The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda Packet - 2002-03-19 PMCITY COUNCIL MEETING OF INCLUDES MINUTES, AGENDA 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. City Council Judie Hannnerstad, Mayor Ellie McPeak, Council President Jack Hofnan CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Tuesday, March 19, 2002 6:00 P.M. Council Chambers City Hall 380 A Avenue Karl Rohde Also published on the internet at: ci.oswego.or.us Bill Schoen Contact: Robyn Christie, City Recorder Gay Graham E -Mail: public_affairs@ci.oswego.or.us John Turchi 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. 6:05 3. 3.1 3.2 CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL PRESENTATIONS Distinguished Service Award, Herb Bumgarner, Library Advisory Board Safety Levy: John Foote, District Attorney and Pat Detloff, Sheriff 6:20 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 COUNCIL BUSINESS 4.1.1 Resignation of Lou Jordan from the Tree Code Task Force .............................1 Action: Accept resignation with regret City Council Agenda March 19, 2002 Page l of 3 4.1.2 Resolution 02-19, making appointments to the Natural Resources .................5 Advisory Board Action: Adopt Resolution 02-19 4.2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 4.2.1 February 12, 2002, special meeting....................................................................15 4.2.2 February 19, 2002, morning meeting.................................................................29 Action: Approve minutes as written (oras corrected if Council adds corrections to the motion) MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA VOICE VOTE END CONSENT AGENDA 5. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA 6. CITIZEN COMMENT The purpose of citizen comment is to allow citizens to present information or raise an issue regarding items not on the agenda. A time limit of three minutes per citizen shall apply. 7. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER 7.1 Ordinance 2243, an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of .................43 Lake Oswego amending the Lake Oswego Code, Chapter 48 (Zoning Code), relating to Long -Term Care Housing, and adopting findings LU 99-0070-1468. Motion: Move to continue Ordinance 2243 to April 2, 2002. 8. INFORMATION FROM COUNCIL This agenda itenr provides an opportunih' for individual Councilors to provide information to the Council on matters not otherwise on the agenda. Each Cotn:cilor will be given five minutes. 8.1 Councilor information 8.1.1 Discussion of "Temporary Sign Ordinance (no report).....................................45 8.2 Reports of Council Committees, Organizational Committees, and Intergovernmental Committees City Council Meeting I'age 2 of 3 March 19, 2002 6:55 9. REPORTS OF OFFICERS 9.1 City Manager 9.2 City Attorney :00 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 1:00 a.m. on Channel 22/28 Thursday 7:00 p.m. on Channel 21/30 FridaN, 1:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. on Channel 21130 Friday 7:00 p.m. on Channel 22/28 Saturday 1:00 a.m. on Channel 22/28 City Council Mecting March 19, 2002 Page 3 of 3 4.1.1 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 03/19/02 AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY MEETING DATE: March 19, 2002 SUBJECT: Resignation of Lou Jordan from the Tree Code Task Force RECOMMENDED MOTION: Accept resignation with regret. ESTIMATED FISCAL IMPACT: STAFF COST: $ BUDGETED: Y N FUNDING SOURCE ATTACHMENTS: • Jordan a -mail of 2002 DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR signoff/date :I "1111k.1113 I I NOTICED (Date): Ordinance no.: Resolution no.: Previous Council consideration: CITY MANAGJER signoff/date From: Lou Jordan Uordanlou@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 4:03 PM To: Ingalls, Sandy Subject: Tree Code Task Force Hi, candy: ,ks <<,cu know, because of illness and an out-of-state business trip, I a -re r._ssed two crucial meetings. And now I have accepted a consulting assignment that will keep me out of town most weeknights. Regretably, I must tender my resignation from the task force, with Tha::.k s for all the hard work and effort you have invested to make the Task Force a successful endeavor. Sincerely, Locu : crdan with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http 1 messenger.msn.com MAR 0 5 2002 CITY OF LAKt u�)vvtC;u 4.1.2 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 03/19/02 AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY MEETING DATE: March 19, 2002 SUBJECT: Resolution 02-19 Appointments to Natural Resources Advisory Board RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to adopt Resolution 02-19, reappointing Sarah Asby, Kelly Riordan, Christine Roth and Jonathan Snell to the Natural Resources Advisory Board for three-year terms ending February 28, 2005; and designating John Keith as an alternate to the Natural Resources Advisory Board to serve if there are any vacancies on the Natural Resources Advisory Board due to attrition through February 28, 2003. EST. FISCAL IMPACT: N/A STAFF COST: $ BUDGETED: Y N FUNDING SOURCE: DEPT. DIRECTOR Date ATTACHMENTS: • Applications of Sarah Asby Kelly Riordan Christine Roth and Jonathan Snell ASST. CITY MANAGER Date NOTICED (Date): Ordinance No.: Resolution No.: 02-19 Previous Council Consideration: � 1 -_LL A_ (_ [1) c a 203 l 67 MANAGER Z_ Date 5 RESOLUTION 02-19 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO MAKING APPOINTMENTS TO THE NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD WHEREAS, a City Council Interview Committee, consisting of Councilors Graham, Hoffman and Turchi, and Russell Jones, member of the Natural Resources Advisory Board, met on March 6, 2002 to interview candidates for the Natural Resources Advisory Board; and WHEREAS, it was the consensus of the Interview Committee to recommend to the City Council that Sarah Asby, Kelly Riordan, Christine Roth and Jonathan Snell be reappointed to the Natural Resources Advisory Board for three-year terms ending February 28, 2005; and WHEREAS, it was the consensus of the Interview Committee to recommend to the City Council that John Keith be designated as an alternate to the Natural Resources Advisory Board to serve if a vacancy occurs on the Natural Resources Advisory Board due to attrition through February 28, 2003; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego hereby reappoints Sarah Asby, Kelly Riordan, Christine Roth and Jonathan Snell to the Natural Resources Advisory Board for three-year terms ending February 28, 2005; and designates John Keith as an alternate to the Natural Resources Advisory Board to serve if there are any vacancies on the Natural Resources Advisory Board due to attrition through February 28, 2003. This resolution shall take effect upon passage. Approved and adopted by the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego at a regular meeting held on the 19th day of March 2002. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: EXCUSED: Judie Hammerstad, Mayor ATTEST: Robyn Christie, City Recorder APPROVED AS TO RM: David Powell, City Attorne CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD Application iZF'C'?F11IT;D Please Complete in Black Ink or Type JAN 14 2002 PERSONAL DATA CITY OF LAKE uSWEGt> Name SdfO�Ei'1 f`��i�y Telephone%) 3 - Y ,r -) -,3 T 3s Address Ll Tcr rn�� u 636�c� D r Street City State Zip Years of Residence in Lake Oswegoj&L�2 Occupation J4 pjPj iC I Employer (1a k-Q t` r 62 , C&LY1 Employer's Telephone_(C ,rr/-� - h Employer's AddressrA-c /titi EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND IN-) v l l ✓ , 0 r` -:T� tti Tl� LLa fjd U)2 '00 <. a P bQ n PROFESSIONAL OR VOCATIONAL BACKGROUND 4, Lit W,4 (y SLo , 7r 01/1 1/1', de11�, - 7,-tLI t" ,Y\. S ' " Cetl Y, PRIOR CIVIC ACT TTIE k'�1 P ✓ �h V� : 8 i)ak40( C/ WHY WOULD YOU LIKE TO SERVE ON THIS BOARD? Wr< �11301V,0Q9 9 10 w hke 4-0 fl l ua l3 ` -r t'l t 'kl ply n _ U).,) L .l -like \,ot k j 0\P le rw i-t-YAC, j )-\o to !a n P-Pso tic out d 1he 4--z) NA 41 AVi-60 170 d t e I PTlll�' n1 C C' 1 P kJ-1r SIG ED t -C a ' DATE RETURN THIS APPLICATION i . CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO, MAYOR'S/CITY COUNCIL OFFICE, 380 A AVENUE, PO BOX 369, LAKE OSWEGO OR 97034 NO LATER THAN 5:00 P.M., FRIDAY, JANUARY 25, 2002. IT IS STRONGLY RECOMMENDED THAT YOU ATTEND A MEETING OF THIS BOARD BEFORE YOU INTERVIEW WITH THE CITY COUNCIL. CALL (503) 697-6575 FOR MEETING DATES. Please use the other side of this application if necessary. CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD Please Complete in Black Ink or Type PERSONAL DATA Name Ke ( I o- P� C y -d a ll) Address 0;7-7c� N Street Years of Residence in Lake Oswego Employer L -0.K( DSvvCc,O A*& -'r `5. Employer's Address CD L) T-1� y\l C EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND Application Telephone 8}be 253y City/ ,J State Zip Occupation-Ci'1CC M(INM"r2 - Lod-() -A7}J n(.S Employer'sTelephone��-213 7 v" a DA a (.Ur S Uri odd PROFESSIONAL OR VOCATIONAL BACKGROUND (D A,kLAI ('Vuntyey-, I gw(s C�)t?rd.(hC,R)1z 1CLG� ci0'S �1��)YAo� it1 .�5 - ►art �1 Sy.lee„ IWAr 4 mf 3 UJA LetKt! (,1SWC'C� /-f 0tA SCf1 X101 :;)U-QQ'�r'-C�eK+ �f �1�lUhG DIt((. foIL , PRIOR CIVIC ACTIVITIES MWbtr L)( M(!*�y Ci1T_0,614 ( tZ ( ILS A(I i u 0 tel y iG46 G 0. U S [A(jVj3'Un4DG .l � Itil a L.L(ta4 ecl D )00( WHY WOULD YOU LIKE TO SERVE ON THIS B ARD? ` SIGNED DATE 1111101- NO 1(110Z RETURN THIS APPLICATION TO: CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO, MAYOR'S/CITY COUNCIL OFFICE, 380 A AVENUE, PO BOX 369, LAKE OSWEGO OR 97034 NO LATER THAN 5:00 P.M., FRIDAY, JANUARY 25, 2002. IT IS STRONGLY RECOMMENDED THAT YOU ATTEND A MEETING OF THIS BOARD BEFORE YOU INTERVIEW WITH THE CITY COUNCIL. CALL (503) 697-6575 FOR MEETING DATES. Please use the other side of this application if necessary. FEB -04-2002 01:33 PM C.ROTH 5036249716 P.01 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD Please Complete in Black Ink or Type PERSONAL DATA Application Address Years of Residence in Lake Oswego Telephone State Zip Occupation Employer I— Employer's Telephone Employer's Address �– EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND PROFESSIONAL OR VOCATIONAL BACKGROUND SM.Q-S PRIOR CIVIC ACTIVPTIES WHY WOULD YOU > i A-+ cam- 0,A. i THIS BOARD? ; . 34 RETURN THIS APPLICATION TO: CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO, MAYOR'S/CITY COUNCIL OFFICE, 380 A AVENUE, PO BOX 369, LAKE OSWEGO OR 97034 NO LATER THAN 5:00 P.M., FRIDAY, JANUARY 25, 2002. IT IS STRONGLY RECOMMENDED THAT YOU ATTEND A MEETING OF THIS BOARD BEFORE YOU INTERVIEW WITH THE CITY COUNCIL. CALL (503) 697-6575 FOR MEETING DATES. Please use the other side of this application if necessary. 1 1 :-:-a, : Jonathan Sne i 1 spq>►=*tx r NRAB PYJtSONAL DATA PHONE NO. : 503 699 9898 Jan. 28 2002 04:06PM P2 1/28/02 10:07 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD Application Please Complete In Black Ink or Type Name � o h9 7 �i 9h S"? < �,� Telephone S,.O 3 6 9 5 ** fj S Address 3 2 5 0 10Ly/c"T Of We, 2 a Street Chy State lip Yes rs of Residence in Lake Oswe6a,-Your Occupation h�i/�Q,z n.� • t► I �� i s�li�c,� ?� Eaploytr SC �� BuslnessTelephone 5� Emplvy"'s Address Sit f C y�i rb�o>>y � �a��%lei ti 9 3 7 r/vt. �� qkr osc.,t• f v �� i7r�3 ,r`. ED- C �1T70NAL BACKGROUND cw "�c � t'7r C PROFESSIONAL OR VOCATIONAL BA KGROUND r r'j9v) I'll h lw PRIOR CIVIC ACTIVITIES / OL P(y #Pf i C j W10'WOULD YOU LIKE TO SERVE ON TRIS BOARD? rr Srrvt go AlfFA13 ise �r 6f rv+ e SIG'` FD _ ►'•) DATE ItCI 2 - RETURN RETURRN IS APPLICATION TO: CITY OF LAKE. OSWEGO, MAYOR'S/CITY COUNCIL OFFICE, 36() A AVENUE, P( BOX 369, LAKE OSWEGO OR 97034 NO LATER THAN S; UO AM., FRIDAY, JANUARY 2.5, 2002, IT IS ST7tUW;/.YRE Ol ME)VD/i1711MAT Y011 ATTEND A MEETING OF THIS COMMISSION BEFORE YOU INTERVIEW WI T11 THE CITY CDUNCIL. CALL (503) 697.1422 FOR MEETING DATES. r .. l r. 380 "A" AVENUE POST OFFICE BOX 369 March 20, 2002 LAKE OSWEGO, OREGON 97034 (503) 635-0213 FAX (503) 697-6594 4UAYfNt�ci.osweRo.or.us Kelly Riordan 12375 Mt Jefferson Terrace 8F Lake Oswego OR 97035 In,Of HAMMERSTAD, MAYOR Dear Kelly, GAY GRAHAM, It is a pleasure to advise you that the City Council of the City of COUNCILOR Lake Oswego has reappointed you to the Natural Resources JACK HOFFMAN, Advisory Board for a term through February 28, 2005. COUNCILOR J Your contribution as a member of the Natural Resources Advisory CO UNCILORR Mcl'EA Board has been appreciated and Council is confident that you will CO continue your work with distinction in the future. On behalf of the KARL ROHDE, Council, thank you for your willingness to devote your time, COUNCILOR energy, and knowledge to advancing the quality of life in our community. BILL SCHOEN, COUNCILOR Sincerely, JOHN TURCHI, COUNCILOR I�(� (!� J ie�iunerstad yor JH/ sms c: Members of the City Council Douglas J. Schmitz, City Manager Lisa Hamerlynck, Natural Resources Advisory Board 3.i><0 "A" AVENUE ,POST OFFICE BOX 369 LAKE OSWEGO, OREGON 97034 (5,03) 635-0213 FAV ".503) 697-6594 Nt-t,YORe.c i.oswego.or.us 1* March 20, 2002 Jonathan Snell 3250 Upper Drive Lake Oswego OR 97035 JUIM HAMMERSTAD, MAYOR Dear Jonathan, GAY GRAHAM, It is a J p leasure to advise you that the City Council of the City of COUNCILOR Lake Oswego has reappointed you to the Natural Resources LACK HOFFMAN, Advisory Board for a term through February 28, 2005. COUNCILOR Your contribution as a member of the Natural Resources Advisory COUNCILORR EMcPEA Board has been appreciated and Council is confident that you will CO continue your work with distinction in the future. On behalf of the KARL ROHDE, Council, thank you for your willingness to devote your time, COUNCILOR energy, and knowledge to advancing the quality of life in our community. BILL SCHOEN, COUNCILOR Sincerely, 1OHN TURCHL COUNCILOR fildie Hainmerstad Mayor JH/ sms c: Members of the City Council Douglas J. Schmitz, City Manager Lisa Hamerlynck, Natural Resources Advisory Board 4 389' `A" AVENUE P(7tST CfFICE BOX 369 LAKE OSWEGO, OREGON 97034 dJ+L)3) 635-0213 AX i5n3) 697.6594 March 20, 2002 MAY oswego.or.us Christine Roth 18951 Indian Springs Road Lake Oswego OR 97035 ;IL)Dtf K,%MMERSTAD, MAYOR Dear Christine, CAY GRAHAM, It is ap City leasure to advise Y `J you that the Council of the Ci of COUNCILOR City Lake Oswego has reappointed you to the Natural Resources LACK HOFFMAN, Advisory Board for a term through February 28, 2005. COUNCILOR Your contribution as a member of the Natural Resources Advisory ECOUNLUE I'EA R Board has been appreciated and Council is confident that you will COUNCILOR pp continue your work with distinction in the future. On behalf of the WARL ROHDE, Council, thank you for your willingness to devote your time, COUNCILOR energy, and knowledge to advancing the quality of life in our community. ffRL SCHOEN, COUNCILOR Sincerely, JOHN TURCHI, COUNCILOR qlutdtie Hammerstad Mayor JHfsms c: Members of the City Council Douglas J. Schmitz, City Manager Lisa Hamerlynck, Natural Resources Advisory Board 4 3ft "A" AVENUE "7 CWFICE BOX 369 March 20, 2002 L 4A1 OSWEGO, OREGON 97034 '503) 635-0213 t AA :�03) 697-6594 MAYC*40-oswego.orms Sarah Asby 47 Tanglewood Drive Lake Oswego OR 97035 '. r.Xf r-HAMMERSTAD, MAYOR Dear Sarah, GAY GRAHAM, It is a pleasure to advise you that the Ci Council of the City of COUNCILOR P y City Lake Oswego has reappointed you to the Natural Resources CAiCK HOFFMAN, Advisory Board for a term through February 28, 2005. COUNCILOR ELLIE McPEAK, Your contribution as a member of the Natural Resources Advisory COUNCILOR Board has been appreciated and Council is confident that you will continue your work with distinction in the future. On behalf of the KARL ROHDE, Council, thank you for your willingness to devote your time, COUNCILOR energy, and knowledge to advancing the quality of life in our DILL SCHOEN, community. COUNCILOR Sincerely, pOHN TURCHI, COUNCILOR �C��ZZI die Hammerstad Mayor JH/sms c: Members of the City Council Douglas J. Schmitz, City Manager Lisa Hamerlynck, Natural Resources Advisory Board 380 'A" AVENUE March 20, 2002 IUST OFFICE BOX 369 LAKE OSWEGO, OREGON 97034 (503)635-0213 FAX (503) 697-6594 MAY0R*a1.oSwego.orAJS John K Keith 18056 Westminster Drive Lake Oswego OR 97034 JUDIE HAMMERSTAD, MAYOR Dear Mr. Keith: GAY GRAHAM, Thankou for interviewing fposition on the Natural COUNCILOR Y gora Resources Advisory Board. Although you were not selected to JACK HOFFMAN, serve at this time, the City Council felt that you have a lot to offer COUNCILOR the City of Lake Oswego. Therefore, if an opening occurs on the Natural Resources Advisory Board due to attrition between now ECOUNCILOR and February 28, 2003, the Council will ask you to serve. KARL ROHDE, On behalf of the City Council, I wish to thank you for your interest COUNCILOR in sharing your expertise with the community. BILL SCHOEN, Sincerely, COUNCILOR IOHN TURCHI, COUNCILOR ;daiel-lammerstad Mayor JH/sms C: Lisa Hamerlynck, Natural Resources Coordinator 0 410 180 "A" AVENUE March 20, 2002 POST OFFICE BOX 369 LAKE OSWEGO, OREGON 97034 ;503)635-0213 F A X 4503) 697-6594 mikYOR06.oswego.or.us Kris Sorensen 1770 Ridgecrest Lake Oswego OR 97034 FUCME ' hAMMERSTAD, MAYOR Dear Mr. Sorensen: GAY GRAHAM, COUNCILOR Thank you for applying for a position on the Natural Resources Advisory Board. Although you have not been selected to serve at COUUNCILNCILORR Y appreciate y JACK this time, we sincerel iate our interest in serving the community. ELL IE M(PEAK, COUNC ROR The contributions made by people such as you are invaluable, and I hope that as other opportunities arise, you will offer your COUNCILLOROR KARL Ra services again. Please contact Shirley Schultz, at (503) 635-0215, if you would like to receive information about future vacancies on BILL SCHOEN, the City's boards, commissions and committees; or, you can view COUNCILOR the City's current vacancies at http://www.ci.oswego.or.us/boards/Vacancies/currentvacancies%20.htm JOHN TURCHI, COUNCILOR Sincerely, iadie Hammerstad yor jH/sms a 3W,j "A" AVENUE March 20, 2002 POST OFFICE BOX 369 LAKE OSWEGO, OREGON 97034 503)635-0213 FAX f503) 697-6594 M.AYORGIcLoswego.orms George Veto 1900 Bonniebrae Drive Lake Oswego OR 97034 )UpIE o-1AMMERSTAD, MAYOR Dear Mr. Veto: GAY GRAHAM, COUNCILOR Thank you for applying for a position on the Natural Resources Advisory Board. Although you have not been selected to serve at TACK this time, we sincerely appreciate your interest in serving the COOUNCILUNCILORR community. ELLIE McPEAK, COUNCILOR The contributions made by people such as you are invaluable, and I hope that as other opportunities arise, you will offer your KARL RO services again. Please contact Shirley Schultz, at (503) 635-0215, if COUNCILLOROR you would like to receive information about future vacancies on BILL SCHOEN, the City's boards, commissions and committees; or, you can view COUNCILOR the City's current vacancies at http://www.ci.oswego.or.us/boardsNacancies/currentvacancies%20.htm yOHN TURCHI, COUNCILOR Sincerely, Jul i/effa Mayor JH/ sms k P 150 "A" AVENUE March 20, 2002 POST OFFICE BOX 369 LAKE OSWEGO, OREGON 97034 503)635-0213 FAX '503) 697-6594 i 4AYOR06,oswego.orms Thomas C Bland 3360 Fir Ridge Road Lake Oswego OR 97035-2645 IUDIB HAMMEIZSTALI, MAYOR Dear Mr. Bland: GAYGRAHAM, COUNCILOR Thank you for applying for a position on the Natural Resources Advisory Board. Although you have not been selected to serve at U4CKOUNCIL R this time, we sincerelyappreciate our interest in serving the COUNCILOR pp y community. El LIE MOTAK, COUNCILOR Thecontributions made by people such as you are invaluable, and KARL R(,I ID[, I hope that as other opportunities arise, you will offer your couNx 11 ()R services again. Please contact Shirley Schultz, at (503) 635-0215, if you would like to receive information about future vacancies on BILL SCI IOIN, the City's boards, commissions and committees; or, you can view Othe COUN( II R e City's current vacancies at http://www.ci.oswego.or.us/boards/Vacancies/currentvacancies%20.htm [JOHN Tl xRChll, COUNCILOR Sincerely, edie Hammerstad ayor jH/sms 4.2 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 03/19/02 AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY MEETING DATE: March 19, 2002 SUBJECT: Approval of Minutes from: 1. February 12, 2002, special meeting 2. February 19, 2002, morning meeting RECOMMENDED MOTION: Approve minutes as written (or as corrected if Council adds corrections to the motion) EST. FISCAL IMPACT: STAFF COST: $ BUDGETED: Y N FUNDING SOURCE: ATTACHMENTS: Minutes from: • February 12, 2002, special meeting • February 19, 2002, morning meeting N:\Robyn\report minutes.doe NOTICED (Date): Ordinance no.: Resolution no.: Previous Council consideration: C MANAGER signoff/date 4.2.1 03/19/02 MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 12, 2002 SPECIAL MEETING °{ LAM O!Wf CITY COUNCIL MINUTES February 12, 2002 al40. Mayor Judie Hammerstad called the special City Council meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. on February 12, 2002, in the City Council Chambers. Present: Mayor Hammerstad, Councilors Schoen Turchi, Graham, McPeak and Rohde. Councilor Hoffman was excused. Staff Present: Doug Schmitz, City Manager; David Powell, City Attorney; Robyn Christie, City Recorder; Jane Heisler, Associate Planner; Stephan Lashbrook, Community Development Director; Hamid Pishvaie, Development Review Manager; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney • CITIZEN COMMENT Mayor Hammerstad asked if any one wished to address the Council on any matter not on the agenda. There was not anyone. 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3.1 Recommendation from the Planning Commission for approval of a legislative text amendment to the Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan to include the Lake Forest Neighborhood Plan (LU 00-0023) David Powell, City Attorney, reviewed the standard land use hearing procedures for a legislative hearing and the testimony time limits. He asked the Council to declare any conflicts of interest. There were none. STAFF REPORT Jane Heisler, Community Planning Manager, presented the staff report. She reviewed the additional exhibits received by staff. more legible maps than in the packet, Fig 1-A (a map, Exhibit E-2), and Exhibit F-5 (an e-mail letter). She gave a PowerPoint presentation on the history and issues of the Lake Forest Neighborhood plan. Ms. Heisler mentioned that, after the neighborhood's application in 1995, the City selected the Lake Forest Neighborhood in 1998 to develop a plan (after the Forest Highlands Neighborhood), which the neighborhood completed in late 2000. She described the public process, including a six -member Steering Committee, three open houses in 1999, two neighborhood surveys (22% and 28% response returns) and a 12 -page newspaper containing the plan mailed to all property owners and residents. She noted that the Planning Commission held four meetings to review the plan; the Council Subcommittee on Neighborhood Planning also met several times to review the plan. Ms. Heisler reviewed the chapters with the main points in the plan. She discussed Goal 1, Citizen Involvement. She mentioned that Goal 2, Land Use Planning, was the most important chapter to the neighborhood leadership. She explained that a partition or subdivision required annexation to the city prior to development. She indicated that the plan stressed the need for substantial evidence to prove public need for zone and plan changes asking to increase commercial and high-density residential lands. She observed that the neighborhood survey found that the residents did not see a need for additional commercial land but preferred intensification of the existing commercial land. City Council Minutes Page l of 1 I February 12, 2002 - 17 Ms. Heisler discussed the plan's encouragement of County adoption of City codes, when those codes better protected the neighborhood. She mentioned that the second survey found that the majority preferred a variety of City services. She indicated that the Committee determined that annexation was the best method to provide those services. She noted the effort early in the process to change the Urban Growth Management Agreement (UGMA) with the County to have the County adopt the City regulations on tree -cutting and home occupations (with City administration). Ms. Heisler noted that if the County adopted the City's tree -cutting standards (Goal 5, Open Spaces), then the standards would apply to the entire neighborhood. She mentioned the neighborhoods desire to protect the inventoried city resources and to insure the re -planting of trees removed in the neighborhood. Ms. Heisler noted that Goal 9 addressed the requirement of evidence of substantial public need in any zone change to commercial, and required all new home businesses to meet City home occupation standards. She mentioned the emphasis in Goal 10, Housing, on maintaining a non- urban design of local streets and residential in}ill compatibility standards. She spoke of the neighborhood's support for improvements on major streets to encourage the traffic to use those streets over the local streets (Goal 12, Transportation), for a design for Carman Drive as a multi- modal transportation system, and for additional on street and off street pathways. Ms. Heisler discussed the issue of the neighborhood plan boundaries, referencing Figure 1-A and the shaded area to which the plan would apply. She pointed out that the Settlement & Annexation agreement governed the Kruse Way corridor. She indicated that the neighbors in the primarily residential area off Carman Drive (including Waluga Park) felt that the City's regulations and policies already protected them, and that they did not need the plan. Ms. Heisler recalled that the last time the City changed the neighborhood boundaries, Lake Forest, Waluga and Lake Grove agreed to shift the boundary to the middle of Boones Ferry Road, once the Council adopted the Waluga and Lake Forest plans. She indicated that staff thought it made sense to make that change at this time. Ms. Heisler discussed the suggested changes to policy language mentioned during the Council's January 29 study session. She noted the clarification on when annexation was required (amendments to Goal 2, Policy 1 — page 4). She mentioned adding other measures to encourage annexation as allowed by state law (Policy 7, page 5). She pointed out Exhibit F-3 (page 363), the outline of the plan implementation (including a time frame), and Exhibit F-4, the updated version of the UGMA with the County. COUNCIL QUESTIONS OF STAFF Councilor Rohde indicated that he understood the reasons for removing Kruse Way and Meadows Road from the neighborhood map but he questioned whether the belief of the residents in the other area, that they already had sufficient protection under the Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan, was the sole reason for removing that area from the neighborhood map. Ken Sandblast, Neighborhood Steering Committee Chair, confirmed the staff report that the plan partially adopted some City regulations for the county areas, while the city areas already had those regulations in effect. He indicated to Mayor Hammerstad that he was comfortable with the plan not applying throughout the neighborhood. Councilor Rohde asked why not remove all of the incorporated area within the neighborhood. Mr. Sandblast indicated to the Mayor that it was not a problem to include that area within the plan. He recalled that they selected the plan boundaries 6 years ago, during a time when there were boundary issues with the Waluga Neighborhood Association to the cast. Councilor Rohde asked if there were any special noticing requirements that would not allow the Council to adopt the plan this evening, if it expanded the plan boundaries. Mr. Powell indicated that the notice advertised adoption of the Lake Forest Neighborhood plan, which was probably City Council Minutes Page 2 of 1 I February 12, 2002 1 general enough to encompass this modification. Ms. Heisler mentioned that their notices went to properties outside the plan boundaries, including the properties under discussion. Councilor Rohde indicated to Councilor McPeak that the reason the neighborhood association boundaries were not the same as the plan boundaries was because the neighborhood boundary changed within the last two years as a result of the City revisiting the issue of neighborhood association boundaries. He commented that if they proceeded along the lines of the discussion, the two boundaries would now be the same. Mayor Hammerstad commented that the sentence on page 4 (The County adopted City regulations may be administered and enforced by the City for a limited time period, of no more than three years, until annexation of the unincorporated area occurred) was unclear and worded awkwardly. Mr. Powell suggested changing it to "until annexation occurs but in no event, more than three years." Mayor Hammerstad observed that the action plan in Exhibit F-3 did not include the development of an annexation plan for presentation to the unincorporated areas of the neighborhood. She recalled that this had been a bone of contention with the County Commissioners. She referenced a letter received from the County and volunteered to go with Mr. Sandblast and Ms. Schroyer to clarify what the plan was asking for, which was that the City would do the County's work for them. Mayor Hammerstad asked to see, within the next six months, a proposal for annexation developed by the neighborhood association. Mr. Sandblast said that he had no problem with that request, as the County Commissioners made it clear to the neighbors that they were not in the business of providing urban services nor were they interested in serving areas already planned for eventual inclusion into cities. He concurred with Mayor Hammerstad that the neighborhood by itself could not make annexation happen but they could work towards the goal of annexation. PUBLIC TESTIMONY Mayor Hammerstad opened the hearing to huhlic testimony. • Ken Sandblast, 16227 Kimball Street, bake Forest Neighborhood ;association Steering Committee Chair Mr. Sandblast noted that the neighborhood has worked on this plan for the last six plus years. He pointed out that the neighborhood was a mix of residential with limited commercial around the edges, and a mix of county and city jurisdiction, which made regulating the area complicated, especially with the increasing development pressures. Mr. Sandblast recalled that, when he moved into the neighborhood 8 years ago, the current effort had been to look at the transportation system; out of that work grew an effort to look at land use, lie discussed the survey taken by the neighborhood subcommittee to define the issues in the neighborhood. He indicated that the majority of respondents did not want to see commercial encroachment. He mentioned that the second major issue was trees and the natural environment while the third was transportation (cut through traffic, etc.) Mr. Sandblast recalled that, in their effort to figure out how to address the neighborhood issues within the competing jurisdictions, they found the City's neighborhood planning program as the appropriate vehicle. He explained that this neighborhood plan was the result of that six-year effort, which grew out of the neighbors' initial concerns about the future of the neighborhood. Mr. Sandblast indicated that Ms. Heisler did a good job reviewing the policies. He noted that the plan proposed leaving the transportation system as it was. He pointed out that the plan did not solve the individual circumstances of each problem but rather put policies in place to recognize that they were problems, so that they could be addressed in the future. He cited Carman Drive as an example, as it impacted the heart of the neighborhood. He mentioned the City Council Minutes Page 3 of 1 l February 12, 2002 19 plan policy that provided guidance for site specific problem resolutions, including inviting those impacted most by the problem to the table to have a say in resolving the situation. Mr. Sandblast discussed Goal 5, Natural resources. He mentioned the follow-up survey that the Steering Committee sent out to the neighborhood, after the people had a chance to review the plan. The majority of respondents restated the importance of trees and the interest in applying the City's tree regulations to the unincorporated areas. Mr. Sandblast commented that Goal 2, Land Use Planning, was the most important because it addressed the crux of the development pressure on the neighborhood. He pointed out that the plan strengthened the existing policies with respect to commercial encroachment, rather than changing them. He reiterated the neighborhood's position that it did not want any more commercial encroachment from Kruse Way or Boones Ferry; it wanted the residential area to stay a residential area. Mr. Sandblast emphasized that the plan did not rezone anyone's property nor did it annex any property into the city. He reiterated that the plan laid out the issues of concern to the neighborhood, and tried to strengthen the methods of addressing those concerns at the policy level of decision-making. He pointed out that the plan did not specify how annexation would occur but it did identify annexation as an issue of concern in this neighborhood with its mix of county and city properties. Mr. Sandblast commented that they realized through the process that there were financial incentives to annexation. He emphasized that the Steering Committee was very clear during the past six years that the plan was not an annexation plan but they did agree that the neighborhood and the City needed to discuss the issue of annexation. He noted the matrix laying out the responsibilities in continuing that discussion in a timely manner. Mayor Hammerstad thanked Mr. Sandblast for his years of work and leadership in keeping the neighborhood working together on the plan. She commented that the next step of informing the neighborhood in order to obtain buy -in was also an important step, which the City would like to help with. Mr. Sandblast observed that he did not do this by himself; it took a neighborhood group effort. He mentioned the high level of response they received when requesting feedback from the neighborhood. Mayor Hammerstad closed the public hearing. COUNCIL DISCUSSION Councilor Rohde moved adoption of the Lake Forest Neighborhood Plan (LU 00-023) (Exhibit F-1) with the amendment to the neighborhood plan map to include all lands not included in the Kruse Way agreement. Councilor McPeak seconded the motion. Councilor McPeak thanked Cathy Schroyer (who was not present) for her excellent work on bringing the plan to this point. Councilor Turchi commented that this has been a good effort of the City working in close association with this neighborhood to help it accomplish what it needed to accomplish. He expressed his hope that the adoption of this plan would lead to an even closer association between the City and the Lake Forest neighborhood in the future. Councilor Rohde indicated to Ms. Heisler that his motion included Exhibit I -A, with the boundary change at the southerly edge. Councilor Rohde observed that there were problems inherent in the Lake Forest Neighborhood plan, in as much as this was the first time that the City extended its neighborhood planning process into an unincorporated area. lie indicated that an overwhelming factor in his support of the plan was the opportunity to provide services to an area that would eventually annex to Lake Oswego, and thus protect the natural beauty of the community as a whole. City Council Minutes Page 4 of 1 I February 12, 2002 20 Mayor Hammerstad commented that it also set an example. She mentioned that other neighborhoods were looking at this plan and hoping to use the process to develop something similar. A roll call vote was taken and the motion passed with Mayor Hammerstad, Councilors Schoen, Turchi, Graham, McPrak and Rohde voting in favor. 16-01 Mr. Powell announced that this was a tentative decision of the City Council, which would become final upon adoption of the written findings and ordinance on March 5, 2002. 3.2 Recommendation from the Planning Commission to approve an amendment to the Zoning Code (LOC Chapter 481 and Development Code (LOC Chapter 491 to revise the standards for reviewing variance applications (LU 99-0059) Mayor Hammerstad read the hearing title. Mr. Powell reviewed the standard land use hearing procedures for a legislative hearing and the testimony time limits. He asked the Council to declare any conflicts of interest. There were none. STAFF REPORT Ilanid Pishvaie, Development Review Manager, recalled that this process started in May 1998 with Council direction to the planning staff to develop Code amendments to revise the standards for review of variance applications. He noted the Planning Commission hearings in April and May 2000, at which the Commission voted unanimously to send the ordinance with the proposed amendments to the variance criteria to the Council for consideration. He observed that the Council, at its recent study session, directed staff to develop a revised ordinance, which was substantially different form the original ordinance. Mr. Pishvaie said that the new ordinance established two variance classes: Class 1 (or minor variances), and Class 2. He explained that staff designed minor variances to provide relief to zoning code provisions up to 20% from the underlying standards. He noted that the specific standards designed for minor variances were simple and did not require much evidence or information from the applicant, as minor variances should have only minimal impact on neighboring properties. He mentioned the noticing provision. Mr. Pishvaie described Class 2 variances as `substantial departures from the underlying zones.' He noted that the staff proposal recommended retaining the existing Class 2 variance criteria. He discussed the procedural change for both classes: both would be reviewed by staff and subject to appeal to the Development Review Commission (DRC). Currently, staff reviewed Class 1 variances and the DRC held a public hearing on Class 2 variances. Mayor Hammerstad observed that the both the previous and current Council, as well as other reviewing bodies, have spent considerable time on this ordinance. She discussed her earlier suggestion to separate the minor variances from the major variances, citing the evidence provided to Council that, in the past six years, only 18 of the variances granted by the City have been Class 2 variances. Mayor Hammerstad conceded that sonic of the Class 1 variances granted during those six years would fall under the Class 2 category of the proposed ordinance. She mentioned the Council's hope that by making the Class 1 variances easier to obtain, applicants might reduce the amount of change they proposed for the use of their property and use the expedited process of Class 1 variances, as opposed to the more difficult Class 2 process. Mayor Hammerstad mentioned that the Council recently codified the change in notification to 300 feet, as requested by the neighborhoods. PUBLIC TESTIMONY Mayor Hammerstad opened the hearing to public testimony. City Council Minutes February 12, 2002 Page 5 of I 1 2. • Carolyne Jones, 2818 South Poplar Way Ms. Jones asked why the sign code was included under the variance code. Mr. Pishvaie explained that the sign code had its own variances and variance criteria, which were separate from the variances before the Council tonight. He said that the sign code variance process referred to the Class 1 variance section of the Zoning ordinance, and therefore, staff included a cross-reference to clarify the process. He emphasized that it had nothing to do with the criteria. Mayor Hammerstad closed the public hearing. COUNCIL DISCUSSION Councilor McPeak moved to approve LU 00-0059 and to direct staff to prepare findings and Ordinance 2314 for adoption. Councilor Turchi seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken and the motion passed with Mayor Hammerstad, Councilors Schoen, Turchi, Graham, McPeak and Rohde voting in favor. 16-01 Mr. Powell announced that this was a tentative decision of the City Council, which would become final upon adoption of the written findings and ordinance on March 5, 2002. • The Council considered Item 4.2 at this time. 4. OTHER BUSINESS 4.1 Study session on an amendment to the Lake Oswego Zoning Code to add new provisions relating to long-term care housing (LU 99-0070) Mayor Hammerstad announced that the Council would hold a public hearing on this item on February 19, 2002. Ms. Heisler recalled that the Council sent this item back to the Planning Commission in September 2000 because it felt that restricting these types of uses to arterial streets was too restrictive, and because of concerns that the design standards were too restrictive. She referenced the memo relaying the Planning Commission's further discussion regarding restricting these uses to arterials. She noted that the Planning Commission has since recommended extending the locations to collector streets, thus increase the potential area for locating these uses. Ms. Heisler reviewed the reasons why the Planning Commission felt that its recommendation about the design standards should stand. She mentioned that this type of housing was denser than the underlying zone and thus could impact the adjacent neighborhoods. She pointed out that this type of housing was already subject to similar building design standards, including the ones for buffering and screening; these standards were not more cumbersome than what already existed, rather they were more tailored to residential types of buildings. Mayor Hannnerstad pointed out that only sonic of the members of this Council sat for the 2000 public hearing. Ms. Heisler discussed the Planning Commission recommendation to include `congregate housing' or multi -unit housing with self-contained apartments, which could also provide meals, laundry, etc., but which did not include many of the other support services associated with long- term care housing. She said that the Commission recommended that it be a conditional use. Ms. Heisler indicated to Councilor Graham that the 745 acres referenced on page 30 as potential land for special use housing were located within the city limits, and included zones that allowed the use outright on half an acre parcels or more. She noted that the 745 acres included lands already developed with viable uses. She mentioned that in the last 10 years, the City has approved only two proposals for special use housing. City Council Minutes Page 6 of I 1 February 12, 2002 - -"2 Ms. Heisler indicated to Councilor Graham that she has not been able to obtain any aging population projections for the next 10 years. She commented that she expected to see that segment of the population continue to grow, as it has in the 1990s. Councilor Graham commented that it would be helpful to know what the City faced in the next 10 years in order to forge ahead accurately. Councilor Graham referenced page 33, relating to the February 19 meeting. She asked if Part B meant that if she and her neighbor wanted to combine their properties for a development, they would need to get a variance. Mr. Powell clarified that Section 15 discussed the standards for residential care and congregate housing, with Section A listing the characteristics required for any site to be used for that kind of housing. He explained that Part B meant that if there were multiple parcels in joint ownership proposed as the site for the housing, those multiple lots were considered as a collective site, and one did not need to analyze the lots separately. Ms. Heisler confirmed to Councilor Graham that someone could combine two adjacent quarter acre parcels into a half -acre site but the parcels had to be under one ownership. Councilor Graham asked if the requirement for 40% maximum lot coverage (Part D, page 33) accommodated the 30 plus unit building needed for profitability. Ms. Heisler noted that the 40% was an increase from the 25% required for single family residential. She indicated that she was not certain what kind of analysis was done for this project, which she inherited, with respect to lot coverage. She confirmed that 60% of the lot was for open space, courtyards and parking. Ms. Heisler indicated to Councilor Rohde that the adult care facility on Sunset, across the street from the Lake Grove Presbyterian Church, would not be allowed under this ordinance, as it was not on a neighborhood collector. Councilor Rohde indicated that he thought that was a problem, given that the Sunset facility was within walking distance of stores and a church. Ms. Heisler invited Dan Vizzini, the Planning Commission Chair, to answer the Councilor's concern. She mentioned that the prior Council had the same sticking point on finding the balance between not disrupting neighborhoods while still allowing these facilities in locations that would allow people to age in place. Mr. Vizzini stated that the Planning Commission's primary concern was the placement of structures, which looked like apartment buildings, in single-family residential neighborhoods. He indicated that the 24-hour activity that occurred at many of these facilities led the Commission to prefer to site them on the fringes of neighborhoods. Mr. Vizzini stated that the Commission saw this as a balancing act. He indicated that the Commission took the Council's guidance about expanding the location opportunities by including major and neighborhood collectors as potential locations. He commented that he personally still felt uncomfortable with allowing a neighborhood collector location because that placed large volume buildings in single-family residential neighborhoods. He mentioned that the Commission did not discuss nor would it likely support placing these facilities on local service streets. Mr. Vizzini indicated to Councilor McPeak that their compromise expanded the opportunities significantly, given the number of neighborhood collector streets versus arterials only. Councilor McPeak questioned what `aging in place' meant. Using herself as an example, she commented that she would characterize moving half a mile away from her present home to a neighborhood collector as `aging in place,' as she would still be living in her neighborhood. She described that as a reasonable compromise. Mr. Vizzini indicated that the Commission understood the need and desire of seniors to move from their single-family homes to a group home setting within the community. He explained that they drew the line on location because of the size and activity level of these kinds of facilities. Fie pointed out that if someone wished to stay within the neighborhood, there were foster care facilities allowed on local service streets in neighborhoods, which looked like homes. City Council Minutes Page 7 of 1 I February 12, 2002 � 3 N Mr. Vizzini reiterated that it had not made sense to the Commission to locate an apartment building in a neighborhood. He described their recommendation as providing the balance that the Commission wanted to achieve between protecting the neighborhood character and quality of life as much as possible while still promoting these kinds of uses. Councilor McPeak recalled that she had not been happy with the recommended design standards the last time this came before the Council. She indicated that her concern had focused on their specificity, rather than their being cumbersome, and the likelihood that each facility would look like it belonged in the East End. She noted that the Commission did not change the design standards at all. Mr. Vizzini stated that the Commission felt that the design standards were necessary to strike the balance between allowing a higher volume structure in residential neighborhoods and encouraging the facilities to be good neighbors with the single family homes surrounding them. Councilor McPeak commented that she was sorry that the Commission did not open the design up to cutting edge designs, which would still be approved in the process. Councilor Graham observed that the Carman Oaks retirement community on Carman Drive with the assisted living next door and businesses and single-family homes across the street seemed to work well. She asked what the zoning was. Ms. Heisler indicated that it was zoned R-3. She confirmed that the ordinance would allow the Carman Oaks facility because it was on a collector. Mr. Vizzini observed that the original proposal would not have allowed the facility because it was not on an arterial. Councilor Schoen recalled that one of the major complaints on the previous Council was that the original proposal would not have allowed the Carman Oaks facility, which was a great addition to the community. He pointed out that this new proposal to include major and neighborhood collectors still would not allow a facility at the Armory property, which would be an ideal location for this type of facility. Councilor Schoen discussed his concerns with the restrictions on design, observing that these kinds of facilities needed to have some efficiencies in order to be profitable, while also fitting in with the neighborhood. He questioned the 40% lot coverage requirement, wondering if it could be increased in the interests of efficiency. He mentioned that his house, located in a low-density residential area, covered more than 40% of the lot. Mayor Hammerstad commented that there was probably a floor area ratio requirement in order to satisfy all the needs for an assisted living situation. She spoke of needing ambulance parking spaces as well as parking for visitors. She described the assisted living facility in West Linn where her mother lived as a large lot in a residential neighborhood with most of the parking hidden from view. She mentioned the beautiful landscaping, which served (lie facility residents who had no other place to enjoy the outdoors. She indicated that she did not think that it took up 40% of the lot. Mr. Vizzini referenced the testimony that the Commission heard from one individual who had been actively studying this issue for a potential development. He pointed out that it was likely that someone would need a lot that was larger than half an acre to accommodate the number of units and to provide the screening and buffering to the surrounding neighborhood, which was why the Commission felt that 40% lot coverage was more than adequate for economic viability. Mr. Vizzini explained that they put in the half -acre lot minimum because the ordinance covered a variety of special housing uses, including smaller facilities. He reiterated that a facility providing various levels of care would be larger and located on a larger lot. Councilor Schoen asked if they should segregate long-term care from assisted living, as they had different requirements. Ms. Heisler said that the only zone that allowed continuing care retirement centers was the Marylhurst zone, where 25% of a facility in the long-term care housing category could be in skilled nursing. City Council Minutes Page 8 of I 1 February 12, 2002 24 2 Councilor Rohde asked why the design standards included pitched roofs and eliminated flat roofs. He argued that there was a problem in having design guidelines that were too restrictive and did not allow architectural innovation or an architectural style beloved throughout the world. fie indicated that, while the changes in location criteria met his expectations, the roof issue was still a major concern of his, and he was not certain whether he could overcome his objections to support the ordinance. Mr. Vizzini explained that the Commission had intended the standards to avoid the boxy, institutional look of large buildings in residential neighborhoods, and to encourage sufficient variation in the look of large buildings to fit in with the neighborhood criteria. He pointed out that most residences in Lake Oswego had pitched roofs. Councilor Rohde asked to add the Council minutes from the September 2000 meeting to the packet before the public hearing. Councilor Graham referenced the letter received in December by the Planning Commission from Jack Sullivan. She asked for elaboration on Mr. Sullivan's comment about the state imposing a moratorium on licensing projects, such as assisted living facilities. Ms. Heisler explained that apparently there have been financial failures of assisted living facilities; the state instituted the two-year moratorium last October on these types of uses until it could review what was going on in the industry. She mentioned that the moratorium did not affect congregate care. Mayor Hammerstad asked if the ordinance recognized that assisted living might be overbuilt at this time and allowed for such developments when the moratorium was over or was it looking for a loophole to build more of these facilities inconsistently with the moratorium reasoning. Ms. Heisler said no. She pointed out that staff crafted the ordinance before the moratorium. She described the ordinance as structured the way it was in order to recognize that the larger facilities seemed able to function better. Mr. Vizzini commented that most of the facilities he expected to be built under this ordinance still had to go through the state licensing requirements. He clarified that the Commission had been primarily interested in how to locate the facilities and how to build them compatibly with the community. Councilor Turchi asked for clarification on the map showing the potential locations for these facilities. Ms. Heisler clarified that the green areas showed where special use housing was allowed outright and the magenta areas showed the areas where it was allowed as a conditional use. She observed that the map included areas, such as open spaces and the Lake Oswego High School campus, which would probably not be developed. Ms. Heisler confirmed to Councilor Turchi that the location did depend on the underlying zone as well as the size of the lot and the street classification. She noted that special use housing was an outright allowed use in high-density zones. She indicated that the Councilor's example of a large lot on the corner of Knaus and Goodall was unlikely as a location because it was in a low density zone; the criteria for low density zones required a predominant pattern of higher intensity uses (page 32). Mr. Vizzini directed attention to the map for Special Use Housing Alternative 2, which included blue dots representing institutional and higher intensity uses. He pointed out that, while Knaus and Goodall were neighborhood collectors, they had no proximity to a pre-existing institutional or higher intensity use. Councilor Mel'eak asked staff to provide a different text regarding the design standards, something that was workable but imposed less uniformity. Councilor Schoen referenced the maps that showed the locations where special use housing was currently allowed outright and where it was allowed under the proposal. Iie pointed out that the amount available shrunk under the proposed ordinance. He commented that lie thought they were trying to expand the number of locations by including the neighborhood collectors. City Council Minutes Page 9 of 11 February 12, 2002 '� J Ms. Heisler explained that the first map showed the current areas where special use housing was allowed outright; the second map, which came with the previous proposal for arterials only, showed the areas where it was allowed outright and as a conditional use. She noted that map 3 (Alternative 1, Exhibit E-3) of the current proposal showed the major and neighborhood collectors while the final map showed the arterials and the collectors (page 53). She observed that the final map included more than the Planning Commission's original arterials only proposal but less than what was allowed under the current standards. Mr. Vizzini recalled that the Planning Commission received substantial testimony at its public hearings from neighborhood residents concerned about not placing these large facilities in neighborhoods. He explained that the Commission's starting point had been that the Code allowed for too much of an intrusion into residential neighborhoods; therefore, its first attempt had been to ratchet it down to arterials only. He indicated that the Commission's intent had not been to preserve the number of acres where the current Code allowed the use. Mr. Vizzini emphasized that, because of the testimony it heard, the Commission knew going into its discussion that it would restrict the number of acres available to locate these facilities. He described the real question, after the Commission made the first cut, as whether to broaden the location criteria to reset the balance in a way that would allow more facilities in more parts of town while still addressing the issues raised by the neighborhoods. Ms. Heisler recalled that the Commission spent considerable time discussing various locations where special use housing might or might riot be allowed. She mentioned their thinking that if the standards did not allow the use in a particular place, which seemed like a good location, then the zone change process would be available to upzone land to a higher density. She cited Avamere's pursuit of a zone change to a higher density in order to get the number of units they needed for economic viability. Ms. Heisler indicated to Councilor Graham that she did not know what Clackamas County's regulations were on special use housing. Councilor Rohde asked if these facilities could only go on neighborhood collectors that had blue dots near them. Ms. Heisler indicated that there was discretion there for the DRC to determine how many blue dots constituted a predominant pattern. She commented that one could argue that the Councilor's example of an assemblage of property on Knaus Road at Atwater, near the park and in walking distance to a church, was an available location for a facility. Mr. Vizzini pointed out that the park represented a more intense use in the neighborhood. Councilor Rohde asked if staff considered making the process easy to locate on arterials but a more difficult to locate on neighborhood collectors. He observed that the conditions applied to neighborhood collectors (in order to protect the residential quality of the neighborhoods) seemed also to apply to the arterials. Ms. Heisler indicated that staff did not look at that but it was another way to craft it. Councilor Rohde asked staff to make that change. Mayor Hammerstad noted that the Council was not taking action on this item tonight but would hold its public hearing next Tuesday. She instructed the Councilors to contact Ms. Heisler if they needed more information. She asked that staff provide each Councilor with a zoning map. 4.2 Resolution 02-10, adopting a selection policy for purchasing a work of art front the Arts Downtown exhibit. Kim Gilmer, Parks & Recreation Director, noted that the policy was a compilation of all the comments made by the Council and the Arts Commission over the last two months with respect to purchasing artwork from the Arts Downtown exhibit. Councilor McPeak discussed the revisions she suggested to the policy as written. She indicated that the revisions under Purpose, third item, was solely a style correction to the wording and did City Council Minutes Page 10 of 11 February 12, 2002 N not change the meaning. She pointed out her deliberate reference in Selection Process, item 2, to downtown sites, and to the possibility of needing to select more than one potential site. She recalled the Council's discussion that the selection committee clearly understand that the piece would be sited in the downtown. Ms. Gilmer asked if this policy would preclude the Arts Commission purchasing a work of art from Arts Downtown for a site that was not in the downtown area. Mayor Hammerstad observed that this issue was a bone of contention. She mentioned the comments received by the City about extending the Arts Downtown to the Lake Grove area or elsewhere in town. She commented that, as the exhibit matured or time passed or they obtained more money, the Council might do so. Mayor Hammerstad explained that a primary intent of the Arts Commission in establishing the Arts Downtown exhibit was to create a walking tour in the downtown. She said that the Arts Commission felt that expanding the exhibit to the Lake Grove or Kruse Way area would dilute the impact of the art (i.e., placing 5 of the 20 pieces outside the downtown area). She held that it was disrespectful for the Council, which depended upon its advisory boards and commissions, to disregard the purpose of what the Commission was trying to do; therefore, the Council agreed to restrict the exhibit to the downtown for the time being. She reiterated that in the future, they might be able to expand the exhibit. Councilor McPeak concurred with the Mayor's summary. She spoke of her hope to develop a program outside the downtown area on the west side of town, when they had additional funding available. She described the Arts Commission's point of view as a fair one, which the City could do at this time, with the hope of doing more later. Mayor Hammerstad referenced Section 3, Selection Committee Process. She asked about the Council seeing and approving the selection criteria (developed by the Commission). Councilor McPeak spoke in support of leaving the selection up to the Arts Commission, as that was their job. She commented that she really wanted the selection to be a public choice. She stated her opinion that the Public Art Committee was better able to make that judgment than the Council was. Councilor Turchi moved to adopt Resolution 02-10, a resolution of the City Council of Lake Oswego adopting a selection policy for purchase of work of art for the Arts Downtown exhibit (Exhibit A, dated February 12, 2002). Councilor Schoen seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken and the motionap ssed with Mayor Hammerstad, Councilors Schoen, Turchi, Graham, McPeak and Rohde voting in favor. 16-01 5. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Hammerstad adjourned the meeting at 7:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Robyn Chri, ie City Recorder APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: ON Judie Hammerstad, Mayor City Council Minutes February 12, 2002 Page 11 of 11 4.2.2 03/19/02 MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 19, 2002 MORNING MEETING CITY COUNCIL MINUTES February 19, 2002 q[WN Mayor Judie Hammerstad called the special City Council meeting to order at 7:32 a.m. on February 19, 2002, in the City Council Chambers. Present: Mayor Hammerstad, Councilors Turchi, Graham, McPeak, Rohde and Schoen. Councilor Hoffman was excused. Staff Present: Doug Schmitz, City Manager; David Powell, City Attorney; Robyn Christie, City Recorder; Jane Heisler, Community Planning Manager; Sidaro Sin, Associate Planner; Denny Egner, Long Range Planning Manager 3. REVIEW FVENING AGENDA Mayor Hammerstad informed the Council that two applicants to the Library Advisory Board did not live within the city limits. She noted that the appointee lived in Clackamas County, which was the taxing district that contributed to the library. She commented that they needed to include in the Library Board selection process a statement that appointees had to live in either the city or Clackamas County. The Council discussed residency requirements for Boards and Commissions. Councilor McPeak commented that there were a couple of other Boards and Commissions that allowed non -city residents. Mayor Hammerstad concurred with Councilor Graham that they should have consistent requirements for the Boards and Commissions. She suggested setting the urban services boundary as the residency requirement boundary. Mayor Hammerstad asked the City Attorney to look at the issue and to bring back language implementing her suggestion. David Powell, City Attorney, indicated that lie would also outline which Boards and Commissions required residency and which ones did not. Councilor Rohde commented for the record that he did not think this was the most important thing for Mr. Powell to work on. Councilor McPeak mentioned a correction to the minutes on page 64: Bend's population was 50,000, and not 60,000. Item 7.1 Public Hearing on Meadows Road annexation Sidaro Sin, Associate Planner, indicated to Councilor Graham that there were four or five more parcels left along this road. Mayor Hammerstad commented that Spieker properties wanted to build their biggest building on their parcel on Meadows Road. Doug Schmitz, City Manager, clarified to Councilor Graham that Spieker wanted to build an 8 -story building on the property adjacent to the five -story Hilton Hotel. Mr. Schmitz indicated to Councilor Graham that the tax revenue generated on the $l0 million assessed value of these properties would be $24,000 on 5300 and $9,000 on 5800; the tax revenue off 5800 would increase once the developer completed the improvements on the inside. Councilor Turchi commented that the three parcels up for annexation had a combined value of around $14 million. Mr. Schmitz clarified that the $4.70 per $1,000 tax rate depended on which special districts rclained their jurisdiction. Councilor Turchi observed that the tax revenue would be somewhere in the $60,000 range. City Council Morning Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 1 I February 19, 2002 3 1 Item 7.3 Long-term Care Housing Mr. Powell briefed the Council on the amended language for the criteria for siting (page 147- 149). He recalled the Council's concern with `cookie cutter' or standard design type requirements. He reviewed the language that gave the Development Review Commission the discretion to apply or not to apply the stated design elements or standards. Mr. Powell discussed his concern that the language implied that the DRC could not impose any other design requirements, such as conditions of approval, to achieve the residential character and theme. He reviewed the two alternative language suggestions to address this concern. fle explained that the staff would use the language in the first alternative throughout the document: "the reviewing authority may impose conditions of approval including but not limited to ..." Mr. Powell indicated that the second alternative was to take out the listing in subsections 1, 2 and 3 on page 147, which opened it up to broad discretion. He said that the staff's preference was for a middle road approach, which was to keep the list but to make it clear that the criteria included the list but was not limited to the list. He commented that the DRC wanted some guidelines. Dennis Egner, Long Range Planning Manager, mentioned that the staff preference worked with the language offered by the 1'1anning Commission. Councilor Rohde indicated to Mayor Hammerstad that the staff preference on this issue was fine but he was still having troubles with the road designation issue. Mr. Powell indicated to Councilor Graham that striking out the third subsection under Section I (page 148) deleted the pitched roof requirement entirely. Mayor Hammerstad indicated to Councilor McPeak that the Infill Task Force only addressed residential structures. Mr. Powell commented that the Task Force was consciously trying not to bite off more than it could chew in this first effort. Councilor Rohde asked for an updated map showing all the neighborhood collectors. Councilor Schoen asked why did the Council decide to change this ordinance. He recalled that the original Council had asked the Commission to broaden the locations where these facilities could be built but this proposal limited the location possibilities. Ms. Heisler said that staff could not find anything on the direction given by Council. She mentioned her hunch that there were some property owners with certain kinds of developments in mind who were working with staff at the same time that staff was working on this project. Councilor Rohde recalled that, during the Planning Commission review of the Avamere development, there were many questions about the Council addressing the issue of siting because it had been a contentious issue. He speculated that staff took it upon themselves to do this, and not at Council direction. Councilor Schoen mentioned that he did not recall the Council requesting these amendments. Ms. Heisler confirmed to Mayor Hammerstad that right now the Code allowed special use housing facilities anywhere in high-density zones (R-0, R-3 and R-5), such as Westlake and First Addition, Councilor Schoen referenced Mr. Sullivan's comments that residential property would not develop as special use housing because it was more valuable as residential property. Councilor McPeak commented that she understood from reading the report that the Planning Commission thought it gave the Council a possibility to make construction of these facilities more acceptable around the city by pinning down what was allowed within the neighborhoods. Mayor Hammerstad observed that the Planning Commission also sought to protect the residential neighborhoods from having these facilities sited within them. Councilor Schoen noted that that was then the Council said that it wanted them sited in residential neighborhoods. Councilor Rohde concurred. City Council Morning Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 11 February 19, 2002 3 Councilor McPeak asked if the City currently met the state and federal government requirements or where there other ways in which it had to change these standards. Ms. Heisler indicated that between the three categories of "special use housing," "institutional use," and "public facility use," the City could fit in any of these kinds of developments. She commented that the Planning Commission had also been trying to respond to the industry, which now said that an operator needed x number of units to be successful; lifting the cap on the density and density bonus addressed that issue. Ms. Heisler confirmed to Councilor Turchi that the City allowed `special use housing' outright in every zone based on certain criteria. She concurred that the definition of "six or more people living in either individual units or as one housekeeping unit with a variety of disabilities or handicaps" could encompass the Christie School. Mr. Schmitz observed that the Council could kill this amendment if it wanted but that would damage the relationship between the Council and the Planning Commission. I-Ic advised the Council, if it wanted to kill it, that it would be more politick to continue the item until it could tell the Planning Commission. He mentioned that the Commission has put a lot of work into this amendment over the past 1.5 years. Mayor Hammerstad commented that she thought that the Commission did come up with a good balance in giving the City some latitude yet protecting the neighborhoods. She noted that there were probably enough votes to pass it. She suggested holding the discussion tonight and moving forward. She indicated that she did not want a discussion and then the Council not pass it, because that did not look good. She asked anyone changing his/her mind to call her during the day. Councilor McPeak indicated that she was still dubious about the design requirements. Mayor Hammerstad summarized the Council discussion as proceeding with the stall,preference to use the language of `included but not limited to.' Councilor McPeak indicated that that was satisfactory. Mr. Egner mentioned that staff took `predominant' out of the criterion that said `neighborhood collector with a predominant pattern of institutional and higher intensity uses;' a developer only had to show evidence of a pattern of institutional uses in a neighborhood. Ms. Heisler indicated that that was to address Councilor Rohde's concern about making it easier to develop on an arterial and tougher to develop on a neighborhood collector. Councilor McPeak asked for clarification on the different amounts of acreage shown on the maps for possible locations (Section F, page 102). Ms. Heisler explained that the best staff could discern, under the current special use housing title, the City had 754 acres of eligible properties; the restriction to arterials dropped that number down to 429 acres while the addition of other classifications increased it. She confirmed to the Mayor that that did not mean that the eligible properties were undeveloped. Councilor McPeak recalled Councilor Schoen's point that this proposal was more restrictive in one sense than what the City had now. Ms. Heisler pointed out that, even with this theoretical supply of 745 acres, tiie City has had few proposals in the last 10 years. She speculated that the Commission's thinking had been that allowing larger facilities on the fringes might create more interest in this type of development. Councilor Turchi observed that the current proposal was less restrictive than the proposal that the Council sent back but more restrictive than leaving things the way they were. Councilor Rohde agreed that the Commission did broaden their proposal per the Council's request, as the original proposal allowed locations on arterials only. Ms. Heisler confirmed to Councilor Rohde that if the City built a new library and sold the old library to someone wanting to turn it into a special use care facility, the purchaser could not do City Council Morning Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 1 I February 19, 2002 .J J that under this proposal. She observed that it could not be done under the existing Cade either, as special use housing had to abut a high-density zone. Item 8 Information from the Council Councilor Rohde indicated that he would review the highlights of the 14 points on which JPACT would be lobbying in Washington, D.C. Mayor Hammerstad suggested that he explain why it was necessary to go to Washington to do this kind of lobbying. Councilor Graham indicated that she had some announcements. Councilor Rohde mentioned that Rita Earhart, a Lake Oswego citizen, won the Alice B. Toe Clips award. Item 8.1.1 TAB recommendation Mayor Hammerstad indicated that, while she understood why the traffic engineers wanted to remove the crosswalk, she did not understand why the City was doing it. She commented that she saw no reason to remove the crosswalk. Councilor Graham concurred. Mayor Hammerstad asked for discussion at the meeting tonight. Councilor Schoen pointed out that the City has not funded Phase 2 and 3, as its funding was based on the availability of street funds. Mr. Schmitz mentioned that the funding source for pedestrian improvements was in the budget for this year. Councilor Schoen questioned whether they wanted to spend $53,000 on this project or on something else. He agreed with Councilor Graham that they did not need to do the whole project at this time. Mayor Hammerstad noted that the discussion tonight included whether to spend the $53,000 on Phases 1 through 3. She indicated that she preferred to do Phases 2 and 3 and to leave Phase 1 (the crosswalk) in place. Mr. Powell confirmed that leaving the crosswalk in had no effect. Councilor McPeak questioned whether leaving the crosswalk in created a greater liability for the City by creating a false sense of security in the pedestrian, who then was hit by a car. Mayor liammerstad pointed out that they heard the same argument from traffic engineers about putting in stop signs. She argued that they probably had the same liability at an intersection with or without a crosswalk. Councilor Rohde mentioned that Oregon law gave pedestrians the right - of' -way at any intersection, whether or not it had a marked crosswalk. • Arts Commission policy Mr. Powell indicated to Councilor McPeak that he would mention under his report that the Arts Commission resolution allowed additional purchases outside the Arts Downtown program. Councilor McPeak reported that the Public Arts Committee chair presented a memo at the last Arts Commission meeting with the PAC recommendations regarding the Council policy. She said that she mentioned that the memo was a little late but that the Council would consider the recommendations when it revised the policy. Councilor McPeak relayed PAC's question of whether there was any problem with purchasing an art piece from the Arts Downtown exhibit under their normal process outlined in the Percent for Art guidelines. She indicated that her quick answer had been that she did not see a problem but she would talk to the Council. Mayor Hammerstad commented that they did not want to exclude Arts Downtown. Councilor Graham spoke to staff providing a brief explanation of where the money came from, as many citizens Nvere unclear with respect to the Percent for Art program versus tourism dollars. Mr. Powell indicated that he could do so. Councilor McPeak questioned whether tonight was the right context for that explanation, as they were not purchasing art but rather setting up the process to purchase art. City Council Morning Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 11 February 19, 2002 34 Mayor Hammerstad spoke to waiting on the explanation until the time of a purchase. She acknowledged to Councilor McPeak that the Council had nothing to do with the purchase process itself but observed that it would be nice if the Arts Commission provided pictures and a report to the Council on what it was buying. She agreed that that would be a more appropriate time to provide a public explanation of where the money came from. 4. REVIEW FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Mayor Hammerstad mentioned the letter she wrote to LONAC informing the organization that the Council passed two neighborhood plans, and inviting the members to the March 12 neighborhood planning meeting. The Council discussed when to reschedule the neighborhood planning meeting, as three Councilors would not be in town on March 12. Mayor Hammerstad indicated that they would find a date. Mr. Schmitz announced that the Council would not hold its quarterly meeting with the School District for the first quarter of this year. He mentioned the possibility of ex parte contacts for the Council, given the District's pending land use application and a potential appeal to the Council. 5. OTHER BUSINESS 5.1 Mayor's Update Mayor Hammerstad mentioned the article in the Lake Oswego Review this morning. She indicated that the reporter reported the information in a straightforward manner but the salary increases looked huge. • Upcoming conferences Mayor Hammerstad reviewed the information that she has received on various upcoming conferences. She said that Shirley had the information on the second day of the Metro regional conference (March 15-16). She mentioned the 2002 Downtown Solutions Conference and Awards, sponsored by the Oregon Downtown Development Association in Eugene on April 25- 26, which she thought has some interesting topics pertinent to the Lake Oswego downtown. Mayor Hammerstad mentioned that Lake Oswego would participate in contests this year, including Livable Cities and America in Bloom. She advised the Council of a suggestion she heard to coordinate the basket flower colors with the median strip colors. She commented that she did not see color coordination as necessary, as the baskets were beautiful the way they were, but she did not object. Councilor Schoen indicated an interest in the Urban Forestry Summit, sponsored by the Forest Service and Arboriculture, on March 8 at the Holiday Inn in Wilsonville. • Eagle Wilderness letter Mayor Hammerstad referenced the Eagle Wilderness letter, to which she received a variety of responses from the Councilors. She indicated that she would check with the staff at a couple of conferences and find out from the natural resources people what the issues were in order to determine whether there was any reason for Lake Oswego to get involved with this issue. Councilor Schoen mentioned that he opposed the letter on principle, citing the `tree -sitters' who have blocked the proposal for a long time. He recalled that the City looked at this as part of the Clackamas River Basin Council, and could not find anything wrong with the Forest Services management of the area. Councilor Turchi indicated that he has not been happy with the Forest Service management of the area up until the last two years, when it appeared that the Service was trying. He spoke to encouraging the Forest Service's efforts rather than discouraging their efforts. Councilor City Council Morning Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 11 February 19, 2002 35 Schoen argued that the point was that the Forest Service put together a plan that exceeded what was needed for the area and the opponents were still fighting it. Councilor 'Turchi commented that he tended to agree. Councilor Rohde recalled that the only reason Lake Oswego had "a dog in this fight" was because the opponents suggested that this affected the City's water quality, which was not true. He indicated that having a personal political stance on the issue was fine, but he did not see the City of Lake Oswego taking a stance on behalf of its residents. Mayor Hammerstad commented that she did not get involved in the myriad of issues that came to her as Mayor unless the issue had a direct relationship to Lake Oswego. • Mike Burton letter Mayor Hammerstad referenced the Mike Burton letter, which was a plea to the Council to back his proposal to use an increase in the solid waste excess tax of $1 per ton (which raised $1.23 million) to pay for the maintenance of the parks and open spaces that Metro inherited from Multnomah County or purchased using the bond money. She explained that the lowering of the tipping fees meant that the excise tax was not bringing in as much revenue as it used to; the excise tax on top of the tipping fees and enterprise funds was how Metro funded its organization. Mayor Hammerstad noted Mr. Burton's estimated cost of 5 to 7 cents per month for a 32 - gallon can. She compared this to a street utility fee, in that it was one way to get a small amount of money from each resident. She cornmented that some would say that this was supporting parks on garbage, which was like the City supporting streets on utilities. Mayor Hammerstad spoke to putting Mr. Burton's request on a future agenda, if the Council had any interest in supporting it. Councilor Schoen commented that, while it was probably the right thing to do, it was another tax on which people have not voted. He spoke to the people voting on what level of tax they wanted to fund Metro's operations. Mayor Hammerstad held that that would be like the City putting the street utility fee to a vote. She noted that Metro had the authority under its charter to levy this tax, and its current taxing level was nowhere near the amount allowed under the charter. Councilor Rohde commented that he was trying to find the nexus between open space preservation, operating wilderness camps, etc., and garbage. He argued that it was different from the street utility fee because the street utility fee was based on the number of trips per day generated by the use on the site, which related to the maintenance of the roads accessed by those making the trips. Councilor Rohde reiterated that he did not understand using a portion of what someone paid for garbage services to pay for open space maintenance. Mayor Hammerstad pointed out that this excise tax was Metro's only source of funding. Councilor Rohde emphasized that he did not think this was a good idea, regardless of how he felt about it being Metro's only source of funding. Councilor Turchi discussed the history of Metro coming up with this suggestion. He said that Metro put together a committee with representatives from the cities, private individuals and interest groups. This committee met 15 times and considered a variety of different funding sources, including a property tax levy; it decided that this was Metro's only source. He pointed out that the $95 million voted for property acquisition could only be used for property acquisition, which left Metro with no funding to maintain or develop the properties it purchased. Councilor Turchi conceded that Councilor Rohde made a good point with respect to a nexus between the funding source and the funding use. He spoke to taking a more pragmatic approach. He suggested that this was a relatively painless way to provide Metro with the funding it needed to maintain the property it acquired with the approval of the voters of the almost $100 million bond measure. City Council Morning Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 11 February 19, 2002 :SG Councilor McPeak concurred with Councilor Turchi, while acknowledging that Councilor Rohde made a logically valid point about the nexus. She argued that the nexus for the street utility fee was loose, as demonstrated by those who wrote in to question why they should pay a utility fee for roads when they did not own a car. She said that she was comfortable publicly supporting this important kind of spending for the community for such a low cost. Councilor Graham concurred, noting that this was one of very few avenues available. She pointed out that a levy would certainly be shot down. Mayor Hammerstad commented that this small amount of money did not qualify for a levy. She indicated to Councilor Schoen that Metro had talked about additional funding for open space as well. Mayor Hammerstad confirmed to Councilor Rohde that the letter did say that this was a temporary source to bridge the gap between now and getting a levy on the ballot to pay for the maintenance. Councilor Rohde spoke to Metro pursing a levy and tying it in with its successful measure to purchase open space in the first place. He observed that it would likely pass, at barely a penny per $1,000 across the region. Councilor Schoen reiterated that lie thought it was the right thing to do, but pointed out that Metro had made a big issue of its restructuring the garbage and tipping fees to reduce the fees; now it turned around and re -taxed, even if only for a small amount. Mayor Hammerstad said that she would put the letter on the March 5 agenda. • Miscellaneous Issues Mayor Hammerstad mentioned receiving a letter from Congresswoman Hooley asking for suggestions on appropriations requests ($300,000 to $1 million local projects). She suggested projects that tied in with the streetcar, such as planning projects or right-of-way acquisition. Councilor Rohde suggested right-of-way acquisition for the Boones Ferry Road corridor, and stream rehabilitation projects not covered by the City's surface water management fee, such as converting the area east of the Hunt Club back into a wetland. Mayor Hammerstad advised the Council that the reason the Lake Garden Court issue has been dormant was that the neighbors have been in court with the property owner, who was fined only $10,000. She indicated that she would continue to meet with the neighbors to try to find a way to achieve their desired outcome without using City money. Mayor Hammerstad reported that she, Mr. Lashbrook and Mr. Powell met with Metro representatives this week regarding the periodic review process and moving the urban growth boundary. She indicated that the main reaffirmation was that Metro would follow the periodic review process, which was more objective than simply moving the urban growth boundary. • Urban Growth Boundary discussion Mayor Hammerstad noted that the Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan stated that the City would oppose the movement of the urban growth boundary. She spoke to discussing the subject at a study session in the near future, if the Council intended to reaffirm that position. She mentioned an argument encouraged by Andy at Metro that preservation of the boundary was necessary to making the town center successful because traffic clogging up Highway 43 would be detrimental to the town center. Councilor Schoen commented that that was an interesting concept in that it argued for a separate community. Mayor Hammerstad pointed out that they would never get the employment. She mentioned the other parts to that idea, such as the cost of the infrastructure and the effect on Tualatin. She indicated that Andy had been encouraging Lake Oswego to meet with its neighbors and talk about the governance issue, which has not been discussed for five years. Mayor Hammerstad suggested having a Metro representative present at the study session discussion because of the variety of issues involved, including Tualatin's plans for large job City Council Morning Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 11 February 19, 2002 `j (, centers with office space and West Linn not wanting any part of additional lends brought into the urban growth boundary. • Liberty Crossing America Mayor Hammerstad advised the Council that there was a 40 -foot, 100 year old tin replica of the Statute of Liberty available to Lake Oswego for temporary display (three years), as part of "Liberty Crossing America" for the bicentennial of the Lewis & Clark expedition. She reported that the woman offering the replica told her that the City did not have to do anything or pay any money. The Council discussed the possibility and a variety of possible site locations. Councilor Rohde held that it would be fun to have it for a couple of years, although he did not know where they would put it. Councilor McPeak observed that there were some possibilities that one should not pick up, commenting that it could be ugly and inappropriate. Mayor Hammerstad described it as patriotic. Councilor Turchi concurred that it had possibilities in the right location. I le mentioned needing visual access for the whole of Lake Oswego. • Lake Corporation Mayor Hammerstad reported to the Council on her meeting with five Lake Corporation Board members last week. She recalled that the Corporation has always been opposed to building a boardwalk on the lake, which was where it would have to go, given the requirement to site it outside the 20 foot railroad right-of-way from the center of the track. Mayor Hammerstad said that this was a new Board, which was impressed with the quality of the downtown; the Board now thought that a boardwalk on the lake was a good idea. She indicated that they were even thinking of locating docks near Millennium Park in order to allow grocery shopping by boat. She emphasized that the Board members were no longer seeing the downtown area as `blight' but saw the possibilities for an extraordinary visual opportunity. Mayor Hammerstad described for Councilor McPeak the probable route of the boardwalk: from 3"d Street and the cabanas, running parallel to the railroad tracks (20 feet away), and up to Millennium Park. She mentioned that Sue Wheatley indicated to the City months ago that she was amenable to putting in paving bricks that led people to her parking lot. She noted that doing so extended the route into the US Bank parking lot and over to the theater. She observed that they needed to find a way to extend it North Shore. Mayor Hammerstad mentioned that this Board wanted to accomplish these things during this Council's watch, which meant moving quickly, as this Council could change at the end of the year. She spoke to proceeding on the design as soon as possible, and perhaps finishing the project this summer. Mr. Schmitz indicated to Councilor McPeak that the boardwalk would be a LORA project. He said that Mr. Seals was looking into using the bond measure money, and possibly delaying another project. He mentioned a probable cost of $500,000. He indicated to Councilor Graham that the LORA bonds for sale in April would reimburse the City for the acquisition of the bank building and the cost of the parking garage on Block 138. • Sign code violation Councilor Rohde mentioned that lie had a real property issue for Executive Session. He reported that Carol Lakey of Fitness by Design, Pilates Studio contacted him regarding a sign code problem. He said that the City informed Ms. Lakey that her sign violated the sign code requirement that a sign could cover only 25% of a single window surface. He spoke to discussing this element of the sign code, as it translated to a 5 by 5 inch sign for windows with several panes, such as those with 10 by 10 inch squares. He asked to address this problem belbre Ms. Lakey went to any further expense. City Council Morning Meeting Minutes Page 8 of I 1 February 19, 2002 Mayor Hammerstad mentioned that when Ms. Lakey brought in pictures of businesses up and down Booties Ferry Road that were also in violation of this requirement, in order to prove that she was being singled out, the staff person made copies of all the pictures with the intention of citing all the businesses. Councilor Rohde suggested that the Council order a stay on that action and discuss the problem. Councilor McPeak commented that if they considered the whole window as the window, as opposed to a single window surface, then the 25% requirement would probably work. Mayor Hammerstad commented that she was partially responsible because she had mentioned the neon signs she had seen at the end of Highway 217, which she had thought the City did not allow. She observed that her action had generated something that she had not intended it to generate. The Council agreed to handle this situation before it became a problem with the businesses complaining. • Temporary real estate signs Mayor Hammerstad referenced a postcard sent out this week by the Portland Metro Association of Realtors that said 'Stop the Lake Oswego proposed sign fee.' She pointed out that the City did not bring up the issue of a sign fee; one of the realtors who testified said that they would not oppose a small sign fee under certain circumstances. She confirmed to Councilor McPeak that the Council has not discussed a sign fee. Mayor Hammerstad argued that for the Association to call for "stopping Lake Oswego from adopting a restrictive and expensive sign code" was over the edge, as the reason behind the City addressing the temporary sign issue in the first place had been to accommodate the realtors. She commented that she was about ready to meet with Chris Schetky and tell her that the City was leaving things the way they were. Councilor Schoen concurred, commenting that the bottom line was what was best for their community. Mayor Hammerstad asked if there were any objections to her meeting with Ms. Schetky to discuss the matter. Councilor Turchi commented that he did not think a generic city -approved sign (with no advertising), which directed people to an open house or estate sale was a bad thing. Mayor Hammerstad pointed out that the realtors did not want that. Councilor Turchi said that if they did not want it, then they did not have to have it. • Tree code Councilor Rohde discussed an element in the tree code, which required a person wanting to remove a hazard tree to get an arborist report (at a $150 cost) before the City arborist reviewed the tree to determine whether it was a hazard. He suggested that the City arborist review the tree first and decide whether it was a hazard or not, and make it the owner's responsibility to challenge the City arborist's report by then hiring an arborist. Mr. Schmitz questioned whether the citizen's understanding was accurate because he signed thy: emergency and hazard tree removal permits, which had no arborist's report attached. Councilor Rohde indicated that he would give the information to Mr. Schmitz. Mr. Schmitz indicated to Mayor Hammerstad that (lie tree ordinance was in committee, and that the assigned staff were Hamid Pishvaic and Sandy Ingalls. Mayor Hammerstad mentioned that a tree committee member told her last night that it appeared that staff has not yet elicited information from people who obtained tree cutting permits in the past. She indicated that she had understood that getting information from permit holders would be the main method the City would use to review how effective the ordinance was and what the complaints were. City Council Morning Meeting Minutes Page 9 of I I February 19, 2002 Councilor Schoen reported that he heard many nice comments about the downtown at the c Iiamber luncheon the other day. He said that he gave an update on what the Council was doing. 6. EXECUTIVE SESSION Mayor Hammerstad recessed the meeting at 9:00 a.m. to Executive Session pursuant to ORS 192.660(1)(1), to consider records that are exempt by law from public inspection, specifically the February 19,2002, confidential memo from the City Attorney, and (b) to conduct deliberations with persons designated by the governing body to carry on labor negotiations. Mr. Powell reviewed the Executive Session parameters. 7. RETURN TO OPEN SESSION Mayor Hammerstad reconvened the morning meeting at 9:08 a.m. Mayor liammerstad reported on the meeting she and Mr. Powell had last week with Dave Honeycutt and Larry George of Oregonians in Action on the proposed Neighborhood Preservation Act. She explained that this Act would forbid Metro from imposing any kind of density rules, either directly or indirectly. Mayor Hammerstad discussed the issue of whether the urban growth boundary was an indirect action because it directed the growth to be within the urban growth boundary. If so, would that cause a repeal of the urban growth boundary'? She pointed out that, if the urban growth boundary remained valid, this Act meant that Metro would have no authority to require the City to develop the Stafford area, should it come inside the boundary, or to change the zoning and increase the density. Mayor Hammerstad observed that one result would be many lawsuits. She mentioned another question of what would happen to the 20 -year land supply if the urban growth boundary became invalid. She said that the two gentlemen gave their reason for proposing this Act as their feeling that the people have not been included in the process, and this would allow them to exercise their right to participate. Mayor Hammerstad mentioned Metro's countermeasure, which disallowed Metro from requiring cities to do rezones, such as up zoning within the current urban growth boundary at Metro's behest. Mayor Hammerstad indicated to Councilor Rohde that she did tell the gentlemen that all these things came about after extensive public hearings and were decided upon by elected officials. Councilor Rohde questioned how the gentlemen could conclude that the people were not involved. Mayor Hammerstad said that they claimed that the people hated the situation. Mayor Hammerstad mentioned that the Neighborhood Preservation Act was filed for last November's election. She pointed out that Metro had it all this time and yet came up with a competing measure for the May ballot at the last minute. 8. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Hammerstad adjourned the meeting at 9:12 a.m. City Council Morning Meeting Minutes Page 10 of I I February 19, 2002 40 Respectfully submitted, Robyn C ri tie City Recorder udie Hammerstad, Mayor City COUnCII Murning Meeting Minutes February 19, 2002 Page 1 I of 1 I fli 7.1 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY MEETING DATE: March 19, 2002 SUBJECT: Ordinance 2243, an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego amending the Lake Oswego Code, Chapter 48 (Zoning Code), relating to Long -Term Care Housing, and adopting findings LU 99-0070-1468. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to continue Ordinance 2243 to April 2, 2002. ESTIMATED FISCAL IMPACT: STAFF COST: $ BUDGETED: Y N FUNDING SOURCE: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR signoffldate DocumentH ATTACHMENTS: • none NOTICED (Date): Ordinance no.: Resolution no.: Previous Council consideration: February 19, 2002 A 610 M N GPR v signoffldate �J 31 Yll RECOMMENDED MOTION FIELDTURF SETTLEMENT Move to authorize the Mayor to sign the Settlement Agreement with FieldTurf International, Inc. and Bones Construction Co., Inc., in the form submitted by the City Attorney, conditioned upon the following: 1. Receipt of counterparts of the Agreement with the original signatures for FieldTurf and Bones Construction Co.; 2. Receipt of the payments from FieldTurf as provided i» the Agreement; and 3. Receipt of a letter from Seaboard Surety Company stating that the Agreement does not affect their obligations under their performance bond. 03/19/02 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY MEETING DATE: March 19, 2002 SUBJECT: Discussion of Temporary Sign Ordinance ESTIMATED FISCAL IMPACT: STAFF COST: $ BUDGETED: Y N FUNDING SOURCE: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR signoff/date ATTACHMENTS: • none Letters in response to the temporary sign code were distributed earlier. Copies are available in the City Recorder's Office and will be available at the meeting. \AGENDAS\000NC11A2002\Is Reports+\signs.doc NOTICED (Date): Ordinance no.: Resolution no.: Previous Council consideration: _September 18, 2001, October 10, 2001, October 16, 2001, November 6 2001, January 29, 2002 1tij I J > > CI MgNAGER "A `i �a-2— signoff/date 46