining property into fewer lots than otherwise would be required under the zone. He noted that the location and size of the house precluded the full subdivision of the land per the zone requirements because there was not enough room to meet the setback requirements. Mr. Vizzini pointed out that there was a loophole in the way the ordinance was written, which could be codified by adding an exception under Sec 48.57.15: in cases where there was a pre- existing structure and insufficient land to meet the minimum requirement, then one divided the land up to the maximum extent possible under the zone. Councilor Schoen asked if the reality was that people would develop to the County standards before annexing to the city. He argued that this put an unnecessary restriction on the use of the land. Councilor McPeak asked if the City could put a timing regulation that prohibited partitions closer than one year apart. Mr. Powell noted that Metro used the state law definitions of partitions and subdivisions. He conceded that there might be some opportunity for the City to make that kind of a regulation, as long as it used the same terminology and applied it at least to subdivisions. He indicated that Metro would not prohibit the City from applying it to partitions beyond the definition of subdivision. Mr. Vizzini argued that this was not about restricting the use of someone's property; only a partition or subdivision of the property triggered this provision. He held that a person could develop a dream house on his/her property at any time under the current rules and these proposed rules. He described this as an issue about land subdivision based on the zone, and not about development. Councilor Rohde described how one could get around the minimum density requirement under the Mayor's scenario by using a lot line adjustment. Mr. Sin concurred that there were loopholes people could use to get around the rules. City Council Study Session Minutes January 8, 2002 13 :i Councilor McPeak mentioned that there were some property owners who were families in which the senior members of the family owned a big piece of land, which served as their retirement nest egg or which they could give to their children. She held that a partition was their route. She argued that the City limited their use of their property by allowing a partition into two lots but not allowing them to use the property as they wished; instead, they had to site houses in a way that fit in with the ultimate use of the land in the future. She reiterated that she saw that as a big restriction. Mr. Vizzini concurred that it was. Councilor Rohde held that a property owner could do that, under the scenario he just suggested. Mr. Vizzini said that the issue for him was what tools did they have in place to realize the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Map that flowed from it. He asked how to address the demand in the community to protect neighborhood character without the tools in place to do so. He argued that the most essential tool was the zone. Mr. Vizzini spoke of the incompatibilities that resulted from not following the zone. He asked why they went through the effort of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map if they did not use it as a blueprint for development. He argued that this was about developing the tools to ensure that the City used the Plan and Map as a blueprint. Councilor McPeak observed that Mr. Vizzini spoke of ensuring it while she spoke of allowing it. Mr. Vizzini argued that a similar tool was street connectivity. The City required developers to go through that in order to ensure that they developed in a manner that was in keeping with the goals and blueprint for the community. He contended that, without the blueprint, they would see the hodge-podge development of East Portland. Mr. Vizzini concurred with Councilor Graham that the compatibility question was an issue. Mayor Hammerstad agreed, pointing out that allowing two houses on a 1.5 -acre piece of land in an R-7.5 zone, which were larger than what was allowed in an R-15 zone, eliminated the zoning pattern. Councilor Schoen said that he was looking for the simplest requirement. He held that creating a situation in which people had to figure out how to get around the requirement was an unhealthy way to develop land. He reiterated that if Metro required a minimum density requirement, then they should do what Metro required. Mayor Hammerstad noted the public hearing on January 15 and the deliberation and decision on February 5. She indicated that they would leave the record open for a week and a half for written comments. Councilor Rohde asked staff to provide a colored map showing the large pieces of land within the City's urban services boundary. He held that that information made it clear why Forest Highlands became so upset over this issue, considering that its R-20 County zone translated to an R-7.5 zone in the city. Ms. Heisler presented a map showing that information. She concurred that Forest Highlands was the neighborhood outside the city limits most impacted by these guidelines. Councilor Turchi asked if the piecemeal annexation and development in the Forest Highlands area resulted in inefficient engineering of City services, perhaps having to go around County land and costing the taxpayers money. Ms. Heisler indicated no, noting that provision of services was primarily `pay as you go.' Mr. Lashbrook clarified that if all that land had been in the city 30 years ago, the City could have provided the services more efficiently, as the land was topographically challenging. Mayor Hammerstad mentioned the exceptions to minimum density requirements (page 120). She discussed her concern about the effect on development of density transfers for publicly owned open space. She commented that the City has purchased a significant amount of open City Council Study Session Minutes January 8, 2002 1110 space in the Stafford area or it might purchase open space in other areas. She pointed out that a density transfer for the open space meant developing the rest of the area as multi -family. Mayor Hammerstad mentioned an upcoming Metro subcommittee that would be looking at taking open space out of the inventory of developable land, which she wanted to sit on. She wondered if they could state in the ordinance that publicly owned open space was not subject to density transfer. She pointed out that, with a movement of the urban growth boundary, the productivity of Stafford came in at a certain number of units without the consideration of open space; that number became Lake Oswego's target, which it could not meet with density transfers for open space. Mayor Hammerstad spoke of two lines of defense: getting on the committee and exempting publicly owned open space from density transfers. Councilor Schoen asked if' that would include watersheds and sensitive lands. He observed that by the time they took everything out of Stafford, there was not as much developable land left as everyone thought. Mr. Powell indicated that he did not think that it would hurt anything to add it in. Mayor Hammerstad risked staff to do so. Councilor Graham questioned whether Metro would disallow Lake Oswego superceding its rules when it came down to the final crunch. Mayor Hammerstad pointed out that open space was a value that Metro was looking for within the urban growth boundary. Councilor Schoen asked if Metro would require density transfer for sensitive lands. Mayor Hammerstad indicated that Metro did not require it but the City has taken it out. Councilor Hoffman indicated that his only concern with the ordinance was the future development plan. He said that he understood that people were trying to ensure that tiny development was consistent with the zone, which was why zoning was a planning tool; if the City believed that R-7.5 was the right zone in an area, then it should not allow someone to split a 20,000 square foot lot into two 10,000 square foot lots. He noted that they were trying to get development that matched the neighborhood. Ms. Heisler indicated to Councilor McPeak that the map showing the actual number of acres affected by the ordinance has changed, and staff would provide the Council with an updated map. Mayor Hammerstad requested colored maps for the packets, including an updated unincorporated area map. 4. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Lashbrook introduced Denny Egner, the new Long Range Planning Manager. Mr. Vizzini thanked the Council for the opportunity to speak. Mayor Hammerstad asked the Council to allow a reduction in the testimony time limits for minimum density from 10 minutes for neighborhood associations and 5 minutes for individuals to 5 minutes and three minutes respectively. Councilor Rohde disagreed with reducing it. Councilor Turchi moved to reduce the testimony time limits to 5 minutes for neighborhood associations and 3 minutes for individuals. Councilor Schoen seconded the motion. Mayor Hammerstad explained that by restricting the testimony to those time limits and leaving the record open for written comment, she hoped to move things along in an expeditious manner. Councilor Hoffman concurred with Councilor Rohde that they should not reduce the time limits. He pointed out that this was the only chance for these people to speak and it was an important issue to some. Mr. Lashbrook suggested allowing those who felt cut off by the time limits to speak again at the end. He observed that not many stuck around. Councilor Hoffman said that was fine. City Council Study Session Minutes January 8, 2002 141 Mr. Vizzini mentioned that Mayor Katz of Portland, upon hearing the same testimony for the fifth time, would ask for a show of hands from the audience in support of the comments and then ask that folks not take up additional time stating what has already been stated. He concurred that there was a civic engagement issue but held that the Council also did not need to listen to the same thing repeatedly. Councilor Turchi withdre�s his motion. 5. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Hammerstad adjourned the meeting at 8:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Robyn Christie City Recorder APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. - ON udie Hammerstad, Mayor City Council Study Session Minutes January 8, 2002 City Attorney's Office To: Judie Hammerstad, Mayor Members of Lake Oswego City Council Douglas Schmitz, City Manager From: David D. Powell, City Attorney,' Memorandum Subject: 1987 Amendment to Comprehensive Plan Map and Text for Forest Highlands Area Date: January 31, 2002 At the January 15, 2002 public hearing on the proposed minimum density requirements, there was testimony concerning the city's reasoning when the current zoning designations were established in the Forest Highlands area. Councilor Hoffman has asked that the following attached documents be distributed to the Council and made part of the record: February 4, 1987 Findings, Conclusions and Order of the City Council (PA 7-85-420) November 24, 1986 Findings, Conclusions and Order of the Planning Commission (PA 7-85-351) September 13, 1985 Staff Report (PA 7-85) You will note from the findings that a Forest Highlands Planning Subcommittee developed an initial proposed plan for the area. This plan called for residential areas that gradually increased in density from the center (R-15) to the perimeter (R-0) of the area. High density areas were located as close to arterial streets as possible. The Planning Commission had received opposition testimony that there should be less extreme (R-0 and R-15) designations, that there should be as low a density as possible in the center of the area, and that the densities of other areas of the city should be increased, allowing Forest Highlands to remain low density. Staff then worked with the neighborhood association to try to develop a plan that would achieve more of a consensus among residents of the area. The resulting plan, which the City Council adopted, was viewed by the Council as "a reasonable compromise of the desires of the existing residents and property owners to have a neighborhood that maintains its social and physical fabric as it grows to its ultimate density while at the same time presenting a reasonable development potential and fulfilling state mandated residential density requirements." EXHIBIT F-7 ' Council Findings, p. 3 Memorandum 1987 Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Forest Highlands) January 31, 2002 Page 2 The Council found that the proposed density was consistent with the platted development pattern in the "adjacent surrounding areas." z It also found that, by grouping residential densities and providing a decreasing density gradient while moving away from arterial streets, the plan "will maintain and strengthen the low density single-family residential area which is developing in the interior of this area, ,3 The plan was also found to meet the requirements of Goal 10 (provide for housing needs) and the Metropolitan Housing Rule. The maximum planned density possible for residential development in the area was found to be 6.3 dwelling units per net developable acre. Combining this with the rest of the city resulted in an overall city density of 9.94 to 10.04 dwelling units per net developable acre.4 In approving the plan, the Council balanced the policies of the existing version of the Comprehensive Plan, which included (paraphrased): • Maintaining the overall average residential density within the Urban Services Area (Overall Density Policy — General Policy I) • Allocating residential densities based upon land suitability and public facilities capacity, while applying the Growth Management Policies in a manner which assures reasonable opportunities for residential development to occur at maximum perniittcd plan densities (Overall Density Policy — General Policy II) • Assuring residential density is appropriately related to site conditions, surrounding uses, capacity of public facilities and overall Growth Management Policies; Providing for medium to high density designations to meet the needs for such housing. (Residential Density Policies — General Policies I and IV) • Encouraging a range of housing types; Encouraging the provision of low to moderate cost housing to meet the city's fair share of local and regional needs. (Housing Choice Policies — General Policies I and ii) There was also a Residential Density Policy (General Policy III) that provided for maintaining substantially developed single-family residential neighborhoods at existing density designations. However, implicit in the findings is the conclusion that Forest Highlands was not considered to be "substantially developed." The Council also deleted from the Comprehensive Plan a policy that required the city to maintain a semi -rural and low density land use in Forest Highlands and allow no urban development as long as the "future urbanizable" designation applied to the area.` The Council found that the area had become urban land, rather than "urbanizable land" for Goal 14 purposes.' The Council Z Council Findings, p. 19 3 Council Findings, p. 9 ° Council Findings, p. 14 5 Residential Neighborhood Policies —General Policy I 6 Council Findings, p. 17 144 Memorandum 1987 Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Forest Highlands) January 31, 2002 Page 3 noted that the area was adjacent to and surrounded on three sides by the City of Lake Oswego, that all urban services except sanitary sewer were being provided to the area, that there were 500 persons living there and that 43 acres were developed with structures on lots of less than'/4 of an acre. The Council concluded that the area was committed to urban level uses, and that the lack of sanitary sewers, which were available upon annexation, was the only constraint to further development. 7 td. 145 1 BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL 2 OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 3 A Request for Approval of a ) Text and Map Amendment to the ) PA 7-85-420 4 Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan ) (Forest Highlands) ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER 5 Nature of Application 6 To amend the Comprehensive Plan map and text for the Forest 7 Highlands "Future Urbanizable Area" which includes approximately 8 246 acres. Q Hearings 10 The Planning Commission held public hearings and considered 11 this application at its meetings of September 23, 1985, October 12 28, 1985, December 9, 1985 and March 10, 1986 and by its Order PA 13 r. 7 -85 -351 -recommended approval. The City Council considered this 14 application on the record made before the Planning Commission at 15 the Council's January 20, 1987 meeting. Criteria 16 17 The request under consideration is a geographic amendment, a n 3 18 legislative change regulated by LOC 56.135, 56.157 and 56.158. ` 19 Applicable requirements and provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, LCDC Goals and administrative rules, regional planning policies z �0 and City Codes were considered. �1 Findings and Reasons 22 �� Three staff reports were written on the Forest Highlands 23 planning issue. Those are identified as the September 13, 1985, `4 February 27, 1986 and January 12, 1987 staff reports. The `S original land use proposal (Exhibit L) contained in the September '6 Page 1 - FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER 14 � 1 13, 1985 staff report was not accepted by the Planning Commission 2 at their October 28 meeting. 3 The verbal and written testimony made to the Planning 4 Commission at the September 23 and October 28, 1985 meetings was 5 mainly in opposition to that original plan. The identity of or 6 ability to provide public facilities was never raised as a serious 7 issue. The Forest Highlands planning subcommittee's main theme in 8 developing the plan was to try and allocate high density areas as 0 close to arterial streets as possible on suitable, undeveloped 70 land. Located in the interior of the study area were low density residential areas that gradually increased in density from the 11 center (R-15) to the perimeter (R-0). Much of the testimony 12 against the Exhibit L plan was that the multiple family 13 designations along the arterials were too high in density, 14 included too much land and were located within the interior of the 15 planning area. Also, it was suggested that the density range not =? 16 be so extreme, there be less R-0 and R-15 designations, thus Q 17 creating a more even distribution of residential units. This 3 18 would result in more land allocated for R-7.5 and R-5 :W < J 79 residential designations. Many persons living in the Country "z 20 Commons subdivision within the City (zoned R-15), and not within :> 21 the area under consideration, favored having as low a density as 22 possible in the center of the study area abutting the 23 subdivision. There also was testimony that the density of other 24 residential areas of the City could be increased allowing Forest 25 Highlands to maintain a lower area -wide density. Based on the 26 above comments, the Planning Commission requested that staff work Page 2 - FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER 1 11 I with the neighborhood association in adjusting the Plan map to 2 develop a better consensus of residents in favor of the plan. 3 Between the months of October 1985 and March 1986, 4 adjustments to the map were made by City staff and the Forest 5 Highlands planning subcommittee that addressed many of the 6 neighborhood concerns expressed at the first two meetings. The Planning Commission recommended adoption of Attachment A 8 and the associated text amendments at their March 10, 1986 a meeting. This plan represents a reasonable compromise of the 10 desires of the existing residents and property owners to have a 11 neighborhood that maintains its social and physical fabric as it 12 grows to its ultimate density while at the same time presenting a reasonable development potential and fulfilling state mandated 13 residential density requirements. The City Council relies upon 14 the evidence referenced in the staff report dated January 12, 1987 15 as evidentiary support for the findings and reasons contained in 16 this order, which adopts the Planning Commission recommendation 17 without modification. 78 This amendment was originally initiated as a major plan W < ]° amendment pursuant to LOC 56.150. During the consideration of i 20 this amendment the City Code was amended to create a new type of 21 comprehensive plan amendment, the geographic amendment. LOC 22 56.135, 56.157, 56.158. Those Code amendments became effective 23 October 17, 1986. The effect of the change in classification was 24 to reduce the number of criteria that needed to be addressed in 25 this proceeding without changing the remaining criteria. Due to Z6 this reduction it is not considered necessary by the Council to Page 3 ' FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER III 1 have the public hearing reopened to address the remaining 2 unamended criteria again. 3 The following findings and reasons support the conclusion 4 that the proposed geographic amendment conforms to, or better 5 implements, Plan policies for the particular uses involved, as 6 required by LOC 56.158(1). 7 Urban Service Boundary Policy 8 General Policy 0 "III. The City will manage and phase urban growth within the 70 Urban Services Boundary, with a logical planned extension of basic services. 11 12 The amendment conforms to, or better implements this policy 13 by carrying out the planning exercise required. This amendment is the first step in managing the development of the Forest Highlands 14 area to urban levels. The density designations chosen have been 15 selected because they satisfy the other applicable legal ]6 requirements. Basic services are available and will be extended 77 upon annexation the the City. This amendment is a result of the 78 review required by this plan policy. Specific Policy 2 for 19 General Policy III can be amended by deleting the second paragraph 20 because it has been fulfilled, as can the entire Specific Policy 3 21 for that same general policy. 22 Overall Density Policy 23 General Policy 24 "I. The Comprehensive Plan will maintain the overall, 25 average residential density of the Urban Service Area within 26 the capacity of planned basic public facilities systems, Page 4 - FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER 1�0 I including at least water, sewer, streets, drainage and public 2 safety. 3 11. Residential densities and land use intensities will be 4 allocated on the basis of land suitability and public 5 facilities capacity. In the adoption of Plan amendments or 6 implementing regulations and ordinances the City will apply 7 the Growth Management Policies in a manner which assures 8 reasonable opportunities for residential development to occur Q at maximum permitted Plan densities subject to compliance 10 with the zoning and development codes, development standards, 11 and with the applicable provisions of OAR Division 01 through 20." 12 Residential Density Policies 13 General Policy 14 "I. The City will assure that residential density is 3 15 appropriately related to site conditions, surrounding land 16 J uses, and capacity of public facilities, (especially 17 streets), and overal Growth Management policies on density. 18 Density will be limited in areas identified as 19 potentially hazardous in accordance with the actual degree of 20 hazard. 11 III. Substantially developed single-family residential :2 neighborhoods will be maintained at existing density 2? designations. Zq IV. The City will provide for medium to high density I{ designations to meet needs for such housing, in accordance :6 with Growth Management policies." Page 5 - FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER 151 I Housing Choice Policies 2 General Policy 3 "I. The City will encourage the provision of a range of 4 housing types to meet the needs of various lifestyles and 5' family types. 6 II. The City will encourage the provision of low to moderate 7 cost housing to meet Lake Oswego's fair share of local and 8 regional needs." 0 The amendment conforms to, or better implements the above 10 stated policies by providing residential density designations consistent with state mandated requirements that can he supported 31 by existing or planned public facilities and that reflect the 12 suitability of the area for specific designations. The record 13 contains evidence that a thorough analysis of necessary public 14 i facilities was performed and that the physical features of the 0 15 area were taken into consideration in arrivinq at the density W ]� designations assigned. When combining the density calculations of 2 a1' the area with the density calculations for the remainder of the c� ]F City, the result is an overall residential density of 9.94 to W a 19 10.04 dwelling units per acre net buildable, depending on W W20 assumptions used. This calculation takes into consideration the 21 October, 1986 Comprehensive Plan amendment to the Willamette 22 Riverfront Subarea. Approximately 50 acres of this area has been 23 designated R-0/General Commercial. The Plan amendment for the 24 subarea (PA 06-86-02-283) requires the allocation of sufficient 25 land to provide the reasonable opportunity for the development of 26 a minimum of 500 dwelling units at the R-0 designation. The Pale 6 - FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER 15 ti 1 overall density for buildable lands in the City prior to this and 3 the Willamette Riverfront Subarea amendment was 10.2 dwelling 3 units per net buildable acre. 4 The City Engineering Department has studied the area and 5 concluded that gravity -fed sewer lines are feasible and that 6 existing sewer lines and treatment facilities can accommodate 7 additional sewerage generated by projected development. It has g also been found that additional storm water from the study area Q can be accommodated. An adequate domestic water system presently 10 exists in the area and can accommodate projected development. 11 Police protection can be provided with little increase in staffing 12 and physical facilities. Fire protection is currently provided to 13 the area by the City through a contract with the Lake Grove Fire District. 14 a Whenever possible, high density residential districts were 1s located on lots greater than 3/4 of an acre. Alternately, lot z 16 clusters that could qualify as redevelopable were used. High 17 density designations were not placed on the steep and narrow 18 stream corridors, such as the one southwest of Goodall Road, and 19 they were generally located on more moderate slopes. The most s 20 critical public facility issue regarding this Planning effort is 21 street capacity. The amendment locates high density residential 22 areas either abutting Boones Ferry, an arterial street, or very 23 close to it. Arterial streets have the capacity to accommodate 24 the traffic generated by the R-3 and R-5 density designations. By 25 decreasing density on the property furthest away from the 26 arterials the traffic impacts will be minimized. As the area Page 7 - FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER 1J 3 I develops street improvements will be required to satisfy City 2 requirements in LOC Cpt. 44 and 49. There is no present need for 3 upgraded streets and City standards will not allow development 4 unless adequate access exists. By providing a range of density 5 from R-3 through R-10 the opportunity for a variety of housing 6 options which can vary with style and cost has been provided. Social Resources Policies R General Policies O "III. The City will encourage participation of citizens in 10 the development of the future community, so residents can feel that they are members of the community." 11 This policy has been implemented through the extensive 12 planning process, coordination with Forest Highlands Neighborhood 13 Association and public hearing process which has led to this Plan 14 amendment. i 15 o "V. The City will strengthen neighborhood identity, through Z16 Wpublic .Q decisions which provide for neighborhood boundaries, 01' 0 2 social centers, residential privacy, pedestrian circulation W 0 18 and protection from disruptive land uses and traffic." W a 19 While this policy, by its terms, may appear to be applicable W W20 to this amendment, it is not. A review of the specific policies 21 for this general policy results in the conclusion that the intent 22 of this policy is directed at the preservation of neighborhoods 23 through events which occur at the time•of development and by 24 encouraging the involvement of neighborhood organizations and 25 citizen groups in that effort. To the limited extent this policy 26 may be applicable the amendment, by grouping residential densities Pale 8 - FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER 154 I and providing a decreasingdensity y gradiant while moving away from 2 the arterial streets, will maintain and strengthen the low density 3 sinqle-family residential area which is developing in the interior 4 of this area. 5 Residential Neighborhood Policies 6 General Policy: 7 "The City will: 8 I. Maintain a semi -rural character and low-density o single-family land use in the Forest Highlands neighborhood 10 and allow no urban development or extension of City services as long as Future Urbanizable designation applies." General Policy 12 13 "II. Actively preserve natural resources, particularly 14 wooded areas, streams and stream banks, views and wildlife habitat." f 15 The amendment conforms to, c: better implements, the 16 Residential Neighborhood Policies, by removing the Forest 17 D R Highlands neighhorhood from the Future Urbanizable designation. C 18 U The amendment proposes residential plan designations %-,hich ]° were determined after taking into account for the character of the 3 20 landform, the neighborhood and the obligation of the Citv to t 21 provide housing opportunities. The amendment responds to a 22 schedule agreed to by LCDC through the Comprehensive Plan 23 acknowledgment process. The City will continue to require 24 preservation of natural resources throughout the Forest Highlands 25 area as those lands are annexed and developed pursuant to the 26 City's Codes. Page 9 - FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER J J 26 Pale 10 —FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER 15U Statewide Planning Goals and Regional Planning Policies 2 The following findings and reasons support the conclusion 3 that the proposed amendment is consistent with the applicable 4 Statewide Planning Goals or regional plan policies, as required by 5 LOC 56.158(2). 6 Goal 1- Develop a citizen involvement program that insures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases E of the planning process. City staff has been working with the neighborhood a association for Forest Highlands to develop this plan 10 since June of 1984. Details of that involvement are ll described in the initial Forest Highlands staff report 12 of September 13, 1985. 13 Goal 2- Establish a land use planning process and policy 14 framework as a basis for all decisions and actions '. 15 .Q related to use of land and to assure an adequate ? 16 factual base for such decisions and actions. ` 1' The Citv of Lake Oswego has an acknowledged Land Use 3 1S Plan that provides a framework by which land use issues �J 19 regarding the study area have been defined and �w :W 20 decisions made to resolve those issues. An adequate 21 factual base for the study area has been developed 22 through this planning process. Adequate notice of 23 neighborhood meetings and public hearings was provided 24 in advance to allow affected persons reasonable time to 25 review and comment on the Plan amendment. 26 Pale 10 —FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER 15U ] Goal 3- To preserve and maintain agricultural lands. 2 Not applicable, all land is within the Metropolitan 3 Urban Growth Boundary and is available for urban uses. 4 Goal 4- To conserve forest lands for forest uses. 5 The investigation by the staff of the area and the 6 Comprehensive Plan identify small groves of trees which provide for forest uses. The conservation of these 8 forest lands for forest uses will occur at the time of 0 actual development. If the property is annexed to the 10 City for development these forest uses will be protected through application of the City's Plan 11 policies relating to natural resources protection and 12 residential site design, plus the planned development 13 provisions of the Zoning Code which must be used for 14 developments of over 20 units and provides for flexible 15 e lotting patterns to protect natural resources. In Goal 5- Conserve open space and P P protect natural and scenic a 17 resources. W 18 As explained on page 6 of the February 27 staff report, W < 19 J W significant natural features in the study area were z 20 considered in thelannin P g process. As annexations are 21 approved, development proposals are automatically 22 reviewed on a site -by -site basis. This development 23 review process involves the application of Development 24 Standards (LOC Cpt. 49) that were acknowledged as being 25 consistent with Goal 5 and conserve open space and 26 protect identified natural and scenic resources. Page 11 - FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER IJ! I Goal 6- Maintain and improve the quality of air, water and land 2 resources of the State. 3 The City of Lake Oswego presently has an environmental 4 management program to maintain the quality of air, 5 water and land that has been acknowledged by the State 6 as in compliance with this Goal. As annexations in the 7 study area occur, the City will apply the same program 8 to the annexed lands. The only environmental problems 0 that occur in the area are isolated septic system failures. As city sewer services are extended to 10 Forest Highlands, after annexation, isolated septic 12 system breakdowns can be prevented from becoming a 22 generalized public health problem. This amendment does 13 not allow development at increased densities without 14 i first the property being annexed and then rezoned to a 15 a City zone designation. Sewers must be provided for all 2W 1b new development, pursuant to City standards. Q 17 0 Goal 7- Protect life, property from natural disasters and ca y 25 hazards. 0 W S ]9 Natural hazards in the area are lands subject to W20 slumping and erosion. The severity of those hazards is 21 usually proportional to the degree of slope found frim 22 site to site. The more severe slopes, 24 - 50%, were 23 mostly found along stream channel ravines. Those 24 ravines were avoided in locating high density 25 residential districts that cause the most disturbance 26 to land. As annexations are approved and development Pale 12 - FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER .15,-) I proposals are considered, the City automatically 2 reviews project proposals on a site -by -site basis. 3 This review process involves the application of 4 Development Standards, acknowledged to be in compliance 5 with this Goal, that thoroughly address any possibility 6 for severe erosion or slumping. 7 Goal 8- Satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the state and visitors. 8 This Plan amendment has no impact on the interests c promoted by Goal 8. The City of Lake Oswego presently 10 owns 3 acres of park land along the Iron Mountain Creek ]1 and had planned for the acquisition of 10 more acres at 12 a particular site west of the Knauss/Country Commons 13 intersection. The City presently does not want to 14 acquire the above site, but will consider acquiring at �. 15 Nz least 10 acres of park land in the area as `0 16 opportunities arise. As lands are annexed and J Q 0° c > 17 developed in the Lake Oswego area, the City also �c �3, 18 requires that at least 15 - 20% of a given residential W Z W of 19 site be left in open space for passive or active >W 20 recreational use, or that a fee be paid toward 21 acquisition of an equivalent amount of open space. 22 Goal 9- Diversify and improve the economy of the State. 23 As annexations are approved, new dwelling units built 24 and associated infrastructure constructed, employment 25 opportunities in the construction field will be 26 sustained, if not increased. 13 - FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER 1J,1 Pale 1 Goal 10 and the Metropolitan Housing Rule - Provide housing needs 2 of citizens of the state. 3 The maximum planned density possible for residential 4 development in the study area is 6.3 dwelling units per 5 net buildable acre. When the number of dwelling units 6 and net developable acreage in the study area are 7 combined with the remainder of the City, the results 8 are an overall City density of 9.94 - 10.04 dwelling 0 units/net buildable acre depending on the assumptions 10 used. Those assumptions are explained in the January 12, 1987 staff report. This calculation takes into 11 consideration the October 1986 Plan amendment for the 12 Willamette River Subarea. Fifty acres of this area 13 have been redesignated R-0/General Commercial. The 14 Plan amendment for the subarea (PA 06-86-02-383) 15 requires that any ODPS for the site designate sufficient land to provide the reasonable opportunity s ]^. for the development of a minimum of 500 dwelling units V 3 ]8 at the R-0 density. The high densitv districts 19 adjacent to Boones Ferry Road are located on gentle to i 20 moderate slopes where multiple family structures can be 21 constructed, thus creating the potential for affordable 22 housing. When the property is annexed and City zones 23 are designated 100% of the residential land will be 24 available for attached sinale-family/multiple family 25 housing units thereby complying with the 50/50 split 26 requirement of the Metropolitan Housing Rule. Pale 14 - FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER 160 I Goal 11- Plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of public facilities and services as a 3 framework for urban and rural development. 4 The City Engineering Department has studied the problem 5 of providing sewer mains to the area and has concluded 6 that gravity feed lines are feasible and that existing 7 sewer lines and treatment facilities can accommodate 8 additional sewerage generated by projected 0 development. The area is designated by the Metro "208" 70 Waste Water Treatment Plan for service by the City's Tryon Creek plant. It has also been concluded after 71 study that additional storm water from the study area 12 can be accommodated. An adequate domestic water system 13 .+ presently exists in the area that can accommodate 14 projected development. The City coordinated with the 15 e affected school district and received no indication 16 that the schools in the area cannot accommodate the a 17 projected population increase in the study area. W 3 18 Police protection can he provided with little increase < 19 in staffing and physical facilities. Fire protection z 20 is currently provided to the area by the City through a 21 contract with the Lake Grove Fire District. General 22 municipal services such as library, planning and zoning 23 control and general administration will be expanded, 24 within budget limitations, as the area is annexed to 25 the City. This plan amendment creates no immediate 26 Page 15 - FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER 1Ei I impact on City services because the property is located 2 outside the City. 3 Goal 12- Provide and encourage a safe and convenient and 4 economic transportation system. 5 The proposed land use plan was developed with the above 6 goal in mind. Citizens in the study area felt that 7 higher density residential development districts should R abut arterial or collector streets, or at least be 0 nearby. The plan provides for a density increase from 70 the central portion of the neighborhood to the 71 perimeter. This reduces the potential vehicle trips 12 generated in the center of the study area. The existing street system will need to be improved 13 involving street widening and realignment after 14 7, annexation and development occurs. This is required by ?� 15 City standards. This is a normal practice providing_ Z aw J 16 appropriate street improvements to urbanizing areas as 50 .e 1` land is annexed and developed. - 0 'N 18 Goal 13- Conserve Energy Lo r W rJ 19 One of the guidelines for the energy goal is "combine `z W i` 20 increasingdensity y gradients along high capacity < 21 transportation corridors to achieve greater energy 22 efficiency". The above guideline was seriously 23 considered and implemented as stated above in the Goal 24 12 narrative. 2$ Goal 14- Provide for an orderly, efficient transition from rural 26 to urban land use. Page 16 - FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER 16 I Policies relating to this goal have been developed and 2 are incorporated in the Comprehensive Plan and will be 3 implemented through the Zoning Code and Development 4 Code. 5 The land is located within the Metropolitan Urban 6 Growth Boundary, therefore, the seven conversion 7 factors for rural land do not apply. While the City's 8 Plan calls this area "future urbanizable" the property 0 is in fact urban land and not urbanizable land for Goal 10 14 purposes. The property is directly adjacent to and surrounded on three sides by the City of Lake Oswego. 71 All urban services except sanitary sewer all presently 12 provided to the area. The level of existing 13 n development includes 500 persons living in the 246 acre 14 area. Fort;. -three of these acres are developed with 15 structures on lots of less than 3/4 of an acre. The z 7n area is committed to urban level uses and the only a 17 constraint to further development is the lack of r, W 18 sanitary sewers, which are readily available upon LL 19 J W annexation to the City. The four conversion factors Z zu for urbanizable land are not applicable. 21 Other City Code Criteria 22 The following findings and reasons support the conclusion 23 that the requirements of LOC 56.158(3), (4), (5) and (6) are met 24 by this amendment. 25 26 17 - FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER Page The City Engineering staff has studied the Forest Highlands 2 area and concluded that gravity feed sewer lines are feasible and 3 that existing sewer lines and treatment facilities can accommodate 4 sewerage generated by projected development. It has also been 5 found that additional storm water from the study area can be 6 accommodated. An adequate domestic water system presently exists 7 in the area and can accommodate projected development. Police g protection can be provided with little increase in staffing and Q physical facilities. Fire protection is currently provided to the 10 area by the City through a contract with the Lake Grove Fire 11 District. Arterial streets can accommodate the traffic generated 12 by projected development in the area and will be upgraded as 13 development occurs through the City's development process. 14 Whenever possible, high density residential districts were located on lots greater than 3/4 of an acre. Alternatively, lot 15 clusters that could qualify as redevelopable were used. The steep :0 `W 16 and narrow stream corridors and high density districts were 0 17 located on more moderate slopes. Natural hazards in the area are ,W 18 :c lands subject to slumping and erosion. The severity of those ` 19 hazards is usually proportional to the degree of slope found from 20 site to site. The more severe slopes, 24 to 50%, were found ` 21 primarily along stream channel ravines. Those ravines were 22 avoided in locating high density residential districts that cause 23 the most disturbance to the land. As annexations are approved and 24 development proposals are considered, the City will review 25 development proposals. This review involves the application of 26 Page 1 18 - FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER 1�`� I development standards which address the possibility of severe 2 erosion or slumping. 3 Buffering requirements are made at the time the land is 4 developed. The general terrain and tree cover of the Forest 5 Highlands area offers considerable opportunities for buffering at 6 the time of actual development. The requirements of the R-3 and R-5 zones call for setbacks to allow buffering adjacent to less 8 intense development and the City's Development Standards require buffering for all major developments. a The proposed density is consistent with the platted 70 development pattern in the adjacent surrounding areas. The 11 existing parcel and lot pattern found in the area includes rural 12 parcels that were made large enough to accommodate wells and 13 v septic systems or at least septic systems. Some of the parcels r 14 _ are at least 1/2 acre in size and 83% of the study area includes 15 lots with areas that exceed 3/4 acre. The more urban type of 16 residential development will include lots that range in size from 17 10,000 square feet to 3,375 sq. ft. The area closest to the 18 Country Commons subdivision (zoned R-15) has been given an R-10, 19 or 10,000 square foot designation, which is consistent with z 20 Country Commons. The area closest to the Boones Ferry commercial 21 and high density residential areas have been given R-3 and R-5 II 22 designations. 23 The topography in the area will make it possible to protect 24 privacy on adjoining property, both within and adjacent to the 25 property. Most of the study area has moderate slopes which 26 provide topographic site design opportunities for buffering new Page 19 - FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER I residential development. Through the application of the City's 2 Zoning and Development Standards, coupled with the topography of 3 the area, residents will be afforded privacy as the area is 4 developed. S CONCLUSION 6 The proposed geographic amendment, PA 7-85, is in compliance with the requirements of LOC 56.158. g ORDER 0 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED by the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego that PA 7-85 be approved as follows: 10 1. The Comprehensive Plan Map be amended as identified on 11 Attachment A. 12 2. Amend the Comprehensive Plan text as follows: 13 A. Residential Neighborhood Policies section regarding the 14 Forest Highlands Neighborhood, page 86: 15 o P Delete General Policy I. c; 16 "I. Maintain a semi -rural character and low-density ,Q O 17 single family land use in the Forest Highlands c V18 neighborhood and allow no urban development or extensior W < 19 of City services as long as Future Urbanizable W W20 designation applies. 21 Renumber General Policy II to General Policy I. 22 Delete Specific Policies 1 and 2 for General Policy I. 23 "l. Maintain existing low-density (R-20 or lower) 24 residential land use." 25 "2. Limit extensions of sewer into the area to provide 26 for imminent dangers to public health and safety, until Pale 20 - FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER 166 1 such time as the Future Urbanizable designation is 2 changed to Immediate Growth. If sewer extension into 3 Forest Highlands is required while Future Urbanizable 4 applies, the provision of sewers and other public 5 facilities will be planned to avoid causing the forced 6 7 subdivision of large parcels as a result of relatively high assessments." 8 Renumber Specific Policies for General Policy II to 0 Specific Policies for General Policy I. 70 B. Amend the map on Page 12 entitled "Lake Oswego Urban 11 Service Area" to remove the identification of Forest 12 Highlands as a Future Urbanizable Area. 13 C. Delete the third paragraph of Specific Policy 2 and.all 14 of Specific Policy 3 for Urban Service Boundary General 15 3 Policy III, P. 15. T 16 This order was presented to and approved by the City Council of .0 2 17 the City of Lake Oswego. 3 18 Dated thiso day of February, 1987. i 19 J L y 20 William E. Yo ng, Mayor 21 Vote at the Council meeting of January 20, 1987 22 AYES: Young, Durham, Fawcett, Holman, Sinclair, Waggoner, Woller 23 NOES: 24 ABSTAIN: 25 EXCUSED: - 26 Doc. No. 790C .16'1 Page 21 - FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER HOGHLA4DS FUTUaF QRbam ate\ M • IRUPY AM 1 : D"! F L." ATTACHMENT A 2 J A 5 6 7 8 9 1U 11 12 13 _4 15 16 17 18 ,y LU 21 22 3 -4 BEFORE THE' PLANNING COMMISSION OF TH I•; CITY OF LAKE; OSWE:UO A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A) TEXT AND MAP AMENDMENT TO ) THE LAKE OSWEGO ) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ) PA 7-85-351, FOREST HIGHLANDS FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS a ORDER NATUPE ()F APP1,ICATION '1'o amend ]--he Comprehons ive Plan map and text. for t Ei(-- E'orest Highlands "Future Urb•an.izable Area" which includes approximately 246 acres. HEARINGS The Planning Commission held public hearings and considered this application at its meetings of September 23, 1985, October 28, 1985 December 9, 1985 and March 10, 1986. CRITERIA The request under consideration is a geographic amendment, a legislative chranye regulated by LOC 56.135, 56.157 and 56.158. Applicable requirements and provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, LCDC Goals, regional planning policies and City Codes were considered. The following criteria were found by the Planning Commission to be most relevant to this decision: �E 1 PA 7-85-351 GSFt,I,' MW : kh/661 z COUNCIL EXHIBIT y 2Jr PP. 1 LOC 56 2 3 LOC 56.156 Criteria & Standards for 4 Geographic Amendments 5 6 Comprehensive Policies 7 Urban Service Boundary Policies, pages 10-16; General Policy 8 III, Specific Policies 2 and 3 9 Overall Density Policy, pages 19-21; General Policies I and 11 Residential Neighborhood Policies, pages 86-91; General 12 Policy I, Specific Policies 1 and 2; and, General Policy II 13 14 METRO Housing Rule '5 Statewide Planning Goals 1,2,5,6,7,8,10,11,12,13,14 16 t:INDINGS AND REASONS 1? Two staff reports were written on the Forest Highlands planning In issue. Those are identified as the September 13, 1985 and the 19 February 27, 1986 staff reports. The land use proposal (Exhibit L) 20 contained in the September 13, 1985 staff report was not accepted by 21 the Planning Commission at their October 28 meeting. Following the 22 consideration of public testimony at the March 10, 1986 public 23 hearing, the Planning Commission accepted Exhibit 4 with the following 24 change: the area between Verte and Redwood Courts designated R-5 be 25 changed to R-7.5. Attachment A to this document reflects the 26 designations accepted by the Planning Commission on March lu, 1986. PAGE 2 PA 7-85-351 GSFM/MW:kh/6612 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3 9 10 11 12 13 i4 15 1 16 17 i8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 The Planning Commission incorporated the History and Background section of the September 13, 1985 staff report and the February 27, 1986 staff report as support for its decision to approve the plan map identified as Attachment A and the associated text amendments at their March 10, 1986 meeting. This plan represents a reasonable compromise between compliance" with the Metro Housing Rule, Goal 10 and the desire of the existing residents to have a neighborhood that maintains its social and physical fabric as it grows to its ultimate density. The Planning Commission also incorporates the following evidence associated with the September 13, 1985 report as support for its decision: Exhibits A,B,M,N,O,P,Q,R,S,T,U,V,W,EE, JJJJ; and, the minutes of the Planning Commission meetings of September 23, 1985, October 28, 1985, December 9, 1985 and March 10, 1986. The initial land use plan identified as Exhibit L included the complete range of Plan designations for residential uses: R-0, R-3, R-5, R-7.5, R-10 and R-15. Those residential districts represent the following density ranges: R-0, 52 dwelling units/acre; R-3, (12.9 du/ac); R-5 (8.7 du/ac); R-7.5 (5.8 du/ac); R-10 (4.3 du/ac); and, R-15 (2.9 du/ac). PAGE 3 PA 7-85-351 GSFM/raw: kh/66lz 173 1— 3 1 The initial plan (Exhibit L) proposal allowed for some 1,014 dwelling 2 units, 400 of which would be located in R-0 and R-3 zones and 3 comprised of 17 acres. The R-0 and R-3 zones were mainly located on 4 the perimeter of the study area with the exception of the one high 5 density zone located northeast of the high school, and another on 6 Atwater Road. The initial plan allowed for an ultimate residential 7 density of 7.8 dwelling units per net buildable acre. 9 T'he verbal and written testimony made to the Planning Commission at 10 the September 23 and October 28, 1985 meetings was mainly in 11 opposition to the Exhibit L plan. The Forest Highlands planning 12 subcommittee's main theme in developing the first plan, was to try and 13 allocate high density zones as close. to arterial streets as possible 14 on suitable, undeveloped land. Located in the interior of the study 15 area were low density residential zones that gradually increased in 16 density from the center (R-15) to the perimeter (1Z-0). Much of the 17 testimony against the Exhibit L pian was that the multiple family 13 zones along the arterials were too high in density; included too much 19 land; and, were !Dcated within the interior of the planning area. 20 Also, it was suggested that the density range not be so extreme, there 21 be less R-0 and R-15 designations, thus creating a more even 22 distribution of residential units. This would result in more land 23 allocated for R-7.5 and R-5 residential designations. Many 24 25 �6 RAGE 4 PA 7-85-351 GSFt4/MW : kh/66lz 171 )-q 11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1b 17 18 15 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 persons living in the Country Commons subdivision within the City (zoned R-15), and not within the area are under consideration, favored having as low a density as possible in the center of the study area abutting the subdivision. `here also was testimony that other residential areas of the City could be increased in density, allowing Forest Highlands to maintain a lower area -wide density. Based on the above comments, the Planning Commission requested that staff work with the neighborhood association in adjusting the Plan map to develop a better consensus of residents in favor of the plan. Between the months of October 1985 and March 1986, adjustments to the map were made by City staff and the Forest Highlands planning subcommittee that addressed many of the neighborhood concerns expressed at the first two meetings. The result of that work is represented by the plan map, Attachment A, accepted by the Planning Commission March 10, 1936. Fhe following information substantiates a conclusion that the proposed geographic amendment conforms to, or better implements, Plan policies for the particular uses involved, as reqired by LOC 56.158(1). PAGE 5 PA 7-85-351 GSFM/MW:kh/66lz 1- S 1 2 3 A 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Urban Service Boundary Policy General Policy "III. The City will manage and phase urban growth within the Urban Services Boundary, with a logical planned extension of basic services. Specific Policies 2. within five years from the date of approval, the FUTURE URBANIZABLE designation will be reviewed by the City to determine whether it remains appropriate or should be changed to IMMEDIA'T'E GROWTH. Redesignation would be for an entire area to avoid piecemeal development. 3. The City will initiate review of the Forest Highlands Future Urbanizable area in the fiscal year 1983-84 according to the schedule submitted to LCDC. Any redesignations would be for tie entire area, or a logical subsection thereof, to avoid piecemeal development. Redesignations will not alter the City's compliance with METRO housing goals contained in OAR 660-07-03^." PAGE 6 PA 7-85-353 GSFM/MW : kh/6612 -6 L1 Ic 13 14 1 16 17 lb 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 The amendment conforms to, or better implements the Urban Service Boundary Policies by achieving the revisions envisioned by those policies. The amendment is a result of the review prompted by the policies. overall Density Policy General Policy "I. The Comprehensive Plan will maintain the overall, average residential density of the Urban Service Area within the capacity of planned basic public facilities systems, including at least water, sewer, streets, drainage and public safety. II. Residential densities and land use intensities will be allocated on the basis of land suitability and public facilities capacity. in the adoption of Plan amendments or implementing regulations and ordinances the City will apply the Growth Management Policies in a manner which assures reasonable opportunities for residential development to occur at maximum permitted Plan densities subject to compliance with the zoning and development codes, development standards, and with the applicable provisions of OAR Division 01 through 20." PAGE 7 PA 7-85-351 GSPM/MW:kh/66lz 1 Ti I-'7- sue 8 PA 7-85-351 GSFM/ MW : kh / 661 z 1 'I' The amendment conforms to, or better implements the Overall Density Policy by providing residential density designations that can be supported by existing or planned public facilities and that reflect the suitability of the area for specific designations. When combininc the proposed density calculations of the plan area with the density 5 calculations for the remainder of the city, the result is an overall 7 city density of 9.6 dwelling units per acre. This calculation does not take into consideration a recent (October 1986) Comprehensive Pla amendment to the cement plant portion of the Willamette Industrial p Area. Approximately 50 acres of this area has been designated ,1 R-0/General Commercial. The Plan amendment for the cement plant (PA - 06-86-02-283) provides the opportunity for the development of a _j minimum of 500 dwelling units. This additional density will increase :4 the overall density considerably closer to the goal of 10 dwelling units per acre city-wide. :G The City Engineering Department has studied the area and conclude) :8 that gravity -fed sewer lines are feasible and that existing sewer :y lines and treatment facilities can accommodate additional sewerage generated by projected development. It has also been found that :additional storm water from the study area can he accommodated. An 14 adequate domestic water system presently exists in the area and can 3 accommodate projected development. Police protection can he provide _y with little increase in staffing and physical facilities. Fire sue 8 PA 7-85-351 GSFM/ MW : kh / 661 z 1 'I' 1 2 3 4 3 6 1, 9 20 21 22 23 protection is currently provided to the area by the City through a contract with the Lake Grove Fire District. Whenever possible, high density residential districts were located on lots greater than 3/4 of an acre. Alternately, lot clusters that could qualify as redevelopable were used. The steep and narrow stream corridors such as the one southwest of Goodall Road were avoided, and high density districts were, for the the most part, located on more moderate slopes. The most critical public facility issue regarding this planning effort is street capacity. The Forest Highlands neighborhood group chose to locate high density residential areas either abutting Boones Ferry, an arterial street, or very close to it. Arterial streets can easily accommodate the traffic generated by the R-3 and R-5 high density zones. Residential Neighborhood Policies General Policy: "The City will: I. Maintain a semi -rural character and low-density single family land use in the Forest Highlands neighbor -hood and allow no urban development or extension of City services as long as Future Urbanizable designation applies." ?4'.GE 9 PA 7-85-351 GSFM/MW:kh/66lz Specific Policies "The City will, in cooperation with Clackamas County: 4 5 1. Maintain existing low-density (R-20 or lower) residential 6 land use. 8 2. Limit extensions of sewer into the area to provide for 9 imminent dangers to public health and safety, until such time as the Future Urbanizable designation is changed to Immediate Growth. If sewer extension into Forest Highlands I is required while Future Urbanizable applies, the provision of sewers and other public facilities will be planned to 14 avoid causing the forced sub -division of large parcels as a 11 result of relatively high assessments." ,6 li General Policy 18 �9 "ll. Actively preserve natural resources, particularly wooded areas, streams and stream banks, views and wildlife habitat." 21 __2 The amendment conforms to, or better implements the Residential 23 Neighborhood Policies, by removing the Forest,Highlands neighborhood from the Future Urbanizable designation. �6 The amendment proposes residential pian designations which account for P GE 10 PA 7-85-351 GSFM/MW:kh/66lz lull 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 �4 26 the character of the landform, the neighborhood and the obligation of the City to provide housing opportunities. The amendment responds to a schedule agreed to by LCDC through the Comprehensive Plan acknowledgement process. The City will continue to require preservation of natural resources throughout the Forest Highlands area as those lands are annexed and fall under the City's Codes. Goals The following information substantiates a conclusion that the proposed amendment is consistent with any applicable Statewide Planning Goals or regional plan policies, as required by LOC 56.158(2). Goal 1- Develop a citizen involvement program that insures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process. City staff has been working with the neighborhood association for Forest Highlands to develop this plan since June of 1984. Details of that involvement are described in the initial Forest Highlands staff report of September 13, 1985. ?AGE 11 PA 7-85-351 GSFl4/MW : kh/661 z 18; !" it 1 2 3 4 5 6 a 10 �1 2 13 _4 ;6 .a 2 ") 4 22 23 2- 2� 26 Goal 2- Establish a land use -planning process and policy framework as a basis for all decisions and actions related to use of land and to assure an adequate factual base for such decisions and actions. The City of Lake Oswego has a State acknowledged Land Use Plan that provides a framework by which land use problems regarding the study area have been defined and decisions made to resolve those problems. An adequate factual base for the study area has been developed over the last 20 months. Adequate notice of neighborhood meetings and the Planning Commission hearings was provided in advance to allow affected persons reasonable time to review the elan amendment. Goals 3 and 4 regarding the preservation of farm and forest land are not applicable to the Forest Highlands area. Forest Highlands is inside the Lake Oswego Urban Growth Boundary and as such is considered available for urban uses according to Goal 14 "Urbanization". Goal 5- Conserve open space and protect natural and scenic PAGE 12 resources. As explained on page 6 of the February 27 staff report, significant Natural Features in the study area were PA 7-85-351 GSFM/MW:kh/66lz 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5 0 1G 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 goal 6 - Goal 7 - PAGE 13 considered in the planning process. As annexations are approved, development proposals are automatically reviewed on a site by site basis. This development review process involves the application of Development Standards (Chapter 49 of LOC) that were designed to conserve open space and to protect identified natural and scenic resources. Maintain and improve the qualify of air, water and land resources of the State. The City of Lake Oswego presently has an environmental management program to maintain the quality of air, water and land that has been acknowledged by the State as in compliance with this Goal. As annexations in the study area occur, the City will apply the same program to the annexed lands. The only environmental problems that occur in the area are isolated septic system failures. As city sewer services are extended to Forest Highlands, isolated septic system breakdowns can be prevented from becoming a generalized public health problem. Protect life, property from natural disasters and hazards. Natural hazards in the area are lands subject to slumping and erosion. The severity of those hazards is usually Proportional to the degree of slope found from site to site. The more severe slopes, 24 - 50%, were mostly found PA 7-85-351 GSFM/MW'kh,'661z 1 ' 1, 12, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B 9 1G 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 along stream channel ravines. Those ravines were avoided in locating high density residential districts that cause the most disturbance to land. As annexations are approved and development proposals are considered, the City automatically reviews project proposals on a site by site basis. This review process involves the application of Development Standards that thoroughly address any possibility for severe erosion or slumping. Goal 8- Satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the state and visitors. The City of Lake Oswego presently owns 3 acres of park land along the Iron Mountain Creek and had planned for the acquisition of 10 more acres at a particular site west of the Knauss/Country Commons intersection. The City presently does not want to acquire the above site but will consider acquiring at least 10 acres of park land in the area as opportunities arise. As lands are annexed and developed in the Lake Oswego area, the City also requires that at least 15 - 20% of a given residential site be left in open space for passive or active recreational use, or that a fee be paid toward acquisition of an equivalent amount of open space. PAGE 14• PA 7-85-351 GSEM/MW:kh/66lz 18,1 Goal 9- 1 3 4 5 6 7 e 9 10 11. 1Z 13 14 1Z' 16 17 18 19 20 2; 22 23 24 25 26 Paae Diversify and improve the economy of the State. As annexations are approved, new dwelling units built and associated infrastructure constructed, employment opportunities in the construction field will be sustained, if not increased. Goal 10 and the Regional Housing Goal - Provide housing needs of citizens of the state. The maximum planned density possible for residential development in the study area is 6.3 dwelling units per net acre. When the numbers of dwelling units and net developable acreage in the study area are combined with the remainder of the City, the results are an overall City density of 9.6 dwelling units/net acre. This calculation does not take into consideration a recent Plan amendment (October 1986) to the cement plant portion of the Willamette Industrial area. Approximately 50 acres of this are has been redesignated R-0/General Commercial. The Plan amendment for the cement plant (PA 06-B6-02-383) provides the opportunity for the development of a minimum of 500 dwelling units. This additional density will increase the overall density considerably closer to the goal of 10 dwelling units per acre city-wide. The high density 15 PA 7-85-351 GSFM/MW :kh/661z -S I districts adjacent to Boones Ferry road are located on 2 gentle to moderate slopes where multiple family structures 3 can be constructed, thus creating the potential for 4 5 affordable housing. 6 Goal 11- Plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient 7 arrangement of public facilities and services as a framework 8 for urban and rural development. 0 1� The City of Lake Oswego has been requested by the State of 11 Oregon to begin land use and public facility planning for 12 the Forest Highlands area so that annexation requests can be 13 considered in the coming years with some assurance that the 14 City can provide services. Forest Highlands residents will 15 also have a better idea of what residential densities can 16 occur in riven parts of the study area as annexations are 17 approved. The City Engineering Department has studied the 18 problem of- providing sewer mains to the area and has 19 concluded that gravity feed lines are feasible and that 20 existing sewer lines and treatment facilities can 21 accommodate additional sewerage generated by projected 22 development. It has also been found that additional storm 23 water from the study area can be accommodated. An adequate 24 domestic water system presently exists in the area that can 25 accommodate projected development. Schools in the area can 26 accommodate the projected population increase in the study PAGE- 16 PA 7-85-351 GSFM/MW:kh/b6lz 4 h 7 1: 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 .24 25 26 area. Police protection can be provided with little increase in staffing and physical facilities. Fire protection is currently provided to the area by the City through a contract with the Lake Grove Fire District. Goal 12 -Provide and encourage a safe and convenient and economic transportation system. The proposed land use plan was developed with the above goal in mind. Citizens in the study area felt that higher density residential development districts should abut arterial or collector streets, or at least be nearby. The plan provides for a density increase from the central portion of the neighborhood to the perimeter. This reduces the potential vehicle trips generated in the center of the study area. The existing street system will need to be improved involving street widening and realignment as development occurs. Traffic control devices such as stop signs and traffic lights at certain intersections may also need to be provided as planned development occurs. This is a normal practice providing appropriate street improvements to urbanizing areas as land is annexea and developed. PAGE, 17 PA 7-85-351 GSFM/MW:kh/66lz /-- 17 1 Goal 13 -Conserve Energy 2 3 One of the guidelines for the energy goal is "combine 4 increasing density gradients along high capacity 5 transportation corridors to achieve greater energy 6 efficiency". The above guideline was seriously considered 7 and implemented as stated above in the Goal 12 narrative. 8 9 10 Goal 14 -Provide for an orderly, efficient transition from rural to 11 urban land use. 1� 13 Policies relating to this goal hr-,ve been developed and are 14 incorporated in the Comprehensive Plan and will he 15 implemented through the Zoning Code and Development Code. 16 17 The Plan amendments are consistent with the applicable statewide 18 planning goals 1,2,5,6,7,8,10,11,12,13,14, and the Metro Regional 19 Housing Rule (OAR 660-07-035). 20 21 The following information substantiates a conclusion that public 22 facilities have capacity and are available to serve the proposed 23 change or can be made available, as required by LOC 56.158(3). 24 25 The City Engineering staff has reviewed the Forest Highlands area and 26 concluded that gravity feed sewer lines are feasible and that existing Paae 18 PA 7-85-351 GSFM/MW :1ch/66lz I sewer lines and treatment facilities can accommodate sewerage 2 generated by projected development. It has also been found that 3 additional storm water from the study area can he accommodated. An 4 adequate domestic water system presently exists in the area and can 5 accommodate projected development. Police protection can be provided 6 with little increase in staffing and physical facilities. Fire 7 protection is currently provided to the area by the City through a 8 contract with the Lake Grove Fire District. Arterial Streets can g accommodate the traffic generated by projected development in the area 10 and will be upgraded as development occurs through the City's 11 development process. 12 13 The following information substantiates a conclusion that the physical 14 constraints within the site have been evaluated to determine if uses 15 consistent with the Plan designation(s) can physically be accommodated 16 on the site, as required by LOC 56.158(4). 17 18 Whenever possible, high density residential districts were located on 19 lots greater than 3/4 of an acre. Alternatively, lot clusters that 20 could qualify as redevelopable were used. The steep and narrow stream 21 corridors and high density districts were located on more moderate 22 slopes. Natural hazards in the area are lands subject to slumping and 23 erosion. The severity of those hazards is usually proportional to the 24 degree of slope found from site to site. The more severe slopes, 24 25 to 50%, were found primarily along stream channel ravines. Those 26 ravines were avoided in locating high density residential districts ?age 19 PA 7-85-351 GSFM/MW:kh/66lz 1 �; � , 1 that cause the most disturbance to the land. As annexations are 2 approved and development proposals are considered, the City will 3 review development proposals. This review involves the application of 4 development standards which address the possibility of severe erosion 5 or slumping. 6 7 The following information substantiates a conclusion that areas a designated R-3 and R-5 can be buffered from adjoining residential 9 areas in a manner which protects the privacy of adjoining uses, as "0 required by LOC X6.158(5). 11 12 Buffering requirements are made at the time the land is developed. 13 The general terrain and tree cover of the Forest Highlands area offers :4 considerable opportunities for buffering at the time of actual i5 development. Z'he requirements of the R-3 and R-5 zones call for 16 setbacks to allow buffering adjacent to less intense development and i7 the City's Development Standards require buffering for all major 18 developments. 19 20 The following information substantiates a conclusion that, for R-7.5 21 and R-10 designations, the proposed density is consistent with the 22 platted development pattern in the surrounding area or that the 23 topography in the area will make it possible to protect privacy on 24 adjoining property, both within and adjacent to the property, as 25 required by LOC 56.158(6). 26 PAGE 20 PA 7-85-351 GSFM/MW:kh/66lz 1�0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 EL Page The proposed density is consistent with the platted development pattern in the surrounding area. The existing parcel and lot pattern found in the area includes rural parcels that were made large enough to accommodate wells and septic systems or at least septic systems. Some of the parcels are at least 1/2 acre in size and 83% of the study area includes lots with areas that exceed 3/4 acre. The more urban type of residential development will include lots that range in size from 10,000 square feet to 3,375 sq. ft. The area closest to the Country Commons subdivision (zoned R-15) has been given a R-10, or 10,000 square foot designation, which is consistent with Country Commons. The topography in the area will make it possible to protect privacy on adjoining property, both within and adjacent to the property. Most of the study area has moderate slopes which provide topographic site design opportunities for buffering new residential development are available. Through the application of the City's Zoning and Development Standards, coupled with the topography of the area, residents will be afforded privacy as the area is developed. CONCLUSION The proposed geographic amendment, PA 7-85, is in compliance with LOC Chapter 56, of the Comprehensive Plan, Statewide Planning Goals and regional plan policies. 21 PA 7-85-351 GSFM/MW :kh/66lz 1 2 3 4 b 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ORDER IT IS RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION of the City of Lake Oswego that, PA 7-85-351 be recommended for approval to the Council as follows: PAGE 22 1. The Comprehensive Plan Map be amended as identified on Attachment A. , 2. Amend the Comprehensive Plan text as follows: A. Residential Neighborhood Policies section regarding the Forest Highlands Neighborhood, page 86: Delete General Policy I. "I. Maintain a semi -rural character and low-density single family land use in the Forest Highlands neighborhood and allow no urban development or extension of City services as long as Future Urbanizable designation applies. Renumber General Policy II to General Policy I. Delete Specific Policies 1 and 2 for General Policy I. "I. Maintain existing low-density (R-20 or lower) residential land use." PA 7-85-351 GSFM/MW:kh/6612 "2. Limit extensions of sewer into the area to provide for imminent dangers to public health and safety, until ? such time as the Future Urbanizable designation is I changed to Immediate Growth. If sewer extension into > Forest Highlands is required while Future Urbanizable applies, the provision of sewers and other public facilities will be planned to avoid causing the forced 3 subdivision of large parcels as a result of relatively high assessments." ,0 it Renumber Specific Policies for General Policy II to 2 Specific Policies for General Policy I. .3 :4 B. Amend the map on Page 12 entitled "Lake Oswego Urban :5 Service Area" to remove the identification of Forest -6 Highlands as a Future Urbanizable Area. �. DATED this a y day of November, 1986. '.8 14 20 21 22 i4 23 Adrianne Brockman, Chairman 24 Planning Commission 25 26 PAGE 23 PA 7-85-351 GSFM/MW:kh/66lz -- 2.3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ,5 16 17 1� 20 21 L'2 23 2 2� 26 Karen Scott, Secretary ATTEST: VOTE AT THE MEETING OF MARCH 10, 1986 AYES: Brockman, Burton, Rodrigues, Weisser, Robinette, Rosencrantz NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Wexler VOTE AT THE MEETING OF NOVEMBER 10, 1986: AYES: Burton, Robinette, Brockman NOES: None ABSTAIN: Ross ABSENT: Wexler, Rodrigues PAGE 24 PA 7-85-351 GSFM/MW:kh/66lz .19 %i STAFF REPORT September 13, 1985 FILE NO. PA 7-85 APPLICANT City of Lake Oswego REQUEST To amend the Comprehensive Plan map and text for the Forest Highlands "Future Urbanizable Area" including 246 acres. The map amendment involves replacing the present Plan designation of "Future Urbanizable" with Plan Designations for "Immediate Growth" that will allow for residential developement ranging from 2.9 to 52 dwelling units per acre. The map amendment will also involve the deletion of the map designation for a Park originally located west of the Knaus/Country Commons intersection. Lastly, the above map amendments will necessitate the deletion of specific Comprehensive Plan Policy 3 on page 15, General Policy I and Specific Policies 1 and 2 on page 60 of the Comprehensive Plan text. LOCATION Forest Highlands "Future Urbanizable Area" includes the 246 acres shown on Exhibits A and $. The area is generally located north of Country Club Road, west of Boca Ratan Dirve, East of Boones Ferry Road and South of the Clackamas County North boundary. NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION Forest Highlands APPLICABLE CRITERIA LOC 56.155 Certain Comprehensive Plan Policies of the: Growth Management Policy Element Community Resource Policy Element Natural Resource Policy Element Open Space Land Use Policy Element Land Use Activities Policy Element METRO Housing Rule Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 H I S'T'ORY & BACKGROUND As land use designations were being considered and adopoted for areas inside the Lake Oswego City limits and Urban Service Boundary in the COUNCIL EXHIBIT 2 19 5 2dpP• 2- 1 Staff Report/Forest Highlands September 11, 1985 Page 2 late 70's, Forest Highlands residents were surveyed to determine their preference for Plan designations for their area. The majority of the property owners in the Forest Highlands area favored maintenance of its rural character and opposed annexation to the City, provision of new services and residential development at urban densities. The results indicated that 93% of the survey respondents did not need sewers and 7% did. As a result of the above survey, the City Council adopted a Comprehensive Plan land use designation called "Future Urbanizable". The purpose of the designation is to maintain the existing level of development for an area until such time as urban services may be available or needed and a new redesignation for immediate growth is applied. The "Future Urbanizable" land use designation was applied to portions of the Forest Highland area identified on Exhibit A. Specific Policy 2 under the General Policy III titled "Manage and Phase Urban Growth" (pg. 14) stated: "Generally, urban services and facilities would not be provided singly to FUTURE URBANIZEABLE areas, especially where the effect would be to force development. The City will give lower priority to provision of or planning for public facilities for such areas in its Capital Improvements Program. Within five years from the date of approval, the FUTURE URBANIZABLE designation will be reviewed by the City to determine whether it remains appropriate or should be changed to IMMEDIATE GROWTH. Redesignation would be for an entire area to avoid piecemeal development." In January of 1984, the Comprehensive Plan was amended to include the following Policy to comply with LCDC Acknowledgement Order. "The City will initiate review of the Forest Highlands ubanizable area in the fiscal year 1983-64 according to the schedule submitted to the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC). Any redesignations would be for the entire area, or a logical subsection thereof, to avoid piecemeal development. Redesignations will not alter the City's compliance with METRO Housing Goals contain in OAR 660-07-035." In early 1984, City staff contacted the Forest Highlands Neighborhood Association to begin the process of review as required in the LCDC Zcknowledgement Order. The Forest Highlands Neighborhood Association again surveyed the neighborhood residents in April of 1984 (Exhibit C). Results of that survey were basically the same as the 1977 neighborhood survey. Most of the residents of the area desired a R-20 zone designation (lot size minimum of 20,000 sq. ft.). On .Tune 21st of 1984, the planning staff attended a Forest Highlands meeting and briefly explained that the City was required by the State of Oregon to develop a land use plan for the Forest Highlands area and City Planning staff wanted the residents of the area to participate in the plannning effort. The citizens agreed that: more meetings were needed to resolve the residential density issue. 19 i► 2- z Staff Report/Forest Highlands September 11, 1985 Page 3 At a Forest Highlands Neighborhood meeting held October 2, 1984, the members met with the intention of voting to confirm the results of the April 184' survey which showed a majority preference for R-20 zoning. A motion was made to recommend that the City of Lake Oswego adopt a R-20 Plan designation for all of the area. Amendments were made to the motion recommending that a variety of higher residential density designations be adopted in different parts of the subject area. Because of the complexity of the motion, the neighborhood committee concluded with a resolution that City staff make available a map to Forest Highland residents and they depict their preferred density. It was also resolved that the planning staff invest time in developing an inventory of ownership, population and natural characteristics for the whole unincorporated Forest Highlands area (Exhibits D,B). At the March 26, 1985 Neighborhood Association meeting, City staff presented results of the inventory work in map form. Staff also presented nine scenarios showing different locations for high density residential zones and the results of the owner survey for residential densities. Staff described verbally what were the ramifications of the above Plan maps in terms of 20 year population projections and the kinds of structures allowed in R-5, R-3 and R-0 residential districts. The meeting attendants asked questions relating to the map inventory information and the Plan scenarios. No decisions were made regarding what scenario was preferred by the majority of the attendants or the neighborhood board (Exhibits G, H). However, a neighborhood planning subcommittee was organized and they subsequently developed a Plan for land use in the area. In the Spring of 1985, the planning subcommittee developed a Plan identified as Option A and submitted it to City staff for review. City staff considered the map proposal and made its own proposal called Option B. At the May 30, 1985 neighborhood meeting, the neighborhood subcommittee offered a second map for attendants to consider identified as Option C. Approximately 80 residents attended the meeting. After hours of discussion regarding the ramifications of the three map options, the majority of the attendants voted to allow members of the neighborhood subcommittee to represent them in developing, with the City staff, a new map incorporating the more desirable aspects of map Option C (the subcommittee map) and map Option B (City staff proposal). In addition to the above vote, a majority -of the attendants voted on the following condition: The City undertake a study of the impacts of the traffic volumes that could be generated by ultimate development at planned residential densities. Based on the study, a Plan be developed for road improvements, pathways and new streets. (see Exhibits I, J, K). During the Summer months, City staff and the Forest Highlands planning subcommittee members worked together and developed one map that was accepted by the subcommittee in late July 1985. That map z- 3 Staff Report/Forest Highlands September 11, 1985 Page 4 was brought to City Hall by a representative of the subcommittee on July 31, 1985 with a note stating acceptance. Exhibit L is a small copy of the map that was finally accepted. A large scale map will be available for review at the public hearing. STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION The Forest Highlands Future Urbanizable area is semi -rural in nature and consists of 246 acres. West of the study area is Boones Ferry Road, Lake Oswego High School and urban uses associated with Mountain Park such as Town Square and Parkridge Condominium. By contrast, low density residential development occurs east of the study area beyond which is Tryon Creek State Park. Like adjacent land uses, Forest Highlands area can be described as a landscape of contrast; with moderate slopes mostly ranging between 5-24%, stream channels with steep ravines and others almost flat with slowly moving waters. Vegetation in the area includes groves of second growth Douglas Firs, Oregon White Oak, Ash and other tree species. Some of the most significant vegetation includes a fir grove about 5 acres in area south of Amber Place and numerous ravines that include a mix of conifer and deciduous trees. There are also orchards and open fields used for hay production and grazing. Some 195 dwellings are scattered throughout the area at an average density of one dwelling/1.26 acres. Some 500 persons presently live in the 246 acre area. A total of 43 acres have already been developed with residential structures on lots of 3/4 of an acre or less. Most of the "developed lots" are either south of Atwater Road and west of Goodall Road. Roads in the area are typical of rural county roads having minimum widths and drainage facilities. A domestic water system presently exists in the area. A sanitary sewer system has not been constructed in the area and the existing structures are on individual septic systems. INVENTORY PROCEDURE Ownership and Population Information City staff developed a property map showing lot lines, dwelling locations, common ownership of abutting lots, area of lots, lots that are 3/4 of an acre or smaller with a dwelling, the boundary of the urbanizable area, and the Lake Oswego city limits (Exhibit M). Information to develop this map was collected from assessor maps and computer printouts. With the above map, staff developed the gross and net buildable acreage of the "Future Urbanizable Area". The "Future Urbanizable Area" will subsequently be referred to as study area. "t was determined that there are 246 acres in the study area. After subtracting 43 acres of developed land area (lots 3/4 of an acre or smaller with a dwelling), 2 acres of City owned land 198 Staff Report/Forest Highlands September 11, 1985 Page 5 (outside of stream corridors), 10 acres for future City park(s) (not yet located), and 15 acres of land area in stream corridors, the remaining area for future residential development totaled 176 acres. To determine the amount of land that would be used for future residential and collector streets, the subtotal of 176 acres was multiplied by 20% to get 35 acres. In subtracting 35 acres from the 176 acre subtotal, the net buildable acreage of the study area was determined to be 141 acres. An acreage adjustment was then made to the above net figure of 141 because 2.44 acres of land along Boones Ferry Road considered "developed" was reclassified as suitable for redevelopment. The 2.44 redevelopment acreage was rounded off and plugged back into the net buildable acreage figure theoretically making the final net acreage 143. As seen on the Plan map table (page 6 of this report), a 2 acre discrepancy exists between the net acreage on the ownership map and the net acreage of the Plan map. The cause of the decrepancy has not been found and does not have impact on the overall results. In developing the above property map, it was also determined that there are approximately 195 existing dwelling units in the study area. Based on the household population figure of 2.63 used by Portland State University Population Center, it was estimated that 514 people presently live in the study area. Natural Features City staff developed a topographical analysis map showing the following ranges of slope: 0-4% flat, 5%-11% gentle, 12%-24% moderate, 25%-50% severe, 50% and more (Exhibit N). It was determined from the LOPRI Report that most of the soils in the study area are Kenton Silt Loam, Cornelius Silt Loam and Cascade Silt Loam. The Cascade and Cornelius Silt Loams are found on slopes of 2-12% with moderate erosion potential and moderate to severe landslide potential. The Kenton Silt Loam soils are found on slopes of 12%-20% and have severe erosion potential and severe potential for landslide according to the LOPRI Report. A natural features map was also developed showing the locations of Distinctive Natural Areas, drainage corridors, and known wetlands (Exhibit O). Infrastructure City staff developed four maps showing existing streets, street right-of-way widths and classifications (Exhibit P); existing and potential sewer and water lines (Exhibits Q, R); and, existing and potential storm water systems (Exhibit S). These exhibits have map scale of 1" = 200' and will be available for review at the public hearing. z- S Staff Report/Forest Highlands September 11, 1985 Page 6 DATA ANALYSIS PROCEDURE This described information on the property map, slope map, natural features map and four infrastructure maps was studied through the map overlay process to determine how the different sets of features in the study area relate to one another. The above overlay process of analyzing data maps in different combinations over a light table (Exhibit B) was done to solve the major planning problem of finding locations physically suitable for high density residential development that will have minimal visual and traffic related impacts on existing neighborhoods. Existing neighborhoods in this planning analysis context were defined as clusters of lots 3/4 acre or less with existing dwellings. GENERAL CRITERIA USED IN DEVELOPING PLAN MAP A. Density Based on the attached State of Oregon rule regarding the LCDC Housing Goal, Lake Oswego's general Land Use Plan must maintain an overall density of ten or more dwelling units per net buildable acre. Presently, the City Plan allows for 8,002 dwelling units that can be developed on 785 acres of vacant buildable and vacant committed lands. The above figures translate to a density of 10.2 dwelling units/net acre. In developing the Forest Highlands Plan, staff used the above data recently printed in the Comprehensive Plan Supporting Documentation (Volume II) to incorporate the number of dwelling units planned for and buildable acreage figures generated from the proposed Forest Highlands land use map. The 15 acres of stream corridor in the study area was used in the calculation of the net buildable acreage to determine the maximum number of dwellings. That figure as seen on the following Plan map data table was determined to be 1,014 dwelling units. Zone District Du/Ac Gross Buildable NET AREAS Land Area Less 20% Streets Number Dwelling Units Percent of 'Total Land Area R-0 52 7.14 5.71 297 2.9% R-3 12.9 10.51 8.4 108 4.3% R-5 8.7 7 5.6 49 2.8% 67.51 - (10 ac.) R-7.5 5.8 57.51 (Park) 46 267 23.4% R-10 4.3 55.79 44.63 192 22.7% R-15 2.9 43.42 34.73 101 17.7% 181.37 145.07 1014 74%* 74% of Total Total Net Total No. 2.46 ac. Area Developable Dwelling Units Acreage * The remaining 26% of total land area is discussed on page 5 under Ownership and Population Information. u t l .Z_ / Staff Report/Forest Highlands September 11, 1985 Page 7 B. C. Land area in stream corridors is given a transferrable density status when separate parcels are developed and, as such, staff determined that the stream corridor factor of 15 acres could be used in determining the total number of possible dwelling units. Because construction is not allowed in stream corridors, staff determined that the 15 acre stream corridor factor could be subtracted from the planned total net developable acreage of 145 to get 130 acres. When the above study area dwelling unit and net developable acreage factors of 1,014 du and 130 acres are plugged into the overall City density formula, the following equation develops. 8,002 du. + 1,014 du. = 9,036 du. = 9.88 du./net ac. 785 ac. + 130 ac. = 915 ac. The maximum density for residential development on buildable, undeveloped land in the study area could ultimately be 7.8 dwelling units/acre. Compatibility One of the main criteria in locating the residential districts that allow for multiple family structures (R-0, R-3, R-5 districts) was to prevent disruption of existing residential patterns. City staff considers the land use district density range R-15 to R-7.5 relatively compatible with the land use and lot patterns presently in the area mainly because dwelling structure types allowed in those districts will be consistent with existing dwelling structures. However, residential structure types allowed in the R-0, R-3 and R-5 zones can have a negative impact on an existing neighborhood with low-density single family dwellings. In locating the above high density districts, staff first determined where large clusters of developed lots (lots three quarters of an acre or less with a dwelling) presently occurred. Staff then avoided locating high density districts adjacent to developed residential areas when practical. If complete avoidance couldn't be achieved staff considered terrain, lot configurations and lineal interface to mitigate the impacts of locating high density districts adjacant to existing neighborhoods. Suitability High density residential districts whenever possible were located on larger lots that were considered undeveloped or clusters of developed lots that could be redeveloped. z-7 Staff Report/Forest Highlands September 11, 1985 Page 8 The steep and narrow stream corridors such as the one southwest of Goodall Road were avoided and high density districts were, for the most part, located on more moderate slopes of 12-24%. Slopes of 12-24% have less potential for hillside slumpage and severe erosion than on the steep 25-50% slopes. The only exception to the above statement are the proposed R-5 and R-3 districts south of Atwater Road. A stream corridor and slopes ranging from 12-50% occur in those district areas. An adjustment to the above problem could be made by eradicting the R-3 and R-5 districts and redesignating all the 13 acre area south of Atwater and west of proposed the R-3 parcel to R-5. D. Areas With Significant Natural Features There are five Distinctive Natural Areas (DNA) in the study area. They are identified on the map exhibit and described as follows in the Comprehensive Plan. DNA 15 - Springs west of the Atwater Lane right-of-way DNA 17 - Wooded ravine along Iron Mt. Creek DNA 28 - Specimen Firs west of Goodall Road DNA 34 - Douglas Fir grove east of Redwood Court DNA 43 - Fir grove south of Ambler Court The hydrology map, Exhibit T, identifies several locations in the study area as wetlands. None of the high density districts are in areas of identified wetlands. The stream corridors were delineated, identified with letters A - E, and the area of each has been calculated as shown on Exhibits N, O and U. The above described stream corridors include a total area of 15 acres. The City's Conservancy Commission has in the past expressed concern that high intensity or density land use districts not overlay identified Distinctive Natural Areas and Stream Corridors. There are also many sections of the Comprehensive Plan Natural Resource element that specifically address the need to protect stream and woodland features. General Policy II of the Open Space Element reads as follows: "The City will regulate the use of lands so designated in accordance with the policies set forth in the NATURAL RESOURCES ELEMENT, in order to preserve essential natural resources and processes, avoid natural hazards and damages and to preserve significant natural features in the community." In light of the above stated Conservancy Commission concerns and Open Space Policy, City staff with the help of the Forest Highlands subcommittee did not locate R-0 to R-3 districts where Stream Corridor and/or Distinctive Natural Areas occur. The only exceptions to the above rule are the R-3 and R-5 districts south of Atwater Road and the 2.3 acre R-3 district west of Verte Staff Report/Forest Highlands September 11, 1985 Page 9 Court. The natural area upon which the Atwater R-3 and R-5 district encroaches is DNA 17 consisting of the Iron Mountain Creek wooded ravine. The Country Club Road R-3 district completely includes DNA 34 which is a 2 acre fir grove. E. Accessability to Critical Public Facilities Most of the proposed high density districts have frontage on Boones Ferry Road or Country Club Road. Those roads are identified in the Comprehensive Plan either as arterial or collector streets. Some acreage has been identified for high density residential south of Atwater. Because of the need for more East/West collector streets in the study area and because of the projected traffic volumes on Atwater, there is a possibility that it may be reclassified as a collector street in the future. The 5.5 acre block of land northeast of Lake Oswego High School is only 700 feet from Boones Ferry and 600 feet from Goodall Road, a collector street. CRITERIA FOR PLAN AMENDMENTS (LOC 56.155) 1. The Amendment conforms to or better implements Plan policies for particular uses involved. Staff construes the expression "particular use involved" to mean land in the study area that will be used in the future for urban purposes. Because the study area is a semi -rural area in low density residential use, it has been an underlying assumption by the Forest Highlands residents and City staff that any changes in the area land use will only involve an increase in residential densities and not use -changes. As such, the scope of discussion here is narrowed to the Urban Growth Management Element involving Urban Service Boundary and Overall Density Policies in the Comprehensive Plan. Urban Service Boundary General Policy 3 states that: "the City will manage and phase urban growth within the Urban Service Boundary, with a logical planned extension of basic services. To establish priorities for the phased extension of services, the City will identify areas within the Urban Servic Boundary as follows: 1) Lands suitable for near future development (Immediate Growth); 2) Lands in long range growth areas (FUTURE URBANIZABLE)." ne above general policy was adopted in 1978. 2u:s -2--7 Staff Report/Forest Highlands September 11, 1985 Page 10 The following is a specific implementing policy adopted in 1978 that addresses how the City should reconsider future urbanizable land designations. "Within five years from the date of approval, the FUTURE URBANIZABLE designation will be reviewed by the City to determine whether it remains appropriate or should be changed to Immediate Growth. Redesignation would be for an entire area to avoid piecemeal development." The Plan was amended on January 17, 1984 to read as follows: "The City will initiate review of the Forest Highlands Future Urbanizable area in the fiscal year 1983-84 according to the schedule submitted to LCDC. Any redesignations would be for the entire area, or a logical subsection thereof, to avoid piecemeal development. Redesignations will not alter the City's compliance with METRO housing goals contained in OAR 660-07-035." Presently, land in the subject "future urbanizable area" cannot be annexed to the City unless a health hazard occurred from failing septic systems or a land use Plan for the area is adopted with urban residential districts. City staff have been answering inquiries from land owners in Forest Highlands over the last five years involving the possibility of annexation and sewer line extensions (Exhibit W). New growth has occurred in the northwest sector of the city and is assumed to continue in the northerly direction. The following are Comprehensive Plan "Overall Density" General Policies that were also considered in planning for the study area: GENERAL POLICIES: I. The Comprehensive Plan will maintain the overall, average residential density of the Urban Service Area within the capacity of planned basic public facilities systems, including at least water, sewer streets, drainage and public safety. II. Residential densities and land use intensities will be allocated on the basis of land suitability and public facilities capacity. Specific policies to carry out the above are on pages 18 and 18a of the Comprehensive Plan. The City planning staff have worked with the Forest Highlands Neighborhood to adopt a land use plan that will accommodate future growth for residential development at urban densities averaging 7.8 dwelling units/acre. This results in an overall City planned density for vacant land of 9.88 du/ac. Based on the above cited Comprehen§ive Plan policy, State Land Use Goal 10, and recent growth 2()%I Z- /D Staff Report/Forest Highlands September 11, 1985 Page 11 trends, staff considers the proposed Plan map and text amendments measures to implement the above cited Comprehensive Plan policies and are in compliance with other Plan Element policies. Discussion regarding compliance with other parts of the Plan will follow. 2. Conclude the amendments is consistent with any applicable Statewide Planning Goals or regional policies. Statewide Planning Goals applicable to this proposal are: Goals 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14. The METRO REGIONAL Housing goal contained in OAR 660-07-035 is also applicable to the proposed Plan Amendments. The METRO HOUSING REGIONAL goal requires, among other things, that the buildable lands inventory for Lake Oswego provide for an overall average on developable land of ten dwelling units per net acre, and the single/multi unit mix be about 50/50. Goal 1 states: "Develop a citizen involvement program that insures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process." As seen on pages 1 - 3 of this report, the above goal has been implemented up to the time this report was written. Goal 2 states: "Establish a land use planning process and policy framework as a basis for all decisions and actions related to use of land and to assure an adequate factual base for such decisions and actions. The City of Lake Oswego has a State acknowledged Land Use Plan that provides a framework by which land use problems regarding the study area have been defined and decisions to resolve those problems made. An adequate factual base for the study area has been developed over the last year. Adequate notice of neighborhood meetings and the present public hearing was given in advance to allow affected persons reasonable time to review she Plan amendment (Exhibit AA). Goal 5 states: "Conserve open space and protect natural and scenic resources." As explained on page 8 of this report, significant Natural Features in the study area were considered in the planning process. As annexations are approved, development proposals are automatically reviewed on a site by site basis. This development review process involves the application of Development Standards that were designed to conserve open space and to protect identified the natural and scenic resources. 2U5 2--11 Staff Report/Forest Highlands September 11, 1985 Page 12 Goal 6 states: "Maintain and improve the quality of air, water and land resources of the State." The City of Lake Oswego presently has an environmental management program to maintain the quality of air, water and land that has been acknowledged by the State as in compliance with this Goal. As annexations in the study area occur, this City will apply the same program to the annexed lands. The only environmental problems that occur in the area are isolated septic system failures. As city sewer services are extended to Forest Highlands, isolated septic system breakdowns can be prevented from becoming a generalized public health problem. Goal 7 states: "Protect life, property from natural iT sasters and hazards." In analyzing the natural resources of the subject area, staff found that the more generalized natural hazards in the area are lands subject to slipping and erosion. The severity of those hazards is usually proportional to the degree of slope found from site to site. The more severe slopes, 24 - 50%, were mostly found along stream channel ravines. In most cases, those ravines were avoided in locating high density residential districts that cause the most disturbance to land. The only exception to that rule is explained under "Suitability" on page 7 of this report. As annexations are approved and development proposals are considered, the City automatically reviews project proposals on a site by site basis. This review process involves the application of Development Standards that thoroughly address any possibility for severe erosion or slumping. Goal 8 states: "Satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the state and visitors." The City of Lake Oswego presently owns 3 acres of park land along the Iron Mountain Creek and has planned for the acquisition of 10 more acres at a particular site west of the Knauss/Country Commons intersection. The City presently does not want to acquire the above site but will consider acquiring at least 10 acres of park land in the area as opportunities arise. As lands are annexed and developed in the Lake Oswego area, the City also requires that at least 15 - 20% of a given residential site be left in open space for passive or active recreational use. Goal 9 states: "Diversify and improve the economy of the State." As annexations are approved, new dwelling units built and associated infrastructure constructed, employment opportunities in the construction field will be sustained, if not increased. 2.01 'Z- l Z Staff Report/Forest Highlands September 11, 1985 Page 13 Goal 10 states: "Provide housing needs of citizens of the State." Based on the Plan Map Table on page 6 of this report, it is possible that 45% of the dwelling units that can be provided in the study area will be provided within multiple dwelling unit structures. The maximum density possible for residential development in the study area could be 7.8 dwelling units/acre. When the study area dwelling units and net developable acreage factors are plugged into the overall City density formula, 9.88 dwelling units/net acre results. City staff recognizes that this number is .12 units per acre below the Goal 10 rule requiring that planning for 10 units/acre be maintained; however, other Plan amendments in the near future involving the East End Commercial area may increase the overall planned density figure of 9.88 up to the target density of 10 du/net acre. Except for the proposed Atwater location, the high density districts adjacent to Boones Ferry road are on gentle to moderate slopes that can be more easily developed at less expense, thus creating the potential for affordable housing. Goal 11 states: "Plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of public facilities and services as a framework for urban and rural developments." Since 1978, the City of Lake Oswego has not considered the Forest Highlands area as urbanizable. The City of Lake Oswego has been requested by the State of Oregon to begin to do land use and public facility planning for the Forest Highlands area so that annexation requests can be considered in the coming years with some assurance that the City can provide services. Forest Highlands residents will also have a better idea of what residential densities can occur 'in given parts of the study area as annexations are approved. The City Engineering Department has studied the problem of providing sewer mains to the area and has concluded that gravity feed lines are feasible and that existing sewer lines and treatment facilities can accommodate future volumes generated by projected development. An adequate domestic water system presently exists in the area that can accommodate projected development. Schools in the area can accommodate the projected population increase in the study area. Police protection can be provided with little increase in staffing and physical facilities. Fire protection is currently provided to the area by the City through a contract with the Lake Grove Fire District. Goal 12 states: "Provide and encourage a safe and convenient and economic transportation system." The proposed land use plan was developed with the above goal in mind. Citizens in the study area felt that higher density residential development districts should abut arterial or 2o"I 2— 1.3 Staff Report/Forest Highlands September 11, 1985 Page 14 collector streets or at least be near them (see pages 8, 9 of this report for more details). Also, the citizens of Forest Highlands requested that the City sponsor a traffic study for the area after a land use Plan is adopted. The study will provide needed information to develop a transportation plan based on the adopted land use Plan. The City has submitted a grant application to LCDC to more fully develop the transportation plan. Goal 13 states: "Conserve energy." One of the guidelines for this goal is "combine increasing density gradients along high capacity transportation corridors to achieve greater energy efficiency". The above guideline was seriously considered and implemented as stated above in the Goal 12 narrative. As stated in Goal 10 and based on the Plan map, 45% of all the dwelling units that can be built in the study area could be within multiple family structures which are more energy efficient regarding loss of space heat. Goal 14 states: "Provide for an orderly efficient transition from rural to urban land use." Policies relating to the above goal have been developed and compliance with those policies is addressed under criteria item 1 on pages 9 and 10 of this report. Compliance with the METRO Regional Housing Goal has been discussed above under Goal 10. 3. Determine that public facilities have capacity and are available to serve the proposed change. Particular impacts on existing and projected traffic flows and access on street ca acity and sightdistance. The above considerations have been addressed regarding compliance with Goals 11 and 12 on pages 13, 14 of this report. 4. Evaluate the physical constraints within the site to determine if uses consistent with Plan designation can physically be accommodated on the site. The above consideration has been addressed under Goal 7 on page 12 and under the Suitability Criteria 'C' page 7. 5. For residential Plan amendments to R-0, R-3 or R-5, the Commission will determine that (1), (2), (3) and (4) are met and a , a. The area can be buffered from adjoining R-7.5, R-10 and R-15 residential areas in a manner which protects the privacy of adjoining uses. Buffering techniques may include a site plan showing a perimeter density of no Staff Report/Forest Highlands September 11, 1985 Page 15 more than 25% increase over Plan for the adjacent lots. features or natural hazards against the need to provide the density allowed in the Preservation of natural on the site will be balanced perimeter compatibility. The above criteria cannot at this time be fully addressed in the detail that is called for above. This is not a site specific Plan map change. This is a generalized Plan map amendment involving 246 acres most of which include diverse terrain, conifer and deciduous trees. In locations where high density districts have been proposed, the existing terrain and tree groves provide site buffering opportunities as land is proposed for development (Exhibits N, O). b. The area is within one block of an arterial or located on a collector with capacity to handle additional traffic. The high density districts on the west end of the study area are all either abutting Boones Ferery Road or located at least 700 feet from either Goodall Road or Boones Ferry Road. As stated in "Accessibility to Critical Facilities" section of this report (pages 8,9), there are R-3 and R-5 high density districts located on Atwater Road. Atwater is not presently classified as a collector street but City staff presently consider Atwater Road a likely candidate for reclassification as a collector because of the need for more major East/West connections in the study area and increasing traffic volumes as adjoining land develops. The Forest Highlands Subcommittee was very aware of the need to locate high density districts near collector or arterial streets. The Subcommittee and neighborhood meeting attendants also stated their concern for traffic impact generated by development and recommended that the City of Lake Oswego sponsor a traffic study and develop a public facility plan for new streets, street improvements and pathways. C. The area is within reasonable walking distance of a transit stop as determined by recent surveys conducted by a reputable source such as the Tri -County Metropolitan Transportation District. The Commission shall use a distance of approxiately 750 feet unless recent studies show otherwise. The proposed high density districts abutting Boones Ferry Road are within 750' from the Monroe Parkway/Boones Ferry Intersection where a bus stop is located. The High Density District northeast of the high school is some 1,250' from the Monroe Parkway/Boones Ferry Road intersection. The Atwater Road high density districts are some 1,250' from the bus stop at the Iron Mountain Blvd./Country Club intersection. As development occurs and density increases in the study area, it can be reasonably expected that changes in transit service to the area will be made. 'Z- 15 Staff Report/Forest Highlands September 11, 1985 Page 16 d. The area is within reasonable walking distance of commercial or industrial zones. The Commission will use 750' unless recent studies support another number. The proposed high density districts abutting Boones Ferry Road range in distance of 100 to 900' from the Town Square Commercial Center. The High Density District northeast of the high school is some 1,400' from the Town Square Commercial Center. The Atwater Road high density districts are about 3/5's of a mile from the commercial district (EC) at the East end of Lake Oswego. Because of the size of the study area and the uniform nature of the land use in the area, not all of the high density districts can be logically located within 750' of commercial and industrial zones. 6. For residential amendments to R-7.5, R-10 or R-15, the Commission will determine that (1), (2), (3) and (4) are met and that; a. The proposed density is consistent with the platted development pattern in the surrounding area; or, The above criteria is not applicable to the proposed land use Plan. The existing parcel and lot pattern found in the area includes rural parcels that were made large enough to accommodate wells and septic systems or at least septic systems. Some of the parcels are at least 1/2 acre in size and 83% of the study area includes lots with areas that exceed 3/4 acre. The more urban type of residential development will include lots that range in size from 1/3 of an acre to 3,375 sq. ft. b. The topography in the area will make it possible to protect privacy on adjoining property both within and adjacent to the property. (Ord. No. 1874, Sec. 3; 10-4-83). The above standard cannot be fully addressed at this time in the detail called for above. This is not a site specific Plan map change. This is a generalized Plan map amendment involving 246 acres most of which includes moderate terrain with slopes ranging from 10 - 24%. Most of the study area has moderate slopes and topographic site design opportunities for buffering new residential development. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the proposed Plan text amendments and Plan map amendments except for the R-3 and R-5 districts south of Atwater. Staff recommends the Planning Commission members consider 2,O z- 16 Staff Report/Forest Highlands September 11, 1985 Page 17 adjusting the Plan designation in that area by removing the R-3 district and redesignating all of the 13 acre area south of Atwater and West of the parcel proposed for R-3 to R-5. Staff recognizes that this is not consistent with the feelings of the neighborhood subcommittee, but feels that this recommendation better reflects the suitability of the areas in question for high density housing. EXHIBITS A Forest Highlands "Future Urbanizable" Area (Study Area) H Vicinity Map and General Discussion of Land Use Planning Process C Results of April 1984 Survey (Not attached, will be available at the Public Hearing) Cl Letter Explaining Survey D Newspaper Preview Story for October 2, 1984 Neighborhood Association Meeting E October 2, 1984 Forest Highlands Neighborhood Meeting Notice F Letter from Mr. Ward Regarding Plan District Preference G March 26, 1985 Forest Highlands Neighborhood Meeting Notice H March 26, 1985 Lake Oswego Review Editorial I May 17, 1985 Letter from Preston & Elizabeth Orem J May 30, 1985 Neighborhood Meeting Notice K Newspaper Accounts of May 30, 1985 Forests Highlands Neighborhood Meeting L Small Copy of Proposed Land Use Plan for Forest Highlands Study Area M Large 1" = 200' Property Work Map (will be available at the public hearing) N Large 1" = 200' Topographical Analysis Work Map (will be available at the public hearing) 0 Large 1" = 200' Natural Features Work Map (aerial photo/will be available at the public hearing) ? Large 1" = 200' Street Right -of -Way and Classification Map (will be available at the public hearing) Q Large 1" = 200' Existing and Potential Sewer System Map (will be available at the public hearing) R Large 1" = 200' Existing and Potential Water System Map (will be available at the public hearing) S Large 1" = 200' Existing and Potential Stormwater System Map (will be available at the public hearing) T Lake Oswego Hydrology Map U Stream Corridor Area Calculation (August 7, 1985) V June 18, 1985 Letter from Einar Nardahl W May 4, 1984 Letter from Sandi Young, Planning Director, to Jeff Jones Responding to Annexation Inquiry X August 15, 1985 Newspaper Preview of September 23, 1985 Planning Commission Public Hearing Y September 13, 1985 Letter from Chester Gillihan, Director of Administrative Services of Lake Oswego School District Z Notice and Narrative of Forest Highlands Comprehensive Plan Amendments to LCDC 211 Staff Report/Forest Highlands September 11, 1985 Page 18 AA. Original Affected 1985 BB Clackamas 338'-P/GSFM/mas Notice of September 23, 1985 Public Hearing to All Persons in Forest Highlands Area Mailed September 6, County Utility Line and Facility Standards Z- 18 EXHIBIT ADDENDUM SHEET FOR FOREST HIGHLANDS STAFF REPORT (PA 7-85) V VU TOT MC Cc Letter from John and Jeanette Lortz DD Letter from Robert Westgate EE Small Map Showing Existing Dwellings, Abbutting Lots in Common Ownership, Developed Lots [Lots 3/4 ac. or less with dwelling(s)] FF Small Map Showing Staff Recommended Change of Proposed Plan Map (Exhibit L) r G F: LetTer t-v~J s fi I1-� r lore,. -F'rarn Lav'r j E f s"Ivn Cg+�ovNc jr'1►�'Qord �1) �tsonsJ J J Leer -�v o W. I l i }—� d �,�,v� xP`� Z 3 r d 15 S 3393P 21 1) PLA4NING COMMISSION MINU'T'ES September 23, 1985 The Planning Commission meeting of September 23, 1985 was called to order by Chairman Adrianne Brockman at 7:30 p.m. Commissioners present were Adrianne Brockman, Jeanne Robinette, and John Weisser. Comissioner Wexler arrived at 8:30 p.m. Chairman Larry Rosencrantz and Commissioners Thomas Rodrigues, and Elizabeth Ross were excused. Staff present were City Planner Gary Miniszewski, Assistant City Attorney Sandra Duffy, and Secretary, Kristi Hitchcock. APPROVAL OF MINUTES T'he minutes of September 9 and August 26, 1985 were considered under "Other Business". PUBLIC HEARINGS Chairman Brockman explained the legislative hearing procedures and ex parte contact rules. PA 7-85 - A Comprehensive Plan map amendment and Comprehensive Plan text amndments involving the Forest Highlands Neighborhood outside the City limits and within the Urban Service Boundary. Map amendment involves: - replacing the present Plan designation of 'Future Urbanizable" with 'Immediate Growth", allowing for residential development ranging from 2.9 to 52 dwelling units per acre - deletion of the map designation for a park located west of the Knaus/Country Commons intersection. The text amendments are to delete specific Comprehensive Plan Policy 3 on page 15, General Policy I and Specific Policies 1 and 2 on page 60 of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Miniszewski presented the staff report. He gave the background of the Comprehensive Planning process for the Forest Highlands area. He discussed map designations and the reasons behind those designations. Staff recommended approval of the plan for the Forest Highlands area (Exhibit L) with an amendment to the map (Exhibit FF), changing the designation for that portion of land from R-3 and R-5 to R-7.5 because of the Distinctive Natural Area and stream corridor located on the property. Tim McNamara, Chairman of the Forest Highlands Neighborhood Association and the subcommittee working on this Comprehensive Plan, spoke. He discussed the background and work sessions which went into the plan for Forest Highlands before the Planning Commission hearing. COUNCIL EXHIBIT � 3- PLANING COMMISSION MINUTES September 23,-'1985 Katherine Stager, 13197 SW Thoma Road, represented residents of the Thoma Road area. She submitted a letter (Exhibit GG) signed by approximately 30 residents of the area. She said the Thoma Road area had not been well represented at the neighborhood meetings oe on the subcommittee studying plan designations. She said that the R-0 designations for Thoma Road (Exhibit L) were not appropriate adjacent to the large lots on Thoma Road. She said that the multifamily zones had been disproportionately designed, and that some of the burden should be shared by other areas of the Forest Highlands neighborhood. Ms. Stager asked that there be a buffer placed between single family residential and multifamily zones. She asked that the interiors of lots be zoned with a higher density rather than the exterior lots. She asked that some of the R-3 zones should be moved to the interior of the Forest Highlands area. Ms. Stager answered questions for the Planning Commission. Ms. Stager said that there was only one meeting at which a final vote was taken on the final plan. She said that there was no opportunity for viewing of the plan at City Hall or at the library. She maintained that there was never a vote of the whole neighborhood on the plan because it was changed after the neighborhood meeting by staff. In answer to a question from Commissioner Robinette, Ms. Stager said that 20,000 square feet was a good average of the lot sizes on Thoma Road. Jim Morris, Thoma Road, was concerned about the possibility of four story structures being built to the rear of his lot and next door to his home. He said there should be a buffer zone provided between his larger single family lot and such large structures. He asked how high multifamily structures were allowed in the R-3 and R-0 zones. He also asked how the property behind the high school would be accessed and if so would they be using Thoma Road. Mr. Miniszewski said there is a street (Hazel Road) which accesses the property from Goodall Road. It is the public right -of --way for that property and it could be improved. He said there could be row houses with one or two stories in the R-3 zones. He said one of the considerations for zoning that property was the drop in terrain. The Commission requested staff to bring a chart showing heights allowable in each zone the the next hearing held on Forest Highlands. Mr. Morris said he would like to ao on record as being against the R-3 zoning based on there not being a clear definition of the heights of the building and opposing the R-0 zoning at the corner of Knaus and Boones Ferry and at the corner of Knaus and Thoma Road. Mr. Miniszewski read the height requirements for the R-0, R-3, and R-5 zones. There was discussion of the access to the area behind the high school. He said traffic patterns, right-of-ways, and existing roads had been taken into consideration in the planning for the area. Larry Epstein, 1020 SW Taylor Street, Suite 370, Portland, spoke representing the properties of Nordahls, Petersons, and Burketts in the 13700 block of Knaus Road. He said that Mr. Nordahl and the other two property owners own 6.5 acres of property. They would like the Nordahl property to be zoned for a higher density, preferably R-5. He said that he had contacted the Petersons and Burketts on the request of Mr. Nordahl to find out their feelings about the zoning and that these two property owners had agreed with Mr. Nordahl and asked that their names be added to the representation. Mr. Epstein said that Mr. Nordahl felt he had not had an opportunity to achieve their goals through the neighborhood association planning -2- I l► 3- Z PLANNING COMMISSION M'NUTFS September 23, 1985 proc=ess. Mr. Epstein said that raising the density of this parcel would help achieve the 10 units per acre required under Goal 10, and achieve the 50/50 mix of medium to low density developments. He said that Mr. Nordahl's property is better suited to higher density than other areas designated K-5 on the proposed plan. Chairman Brockman declared a short recess. The meeting reconvened at 9:03 p.m. with continued testimony. Chairman Brockman said that the next meeting on the Forest Highlands Comprehensive Plan was tentatively set for October 28, and that it would be advertized in the newspaper. Carl Swett, 13485 SW Atwater Lane, added further history of the planning process for Forest Highlands. He said he was a member of the planning subcommittee. He said that Mr. Nordahl had the opportunity to participate in the planning of the area. He said that notices had been sent to all property owners of meetings and that Mr. Nordahl had been present at same of those meetings. Mr. Swett said he owns 172.5 feet contiguous to Mr. Nordahl's property. He said there is a Distinctive Natural Area on the south portion of Mr. Nordahl's property. He said that lower density would be preferable as it is in keeping with the character of the area. Eugene Briggs, 13520 SW Knaus, said that much work has been done in planning the area. He said that no plan can be acceptable to everyone in the neighborhood. Mr. Briggs asked the Planning Coni ssion to accept the staff report because it as good a plan as can be developed. He said that densities should be compatible with existing uses and also should be planned for the types of roads available. .games Chaney, 610 SW Atwater Road, read a prepared statement (Exhibit II). They are opposed to future urbanization because their home is on over one acre, is on steep terrain (25-50%), has many trees, wetlands, springs, creekbed, and wildlife. Zoning their property R-10 will be an unfair hardship on them because of increased traffic and the costs of sewer lines. Sewer easements could endanger their home, and change the value of the land. He submitted the letter for the record. Mike Fahey, 1300 SW Forest Meadows Way, 1300 SW Forest Meadows Way, said he has oeen a resident of this area for about ten years. He has worked with the Neighborhood Association during the planning for Country Commons. He said 52 units per acre in any part of Forest Highlands is unacceptable. Mr. Fahey said that other areas of the City which are already high in density should be rezoned for the higher (52 units per acre) density. He asked that density be assigned by compatibility. Bill Hedlund, 900 SW Atwater Road, said he was the former chairman of Forest Highlands Neighborhood Association. Mr. Hedlund submitted a letter in support of the recommendation for the area (Exhibit JJ). He supports staff's recommendation to amend the area zoned R-3 to R-7.5, but would like to further amend it for an R-10 designation. He said that this particular piece of property should be preserved in its natural state. Mr. Hedlund said the whole area from Knaus Road over on the southeast should be zoned R-10. Rick Cherry, 14051 SW Goodall Road, was concerned that high density development would require improvements to Goodall Road and the residents would have to pay for those improvements. Mr. Cherry said that he had the impression that it was not that easy to be part of the neighborhood subcommittee. He said it was not necessary to have a buffer for Country Commons and the Planning Cogrmiission should transfer some of the high density elsewhere in the neighborhood. ? Int, -3- :3-.3 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 23, 1985 Jeannete Lortz, 13379 SW Thoma Road, said that traffic problems exiting Thoma Road to Knaus and Knaus to Boones Ferry have not been addressed. She said these are dangerous intersections when the traffic is heavy. She said that she objected to the high density all being assigned to the Thoma Road area. Ms. Lortz was concerned that high school traffic added to heavier traffic from high density development could affect both Thoma and Hazel Roads. Kathy Jones, 12831 SW 22nd Avenue (Alto Park, said that all of the neighborhood will be affected if very high density is allowed on Thc%ra Road. She said it would be better to spread the density throughout the Forest Highlands area. Marjorie Briggs, 13520 SW Knaus Road, asked if secondary units were counted in the ten unit per acre calculation. Commissioner Robinette said that they are not all counted and included in the density. Mr. Miniszewski said that secondary units were not taken into consideration in the density calculation. Ms. Briggs asked if additional roads or road widening would be necessary if the scenario presented went into effect. Mr. Miniszewski said that the City has requested a grant from LCDC to do transportation planning for the Forest Highlands area. He said that the amount of land necessary for roads had been considered in the determination for net buildable area, but that road locations could only be determined at the time of a transportation study or actual development proposal. Cliff Conrad, 13221 SW Knaus Road, said he had attended every meeting of the Forest Highlands Neighborhood Association for the last three years, and that some of the testimony heard now has been heard at many of the prior meetings. Mr. Conrad said the committee had taken care and attempted to designate land the best way possible. He recommended that the Planning Commission accept the plan as presented by staff. Helen Turk, 13840 Verte Court, said that all those lots are R-10, and she cannot see putting high density (R-3) in the middle of them. John Copenhagon, 13660 Shireva, commented that he feels LCDC does not know what is, best for this community. He said the City was responsible for dispensing LCDC's rulings. Because this is one of the last areas of Lake Oswego with a rural environment, it should be allowed to remain as it is without altering the nature of the area. He said that higher density should be located in other areas of the city. Joan Jennings, 13090 SW Knaus Road, said she agreed with Mr. Drake. She was concerned that traffic increases would be caused by high density residential development. She asked that the area stay single family rsidential. No one else spoke. Commissioner Wexler thanked all the residents for coming to the meeting, and asked that they continue their input to the Planning Commission. Chairman Brockman thanked all those present for attending, and reminded them the next hearing would be held on October 28. OTHER BUSINESS Findings, Conclusions and Order The Commission approved signing of findings for CU 5-85, Oswego Country Club. -4- 3- � pI.ANhING COMMISSION MINUTES September 23L 1985 Minutes The Planning Commission approved the minutes of August 27 and September 91 1985 as written. J AWOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by Chairman Brockman at 10:15 p.m. 324z Respectfully Submitted, Kri ti Hitchcock Secretary --5- 3- 5 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 28, 1985 The Planning Commission meeting of October 28, 1985 was called to order by Chairman Larry Rosencrantz at 7:40 p.m.. Commissioners present were Chairman Rosencrantz, Adrianne Brockman, Jeanne Robinette, Thomas Rodrigues, and John Weisser. Commissioners Elizabeth Ross and Mel Wexler were excused. Staff present were City Planner Gary Miniszewski, Assistant City Attorney Sandra Duffy, and Secretary Kristi Hitchcock. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of September 23, 1985 and October 14, 1985 were considered for approval after completion of the public hearing. The minutes of September 23, 1985 were approved as written, with Commissioners Weisser, Brockman, and Robinette voting in favor. Chairman Rosencrantz and Commissioner Rodrigues abstained. A second vote will be necessary to verify this 3-0-2 vote. The minutes of October 14, 1985 will be considered at the Planning Commission's next meeting, November 13, 1985. PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS Commissioner Brockman said she had received a communication relevant to the public hearing on PA 7-85 which she had given to staff to be entered into the record at the appropriate time. PUBLIC HEARINGS PA 7-85 - A continuation of a hearing on a Comprehensive Plan map amendment and Comprehensive Plan text amendments involving the Forest Highlands Neighborhood'outside the Urban Service Boundary. Mr. Miniszewski addressed the issues raised by the Planning Commission at the September 23, 1985 meeting. He submitted further exhibits for the record: Exhibit MMMM Letter from Marjorie Briggs Exhibit NNNN Letter from Leonard Murphy Exhibit 0000 Letter from Leonard Murphy Exhibit PPPP Letter from Einar M. Nordahl Exhibit QQQQ Letter from Larry Epstein Exhibit RRRR Map from Larry Epstein Mr. Miniszewski said that he had posted on the bulletin board a chart showing heights allowed in different zones (Exhibit SSSS), the plan map for the area (Exhibit L), and Exhibit FF, amendment to the plan map. COUNCIL EXHIBIT ::y PLANNING ctober 28, 1985 The following people testified about the proposed plan for Forest Highlands: Helen A. Turk - 13840 Verte Court Ron Wagner - 13333 Fox Run Carl R. Swett - 13485 SW Atwater Lane E. Nordahl Larry Epstein - 1020 SW Taylor Street, Portland Tim McNamara - 1375 SW Atwater Katheryn Stager - 13197 SW Thoma Road Burton Goodrich - 1030 SW Timberline Drive Jim Marrs - Thoma Road Gerie Leslie - 13301 Knaus Road Marjorie Briggs - Knaus Road Larry McCort - 13052 SW Knaus Tom Cunningham - Thoma Road Cliff Conrad - 13221 Knaus Ron Stager - Thoma Road John Carter - Atwater Lane Dick Sptiznass - 1340 Country Commons Chris Staff Issues that were raised in testimony were: - High density should not be confined to the few areas designated. That density should be shared among the entire Forest Highlands area; perhaps by raising density from R-15 to R-10, R-10 to R-7.5, etc., thus allowing the lowering of density from R-0 and R-3 in other areas, particularly Thoma Road. - That higher density along Country Club Road might be preferred by those owners, and that they should be surveyed to determine their preferences. - That the density should be raised for Mr. Nordahl's property because of the large size of the parcel, and because there are no structures on the parcel which would be affected by higher density. It was also brought up that Mr. Nordahl's property was not steeply sloped, and that neighboring homes to the north would be buffered by the stream corridor separating the two properties. - That a plan allowing for ten units per acre was required for all vacant residential property inside the City Urban Service Boundary by the LCDC. - That perhaps other more appropriate areas of the City could increase in density, allowing Forest Highlands to maintain a lower density for their neighborhood plan. -2- 2 ' .' y_ Z PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 28, 1985 - That Portland and Multnomah County zones adjacent to Lake Oswego in this area are much larger (R-40) than those planned for Forest Highlands. - That another Planning Subcommittee be formed having better geographical representation and that they redraft work to develop another neighborhood plan in the next three months. No one else spoke and Chairman Rosencrantz closed the public hearing. The Commission expressed concern that there were residents of Forest Highlands who felt they had not been represented in the planning process. It was suggested that perhaps the neighborhood should get together one more time with the steering committee to determine if there could be consensus for the plan for the areas, with revisions to the plan map if necessary. Foliowing discussion, Commissioner Weisser moved to have one more hearing on PA 7-85 on December 9, 1985, that the committee that produced this plan meet with the neighborhood one last time to see if there are some final adjustments, and to see if they can obtain any additional consensus on those final adjustments. OTHER BUSINESS It was moved, seconded, and passed unanimously to set the hearing date for CU 4-85 (combined park and fire training facility) for November 13, 1985 at 7:30 p.m. Minutes The minutes of September 23, 1985 were approved as written. Commissioners Brockman, Rodrigues, and Weisser voted in favor. Chairman Rosencrantz and Commissioner Robinette abstained as they had not been present at that meeting. A second vote will be held on November 13, 1985 to verify this vote. There was no quorum of those present to approve the minutes of October 14, 1985, and approval of those minutes was deferred to the November 13 meeting. Findings CI 1-85 findings were approved for signature, but a second vote will be needed as there were not four members present who were present at the hearing on October 14, 1985. DA 1-85, DA 2-85, and DA 3-85 will be considered at the next meeting, November 13, 1985. - J - Y- .3 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 28, 1985 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to conduct, Chairman Rosencrantz adjourned the meeting at 10:20 p.m. 360z Respectfully Submitted, Kris Hitchcock Secretary -4- Am r CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 9, 1985 The Planning Commission meeting of December 9, 1985 was called to order by Chairman Larry Rosencrantz at 6:45 p.m.. Commissioners present were Chairman Rosencrantz, Adrianne Brockman, Jeanne Robinette, and Thomas Rodrigues. Mel Wexler was excused. John Weisser arrived at 7:40 p.m. Staff present were Topaz Faulkner Planning Director, Assistant City Attorney Sandra Duffy, City Planners Gary Miniszewski and Lori Mastrantonio, and Secretary Kristi Hitchcock. APPROVAL OF MINUTES ':he minutes of October 28, 1985 were approved as written. This was _he second vote necessary to verify the first 3-0 vote taken on `ovemher 13, 1985. The minutes of October 14, 1985 were approved as written. This was the second vote necessary to verify the first 3-0 •:ote taken on November 13, 1985. Approval of the November 13, 1985 meeting minutes was deferred to the next Planning Commission meeting. PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS - None PUBLIC HEARINGS PA 8-85 and ZC 11-85 - A request to consider Comprehensive_ Plan map and Zone map amendment from R-7.5 to R-0 for a lot including 28,000 square feet. The applicant is Marlene Deaton, representing William Buckley. The property is located on lake Grove Avenue, more specifically described as Tax Lot 1800 of Tax Map 2 lE 8CA. Mr. Miniszewski presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval of the Plan and Zone map amendments; however, they requested that the Planning Commission change the zone to R-3 instead of R-0. This would allow no more than the proposed four two -unit structures. Mr. Miniszewski answered questions for Commissioners regarding funding for street improvements to Lake Grove Avenue and how the use could be compatible with adjacent single family residences. Proponents Marlene Deaton, 1850 SW Egan Way, Lake Osweqo spoke in behalf of the application. She gave a brief history of the application and introduced Kathry Parvin, attorney representing the project. Kathy Parvin, 3690 Lakeview Boulevard, Lake Oswego, said that application complied with State LCDC planning goals, with Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan policies, and that there is a public for multifamily housing in Lake Oswego. COt!NCTL EXHIBIT the need PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 9, 19135 Ms. Parvin said that the proposed units will be within walking distance of shopping and a bus stop. There are sidewalks, and the applicant will put in the sidewalk in front of the project. She said that visual impacts shoiYld be not much more than for single family structures, as there would be four two -unit structures with the parking below each. Only one unit will be directly visible from Lake Grove Avenue. Ms. Parvin said that staff's recommended modification from R-0 to R-3 was acceptable to the applicant. She said this will better buffer the neighborhood from further multifamily development because of the step down from the R-0 zoning on the west. She said that there will be a buffer between this development and the single family residences, and that landscaping will be provided. in response to a question from Commissioner Robinette, Ms. Deaton said that each unit will be approximately 1,296 square feet including parking. Opponents The following people testified in opposition to PA 8-B5 and ZC 11 85: Bud Hovell, Chair, Andre Bjornskov, John L. Palo Donna Shackelford Nick Seagrave Harold Malagon Louise Emerson Matt Finnigan Lynne Wiedel Lake Grove Neighborhood Association 3884 Lake Grove 4181 Sunset Drive 3930 Lake Grove Z -B 3407 Lake Grove 16140 SW Reese 17935 Cardinal Drive 7700 Upper Drive 3930 Lake Grove 1-C Concerns raised in testimony surrounding the proposed map amendment were as follows: - Lack of need for multifamily housing - Residential Density Policy #3 of the Comprehensive Plan - Increased traffic - Increased noise due to close proximity to other residential single family homes - Possible drainage problems (there was testimony that the drainage from this area currently is running of into single family residential lots on Sunset Drive) - Plan policies promoting the upkeep of existing neighborhoods - Possible "domino effect" of multifamily zoning along Lake Grove Avenue - visual impact to the neighborhood - Closeness of the proposed multifamily to existing single family residential homes -2- 2.�u 5- Z PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 9, 1995 Rebuttal Kathy Parvin said that R-3 zoning makes sense because of closeness to the commercial area. It will allow the area to be revitalized. She said that there are already apartments adjacent to this site. Ms. Parvin said that the drainage is adequate. She said that there will be additional parking spaces at the rear of the units which should meet the needs of visitors. She said the advantage of multifamily is that in the design the developer is required to buffer the use from adjacent neighbors and to put in landscaping. That would not be necessary for single family homes. No one else spoke and Chairman Rosencrantz closed the public hearing. Commissioner Brockman said she opposed approval of rezoning this property to R-0 or R-3 because it does not better implement Plan policies. She said it does not conform to the Comprehensive Plan in the following ways: 1) Preservation of existing neighborhoods 2) Promoting rehabilitation 3) Services do not have capacity a) Lake Grove Avenue does not have the capacity because it is narrow. b) Drainage is not adequate Commissioner Brockman said that the curve in Lake Grove Avenue would be a natural dividing lirre and buffer for the intense development. Changes in zoning should occur for entire planning areas and not isolated properties and should be made when the review of the Comprehensive Plan occurs (in about three years).. Commissioner Robinette disagreed. She said that the applicant's zone and Plan amendments should be approved for the following reasons: 1) The conceptual site plan shows that it is possible to comply with siting requirements for multifamily structures. 2) The site is opposite commercial and multifamily uses, unlike other properties further east of Lake Grove Avenue which are opposite single family dwellings. Commissioner Robinette said some conditions should be placed on an approval such as maximum of two stories and that the drainage be handled by impermeable roadways, etc. She said that one of her main reasons for being in favor of the zone change was that this property is in transition and the site probably would not develop as single family. Chairman Rosencrantz said that suitability of the site was not enough reason for changing the zone designation. There need to be compelling reasons backed by strong evidence. He said the Residential Density Policies are most relevant to this decision. -3- s'- 3 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 9, 1985 That policy says that substantially developed single family residential neighborhoods will be maintained at existing density designations. Commissioner Rodrigues said that the Comprehensive Plan was drawn up the way the neighborhood existed, and that changes over time were not taken into account. He said that R-3 zoning should draw a line separating multifamily development from the existing single family development. Commissioner Weisser said he felt the request was reasonable because there is already multifamily and commercial uses .adjacent to the site. Commissioner Brockman moved for denial of PA 8-85 based on her reasoning given during discussion (see page 3). The motion was seconded by Chairman Rosencrantz, and was defeated 2-3. Commissioner Brockman and Chairman Rosencrantz voted in favor of denial, and Commissioners Robinette, Weisser and Rodrigues voted in opposition. Commissioner Robinette moved for approval of PA 8-85, modified from R-0 to R-3, with the conditions that the request be modified from R-0 to R-3, that there be a maximum of 8 units, and that buildings be limited to a maximum of two stories. The Planning Commission recommended that the site needs special attention paid to drainage at the Development Review Board level. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Weisser and passed 3-2, with Commissioners Robinette, Rodrigues and Weisser voting in favor and Chairman Rosencrantz and Commissioner Brockman voting in opposition. Commissioner Robinette moved for approval of ZC 11-85 with the conditions that the request be modified from R-0 to R-3, that there be a maximum of 8 units, and that buildings be limited to a maximum of two stories. The Planning Commission recommended that the site needs special attention paid to drainage at the Development Review Board level. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Weisser and passed 3-2 with Commissioners Weisser, Rodrigues andlRobinette voting in favor and Chairman Rosencrantz and Commissioner Brockman voting in opposition. I! PA 7-85 - Continuation of a public hearing on the Forest Highlands neighborhood outside the City limits and within the Urban Service Boundary. Chairman Rosencrantz said that the Planning Commission had asked that the neighborhood association work toward a compromise which would better distribute density throughout Forest Highlands. Ms. Faulkner, Planning Director, said that since she was new to her position with Lake Oswego, Gary Miniszewski would give the staff report on Forest Highlands. -4- 2."" h PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 9, 1985 Mr. Miniszewski gave a history of the planning process to date on a Comprehensive Plan for Forest Highlands. He gave the Planning Commission copies of new exhibits received since the last hearing. Cliff Conrad, Forest Highlands Neighborhood Association, said that at the association's meeting December 4, three maps had been discussed and voted upon (Exhibits L, GG, and DD). He said that the first vote of the association was close, so a second vote was taken )# eliminating the map which had received the fewest votes (Exhibit DD). The next vote was split 51 to 51 with one vote for Exhibit DD. He said that at this point, the association felt that an impass had been reached and that the consensus was that the differences should be resolved by the Planning Commission and Planning Department staff. The reason for the impasse was there was no consensus on distribution of higher densities. He answered questions for the Commission on rationale behind different designations and the Committee's feelings on the designations. Kathryn Stager commented on the committee's reasoning. (Due to the fact that she spoke from the audience, the exact testimony was not recorded at a volume loud enough to transcribe.) Mr. Conrad said that other areas of the City could be designated for I igher density, relieving the pressure on the Forest Highlands area for higher density. He said that the R-0 and R-3 designations for the Shaw property were not acceptable to anyone, but that if the R-0 designation were taken away from this property it would radically affect the densities for the entire area. Ms. Stager explained why the density had been moved from the High School to this property, and the reasoning behind densities along Boones Ferry and Country Club Roads. Mr. Conrad reiterated his comments about the vote of the association, and the request that the Planning Commission and staff find a compromise. Ms. Faulkner commended Forest Highlands Neighborhood Association on their efforts to develop a plan for their neighborhood, and recommended that staff look at the information provided by them and see if there is anything else than can be suggested to resolve the density issue with particular emphasis on the Shaw property. Perhaps there are other areas of the city where the density could be redistributed. . Consensus of the Planning Commis-sion was that staff should look at t:n.e plans for Forest Highlands and determine if there was a way to better distribute density. Commissioner Robinette said that the Planning Commission should make a tentative decision with guidance to staff as to what the Commission would like to see on the map. -5- 5- S PLANNING COMMISSION M?NUTES December 9, 1985 Members of the audience stated they had no notification of the hearings held on the proposed Plan amendment, including this i meeting. Mr. Miniszewski said that everyone in the Forest Highlands neighborhood had been notified of all meetings. He said that on Thursday, December 5, notices went out to all those within 300' of the planning area. Mr. Miniszewski said that since this is a Plan amendment, it will go to the City Council, and that everyone would have an opportunity to speak. Chairman Rosencrantz said that the Planning Commigsion felt that all persons affected by the proposed Plan amendment should have an opportunity to speak. Ms. Duffy, Assistant City Attorney, said thAt all those persons legally required to be notified by Lake Oswego City Code had been notified. This is a legislative hearing, and individual notification is not required; only notices in the newspaper. Following discussion in which the Planning Commission consensus was that everyone should have the opportunity to testify, Commissioner Brockman moved to hold one last public hearing on PA 7-85 on a map developed by staff. Chairman Rosencrantz added that staff send public notice to all interested parties and those within 300' within the outside perimeter of the planning area. Commissioner Brockman disagreed that individual notice was needed as it was very expensive, difficult to determine mailing lists from tax rolls, and it is noticed in the legal section of the Oswego Review. She accepted the amendment. The Alto Park Water District representative asked to be notified of hearings. Commissioner Robinette said that the Planning Commission should give staff a policy decision as to whether this area should be required to have the density (10 units per acre) or whether the Commission should recommend that City Planning staff research the possibility of putting the density elsewhere in Lake Oswego. Chairman Rosencrantz said that he felt staff should attempt to work with what the neighborhood has come up with in the form of a map, and to give the Planning Commission a specific concept to review. He said that each of the Commissioners could give a policy statement directing staff in their review of the plan for Forest Highlands. Chairman Rosencrantz restated the motion: To have staff try to condense the maps for the best resolution as planning professionals with the input of the neighborhood received to date and have that information available for a last public hearing, at which time the Planning Commission will make a final decision. Notice is to include all those within 300' of the planning area. Commissioner Weisser seconded the motion and it passed uninamously. - 6- 5-6 i PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 9, 1985 PA 9-85 and ZC 12-85 - A request by D. Parr Corporation for approval of a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and Zone Map Amendment from R-0 and R-".5 residential to Neighborhood Commercial (NC) for property located south of Oak, north of Laurel and west of McVey Streets (Tax Lot 6700 of Tax Map 2 JE 10CA and Tax Lot 100 of Tax Map 2 IE 1OCC. Ms. Mastrantonio presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval of the proposed zone and Comprehensive Plan map changes. She answered questions for Commissioners. Proponents Dave Parr, 10375 SW Trapper Terrace, Beaverton, spoke in behalf of the application. He said that Mr. Graham (SP???), the owner of the adjacent property zoned future NC had indicated he might be amenable to changing that property's zoning to residential because the location of the property was not suitable for commercial development. He explained his method for determining trip generation and said he had used the Trip Generation Manual recommended by the City Traffic Coordinator, Jerry Baker. Opponents Virginia Lacy, 1659 Oak Street, said that commercial use of the currently residentially zoned portion of the property would add noise and pollution to the residential zone in which she lives behind this property. She asked the Commission to deny the application. Bill Carson, 1669 Oak, said his major concerns were with traffic, noise, and the school bus stop at the corner of McVey. He asked what use was planned for the northwest corner of the site. He asked that this area not be allowed to be used as a service area. Mr. Carson asked that traffic not be increased on Oak Street. W.F. Pierce, 1599 Oak Street, said that if he could be assured no access or egress would be allowed to Oak Street and that a buffer zone would be put between the commercial area and the residential area, he would not oppose this project. He said he was concerned about limited sight distance on the corner of Oak and McVey. Ms. Mastrantonio indicated that the City received a phone call in support of the proposed zone changes from Dave Brady, Scottsdale, Arizona, owner of Tax Lot 900, Tax Map 2 lE 10CD. Rebuttal Dave Parr said they would agree to not access Oak Street. He said they had no objection to buffering Oak. He said that as part of the improvement of the site, they were required to do a street realignment of Oak and McVey to 900, which would be paid for by the developers. He said they would agree to no use of Tax Lot 100 as a service area (this was the lot which Mr. Carson had requested`):;, not be used as a service area). -7- 5- '� PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 9, 1985 No one else spoke and Chairman Rosencrantz closed the public hearing. The Commission discussed criteria for allowing Plan and zone changes. Following a consensus that the Plan change should be denied because it did not comply with Comprehensive Alen requirements, Commissioner Robinette moved for denial of PA 9-85 for the following reasons: 1. It does not comply with the Comprehensive Plan policy of preserving neighborhoods. 2. It does not better implement Plan policies as there is a need for R-0 (multifamily) residential zoning. 3. There is already land zoned commercial in the neighborhood commercial center adequate to contain 20,000 square feet of commercial space. (Commissioner Robinette referred to Volume II of the Comprehensive Plan.) 4. A 40' high building will negatively impact the neighborhood. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Weisser and passed. 'unanimously with Commissioners Weisser, Robinette, Brockman, and Rodrigues and Chairman Rosencrantz all voting in favor. GENERAL PLANNING - None OTHER BUSINESS - Findings, Conclusions and Order The Commission approved signature of the following findings: DA 1-85, Transit Standard Amendment DA 2-85, Amendment to Minor Development Procedures DA 3-85, Notice requirements for Class I Variance Applications ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to conduct, Chairman Rosencrantz adjourned the meeting at 11:00 p.m. 0 4 2 4 z Respectfully Submitted, Kris Hitchcock Secretary -8- �ODDO D CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 10, 1986 The Planning Commission meeting of March 10, 1986 was called to order by Chairman Larry Rosencrantz at 7:30 p.m.. Commissioners present were Chairman Rosencrantz, Adrianne Brockman, Jeanne .Robinette, Greg Burton, Thomas Rodrigues, and John Weisser. Mel Wexler was excused. Staff present were Topaz Faulkner Planning Director, Assistant City Attorney Sandra Duffy, City Planners Gary Miniszewski and Lori Mastrantonio, and Secretary Kristi Hitchcock. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of January 27, 1986 were approved as written. Commissioner Brockman moved for approval, Commissioner Weisser seconded the motion, and it passed with Commissioners Weisser, Brockman, Robinette, Rodrigues.and Chairman Rosencrantz voting in favor. Commissioner Burton abstained. PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS - None PUBLIC HEARINGS an.. f o• Ms. Faulkner said that there have been three previous Planning Commission hearings on Forest Highlands, September 13, October 28, and December 9. She said that at the December 9 meeting three plans '-ad been presented and the Commission had directed staff to work with the information received from the neighborhood, condense those :reaps and to bring back a map for a final hearing at which the decision on the plan for the neighborhood would be made. Since the December 9 hearing, staff has worked with the Forest Highlands subcommittee in designing the map densities. She said that densities have been lowered in the area, eliminating the R-0 zone entirely. She said that a meeting was held with DLCD, and they were informed that 9.6 units per acre would occur from the densities assigned. Mr. Miniszewski presented the staff report, giving a brief history of planning of the area and the final outcome of those plans. He showed areas of stream corridors, Distinctive Natural Areas, locations of existing homes and the proposed densities for the area on overlay maps. He said that since the last meeting, December 9, 1985, the R-0 densities had been dropped and the highest density now planned in the area is R-3. He discussed distribution of densities throughout the area, saying that the highest densities were planned along arterial streets (Boones Ferry and Country Club). COUNCIL EXHIBIT /Y# -c e.vcn PkIs owe PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 10 1986 - That secondary dwelling units were not counted in the overall density. - Residents of the properties in Multnomah County outside these boundaries have a zoning of R-40. This is incompatible with densities proposed at R-7.5 and R-10 along the borders of the R-40 properties. Following testimony, Chairman Rosencrantz closed the public portion of the hearing. He declared a five minute recess. The meeting resumed at 9:25 p.m. Commissioner Brockman moved for the adoption of the plan as proposed by staff, except changing the R-5 density on Country Club between Verte and Redwood Courts to R-7.5. She said that she had reservations that LCDC would accept less than 10 units per acre and that land eligible to count in that density must be vacant, residentially developable land. Commission Robinette agreed with the motion. She said that Lake Oswego should insist that LCDC allow the count of secondary dwelling units to be included in the overall density. Commissioner Burton seconded the motion. Commissioner Weisser asked staff's reasoning behind the proposed zoning of R-10 for the property between Country Commons and the R-7.5 area. Mr. Miniszewski said that there was a definite dividing line ( a stream corridor) between those two areas and that the neighborhood committee had backed this density. Commissioner Weisser moved to amend the motion, changing the density of the R-10 area between Country Commons and the R-7.5 density from R-10 to R-7.5. There was no second to the amendment motion. Commissioner Brockman's motion passed unanimously, with Commissioners Brockman, Burton, Rodrigues, Robinette, Weisser, and Chairman Rosencrantz voting in favor. ZC 20-84 - Remand from the City Council of an application requesting a Zone Text Amendment changing the Floor Area Ratio from .30 to .38 depending on the amount of commercial retail use versus nonretail use for specific properties between Kruse Way, Kruse Way Place, and Boones Ferry Road. Ms. Mastrantonio presented the staff report. She said that the City Council had modified PA 19-84, (the corresponding Plan Amendment); thus, the Zone Change request, ZC 20-84, had been remanded to the Planning Commission. Staff recommended that the following conditions be applied to an approval of the request: -3- PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 10 1986 No one else spoke and Chairman Rosencrantz closed the public hearing to public testimony and opened it for Commission discussion. Several Commissioners asked about conditions placed on the zone change and if they should be noted in the text amendment. Ms. Duffy said that the Commission could make a tentative decision and that the City Attorney's Office would establish the procedure for implementing that decision. Commissioner Brockman proposed the following language: 2. That the lot coverage requirement for building and parking areas not exceed 70% and the setback for the buildings and parking shall be at least 20 feet from the property lines, except on Kruse Way where the setback shall be at least 30 feet to maintain the character of Kruse Way. The Commission agreed with Commissioner Brockman's proposal. Ms. Mastrantonio said that Clackamas County requires 30 foot setbacks from Kruse Way, with parking allowed within that setback in certain cases. Staff has recommended that there be 20 foot setbacks for this site. There are no setbacks required for any other sites for that zone along the north side of Kruse Way. Mr. James said they have no desire to place buildings anywhere near Kruse Way, but that this area is needed for parking for the buildings. The only other solution for parking is to place a parking structure on the site. The Commission discussed pro rata share and if the wording of the text amendment adequately insured any changes in ownership of the property in the agreement. Commissioner Weisser said that pro rata share should be eliminated from the text amendment. The rest of the Commission disagreed. Commissioner Robinette said that the right -in, right -out access on Kruse Way was included in an approval of this project, and that she thought it would work if another lane is added. Commissioner Brockman said that if access is allowed to Kruse Way she would vote against approval. She felt that access would cause traffic problems on Kruse Way. Commissioner Burton said that he would like to see conditions to the text amendments incorporated in the text of the zoning code. He said a setback and lot coverage requirements should be incorporated into the zoning text. -5- 4- G" PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 10, 1986 Ms. Faulkner said that time limits for testimony would be listed on the agenda. Chairman Rosencrantz said that he felt three minutes were adequate for testimony from individuals and that seven minutes is adequate for representative of a group. It was requested that a timer be provided to help those testifying keep within the limits. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to conduct, Chairman Rosencrantz adjourned the meeting at 10:45 p.m. p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Kris Hitchcock Secretary 6 2 1 z .. �, CITY OF LAKE OS WEGO PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT- APPLICANT City of Lake Oswego LOCATION FILE NO. PA 7-85 DATE: February 27, 1986 Forest Highlands "Future Urbanizable Area" includes the 246 acres generally located north of Country Club Road, west of Boca Ratan Dirve, East of Boones Ferry Road and South of the Clackamas County North boundary. NEIGHBORHOOD Forest Highlands REQUEST To amend the Comprehensive Plan map and text for the Forest Highlands "Future Urbanizable Area" including 246 acres. The map amendment involves replacing the present Plan designation of "Future Urbanizable" with Plan Designations for "Immediate Growth" that will allow for residential developement ranging from 4.3 to 12.9 dwelling units per acre. The map amendment will also involve the deletion of the map designation for a Park originally located west of the Knaus/Country Commons intersection. Lastly, the above map amendments will necessitate the deletion of specific Comprehensive Plan Policy 3 on page 15, General Policy I and Specific Policies 1 and 2 on page 86 of the Comprehensive Plan text. APPLICABLE CRITERIA LOC 56.155 Certain Comprehensive Plan Policies of the: Growth Management Policy Element Community Resource Policy Element Natural Resource Policy Element Open Space Land Use Policy Element Land Use Activities Policy Element METRO Housing Rule Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 RACKC,Rnf JNn COUNCIL EXHIBIT 13ep - The Planning Commission has held three public hearings regarding potential Plan amendments. Those hearings were held September 23, 1985, October 28, 1985 and December 9, 1985. The minutes of those meetings are included as Exhibits 1, 2 and 3. At the December 9 meeting, tine Planning Commission requested that staff condense the formerly presented plan proposals for the best resolution of the planning problem based on input of the neighborhood. City staff worked with the neighborhood association subcommittee and others to develop this plan. Staff, and rj_ Staff Report - PA 7-85 February 27, 1986 Page 2 neighborhood representatives , consider this plan posposal an improvement over previously proposed maps because: 1. The proposal represents a reduction in density from 7.8 du/acre to 6.3 du/acre in average density planned for the neighborhood. 2. The proposed plan represents a more strict reliance on the concept of locating multiple family residential districts adjacent to arterial streets. 3. The density range for residential density districts is less extreme. The range has changed from 52 du/acre - 2.7 du/acre to 12.9 du/acre - 4.3 du/acre. The R-0 high density district is not incorporated in this plan. 4. The proposed plan more readily conforms to criteria set forth in the following report. STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION The "Forest Highlands Future Urbanizable area", hereafter referred to as the study area, consists of 246 acres and is semi -rural in nature. West of the study area is Boones Ferry Road, Lake Oswego High School and urban uses associated with Mountain Park such as Town Square and Parkridge Condominium. By contrast, low density residential development occurs east of the study area, beyond which is Tryon Creek State Park. Like adjacent land uses, Forest Highlands area can be described as a landscape of contrast; with moderate slopes mostly ranging between 5-24%, stream channels with either steep ravines and or flat swales. Vegetation in the area includes groves of second growth Douglas Firs, Oregon White Oak, Ash and other tree species. Some of the most significant vegetation includes a fir grove about 5 acres in area south of Amber Place and numerous ravines that include a mix of conifer and deciduous trees. There are also orchards and open fields used for hay production and grazing. Some 195 dwellings are scattered throughout the area at an average density of one dwelling/1.26 acres with some 500 current residents. A total of 43 acres have already been developed with residential structures on lots of 3/4 of an acre or less. Most of the developed lots are either south of Atwater Road or west of Goodall Road. Roads in the area are typical rural county roads having minimum widths and drainage facilities. A domestic water system presently exists in the area. A sanitary sewer system has not LDeen constructed and the existing structures are on individual septic systems. INVENTORY PROCEDURE Ownership and Population Information City staff developed a property map showing lot lines, dwelling locations, common ownership of abutting lots, area of lots that are 3/4 of an acre or smaller with a dwelling, the boundary of the urbanizable area, and the Lake Oswego city limits. The information base was collected from assessor maps and computer printouts. With the above map, staff developed the gross and net buildable acreage of the study area. z�st� — Z. Staff Report - PA 7-85 Fenruary 27, 1986 Page 3 The inventory shows it was also determined that there are 43 acres of developed land area (lots 3/4 of an acre or smaller with a dwelling), 2 acres of City owned land (outside of stream corridors), 10 acres for future City park(s) (not yet located), and 15 acres of land area in stream corridors. In creating the above property map, it was also determined that there are approximately 195 existing dwelling units in the study area. Based on the household population figure of 2.63 used by Portland State University Population Center, it was estimated that 514 people presently live in the study area. Natural Features City staff developed a topographical analysis map showing the following ranges of slope: 0-4% flat, 5%-11$ gentle, 12%-24% moderate, 25%-50% severe, 50% and more. It was determined from the LOPRI Report that most of the soils in the study area are Kenton Silt Loam, Cornelius Silt Loam and Cascade Silt Loam. The Cascade and Cornelius Silt Loams are found on slopes of 2-12% with moderate erosion potential and moderate to severe landslide potential. The Kenton Silt Loam soils are found on slopes of 12%-20% and have severe erosion potential and severe potential for landslide according to the LOPRI Report. A natural features map was also developed showing the locations of Distinctive Natural Areas, drainage corridors, and known wetlands. Infrastructure City staff developed four maps at a 1" = 200' scale showing existing streets, street right-of-way widths and classifications; existing and potential sewer ano water lines; and, existing and potential storm water systems. DATA ANALYSIS PROCEDURE The above described information on the property map, slope map, natural features map and four infrastructure maps was studied through the map overlay process to determine how the different sets of features in the study area relate to one another. The overlay process involving the analysis of data maps in different combinations over a light table was done to solve the major planning problem of finding locations physically suitable for high density residential development that will have minimal visual and traffic related impacts on existing neighborhoods. Existing neighborhoods in this planning analysis context were defined as clusters of lots 3/4 acre or less with existing dwellings. GENERAL CRITERIA USED IN DEVELOPIZC PLAN MAP A. Density Based on the attached State of Oregon rule regarding the LCDC Housing Goal, Lake Oswego's general Land Use Plan must maintain an overall density of ten or more dwelling units per net vacant buildable acre. Presently, the City Plan allows for 8,022 dwelling units that can be developed on 785 acres of. vacant buildable and vacant committed lands. The above figures translate to a density 7 OL4 -7-3 :aff Report - PA 7-85 "ruary 27, 1986 :e 4 of 10.2 dwelling units/net acre. In developing the Forest Highlands Plan, staff used the above data recently printed in the Comprehensive Plan Supporting Documentation (Volume II) to incorporate the number of dwelling units planned for and buildable acreage figures generated from the proposed Forest Highlands land use map. The 15 acres of stream corridor in the study area was included in the calculation of the net buildable acreage to determine the maximum number of dwellings in the study area. The mathematical breakdown on the following paged as developed to determine the net developable acreage and the total numoer of dwellings possible. Staff Report - PA 7-85 February 27, 1986 Page 5 A. The gross area of 246 acres less the City owned land (3.34 Acres) and the developed land defined as lots less than .75 acre with a dwelling and not identified as redevelopable (41.05 acres) = 201.61 acres. B. Determination of net developable area and total number of dwelling units possible. PLAN GROSS ACRES NET DEVELOPABLE DU/AC TOTAL NO. OF DISTRICT BY ZONE AREA LESS STREETS DWELLINGS POSSIBLE R-0 -0- -0- -0- -0- R-3 2.5 2.5 12.9 32 R-5 10.54 8.43 8.7 73 R-7. 146.76 less 20 ac pk 136.76 109.4 5.8 635 R-10 44.76 35.8 4.3 154 -15 -0- -0- -0- -0- 1� 894 C. The ultimate net acreage less stream corridors not in City ownership (15 acres - 1.34 acres = 13.66 acres) 156 net ac - 13.66 ac in stream corridor = 142 acres Land area in stream corridors is given a transferrable density status when separate parcels are developed and, as such, staff determined that the stream corridor factor of 15 acres could be used in determining the total number of possible dwelling units of 894. Because construction is not allowed in stream corridors, staff determined that the stream corridor factor (13.66) could be subtracted from the planned total net developable acreage of 156 to get 142 acres. When the total possible dwelling unit and net developable acreage factors of 894 du and 142 acres are plugged into the overall City density formula, the following equation and density develops. 894 du + 8022 du = 8916 = 9.61 du/ac 142 ac 785 ac 927 The maximum density for residential development rin buildable, undeveloped land in the study area could ultimately be 6.3 dwelling units/acre as seen below:. 894 du/ac = 6.3 dwelling units / acre 142 net acres �- 5 Staff Report - PA 7-85 February 27, 1986 Page 6 B. Compatibility City staff considers the land use district density range R-15 to R-7.5 relatively compatible with the land use and lot patterns presently in the area. The low density single family dwellings allowed in those districts will be consistent with existing the homes. One of the main criteria in siting the residential districts that allow for multiple family structures (R-3 and R-5 districts) was to prevent disruption of existing residential patterns. Staff first determined the location of large clusters of developed lots (lots three quarters of an acre or less with a dwelling), and staff then avoided placing high density districts adjacent to them. When the criteria could not be met, staff considered terrain, lot configurations and lineal interface to mitigate the impacts of locating the higher density districts adjacent to existing neighborhoods. C. Suitability Whenever possible high density residential districts were located on lots greater than 3/4 of an acre. Alternatively, lot clusters that could qualify as redevelopable were used. The steep and narrow stream corridors such as the one southwest of Goodall Road were avoided and high density districts were, for the most part, located on more moderate slopes of 12-24%. Slopes of 12-24% have less potential for hillside slumpage and severe erosion than on the steep 25-50% slopes. D. Areas With Significant Natural Features There are five Distinctive Natural Areas (DNA) in the study area. They are identified on the map exhibit and described as follows in the Comprehensive Plan. DNA 15 - Springs west of the Atwater Lane right-of-way DNA 17 - Wooded ravine along Iron Mt. Creek DNA 28 - Specimen Firs west of Goodall Road D14A 34 - Douglas Fir grove east of Redwood Court DNA 43 - Fir grove south of Ambler Court The hydrology map identifies several locations in the study area as wetlands. None of the high density districts are in areas of identified wetlands. The stream corridors were delineated, and the area of each has been calculated totalling 15 acres. The City's Conservancy Commission has in the past expressed concern that high density land use districts not overlay identified Distinctive Natural Areas and Stream Corridors. There are also many sections of the Comprehensive Plan Natural Resource element that specifically address the need to protect stream and woodland features. General Policy II of the Open Space Element reads as follows: 7- 1 Staff Report - PA 7-85 February 27, 1986 Page 7 "The City will regulate the use of lands so designated in accordance with the policies set forth in the NATURAL RESOURCES ELEMENT, in order to preserve essential natural resources and processes, avoid natural hazards and damages and to preserve significant natural features in the community." In light of the above stated Conservancy Commission concerns and Open Space Policy, City staff with the help of the Forest Highlands subcommittee did not locate R-3 and R-5 districts where Stream Corridor and/or Distinctive Natural Areas occur. The only exceptions to the above rule is the 2.3 acre R-5 district west of Verte Court. Staff considers the R-5 district appropriate because this district provides design options allowing clustering of dwellings, which could reduce the number of trees that must be cut. 7. Accessability to Critical Public Facilities The proposed high density districts have frontage on, or are adjacent to, Boones Ferry Road or Country Club Road. Those roads are identified in the Comprehensive Plan as arterial streets. The 5.5 acre block of land northeast of Lake Oswego High School is only 700 feet from Boones Ferry and 600 feet from Goodall Road, a collector street. This subject is discussed further on page Io under Goal 11. ZR TERIA FOR PLAN AMENDMENTS (LOC 56.155) 1. The Amendment conforms to or better implements Plan policies for particular uses involved. Staff construes the expression "particular use involved" to mean land in the study area that will ue used in the future for urban purposes. Because it is a semi -rural area in low density residential use, it has been an underlying assumption by the Forest Highlands residents and City staff that any changes in the area land use will only involve an increase inresidential densities and not use -changes. As such, the scope of discussion here is narrowed to the Urban Growth Management Element involving Urban Service Boundary and Overall Density Policies in the Comprehensive Plan. Urban Service Boundary General Policy 3 states that: "The City will manage and phase urban growth within the Urban Service Boundary, with a logical planned extension of basic services. To establish priorities for the phased extension of services, the City will identify areas within the Urban Servic Boundary as follows: 1) Lands suitable for near future development (Immediate Growth); 2) Lands in long range growth areas (FUTURE URBANIZABLE)." i e above general policy was adopted in 1978. �_ q Staff Report - PA 7-85 February 27, 1986 Page 8 The following is a specific implementing policy adopted in 1978 that addresses how the City should reconsider future urbanizable land designations. "Within five years from the date of approval, the FUTURE UR.BANIZABLE designation will be reviewed by the City to determine whether it remains appropriate or should be changed to Immediate Growth. Redesignation would be for an entire area to avoid piecemeal development." The Plan was amended on January 17, 1984 to read as follows: "The City will initiate review of the Forest Highlands Future Urbanizable area in the fiscal year 1983-84 according to the schedule submitted to LCDC. Any redesignations would be for the entire area, or a logical subsection thereof, to avoid piecemeal development. Redesignations will not alter the City's compliance with METRO housing goals contained in OAR 660-07-035." Presently, land in the subject "future urbanizable area" cannot be annexed to the City unless a health hazard occurred from failing septic systems or a land use Plan for the area is adopted with urban residential districts. City staff have been answering inquiries from land owners in Forest Highlands over the last five years involving the possibility of annexation and sewer line extensions. New growth has occurred in the northwest sector of the city and is assumed to continue in the northerly direction. The following are Comprehensive Plan "Overall Density" General Policies that were also considered in planning for the study area: GENERAL POLICIES: I. The Comprehensive Plan will maintain the overall, average residential density of the Urban Service Area within the capacity of planned basic public facilities systems, including at least water, sewer streets, drainage and public safety. II. Residential densities and land use intensities will be allocated on the basis of land suitability and public facilities capacity. Specific policies to carry out the above are on pages 20 and 21 of the Comprehensive Plan. The City planning staff have worked with the Forest Highlands Neighborhood to adopt a land use plan that will accommodate future growth for residential development at .urban densities averaging 6.3 dwelling units/acre. This results in an overall City planned density for vacant land of 9.6 du/ac. Based on the above cited Comprehensive Plan policy, State Land Use Goal 10, and recent growth trends, staff considers the proposed Forest Highlands Plan map and text amendments as measures to implement the above cited Comprehensive Plan policies. Staff considered these measures in compliance with other Plan Element policies. Discussion regarding compliance with other parts of the Plan will follow. r?. r Staff Report - PA 7-85 February 27, 1986 Page 9 2. Conclude the amendments is consistent with any applicable Statewide Planning Goals or regional policies. Statewide Planning Goals applicable to this proposal are: Goals 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14. The METRO REGIONAL Housing goal contained in OAR 660-07-035 is also applicable to the proposed Plan Amendments. The METRO HOUSING REGIONAL goal requires, among other things, that the buildable lands inventory for Lake Oswego provide for an overall average on developable land of ten dwelling units per net acre, and the single/multi unit mix be about 50/50. Goal 1 states: "Develop a citizen involvement program that insures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process." City staff have been working with the neighborhood association for Forest Highlands to develop this plan since June of 1984. Details of that involvement are described in the initial Forest Highlands staff report of September 13, 1985 (Exhibit 5). Goal 2 states: "Establish a land use planning process and policy framework as a basis for all decisions and actions related to use of land and to assure an adequate factual base for such decisions and actions. The City of Lake Oswego has a State acknowledged Land Use Plan that provides a framework by which land use problems regarding the study area have been defined and decisions made to resolve those problems. An adequate factual base for the study area has been developed over the last 20 months. Adequate notice of neighborhood meetings and the present public hearing has'been provided in advance to allow affected persons reasonable time to review the Plan amendment. Goal 5 states: "Conserve open space and protect natural and scenic resources." As explained on page Z of this report, significant Natural Features in the study area were considered in the planning process. As annexations are approved, development proposals are automatically reviewed on a site by site basis. This development review process involves the application of Development Standards that were designed to conserve open space and to protect identified natural and scenic resources. Goal 6 states: "Maintain and improve the quality of air, water and land resources of the State." The City of Lake Oswego presently has an environmental management program to maintain the quality of air, water and land that has been acknowledged by the State as in compliance with this Goal. As annexations in the study area occur, this City will apply the same program to the annexed lands. The only environmental problems that occur in the area are isolated septic system failures. As city sewer services are extended to Forest Highlands, isolated septic system breakdowns can be prevented from becoming a generalized public health problem. -7- 9 Staff Report - PA 7-85 February 27, 1986 Page 10 Goal 7 states: "Protect life, property from natural disasters and hazards." In analyzing the natural resources of the subject area, staff found that the more generalized natural hazards in the area are lands subject to slumping and erosion. The severity of those hazards is usually proportional to the degree of slope found from site to site. The more severe slopes, 24 - 50%, were mostly found along stream channel ravines. Those ravines were avoided in locating high density residential districts that cause the most disturbance to land. As annexations are approved and development proposals are considered, the City automatically reviews project proposals on a site by site basis. This review process involves the application of Development Standards that thoroughly address any possibility for severe erosion or slumping. Goal 8 states: "Satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the state and visitors." The City of Lake Oswego presently owns 3 acres of park land along the Iron Mountain Creek and has planned for the acquisition of 10 more acres at a particular site west of the Knauss/Country Commons intersection. The City presently does not want to acquire the above site but will consider acquiring at least 10 acres of park land in the area as opportunities arise. As lands are annexed and developed in the Lake Oswego area, the City also requires that at least 15 - 20% of a given residential site be left in open space for passive or active recreational use. Goal 9 states: "Diversify and improve the economy of the State." As annexations are approved, new dwelling units built and associated infrastructure constructed, employment opportunities in the construction field will be sustained, if not increased. Goal 10 states: "Provide housing needs of citizens of the State." The maximum density possible for residential development in the study area could be 9.6 dwelling units/acre. When the study area dwelling units and net developable acreage factors are plugged into the overall City density formula, .63 dwelling units/net acre results. City staff recognizes that this number is .40 units per acre below the Goal 10 rule requiring that planning for 10 units/acre be maintained; however, other Plan amendments in the near future involving East End Redevelopment may increase the overall planned density figure of 9.6 up to the target density of 10 du/net acre. The high density districts adjacent to Boones Ferry road are on gentle to moderate slopes that can be more easily developed at less expense, thus creating the potential for affordable housing. Goal 11 states: "Plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of public facilities and services as a framework for urban and rural developments." Staff Report - PA 7-85 February 27, 1986 Page 11 The City of Lake Oswego has been requested by the State of Oregon to begin to do land use and public facility planning for the Forest Highlands area so that annexation requests can be considered in the coming years with some assurance that the City can provide services. Forest Highlands residents will also have a better idea of what residential densities can occur in given parts of the study area as annexations are approved. The City Engineering Department has studied the problem of providing sewer mains to the area and has concluded that gravity feed lines are feasible and that existing sewer lines and treatment facilities can accommodate future volumes generated by projected development. An adequate domestic water system presently exists in the area that can accommodate projected development. Schools in the area can accommodate the projected population increase in the study area. Police protection can be provided with little increase in staffing and physical facilities. Fire protection is currently provided to the area by the City through a contract with the Lake Grove Fire District. Goal 12 states: "Provide and encourage a safe and convenient and economic transportation system." The proposed land use plan was developed with the above goal in mind. Citizens in the study area felt that higher density residential development districts should abut arterial or collector streets or at least be near them. Also, the citizens of Forest Highlands requested that the City sponsor a traffic study for the area after a land use Plan is adopted. The study will provide needed information to develop a transportation plan based on the adopted land use Plan. Goal 13 states: "Conserve energy." One of the guidelines for this goal is "combine increasing density gradients along high capacity transportation corridors to achieve greater energy efficiency". The above guideline was seriously considered and implemented as stated above in the Goal 12 narrative. Goal 14 states: "Provide for an orderly efficient transition from rural to urban land use." Policies relating to the above goal have been developed and compliance with those policies is addressed under criteria item 1 on pages 7 and 3 of this report. Compliance with the METRO Regional Housing Goal has been discussed above under Goal 10. 3. Determine that and are available to serve the The above considerations have been addressed regarding compliance with Goals 11 and 12 on pages Lt�,, /) of this report. 4. Evaluate the ical constraints within the site to determine if uses lan designation can physically be accommodated on the site. 24'' I — // Staff Report - PA 7-85 February 27, 1986 Page 12 The above consideration has been addressed under Goal 7 on page IO and under the Suitability Criteria 'C' page(,,_. —" 5. For residential Plan amendments to R --O R-3 or R-5 the Commission will determine that (1), 2), 3) and 4) are met and that; a. The area designated R-3 or R-5 can be buffered from adjoining R-7.5, R-10 and R-15 residential areas in a manner which protects the privacy of adjoining uses. Buffering techniques may include a site plan showing a perimeter density of no more than 25% increase over the density allowed in the Plan for the adjacent lots. Preservation of natural features or natural hazards on the site will be balanced against the need to provide perimeter compatibility. The above criteria cannot at this time be fully addressed in the detail that is called for above. This is not a site specific Plan map change. This is a generalized Plan map amendment involving 246 acres most of which include diverse terrain, conifer and deciduous trees. In locations where high density districts 4ave been proposed, the existing terrain and tree groves provide site buffering opportunities as land is proposed for development. b. The area is within one block of an arterial or located on a collector with capacity to handle additional traffic. The high density districts on the west end of the study area are all either abutting Boones Ferery Road or located at least 700 feet from either Goodall Road or Boones Ferry Road. There is one 2.31 acre R-5 district located directly on Country Club Road. The Forest Highlands Subcommittee was very aware of the need to locate high density districts near collector or arterial streets. The Subcommittee and those attending neighborhood meetings also stated their concern for traffic impact generated by development. They recommended that the City of Lake Oswego sponsor a traffic study and develop a public facility plan for new streets, street improvements and pathways. c. The area is within reasonable walking distance of a transit stop as determined by recent surveys conducted by a reputable source such as the Tri -County Metropolitan Transportation District. The Commission shall use a distance of approxiately 750 feet unless recent studies show otherwise. The proposed high density districts abutting Boones Ferry Road are within 750' from the Monroe Parkway/Boones Ferry Intersection where a bus stop is located. The High Density District northeast of the high school is some 1,250' from the Monroe Parkway/Boones Ferry Road intersection. The 2.31 acre R-5 district along Country Club Road is about 1/2 mile from a bus stop. As development occurs and density increases in the study area, it can be reasonably expected that changes in transit service to the area will be made making bus stops more accessible. d. The area is within reasonable walking distance of commercial or industrial zones. The Commission will use 750' unless recent studies support another number. 211 '-7- 1 a Staff Report - PA 7-85 February 27, 1986 Page 13 Because of the size of the study area and the uniform nature of the land use in the area, not all of the high density districts can be logically located within 750' of commercial and industrial zones. The proposed high density districts abutting Boones Ferry Road range in distance of 100 to 900' from the Town Square Commercial Center. The High Density District northeast of the high school is some 1,400' from the Town Square Commercial Center. The Country Club high density district is about one mile from Town Center. 6. For residential amendments to R-7.5, R-10 or R-15, the Commission will determine that (1), (2), (3) and (4) are met and that; a. The proposed density is consistent with the platted development pattern in the surrounding area; or, The above criteria is not applicable to the proposed land use Plan. The existing parcel and lot pattern found in the area includes rural parcels that were made large enough to accommodate wells and septic systems or at least septic systems. Some of the parcels are at least 1/2 acre in size and 83% of the study area includes lots with areas that exceed 3/4 acre. The more urban type of residential development will include lots that range in size from 10,000 square feet to 3,375 sq. ft. b. The topography in the area will make it possible to protect privacy on adjoining property both within and adjacent to the property. (Ord. No. 1874, Sec. 3; 10-4-83). The above standard cannot be fully addressed at this time in the detail called for above. This is not a site specific Plan map change. 'Phis is a generalized Plan map amendment involving 246 acres most of which includes moderate terrain with slopes ranging from 10 - 24%. Most of the study area has moderate slopes and topographic site design opportunities for buffering new residential development are available. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the proposed Plan text amendments and Plan map amenament identified as Exhibit 1. EXHIBITS 1 December 9, 1985 Planning Commission Minutes 2 October 28, 1985 Planning Commission Minutes 3 September 23, 1985 Planning Commission Minutes 4 Map Proposal 5 September, 1985 Staff Report 5952/GSFM/mas 24 7- 13 F- 250 of IAKI 0,,wfCO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM oR« TO: Doug Schmitz, City Manager FROM: Stephan Lashbrook, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Exceptions to Metro's Urban Growth Management Functional flan requirements DATE: January 30, 2002 At the City Council's recent public hearing on minimum densities, questions were raised about the process of seeking an exception to Metro's Functional Plan requirements for density and dwelling unit targets. The Metro Council just adopted changes to its exception standards on .January 24. Those changes can be found in Section 3.07.860 of the attached Ordinance (No. 01-925E). The new Metro Ordinance sets an annual time to for filing exception requests, during the month of March each year. The part of the new Ordinance that is applicable to dwelling unit targets can be found in subsection 3.07.860(B)(2) and includes the following required findings that must be made for the Metro Council to approve an exception: (a) The city or county has completed analysis of capacity for dwelling units and jobs required by subsections 3.07.150A, B, and C; (b) It is not possible to achieve the targets due to topographic or other physical constraints, an existing development pattern that precludes achievement of the 2040 Growth Concept, or protection of environmentally sensitive land; and (c) This exception and other exceptions to the targets will not render the targets unachievable region -wide. Subsection 3.07.860(B)(1) of Metro's new Ordinance contains what may be a more strict set of criteria for other types of exceptions, including exceptions to the minimum density standards. It states: (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection, the Council may grant an exception if it finds: (a) it is not possible to achieve the requirement due to topographic or other physical constraints or an existing development pattern; (b) this exception and likely similar exceptions will not render the objective of the requirement unachievable region -wide; (c) the exception will not reduce the ability of another city or county to comply with the requirement: and (d) the city or county has adopted other measures more appropriate for the city or county to achieve the intended result of the requirement. Attachment: Metro Ordinance No. 01-925E EXHIBIT F-8 Functional Plan Exceptions 1/30102 Exhibit A to Ordinance No. 01-925E January 24, 2001 Amend sections 3.07.8 10 to 3.07.860 of Title 8 of the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan as follows: 3.07.810 Compliance with the Functional Plan A. The purpose of this section is to establish a process for determining whether city or county comprehensive plans and land use regulations comply with requirements of the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan, The Council intends the process to be efficient and cost-effective and to provide an opportunity for the Metro Council to interpret the requireme ms of its functional plan. Where the terms "compliance" and '`comply" appear in this title, the terms shall have the meaning given to "substantial compliance" in 3.07. 101 0(rrr). B. Cities and counties shall amend their comprehensive plans and land use regulations to comply with the functional plan within two years after its acknowledgement by the Land Conservation and Development Commission, or after such other date specified in the functional plan. The Executive Officer shall notify cities and counties of the compliance date. C. Notwithstanding subsection A of this section, cities and counties shall amend their comprehensive plans and land use regulations to comply with sections 3.07.3 10 to 3.07.340 of Title 3 of the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan by January 31, 2000, and with the requirements in sections 3.07.710 to 3.07.760 of Title 7 of the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan by January 18, 2003. D. Cities and counties that amend their comprehensive plans or land use regulations after the effective date of the functional plan shall make the amendments in compliance with the functional plan. The Executive Officer shall notify cities and counties of the effective date. E. Cities and counties whose comprehensive plans and land use regulations do not yet comply with a functional plan requirement adopted or amended prior to December 12, 1997, shall make land use decisions consistent with that requirement. If the functional plan requirement was adopted or amended by the Metro Council after December 12, 1997, cities and counties whose comprehensive plans and land use regulations do not yet comply with the requirement shall, after one year following acknowledgment of the requirement, make land use decisions consistent with that requirement. The Executive Officer shall notify cities and counties of the date upon which functional plan requirements become applicable to land use decisions at least 120 days before that date. The notice shall specify which functional plan requirements become applicable to land use decisions in each city and county. For the purposes of this subsection, "land use decision" shall have the meaning of that term as defined in ORS 197.015(10). Fxhibit A to Ordinance No. 01-925E z J a 3 7T01.92SE ExA.CIn 001 '� OGC.RP A/ (01/24/02) F. An amendment to a city or county comprehensive plan or land use regulation shall be deemed to comply with the functional plan if no appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals is made within the 21 -day period set forth in ORS 197.830(9), or if the amendment is acknowledged in periodic review pursuant to ORS 197.633 or 197.644. If an appeal is made and the amendment is affirmed, the amendment shall be deemed to comply with the functional plan upon the final decision on appeal. Once the amendment is deemed to comply with the functional plan, the functional plan shall no longer apply to land use decisions made in conformance with the amendment. G. An amendment to a city or county comprehensive plan or land use regulation shall be deemed to comply with the functional plan as provided in subsection F only if the city or county provided notice to the Executive Officer as required by section 3.07.820(A). 3.07.820 Compliance Review by The Executive Officer A. At least 45 days prior to the first evidentiary hearing on an amendment to a comprehensive plan or land use regulation which a city or county mast submit to the Department of Land Conservation and Development pursuant to ORS 197.610(1) or OAR 660-025-0130(1), the city or county shall submit the proposed amendment to the Executive Officer. The Executive Officer shall review the proposed amendment for compliance with the functional plan. The Executive Officer may request, and if so the city or county shall submit, an analysis of compliance of the amendment with the functional plan. If the Executive Officer submits comments on the proposed amendment to the city or county, the comment shall include analysis and conclusions on compliance and a recommendation with specific revisions to the proposed amendment, if any, that would bring it into compliance with functional plan requirements. The Executive Officer shall send a copy of its analysis and recommendation to those persons who have requested a copy. B. If the Executive Officer concludes that the proposed amendment does not comply with the functional plan, the Executive Officer shall advise the city or county that it may (1) revise the proposed amendment as recommended in the Executive Officer's analysis; (2) seek an extension of time, pursuant to section 3.07.850, to bring the proposed amendment into compliance with the functional plan; or (3) seek review of the noncompliance by MPAC and the Metro Council, pursuant to sections 3.07.830 and 3.07.840. 3.07.830 Review of Compliance by Metropolitan Policy Advisory Committee A. A city or county may seek review of the Executive Officer's conclusion of noncompliance under section 3.07.82013 by MPAC and the Metro Council. The city or county shall file an application for MPAC review on a form provided for that purpose by the Executive Officer. Upon receipt of a completed application, the Executive Officer shall set the matter on the MPAC agenda and notify those persons who request notification of MPAC reviews. Page 2 of 5 - Exhibit A to Ordinance No. 01-925E i 17 4 3 7\01.9258 EXA Cin 001 ^ , V V UGC("Wk— (01/24102) B. The Executive Officer may seek review of city or county compliance with a functional plan requirement by MPAC and the Metro Council after the deadline for compliance with that requirement. The Executive Officer shall file an application for MPAC review on the form described in subsection A and shall set the matter on the MPAC agenda. The Executive Officer shall notify the city or county and those persons who request notification of MPAC reviews. C. MPAC may hold a public hearing on the issue of compliance. If MPAC holds a hearing, any person may testify. MPAC shall attempt to resolve any apparent or potential inconsistency between the proposed amendment and the functional plan. MPAC shall prepare a report to the Metro Council that sets forth reasons for the inconsistency. The Executive Officer shall send a copy of the report to the city or county and those persons who request a copy. 3.07.840 Review by Metro Council A. Upon receipt of a report from MPAC under section 3.07.830, the Executive Officer shall set the matter for a public hearing before the Metro Council and notify the city or county and those persons who request notification of Council reviews. B. A person who requested a copy under section 3.07.820A may seek review by the Metro Council of an Executive Officer conclusion of compliance of a proposed amendment with the functional plan. The person shall file an application for Council review on a form provided for that purpose by the Executive Officer. The Executive Officer shall set the matter for a public hearing before the Council and notify the city or county, the Department of Land Conservation and Development and those persons who request notification of Council reviews. C. The Council shall hold a public hearing on the matter within 90 days after receipt of a report from MPAC under subsection A or within 90 days after the filing of a complete application under subsection B. Any person may testify at the hearing. The Council shall issue an order of compliance or noncompliance with its analysis and conclusion and send a copy to the city or county, MPAC, the Department of Land Conservation and Development and those persons who participated in the proceeding. D. If the Council finds that the proposed amendment does not comply with the functional plan, the Council shall advise the city or county that it may (1) revise and adopt the proposed amendment as recommended in the Council order; (2) seek an extension of time, pursuant to section 3.07.850, to bring the proposed amendment into compliance with the functional plan; or (3) seek an exception from the functional plan, pursuant to section 3.07.860. If the Council determines that an amendment of the functional plan is necessary to resolve the noncompliance, the Council shall include that detennination in its order. Page 3 of 5 - Exhibit A to Ordinance No. 01-925E 07 4 3 MI•925E ExA.dn ool OGORPMm (01/24102) 251 E. The city or county or a person who participated in the proceeding may seek review of the Council's order as a land use decision described in ORS 197.015(10)(a)(A), 3.07.850 Extension of Compliance Deadline A. A city or county may seek an extension of time for compliance with the functional plan. The city or county shall file an application for an extension on a form provided for that purpose by the Executive Officer. Upon receipt of an application, the Executive Officer shall set the matter for a public hearing before the Metro Council and shall notify the city or county, MPAC, the Department of Land Conservation and Development and those persons who request notification of applications for extensions. B. The Metro Council shall hold a public hearing to consider the extension. Any person may testify at the hearing. The Council may grant an extension if it finds that: (1) the city or county is making progress toward accomplishment of its compliance work program; or (2) there is good cause for failure to meet the deadline for compliance. C. The Metro Council may establish terms and conditions for the extension in order to ensure that compliance is achieved in a timely and orderly fashion and that land use decisions made by the city or county during the extension do not undermine the ability of the city or county to achieve the purposes of the functional plan requirement or of the region to achieve the 2040 Growth Concept. A term or condition must relate to the requirement of the functional plan to which the Council grants the extension. The Council shall incorporate the terms and conditions into its order on the extension. The Council shall not grant more than two extensions of time to a city or a county. The Council shall not grant a►1 extension of time for more than one year. D. The Metro Council shall issue an order with its conclusion and analysis and send a copy to the city or county, MPAC, the Department of Land Conservation and Development and those persons who participated in the proceeding. The city or county or a person who participated in the proceeding may seek review of the Council's order as a land use decision described in ORS 197.015(10)(a)(A). 3.07.860 Exception from Compliance A. A city or county may seek an exception from compliance with a functional plan requirement by filing an application on a form provided for that purpose by the Executive Officer. An application for an exception to the requirement in subsection 3.07.150D to increase dwelling unit and job capacity to the targets set forth in Table 3.07-1 must be filed between March 1 and March 31 of each calendar year in order to allow the Metro Council to consider the application concurrently with other such applications. Upon receipt of an application, the Executive Officer shall set the matter for a public hearing before the Metro Council and shall notify MPAC, the Department of Land Conservation and Development and those persons who request notification of requests for exceptions. Page 4 of 5 - Exhibit A to Ordinance No. 01-925E i.\7 4 J 7101.92SP HxA.On 001 OGCl0.PRAk (01/24!02) B. The Metro Council shall hold a public hearing to determine whether the exception meets the following criteria: (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection, the Council may grant an exception if it finds: (a) it is not possible to achieve the requirement due to topographic or other physical constraints or an existing development pattern; (b) this exception and likely similar exceptions will not render the objective of the requirement unachievable region -wide; (c) the exception will not reduce the ability of another city or county to comply with the requirement; and (d) the city or county has adopted other measures more appropriate for the city or county to achieve the intended result of the requirement. (2) The Council may grant an exception to the requirement in subsection 3.07.150D to increase dwelling unit and job capacity to the targets set forth in Table 3.07-1 if it finds: (a) the city or county has completed the analysis of capacity for dwelling units and jobs required by subsections 3.07.150A, B and C; (b) it is not possible to achieve the targets due to topographic or other physical constraints, an existing development pattern that precludes achievement of the 2040 Growth Concept, or protection of environmentally sensitive land; and (c) this exception and other exceptions to the targets will not render the targets unachievable region -wide. C. The Council may establish terns and conditions for the exception in order to ensure that it does not undermine the ability of the region to achieve the 2040 Growth Concept. A term or condition must relate to the requirement of the functional plan to which the Council grants the exception. The Council shall incorporate the terns and conditions into its order on the exception. D. The Council shall issue an order with its conclusion and analysis and send a copy to the city or county, MPAC, the Department of Land Conservation and those persons who have requested a copy of the order. The city or county or a person who participated in the proceeding may seek review of the Council's order as a land use decision described in ORS 197.015(10)(a)(A). Page 5 of 5 - Exhibit A to Ordinance No. 01-925E 1 q a.) 'AO 1.91se ExA do 001 OGC/RPBlkvw (01/241021) Cite Attorney's Office To: Judie Hammerstad, Mayor Members of Lake Oswego City Council Doug Schmitz, City Manager From: David D. Powell, City Attorney 4'*P Memorandum Subject: Metro Enforcement Authority (Minimum Density) Date: January 31, 2002 BACKGROUND The Council has asked for information as to Metro's enforcement authority relating to compliance with the Functional Plan requirements to adopt minimum density standards. DISCUSSION Enforcement Proceedings. The December 2001 amendments to Metro's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan included the addition of an enforcement process., The Metro Council may initiate enforcement proceedings if a city or county has failed to meet a deadline or other terms of an extension that has been granted for Functional Plan compliance. (Enforcement proceedings may also be commenced if a jurisdiction has engaged in a "pattern or practice" of decision making that is inconsistent with the Functional Plan or ordinances that implement the plan.) A public hearing before the Metro Council would be set within 90 days of the Metro Executive Officer's determination that there is "good cause" to believe a violation has occurred. Notice of the hearing would be published in the newspaper, as well as being sent to the local jurisdiction, MPAC (Metro Policy Advisory Committee), DLCD (the Department of Land Conservation and Development), and any person who requests notice. The Executive Officer is required to publish a report and a recommendation at least 14 days before the hearing. If the Metro Council concludes that the local jurisdiction has violated the Functional Plan, it can issue an order that "directs changes in the city or county ordinances necessary to remedy the pattern or practice.i2 Copies of the order are sent to the jurisdiction, MPAC and DLCD. Compliance Report and Certification. Metro's code also requires the Executive Officer to submit an annual report to the Metro Council on compliance by cities and counties with the 1 3.07.870 2 3.07.870(E) EXHIBIT F -q Memorandum Metro Enforcement Authority (Minimum Density) January 31, 2001 Page 2 Functional Plan.3 The report must explain each instance of noncompliance and recommend action that would bring the city or county into compliance with the Functional Plan. Metro then must schedule a public hearing on the report.`' All cities and counties and DLCD are notified of the hearing. Following the hearing, the Metro Council enters a "compliance order." Enforcement of Orders. The Functional Plan does not specify how Metro would enforce a "compliance order" or an order resulting from enforcement proceedings. There are a number of considerations: Mandamus. Where public bodies or officers refuse to perform an act specifically required by law, a "beneficially interested party" may apply to the Circuit Court for a "writ of mandamus."5 The writ amounts to an order of the court directing the public officials to perform the required act. The court has discretion to award attorney fees and costs to the prevailing party. In addition, if the court finds that the public officers were "without just excuse" for failing to perform the duty, it may fine each public officer up to $500 at the time it issues the writ. After the writ has been issued, obedience may be enforced "in such manner as the court or judge thereof shall direct."`' The courts have broad authority to enforce their orders. Remedies could include further financial penalties to the jurisdiction or the responsible public officials.7 Citation for Ordinance Violation. State law provides that violation of any ordinance, rule or regulation adopted by Metro shall be punishable by a fine of not more than $500 or by imprisonment for not more than 30 days or both.s The Urban Growth Functional Plan is a portion of the Metro Code, and is arguably enforceable through the citation process. It seems obvious, however, that this provision is aimed at more traditional code enforcement activities, and that its use for Functional Plan enforcement is extremely unlikely. • Transportation Funding. The Functional Plan formerly gave Metro authority to reduce regional transportation funding and funding priorities as a penalty for non-compliance.`' However, the December 2001 amendments to the Functional Plan deleted this provision. LUBA Appeal. It is possible that Metro or another party could appeal any final land use decision that is inconsistent with functional plan requirements. A party must have appeared before the local government orally or in writing to be eligible to petition the Land Use Board of Appeals 3 3.07.880 The report and public hearing concern not only instances of noncompliance, but also should address the Metro Executive Officer's evaluation of the implementation of the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan and its effectiveness in helping achieve the 2040 Growth Concept. 3.07.880(A), (B). 5 ORS 34.105 — 34.240. 9 ORS 34.140(2) 7 Technically incarceration is among the remedies available for refusal to obey the orders of a court, although this seems unlikely in the context of this discussion. e ORS 268.990 former 3.07.860(B) � 1 n Memorandum Metro Enforcement Authority (Minimum Density) January 31, 2001 Page 3 (LUBA) for review of a decision. However, a decision not to adopt a legislative amendment or a new land use regulation is not appealable except where it is "necessary to address the requirements of a new or amended goal, rule or statute."10 Arguably the Functional Plan is not a goal, rule or statute. Furthermore, Metro or another party would have difficulty invoking LUBA's jurisdiction where a local government simply failed to act. There would be no "decision" to appeal. Applying Functional Plan Requirements Directly to Local Decisions. The Functional Plan, as recently amended, states that "cities or counties whose comprehensive plans and land use regulations do not yet comply with a functional plan requirement adopted or amended prior to December 12, 1997 shall make land use decisions consistent with that rcquircinent."11 As result, any land use decision made contrary to such a requirement could be appealed to LUBA. The minimum density requirements of the Functional Plan were adopted prior to December 12, 1997. However, the section including the above quoted language specifies that "land use decision" has the meaning as defined in ORS 197.015(10). That definition specifically excludes "limited land use decisions." 12 "Limited land use decisions" include the approval or denial of subdivisions. 13 Therefore, in the absence of a city minimum density ordinance, the Functional Plan minimum density requirements would not directly apply as decision criteria for subdivisions. CONCLUSION Although recent Metro Urban Growth Functional Plan amendments have included new procedures for enforcement orders and compliance orders, it nevertheless appears that, as before, the most effective way to enforce an order requiring adoption of minimum density standards would be through the mandamus process. 0 016 197.620(1) " 3.07.810(E). The same section also states: "If the functional plan requirement was adopted or amended by the Metro Council after December 12, 1997, cities and counties whose comprehensive plans and land use regulations do not yet comply with the requirement shall, after one year following acknowledgment of the requirement, make land use decisions consistent with that requirement." 12 ORS 197.015(10)(b)(C). 13 ORS 197.015(12)(a). 2 5 `) draft - subdiuisious 0111V ORDINANCE 2309 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO AMENDING LOC CHAPTER 48 (ZONING CODE), TO ADD NEW PROVISIONS RELATING TO MINIMUM DENSITY APPLICABLE TO SUBDIVISION PRPOSALS IN ALL RESIDENTIAL ZONES WITHIN THE CITY IN COMPLIANCE WITH METRO'S URBAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONAL PLAN. The City of Lake Oswego ordains as follows: The Lake Oswego Code is hereby amended by deleting the text shown by strikeout and adding the new text shown in redline/underline. Section 1. Article 48.04.132 is herein amended to read as follows: Residential — High Density R-0, R-2, R-5, WR Zones 48.04.132 Minimum Density the may, i Mum density poi-mitted by the Zone is Fequi Fed an p( ._ OF fffttff HR 48.04.132 Minimum Density 1. When subdivisions are proposed in the R-0 Zone, a minimum density of 20 lots per acre is required. When subdivisions are proposed in the R-2 Zone, a minimum density of 12 lots per acre is required. For purposes of this section, this number is computed by multiplyingthe he ►yet developable acreage by either 20 or 12 per the applicable zone The result shall rounded up for any product with a fraction of .5 or greater and rounded down for any product with a fraction of less than .5. The requirements of this subsection are subject to the exceptions contained in LOC 48.20.517. 2. When subdivisions are proposed in the R-3, R-5, or WR Zones, a minimum density of 80%n of the maximum allowed by the zone is required. For purposes of this subsection, the number of lots required shall be determined by dividing the net developable square footage by the minimum lot size per unit required in the underlying zone, and multiplying this number by.8. The result shall be rounded up forany product with a fraction of .5 or greater and rounded down for any product with a fraction of less than .5. The requirements of this subsection are subject to the exceptions contained in LOC 48.20.517. Section 2. A new Section 48.05.1127 is hereby added to read as follows: 48.05.027 Minimum Density: R-6 Zone When subdivisions are proposed in the R-6 Zone, a minimum density of 80%n of the maximum allowed by the zone is required. For purposes of this section, the number of lots required shall be determined by dividing the net developable square footage by, the minimum lot Page 1 of 6, Draft Ordinance 2309 — Density Guidelines, Applicable to Subdivisions Only I EXHIBIT F-10 tii•re�er unit required by the underlying zone, and multiplying this number by .8. The result shall be rounded up for any product with a fraction of .5 or greater and rounded down for any product with a fraction of less than .5. The requirements of this section are subject to the exceptions contained in LOC 48.20.517. Section 3. A new Section 48.06.207 is hereby added to read as follows: 48.06.207 Minimum Density: R-7.5, R-10, R-15 Zones When subdivisions are proposed in the R-7.5, R-10, or R-15 Zones, a minimum density of 80%n of the maximum allowed by the zone is required. For purposes of this section, the number of lots required shall be determined by dividing the net developable square footage by the minimum lot size per unit required in the underlying zone, and multiplying this number by .8. The result shall be rounded up for any product with a fraction of .5 or greater and rounded down for any product with a fraction of less than .5. The requirements of this section are subject to the exceptions contained in LOC 48.20.517. Section 4. A new Section 48.08.257 is herehN added to read as follows: 48.08.257 Minimum Density: DD Zone When subdivisions are proposed in the DD Zone for the purposes of single family development a minimum density of 5 lots per acre is requited. When subdivisions are proposed for the purposes of constructing duplex development in the DD Zone, a minimum density of 10 units per acre is required. When subdivisions are proposed for the purpose of constructing multi- family development in the DD Zone a minimum density of 14 units per acre is required. For purposes of this section the density is computed by multiplying the net developable acreage by either 5 10 or 14 per the applicable type of development. The result shall be rounded up for any product with a fraction of .5 or prr•eater and rounded down for any product with a fraction of less than .5. Section 5. A new Section 48.09.020 is hereby added to read as follows: 48.09.020 Town Home Residential (R-2.5) a)iv) When subdivisions are proposed in the R-2.5 zone, a minimum density of 80% of the maximum allowed bathe zone is required. Forpur•poses of this subsection, the number of lots required shall be determined by dividing the net developable square footage by the minimum lot size per unit required in the underlying zone and multiplying this number by .8. The result shall be rounded up for anyproduct with a fraction of .5 or greater and rounded down for any product with a fraction of less than .5. The requirements of this subsection are subject to the exceptions contained in LOC 48.20.517. Section 6. A new Section 48.20.517 is hereby added to read as follows: 48 20.517 Exceptions to the Minimum Density Requirement for all zones: 1. The minimum density requirements are not applicable to sites identified on the City's Historic Landmark Designation list. 2. The minimum density requirements are not applicable to Iublicly owned open space lands. Page 2 of 6, Draft Ordinance 2309 — Density Guidelines, Applicable to Subdivisions Only 2 6 I The number of lots required by the minimum density provisions may be reduced as necessary in any of the following circumstances: a) Where the most appropriate design and location for a storm water detention or water quality facility is above ground and outside a required open space, or b) Where in order to comply with the minimum density requirement it would he necessary to develop in a floodplain, or c) Where an RC tree grove is designated on the site and preservation of more than 50% minimum protection area required by the Sensitive Lands Ordinance would preclude development such that the minimum number of lots could not be developed, or d) Where topographic, natural resources and/or soil constraints exist on site, to the extent that an applicant can demonstrate that compliance with LODS 16.005, Hillside Protection Standard, LOC 48.17, Sensitive Lands Districts, or other soil constraints Mulated b, theme City's Codes or the State of Oregon Uniform Building Code, would preclude development such that the minimum number of lots could not be developed. e) Where the total number of residential dwelling units resulting from the development will be at least 80%n of the maximum number permitted in the zone. For the R-0, R-2 zones, the minimum lots Ver acre and methodology specified in 48.04.132 shall be used for calculating minimum density. For the DD zone, the minimum lots per acre and methodology specified in 48.08.257 shall be used for calculating minimum density. f) Where the location of an existing dwelling is such that the applicant can demonstrate that Zoning Code requirements can not be met if the minimum required number of lots is developed. Section 7. Article 48.08.280 is hereby deleted as follows: Page 3 of G, Draft Ordinance 2309 — Density Guidelines, Applicable to Subdivisions Only 2G:; 11:1 Iv .. M ., .. Page 3 of G, Draft Ordinance 2309 — Density Guidelines, Applicable to Subdivisions Only 2G:; ..r"mmmr9m1rW-r""rW" Mon • •. • • ,•MER TWINK A. Section 8. Article 48.02.015 is hereby deleted as follows: 48.02.015 Definitions. Section 9. Section 48.18 is hereby amended as follows: LOC 48.18 Planned Development Overlay LOC 48.18.470. Purpose, Applicability. 2. Use of the Planned Development Overlay (PD) is allowed in any zone for subdivision proposals. elassifiedas mitjoi-deN,elopmewpufstiant ie LOG 49.20.11-4. Useefthe 49.20.11-4 48.18.476 [50.17.015] Authorization I . In considering an application for a PD Overlay, the heating body reviewing cuithurit shall apply the height, Floor Area Ratio (FAR), lot coverage, use, open space and Page -1 cit b. Draft Ordinance 2309 — Density Guidelines. Applicable to Subdivisions Only 264 density requirements of the underlying zone and, if applicable, the setback requirements of LOC 48.04.150(5). The FAR and lot coverage requirements may be applied with reference to the total area of the project as a whole and not on a lot by lot basis. 2. Except for the special setback requirements of LOC 48.04.150(5), the hear -+ng body reviewing authority may grant exceptions to the lot size, lot dimension and front and rear setback requirements of the underlying zone if the applicant demonstrates that the proposed PD provides the same or a better sense of privacy, appropriate scale and open space as a PD designed in compliance with the standard or standards to which an exception is sought. In making this determination, the ling body reviewing authority may consider: a. Whether the applicant has reserved or dedicated more than the minimum amount of open space required by the Park and Open Space Development Standard. b. Whether the requested exception allows the lots to be designed in a manner that provides better access to common open space areas from within and/or outside the PD, better protects views, allows better solar access, maintains or improves relationships between structures, maintains or improves privacy and/or improves pedestrian or bicycle access to surrounding neighborhoods. c. Whether the requested exception will allow a more attractive streetscape through use of meandering streets, access through alleys or shared driveways, provision of median plantings, or other pedestrian amenities. d. Whether the requested exception will enhance or better protect a significant natural feature on the site, such as a wetland, a tree or tree grove, or a stream corridor. e. Whether the requested exception will provide better linkage with adjacent neighborhoods, parks and open space areas, pathways, and natural features. f. Whether the requested exception will allow the development to be designed more compatibly with the topography and/or physical limitations of the site. 3. If the proposed PD is part of an approved ODPS as described in LOC Article 49.26, requirements of the ODPS approval regarding arrangement of uses, open space and resource conservation and provision of public services, will be considered when reviewing the considerations in subsection (1) for the PD. 4. Except as required by LOC 48.04.150(5), the hearing body reviewing authority may grant exceptions to the minimum side yard setbacks of the underlying zone, without the necessity of meeting the requirements of LOC 48.24.650 to 48.24.690 (variances) if the requirements of 48.18.476 are met, and: a. Proposed lot sizes are less than the minimum size required by the underlying zone, or b. Lesser setbacks are necessary to provide additional tree preservation or protection of abutting natural areas. (Ord. No. 2027, Sec. 1; 4-02-91. Ord. No. 2063, Sec. 2; 08-18-92. Ord. No. 2148, Amended, 07/22/97) 48.18.485 [50.17.025] Expiration, Revocation If 15% of the structural construction of the planned development has not occurred within three years of the date of the order granting approval for the PD Overlay or if development has occurred in violation of the approval granted, the PlanHing Commission reviewing authority may initiate a review of the Planned Development Overlay to determine whether or not its continuation in whole or in part is in the public interest. The MaHning Ceffinlission reviewing authority may decide that the Planned Development Overlay is to be removed and the plan or plat be resubmitted and made to conform to the requirements of the underlying zone, that the Page 5 of 6, Draft Ordinance 2309 — Density Guidelines, Applicable to Subdivisions Only 26 0 approval be retained, or that the approval be modified in any manner consistent with laws in effect at that time. (Ord. No. 1851, Sec. 1; 1 1-16-82.) The Development Code is hereby amended by deleting the text shown by strikeout and adding the new text shown in underline: Section 10. Section 49.16 is herebv amended as follows: Definitions: 49.16.1)15. Density Transfer Acre/Acreage. Potentially hazardous or resource areas within which development may occur or from which density may be transferred to buildable portions of the site, only after it has been demonstrated by the applicant that development can occur in compliance with criteria established by this Code, including the Development Standards, Density Transfer Acre includes the following: a. Area within the floodway and the floodway fringe as shown on U.S. Army Corp of Engineers flood maps, b. Area of over 25% slope, c. Area in known landslide areas or in areas shown to have potential for severe or moderate landslide hazard, d. Area in the RC or RP Districts, pursuant to LOC 48.17.1. t S, stream buffer areas of major stream corridors, wetlands and Distinctive Natural Areas, e. Area in public open space and parks. Pi-oeedufe for- site by site density deteFFninatien is defined by LOG 48.08.2W. Section 11. Section 49.20 is hereby amended as follows: LOC 49.20.105(2)(j) Ministerial Development 2. Ministerial developments include: j. Future Development Plans, pursuant to LOC 48.20.518. LOC 49.20.110(2)(g) Minor Development. 2. "Minor development includes: g. subdivisions (with or without a Planned Development overlay) , including subdivisions which require one or more Class i Zoning Code or Class 1 Development Code Variances. LOC 49.20.115 (2)(f) Major Development . 2. Major development includes: f. PilifiRed DeYelOpffiefItS (PD) case files/1998/ZC 7-98/2001 Activity/Ordinance 2309 including subdivisions only.doc. Page 0 of 6, Draft Ordinance 2309 — Density Guidelines, Applicable to Subdivisions Only 2 6 U drat -suhdiuisions and partitions ORDINANCE 2309 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKF, OSWEGO AMENDING LOC CHAPTER 48 (ZONING CODE), TO ADD NEW PROVISIONS RELATING TO MINIMUM DENSITY APPLICABLE TO ALL LAND DIVISION PROPOSALS INALL RESIDENTIAL ZONES WITHIN THE CITY iN COMPLIANCE WITH METRO'S URBAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONAL PLAN. The City of Lake Oswego ordains as follows: The Lake Oswego Code is hereby amended by deleting the text shown by strikeout and adding the new text shown in redline/underline. Section 1. Article 48.04.132 is hereby amended to read as follows: Residential — High Density R-0, R-2, R-5, WR 'Zones 48.04.132 Minimum Density .. i-ounded down for- any pr-edue! with it fi-aetion of less thaR.5. 48.04.132 Minimum Density I . When subdivisions or partitions are proposed in the R-0 Zone, a minimum density oy f 2Q lots per acre is required. When subdivisions or partitions are proposed in the R-2 Zonell minimum density of 12 lots per acre is required. For purposes of this section, this number is computed by multiplying, the net developable acreage by either 20 or 12 per the applicable zone. The result shall rounded up for anyproduct with a fraction of .5 or greater and rounded down for any product with a fraction of less than .5. The I-QUirements of this subsection are subject to the exceptions contained in LOC 48.20.517. 2. When subdivisions or partitions are proposed in the R-3, R-5, or WR Zones, a minitllllnl density of 80% of the maximum allowed by the zone is required. For Purposes of this subsection, the number of lots required shall be determined by dividing the net developable square footage by the minimum lot size per unit required in the underlying zone and multiplying this number by .8. The result shall be rounded up for any product with a traction of .5 or greatei and rounded down for any product with a fraction of less than .5. The requirements of this subsection are subject to the exceptions contained in LOC 48.20.517. Section 2. A new Section 48.05.027 is hereby added to read as follows: 48.05.027 Minimum Density: R-6 Zone When partitions or subdivisions are proposed in the R-6 Zone, a minimum density of 80% of the maximurn allowed by the zone is recgtired. For purposes of this section, the number of lots required shall be determined by dividing the net developable square footage by the t' Page 1 of 6, Draft Ordinance 2309 — Density Guidelines, Applicable to Subdivisions and Partitions EXHIBIT F-11 minimum lot size per unit required by the underlying zone, and multiplying this number by .8. The result shall be rounded up for any product with a fraction of .5 or greater and rounded down for any product with a fraction of less than .5. The requirements of this section are subject to the exceptions contained in LOC 48.20.517. Section 3. A new Section 48.06.207 is hereby added to read as follows: 48.06.207 Minimum Density: R-7.5, R-10, R-15 Zones When subdivisions or partitions are proposed in the R-7.5, R-10, or R-15 Zones, a minimum density of 80% is required. For purposes of this section, the number of lots required shall be determined by dividing the net developable square footage by the minimum lot size per unit required in the underlying zone, and multiplying this number by .8. The result shall be rounded up for any product with a fraction of .5 or greater and rounded down for any product with a fraction of less than .5. The requirements of this section are subject to the exceptions contained in LOC 48.20.517. Section 4. A new Section 48.08.257 is hereby added to react as follows: 48.08.257 Minimum Density: DD Zone When subdivisions or partitions are proposed in the DD Zone for the purposes of single family development, a minimum density of 5 lots per acre is required. When subdivisions or partitions are proposed for the purposes of constructing duplex development in the DD Zone, a minimum density of 10 units per acre is required. When subdivisions or partitions are proposed for the purpose of constructing multi -family development in the DD Zone a minimum density of 14 units per acre is required. For purposes of this section, the density is computed by multiplying the net developable acreage by either 5, 10 or 14 per the applicable type of development. The result shall be rounded up for any product with a fraction of .5 or greater and rounded down for any product with a fraction of less than .5. Section 5. A new Section 48.09.020 is hereby added to read as follows: 48.09.020 Town Home Residential (R-2.5) ON). When subdivisions or partitions are proposed in the R-2.5 zone, a minimum density of 80% of the maximum allowed by the zone is required. For purposes of this subsection, the number of lots required shall be determined by dividing the net developable square footage by the minimum lot size per unit required in the underlying zone, and multiplying this number by .8. The result shall be rounded up for any product with a fraction of .5 or greater and rounded down for any product with it fraction of less than .5. The requirements of this subsection arc subject to the exceptions contained in LOC 48.20.517. Section 6. A new Section 48.20.517 is hereby added to read as follows: 48.20.517 Exceptions to the Minimum Density Requirement for all zones: 1. The minimum density requirements are not applicable to sites identified on the City's Historic Landmark Designation list. 2. The minimum CICnSit requirements are not applicable to publicly owned open space lands. Page 2 of 6, Draft Ordinance 2309 — Density Guidelines, Applicable to Subdivisions and Partitions 26c� 3. The number of lots required by the minimum density provisions may be reduced as necessary in any of the following circumstances: a) Where the most appropriate design and location for a storm water detention or watergualit facility acility is above ground and outside a required open space, or b) Where in order to comply with the minimum density requirement it would be necessary to develop in a flood plain, or c) Where an RC tree grove is designated on the site and preservation of more than 50%r, minimum protection area required by the Sensitive Lands Ordinance would preclude development such that the minimum number of lots could not be developed, or d) Where topographic, natural resources and/or soil constraints exist on site, to the extent that an applicant can demonstrate that compliance with LODS 16.005, Hillside Protection Standard, LOC 48. t7, Sensitive Lands Districts, or other soil constraints regulated by the City's Codes or the State of Oregon Uniform Building Code would preclude developttlent such that the minimum number of lots could not be developed. e) Where the total number of residential dwelling units resulting from the development will be at least 80% of the maximum number permitted in the zone. For the R-0, R-2 zones, the minimum lots per acre and methodology Specified in 48.04.132 shall be used for calculating minimum density. For the DD zone, the minimum lots per acre and methodology specified in 48.08.257 shall be used for calculating minimum density. f) Where the location of an existing dwellingis •s such that the applicant can demonstrate that Zoning Code requirements can not be met if the minimum required number of lots is developed. Section 7. Article 48.08.280 is hereby deleted as follows: Page 3 of 6, Draft Ordinance 2309 — Density Guidelines, Applicable to Subdivisions and Partitions ti r i .. i R T m -I W. M- M .. .. b. Page 3 of 6, Draft Ordinance 2309 — Density Guidelines, Applicable to Subdivisions and Partitions ti r i . .-TOM IWMI Min" Mr-WWW"MMIM" ..WITIMINTIMITM Section 8. Article 48.02.015 is hereby deleted as follows: 48.02.015 Definitions. The traHsfer-of allowable density F one par -ti � eid Section 9. Section 48.18 is hereby amended as fellows: LOC 48.18 Planned Development Overlay LOC 48.18.470. Purpose, Applicability. 2. Use ol'the Planned Development Overlay (PD) is allowed in any zone for subdivision proposals.49.20.11-4. Use.of the 49.20.114 48.18.476 [50.17.015] Authorization I . In considering an application for a PD Overlay, the hetir-ingbody reviewing authority shall apply the height, Floor Area Ratio (FAR), lot coverage, use, open space and Page 4 of 6, Draft Ordinance 2309 - Density Guidelines, Applicable to Subdivisions and Partitions 2'-f- (1 density requirements of the underlying zone and, if applicable, the setback requirements of LOC 48.04.150(5). The FAR and lot coverage requirements may be applied with reference to the total area of the project as a whole and not on a lot by lot basis. 2. Except for the special setback requirements of LOC 48.04.150(5), the hearifig bbd reviewing authority may grant exceptions to the lot size, lot dimension and front and rear setback requirements of the underlying zone if the applicant demonstrates that the proposed PD provides the same or a better sense of privacy, appropriate scale and open space as a PD designed in compliance with the standard or standards to which an exception is sought. in making this determination, the hearing-bedy reviewing authorit may consider: a. Whether the applicant has reserved or dedicated more than the minimum MlIoUnt of open space required by the Park and Open Space Development Standard. b. Whether the requested exception allows the lots to be designed in a manner that provides better access to common open space areas from within and/or outside the PD, better protects views, allows better solar access, maintains or improves relationships between structures, maintains or improves privacy and/or improves pedestrian or bicycle access to surrounding neighborhoods. c. Whether the requested exception will allow a more attractive streetscape through use of meandering streets, access through alleys or shared driveways, provision of median plantings, or other pedestrian amenities. d. Whether the requested exception will enhance or better protect a significant natural feature on the site, such as a wetland, a tree or tree grove, or a stream corridor. e. Whether the requested exception will provide better linkage with adjacent neighborhoods, parks and open space areas, pathways, and natural features. f. Whether the requested exception will allow the development to be designed more compatibly with the topography and/or physical limitations of the site. 3. If the proposed PD is part of an approved ODPS as described in LOC Article 49.26, requirements of the ODPS approval regarding arrangement of uses, open space and resource conservation and provision of public services, will be considered when reviewing the considerations in subsection (1) for the PD. 4. Except as required by LOC 48.04.150(5), the het+F+t-bedy reviewing authority may gram exceptions to the minimum side yard setbacks of the underlying zone, without the necessity of' meeting the requirements of LOC 48.24.650 to 48.24.690 (variances) if the requirements of 48.18.476 are met, and: a. Proposed lot sizes are less than the minimum size required by the underlying zone, or b. Lesser setbacks are necessary to provide additional tree preservation or protection of abutting natural areas. (Ord. No. 2027, Sec. 1; 4-02-91. Ord. No. 2063, Sec. 2; 08-18-92. Ord. No. 2148, Amended, 07/22/97) 48.18.485 [50.17.025] Expiration, Revocation If 15% of the structural construction of the planned development has not occurred within three years of the date of the order granting approval for the PD Overlay or if development has occurred in violation of the approval granted, the PlHHHiHg COFAFAiHieii reviewing authority may initiate a review of the Planned Development Overlay to determine whether or not its continuation in whole or in part is in the public interest. The Plafifiing Commission reviewing authority may decide that the Planned Development Overlay is to be removed and the plan or plat be resubmitted and made to conform to the requirements of the underlying zone, that the Page 5 of 6, Draft Ordinance 2309 — Density Guidelines, Applicable to Subdivisions and Partitions 2 7 i approval be retained, or that the approval be modified in any manner consistent with laws in effect at that time. (Ord. No. 1851, Sec. 1; 1 1-16-82.) The Development Code is hereby amended by deletin>: the text shorn Iq strikeout and addint: the new text shown in underline: Section 10. Section 49.16 is hereby amended as follows: Definitions: 49.16.015. Density Transfer Acre/Acreage. Potentially hazardous or resource areas within which development may occur or from which density may be transferred to buildable portions of the site, only after it has been demonstrated by the applicant that development can occur in compliance with criteria established by this Code, including the Development Standards. Density Transfer Acre includes the following: a. Area within the floodway and the floodway fringe as shown on U.S. Army Cote of Engineers flood maps, b. Area of over 25% slope, c. Area in known landslide areas or in areas shown to have potential for severe or moderate landslide hazard, d. Area in the RC or RP Districts, pursuant to LOC 48.17.115, stream buffer areas of major stream corridors, wetlands and Distinctive Natural Areas, e. Area in public open space and parks. Pi-oeeduFe for- site by site density detef-m-nation is Elefined by LOC 48.08.2807 Section 11. Section 49.20 is hereby amended as follows: IAC 49.20.105(2)(1) Ministerial Development 2. Ministerial developments include: j. Future Development Plans, pursuant to LOC 48.20.518. LOC 49.20.110(2)(g) Minor Development. 2. "Minor development includes: g. subdivisions (with or without a Planned Development overly , including subdivisions which require one or snore Class I Zoning Code or Class 1 Development Code Variances. LOC 49.20.115 (2)(f) Major Development . 2. Major development includes: case files/1998/ZC 7-98/2001 Activity/Ordinance 2309 including subdivisions and partitions. Page 6 of 6, Draft Ordinance 2309 — Density Guidelines, Applicahle to Subdivisions and Partitions 272 Additional Exhibits ZC 7-98 Exhibit # • Heisler memo, explanation of map E-2 • Map, Parcels subject to minimum density if subdivided E-3 • Min/Max Lots per acre in Zoning Districts E-4 • E-mail from Laura Rybowiak, 1/14/02 G-3-6 • E-mail from Celia and Richard Kilsby, 1/15/02 G-3-7 • E-mail from Chris Roth, 1/09/02 G-3-8 • Letter from Kevin Mead, 1/09/02 G-3-9 • Letter from John P. Bosshardt and Diana M. Petty, 1/15/02 G-3-10 • Letter from Lynora Saunders, 1/15/02 G-3-11 • Letter from Anan Ramymond, 1/15/12 G-3-12 • Letter from Mary Peaslee, 1/14/02 G-3-13 • Letter from Tim and Shelley Platt, 1/15/02 G-3-14 • Letter from Gregory and Vasiliki Nadol, 1/15/02 G-3-15 • Letter from Karen Thomas, 1/15/02 (::-3-16 • Letter from Joanne Balkovie, 1/15/02 G-3-17 • Letter from Dianne Brouhard, 1/15/02 G-3-18 • Letter from Henry Germond, 1/18/02 G-3-19 • Letter from John P. Hutchinson, 1/28/02 G-3-20 • Letter from Alice Schlenker, 1/24/02 G-3-21 • Letter from Kathryn and Ron Stager, 1/29/02 G-3-22 Letter from Daniel G. Vizzini, 1/29/02 G-3-23 • E-mail from Bea Hedlund, 1/28/02 G-3-24 • E-mail from Jack Smith, 1/28/02 G-3-25 - 1 27: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO Memorandum City Council Jane Heisler, Project Pla e ZC 7-98(A) Explanation of Attached Map of Parcels within USB that may be Subdividable DATE: January 11, 2002 At the January 8, 2002 Council Study Session on Density Guidelines, staff indicated that a map showing all parcels in the R-7.5, R-10 and R-15 zones that are four or more times larger than the minimum required lot size, would be provided. The attached map illustrates lots fitting this criteria. What the Council should note, is that many of these lots could be eliminated or reduced in size for the following reasons: Reductions to minimum lot requirements due to steep slopes, natural resources, flood plains or historic landmark status. Reductions in lots eligible for subdividing, if street construction necessary to provide access to allow full development results in smaller lot size Existing structures on a parcel are retained, resulting in subtraction of that parcel from the total lot area needed for a subdivision. A lot by lot analysis would be needed to make a these determination. The mapped lot information is summarized in the table below: Parcels within Ci Limits Parcels Outside Cit /Within USB Total Zone Acres Lots Acres Lots Acres Lots R-7.5 102 83 194 165 296 248 R-10 141 98 127 95 268 193 R-15 113 47 32 1 15 145 62 Total 356 228 353 275 L709 503 Page I of 3 Council Report ZC 7-98(A) Density Guidelines EXHIBIT E-2 EXHIBIT E-3 SFJ, :n �,��:'rt i, �' , l-•� ,�^ I "Ila 141 AD f .1 L p { ^ y > FOSE ", a PARCELS SUBJECT COUN7,,k ( TO MINIMUM DENSITY IF SUBDIVIDED 14-7.6 ! I / 30,000 M- A b,000.q. R. ✓v WAY F -1b sq. It V PO JQ 1 , Coffwm )RP) Tm Gro (RC) in t _ . Uk. Oawgo ..cl BDundalgy( SB) J 1 u ww low Isoo 2m 3 .19 Zab t (i REENTREE RD IBER ' RD DR O �, Ah I eo � C• ' ,'•''� :moi . _ z _. J�/ , Minimum/Maximum Lots Per Acre in Zoning Districts R-0 R-2 R-2.5 DD R-3 R-5 R-7.5 R-10 R-15 SF Dupl. MF 20/24 12/14 14/17 5/7 10/12 14/17 10/12 8/6 4/5 '/ti 2/2 �Si,c�rrtrf�toP �� 5�� Heisler, Jane From: Thomas, Joshua Sent: Monday, January 14, 2002 3:28 PM To: Heisler, Jane Subject: FW: Density Jane - Robyn suggested I forward you this email regarding density guidelines to be added to the record. I already responded to her message. Josh Thomas Citizen Information Coordinator City of Lake Oswego (503) 635-0257 (503) 317-5007 cell (503) 699-6594 fax jthomas@ci.oswego.or.us -----Original Message ----- From: Irybowiak@netscape.net [mailto:lrybowiak@netscape.net] Sent: Monday, January 14, 2002 9:44 AM To: cic@ci.oswego.or.us Subject: Density I think there should be flexibility in the density requirements to allow for larger lots or one house per multiple lots because too much land is paved over. Concentrating all the development allows for pollutants to be concentrated, overloading the green spaces. A patchwork of low- medium- and high- density within each neighborhood would cover all concerns. I live in Forest Highlands. We have high density in the condos of Red Fox Hills, medium density in the single-family dwellings and low denisity around Knaus. There's a smattering of open spaces as well as TCSP. The some of the streets are too wide and it would be nice to see their width reduced by half -- give everyone a little deeper property, increase property values, decrease road maintenance expenses and expand monies received in the tax base. [Affected homeowners would pay a levy.] Laura Rybowiak 761 Briercliff Lane Your favorite stores, helpful shopping tools and great gift ideas. Experience the convenience of buying online with Shop@Netscape) http://shopnow.netscape.com/ Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Mail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com/ EXHIBIT G-3.6 ti .a _t Christie, Robyn From: KingSis2@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 2:58 PM To: council@ci.oswego.or.us Subject: Forced Minimum Density Meeting Tonight Reference: ZC7-98 Dear Council Members: You will be discussing forced minimum density this evening for the third time in recent months. Twice before Lake Oswego neighborhoods have attended council meetings and stated to you they disagree with forcing density. We encourage council to direct staff to put their time into working with Metro for an exception to forced density. Metro has exceptions available to areas that have livability issues with forcing density requirements. At the very least, refrain from approval until the Neighborhood Preservation Act appears on the May ballet. The results may further show council their constituencies' feelings on livability in Lake Oswego. Richard and Celia Kilsby 503/697-5369 <a i I EXHIBIT G-3 7 Schultz, Shirley From: cckgroup [cckgroup@aracnet.coml Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 4:40 PM To: sschultz@ci.oswego.or.us Subject: Minimum Density .�anuary 3, 2002 Y,a� or Hammerstad and City Council A Avenue _ake Oswego, Or 97034 Dear Mayor Hammerstad and Councilors: SUBJECT: Density Guidelines (ZC7-98) At LONAC's meeting November 3, 2001, the subject of the Minimum Density Ordinance was discussed at length. There was unanimous approval of a motion requesting that Council table further action until a community wide discussion regarding this ordinance occurs. LONAC's reasoning is as follows, even though the primary effect of this e,rdinance will be in only one neighborhood, the ultimate effect will be community wide. A discussion of minimum density in Lake Oswego will have considerable effect on how Lake Oswego looks for many years to come. Will we retain our village look or take on a much denser urban f -m? That issue is critical to people in Lake Oswego. A change in the way density is allocated is a major issue that many groups should have a part in deciding. Many of those interested groups don't understand that the Minimum Density Ordinance is close to passage. Even though setting this ordinance aside will slow its e.entual resolution, that time could be well spent in discussion with ti -e community. C-auncil should take the time and make the effort to include a more d`�, erse group of citizens in this decision. S erely, Cr,nstine Roth Acting Chair 2�J EXHIBIT G-3-8 i To: City Council Members: RECEIVED JAN 0 9 2002 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO The City Planning commission recently approved text amendments to the Lake Oswego Zoning Code minimum lot density to be achieved when land is subdivided in any residential zone. The council has cited that the Oswego is accountable for full adoption of Metro's regional 20/40 statewide Plan re g (LOC Chapter 48) to require (Metro's Term) compliance in meeting it's minim City of Lake g um density and employments targetsuly,sl 9813 d component of Tide I review). In spite of repeated widespread opposition by 90% of all citizens in ( commentary, media review, neighborhood association quorum voting, etc.�eco nit ission s oas evidencednce aocumented testimony, adoption of minimum density zoning gain pusling the council for If adopted, this measure will put minimum density infill as the primary goal in future development of our commulii dramatically compromises the integrity and livability of our communi the Lake Oswego Comprehensive plan. I will not go into all of the r sons as they ld it also ave been articulated again p planning This this debate, ging lannin concepts belied and again throughout Since the planning staff and commission refer to the 20/40 Metro planning regulations and requirements as the back amendment, 1 would like to point out documents and common not believe there is ancommentary Metro that a bone for this do PIS to be major conflicts with the staff and commissions recommendations. 1 y gutty in these documents. I have provided a copy of the first two pages of the City of Lake Ostvego Council Report dated Feb. 12`s, 1999 regarding plan text amendments for compliance with Metro 20/40 functional plan. The document states the following: The overall principles embodied in these documents include encouraging Type areas including Town Centers, Employment Centers, Main Streets, Regional Centers, Transit Corridors, etc. ging a compact urban form in specific Design An additional intent of focusing development in these Design Type areas, is to enable established neighborhood outside u Desi n T e areas to develo at existin Com rehensive Plan densities rather than re uirrn amendments to the Com rehensive lan to intertsif densities and uses. Please note that the previous statement from the Council Report is not reflected in the existing ZC 7-98 (Mininrun: Density Zoning A&nentment) that is sub 'reel to revie , This is a major overlap of Metro and the Ci o your rc i rc viand approial zoning change blankets the entire city of L. O. and does U� approprlateego � use the design t, the nomenclature/planning process as the foundation for minimum density planning esrgn type In this Hay, the bulk of additional units that 'urisdiction are re aired to rovide to meet tar eted dwellin s units for 20] 7 will be located in Desi n T e areas. It is u sdictions to determine precise boundaries of the Design Type designations. P to local Several 20/40 design types are contained within the L.O. Urban Service Boundary, (downtown and Lake Grove) one Employment iM including two Town Centers and 10�' St. and Boones Ferry � yment Center (the Kruse corridor), two Main Streets (A Ave. between State Ferry Rd., A Ave., Country Club t(this ieen s now considese Way e d a right-ast way to right swat trad several tTallsit nsit (all of Boones to die same design type classification per BurkeNalone/Council), Kruse Way, and Hwy 43t(Stat aft )ndThe sub' remainder of lands in the Lake Oswe o Urban Services Bounda is to be Inner Nei hborhood. Per the Metro Functional Plan, Title 1, Section 3, cities are ob Hated as an Comp. Plans to include tliese 20/40 Growth Concept pesian Tvne descriptions and boundaries �xl amend their ((Exhibit D)]). 2 :) t EXHIBIT G-3.9 There is no ambiguity in the above City Council report as it clearly spells out Metro not requiring nunnimum Page 2 density zoning revisions to include Inner Neighborhood areas only Design T e areas Please note that I have validation by Metro regarding their interpretation of this language as being accurate. Any adoption of the existing Density Guideline amendment is strongly discouraged but if adopted in it's current format then the neighborhood associations, community members and constituents will interpret councils adoption as an aggressive / excessive move which goes well beyond what Metro is requesting. Metro has recognized that proper planning should not force retrofitting inner neighborhoods to conform with minimum density infill that will severely impact character, services, preservation, schools. Planning in these areas should conform to the existing neighborhoods thus the reasoning for requiring cities to designate Design Types from Inner Neighborhoods! 2 nd — Staff and the Planning Commission has unknowingly or willfully disregarded the May lo, 1999 letter from Mary Weber, Manager Community Development to the Growth Management Services Director at Metro. The letter clearly defines the Metro Code definition applyingIl the minimum density requirement of Title 1 of the Functional Plan. Section 3.07,1010 (p) (Title 10 — See Attached) defines development application as "an application for a land use decision, limited land decision including expedited land'divisions, but excluclinr� 92.010 (7) and ministerial decisions such as a buildingInartitions as defined in ORS divided into two or three parcels of land within a calendar year, but7lhisOd esnot�include tland dresulingas lfro talid lg1els es recording of subdivision. The staff and planning connuission's inclusion and referencing to Vartitions also beinn subjected minimum dem ity is once again a single minded interpretation and clearly not what Metro is r rio some tune of of why Metro excludes requiring. A question partitions from the minimum density zoning requirements but the L.O. Planning Commission includes them is something I'm bewildered by?? Metro is commonly used as the shield to defend this unpopular amendment. Any reference regardless of terms and conditions for including partitions along with subdivisions is outside of Metro's request/dcfnnition and would not fall under Metro's shield but now fall squarely on the shoulders of the planning commission and council over extension of Metro's requirements. Again, I would urge you to not adopt this amendment but if so then strike any reference to partitions from the document and exclude inner neighborhoods from the amendment. My father once told me..."son, look out for your family first because it makes your decisions about what to do much easier". I would ask you to take care of your immediate and extended family (neighbors/community/constituents) first by listening to the repeated requests to not adopt this type of amendment. Our concern is "Quality of Life" and Lake Oswego offers none better! Please help us preserve the quality of life for our immediate &extended family in this great city. We have shown that we can accommodate growth, meet our density requirements and maintain livability. This amendment sets atone for moving away from the tract in favor of compromising all that has been accomplished to date. Thnk yoYMad our time and consideration of this important issue, iRl�,'evi'll Citizen of Lakc Oswego 2 S Mead, Kevin From: Raymond Valone [valonergrnetro.dst.or. Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 12:21 PM us) To: kevi'n.mead@spcorp.com Subject: interpretations of LO Report Kevin, This email is in response to your request to review and comment on the first two pages of a Lake Oswego memo sent to Douglas Schmitz from Jane Heisler and dated February 12, 1999. The 'Discussion' section on pages 1 and 2 is an accurate assessment / summary of Metro's Functional Plan requirements regarding design types. If you have any other questions, contact me at above email address or by phone at 503-797- 1808. Ray Valone Senior Regional Planner Metro Growth Management Services 503-797-1808 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO COUNCIL REPORT TO. Douglas J. Schmitz, City Manager FROM: Jane Heisler, Project Planner SUBJECT: Planning Commission Recommendation on PA 6-98, Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments for Compliance with Metro 2040 Functional Plan Requirements for Design Types DATE: February 12, 1999 ACTION: Approve, deny or modify Planning Commission recommendations regarding: A. Comprehensive Plan Text amendments to add Comprehensive Plan Policies related to Metro Functional Pian Design Types applicable to the City of Lake Oswego (Exhibit D)1); B. Comprehensive Plan definitions for Design Types (Exhibit D)1), - C. Comprehensive Plan Figures indicating mapped locations of these Design Types (Exhibit D)2 ). BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission met on October 12, 1998 in Work Session and on January 11, 1999 for a public hearing to discuss PA 6-98. No citizens testified at the public hearing. The above changes are required by the Metro 2040 Urban Growth Management Functional Plan, Title 1. In its initial compliance schedule to Metro, the City agreed to complete these requirements by December, 1998. Having not met this deadline, a subsequent compliance schedule was submitted indicating March, 1999 as a potential Council adoption date. D1SOUSS10N. Urban Growth Management Concept: The Urban Growth Management Functional Plan was adopted by Metro Council in November, 1996 to implement the Regional Urban Growth Goals and Objectives (RUGGO) and the Metro 2040 Growth 9 " )0 Page 2'' PA 6-98, Council Report Concept. The overall principles embodied in these documents include encouraging a compact urban form in specific Design Type areas including Town Centers, Employment Centers Main gtroc*c U111Lb iur zu_i i willoe Located in Design Type areas. Region -wide the resulting �y5 compact urban form is designed to accommodate approximately 720,000 additional residents and 350,000 additional jobs over 40 years region -wide. This compact form is to be served by multiple modes of transportation, maintain a clear distinction between urban and rural lands and reduce urban sprawl. It is up to local jurisdictions to determine precise boundaries of the Design Type designations and provide descriptions in their respective Comprehensive Plans. Proposed definitions appear in Exhibit D)1), Proposed mapped boundaries appear in Exhibit D)2). Several 2040 Design Types are contained within the Lake Oswego Urban Service Boundary, including two Town Centers (downtown and Lake Grove), one Employment Center (the Kruse corridor), two Main Streets (A Avenue between State and 10th Street and Boones Ferry between Kruse Way and West Sunset) and several transit corridors (all of Boones Ferry Road, A Avenue, Countgr_Dub, Kruse Way, and Highway 43 (State Street). The remainder of lands in the Lake Oswego Urban Services Boundary is to be designated as an Inner Neighborhood. Per the Metro Functional Plan, Title 1, Section 3, cities are obligated to amend their Comprehensive Plans to include these 2040 Growth Concept Design Type descriptions and boundaries (Exhibit D)1) "consistent with the general locations shown on the 2040 GroA5dh_C.Qncep D)3) also summarizes Metro's definitions of each Design Type area. h�bit D)3)). Exhibit Metro representatives have indicated that for Town Centers, Employment Areas and Inner Neighborhoods, precise boundaries must be mapped. For Main Streets and Transit Corridors, a particular segment of the roadway may be depicted without specifying parcels. Through the Lake Grove and First Addition Neighborhood Plan processes, discussion has taken place about the boundaries of Town Centers. Both neighborhoods have indicated in the past that Town Centers should include commercially zoned lands and adjacent high density multi -family residential lands. Exhibit D)2) illustrates the proposed Lake Oswego Main Streets and Town Center and the proposed Lake Grove Main Street and Town Center area. The Comprehensive Plan designations encompassed within these areas allow a variety of retail, offices and services as well as housing, which meets the intent and purpose of these Design Type definitions. . S6 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION Date Mailed: December 19,'.001 Application: Density Guidelines Applicant: City of Lake Oswego File No.: ZC 7-98 Nature of Application: A request for Legislative text amendments to the Lake Oswego Zoning Code (LOC Chapter 48) to: 1) Require a minimum lot density be achieved when land is subdivided in any residential zone and 2) Amend the minimum density text currently in the Zoning Code for R-3 and R-5 zones so that it only applies to subdivision development and 3) Ensure that series partitions do not result in densities that are less than the minimum required density in the zone. Date of Decision: December 10, 2001 Description of Decision: The Planning Commission has recommended approval of ZC 7-98 to the City Council. How to Obtain Further Information: Please contact Jane Heisler, Project Planner at 503/697-7422. Final decisions on this application are made by the City Council, which meets the first and third notifies affected parties of publ Tuesdays of each month. The Council sets its agendas, and ic hearing dates. To obtain further information regarding the Council hearing you can contact the City Recorder's Office at (503) 675-3984 or write to: Robyn Christie, City Recorder Lake Oswego City Hall P.O. Box 369 380 "A" Avenue Lake Oswego, OR 97034 2J� Np AGE U -14=oat-1 t` Fax Note M ET IT° 717, Date:May 10, 1899 Fhune`► Co. ' 7 rz o To: fax I Phon. r Elaine Wilkerson, Director ' Fax Growth Management Servicers Depa�� t From; Mary A. Weber, bei Mana er Community )evelopment Re: Functional Plan De i Develop4ent A 19nitJon ar i FPlrcat/on A question has arisen that i aPPlying the minimum don sr ren'' to the Metro Cod d Section 3-07. 101 Q(p� rnue 10 deft tremontz. in Title 1 of efinition Of 'develo decision, Ilmited land led ) nes level the Functionalpmenf application" and ORS 82.010 T siort indudin e oAment aPtlsl catlon Plan. Metro Code ( ) and ministerial decisions XAedlted Jand onsb .an epplicatlon for a land use as land that is divided into Gsions such as land resulting fro or three Parc, of land il�ling pen» a 5RS dunes a efined in 8 m the recording of a sutxiiviaron l thin a calendar yeer, but this does n ca ender P rtitloned land The term development a condominium P of Include Section A outlines the PPiication comes into la to apply a minimum methods t0 Increase cai�lated in Vitro Code Section developMent a density standard to all zoneon s aliow)r6 parity' This se 3.07.120q (Title 1). resutf in PPt'caQon, includingg residentialctlon directs cities and the building of 80 percent a sum+Of the. may rpt be use. It also s counties permitted by the zoning deSg lion r more of the rnaxirrjurn numbed unless thetales Pment will develo . T•hQ. C dwt:riing units per net acre ode language suggests was at a density less than the fat if the site "'ere re ` development a mtnlmum required cantly Partilioned and the encouraging evsjop PPiicatron. When MTAC by the: theone that the CI Proposed development infill development, making It *easier to d d . th "s City could approve the minimum densities 10,S mall � 'them was likely minimum density re pats lY dtsouasion about This pui►ement and r This ex a bol In a sites and the difF development. ernOves the Coda provides local flexlbiJl�l� of applying Section 3. provision also see might r e a burden �' in gPPlying the whiter prohibits togj consistent wt some regulation on s More times the minirnu governments f another mall lot Infill m tot aJze of the develo om Prohibiting Code requirement Paula pment i e. 9 Partitioning of parcels two or Pertain CopP�rstone was enlisted to search through n9 to this issue. In the minutes of the pdo�behr, initiated a discussion a the issue of Partitioning. john Fdefining develop"nt appll Parlis des from minimum dens! S7onese, the Chair of aequenos of Title 10 density standards. A copy of evolution of fhe definition of d© f�ges daUn9 from MAw1� pment aPp1108tion. I:�pcn�xtwnJry dB1re - ^ - �aAanoldcvol�?ment aPPt1cauon dlaapy Tom Coffee, City of lake Oswego _ w/Attac hnment t MT -AC minutes to find an 1996 meeting Comm, of MTAC y references Ion. The Jim Jacks of Tualatin, AC, addettee d'scussed this issue and that s be good to exempt It-Would z4toNn9 IS is attached. Also ovembar 21, 1996 that show the 2."o 10. Lake Oswego City Council City Hall Lake Oswego, OR January 15, 2001 Rrr,FIV FD JAN 15 2002 CITY OI- LAKE OSWEGO Dear Councilors: The undersigned are opposed to the proposed zoning amendment which would require minimum density development. Si,ncerel John P. Bosshardt iana M. Petty 658 Boca Ratan Dr. Lake Oswego, OR 9703 EXHIBIT G-3-10 1/.1;x/02 o : Mayor Judie Hammerstad and L.O. City Council Ude must come to grips with the State's Growth Mandate NOW ... and not wait for a crisis to emergelll The state's 20 year land use law was good years ago ... but, is no longer appropriate today. This forced Density Ordinance will coerce local communities to sabotage their ecological. and human health, and this will trash our holistic environment and livability. =n addition, our freedom to choose will be severely compromised. What are people saying about GROWTH in their neighborhoods and the region? (From Let's Talk, Discussion Guide, p.20, 2001-2002) "POPULA'T'ION GROWTH was the major reason people save as why they felt the area and their neighborhood would get worse in the next 20 years." "Respondents were VERY CONCERNED about air and water pollution and STRONGLY SUPPORT spending public parks money to buy property along streams to protect fish and wildlife habitat." one only way to combat the above distress is to challenge the State's year Land Use Law. Banning this core policy will, indeed, give local c_�mmuni.ties the FREEDOM to create their own neighborhood plans. We must respect these rights! After all, we pay heavy property taxes and have earned the right to achieve what we want for each neighborhood. PU..ASE;... WE URGP YOU NOT TO ADOPT THF; DENSITY GUIDELINES! 11 A VERY CONCERNED CITIVE:N, Lynora Saunders 13790 SW Knaus Road da-04�"2 Lake Oswego OR 97034 Tel. (5031 636-1169 636-1360 EXHIBIT G-3-11 ,� �� Anan Raymond, Chairperson Forest Highlands Neighborhood ,Association 729 Atwater Road Lake Oswego, OR 97034 503-697-8125 To: Judie Hammerstad, Mayor Jack Hoffman, Ellie McPeak, Gay Graham, Karl Rhode, Bill Schoen, John Turchi, City Council Members City of Lake Oswego 380 "A" Avenue Lake Oswego, OR 97034 i/15/0:1... - Subject: ZC 7-98, A proposed amendment to the City of Lake Oswego zoning code requiring minimum density zoning Dear City Council i am Anan Raymond, Chairperson of the Forest Highlands Neighborhood Association. I live at 729 Atwater Road, where my family has lived for the past 33 years. The City Council, has a decision to make. Will the City Council vote to amend the zoning code to require a minimum lot density for all subdivisions and partitions in Lake Oswego? As the elected Chairperson of the Forest Highland Neighborhood association I want you to know that the vast majority of the residents are strongly opposed to the minimum density zoning. We respectfully request that the City Council deny the amendment Tonight you will hear from many neighbors. You will hear what you already know, a universal objection to minimum density zoning. These will range from impassioned pleas, to cooly rationale arguments. We want to protect the natural environment, maintain character of our neighborhoods, control overly dense development in a low density neighborhoods, and uphold our personal property rights. All of these arguments are valid. We urge you to heed them. We are your constituents. We are Your neighbors. infill Minimum density zoning will violate Goal 10 of the Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission and Staff report are wrong. Minimum density zoning will severely impact the character of the existing Forest Highlands Neighborhood. Presently, Forest Highlands is characterized by large lots with one or two, sometimes three houses per acre. Plus, there are several multiple -acre lots with only one house on them. Much of Forest Highland was planned and developed in the County at zone R-20. Today, the basic problem is infill and the City's zoning of R-7.5 and R-10. As large lots are subdivided and partitioned, minimum density zoning forces the packing of five houses onto an acre parcel while the neighboring parcel contains only one or two houses per acre. EXHIBIT G-3-12 The city recognizes the challenges posed by infill. The Mayor, Council, Planning Commission, City Planning staff have sponsored workshops, meetings, countless phone calls and an "Infill Task Force" and to tackle this thorny issue. We applaud the city in this effort, and we thank you. We hope the Infill Task Force and City can solve the problem of giant houses dwarfing tiny lots, and giant houses looming over moderately sized houses next door. But we await a product and an enforceable plan. But now, today, in Lake Oswego, the 4000 square foot house is a reality. While we don't necessarily object to 4000 square foot houses, we strongly object to 4000 square foot houses towering just 10 feet away from the property line and from each other. Minimum density zoning will ensure that this happens. Under the present zoning, developers have the option of putting one, or two houses on an available acre. With minimum density zoning the developer will be required to pack five houses into each available acre of Forest Highlands. And those houses are just as likely to be 4000 square feet. A minimum density zoning rule may make sense when developing large parcels of vacant land, such as Stafford. But it makes no sense as a strategy to infill established neighborhoods like Forest Highlands. The resulting mishmash would destroy the neighborhood character and violate Goal 10 of the Lake Oswego Comprehensive plan. Rather than adopting the minimum density zoning amendment, we recommend that the City work with Metro. Write a zoning amendment that applies minimum density zoning only to parcels of land larger than 10 acres, which have not been developed, and do not occur within existing neighborhoods. Natural resources With its low residential density, the Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan has labeled Forest Highlands a "Distinctive Natural Area." It contains critical headwaters for the Tryon Creek. The riparian wetlands and large groves of old trees create a natural environment that provides irreplaceable wildlife links to Tryon Creek State Park and habitat for endangered steelhead trout. Minimum density zoning will undermine violate Goal 5 of the Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan which strives to preserve sensitive natural areas. Minimum density zoning will accelerate the loss of open space and the destruction of natural resources because portions of Forest Highlands have yet to be annexed by the City, and thus the City's sensitive land ordinances don't apply. To meet the minimum lot density requirement a developer will level the land and destroy sensitive natural areas, and then annex to the city, avoiding the sensitive lands ordinances that normally prevent this. Presently a developer has the option to build one or two houses on a acre parcel and preserve far more open space and natural habitat. We request that the City resolve this problem before it adopts a minimum density zoning rule which will simply exacerbate it. Density Transfer The presently proposed "density transfer" provisions of minimum density amendment fails to account for Goal 10 of the Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan. Goal 10 calls for protecting the character of existing neighborhoods, and the maintenance of low housing density in areas that are currently developed at low density and where sensitive natural resources occur. if a sensitive natural area occurs in a parcel up for development, density transfer will move the density slated for that location and add it to another place on the parcel. This piles density onto density. The result could be multiple family units crammed onto the buildable portion of a parcel. Townhouses intermingled among the 3uo present single family homes on large lots will destroy the existing character of the Forest Highlands Neighborhood. On November 9, 1998, the Lake Oswego Planning Commission cautioned against jeopardizing Goal 10. They suggested removing lands containing sensitive natural resources from the equation that determines "net developable acreage" in the minimum density zoning amendment. Don't use lands containing sensitive natural resources as a "bank" for density transfer. We request that the city work with Metro to write a zoning amendment that implements this recommendation. Partitions The present Planning Commission recommends a zoning amendment that makes partitions, as well as subdivisions, subject to minimum density zoning. This is an aggressive and overreaching act by the city. It is a clear violation of Metro's rules on the topic. Indeed, in recognition of the character -destroying effects of infill, Metro specifically excluded partitions from its minimum density mandate. If the City includes partitions in the minimum density amendment, it takes away basic property rights. What happens when the owner of a home on a large lot wants to build a house for their mother-in-law? Well, they won't be able to do it. We request that the City delete the inclusion of partitions in a minimum density zoning amendment. Metro and Lake Oswego The City of Lake Oswego has done an outstanding job in complying with many Metro goals. Since 1990 the city has achieved more than 90 percent of the density allowed by zoning. This has been accomplished without a minimum density zoning rule. Will the city adopt an unnecessary zoning amendment that will damage existing neighborhoods in defiance of its citizens'? We hope not. The City must listen and heed the concerns of its neighborhoods and citizens. Who's the boss? Metro or Lake Oswego? The City must show strength and leadership. The City must convince Metro that the preservation of existing neighborhoods and the natural environment is more important than minimum density zoning. Lake Oswego should explain to Metro that instead of the proposed minimum lot density rule it will take the more constructive action we have suggested: 1) Apply minimum density zoning only to undeveloped areas that don't have existing neighborhoods. 2) Let the infill task force do its work and create enforceable infill standards. 3) Work with the County to apply the city's sensitive land ordinances to parcels within the urban service boundary, 4) Remove sensitive lands for the net developable acreage equation. Don't use these lands as a bank for density transfer. 5) Delete partitions from any minimum lot density rule. We respectfully request that the City Council turn down the zoning amendment requiring minimum lot density. Thank you for the opportunity comment on this proposal. Sincerely, Anan Raymond, Chairperson Forest Highlands Neighborhood Association January 14, 2002 Lake Oswego City Council Re. Proposed Planning Code Revision/ Density City Council: I was very disappointed to learn about the planning committee's recommendation to you regarding what was once called "minimum density zoning". I haven't kept up with the politics enough to know what they call it now, but in essence it is the same issue that was raised several years ago. The same except the new proposal is even worse than the last edition, in that they have removed the exception for minor partitions. I was chair of the Forest Highlands Neighborhood Association/CPO during the time when we attempted to create a neighborhood plan in conjunction with the city. That effort was derailed over precisely this issue. If I learned anything over the two years we labored over a Plan, it is that there is no citizen support for mandatory density requirements in Forest Highlands. I have to wonder why the city is continuing to pursue this, under these circumstances. The city council should reflect the values of the residents of Lake Oswego, even if that means standing up against Metro "requirements". One of the ironies of the whole Neighborhood Plan exercise was the realization of just how small the gain is to the city, and the region as a whole, by "infilling" the remaining developable land in Forest Highlands at "maximum" zoned density, compared to what the neighborhood requested. The city gained only a few dozen dwelling units. Unfortunately, the price of that gain was the loss of character and "livability" of an entire neighborhood. If I could, I would like to make one more point, which was sadly lost when the Forest Highlands Neighborhood Plan fell apart. As much as I personally hate to see increased density in our neighborhood, that was not my primary objection to "minimum density" then, nor is it now. My primary objection is that THE CITY DOES NOT HAVE SAFEGUARDS IN PLACE NOW TO ENSURE THAT NEW DEVELOPMENT DOES NOT REDUCE THE LIVABILITY OF NEIGHBORHOODS IN WHICH IT OCCURS. I believe you are putting the cart before the horse in considering requiring development at maximum density, when the record clearly shows an inability to cope with development even at lower densities. Forest Highlands provides a perfect example. Since the failure of our neighborhood plan, roughly 10 acres of land in the heart of our neighborhood has been developed. As feared, the natural resources on those 10 acres were completely neglected or destroyed: lovely old tree groves were cleared; streams were redirected and covered over. Throughout our neighborhood planning effort, one of our key goals was to ensure that the city did not allow developers to take advantage of the lack of protections for natural resources under the County. And yet, that is precisely what happened: developers clear the land, remove "hindrances" to development, and THEN annex to the city so they can develop at higher densities. Another example: the EXHIBIT G-3-13 planning committee and staff like to say that improvements in infrastructure will come with development. Not in our neighborhood! Another of the issues the neighborhood has been concerned about for years is the safety of pedestrians in a neighborhood with no sidewalks, pathways, and inadequate roads. One of the concerns about infill is that it further increases the burden on an already inadequate system. Well, five years and 10 acres of new development later, we do not have one inch of new pathway/sidewalk in the neighborhood, and we do not have one additional road or connection. There is an additional 5 acres of development pending (the land has been cleared), which will simply continue the trend. No roadway connections, despite the acknowledged need for them, no pathway or sidewalk along the "neighborhood collectors" which children walk to and from school on. The residents of Forest Highlands are not naive. We recognize the expense involved in major improvement like installing walking paths. We would simply ask, however, that when you are aware of a neighborhood with serious transportation infrastructure deficiencies, that you be realistic with us. I look around the neighborhood, see new and pending development covering over 15 acres, and wonder just exactly how the planners kept a straight face when they assured us pathways would come with development. Please do not accept the Planning Committee's proposal regarding development at "maximum" density. Please back up: work with the county to provide safeguards for natural resources in areas of potential infill; re-examine the transportation needs, in particular the need for pedestrian pathways (on or off the road), in neighborhoods that are struggling now. Do these things first, before you consider changing the density requirements for new development. And finally, gain the confidence of the neighborhoods that will be affected by decisions you make by listening to their concerns. Sincerely, Mary Peaslee 13131 Knaus Road Lake Oswego, OR 97034 30il 6j" ? c -3p M I �jCb,11 A -ou-)A k&--1 Ck Q-A I dt Pie 0 '1 Lk/L 0 M4- I . iOE�.o;> 305 EXHIBIT G-3-14 January 15, 2002 To Lake Oswego City Council: We oppose the minimum density zoning amendments proposed by Lake Oswego's planning commission. Minimum density zoning will drastically and negatively alter the character and appearance of our neighborhood (Country Commons/ Forest Highlands). It will also detrimentally affect Tryon Creek State Park, which borders our neighborhood. To begin, minimum density zoning in our neighborhood will not only adversely affect development of still undeveloped land tracts, but will also curtail the manner in which already developed lots are subdivided in the future. Moreover, Metro's density goal of 10 lots per acre has already been achieved, and in fact, exceeded in Lake Oswego, where average density is 10.4 lots per acre. The zoning amendments will, therefore, have no impact on Lake Oswego's compliance with Metro's density aims. Furthermore, the proposed zoning amendments will unnecessarily usurp Lake Oswego residents' property rights by forcing them to develop in accord with minimum zoning density. Finally, traffic will increase in lower density neighborhoods, as will the number of people and houses. The maintenance of lower density in the Country Commons/ Forest Highlands neighborhood is particularly critical because of its proximity to Tryon Creek State Park. Tryon is home to coyotes, countless species of birds, and endangered species of fish. Zoning changes in Country Commons/ Forest Hills will further tax the park's inhabitants and fragile ecosystem. Minimum density zoning may be effective in areas of already high density. However, this amendment will drastically and unnecessarily change the character and appearance of a lower density neighborhood, such as ours. Consequently, we strongly urge Lake Oswego City Council NOT to adopt the proposed zoning amendments. Respectfully, 1 I Gregory S. Nadol and Vasiliki A. Nadol 13339 Atwater Lane Lake Oswego, OR 97034 3 EXHIBIT G-3-15 I* �� I - oz_ o�-Zal o • -De w-.,- rs l t �/t S i L C�-ODd a I I rZo cnv..e 1 (%GScc vb lei �A5614-�5.e cb NA4k'14t Lc L7 c� lt�--o( � �E Cn�C..eC � (i%�16 � �r • �b {-v't.Gt- �'t�.t- Ljr Q.C�ivv� o d r4-� '� �- - `� f s n °ti`-�- �o�. �c- w-- Qoa / �c-�-� Ivh �'�...� �ro�i c✓� 44� hey &6ov Ifo.9d . r� ,� ktltlf nzi Pte' ,.ear 4-4,.,,� i �N oAt r4-5 SCO boo d/ 4 (/ • C��e OSW ego' `l70.3� '1�03- r �q - g7rLl EXHIBIT G-3-16 My father bought land and built his home here in Lake Oswego in 1923. I was born here and grew up here. I attended school here before there was even,! one high school in Lake Oswego. My husband and I are retired here and have lived in our home on Knaus Road for over Wears. I think you could say we have a vested interest in this town .... and it is not, like too many others, based on how much money we can rip out of it. This used to be one of the nicest towns in Oregon. I have had to stand by and watch the beauty of Lake Oswego and the quality of life here being steadily destroyed by overdevelopment and poor planning. Our roads are so congested with traffic that there is virtual gridlock many hours of the day. Our schools are overcrowded. The land is overburdened with huge homes built on tiny lots and we see the results in mudslides and property damage when the land gets saturated in the rains. I see the sad results of overdevelopment all around me, elderly people literally taxed out of there homes, more crime. less and less livable neighborhoods ....and yet your only response is to build more monstrous mansions on ridiculously small lots and cram in more stores. I realize that growth is inevitable. But to allow our growth to be determined by greedy developers and city planners who seem to want to turn Lake Oswego into downtown Portland is irresponsible if not downright criminal. If development continues based on how much money a few people can make from destroying our beautiful community.... We, who used to be proud to live here, will all lose. ;3 EXHIBIT G-3-17 620 Atwater Road Lake Oswego OR 97034 503436-1075 Email: brouhard(ohevanet.com Fax: 503-210-0342 January 15, 2002 City Council Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 Dear City Council, I urge you not to pass the Planning Commission's density guidelines, ZC 7-98 (A) commonly called "minimum density". 1 have lived in the Forest Highlands neighborhood since 1983. This neighborhood is unique in Lake Owego for its large tracts of land and "out in the country' feel. Passage of these density guidelines would hit Forest Highlands probably harder than any other neighborhood in Lake Oswego. These mandated "build to the max" density requirements would totally and completely change the character of our neighborhood. We would, without a doubt, lose the neighborhood quality that attracted most of us here in the first place. Lake Oswego already complies with the overall density requirement imposed upon us by Metro. The Planning Commission's density guidelines are unneeded and unwanted. Please vote not to accept minimum density fix Lake Oswego. Respectfully, Diane Brouhard 620 Atwater Rd Lake Oswego 3 1 '-)- EXHIBIT G-3-18 F- (2 7-'l FrFTvFD JAN 1 8 2002 Last Tuesday, 15 January 2002, Lake Oswego City CottU1 M 46AMYi *inst the proposed zoning amendment intended to increase housing density which was mandated by Metro. Proposed by the Planning Commission, some City Councilors had difficulty understanding how it would work. Going farther than Metro wanted, the Planning Commission added "partition" of smaller lots. Beside the amendment going farther than necessary, testimony and the debate that followed highlighted some serious flaws in Lake Oswego's zoning. For example; one neighborhood was zoned for 7,500 sq ft lots when most of the lots were only 6,000 sq ft.. In another neigh- borhood zoned for 10,000 sq ft, the lots are mostly over 16,000 to well over 20,000 sq ft. Yet another neighborhood zoned for 7,500 sq ft consists of lots mostly over 30,000 sq ft. We need to get our house in order first. At stake are homeowners' investments in their property and the neighborhood character. Also at stake is our faith and trust in government to do the right thing. In the larger view, it seems wrong for the Legislature to force growth by requiring a 20 year supply of buildable lots based on a projection from the last 5 years building record. That is blind extrapolation and , by any statistical method, patently un -sound. The use of the last 5 years of building records fails to take into account changes in population growth rate (we are not growing as fast now), changes in the economy, sustainability of our quality of life, and the costs of infrastructure ( highways, schools, etc.) which everyone must pay for, and the effects on our environment. We wonder if Metro doesn't base its forecasts on demand, but simply forecasts supply. Since most homes are built on speculation, builders seem to be hoping that "if you build it, they will come". We desperately need wise, thoughtful leadership and a concerned, enlightened electorate. Henry Germond Lake Oswego, OR 3 i 5 EXHIBIT G.3-19 John P. Hutchison8— 13746 Cameo Ct. P'' C �`-- I V E Lake Oswego, Or. JAN 2 $ ?002 CITY OF LAKE OSWo Dear City Council Members, C)aPt. of Planning & pwsfoPment L: Thank you for the opportunity to express my opinion r!&arding the density guidelines, ZC 7-98 (A). I attended the meeting on January 15 but was unable to stay until my testimony could be heard. 1 am vehemently opposed to the minimum density guidelines and encourage the Council to not adopt the planning commission recommendations. I am a resident of Forest Highlands and have been since 1993. The area, as you know, has been under close scrutiny by the City for some time now. As you also know, each time this issue has arisen, the residents of Forest Highlands have strongly opposed the minimum density guidelines. The guidelines will not help control density. Rather, it will mandate the way a property owner must build out their property (if they so desire). We will no longer be allowed to choose the way we want to develop our land. For instance, if we own an acre of land we will not be able to build two houses on it, which for the most part, would work within the character of the neighborhood. We would be forced to divide the land so that as many as 4 or 5 homes could eventually be built on the property. This strategy and mandate does not fit the character of the neighborhood. Currently, there are somewhere near 450 housing units within the Forest Highlands area. If the minimum density guidelines were fully enacted to the R7.5 zoning approximately 750 units could be built in the area. That increase would completely destroy the underlying infrastructure of the neighborhood. Consider the effect on our schools alone. How would Forest Hills Elementary, Lake Oswego Junior High or Lake Oswego High School function with this kind of increase in student population? Since Forest Highlands has traditionally been a "family area" could you imagine the problems associated with this kind of population increase in this immediate area? This doesn't begin to mention the issues with roads, sidewalks (currently there are very few) and increased traffic hazards. In short, it just doesn't make sense to retrofit Forest Highlands to the minimum density guidelines proposed by Metro. In reviewing the current zoning for Forest Highlands it seems a better approach would be to reclassify the area to RI 5. This would result in a potential 250 additional units (totaling @ 670) within the Forest Highlands area, just 100 units shy of density requirements, but much more in character with the existing neighborhood. Interestingly, if you review one of the developed areas (within Forest Highlands), Country Commons, I think you will see the wisdom of the rezoning suggestion. This area has been built out for years and completely falls within the city. Every house (or near everyone) is built on a lot 15,000 square feet or more. It's the best model for the City Council to use, since it falls within the city (not in unincorporated land) and is completely built out. It characterizes the Forest Highlands community, with large homes situated on large lots. If the City Council would rezone the area to a similar standard of R15 I believe you would be protecting the vital interests of the Forest Highland community. jI EXHIBIT G-3-20 In closing, I would like to state how offended I was with Councilman Hoffman during the January I S'h meeting. I felt he was very condescending to many residents who were not within current city limits, as if we have no right to express our opinion. 1 would like to remind Councilman Hoffman that I support many City businesses on a daily basis, I have contributed to our schools, and I have volunteered for many community activities. His treatment of certain citizens during that evening was uncalled for and unprofessional for an elected official. Thank you again for allowing me to provide you feedback on this very important issue to the citizens of Lake Oswego. Best regards, ?ohn Hutchison �lb �FCF1"N7F,D JAN 2 8 2002 January 24, 2002 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO TO: LAKE OSWEGO CITY COUNCIL/LAKE OSWEGO REVIEW Subject: Metro Mandated Density Rules The Lake Oswego City Council has choices in finalizing "Density Guidelines". IT WOULD BE PRACTICAL AND PRUDENT FOR LAKE OSWEGO TO PURSUE AN EXCEPTION TO THE METRO DENSITY REQUIREMENTS. THIS IS AN OPTION TO RECONSIDER. This would preserve the character of our community and our neighborhoods. Over the years we have built out and built up with homes, apartments, townhouses, and row houses and small businesses in many areas of our community to meet our communities obligations to secure a livable future and to meet our land use density obligations . Thirty- five thousand people were planned to live here. And up to 50,000 if we annexed land. We have done our fair share and met the Metro objective of 35,000. 2. All of Westlake, Kruse Way, the redevelopment of downtown Lake Oswego, Oswego Pointe (once a cement plant and industrial area), Village on the Lake were built to zoned and designed to meet the density and transportation standards. The issue before the Lake Oswego City Council regarding Metro Density Rules has been ongoing since at least 1982....20 years. And 20 years ago, Lake Oswego had the planning tools and the land to determine how it wanted to grown and how it should grow. The Comprehensive plan created with major input from citizens was a total participatory process. Over the years both the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning codes and development standards have been revised with citizen input to meet state and metro land use mandates. WE HAVE BEEN GREAT PARTNERS. And we have had a great planning staff ,and commissions, who always kept the quality of life vision front and center in the decision making process. Back in 1982 both, then county Commissioner Darlene Hooley. and I, a Lake Oswego City Councilor, became very much involved in the language challenge to keep a hand in creating a framework plan that reflected our community's cultures in Clackamas County. The argument around the table week after week ... was local control regarding specifics of land use planning and zoning. Density was an issue back then. And each community identified how much density its land could sustain, and how we could meet statewide planning goals. Then Metro was born by the voters. Our current Mayor, Judie Hammeerstad played a key role in this process and worked for years as a County Commissioner again struggling for a regional land uses plan that made density and transportation sense to our Clackamas County communities. Throughout the 80's and then the 90's we in Lake Oswego local government testified and verified our density numbers to Metro. We reiterated our planning and zoning would meet or exceed the density requirements. i EXHIBIT G•3-21 The framework plan, visionary process ... every human endeavor to plan right in the Metro region has been debated. And Lake Oswego was there day after day, week after week. The newly proposed Lake Oswego Zoning Code Amendments are without merit or necessity. The process as written will be CONFOUNDING AND SUBJECTIVE TO IMPLEMENT. WE could very well have piecemeal redevelopment IN NEIGHBORHOODS. My read on the text language is that it is oddball with regards to `partitioning' and creating `subdivisions ` in our neighborhoods in the future. Citizens who own a home or dwelling in Lake Oswego should ask many more questions of the City As proposed, the methodology for greater DENSITY IN LAKE OSWEGO is CHILLING. The deadline to respond to the current legislative text amendments is January 29. Most important however, is the question of WHY? WHY SHOULD LAKE OSWEGO ADOPT THIS NEW ZONING AMENDMENT AT ALL? We've been counting AND MEETING our density and unit's obligations according to APPROVED PLANS AND ZONING CODES. There are numerous BLANK CANVASSES of land waiting for METRO'S creativity and ingenuity to meet the next 20-year growth projections throughout the Portland Metropolitan area. Already , they are planning for a new Damascus city for example. To go down this road and adopt the Zoning amendments, the overlay map concept, the Future Development Plan concept and the Authorization by "reviewing authority " concept, will surely destroy, within a very short time, our mature and well planned community. What is your VISION? That is the question to be answered by those who will make this final decision. Alice Schlenker Former Mayor 2 0 R F r F IV ED January 29, 2002 JAN 2 9 2002 CITY OF LA Kt US WEGO To: Lake Oswego City Council Re: Minimum density requirements We are opposed to the proposed minimum density requirements and the R7.5 designation for much of the Forest Highlands Neighborhood. We believe both would ultimately work against what the city wants to accomplish. If owners were unable to sell just one or two lots, they would choose to do nothing. At the time they eventually had to sell, the property could be purchased by a developer who would cut it into 7.5 lots. These small lots, next to larger developed lots, would result in a mish-mash of development. The designation for the.Forest Highlands Neighborhood should be 30,000 or 15,000 square foot lots. The proposed zoning map shows a few 7.5 lots scattered in other neighborhoods and a huge chunk colored green in our neighborhood, appearing to be more than all the other areas combined. At the time the last master plan (overlay) was approved, the City Planning Department was trying to impose an R7.5 designation on all of the Forest Highlands Neighborhood, After months of stress and negotiation, a new Planning Director took an objective look and found the goals were being met by infilling and new construction of town- houses, condos and apartments. This is still continuing. We found that the majority of people working in the City Planning Department do not live in the city and do not seem to understand the individual neighborhoods. Please don't destroy what we are all trying to achieve - a good stable neighborhood. We have lived here for 45 years, some of our neighbors for 50 and 60 years. Many years ago we did a survey of all neighborhoods, and found we had the longest permanent residents, averaging 17 years. At the same time, Mountain Park averaged 3 to 4 years, As neighbors we know and watch out for each other. Our survey also found we had the lowest crime rate of all neighborhoods. Please don't tamper with successt Thank you for -�your consideration. Kathryn Stager V/ Ron Stager 13197 S.W. Thoma Road Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 EXHIBIT G-3.22 Daniel G. Vizzini 13830 Verte Court. Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034. 5113.636-5607. vizzini<()pcez.com MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Judie Hammerstad Councilor Gay Graham Councilor Jack Hoffman Councilor Ellie McPeak Councilor Carl Rodhe Councilor Bill Schoen Councilor John Turchi FR: Dan Vizzini 13830 Verte Court RE: Density Guidelines for Lake Oswego DT: January 29, 2002 RFrFTvFD JAN 2 g CITY OF LAKh Uavv Luu On February 5"', you will deliberate and vote on Density Guidelines. Your final decision must take into consideration the aspirations and concerns of the entire community. It must be based on the long-term health and wellbeing of the entire community. In doing so, you must clearly explain the need for these rules for the entire community. And once your vote is recorded, you must commit to a set of follow-up measures that strengthen the growth management tools for all of Lake Oswego. I do not wish to diminish the issues and concerns of property owners from the rural areas of Forest Highlands and Lake Grove. Their arguments in opposition to the proposal are valuable. Their observations about the appropriateness of existing zoning designations need to be considered. Their desire to perpetuate a rural pattern of development is understandable, as is their desire for urban levels of public services. However, the rural areas of Lake Grove and Forest Highlands are not representative of Lake Oswego. Public policy for Lake Oswego should be informed by, but not dominated by the concerns of selected areas of the community. Most of the other, developed neighborhoods in Lake Oswego face a substantially different problem. In these neighborhoods, vacant or under-utilized lots are being redeveloped in ways that are wholly inconsistent with the underlying zone or the character of neighboring property. The problem has become so widespread that you commissioned an In -Fill Task Force last year. In these neighborhoods, density guidelines represent a necessary tool for protecting neighborhood character and livability. We have heard plenty about Density Guidelines from those most animated to oppose it. I respectfully offer a broader view based on my volunteer position as the chairman of the Planning Commission. • Density Guidelines are intended to make sure that new developments comply with the safeguards provided by City land use zoning regulations. "These regulations are critical to protecting the character of existing developed neighborhoods. They also ensure that emerging neighborhoods develop in predictable and organized patterns. Density Guidelines do not require that divided land be developed. It is perfectly legal for someone to comply with the Density Guidelines and still limit development to one or two structui EXHIBIT G-3-23 Letter to the Lake Oswego City Council RE: Density Guidelines January 29, 2002 — Page Two • Density Guidelines are necessary because voluntary adherence to the zoning code has failed to protect established neighborhoods from inappropriate in -fill development. Voluntary compliance has failed to generate the types and volumes of development contemplated in the Comprehensive Plan, further frustrating the City's ability to provide a stable level of essential public services. • Density Guidelines are needed now because in -fill development continues unabated. They are needed without delay because emerging, under -developed areas are building out in an inefficient manner that will eventually increase the costs of community services; costs that will be born by the entire community. • Density Guidelines are imposed on partitions as well as subdivisions because to do otherwise would be unfair and inequitable. If they are not applied to both partitions and subdivisions, the resulting loophole will undermine City efforts to protect developed neighborhoods and guide the development of emerging areas. • Density Guidelines provide specific exemptions for dealing with sensitive natural resources, existing houses, and other factors that might prevent property division at the 80% density level. Finally, it is important to keep in mind that Density Guidelines do not exist in a vacuum, They are necessary to strengthen our zoning regulations. The zoning regulations work in concert with our Comprehensive Plan and Community Development Code to protect the quality of life in Lake Oswego. All three tools need to be strengthened and refined. To this end, you should pursue a comprehensive growth management strategy that strengthens and coordinates all three land use tools. 1. Adopt Density Guidelines as recommended by the Planning Commission. 2. Implement recommendations that result from the work of the In -Fill Task Force, particularly related to building design standards. 3. Extend the principles of the In -Fill Task Force to the entire city. 4. Fully fund the development and implementation of neighborhood plans. 5. Negotiate an agreement with Clackamas County regarding land use planning and development review in unincorporated areas that are located within the urban services boundary. G. Begin a public education process to prepare the conununity for the upcoming periodic review of the Comprehensive Plan. Density Guidelines are important to the future of Lake Oswego. But they are only a part of a much larger strategy. The City Council must lead the community by placing Density Guidelines in its proper context, as an important part of a comprehensive set of policies and actions to protect the quality of life in Lake Oswego. 3' Christie, Robyn From: Heisler, Jane Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 4:23 PM To: Christie, Robyn Subject: FW: OPPOSITION TO ADOPTION OF MINIMUM DENSITY RULES -----Original Message ----- From: Bea Hedlund fmailto:beahedlund(&-earthlink.netl Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 10:17 PM To: Heisler, Jane Cc: Mike Smith Subject: OPPOSITION TO ADOPTION OF MINIMUM DENSITY RULES City of Lake Oswego Mayor and Council: As a trustee for my mother, Judith S. Hedlund, and for my deceased father, William H. Hedlund's Estate which jointly owns a four plus acre property and home at 900 S.W. Atwater Road in the unincorporated area of Forest Highlands, I wish to OPPOSE the adoption of Metro's 80% minimum density rule without the partitioning exception which has been created despite being in contradistinction to Metro's specific exclusion. Where there is no harm; there is no foul since, on average over the last number of years, the natural forces of the zoning and the development choices made have resulted in nearly a 90% build out without the need for such a restrictive requirement. Not only do we oppose this new unnecessary and unfair restriction on our property rights on a philosophic basis, but after studying many aspects of the application of this rule in different cases, it is not that simple and, in some instances, may be counter productive to good development policy and may tie the hands of not only the property owner but the City if they were to determine that in some instances it is not appropriate for a particular property vis a vis the surrounding neighborhood and the circumstances of a particular property. Your predecessor Councils heard the people and did not see fit to capitulate to the wishes of an agency whose necessity and role is problematical and whose existence has been seriously questioned. I do not think 1973's Senate Bill 100 enabling legislation contemplated governing bodies ignoring citizen input which is the road you may be heading down hiding behind the notion that it is a "requirement" of Metro to adopt this. Some on the Council recently suggested, as I heard it, that the opinion of those outside the strict limits of the City's boundaries perhaps do not have a full right to be heard. I take exception to that. My mother and father bought their property from Paul Murphy of the Ladd Estate Cc in 1938. My mother still resides in her house built in 1940. They have paid property taxes supporting Lake Oswego Schools and other services for over 60 years!! My mother and her family have a very strong and established right to comment on something that may well determine the destiny of the property in a few years. The fact that zoning affects a property has been a given for many years. The process of working out the overlay zoning of the Comprehensive Plan affecting the unincorporated area of Forest Highlands, primarily in the 80's, was a reasonable process. Some revisit to the specifics of the Plan might be appropriate. However, the burden of minimum density is unreasonable and too restrictive. Properties with natural features such as my Mother's are already regulated to an appropriate degree. It should be the property owner who primarily decides what they want to do with their property and what is an appropriate way to develop, if developed any further, given what the zoning and reasonable rules might allow not the whim or broad brush notion of some "Johnny come lately" administrator of a perhaps to be abolished agency which has no real good understanding of the micro factors affecting a particular property in the vast area it is supposed to oversee. EXHIBIT G-3-24 The overlay zoning in Forest Highlands, which calls for a dramatic increase in density, will probably over time significantly contribute to the continued increase in density of the a Lake Oswego urban area within the urban growth boundary as established without the minimum density requirement of Metro. If, in your wisdom, you were to adopt such a rule; it is imperative that it not allow partitioning to be a part of it. Partitioning is a long and firmly established process and right which should not be interfered with in this way. Metro is right on that. Thank you for the opportunity to submit a statement of opinion on this issue. Sincerely yours, John H. Hedlund 240 S.W. Birdshill Loop Portland, Oregon 97219 503-636-7529;422-9421 From: Jack Smith [mailto:jacksmith48@attbi.com] Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 11:45 AM To: Heisler, Jane Subject: Minimum Density Comment for the Record Jane, thank you for the impromptu visit with me last Friday that helped with some of the issues that I am struggling with regarding dad's land. The office secretary advised that you are collecting comment on the minimum density proposal to be voted on 5 Feb 2002. So could you please see to it that my following comment is entered in the record. Regards, Jack (Mike) Smith To the City Council of Lake Oswego: Ladies and Gentlemen of the Council, I would like to enter this comment on the subject of the proposed minimum density ordnance in the record, and respectfully request that you take it into consideration as you vote on this important measure. My name is Jack Michael Smith and I am the Personal Representative for the Estate of Jack E. Smith. Dad died last year leaving a 4 acre parcel of land that he purchased from the Oregon Iron and Steel Company in 1943. This property is at 860 Atwater Road, Lake Oswego, OR, 97034. It is in Clackamas County, but contiguous to the City. In due course we look forward to annexing to the City. The property has significant environmental value as it is partially timbered with magnificent old trees and covers a segment of the largest tributary to Tryon Creek, and is a mere 400 feet from Tryon Creek State Park. While I have some empathy for the desire to implement Metro's scheme for efficient use of buildable land, I stand with my Forest Highland neighbors in OPPOSITION to this measure. I will not even attempt to provide novel rationale as you have no doubt heard it all. My opposition simply stems from the principle that minimum density regulation is an unnecessary governmental intrusion into private decision-making. Our appraiser has indicated that land subdivided into smaller lots will bring the highest price on the open market. The free market will therefore accomplish over time the same goal, without this objectionable measure. At least I would hope you see fit to restore opportunity for partitioning if you must impose the minimum density rule on us. Even Metro allows that! As a related matter, the present R 7.5 zoning overlay probably should be changed to increase lot size in order to preserve the existing character of the neighborhood. Respectfully, JACK MICHAEL SMITH EXHIBIT G-3.25 From: Kathy Budny [kabudny@yahoo.comj Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 12:25 PM To: COUNCIL Subject: City Council Meeting 1/15/02 Honorable Council Members: I attended the January 15, 2002, City Council meeting where several citizens gave testimony on their concerns over minimum density and how it effects their neighborhoods. I thought that councilors Rohde and Hoffman came across as condescending to the speakers whether they intended to or not. I believe it takes a lot of courage for citizens to get up in front of the council and provide testimony and it is discouraging when councilors respond in such a manner. These citizens have real concerns about the quality of life in Lake Oswego and I applaud them for speaking up. TRIBUNE ILLIISTRAIION: JOAN MCGUIRE iA gives sprawl the go-ahead By Rex Burkholder hat makes a great city? It's where you can walk down the street, feeling safe and with lots of in- terti.,Ling things to look at. It's where there are parks in the neigh- borhood. It's where you can meet friends and neighbors at the corner coffee shop as well as at the bakery or shoe repair. It's where opportuni- ties abound for new experiences, for a decent education, for good work. A great city is also one that you can escape easily, either on a short trip into the country or to a quiet cc ,rner of a plaza or the public A- brar,. What kills a great city? It's scarce public dollars paying for new roads, Teas- sewers and -new schools rather liar being reinvested in existing neighborhoods. It's good jobs locat. Ing farther and farther away from where people live. It's city dwellers paying the bills and getting less: less police and fire protection, worse schools and parks, fewer good jobs. It's sprawl as far as the eye can see. This spring there is a measure on the ballot that would eliminate the best tool we have for keeping this region a great place to live. The secret of our sue - cess has always been an "all for one and one for all approach" in which every community shares in the benefits as well as the burdens of growth. Under the crassly deceptive title of The Neighborhood Preservation Act of 2000," a right-wing fringe group, Oregonians in Action, wants to make it illegal for us to work together as a region to deal with growth. If this measure pass- es, our only choice would be to blow open the urban growth boundary. Like flous- ton, Atlanta and Seattle residents, we will spend more and more time in our cars, breathe dirtier airand see our neigh- horhoods and down- towns deteriorate. We'll also lose valuable farm- land — land that contributes $;,i bil. lion a ye; lr to the Oregon economy. Regional planning has saved us from the expensive and wasteful Regional planning has saved us from the ... pattern of sacrificing existing neighborhoods to sullsidile sprawl. pattern of sacrificing existing neigh- borhoods to subsidize sprawl. Our inner cit ies are booming, and not just downtown. The streets of Gre. sham bustle with people. North Portland neighborhoods that had 3,000 abandoned houses just over a decade ago are now highly desir. able. In addition, according to the Texas Transportation Institute, Portland has the lowest congestion costs among similar cities, including Seattle, Boston and the San Francis- co Bay Area. Why? Because instead of endless subdivisions and strip malls stretch- ing down the Willamette Valley to Salem, our state land -use planning system tells us to re-evaluate how well we use the land we already have developed and enables us to change zoning codes so land is used more efficiently. While protecting natural areas and parks. While pro- viding transportation options, such as walking, bicycling and transit. While lessening air and water pollu- tion. It really does work. ,first ask all of those elected officials and business le;lders frons around the country Who conle to Portland to find out how we do it.. Regional planning protects our quality of life. Oregoni- ans in Action, and their allies, the. Ilomebuilders Associalion, want to blow open the urban growth bound- ary so they can profit.. They don't give a hoot about your neighbor- hood. Vote no on the. Neighborhood Preservation Act to save your neigh- borhood, your city and your region. Iter Burkholder is Metro councilor from District 5. He lives in the Irv- ington neighhorho&d of Northeast Portland. 8.1.1 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 02/05/02 AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY MEETING DATE: February 5, 2002 SUBJECT: Resolution 02-09. A resolution of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego approving the formation of a joint subcommittee with the City of West Linn to explore the feasibility of establishing a joint aquatic/ community center. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Approve Resolution #02-09 . EST. FISCAL IMPACT: ATTACHMENTS: NOTICED (Date): — • Janaury 31, 2002 -- — -- --- STAFF COST: $none Gilmer memo BUDGETED: • Resolution # 02-09 Y_ N_ _ _ Ordinance no.: FUNDING SOURCE: Resolution no.: 02-09 Previous Council consideration: _yes I J . M DEPT.DIRECTOR sign ff/d to K: \ Kristi \ rptcov.99 ASST. CITY MANAGER _ CITYM AGER 3 I ..) 02- signoff/date signoff/ to 3.' Parks and Recreation Department To: Doug Schmitz, City Manager Memorandum From: Kim Gilmer, Parks & Recreation Director Subject: Lake Oswego -West Linn Joint Aquatic/ Community Center Subcommittee, Resolution 02-09 Date: February 1, 2002 On November 24, 2001 a Jane Hickman, a representative from the City of West Linn, made a presentation to the City Council regarding the work West Linn has done in researching an aquatic/ community center facility. Ms. Hickman requested that the City Council consider forming a joint subcommittee to research the viability of a joint aquatic/ community center facility. The City Council forwarded this request to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB) for their consideration Background The City of West Linn has spent a number of years researching the feasibility of building a multi -use aquatic/ community center. In 1998, West Linn voters approved a bond measure, a portion of which was to fund a swimming pool feasibility study. An aquatic study was completed in January 2000. However, it was seen as being too general in scope and as a result, was disregarded. Following this study, the West Linn City Council appointed the current aquatic/ community center committee to come up with a proposal to be placed on a future ballot. The committee has hired Ken Ballard, a consultant from Colorado to perform a more detailed study. The committees charge is to come up with a specific facility recommendation, business plan, location, and cost to be voted on in the near future. The subcommittee will hold their initial meeting with the consultant in early February. 331 Discussion Ms. Hickman made her proposal to PRAB at their January 16, 2002 meeting. In her presentation she mentioned that the West Linn subcommittee would hold their first meeting with the consultant on February 7, 2002. She saw a benefit to getting Lake Oswego involved in their first meeting, should there be an interest in forming a joint subcommittee. Although PRAB has not finalized the Parks and Recreation Master Plan or conducted a community needs assessment, the members agreed that they should take advantage of this opportunity, as there is community interest in such a facility. Therefore, they passed the following motion: "It was move and seconded to recommend to Council that PRAB form an advisory committee, as a subcommittee of PRAB, to work jointly with West Linn, or any other interested community, to explore options toward the feasibility of an aquatic/ community center." STAFF TIME & COST It is expected that the joint subcommittee will convene in early February and complete their work by the end of August, 2002. Staff estimates subcommittee support to require 50 hours of staff time at a cost of $2,500. No additional costs are anticipated at this time. Recommendation PRAB is recommending that the City Council approve the formation of a 6 -member committee under the auspices of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board that will join the 6 -member committee from West Linn in exploring the feasibility of a joint aquatic/ community center. PRAB is also recommending that membership in the committee be made up of one PRAB member, one Team Sports Advisory Committee member (aquatics focus), a Budget Committee member and 3 community members representing broad recreational interests. PRAB, TSAC, and the Budget Committee member will be selected by PRAB. Community member positions will be chosen through an advertised application processed, with final applicants chosen by PRAB. Should the City Council approve the formation of a subcommittee, PRAB is also recommending that the PRAB and TSAC members attend that February 7, 2002 meeting with West Linn and the consultant so that time is not lost. The remaining committee members will be selected shortly afterward and become involved as soon as their selection was approved. 33a RESOLUTION 02-09 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO APPROVING THE FORMATION OF A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD TO WORK WITH A COMMITTEE FROM THE CITY OF WEST LINN TO EXPLORE THE FEASIBILITY OF A JOINT AQUATIC/COMMUNITY CENTER FACILITY. WHEREAS, the City of Lake Oswego does not currently own or operate an aquatic/community center; and WHEREAS, the City of West Linn has invited the City of Lake Oswego to participate in exploring the feasibility of building and operating a joint aquatic/community center facility for the benefits of citizens of both communities; and WHEREAS, the City of Lake Oswego has formed a Parks and Recreation Advisory Board to represent the parks and recreational interests of it citizens; and WHEREAS, the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board recommends the formation of a six member subcommittee made up of 1 member of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, 1 member of the Team Sports Advisory Board, 1 member of the City's Budget Committee, and 3 community -wide members to serve under the auspices of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board to join with a committee from West Linn in exploring the feasibility of a joint aquatic/community center NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego that the City Council hereby approves the formation of an ad hoc subcommittee of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, with membership as stated in the above recitals, for the purpose of working with a committee from the City of West Linn to explore the feasibility of a joint aquatic/community center facility. Considered and enacted at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego, on the 5th day of February, 2002. AYES: NOES: EXCUSED: ABSTAIN: Judie Hammerstad, Mayor 33,.) ATTEST: Robyn Christie, City Recorder APPROVED AS TO Cit`- Attorney's Office MEETING DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY February 5, 2002 8.1.2 02/05/02 Resolution 02-10. A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego adopting a selection policy for purchasing a work of art from the Arts Downtown exhibit. r RECOMMENDED MOTION: Adopt Resolution #02-10. EST. FISCAL IMPACT: ATTACHMENTS: NOTICED (Date): • I a n u a ry 31. 2002 ---- -------- ---- STAFF COST: $none Gilniel- memo BUDGETED: Y_ N_,__ • Resolution 02-10, with attachment • December 13, 2001 Ordinance Gilmer memo Resolution no.: 02-10 FUNDING SOURCE: Previous Council consideration: --__-yes__ DEPT. DIRECTOR 1 oz - sig off d to K. \ Krieti \ rpteov.99 ASST. CITY MANAGER CITY M GER -------- ----_. _ 31 v 2, signoff/date signoff/ ate Parks and Recreation Department To: Doug Schmitz, City Manager Memorandum From: Kim Gilmer, Parks & Recreation Director Subject: Art Selection Policy for Arts Downtown, Resolution 02-10 Date: January 31, 2002 Attached is a draft of the "Arts Downtown: Proposal for a Selection Process." This draft incorporates recommendations made by the Arts Commission at their December 1.3, 2001 meeting and changes made by the City Council at the December 18, 2001 Council meeting. Changes made and incorporated include: 1. Updating Step Two to direct the committee to create a short list of "five" sculptures. 2. Removal of Step four, which stated, "if Council feels it is necessary, use could require approval of the choice resulting from Step Three by (a) the Arts Commission, and/or (b) the Council." The Arts Commission requests that the City Council adopt Resolution 02-10 to adopt this new policy. RESOLUTION 02-10 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO ADOPTING A POLICY FOR SELECTING ART FROM THE ARTS DOWNTOWN EXHIBIT. «'HEREAS, the City of Lake Oswego has established an outdoor sculpture exhibit entitled Arts Downtown; :and NVIIEREAS, there is an interest in demonstrating the City's commitment to the enhancement of the arts by purchasing a work of art from the exhibit; and NAMEREAS, there is also a desire to involve the community in the selection of this work of art NO\%', THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego that any purchase bN, the City of art from the Arts Downtown exhibit shall follow the process outlined in the "Proposal for a Selection Process" attached as Exhibit A. Considered and enacted at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego, on the 5th day of February, 2002. AYES: NOES: EXCUSED: ABSTAIN: Judie Hammerstad, Mayor .ATTEST: Robyn Christie, City Recorder APPROVED AS ORM , 6 City Attorney's Office 33 EXHIBIT A Arts Downtown: Proposal for a Selection Process 2/05/02 Goal: A process that will be used to select a piece to be purchased annually with City funds (either through a general budget allocation or by using "Percent for Art Trust Funds"). The process ought to fit within the guidelines used by the Arts Commission and the Public Art Committee for other public art purchases, but should add more public input to the process. Present purchase guidelines: 1. Percent for Art Purchases a. Ordinance No. 2078, Article 18.01.015. Definitions 10. "Selection Committee" means the committee appointed by the Arts Advisory Board responsible for reviewing proposed public art, and making recommendations to the Board on the selection of Public art. The selection committee shall be made up of a representative of the participating department, the project architect or engineer (where applicable), artists, a citizen and an AAB member (AAB: Arts Advisory Board, noir called the Arts Coinr►iission). b. Resolution 94-53 "Percent for Art Guidelines" Guideline Definitions P. 2: Public Art Advisory Committee: the committee appointed by the Arts Commission to develop policies and goals for the selection, placement and maintenance of works of art acquired through the Percent (one and one half) for Art Program. This committee has approval authority within the artist selection process, evaluates and/or causes to be evaluated by others the public art collection, recommends uses for Public Art Trust Fund moneys ... The committee consists of a maximum of (7) members (the Public Art Advisory Conrrtfittee is now called the Public Art Committee). 2. Proposal for Arts Downtown purchases We should have a process that: a. Is usable no matter whether the funds for the purchase come from a separate city source or from the Percent for Art Trust Fund This goal is achieved by basically using the process used for Public Art Trust Fund purchases. Exhibit A Resolution 02-10 Page 1 3 4 i b. Adds more public participation to the selection process than occurs under the Percent for Art guidelines. This addition is warranted because: (1) Arts Downtown is an event for the entire city, not just one neighborhood. (2) More community participation in the selection process will build a sense of citywide concern and ownership of the Arts Downtown program. The Proposal: Step One: The Public Art Committee selects a committee to create a short list of possible purchases from the Arts Downtown show and identify a site. The committee will be composed of a. a LORA representative ("a representative of the participating department"), b, a project engineer or architect (to ensure the pieces chosen are suitable for available sites), c. artists (non -participants in Arts DOYhWOUIl), d. a citizen (unspecified, but should be someone who represents community Interests, such as a neighborliood representative, or a local businessperson, or someone from a list of people who indicate that they wish to be selected... open to Public Art Committee or Council decision), e. a member of the Arts Commission (the chair or a selectee from the general AC membership). This member will chair the committee. The Arts Commission will approve the Public Art Committee's selection of membership for the group. Step Two: The committee chosen in Step One will develop a "short list" of possible purchases. The maximum number on the list will be (perliaps) five. All on this list are possible final selections, in terms of both available funding and site possibilities. Step Three: A public process (preferably a well-publicized opinion survey in the "Hello L.O." and the "L. 0. Review," plus online voting at the City website) will determine the winner from the "short list" created in Step Two. Exhibit A Resolution 02-10 Page 2 34 Parks and Recreation Department To: Doug Schmitz, City Manager Memorandum From: Kim Gilmer, Parks & Recreation Director Subject: Recommendations on Proposed Selection Process for 2001 Arts Downtown exhibit. Date: December 13, 2001 At their December 13, 2001 meeting, Arts Commission reviewed Councilor McPeak's proposed policy for selecting works of art from Arts Downtown exhibits. The Commission approved of the policy with the following recommended changes: 1. "Step Four: If Council feels it is necessary, we could require approval of the choice resulting from Step Three by (a) the Arts Commission, and/or (b) the Council." The Commission does not recommend that Council have the ability to make the final decision as to which piece to buy. They feel that if the community has been asked to select from a list of artwork, then the Council should not change that decision. 2. The process does not specify that a site to place the art should be identified prior to choosing a "short list" of works. The Commission recommends that this be added to the policy. 3. The policy also does not specify that a budget amount be identified to purchase the artwork in advance of the selection process. The Commission feels this is necessary in order to inform artists of the selection and give them the option of lowering their price if they wish. The Commission also discussed the fact that there is a time lag between the time the Call for Artists is mailed to artists and the time when decisions are made to appropriate funds for purchasing art. This creates a problem because when artists receive the Call for Artists the Commission does not know how much will be available to spend on art, if anything. This can result in artists submitting pieces that are outside the city's price range. We could potentially end up with 20 works of art that the City could not afford to buy. The Commission recommends that the Council define a price range that the city would typically spend on art. K \ Kristi \ rptcov.99 341 This range would then be included in the information sent to artists along; with the caveat that it is contingent on the appropriation of funds. K: \ Kristi \ rptcov.99 RESOLUTION 02-11 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO SUPPORTING THE ADDITION TO THE METRO REGIONAL TRAILS AND GREENWAYS MAP OF THE HILLSDALE TO LAKE OSWEGO TRAIL WHEREAS the Hillsdale to Lake Oswego trail included in the Southwest Urban Trail Plan, adopted by the Portland City Council in July of 2000, has been nominated as a regional pedestrian trail; and WHEREAS the Metro GTAC Committee has agreed to recommend the nomination to the Metro Council subject to the approval of the concept of a such a trail in the location indicated in the Urban Trail Plan by involved local governments; and WHEREAS the Lake Oswego City Council finds that inclusion of the Hillsdale to Lake Oswego trail on Metro's Regional Trails and Greenways Map is in the public interest; BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego hereby supports the addition to the Metro Regional Trails and Greenways Map of the Hillsdale to Lake Oswego Trail in the location indicated in the Southwest Urban Trail Plan. This Resolution shall be effective immediately upon passage. Considered and enacted at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego on the 5`h day of February, 2002. AYES: NOES: EXCUSED: ABSTAIN: Judie Hammerstad, Mayor ATTEST: Robyn Christie, City Recorder 1 of 2 - Resolution 02-11 APPROVED AS TO FORM: David D. Powell City Attorney 2 of-" - Resolution 02-11