Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Item - 2020-11-03 - Number 5.1 - Ordinance 2853 Community Development Code Amendments 5.1 Dj'p` 4� COUNCIL REPORT OREGO� Subject: LU 20-0015—2020 Annual Code Amendments Meeting Date: 11/3/20 Staff Member: Ellen Davis, AICP, Associate Planner Report Date: 10/21/20 Department: Planning & Building Services Department Action Required Advisory Board/Commission Recommendation ❑ Motion Z Planning Commission Recommends Approval Z Public Hearing ❑ Denial Z Ordinance ❑ None Forwarded ❑ Resolution ❑ Not Applicable ❑ Information Only Comments: ❑ Council Direction ❑ Consent Agenda Staff Recommendation: Conduct a public hearing on Ordinance 2853 to amend Community Development Code (LOC Chapter 50) Recommended Language for Motion: Move to tentatively approve Ordinance 2853 and direct staff to return on November 17, 2020 with a final version of the ordinance, including findings and conclusions for LU 20-0015. Project/ Issue Relates To: Annual code amendments to clarify and refine LOC Chapter 50 ®Council Goals/Priorities Z Comprehensive Plan ❑Not Applicable Reduce unnecessary regulations ISSUE BEFORE COUNCIL The Council will hold a legislative public hearing for LU 20-0015, the 2020 annual code amendments. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The proposed amendments to the Community Development Code are part of the city's continuous process improvement efforts to ensure the regulations are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, implement City Council goals and policies, and reflect best practices in contemporary urban planning. The amendments are also intended to correct errors, eliminate text ambiguities and redundancies, and clarify the code's language. 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeosweao.city Page 2 BACKGROUND The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed amendments (Ordinance 2853) in two work sessions on July 13, 2020 and August 10, 2020, and the Commission held a public hearing on the proposal on September 28, 2020.The Commission recommends approval of Ordinance 2853 as reflected in the Findings, Conclusion, and Order adopted on October 12, 2020 (Exhibit B-1). The proposed code text is contained in Exhibit A-1, Attachment 2, dated 10/16/2020. DISCUSSION The amendments address the following: 1. Clarify and update the platting requirements and expiration of permits for lot line adjustments and resource delineations (Exhibit A-1,Attachment 2, pg.1). 2. Allow Residential Infill Design (RID) Variances to the Long Wall Plane Standard for consistency with other standards that may be adjusted through the RID process (Exhibit A-1,Attachment 2, pg. 2-3). 3. As related to sensitive lands: change sensitive lands protection fence height to match tree protection fence height (Exhibit A-1,Attachment 2, pg. 4); clarify exception for construction of utilities in RP Districts to ensure mitigation is required for expansion of existing utilities (Exhibit A-1, Attachment 2, pg. 5); correct the allowed averaging of RP District buffers (Protected Riparian Areas (PRA))to reflect all sizes of PRAs (Exhibit A-1,Attachment 2, pg. 7); clarify that sensitive lands mitigation requirements apply to resource restoration resulting from a code violation (Exhibit A-1, Attachment 2, pg. 8); require pre-application conference for in-stream resource enhancement projects (Exhibit A-1,Attachment 2, pg. 9); and remove annual reporting requirement for sensitive lands map corrections (Exhibit A-1,Attachment 2, pg. 17). 4. Remove obsolete fence complaint procedure (Exhibit A-1,Attachment 2, pg. 6). 5. Ensure that the standard for the creation of flag lot access lanes complies with the state requirement that land use standards for housing provide a clear and objective option (Exhibit A-1, Attachment 2, pg. 10). 6. Clarify that all residential zones allow manufactured homes as required under state law (Exhibit A- 1,Attachment 2, pg. 12). 7. Simplify the calculation of open space and density for subdivisions dedicating land to the City by modifying the definitions of"net developable area" and "density transfer area" (Exhibit A-1, Attachment 2, pg. 13-16). 8. Calculate bicycle parking requirements for unlisted uses based on most similar use (Exhibit A-1, Attachment 2, pg. 18); delete obsolete accessory dwelling unit parking requirement (preempted by state law) (Exhibit A-1,Attachment 2, pg. 20); and move the existing "no additional parking required" provision for outdoor dining to the parking table (Exhibit A-1,Attachment 2, pg. 11). 9. Clarify the definition of"undisturbed slopes" (Exhibit A-1,Attachment 2, pg. 19); adopt Fire Code requirements for fire hydrant placement in new development (Exhibit A-1, Attachment 2, pg. 21); and prevent driveway approaches from extending in front of abutting properties (Exhibit A-1, Attachment 2, pg. 22). 10. Align the methodology for calculating lot coverage in the R-6 Zone with other residential zones (Policy Amendment#2) (Exhibit A-1,Attachment 2, pg. 23). 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city Page 3 11. Add definition for: "cohousing" (added to multi-family definition) (Exhibit A-1,Attachment 2, pg. 24); and streamline "community institution" and "institutional use" (Exhibit A-1,Attachment 2, pg. 25-26). The testimony before the Commission focused on item 10, above, (Policy Amendment #2): Lot Coverage in the R-6 Zone [LOC 50.04.001.2.f.ii] (Policy Item #2). The Commission received oral testimony from the Home Builders Association of Metro Portland (HBA) in opposition to the proposal to align the R-6 lot coverage calculation with other residential zones. The testimony contended that measuring height for lot coverage using the same methodology and exceptions allowed in all other zones would result in boxier houses and reduce buyers' purchasing power. The HBA requested additional time and stakeholder meetings to review the proposal. However, the Commission found that sufficient notice and opportunity for participation has been provided to residents, the First Addition / Forest Hills Neighborhood Association (in which the R-6 zone is located), and to the Home Builders Association and other interested persons through Planning Commission Work Sessions, mailed notices, and the Measure 56 notice mailed to all affected property owners, in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, Citizen Engagement Chapter, and Statewide Planning Goal 1 (Citizen Involvement). The Commission concluded that this amendment will establish code language for the R-6 zone consistent with all other residential zones for height measurement for the purposes of lot coverage, and lot coverage exceptions, which will improve public understanding of the Code and result in development more in scale with the lot sizes of the R-6 zone. The Commission found that the standard lot coverage methodology and exceptions already apply in similar residential zones, such as the R-5 zone which has a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet, and that design standards, such as front and side yard setback planes, and their exceptions, are sufficient to prevent "boxy" homes in these established zones. FISCAL IMPACT The amendments may indirectly have a positive fiscal impact as they streamline and clarify the Code. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council approve LU 20-0015, and enact Ordinance 2853. EXHIBITS A. Draft Ordinances A-1 Draft Ordinance 2853, 9/3/20 Attachment 1: Reserved for City Council Findings (not included) Attachment 2: Code Text Amendments, 10/16/20 (Supersedes version dated 9/14/20) 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city Page 4 B. Findings, Conclusions and Order B-1 Planning Commission Findings, Conclusions and Order, 10/12/20 (Attachment 2 of Ordinance 2853 dated 9/14/20, referenced in the PC Findings, is superseded by version dated 10/16/20.) C. Minutes C-1 Planning Commission Minutes— Public Hearing 9/28/20 D. Staff Memos & Reports D-1 Planning Commission Staff Report, 9/3/20 E. Graphics/Plans [No current exhibits] F. Written Materials F-1 Inclusive Zoning Practice—APA Article, 5/2020 G. Public Testimony None Staff reports and public meeting materials can be found by visiting the project webpage. Use the link below to visit the City's "Project" page. In the "Search" box enter LU 20-0015 then press "Enter": https://www.ci.oswego.or.us/all-proiects 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city DRAFT 9/3/2020 ORDINANCE 2853 AN ORDINANCE OF THE LAKE OSWEGO CITY COUNCIL AMENDING LOC CHAPTER 50 (COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE) FOR THE PURPOSE OF CLARIFYING AND UPDATING VARIOUS PROVISIONS (2020);AND,ADOPTING FINDINGS (LU 20-0015). WHEREAS, notice of the public hearing for consideration of this Ordinance was duly given in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, a public hearing before the Planning Commission was held on September 14, 2020, at which the staff report, testimony, and evidence were received and considered; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has recommended that LU 20-0015 be approved by the City Council; and WHEREAS, a public hearing on LU 20-0015 was held before the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego on November 3, 2020, at which the staff report, testimony, and evidence were received and considered; and WHEREAS, through the application of the Community Development Code and related code provisions, the public and Planning Division staff have found that some sections of the Lake Oswego Code, Chapter 50 (Community Development Code) could be improved by removing ambiguous and conflicting language, correcting provisions, adding clarifying text which is consistent with past interpretations, and updating the Community Development Code; and WHEREAS, the amendments by this Ordinance relate to the following provisions of the Community Development Code: • Platting requirements and expiration of permits for lot line adjustments and resource delineations; • RID variances to the long wall plane standard; • Sensitive lands protection fence height; • Utilities exceptions in RP districts for expansion of existing utilities; • Obsolete fence complaint procedure; • Reduction of Protected Riparian Areas (PRA); • Mitigation requirements for resource restoration resulting from a code violation; • Pre-application conferences for in-stream resource enhancement projects; • Clear and objective option for creation of flag lot access lanes; • No parking requirement for outdoor dining; • Manufactured homes in all residential zones; • Definitions of net developable area and density transfer area; • Annual reporting requirement for sensitive lands map corrections; • Bicycle parking requirements for unlisted uses; • Definition of undisturbed slope; Ordinance 2853 (LU 20-0015) EXHIBIT A-1/PAGE 1 DRAFT 9/3/2020 • Obsolete ADU parking requirement; • Fire Code requirements for fire hydrant placement in new development; • Driveway approach location • Lot Coverage in the R-6 Zone • Define cohousing and • Definitions of community institution and institutional use; The City of Lake Oswego ordains as follows: Section 1. The City Council hereby adopts the Findings and Conclusions (LU 20-0015), attached as Attachment 2 of Exhibit A-1. Section 2. The Lake Oswego Code, Chapter 50 (Community Development Code) is hereby amended by deleting the text shown by strikcthrougli type and adding new text shown in double underlined type, in Attachment 2. (Sections or subsections within LOC Chapter 50 that are omitted in Attachment 2, and not marked for deletion or addition, are neither amended nor deleted by this Ordinance.) Section 3. Severability. The provisions of this ordinance are severable. If any portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. Section 4. Effective Date. As provided in Section 35C of Chapter VII of the Lake Oswego Charter, this ordinance shall take effect on the thirtieth day following enactment. Enacted at the meeting of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego held on the 3rd day of November 2020. Ordinance 2853 (LU 20-0015) EXHIBIT A-1/PAGE 2 DRAFT 9/3/2020 AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: EXCUSED: Kent Studebaker, Mayor Dated: ATTEST: Anne-Marie Simpson, City Recorder APPROVED AS TO FORM: David D. Powell, City Attorney Ordinance 2853 (LU 20-0015) EXHIBIT A-1/PAGE 3 ATTACHMENT 1 Reserved for City Council Findings (not included) LU 20-0015 Attachment 1 (Ordinance 2853)/Page 1 of 1 ATTACHMENT 2 (Ordinance 2853) LU 20-0015 ANNUAL CODE AMENDMENTS Maintenance ITEM 1: LOC 50.07.003.17(Expiration of Development Permit) as it relates to Lot Line Adjustments and Resource Delineations 17. EXPIRATION OF DEVELOPMENT PERMIT a. Except as otherwise provided in LOC 50.07.007.3, 50.07.007.4.f or 50.07.005.5, or another provision of this Code, or as may be specifically stated as a condition of approval of a development permit, any permit issued under this Code shall expire three years following the final decision and effective date of any order constituting or approving the development permit unless: i. If development involves construction of a structure, at least 15%of the structural construction has occurred within three years of the date of final decision; and ii. Development authorized by the permit is commenced and work has reasonably continued to completion of the development If the Hermit does not involve physical construction or development on the site(e.e. lot line adiustments and resource delineationsl.the document finalizine the approved development action must be filed. recorded or such other action as provided in the approval or as reauired by law to eive effect to the approval(e.g recordine the approved adiustment or delineation survevl.within the three-year period. If not.the approval expires. b. Upon expiration, no further work on the development or use authorized by the development permit may be undertaken without obtaining a new development permit. c. The City Manager shall, in writing grant, a one-year extension to a development permit where the request for the extension is made by written application prior to the expiration of the three-year period. d. If the City Manager believes that work on the development has ceased prior to completion, or has otherwise been abandoned,the City Manager may, at any time, require the applicant to demonstrate that the applicant is proceeding with efforts to commence or to continue the development. Item 1(M): (1) Reorders code sections in numerical order; (2) Clarifies what acts must occur prior to expiration deadline for non-development applications such as lot line adjustments and resource delineations. LU 20-0015 (DRAFT 10/16/20) ATTACHMENT 2 (ORDINANCE 2853)/PAGE 1 OF 26 ITEM 2: LOC 50.08.003.2.e/RID Review and Long Wall Plane Standard e. Residential Infill Design (RID) Review Except for properties located in the R-DD zone or a design district, variances from any of the following standards for residential dwellings and accessory structures where those standards prevent development that is otherwise compatible with the character of the neighborhood and surrounding residential development: i. Floor area; ii. Lot coverage; iii. Building height; iv. Yard setbacks; v. Street front setback plane; vi. Side yard setback plane; vii. Side yard appearance and screening; viii. Garage appearance and location; ix. Accessory structure standards; x. Oswego Lake setbacks;and xi. Oswego Lake setback height and footprint requirements in LOC 50.04.003.7.1 ; provided,that no accessory structure may exceed 18 ft. in height and no boathouse footprint may exceed 800 sq.ft.: and xii. Lone wall planes. //// 6. RESIDENTIAL INFILL DESIGN (RID) REVIEW VARIANCE CRITERIA a. Residential Dwelling or Accessory Structure Size LU 20-0015 (DRAFT 10/16/20) ATTACHMENT 2 (ORDINANCE 2853)/PAGE 2 OF 26 A variance to the following standards may be approved when a more compatible, positive relationship between the size of a proposed residential dwelling or accessory structure and the scale and character of a neighborhood can be demonstrated in other ways: Floor area; Lot coverage; Yard setbacks; Building height; Accessory structures; Boathouse footprint in the Lake Oswego setback;and Lona wall planes: and Height of accessory structures in the Oswego Lake setback(except as limited by LOC ).08.003.2.e.xi). //// c. Relationship to the Neighbors A variance to the following standards may be approved when a more compatible, positive relationship between a residential dwelling or accessory structure and the scale, character and privacy of its neighbors can be demonstrated in other ways: Side yard setback; Side yard setback plane; Side yard appearance and screening Lona wall planes, Item 2(M):Add the long wall plane standard on narrow lots to the potential standards that could be modified through a RID review. It appears that the long wall plane standard was unintentionally excluded from RID variances. The current proposal allows application for a RID variance to the long wall plane standard. LU 20-0015 (DRAFT 10/16/20) ATTACHMENT 2 (ORDINANCE 2853)/PAGE 3 OF 26 ITEM 3: LOC 50.05.010.4.d.i(1)/Sensitive Lands Resource Protection Fencing Height //// i. RC protection areas or RC districts where no protection areas have been approved, RP districts, and protection areas within an approved HBA development shall be protected during construction with either: (1) A minimum ft.tall chain link fencing secured with a minimum of four-&i ft.tall steel posts.The fencing shall be in place and maintained for the duration of construction. In addition, temporary signage shall be placed on the fencing which shall clearly identify the resource district and shall state the penalty for violations of this section; or Item 3 (M): Change the RP fencing height requirement from six feet to four feet to match the tree protection fencing height requirement. LU 20-0015 (DRAFT 10/16/20) ATTACHMENT 2 (ORDINANCE 2853)/PAGE 4 OF 26 ITEM 4: LOC 50.05.010.6.c.ii(1)(c)/Utilities Exception in RP Districts (c) Utilities Placcm^nt New Construction• Public or private utilities shall not be placed or expanded within an RP district unless tunneling under a resource will not cause any adverse effect upon the resource and the functions and values of a resource will be maintained, or there is no other practicable alternative. If a public or private utility is allowed within an RP district, mitigation shall be required pursuant to LOC 50.05.010.4.e through 50.05.010.4.g. When applying the mitigation process to this section: //// Item 4(M): Clarify that the Sensitive Lands Overlay provisions apply to all utilities located within an RP district, including existing utilities when expanded.The proposed amendment was precipitated by an application to expand an existing utility within an RP district without mitigation. LU 20-0015 (DRAFT 10/16/20) ATTACHMENT 2 (ORDINANCE 2853)/PAGE 5 OF 26 ITEM 5: LOC 50.09.002.6/Fence Complaints and Abutting Owner Consent 6. rGAMRL IN OOC€DURE- ND rCOORRT€ TEACTION_FENCES a, Complaint o.occdurc6 ^h manftec-and the rr showing both sidcs Gf the fcncc or rctaining.pall in cicvation anf r1 _ 5.*:ed upon the cvidcncc providcd appf-oval-ef-the-Gity, b. Cor-r-estive-Action Item 5 (M): Removes reference to an obsolete waiver process that is no longer applicable because the "abutting owner consent" provision that allowed a fence's structural side to face abutting owners and public property with respective owner/city consent was eliminated in LU 16-0030/Ord. 2732 as a result of LUBA's holding in Cosner v. Umatilla (and other prior cases)where the "abutting owner consent" provision was held to be improper delegation of city code authority. LU 20-0015 (DRAFT 10/16/20) ATTACHMENT 2 (ORDINANCE 2853)/PAGE 6 OF 26 ITEM 6: LOC 50.05.010.6.b.iii(3) iii. Reduction of RP District The reviewing authority may allow the protected riparian area to be reduced when the applicant shows that: (1) The proposed development complies with LOC 50.05.010.4.f, Progressive Mitigation Steps Required; and (2) The reduction in protected riparian area is not solely for the purpose of maximizing development of the site; and (3) Development abuts a Class I or II resource (a-) The reviewing authority may allow portions of the protected riparian area C1:r1 ! resource to be reduced to a minimum of 15 ft. abuttina a Class I resource. or 10 ft. abuttina a Class II resource if: ( ) A qualified professional demonstrates that such an adjustment will not reduce the functions and values of the resource as a whole; and (pii) The width is increased in other areas to maintain a 25-ft., 30-ft.. or 50-ft. average width whichever is applicable: and (b)—Tile-reviewing thority may allow potions-of the otested riy:cf''cf' ff ca abutting a Cla s II .,to be rcduccd to of tcn ft if: (i7—A►ctua ified ess+onaldcmon tratec Ott c•,,.h adjustment will not rcducc th„functions and value of the r ..hol.,. .�.,d i (ii) T c widt l�s increased thcr areas-to maintain a 255 f . aycragc widrt l .nd Item 6(M): Streamline standard by combining identical sections. Add buffer averaging minimum for 50' PRA so that every width of required PRA is listed. LU 20-0015 (DRAFT 10/16/20) ATTACHMENT 2 (ORDINANCE 2853)/PAGE 7 OF 26 ITEM 7: LOC 50.05.010.2.b.ii/Sensitive Lands Applicability: Mitigation for Resource Restoration b. Exceptions—General The provisions in this section shall not apply to: ii. Resource r^ 44 mitigation required as a result of violation of this section or pursuant to settlement of a potential enforcement action by the City Manager, subject to City Manager approval of the restoration plan and procedures and the reauirements of LOC 50.05.010.2.f. Item 7(M): Establish that mitigation standards would apply to mitigation required in response to a code violation. LU 20-0015 (DRAFT 10/16/20) ATTACHMENT 2 (ORDINANCE 2853)/PAGE 8 OF 26 ITEM 8: LOC 50.07.003.1.e.i and ii/Pre-Application Conference for Resource Enhancement Projects e. Pre-Application Conference i. A pre-application conference with the City Manager is required for: (1) Minor and major development permit applications; and (2) Ministerial permit applications:for y typc of accc or•d'w^"ing unit(AD 4)that i of addition to a structurc t a �n DU the:;` Iocatcd structur,,: of n. (Al For any tvoe of accessory dwelling unit(ADU1 that is not a conversion of existing floor area (including the garage floor areal in a primary structure.An ADU created by an addition to a primary structure is not a conversion. An ADU that is located in an accessory structure is not a conversion: and (61 Resource enhancement projects that involve work within a stream or wetland other than removal of invasive species and planting of vegetation. ii. A pre-application conference is not required for ministerial applications except as required in subsection 1.e.i of this section, but may be scheduled at the request of the applicant or when required by the City Manager. Item 8(M): Require a pre-app conference for Resource Enhancement Projects that involve in-stream work other than planting of vegetation. Staff propose the requirement to attend a free pre-application conference with staff prior to any in-stream work other than planting of native vegetation because even small changes in flow on an upstream property can greatly impact downstream properties. LU 20-0015 (DRAFT 10/16/20) ATTACHMENT 2 (ORDINANCE 2853)/PAGE 9 OF 26 ITEM 9: LOC 50.07.007.2.c.iii/Flag Lot Access Lane Consolidation/"Practicable" c. Access i. When creating flag lots,the reviewing authority shall require that access to the flag lots is consolidated into a single shared access lane with the non-flag lot(s) or off site,wh^r^v^r practicablc. If not practicable, then new lots may have individual access points. //// Item 9 (M): Change flag lot access standard to a clear and objective path. If the applicant cannot meet the clear and objective path,then non-consolidation of access is provided as a discretionary path to residential housing. LU 20-0015 (DRAFT 10/16/20) ATTACHMENT 2 (ORDINANCE 2853)/PAGE 10 OF 26 ITEM 10: LOC 50.03.005.4.b.ii and Table 50.06.002-3/Outdoor Restaurant Dining —No Parking Required LOC 50.03.005.4.b.ii b. Seasonal retail sales as detailed below: i. Christmas tree sales from November 26 to December 31. ii. , year-round restauran4 No additional parking is required for the „utdoor use Fireworks sales for July 4th iii. "Pushcart"vendors in the EC and GC zones. Food vendors will have all required Health Department licenses and certificates. Such uses limited to food and flowers. //// Table 50.06.002-3 TABLE 50.06.002-3: MINIMUM OFF-STREET PARKING SPACE REQUIREMENTS Type of Use Parking Space Required (E) COMMERCIAL 6. Specialty food stores, such as coffee, bagels,juice bars (take- 6.6 spaces per 1,000 sq.ft. G.F.A. out food/drink primarily)131 7. Eating or drinking establishment_ 13.3 spaces per 1,000 sq.ft. G.F.A. 8. Eating or drinking establishment with drive-up window 9.9 spaces per 1,000 sq.ft. G.F.A. Parking requirement for uses not specifically mentioned in this section shall be determined by the requirements for off-street parking facilities for the listed use which, as determined by the City Manager, is most similar to the use not specifically mentioned, or by an analysis of the parking needs generated by the type of use [See LOC 50.06.002.2.a.ii(6)]. [1] Gross floor area does not include any parking area. [2] Farm stands: When accessory use, no additional parking spaces required. i31 No additional parking is reauired for outdoor restaurant uses or seasonal restaurant enclosures„ in coniunction with an existing indoor year-round restaurant. Item 10(M): Move existing provision for no additional parking for the outdoor area of eating establishments from the temporary uses section of the code and move it to the parking table for consistency: all parking standards should be in the same place. Also add temporary fireworks sales as a permitted temporary use as July 4th fireworks stands have been allowed on a temporary basis for many years. LU 20-0015 (DRAFT 10/16/20) ATTACHMENT 2 (ORDINANCE 2853)/PAGE 11 OF 26 ITEM 11: LOC 50.03.003.1.b/Manufactured Homes and Allowed Zones b. Manufactured Homes i. General Provisions (1) Manufactured Homes Permitted on Individual Lots and Parcels Manufactured homes are permitted on individual lots or parcels in all R 15, R 10, R 7.5, and R 5 residential zones as permitted in Table 50.03.002-1: Residential Districts Use Table. in accordance with the placement standards below and all other provisions of this Code which apply to conventionally built dwellings. Item 11(M): Clarify that, consistent with state law (ORS 197.314), manufactured homes are permitted in all zones where single family dwellings are allowed.The zones where manufactured homes are permitted is provided in Table 50.03.002-1 Residential Districts Use Table. LU 20-0015 (DRAFT 10/16/20) ATTACHMENT 2 (ORDINANCE 2853)/PAGE 12 OF 26 ITEM 12: LOC 50.10.003.2/Definitions/Net Developable Area LOC 50.06.004.1/Landscaping LOC 50.06.005/Open Space LOC 50.04.003.10/Minimum Density LOC 50.10.003.2/ Definitions/ Net Developable Area Net Developable Area Gross area (at 43,560 sq. ft. per acre), including density transfer area on residentially designated land, less: he area in street right-of-way or access easements, except that the area of a vehicular access easement created by a minor partition shall not be deducted. For public streets, use the actual area if known or 20% of the gross area. For private streets use actual area if known or 40 ft. right-of-way. For vehicular access easements use actual area of easement b. P lic open space easement or dedications if accepted t y. LOC 50.06.005.3.b/Open Space 3. STANDARDS FOR APPROVAL ***** b. Required Open Space— How Provided 1. Open space land in commercial, institutional, public use, industrial and office campus development may be provided as a combination of reserved land and landscaping. ii. Where no RP or RC district resources-or—public-park-land is located on the site, the open space requirement can be met by protecting designated Habitat Benefit Area (HBA) area pursuant to LOC ., ^ti n'n • , by protecting nondesignated natural resource areas, and/or providing landscaping which meets the requirements of the landscaping standard. iii. Public nark land. if transfer of the land from the development site is accented by the eovernmental agency. LU 20-0015 (DRAFT 10/16/20) ATTACHMENT 2 (ORDINANCE 2853)/PAGE 13 OF 26 LOC 50.06.004.1.b / Landscaping b. Standards for Approval i. Commercial, institutional, and industrial development, other than in the Office Campus zone, shall provide a minimum of 15% of the net developable area in landscaping and/or open space visible from off site, including courtyards, planters, raised beds, espaliers, etc. Developments involving office campus and major public facilities shall provide a minimum of 20%. Exception: The area of public nark land. if transfer of the land from the development site is accented by the eovernmental aeencv. may be deducted from the landscaoine area reauirement. ii. Multi-family and manufactured home park development must provide 20% of the net developable area in landscaping in addition to the park and open space requirements. Exception: The area of public park land. if transfer of the land from the development site is accepted by the eovernmental aeencv. may be deducted from the landscaoine area reauirement. LOC 50.04.003.10/ Minimum Density 10. EXCEPTIONS TO THE MINIMUM DENSITY REQUIREMENT FOR ALL ZONES a. The minimum density requirements are not applicable to sites identified on the City's Historic Landmark Designation List. b. The minimum density requirements are not applicable to publicly owned open space lands. c. The number of lots required by the minimum density provisions may be reduced as necessary in any of the following circumstances: i. Where the most appropriate design and location for a stormwater detention or water quality facility is above ground and outside a required open space; or ii. Where in order to comply with the minimum density requirement it would be necessary to develop in a floodplain; or iii. Where topographic, natural resources and/or soil constraints exist on site, to the extent that an applicant can demonstrate that compliance with LOC 50.06.006.2, Hillside Protection, LOC 50.05.01 r, Sensitive Lands Overlay Districts, or other soil constraints regulated by the City's Codes or the State of Oregon Uniform Building Code, would preclude development such that the minimum number of lots could not be developed; or LU 20-0015 (DRAFT 10/16/20) ATTACHMENT 2 (ORDINANCE 2853)/PAGE 14 OF 26 iv. Where an application is for land division approval using the HBA incentives in LOC 50.05.010; or v. Where the total number of residential dwelling units resulting from the development will be at least 80% of the maximum number permitted in the zone. For the R-0, R-2 zones, the minimum lots per acre and methodology specified in LOC 0.04.001.3,, Residential High Density Zones, shall be used for calculating minimum density. For the R-DD zone, the minimum lots per acre and methodology specified in LOC au.u4..,.,I.z.a, Residential Medium Density Zones, shall be used for calculating minimum density; vi. Where the location of an existing dwelling is such that the applicant can demonstrate that other requirements of this Community Development Code cannot be met if the minimum required number of lots is developed. vii. Public nark land. if transfer of the land from the development site is accented by the aovernmental agency, Item 12(M)Staff Commentary:The definitions of Net Developable Area and Density Transfer Area currently conflict,which makes it difficult to calculate minimum density and open space requirements for a subdivision where the applicant commits to dedicating open space to the City, rather than providing the open space in a private tract, and the City has indicated it would accept the dedication pending approval of the development application. Table Note 1,Table 50.04.001-1: Residential Low Density Zones Dimensions, requires minimum density for a subdivision to be calculated as follows: "[1] When subdivisions are proposed,the number of lots required shall be determined by dividing the net developable area by the minimum lot size per unit required in the underlying zone, and multiplying this number by 0.8.The result shall be rounded up for any product with a fraction of 0.5 or greater and rounded down for any product with a fraction of less than 0.5. The requirements of this section are subject to the exceptions contained in LOC 50.04.003.10, Exceptions to the Minimum Density Requirement for All Zones." [emphasis added] LOC 50.04.003.10, Exceptions to the Minimum Density Requirement for All Zones, excludes publicly owned open space from minimum density requirements: "10. EXCEPTIONS TO THE MINIMUM DENSITY REQUIREMENT FOR ALL ZONES a.The minimum density requirements are not applicable to sites identified on the City's Historic Landmark Designation List. b. The minimum density requirements are not applicable to publicly owned open space lands. " [emphasis added] The amount of Park and Open Space Contribution required by LOC 50.06.005 for development, e.g., residential subdivision is 20% of the "net developable area": LU 20-0015 (DRAFT 10/16/20) ATTACHMENT 2 (ORDINANCE 2853)/PAGE 15 OF 26 "iii. Land divisions listed in LOC 50.06.005.1.a.vii on sites of greater than 75,000 sq. ft. in size shall provide open space approved by the City in an aggregate amount equal to at least 20% of the net developable area of the development." [emphasis added] Similar issue is presented in the Landscaping standard. Applying the definitions above,the Net Developable Area is determined by taking the "gross area", which includes "density transfer area"within the lot, less any public open space "accepted by the City."The confusion is that the Density Transfer Area definition includes area to be dedicated for public open space. The proposed amendments to the Net Developable Area definition remove the conflict and is consistent with LOC 50.04.003.10 Exceptions to Minimum Density,which states that minimum density requirements are not applicable to public open space, but allows the public open space dedication to be included for the purpose of determining maximum density per LOC 50.06.005.5: "5. DENSITY TRANSFER a. Density Transfer Allowed Open space may be included in the net site area when determining the maximum allowable density. Structures that otherwise might have been located on open space may be transferred to other portions of the site, and lot areas may be reduced to offset for land reserved as open space, as long as the overall density remains within the maximum permitted by the zone." Finally,for streamlining,the amendment also deletes "including Density Transfer Area" because Gross Area is the gross area, as it naturally includes portions of the site that would qualify as Density Transfer Areas. LU 20-0015 (DRAFT 10/16/20) ATTACHMENT 2 (ORDINANCE 2853)/PAGE 16 OF 26 ITEM 13: LOC 50.07.004.8.b.iii(a)/Sensitive Lands Map Correction Reporting (a) Ministerial Development Decision,for corrections to scrivener's errors.The Sensitive Lands Map shall be updated with each correction and the . pdat„s shall her ort d to the Planning Gefar i ion and City Council not lace than 311y. i Item 13 (M):The code currently requires staff to report on sensitive lands map corrections to the Planning Commission and City Council annually.These map corrections are when they are due to scrivener's errors. There are only a small number of these each year, and since the sensitive lands map was amended in 2015 the Council has not had any questions or provided any direction to staff in response to the reports. Staff asks to remove the reporting requirement but will continue to document and retain files for all ministerial map corrections. LU 20-0015 (DRAFT 10/16/20) ATTACHMENT 2 (ORDINANCE 2853)/PAGE 17 OF 26 ITEM 14: LOC 50.06.002.2.b/Bicycle Parking Table 50.06.002-6 TABLE 50.06.002-6: MINIMUM REQUIRED BICYCLE PARKING SPACES /// USES NOT SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED Parkine reauirement for Use Cateeories and/or Specific Uses not specifically listed above shall be determined by the reauirements for bicycle Parkine spaces for the Use Cateeory/Specific Use whic' as determined by the City Manaeer. is most similar to the use not specifically listed. Item 14(M):The vehicle parking table (Table 50.06.002-3, Section H) states that when a specific use is not listed, staff may apply the parking ratio required for the most similar use.This same provision is not found in the bicycle parking table (Table 50.06.002-6). Staff proposes adding a "similar use" allowance in the bike parking table, similar to the vehicle parking table. LU 20-0015 (DRAFT 10/16/20) ATTACHMENT 2 (ORDINANCE 2853)/PAGE 18 OF 26 ITEM 15: LOC 50.10.003/Definitions/Undisturbed Slopes Undisturbed Slopes Slopes, or portions of slopes,that hav^n^` ^^~ ~ •cly alt^r^d'from`hc of natural topography veeetation. and soils that have not been previously altered for slope stability, i.e., re-contoured, graded, and/or terraced, and the altered-alteration of the slope was either performed in accordance with or subsequently approved by a licensed geotechnical engineer, registered civil engineer experienced in soils engineering, or licensed engineering geologist. Undi'turbcd slops i t^f natural top^graph. vegetation; a+dssils. Item 15 (M): Staff proposes changes to the definition of"Undisturbed Slopes"for clarity.The Hillside Protection Overlay limits development on undisturbed terrain exceeding certain slopes. LU 20-0015 (DRAFT 10/16/20) ATTACHMENT 2 (ORDINANCE 2853)/PAGE 19 OF 26 ITEM 16: LOC 50.06.002-3/ADU Parking Requirement TABLE 50.06.002-3: MINIMUM OFF-STREET PARKING SPACE REQUIREMENTS OTHER AREAS (A) RESIDENTAIL // 2.Accessory I .,it(in addition to I red for main dwelling . nit► See dwelling unit LOC 50.)3.00 .1.b.viO(a)fo.-siting standar-dNone(ORS 197.312(51(b)l, Item 16(M):The City shall not require any on-site parking (and no ADU parking requirements exist) in accordance with ORS 197.312(5)(b). LU 20-0015 (DRAFT 10/16/20) ATTACHMENT 2 (ORDINANCE 2853)/PAGE 20 OF 26 ITEM 17: LOC 50.06.008.4.h/Fire Hydrant Requirements h. Design, including materials, size and location of water mains, service lines,valves and hydrants, shall be in accordance with City Engineering Division's policies, design standards, technical specifications and standard details and be approved by the City Manager. Hydrants shall be located at ntcrscctions and at inter-ya of n _ thin CAA s+ from intcrsccticr in mcjor.lc .,I.. nt with the ti multi family url rcn � .� . .�izc �r� from of the lots as reauired by the Oregon Fire Code. Item 17(M): Streamline the fire hydrant placement requirements for development by referring to the Fire Code directly. LU 20-0015 (DRAFT 10/16/20) ATTACHMENT 2 (ORDINANCE 2853)/PAGE 21 OF 26 POLICY CODE AMENDMENTS Item 1: LOC 50.06.003.2.b.i/Driveway Approach Spillover //// (61. The driveway approach shall be within the right-of-way bounded by the extension of the lot's side or street side lot lines. //// Item 1(P): Prevent driveway approach from being in front of abutting lot. If the side lot line is angled on the lot,the angle continues into the ROW. ./- "7/ / I : . %. ---------------1-------__/ 17 /<:-..,r \ <1' C) 1214 z rcr __ ------- ---1 /0 1224 . 121 i .- all 11111 I .,-.1 \ 1226 (.‘„N.) N.) I 7 - _ -- ',1'. P\1 .,...........„4._____"-___-. .. _ _ , . , . I I T . , - - I LF-1 LU 20-0015 (DRAFT 10/16/20) ATTACHMENT 2 (ORDINANCE 2853)/PAGE 22 OF 26 ITEM 2: LOC 50.04.001.2.f.ii/R-6 Maximum Lot Coverage Standard //// Table 50.04.001 3. Res-idential— Medium Density Zone Dimensions• , and r�rete slabs shall be exempt from lot coverage calculations• //// Item 2(P): Change the R-6 lot coverage methodology to better match other residential zones to encourage preservation of trees. Proposed change would delete two extra lot coverage allowances from the R-6 zone and reduce development allowed by the R-6 zone. LU 20-0015 (DRAFT 10/16/20) ATTACHMENT 2 (ORDINANCE 2853)/PAGE 23 OF 26 ITEM 3: LOC 50.10.003/Cohousing Definition Cohousing community Semi-communal housing consisting of multiple dwelling units in a multi-family dwelling. with one or more communal living spaces such as cooking and eating facilities. gardens. meeting spaces, recreation areas. and sanitary facilities. Where dwelling units are individually owned. the communal living spaces are managed by a homeowners association. cooperative. partnership. or other legal entity for the benefit of the residents. Dwelling Unit One or more habitable rooms which are occupied or which are intended or designed to be occupied by one family with housekeeping facilities for living, sleeping, sanitary facilities, cooking and eating*, except that living facilities. such as cooking. eating and sanitary facility areas may be communal in a •ohousing community. [Cross-Reference: See also "Family" definition referring to occupancy of dwelling unit as a single housekeeping unit.] Dwelling, Multi-Family A building on one or more lots designed to contain three or more dwelling units that share common walls or floor/ceilings with one or more units. The land underneath the structure is not divided into separate lots. "Multi-family dwelling" includes structures commonly called garden apartments, apartments, condominiums, and cohousing commun. . Item 3 (P):The code does not currently define or address cohousing. Staff propose to define "Cohousing" as a cooperative living arrangement (a "community")that may exist in multi-family developments. Cohousing communities are intentional communities with communal living spaces,which may include but are not limited to kitchens,gardens, meeting spaces, recreation areas, sanitary facilities, etc. In cohousing communities, decision making, particularly for these communal spaces, is for the collective. A Dwelling Unit is currently"One or more habitable rooms which are occupied or which are intended or designed to be occupied by one family with housekeeping facilities for living, sleeping, sanitary facilities, cooking and eating." This proposed definition intentionally does not reference single-family dwellings, accessory dwellings, duplexes, congregate care, or other uses. However, by limiting cohousing to multi-family dwellings, as multi-family is presently defined, the code amendments do not invoke House Bill 2001 or limit the City's options for implementing the bill's middle housing mandates. The code change does not add any new dwelling types to the Code or add an allowed use to any zone where multi- family dwellings are not permitted. No "single-family zone" is affected. LU 20-0015 (DRAFT 10/16/20) ATTACHMENT 2 (ORDINANCE 2853)/PAGE 24 OF 26 Item 4: LOC 50.10.003.2/Definitions/Community Institution/Institutional Use LOC 50.10.003.2 Definitions Community Institution A building or buildings occupied as nhce of•w orship or for public or private cultural,fraternal' or-civic f f f f f unrelated to the institution Institutional Use Private educational, fraternal. reliaious facilities and private or public cultural, civic,religious-or social welfare facilities. It dAeC not include gSovernmental facilities or public schools#are defined and regulated as see-"Public Facility . Staff Comment: Government facilities and public schools are specifically defined and regulated as "public facilities". This makes it clear that they are not to be classified under the broader"Institutional Use" definition and use standards. //// Table 50.03.002-2 COMMERCIAL, MIXED USE, INDUSTRIAL AND SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICTS USE TABLE Use- Commercial,Mixed Use,Industrial Special Purpose Specific Use Standards Use Type Category WLG FMU NC u,u GC HC f9] OC u EC L] CR&D MC I IP Lg. CI PF PNA OC RMU R-2.5 PUBLIC,INSTITUTIONAL, 50,03.003. AND CIVIC USES 5 Community Cemetery C and Cultural Community P/C P/C 50.03.003.6 Facility garden j LU 20-0015 (DRAFT 10/16/20) ATTACHMENT 2 (ORDINANCE 2853)/PAGE 25 OF 26 Use- Commercial,Mixed Use,Industrial Special Purpose Specific Use Standards Use Type Category WLG FMU U NC u,u GC HC OC u EC LF CR&D MC I IP L5] CI PF PNA OC RMU R-2.5 Community P J10 P P P P P P P 50.03.003.5 in-stitutione 1 1 .a institutional Use Item 4(P): Combine the definitions of"community institution"and "institutional use" into a single defined term.The proposal deletes the term "community institution"and broadens the definition of"institutional use"accordingly. References to the funding source and structure of an organization,such as"public service organization"and "charitable entity,"are deliberately left out of the new definition of"institutional use" because those terms are not defined in the code and because the intent of the code is to regulated uses, not the form or funding source of the entity that is operating the use. LU 20-0015 (DRAFT 10/16/20) ATTACHMENT 2 (ORDINANCE 2853)/PAGE 26 OF 26 APPROVED: 10/12/2020 1 BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION 2 OF THE 3 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 4 5 A REQUEST FOR AMENDMENTS TO THE ) LU 20-0015 — 1995 6 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR THE ) (CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO) 7 PURPOSE OF CLARIFYING AND UPDATING ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & ORDER 8 VARIOUS PROVISIONS AND ) 9 ADOPTING ORDINANCE 2853. ) 10 11 NATURE OF APPLICATION 12 13 The City of Lake Oswego is requesting approval of legislative amendments (Ordinance 2853) to 14 the Lake Oswego Community Development Code (CDC) for the purpose of clarifying and 15 updating various provisions. Proposed amendments are to: 16 17 LOC 50.07.007.3.a.i— Platting 18 LOC 50.07.003.17— Expiration of Development Permit 19 LOC 50.08.003.2.e— Design Variance Classifications 20 LOC 50.08.003.6— Residential Infill Design (RID) Review Variance Criteria 21 LOC 50.05.010.4.d.i(1) —Generally Applicable Standards for Lands with RP Districts, RC Districts, 22 and HBA Protection Areas 23 LOC 50.05.010.6.c.ii(1)(c)—Standards Applicable to RP Districts 24 LOC 50.09.002.6—Complaint Procedures and Corrective Action - Fences 25 LOC 50.05.010.6.b.iii(3)— Buffer Averaging 26 LOC 50.05.010.2.b.ii—Applicability 27 LOC 50.07.003.1.e(i) and (ii) —Application 28 LOC 50.07.007.2.c(i)— Flag Lots 29 LOC 50.03.005.4.b.ii— In Commercial and Industrial Zones 30 Table 50.06.002-3— Minimum Off-Street Parking Space Requirements 31 LOC 50.03.003.1.b— Residential - Permitted Uses 32 LOC 50.10.003.2— Definition of Terms 33 LOC 50.07.004.8.b.iii(a)—Sensitive Lands Designations, Map Corrections and Delineations 34 LOC 50.06.002.2.b—Standards for Approval 35 LOC 50.10.003.2— Definition of Terms 36 Table LOC 50.06.002-3— Minimum Off-Street Parking Space Requirements 37 LOC 50.06.008.4.h —Standards for Construction 38 LOC 50.06.003.2.b—On-Site Circulation — Driveways and Fire Access Roads 39 LOC 50.04.001.2.f.ii— Residential Medium Density Zones 40 LOC 50.10.003.2— Definition of Terms 41 LOC 50.10.003.2— Definition of Terms 42 LOC 50.03.002.2— Residential Use Table 43 LU 20-0015-1995 EXHIBIT B-1/Page 1 of 4 APPROVED: 10/12/2020 1 2 HEARINGS 3 4 The Planning Commission held a public hearing and considered this application at its meeting 5 on September 28, 2020 (Continued from September 14, 2020). 6 7 CRITERIA AND STANDARDS 8 9 A. City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan 10 Land Use Planning- Policies A-1, A-2, B-3, C-1, C-3, C-5, and D-1 11 Community Culture - Policies 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 12 Inspiring Spaces and Places- Goal 1, Policies 1, 2, 8, and 9; Goal 2, Policies 4 (d and e) 13 Complete Neighborhoods & Housing - Policies A-5, B-1, B-2, and C-7 14 Economic Vitality- Policy B-1 15 16 B. City of Lake Oswego Community Development Code 17 LOC 50.07.003.3.c. Published Notice for Legislative Hearing 18 LOC 50.07.003.16.a Legislative Decisions Defined 19 LOC 50.07.003.16.b Criteria for Legislative Decision 20 LOC 50.07.003.16.c Required Notice to DLCD 21 LOC 50.07.003.16.d.iii Planning Commission Recommendation Required 22 LOC 50.07.003.16.e City Council Review and Decision 23 24 CONCLUSION 25 26 The Planning Commission concludes that the recommended Code Amendments in Attachment 27 2 (dated 9/14/20) of proposed Ordinance 2853 are in compliance with all applicable criteria. 28 29 FINDINGS AND REASONS 30 31 The Planning Commission (Commission) incorporates the staff report, dated September 14, 32 2020 (with all exhibits attached thereto), on LU 20-0015 as support for its decision, 33 supplemented by the further findings and conclusions set forth herein. In the event of any 34 inconsistency between the supplementary matter herein and the staff report, the matter herein 35 controls. 36 37 Following are the supplementary findings and conclusions of this Commission: 38 39 1. Policy Item #2— Lot Coverage in the R-6 Zone [LOC 50. 04.001.2.f.ii]. The Commission 40 received testimony from Roseann Johnson, on behalf of the Home Builders Association 41 of Metropolitan Portland (HBA) during the hearing in opposition to the proposal to align 42 the R-6 lot coverage calculation with other residential zones. Ms. Johnson requested 43 additional time and stakeholder meetings to review the proposal and discuss it with the LU 20-0015-1995 EXHIBIT B-1/Page 2 of 4 APPROVED: 10/12/2020 1 First Addition/ Forest Hills Neighborhood Association. The testimony contended that 2 measuring height for lot coverage using the same methodology and exceptions allowed 3 in all other zones would result in boxier houses and reduce buyers' purchasing power. 4 The testimony did not identify any applicable Comprehensive Plan policy contrary to the 5 proposed amendment. 6 7 The Commission finds that sufficient notice and opportunity for participation in the 8 planning process including comment on the amendment has been provided to the 9 residents of the R-6 zone, the First Addition / Forest Hills Neighborhood Association (in 10 which the R-6 zone is located), and to HBA and other interested persons through focus 11 groups, Planning Commission Work Sessions, mailed notices, and the Measure 56 notice 12 mailed to all affected property owners. Staff advises that the First Addition / Forest Hills 13 Neighborhood Association supports the amendment. 14 15 The Commission finds that this amendment will establish code language for the R-6 16 zone consistent with all other residential zones for height measurement for the 17 purposes of lot coverage, and lot coverage exceptions, which will improve public 18 understanding of the Code. The Commission finds that the standard lot coverage 19 methodology and exceptions already apply in similar residential zones, such as the R-5 20 zone which has a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet, and that design standards, such 21 as front and side yard setback planes, and their exceptions, are sufficient to prevent 22 "boxy" homes in these established zones. Accordingly, the Commission concurs with 23 the staff finding that the amendment complies with Comprehensive Plan, Land Use 24 Planning Chapter, Development, Policy A-1(g)("maintain land use regulations ... (g) to 25 promote architectural and site design quality), and Design Standards and Guidelines, 26 Policy C-3(a)("new development to enhance the existing built environment in terms of 27 size, scale, bulk, ... and architectural design." 28 29 ORDER 30 31 IT IS ORDERED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION of the City of Lake Oswego that: 32 33 1. The Planning Commission recommends that proposed Ordinance 2853, with Attachment 2 34 [LU 20-0015] be approved by the City Council. 35 36 I CERTIFY THAT THIS ORDER was presented to and APPROVED by the Planning Commission of 37 the City of Lake Oswego. 38 39 40 LU 20-0015-1995 EXHIBIT B-1/Page 3 of 4 APPROVED: 10/12/2020 1 DATED this 12th day of October, 2020. 2 3 4 Robert Heape 5 Robert Heape, Chair 6 Planning Commission 7 8 9 ATTEST: 10 11 PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATION - September 28. 2020 12 13 AYES: Beckett, Fischer, Heape, Pape, Semler, Stewart 14 NOES: None 15 ABSTAIN: None 16 EXCUSED: Whitman 17 18 ADOPTION OF FINDINGS AND ORDER - October 12. 2020 19 20 AYES: Beckett, Fischer, Heape, Pape, Semler, Stewart 21 NOES: None 22 ABSTAIN: None 23 EXCUSED: Whitman LU 20-0015-1995 EXHIBIT B-1/Page 4 of 4 APPROVED: 10/12/2020 ��LA f 01 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 2020 °orr.,n' 1 2 1. CALL TO ORDER 3 Chair Heape called the meeting to order at approximately 6:30 p.m. This was a video 4 conference meeting held via Zoom. 5 6 2. ROLL CALL 7 Members present were Chair Rob Heape, Vice Chair Christian Pape and Commissioners 8 Dave Beckett, Joel Fischer, Jacob Semler and Philip Stewart. Commissioner Kim Whitman 9 was excused. 10 11 Staff present were Scot Siegel, Director of Planning and Building Services; Evan Boone, 12 Deputy City Attorney; Ellen Davis, Associate Planner; Jean Hall, Administrative Support and 13 Iris McCaleb, Administrative Assistant. 14 15 3. COUNCIL UPDATE 16 None. 17 18 4. CITIZEN COMMENT 19 None. 20 21 5. COMMISSION FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT(CCI) — = NERAL UPDATES 22 Chair Heape announced the following upcomin• eighborhood association meetings: 23 • Old Town Neighborhood Associ. .•n, October 8, 2020, at 7:00 pm. 24 • Evergreen Neighborhood A =•ciation, October 13, 2020, at 7:00 pm. 25 • Waluga Neighborhood I sociation, October 14, 2020, at 7:00 pm. 26 27 6. MINUTES 28 6.1 September 1 A 820 29 Commi over Stewart moved to approve the minutes of September 14, 2020, as written. 30 Co issioner Fischer seconded the motion and it passed 3:0:2. Chair Heape and 31 ommissioner Semler abstained. 32 33 7. PUBLIC HEARING 34 7.1 2020 Annual Community Development Code Amendments (LU 20-0015) 35 Due to television broadcasting issues, this hearing was continued from September 14. 36 A request from the City of Lake Oswego for proposed amendments to the Community 37 Development Code (CDC) to clarify platting requirements and expiration of permits for lot line 38 adjustments and resource delineations, allow RID variances to the Long Wall Plane Standard, City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of September 28, 2020 EXHIBIT C-1/Page 1 of 6 APPROVED: 1 0/1 2/2020 1 change Sensitive lands protection fence height to match tree protection fence height, clarify 2 utilities exception in RP Districts, remove obsolete fence complaint procedure, correct 3 reduction of Protected Riparian Areas (PRA) to reflect all sizes of PRAs, clarify that mitigation 4 requirements apply to resource restoration resulting from a code violation, require pre- 5 application conference for in-stream resource enhancement projects, provide a clear and 6 objective option for creation of flag lot access lanes, move no parking requirement for outdoor 7 dining to Parking Table, clarify that all residential zones allow manufactured homes, modify 8 definitions of Net Developable Area and Density Transfer Area, remove annual reporting 9 requirement for sensitive lands map corrections, calculate bicycle parking requirements for 10 unlisted uses, clarify definition of undisturbed slopes, delete obsolete ADU parking 11 requirement, adopt Fire Code requirements for fire hydrant placement in new development, 12 prevent driveway approaches from extending in front of abutting properties, align lot coverage 13 calculation in the R-6 Zone with other residential zones, define Cohousing and add to multi- 14 family definition, combine definitions for community institution and institutional use. Staff 15 coordinator was Ellen Davis, Associate Planner. 16 17 Chair Heape opened the hearing. Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney, outlined the applicable 18 criteria and procedures. No financial conflicts of interest were declared, and no one 19 challenged any Commissioner's right to consider the application. 20 21 Staff Report 22 Ms. Davis reviewed the schedule process and noted that the hearing was continued from 23 September 14, 2020, due to technical issues that prevented the meeting from being broadcast. 24 She proposed that the Planning Commission Findings, Conclusions and Order would be 25 considered at the October 12, 2020, meeting and that the City Council public hearing was 26 tentatively scheduled for November 3, 2020. 27 28 Ms. Davis reported that she had received calls regarding Code Maintenance Item 6 — 29 Reduction of Protected Riparian Area (PRA); she explained that current code allowed buffer 30 averaging in cases where there was a protected area around a wetland or stream and when 31 development needed to be close to the wetland or stream, encroaching into the PRA was 32 permitted as long as the PRA was increased in another area so that the average buffer 33 continued to meet the minimum buffer width for the resource. She advised that currently there 34 was a 25 and 30 PRA, but 50 feet was not listed, although it existed on some properties. 35 36 Ms. Davis reviewed the following policy amendments: 37 38 1. Driveway Approach Spillover: Prevent driveway approaches from extending in front of 39 abutting properties. If property was angled the angle of side property line would continue into 40 the public right-of-way, driveway would be placed between the extensions of two side property 41 lines. This change would provide increased control over driveway approach including site 42 distance, stormwater and other externalities. 43 44 2. R-6 Maximum Lot Coverage Standard: Remove R-6 height and deck/stairs bonuses 45 and exemptions to lot coverage for consistency with other residential zones. Ms. Davis 46 advised that the R-6 zone existed only within the First Addition Neighbors-Forest Hills (FAN- 47 FH) Neighborhood Association and that the R-6 zone was created after many of the other 48 zones. Mr. Siegel stated that it came from the neighborhood plan and the proposed change 49 was from the neighborhood's years of experience; he indicated that the method of calculating 50 coverage resulted in the overall mass being out of proportion and lots being overbuilt. Ms. 51 Davis added that small house footprints were being removed and houses with larger footprints 52 were being built, this was also resulting in more trees being removed and fewer trees being City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of September 28, 2020 EXHIBIT C-1/Page 2 of 6 APPROVED: 1 0/1 2/2020 1 replanted due to lack of space for trees to mature. Ms. Davis confirmed that the neighborhood 2 association was in favor of this amendment. 3 4 Regarding the history of the R-6 zone in FAN-FH, Mr. Siegel explained that the R-6 and R-2 5 zones were included in the neighborhood plan which was adopted in 1996. He advised that 6 the primary purpose of the R-6 zone was to replace the R-7.5 zone in order to create a 7 minimum lot size and development standards more consistent with the existing pattern of 8 development in the neighborhood which consisted of 6,000 square foot lots. 9 10 3. Cohousing Definition: Adds flexibility to definition of"Dwelling Unit" to allow shared 11 facilities in a communal cohousing community; added to multifamily definition, will have no 12 effect on single-family zones and is not part of House Bill 2001. 13 14 Ms. Davis explained that the current code required each dwelling unit to have its own cooking, 15 bathroom, and living facilities within its own housekeeping unit; this style of living, where 16 amenities might be shared between multiple separate dwelling units, was not currently allowed 17 in code. She stated that it would allow more flexibility and sharing of facilities within the 18 broader dwelling could help to alleviate some housing pressures in neighborhoods and allow 19 more flexibility for families and others who wanted to live in Lake Oswego. She added that the 20 City was trying to be more inclusive in housing and less narrow in considering what aspects or 21 amenities could be shared between dwelling units. She advised that the proposed changes 22 would not allow co-housing or multi-family dwellings in any zones where multi-family was not 23 already allowed and they would not change density or the review and approval process. She 24 stated that it was addressing how the residence operated internally, within the walls of the 25 structure. Ms. Davis clarified that where dwelling units were individually owned, the communal 26 living spaces were managed by a homeowners association, cooperative, partnership, or other 27 legal entity for the benefit of the residents. She explained that communal living in multi-family 28 zones was not part of House Bill 2001 which was looking at middle housing (duplex, triplex, 29 quadplex, and row houses) in single-family zoning areas; the proposed amendment was only 30 looking at multi-family housing in areas/zones where multi-family was allowed. She clarified 31 that duplex, triplex, and row houses were not considered multi-family and the proposed 32 amendments would not automatically apply - the code would need to be changed. 33 34 Commissioner Fischer asked about potential conflicts of shared areas and whether the city was 35 risking potential lawsuits. Mr. Boone advised no, the city regulated the use not the manner in 36 how a private property was managed. Commissioner Semler asked if it carried over to 37 commercial and short-term rentals. Ms. Davis advised that short-term rentals were only 38 allowed in single-family dwellings, not multi-family. 39 40 4. Definitions/Community Institution/Institutional Use: Remove Definition of"Community 41 Institution" and alter definition of"Institutional Use" and Use Table to prevent loss of currently 42 allowed uses. Ms. Davis explained that civic and cultural uses were not public facilities and 43 that pubic facilities, public institutions or government buildings were addressed in separate 44 definitions in the code. 45 46 Testimony 47 Roseann Johnson, 15555 Banav Road, Suite 301, Lake Osweao, OR 97035, stated that she 48 was speaking on behalf of the Home Builders Association of Metropolitan Portland (HBA), 49 which represented approximately 850 builders, developers, remodelers and associated 50 suppliers and trades in the Portland metropolitan region. She was commenting on Policy Item 51 2 — R-6 Maximum Lot Coverage Standard. She requested that this item be pulled to allow 52 more time to discuss with the neighborhood. She shared that the code amendment was City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of September 28, 2020 EXHIBIT C-1/Page 3 of 6 APPROVED: 1 0/1 2/2020 1 brought up by FAN-FH at the tail end of a late November 2019 meeting with the intention of 2 adding to a previous annual code amendment package, however because it was too late it was 3 added to the 2020 list of proposed amendments. She indicated that it did not have the same 4 amount of time as the previous 2019 amendments for robust discussion with stakeholders. 5 She explained the danger of changing the code and unintended consequences and that it was 6 unclear if the proposed changes would actually save trees. She indicated that other 7 contributing factors to tree preservation included alley loading garages which were often 8 mandated in R-6 and cut into backyard space where trees and fauna might be. She added that 9 houses could end up looking boxier with less articulation. She also requested that the term 10 "landscape structures" be defined. Ms. Johnson advised that the proposed changes could 11 result in smaller homes for the same amount of money and that a discussion around housing 12 and trees was extremely well warranted. She formally requested that the Planning 13 Commission remove this policy from the proposed amendment package to allow stakeholders 14 more time to convene on some visuals of what housing could look like and other contributing 15 factors around tree preservation. 16 17 Mr. Siegel advised that if this policy was pulled it would not create a conflict, no projects were 18 hanging in the balance, however it would add to staff workload and could result in a tradeoff 19 with future Planning Commission goals. 20 21 Commissioner Beckett questioned why the HBA hadn't brought objections forward to the 22 Commission sooner. Ms. Johnson recalled that it was suggested at a meeting of stakeholders 23 in November which was the first time many developers had heard of it and no further 24 discussions had occurred. She expressed concern that home owners wanting to sell property 25 and new property owners to the area since November would not have been aware of the 26 proposed change. She clarified that the HBA had not reached out to FAN-FH and they didn't 27 reach out to the city until August when it showed up as an item on the agenda. Mr. Siegel 28 advised that property owners in the R-6 zone had been notified with a M56 notice informing 29 them of the proposed amendments. Ms. Johnson shared that in past practice there was 30 collaboration with the City, with Mr. Siegel, and that there had been standing development 31 stakeholder meetings, however it did not occur in this case, partially due to COVID related 32 activities that started in March. 33 34 Commissioner Semler asked if the HBA was aware of any of their members living in the R-6 35 zone. Ms. Johnson stated it would require a poll from their member database. Commissioner 36 Semler asked if there were certain elements of the definition that the HBA felt strong opposition 37 to, was there a sticking point and where was the HBA willing to compromise. Ms. Johnson 38 explained that any change in calculation had a larger impact on smaller lots compared to larger 39 lots. She suggested that flexibility— picking a point of measurement, exemptions, such as the 40 stairs and balconies, needed to be allowed and would be market driven. She suggested an 41 area of compromise might be picking a point of measurement, not 1000 points of variability. 42 Commissioner Fischer asked how long a delay the HBA wanted. Ms. Johnson said from a 43 practical perspective that the HBA/Developers should meet with FAN-FH in the next 2 or 3 44 months, meet at least a couple of times and look at actual proposed house plans of what would 45 and would not be allowed and come to a good neighbor agreement. 46 47 Vice Chair Pape asked Ms. Davis if any phone calls were received after the Measure 56 notice 48 went out and were there any concerns. Ms. Davis said that most callers were asking for 49 clarification and there was no opposition, the only opposition was from the HBA. 50 51 Chair Heape closed the public testimony portion of the hearing. 52 City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of September 28, 2020 EXHIBIT C-1/Page 4 of 6 APPROVED: 1 0/1 2/2020 1 Ms. Davis confirmed for Commissioner Stewart that the R-6 zone was different from other 2 zones, it had its own methodology for measuring height and what was or wasn't excepted from 3 lot coverage; proposed changes would make the R-6 zone consistent with other zones 4 including the R-5 zone which has a smaller minimum lot size. 5 6 Chair Heape moved for preliminary approval of LU 20-0015 based on the findinas, reasons and 7 conclusions in the staff report and of the Plannina Commission's deliberations subiect to any 8 conditions stated in the staff report and if there were no reauests for chanaes to any items that 9 staff prepare the Findinas, Conclusions and Order for consideration at the next meeting. 10 Commissioner Fischer seconded the motion. 11 12 Discussion of Motion 13 Code Maintenance Items 14 The Commission reviewed Items 1 through 17 and had no changes. 15 16 Policy Items 17 The Commission reviewed Items 1 through 4. They had no changes to Items 1, 3 and 4. 18 19 Item 2 — R-6 Maximum Lot Coverage Standard: The Commission received testimony and a 20 request from Roseann Johnson representing the Home Builders Association of Metropolitan 21 Portland, to pull this item from the package of proposed amendments to allow more time for the 22 HBA and neighborhood to continue discussions. 23 24 Commissioner Semler pointed out that the HBA was aware property owners in the R-6 zone 25 received notice (Measure 56) and none came forward in opposition, he was in favor of pushing 26 forward. Commissioner Becket opined that the neighborhood association was in support of the 27 proposed amendment and they were the primary voice that the Commission should be listening to. 28 Chair Heape and Commissioner Fisher did not see any harm in a three month delay, especially 29 since it wouldn't impact any development decisions currently under consideration. Commissioner 30 Stewart held that if it were a large enough concern then the HBA would have managed to reach 31 out; he also didn't believe the change would have a substantial impact on development, that it was 32 better to make the code simpler and easier to understand and that more predictability would make 33 people more confident in what they could do. Vice Chair Pape questioned when the Measure 56 34 Notice was mailed and Ms. Davis stated that it was mailed on August 25, 2020. Vice Chair Pape 35 indicated that given the HBA was aware of the possible change in late December, early January 36 they had ample time, much more time than the property owners to digest proposed changes, and 37 he was in support of moving forward. The Commission took note of the R-5 zone which has a 38 smaller minimum lot size and uses the same height measurement methodology that is proposed. 39 40 Chair Heape observed from polling the Commission that four commissioners were in favor of 41 movina forward and two were opposed (preferring to pull Item 2 from the package). 42 43 Chair Heape noted that there were no requested changes to the proposed amendments and he 44 reviewed his previous motion. 45 46 Chair Heape moved for preliminary approval of LU 20-0015 based on the findings, reasons and 47 conclusions in the staff report and of the Plannina Commission's deliberations subiect to any 48 conditions stated in the staff report and that staff prepare the Findinas, Conclusions and Order for 49 consideration at the next meetina on October 12, 2020. Commissioner Fischer seconded the 50 motion and it passed 6:0. 51 52 City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of September 28, 2020 EXHIBIT C-1/Page 5 of 6 APPROVED: 1 0/1 2/2020 1 8. OTHER BUSINESS 2 None. 3 4 9. SCHEDULE REVIEW. 5 Mr. Siegel reviewed the updated schedule. 6 7 10. ADJOURNMENT 8 There being no other business, Chair Heape adjourned the meeting at 8:10 p.m. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of September 28, 2020 EXHIBIT C-1/Page 6 of 6 STAFF REPORT CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT APPLICANT FILE NO. City of Lake Oswego LU 20-0015, Ordinance 2853 LOCATION STAFF Citywide Ellen Davis, AICP, Associate Planner DATE OF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING DATE September 3, 2020 September 14, 2020 I. APPLICANT'S REQUEST The City of Lake Oswego is proposing to amend Chapter 50 (Community Development Code) of the Lake Oswego Code for the purpose of clarifying and updating various sections. The draft code amendments, which would enact these changes, are included in Attachment 2 to Exhibit A-1. The proposed amendments include provisions that will: CODE MAINTENANCE ITEMS (LOC Chapters 50.01, 50.03 - 50.08, and 50.10) ITEM DESCRIPTION LOC CODE SECTION(S) 1. Clarify Platting Requirements and Expiration of Permits for Lot Line LOC 50.07.007.3.a.i Adjustments and Resource Delineations LOC 50.07.003.17 2. Allow Residential Infill Development (RID) Variances to the Long LOC 50.08.003.2.e Wall Plane Standard LOC 50.08.003.6 3. Change Sensitive Lands Protection Fence Height to Match Tree LOC 50.05.010.4.d.i(1) Protection Fence Height 4. Clarify Utilities Exception in RP Districts to Ensure Mitigation is LOC Required for Expansion of Existing Utilities 50.05.010.6.c.ii(1)(c) 5. Remove Obsolete Fence Complaint Procedure LOC 50.09.002.6 6. Correct Reduction of Protected Riparian Areas (PRA) to reflect all LOC sizes of PRAs 50.05.010.6.b.iii(3) 7. Clarify that Mitigation Requirements Apply to Resource Restoration LOC 50.05.010.2.b.ii resulting from a code violation Planning Commission Public Hearing Page 1 of 11 LU 20-0015 9/14/20 LU 20-0015 EXHIBIT D-1/PAGE 1 OF 11 8. Require Pre-Application Conference for In-Stream Resource LOC 50.07.003.1.e(i) Enhancement Projects and (ii) 9. Provide a Clear and Objective Option for Creation of Flag Lot Access LOC 50.07.007.2.c(i) Lanes 10. Move No Parking Requirement for Outdoor Dining to Parking LOC 50.03.005.4.b.ii Table* Table 50.06.002-3 11. Clarify that all Residential Zones Allow Manufactured Homes LOC 50.03.003.1.b 12. Modify Definitions of Net Developable Area and Density Transfer LOC 50.10.003.2 Area to Simplify Open Space and Density Calculations for Subdivisions Dedicating Land to the City 13. Remove Annual Reporting Requirement for Sensitive Lands Map LOC Corrections 50.07.004.8.b.iii(a) 14. Calculate Bicycle Parking Requirements for Unlisted Uses Based on LOC 50.06.002.2.b Most Similar Use 15. Clarify Definition of Undisturbed Slopes LOC 50.10.003.2 16. Delete Obsolete ADU Parking Requirement LOC 50.06.002-3 17. Adopt Fire Code requirements for Fire Hydrant Placement in New LOC 50.06.008.4.h Development CODE POLICY ITEMS (LOC Chapters 50.03, 50.04, 50.06, &50.10) 1. Prevent Driveway Approaches from Extending in Front of Abutting LOC 50.06.003.2.b Properties 2. Align Lot Coverage Calculation in the R-6 Zone with Other LOC 50.04.001.2.f.ii Residential Zones 3. Definitions: Add Cohousing to Multi-family Definition LOC 50.10.003 4. Definitions of Community Institution and Institutional Use LOC 50.10.003.2 LOC 50.03.002.2 * The amendments for outdoor dining enclosures tentatively approved by City Council on September 1 are pending final adoption. For this reason, both the current and the proposed code are provided in Attachment 2 of Exhibit A-1. II. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS A. City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan Land Use Planning Policies A-1, A-2, B-3, C-1, C-3, C-5, and D-1 Community Culture Policies 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 Inspiring Spaces and Places Goal 1, Policies 1, 2, 8, and 9 Goal 2, Policies 4 (d and e) Planning Commission Public Hearing Page 2 of 11 LU 20-0015 9/14/20 LU 20-0015 EXHIBIT D-1/PAGE 2 OF 11 Complete Neighborhoods & Housing Policies A-5, B-1, B-2, and C-7 Economic Vitality Policy B-1 B. City of Lake Oswego Community Development Code LOC 50.07.003.16.a Legislative Decisions Defined LOC 50.07.003.16.c Required Notice to DLCD LOC 50.07.003.16.d Planning Commission Recommendation Required LOC 50.07.003.16.e City Council Review and Decision III. INTRODUCTION / BACKGROUND INFORMATION The purpose of the proposed code amendments is twofold: 1) to correct errors, eliminate text redundancy, and clarify text; and 2) to implement minor policy changes intended to streamline the permit process and implement City Council goals and priorities, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. This process is part of the City's ongoing effort to make the regulations less burdensome on residents and businesses while maintaining community standards. Proposed Ordinance 2853 consists of 17 maintenance amendments and four policy amendments. The text boxes in Attachment 2 of Exhibit A-1 describe the reason for each amendment, and include commentary on its background and discussion points. The amendments that generated the most discussion are found in policy Item#3. The commentary and discussion points for each of these items are found in Attachment 2 of Exhibit A-1, on page 25. IV. NOTICE OF APPLICATION A. Newspaper Notice On September 4, 2020, public notice of the proposed CDC text amendments and Planning Commission public hearing will be published in the Oregonian. B. ORS 227.186 (Measure 56) Notice The City followed the procedures required by ORS 227.186 (Ballot Measure 56) for notification of the owners of property potentially affected by changes that "amends an ordinance in a manner that limits or prohibits land uses previously allowed in the affected zone." Staff's review of the proposed amendments identified an amendment that could reduce maximum potential lot coverage on some lots in the R-6 zone (Policy Item 2) and an amendment that establishes the minimum buffer averaging width for Protected Riparian Areas where the width is reduced below a Planning Commission Public Hearing Page 3 of 11 LU 20-0015 9/14/20 LU 20-0015 EXHIBIT D-1/PAGE 3 OF 11 50-foot buffer width standard (Maintenance Item 6). The notice was mailed to all of these property owners. C. DLCD and Metro Notices Pursuant to ORS 197.610 and LOC 50.003.07.16.c, staff has provided notice of the proposed CDC text amendments to the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD). Staff notified Metro as required by Metro Code 3.07.820(a). V. COMPLIANCE WITH APPROVAL CRITERIA A. City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan Staff has identified the following Comprehensive Plan Policies applicable to this proposal: Land Use Planning— Development (Community Development Code), Development Review, Design Standards and Guidelines, and Land Use Administration Policies A-1, A-2, C-1, C-3, C-5, and D-1. Development (Community Development Code! Policy A-1: Maintain land use regulations and standards to: // b. Promote compatibility between development and existing and desired neighborhood character; // e. Provide for necessary public facilities and services; // g. Promote architectural and site design quality. Findings: Staff finds that all of the proposed amendments are necessary to streamline the Code for consistency and efficiency. None of the amendments will negatively impact the Code's ongoing ability to ensure compatible redevelopment, preservation of neighborhood character, and provision of necessary public facilities. Policy A-2: Ensure that land use regulations have sufficient flexibility to allow developers and the City to propose measures to: a. Adapt development to unique and difficult site conditions; b. Preserve open space and natural resources; and, c. Avoid negative impacts on surrounding properties. Planning Commission Public Hearing Page 4 of 11 LU 20-0015 9/14/20 LU 20-0015 EXHIBIT D-1/PAGE 4 OF 11 Findings: Staff finds that several of the amendments are specifically tailored to preservation of natural resources and clarifying requirements for challenging sites. • Maintenance Item #2 allows RID variance applications for the long wall plane standard on narrow lots. • Maintenance Item #4 clarifies that mitigation is required for expansion of utilities located within sensitive lands districts. • Maintenance Item #6 establishes a minimum buffer averaging width for Protected Riparian Areas with a 50-foot buffer width standard. • Maintenance Item #7 clarifies that mitigation requirements apply to restoration required as a result of a code violation. • Maintenance Item #8 requires a pre-application conference for resource enhancement projects proposing in-stream work. • Maintenance Item #15 clarifies the definition of undisturbed slopes to more easily identify when hillside protection standards apply. These amendments, along with all of the others, will not substantially change how the existing Code preserves open space and natural resources, and avoids negative impacts of development on surrounding properties. Design Standards and Guidelines Policy C-3: Enact and maintain regulations and standards which require: a. New development to enhance the existing built environment in terms of size, scale, bulk, color, materials and architectural design; b. Landscaping; c. Buffering and screening between differing land uses; d. Measures to foster a safe and interesting transit and pedestrian environment; and, e. Minimize and/or mitigate adverse traffic impacts generated by new development on adjacent neighborhoods. Findings: Staff finds that the proposed amendments either do not impact or help refine and clarify the existing Code's design regulations and standards listed under this policy. Maintenance Item #9 provides a clear and objective track for flag lot access consolidation. Maintenance Item #14 adds a provision to the required bike parking table to allow similar use calculations for uses not listed. Policy Item #1 prevents driveway approaches from spilling over into the right-of-way in front of neighboring properties. Policy C-5:Adopt and maintain clear and objective standards for needed housing, pursuant to state law. Planning Commission Public Hearing Page 5 of 11 LU 20-0015 9/14/20 LU 20-0015 EXHIBIT D-1/PAGE 5 OF 11 Findings: Staff finds that the proposed Maintenance Item #9 provides a clear and objective track for flag lot access consolidation, to ensure that needed housing is subject to clear and objective regulations. Land Use Administration Policy D-1: Coordinate the development and amendment of City plans and actions related to land use with other affected agencies, including county, state, Metro, federal agency, and special districts. Findings: Staff has provided the required notification to State and Metro jurisdictions consistent with this policy. Federal agencies and special districts are not uniquely affected by these amendments. Conclusion: The proposal is consistent with these Land Use Planning policies. Community Culture Policies 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. Policy 1: Provide opportunities for citizen participation in preparing and revising local land use plans and ordinances. Policy 2: Provide citizen involvement opportunities that are appropriate to the scale of a given planning effort. Large area plans, affecting a large portion of community residents and groups require citizen involvement opportunities of a broader scope than that required for more limited land use decisions. Policy 3: Utilize City boards and commissions, neighborhood associations, and other community groups to ensure a diverse and geographically broad range of citizen input in land use issues. Policy 4: Encourage citizens to participate through their neighborhood without excluding participation as individuals or through other groups. Policy 5: Seek citizen input through service organizations, interest groups and individuals, as well as through neighborhood organizations. Findings: The Community Development Code, which implements the Comprehensive Plan, contains requirements for a citizen involvement program that clearly defines the procedures by which the general public will be notified in the on-going legislative land use planning process and enables citizens to comprehend the issues and become involved in the development of land use policy. The proposed code amendments were identified over the past year based on input from the community, including neighborhood representatives, builders/development Planning Commission Public Hearing Page 6 of 11 LU 20-0015 9/14/20 LU 20-0015 EXHIBIT D-1/PAGE 6 OF 11 applicants, staff, and the Planning Commission. The Commission held two work sessions where public input on the scope of the proposed code amendments was accepted. All required notification measures and opportunities for input as specified in the Code were provided during this process, including notice to all Neighborhood Associations and business organizations. Public hearings will be held before the Planning Commission and City Council. Therefore, the process followed for these amendments complies with the above cited Comprehensive Plan policies. Conclusion: The City has provided adequate opportunities for public participation consistent with the applicable Comprehensive Plan policies. Inspiring Spaces and Places Goal 1, Policies 1, 2, 8, and 9 Goal 2, Policy 4 (d and e) Goal 1: Policy 1:Adopt implementation measures and guidelines that ensure: a. New development in residential areas complements the existing built environment in terms of size, scale, bulk, height, and setbacks. b. New development in mixed-use, commercial and employment areas: i. Promotes a safe and attractive pedestrian environment; ii. Reflects high-quality aesthetics, considering size, scale and bulk, color, materials, architectural style and detailing, and landscaping; and iii. Includes buffering and screening to protect residential uses and neighborhoods. Findings: Most of the proposed amendments are maintenance amendments and are minor adjustments necessary to ensure code consistency and to clarify procedural regulations; this policy is not applicable to these code amendments. Maintenance Item #1 (allowing application for RID variance to the long wall plane standards), Policy Item #1 (preventing driveway approaches from extending in front of neighboring properties), and Policy Item #2 (align lot coverage in the R-6 zone with other residential zones) will help ensure high-quality development across multiple zones and promote a safe and attractive pedestrian environment. With these amendments, the Code will continue to promote quality pedestrian environments and aesthetics while ensuring residential uses are buffered. Policy 2:Adopt and maintain design standards and provide incentives that encourage exceptional or high quality design. Policy 8: Protect Lake Oswego's village aesthetic by adopting and maintaining implementation measures and guidelines that preserve the residential character of Lake Planning Commission Public Hearing Page 7 of 11 LU 20-0015 9/14/20 LU 20-0015 EXHIBIT D-1/PAGE 7 OF 11 Oswego's neighborhoods, safeguard places of historical significance (See also, Community Culture: Historic and Cultural Resources), and encourage urban form that results in pedestrian friendly retail districts in existing commercial areas, including buildings oriented to the street and active ground floor uses. Findings: Adopted standards that ensure quality design and preservation of residential character are being maintained in the Code, with some of them being modified. • Maintenance Item #2 would allow applications for RID Variances to the long wall plane standard on narrow lots which may allow design flexibility on challenging narrow sites without significantly altering neighborhood character. • Maintenance Item #14 provides flexibility for bike parking requirements when a use is not already listed. Policy 9: Preserve the visual attractiveness of the community by limiting adverse visual impacts to the City's public spaces and streetscape. Findings: Policy Item #1 will reduce visual clutter and create a more orderly streetscape by preventing driveway approaches from spilling over in front of neighboring properties. None of the code changes will have a negative visual impact to public spaces or streetscapes. Goal 2: Policy 4 (d and e): Promote carefully organized patterns of growth through land use regulations, standards, and incentives that: // d. Provide design guidelines that enhance and preserve the unique character of Lake Oswego's neighborhoods and commercial districts. e. Provide opportunities for local economic growth. Findings: The existing Code regulations include standards that ensure enhancement and preservation of the City's unique neighborhoods and commercial districts. • Maintenance Item #2 will provide a flexibility for narrow lots while preserving the neighborhood character through the RID variance criteria. • Maintenance Item #14 clarifies how required bike parking is determined for commercial uses when not specified by code. These amendments also support local businesses and ensure ongoing economic growth in the business sectors by adding flexibility for residential construction and clarifying bicycle parking requirements for unlisted commercial uses. Conclusion: The proposal is consistent with these Inspiring Spaces and Places policies. Planning Commission Public Hearing Page 8 of 11 LU 20-0015 9/14/20 LU 20-0015 EXHIBIT D-1/PAGE 8 OF 11 Complete Neighborhoods and Housing— Housing Location and Quality, Housing Choice and Affordability, and Complete Neighborhoods Policies B-1, B-2, and C-7 Housing Location and Quality: Housing Choice and Affordability: Policy B-1: Provide and maintain zoning and development regulations that allow the opportunity to develop an adequate supply and variety of housing types, and that accommodate the needs of existing and future Lake Oswego residents. Policy B-2: Provide and maintain land use regulations that allow secondary(accessory) dwelling units, subject to standards that ensure compatibility with existing residences and residences on adjoining lots. Findings: Maintenance Item #16 removes an obsolete reference to a parking requirement for ADUs; the CDC no longer requires additional off-street parking for accessory dwelling units pursuant to Oregon ORS 197.312(5)(b)(B)1. Maintenance Item #11 clarifies that manufactured homes are permitted in all residential zones. Maintenance Item #17 adopts the Fire Code, which will aid in creation of subdivisions by providing clearer direction on the fire suppression requirements. Policy Item #3 adds a definition for cohousing and adds cohousing to the definition of multifamily, increasing the range of available housing options. Complete Neighborhoods: Policy C-7: Require infill housing to be designed and developed in ways to be compatible with existing neighborhood character. 1 (5)(a) A city with a population greater than 2,500 or a county with a population greater than 15,000 shall allow in areas within the urban growth boundary that are zoned for detached single- family dwellings the development of at least one accessory dwelling unit for each detached single-family dwelling, subject to reasonable local regulations relating to siting and design. (b) As used in this subsection: (A) "Accessory dwelling unit" means an interior, attached or detached residential structure that is used in connection with or that is accessory to a single-family dwelling. (B) "Reasonable local regulations relating to siting and design" does not include owner- occupancy requirements of either the primary or accessory structure or requirements to construct additional off-street parking. Planning Commission Public Hearing Page 9 of 11 LU 20-0015 9/14/20 LU 20-0015 EXHIBIT D-1/PAGE 9 OF 11 Findings: The existing Code includes both zone dimensional and structure design standards that ensure compatible infill development. Item #2 allows RID variance applications to the long wall plane standard increasing flexibility but still requiring compatibility with the existing neighborhood character through the RID criteria. Conclusion: The proposed amendments are consistent with Complete Neighborhoods and Housing policies. Economic Vitality— Employment Zones Policy B-1 Policy B-1: Provide opportunities for redevelopment and development in employment zones while: // c. Complying with design and aesthetic standards to promote compatibility with Lake Oswego's community character; // g. Maintaining safe and convenient pedestrian, bicycle and transit facilities/amenities that support efficient movements of people to and from the site; h. Promoting the efficient use of land by providing adequate parking for customers and employees, according to national transportation standards; // j. Promoting shared street access, parking facilities, and pedestrian connections with other businesses to provide more developable land area and reduce traffic congestion, parking, and safety problems. Findings: Maintenance Item #10 makes clear that no additional on-site parking is required for outdoor restaurant seating by moving the provision to the parking table, where it is more visible. Maintenance Item #14 ensures that even uses that are not currently listed in the bike parking table can ascertain the required number of bicycle parking spaces through similar use analysis. Policy Item #4 clarifies the institutional uses by untangling the current definitions of"community institution" and "institutional use." Conclusion: The proposal is consistent with this Economic Vitality policy. VI. RECOMMENDATION Based on the information presented in this report, staff recommends approval of the proposed code amendments. Planning Commission Public Hearing Page 10 of 11 LU 20-0015 9/14/20 LU 20-0015 EXHIBIT D-1/PAGE 10 OF 11 EXHIBITS A. Draft Ordinance A-1 Ordinance 2853, draft 9/3/2020 Attachment 1: Reserved for City Council Findings (not included) Attachment 2: Community Development Code Amendments, draft 9/3/2020 B. Findings, Conclusions and Order [No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use] C. Minutes [No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use] D. Staff Reports E. Graphics/Plans [No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use] F. Written Materials [No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use] G. Letters [No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use] Staff reports and public meeting materials that were prepared for these code amendments can be found by visiting the project web page for LU 20-0015. Use the link below to visit the City's "Project" page. https://www.ci.oswego.or.us/all-proiects (Under "Search" enter LU 20-0015, then press "Enter") Planning Commission Public Hearing Page 11 of 11 LU 20-0015 9/14/20 LU 20-0015 EXHIBIT D-1/PAGE 11 OF 11 ZONING D RACTI C E MAY2020 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION e ISSUE NUMBER 5 PRACTICE INCLUSIVE ZONING LU 20-001 HIBIT F-1/PAGE 1 OF 8 Modern Family: Zoning and the Non - Nuclear Living Arrangement By Brian J. Connolly and David A. Brewster The list of residential land uses contained resulted in increased demand for group liv- two opposite-sex married partners and their in the typical zoning code is fairly formulaic. ing arrangements. non-adult,unmarried children,pervaded Household living arrangements permitted While aimed at establishing stable the American zeitgeist.The nuclear family by a code generally include single-family neighborhoods,historical definitions of has been extensively studied,critiqued, dwellings,two-family or duplex dwellings, "family"contained in zoning codes have and debated over the past 5o years.As and multifamily dwellings.From there,the regularly excluded a wide variety of groups, David Brooks of the New York Times recently code often goes on to allow a few other and the forms of housing prescribed by commented,"[w]hen we have debates types of residential uses:live/work units, more traditional zoning codes fail to accom- about how to strengthen the family,we are assisted living facilities,nursing homes, modate many of these groups.Examples of thinking of the two-parent nuclear family, perhaps a variety of group living arrange- these include unmarried couples,same-sex with one or two kids,probably living in ments,boarding houses,shelters,and couples,religious organizations that live some detached family home on some subur- sometimes,student housing.Single-room in communities,group homes for people ban street"(Brooks). occupancy motels,short-term rentals,and with disabilities,post-incarceration halfway Increasingly,however,the nuclear fam- accessory dwelling units may also be per- houses,foster families,and others.All of ily is a foreign concept to most American mitted,in limited circumstances.For the these forms of housing are necessary in our households.In 2o17,the U.S.Census Bureau household living uses,the term"dwelling" modern society. estimated that less than half of households is generally defined with respect to a living As the amorphous concepts of"fam- were headed by a married couple,and less space and,frequently,cooking,bathing, ily"and"household"evolve and become than 3o percent of households had children and sleeping facilities. increasingly difficult to define,the law of the householder at home.Nearly 3o The lines between several of the zon- still prescribes meaning to these terms in percent of households were single people ing classifications described above can be various forms.For example,the Internal living alone.Other households included blurry.In many cases,they turn upon the Revenue Service allows us to file taxes everything from grandparent-headed people who live in these various forms of individually or as a family while evolving to households—an estimated 7.2 million grand- housing,rather than the physical charac- incorporate same-sex marriages.The U.S. parents were raising their grandchildren in teristics of the housing types themselves. Census collects information on households 2o17—to single-parent households,which Indeed,many zoning codes define the term and families,and these classifications have comprised 17.3 percent of all households. "family"—as used in the terms single-family broadened as well.Yet,while certain legal Of the U.S.population living in a household, or multifamily dwelling—as a group of people frameworks have adapted to the changing 6.2 percent,or nearly 20 million people, related by blood,marriage,or adoption,or face of American families and households, were unrelated to the householder by blood, up to a certain number who are unrelated. local zoning laws,in many respects,have not. marriage,or adoption. These classifications of residential land The balance of this article examines the This is a significant change from the uses,and the definitions of"dwelling"and changing face of modern American families, middle of the 20th century.According to "family"that accompany them,have proven and the increasing demand and need for the Pew Research Center,in 196o,roughly durable.But modern social and cultural housing types that recognize nontraditional 87 percent of children in the United States changes are testing their permanency.The or"non-nuclear"families and households.It lived in a two-parent household.A 2015 Pew U.S.population has moved markedly away also evaluates existing law as it pertains to study revealed that,in 2014,roughly 64 per- from the household unit comprised of a mar- regulation of household structure and offers cent of children under the age of i8 lived in ried couple and their children.Unaffordable suggestions for how zoning might be tweaked a household with two parents.In turn,just housing has pushed families to live with to respond to many of the changing norms of over one-fourth of children in the United extended family members,groups of unre- American family and household life. States live in one-parent households, toted roommates to cohabitate,and home compared to nine percent in 196o.The seekers to find smaller,more efficient forms NUCLEAR NO MORE U.S.Census Bureau's Current Population of housing.At the same time,contempo- In the years following World War II,the con- Survey recently estimated that nearly 35 rary treatment methods for disabilities has cept of the"nuclear"family,composed of percent of children now live in"nonfamily" ZONINGPRACTICE 5.2o LU 20-0015 EXHIBIT F-1/PAGE 2 OF 8 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION Ipage2 households,which are defined as those that the Centers for Disease Control esti- "[b]y 2050,one-fifth of the total U.S.popu- households not headed by a parent. mated in 2018 that one in four Americans has lation will be elderly"with the number of These developments also comple- a disability that limits a major life activity individuals age 85 or older growing the fastest ment changing gender roles within families. (and two in five Americans over 65 fall in that (CB0).As such,the need for long-term group In the period between i95o and i965, category),we can assume that there is sig- assisted living arrangements will likely gradu- when the nuclear family was in its heyday, nificant unmet demand for group living. ally increase as baby boomers age. Brooks writes that"most women were rel- Tiny homes,adult dormitories,and egated to the home"and"[d]emeaning and CHANGING FAMILIES,CHANGING HOMES group living facilities are a small snapshot disempowering treatment of women was As the concept of the nuclear family fades, of the diverse and unique living arrange- rampant"(Brooks).By 1993,roughly one- so too does the traditional living style ments growing in both popularity and need third of households in the United States were associated with that construct—the single- throughout the country.Demand for nontra- headed by women(Dandekar).A 2019 Center family home.Increasingly,Americans are ditional housing types,like the evolution for American Progress study found that a opting,whether by choice or by reason of and growth of the nontraditional American national average of 41 percent of house- circumstance,for alternatives to the single- family,is ever increasing. holds in the United States are headed by family home.For starters,the average size However,embracing and promoting "breadwinning"mothers,those who earn the of new single-family home builds is decreas- new forms of housing is not merely a trendy highest income in the family(Glynn). ing.Data from the National Association pandering to millennia's.Emily Badger An analysis of changing gender roles is of Home Builders reveals that the median wrote in the New York Times in a 2019 col- incomplete without discussion of the evolv- square footage of a new single-family home umn with respect to the campaign platforms ing institution of marriage.In 1949,roughly decreased for the third straight year in 2018. of various 202o Democratic presidential 78.8 percent of American households con- This shift toward smallersingle-familyhous- hopefuls,"[a]reckoning with single-family tained married couples,while in 201.7,less ing is likely a reaction to high demand from zoning is necessary,they say,amid mount- than half of households contained married younger buyers attempting to purchase entry- ing crises over housing affordability,racial couples.Contributing to this decline are level housing. inequality and climate change"(Badger). steadily increasing divorce rates since i99o, New and innovative ways of meeting Driven by increasing home prices and gener- the fact that couples are choosing to marry entry-level housing demand,outside the tra- ally stagnant incomes,America's affordable later in life,and an increasing number of ditional single-family model,are continuing to housing crisis has been characterized as people who choose not to marry at all.Yet, grow.A National Association of Home Build- a"ticking time bomb"waiting to blow.A while marriage rates continue to decline, ers study conducted in 2018,for example, shortage of affordable housing options the Census Bureau reports that cohabitation revealed that more than half of Americans in cities across the country has resulted among nonmarried partners between the (and 63 percent of millennial Americans) in higher home prices,reductions in gov- ages of 25 and 34 has steadily increased,and would consider living in a tiny home of less ernment subsidies for housing,and the the number of one-person households has than 60o square feet.As liana E.Strauss concentration of home ownership among also increased"fivefold since 1.96o."Pew also reports,companies and communities are older,whiter,and wealthier Americans. reports that older Americans are among the also experimenting with cohousing,or living More significantly,a Joint Center for highest demographic of one-person house- arrangements where"individuals or families Housing Studies(JCHS)of Harvard University holds.In the United States,27 percent of generally have their own houses,bedrooms, report observes that the affordable housing adults ages 6o and older live alone,compared or apartments but share things like kitchens shortage has created an upturn in homeless- with i6 percent of adults in i3o countries and and community spaces"(Strauss). ness,increased threats of displacement due territories recently studied. Still,while the cohousing model may to natural disasters,and disproportionally As households continue to evolve,so be a new prospect to many Americans, burdened low-income and minority house- has the U.S.population in group quarters, states continue to rely heavily on group liv- holds.As its outlook,the study noted that, which include everything from correctional ing arrangements for the elderly,medically "[o]n the supply side,however,conditions facilities to nursing homes,student housing, dependent,and children without alternative at the lower end of the market will remain and group homes for people with disabili- housing options.According to a 2015 Pew challenging as millions of low-income house- ties.In 20i7,the Census Bureau estimated report,Colorado,Rhode Island,West Virginia, holds compete for an already insufficient that more than eight million Americans live and Wyoming have the greatest percentage of number of affordable rental units"(JCHS). in group quarters arrangements.Of these, foster children living in group homes.Roughly Simply,the status quo will not suffice to 2.2 million were incarcerated,and 2.7 million 35 percent of children in Colorado's foster provide housing for millions of Americans. were living in on-campus student housing. care system,for example,live in congregate Promoting new housing solutions to combat That leaves more than three million Ameri- group care living facilities.What is more,the rising socioeconomic and climate threats cans who lived in nursing homes or other U.S.Congressional Budget Office(CB0)noted must begin,at a local government level,with types of group living arrangements.Given in a 2013 report, a"reckoning"with single-family zoning. ZONINGPRACTICE 5.20 LU 20-0015 EXHIBIT F-1/PAGE 3 OF 8 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATIONIpage3 • — -4, ... ,T, . m, t : . .' ..,,, .:.., u_.-.4..,,,_ Ail 4,c--.. xsiii 4,,... ..-7‘.7.t 4y_e,,,E. 11-_•,,...., 1.0., Q. 4 t. ' r - I 1 - I ry " l _ �y • ►p V. ,AI. ! ••�— 11A ....ir t► w ti _ ... y •n1,,rf 1 ,1, , kt, t it,...‘:,,,, • - , 1 ••1. .' _`1' � �` .'4 _ 1t +‘ ,061!,, -' - """r' 4',. i ‘ . • 4,, i, ., r 1 ... :41jZr \ \, . .N..---- ,-,:i I. i ' -c7"17`-'14''-S \- Illtr '11".- * fil' t�ti� 4,-:\-, 1.-#.7-'1'1,-ze-nirstk ir, •-• .-- • --.-..._:es_ ..iti ,.. --. — �� + 1 • t• ,tom►' � - ' hro-4-rep- ------ 7:' -•--- • i ' l I J . i LL• - - - I L. ��` s? r\ 1 0 The prevalence of single-family zoning in the United States is challenged by major demographic and social changes. What's more,as we write this article, Euclid v.Ambler units against higher-density forms of hous- the U.S.economy appears to be headed The Court was not shy in using its first oppor- ing.It was also clear from the face of the for a slowdown,triggered by the COVID-19 tunity to consider the constitutionality of ordinance that it supported nuclear fami- pandemic that has swept the world.As zoning to gratuitously weigh in on the merits lies.The ordinance used the term"family" potentially millions of Americans face job of development patterns predominated by pervasively,but defined it as follows:"[a] losses and pay decreases,the need for single-family detached dwellings.In i922, 'family'is any number of individuals living affordable housing options will become the Village of Euclid,Ohio,a Cleveland and cooking together on the premises as a only greater. suburb characterized by largely low-density single housekeeping unit."The term"single residential land-use patterns,adopted a zon- housekeeping unit"was undefined in the JUDICIAL TREATMENT OF'FAMILY'ZONING ing regulation that classified lands according Euclid ordinance,suggesting that groups With these changes in American household to uses.The use districts established in the of unrelated people might be permitted to structure and demand for a variety of hous- zoning ordinance included a"U-1"district occupy single-family dwellings if they shared ing types in mind,we now turn to how the that allowed only single-family dwellings common household responsibilities. law addresses these issues.A careful read- and a"U-2"district that expanded its use The ordinance was challenged by a ing of cases from the U.S.Supreme Court allowances to two-family homes.Higher- business that was dissatisfied with its classi- and lower courts suggests that,since its intensity districts,which constituted a small fication under the ordinance.The case made early days,one of the paramount goals proportion of the village's land area,allowed its way to the U.S.Supreme Court.In Village and outcomes of zoning has been the pro- multifamily apartments as well as commer- of Euclid v.Ambler Realty Co.,272 U.S.365 tection and reinforcement of patterns of cial and industrial uses. (1926),the Court ruled zoning a constitu- housing for traditional,nuclear families. Euclid's zoning ordinance was clearly tional exercise of the police power. And those goals have largely been met intended to protect low-density neighbor- In so doing,however,the Court with judicial endorsement. hoods characterized by detached dwelling emphasized the importance of protecting ZONINGPRACTICE 5.20 LU 20-0015 EXHIBIT F-1/PAGE 4 OF 8 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION Ipage4 single-family homeowners from noxious or disability discrimination—is devoid of be extended to group living arrangements. effects of higher-density residential and any suggestion of racial or cultural diversity Returning to its historical preference for nonresidential uses.The Court's char- (the Court invalidated racially restrictive low-density,single-family development, acterization of single-family detached municipal regulation just one year after the the Court observed that"boarding houses, development patterns and family life paint a New York City zoning ordinance was adopted fraternity houses,and the like present urban picture of idyllic suburbia,characterized by in the case of Buchanan v.Warley,245 U.S. problems.More people occupy a given public safety,healthy environs,and growing 6o(1917)),same-sex couples,accommoda- space;more cars rather continuously pass families.In particular,the Court observed tion for low-income families,or housing for by;more cars are parked;noise travels with that the segregation of single-family,two- people with disabilities. crowds."The Court followed its indictment of family,and other land uses would"increase nontraditional living arrangements with one the safety and security of home life,greatly Village of Belle Terre v.Boraas of its most memorable paragraphs regarding tend to prevent street accidents,especially The Court's next occasion to visit the con- land-use regulation.As in Euclid,the Court to children,by reducing the traffic and stitutionality of single-family zoning came accepted the invitation to hail the benefits of resulting confusion in residential sections, nearly 5o years later in the case of Village suburban residential development as follows: decrease noise and other conditions which of Belle Terre v.Boraas,416 U.S.1(1974). produce or intensify nervous disorders,pre- That case,which arose from circumstances A quiet place where yards are wide,people serve a more favorable environment in which in another small suburban community, few,and motor vehicles restricted are to rear children,etc." addressed the constitutionality of a more legitimate guidelines in a land-use project The Court then saved its most pointed restrictive definition of the term"family."A addressed to family needs....The police observations for the distinctions between one-square mile community with just 22o power is not confined to elimination of apartments and more low-density forms homes,the Village of Belle Terre is located filth,stench,and unhealthy places.It is of residential uses.The Court refers to the near the State University of New York at ample to lay out zones where family values, apartment house as a"mere parasite"that Stony Brook.An attractive place for prospec- youth values,and the blessings of quiet "monopolizes the rays of the sun"and whose tive landlords to rent to student tenants,the seclusion and clean air make the area a automobile traffic is"depriving children of the village adopted a zoning ordinance defined sanctuary for people. privilege of quiet and open spaces for play." family as"one or more persons related by The Court's rhetoric in Euclid was blood,adoption,or marriage,living and The result of Belle Terre was that emblematic of a widespread cultural accep- cooking together as a single housekeeping many local governments—in college towns, tance of the benefits of low-density living in unit,exclusive of household servants.A suburbs and even large cities—eventually the early part of the loth century.Following number of persons but not exceeding two adopted zoning provisions defining the term a period of largely unregulated industrialize- (2)living and cooking together as a single "family"with respect to the relatedness tion in U.S.cities that resulted in unsanitary, housekeeping unit though not related of individuals residing in a housing unit, crowded conditions,New York City adopted by blood,adoption,or marriage shall be thereby ensuring that residential neighbor- the nation's first zoning ordinance io years deemed to constitute a family." hoods could only be occupied by nuclear before Euclid.Other jurisdictions quickly Thus,to reside in a single-family dwell- families.Like Euclid,Belle Terre's endorse- followed.In the same year the Court decided ing in Belle Terre,it was not sufficient to ment of suburban forms of development and Euclid,the U.S.Department of Commerce simply constitute a single housekeeping family values appeared not to consider the promulgated the Standard State Zoning unit.Familial relatedness was obligatory. impacts of predominantly single-family resi- Enabling Act,which recited the lessening A group of unrelated tenants and their dential development patterns on non-white of congestion,reduction of fire risk,promo- landlord challenged the law.The group families,lower-income buyers and renters, tion of public health,assuring adequate asserted that it violated several rights inher- groups of unrelated people,or people with light and air,and reducing concentrations ent in the Due Process Clause of the Fifth disabilities.In the 6o years from the adop- of population as the core purposes of zon- Amendment,including rights of associa- tion of the first zoning ordinance to Belle ing.The Court's unvarnished description of tion and privacy.Included in the Belle Terre Terre,the zoning power had morphed from a suburban idyll where children frolic free challenge was a suggestion that the law one that regulated building form to full- from the nuisances of higher-density urban was aimed at producing a homogeneous scale regulation of the people that resided areas was characteristic of common views community.The Supreme Court eventually in those building forms. of urban development.At the same time, disagreed with these assertions. however,its discussion of the merits of Although the Court had recently The Limits of Belle Terre detached dwellings—undertaken at a time expanded privacy rights in the cases of While a review of Belle Terre might lead an when the Court was composed of nine white Griswold v.Connecticut and Roe v.Wade,in observer to guess that there was little to no men and long before it invalidated racially which it famously approved of contraception constitutional limit to the regulation of liv- restrictive covenants,school segregation, and abortion,the right to privacy would not ing arrangements,the Court's decision in ZONINGPRACTICE 5.2o LU 20-0015 EXHIBIT F-1/PAGE 5 OF 8 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION'pages that case was in many ways a legal apex for Santa Barbara v.Adamson,27 Cal.3d 123 grants to track and implement land-use poli- exclusionary zoning.In the intervening years (198o),that familial relatedness require- cies to encourage the production of housing. since Belle Terre,it has been limited in sev- ments in a local zoning code violated These policies include everything from allow- eral respects. the state constitutional right to privacy. ing higher-density development by right to Just three years after it decided Belle Michigan and New York also followed suit, allowing manufactured housing,single-room Terre,in Moore v.City of East Cleveland,431 adopting similar rationale to these decisions. occupancy uses,mixed-use development, U.S.494(1977),the Supreme Court rejected The Fair Housing Act and its amend- and limiting dimensional and procedural the use of zoning to restrict intrafamily living ments,42 U.S.C.§3601 et seq.,also limit restrictions on new housing. arrangements.There,East Cleveland,Ohio, Belle Terre.In 1988,Congress amended the another Cleveland suburb,sought not only Fair Housing Act to specifically incorporate MODERN APPROACHES FOR to prohibit unrelated persons from residing familial status and handicap as classes pro- THE MODERN FAMILY together,but actually went so far as to define tected under the law.The addition of these Federal constitutional law continues,at its the term"family"as a nuclear family,con- two protected classes reaffirmed Congress's core,to allow local governments to establish sisting only of a husband or wife and either commitment to prohibiting discrimination, zoning policies allowing only single-family their unmarried children or their parents. particularly against single parents with development patterns and to restrict that The practical effect of the city's regulation, children and people with physical or cogni- form of housing to related family members. which had a legislative and procedural his- tive disabilities,including those in recovery However,the population and housing trends tory evidencing unscrupulous racial motive, from addiction. described above,and the legal limitations on was to exclude groups of extended family In particular,the Fair Housing Act's Belle Terre,demand a thoughtful response members living together.A grandmother and protections for people with disabilities often from local zoning officials. her two grandchildren who resided together conflict with local definitions of"family" Opportunities abound for zoning successfully challenged the regulation, that restrict unrelated people from living authorities to embrace inclusionary prac- which the Supreme Court decided on right together.In City of Edmonds v.Oxford House, tices.Zoning codes that permit a wide to privacy grounds. Inc.,514 U.S.725(1995),the Supreme Court variety of housing types are an important Several states have also limited the confirmed that familial occupancy restric- first step.In 2019,Minneapolis became the reach of Belle Terre on constitutional or tions did not comport with the Fair Housing first major U.S.city to abolish single-family statutory grounds.The first to do so was Act's allowance for maximum occupancy zoning,allowing triplexes to be constructed New Jersey in the case of State v.Baker, restrictions based on safety considerations. in most neighborhoods that previously 405 A.2d 368(N.J.1979).There,the court Several other cases have found that restric- only allowed detached housing.Other cit- determined that Plainfield Township could tive family definitions may not be used to ies have provided for additional accessory not,under the state constitution,prohibit exclude people with disabilities from living dwelling units,by-right multifamily zoning, two families from living together as a single in group settings. and a variety of"missing middle"forms housekeeping unit.The court's holding was Similarly,as states have adopted state- of housing.These forms of housing might based upon the idea that a local govern- law versions of the Fair Housing Act,many include"slot homes,"where row houses are ment restriction aimed at creating stable of them have placed limitations on family oriented perpendicular to street frontages, residential communities was not necessar- zoning.Many state-law equivalents of the or garden courts or row houses.These types ily furthered by a prohibition on unrelated Fair Housing Act add protected classes over of housing allow for increased density in persons residing together.The New Jersey and above those identified in the federal residential areas that,if designed appro- Supreme Court wrote:"The fatal flaw in law,including,for example,marital status, priately,can blend well with surrounding attempting to maintain a stable residential sexual orientation,age,and others.These single-family development. neighborhood through the use of criteria statutes may require local governments to In considering the variety of housing based upon biological or legal relationships vary familial-relatedness limitations if they types that might be permitted in a juris- is that such classifications operate to pro- interfere with protected classes'ability to diction,zoning officials may also need to hibit a plethora of uses which pose no threat buy or rent housing. reconsider classifications of residential to the accomplishment of the end sought Present demand for affordable housing uses.For example,where a code defines a to be achieved....The ordinance distin- may be encouraging further federal action to "boarding house"as a residential structure guishes between acceptable and prohibited limit local governments'exclusionary zoning where rooms are rented out for permanent uses on grounds which may,in many cases, actions.As of this writing,Congress is con- occupancy but generally restricts boarding have no rational relationship to the problem sidering a law called the Yes In My Backyard houses throughout the municipality,it may sought to be ameliorated." Act,H.R.4351,which passed in the House of prohibit new,"pod"-style multifamily devel- Shortly after the New Jersey court invali- Representatives on March 2,2020.That law opment wherein units share common areas dated"family"definitions,the California would require local governments that receive and cooking facilities but contain separate Supreme Court also concluded in City of federal housing and urban development bedrooms and bathrooms. ZONINGPRACTICE 5.2o LU 20-0015 EXHIBIT F-1/PAGE 6 OF 8 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION Ipage6 Similarly,zoning officials might to adopt and enforce building and fire codes ABOUT THE AUTHORS also reevaluate definitions of"dwelling"con- that limit that number of persons who may tained in codes,and the dimensional limits occupy a dwelling to avoid fire or public placed on housing units,to accommodate health risks. Brian J.Connolly is a shareholder and more creative forms of housing.Where a code Similarly,zoning officials must con- director in the Land Use,Litigation,and Real prohibits small housing units or properties, sider their obligations under state and Estate practice groups at Otten Johnson tiny homes or other affordable forms of hous- federal fair housing laws.A local govern- Robinson Neff+Ragonetti,PC in Denver. ing may be excluded from the community. ment utilizing a definition of"family"that He has received national recognition for his At the same time, local governments would otherwise restrict groups of people work on First Amendment issues associated should consider whether definitions of with disabilities or others protected by fair with local government regulation,including "family"based on blood,marriage,or housing acts must be prepared to grant signs and outdoor advertising,and his work adoption serve the jurisdiction's planning reasonable accommodations where neces- on fair housing matters in local planning and goals.To the extent a municipality seeks sary to maintain compliance with the law. zoning,particularly in the area of housing for to regulate land use for the purposes In general,local governments should adopt people with disabilities. enshrined in the Standard State Zoning zoning procedures for granting reasonable Enabling Act—lessening congestion,reduc- accommodations if their codes restrict David A.Brewster is an associate in the ing risks of natural disasters,protecting groups of unrelated people from living Litigation and Real Estate practice groups for public health and safety,and oth- together.Zoning officials should also con- at Otten Johnson Robinson Neff+Ragonetti. ers—restricting dwelling units to groups of sider avoiding unnecessary restrictions on His litigation practice focuses on complex related people is unlikely to directly accom- these living arrangements,including further real estate,land-use,and property rights fish thesegoals.A large familyof related land-use planningdisputes,and his transactional practice p ' g goals such as avoiding includes assisting clients with the individuals is just as likely to produce congestion or nuisances. congestion or overcrowding as an unrelated acquisition and disposition of real property. group of the same number of people. CONCLUSION Local governments that wish to avoid We are in an unprecedented time of hous- the problems created by restrictive"family" ing unaffordability and expanding notions Cover:iStock.com/mrPliskin definitions might consider applying a deft- of what constitutes a household or family. nition of"single housekeeping unit"that While the law has been somewhat slow to VOL.37,NO.5 focuses on the sharing of household chores evolve,our local governments must consider or cooking and eating together.And of how their zoning policies accommodate a The American Planning Association provides leadership in the development of vital course,local governments should continue wide variety of living arrangements. communities for all by advocating excellence in planning,promoting education and resident empowerment,and providing our members with the tools sand support necessary to ethically REFERENCES meet the challenges of growth and change. Badger,Emily.2019.Cities Across Glynn,Sarah Jane.2019."Breadwinning Zoning Practice(ISSN 1548-0135)is a monthly publication of the American Planning America Question Single Family Zoning. Mothers Continue To Be the U.S.Norm." Association.Joel Albizo,FASAE,CAE,Chief New York Times.June i8.Available at Center for American Progress.Available Executive Officer;Petra Hurtado,PHD,Research https://nyti.ms/3b5AdQd. at:https://ampr.gs/2XzVm14. Director;Joseph DeAngelis,AICP,and David Morley,AICP,Editors. Brooks,David.2020.The Nuclear Family JCHS.2019.The State Of The Nation's Subscriptions are available for$95(U.S.)and $12o(foreign).Missing and damaged print Was a Mistake.The Atlantic.March. Housing 2019.Available at https://bit. issues:Contact APA Customer Service(312- Available at:https://bit.ly/2XxneCV. ly/2xhsmkb. 431-9100 orsubscriptions@planning.org) within 90 days of the publication date. CBO.2013.Rising Demand for Long-Term Strauss,Ilana E.2016."The Hot New ©zozo by the American Planning Association, Services and Supports for Elderly People. Millennial Housing Trend Is a Repeat which has offices at zo5 N.Michigan Ave., Suite 1200,Chicago,IL 606o1-5927,and 1030 Available at https://bit.ly/21Zgejt. of the Middle Ages."The Atlantic. 15th St.,NW,Suite 75o West,Washington,DC September 26.Available at https://bit. z0005-1503;planning.org. Dandekar,Hemalata C.1993.Shelter, ly/3asunap. All rights reserved.No part of this publication Women and Development:First and Third may be reproduced or utilized in any form or World Perspectives.Ann Arbor,Mich.:WG by any means without permission in writing from APA. Wahr Publishing Co. Printed on recycled paper,including 50-70% recycled fiber and io%postconsumer waste. ZONINGPRACTICE 5.2o LU 20-0015 EXHIBIT F-1/PAGE 7 OF 8 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION Ipage7 r C O o i O American Planning Association al Creating Great Communities for All r) .0,,,,,Is m r i i i CP ZONING PRACTICE M / AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION D CI) {` 205 N. Michigan Ave. 7o -0 O Suite 1200 Chicago, IL 60601-5927 > = ri n 7o Im D III =CO N q - 0 oz- 0 rn p m z z 00 V 1 0 • .N.) opQ z p 0 III Exhibit G-1 Pr." HBA Home Builders Association of Metropolitan Portland November 2, 2020 Kent Studebaker,Mayor Lake Oswego City Councilor 380 A Ave., 3rd Floor Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Re: Agenda Item: Number 5.1 (Ordinance 2853 - R-6 Maximum Lot Coverage Standard) Dear Mayor Studebaker, The Home Builders Association of Metropolitan Portland (HBA) represents over 800 companies and tens of thousands of women and men who work in the residential building and remodeling industries throughout the greater Portland area. We promote housing affordability and choice for all who reside in the region. Lake Oswego's R-6 zone supports the construction of new, relatively attainable housing throughout the City. First implemented in 1996, the zone's primary purpose was to create minimum lot size and development standards more consistent with the existing pattern of development in the First Addition-Forest Hills Neighborhood,which consisted of 6,000 square foot lots. Last year, the Oregon State Legislature passed HB2001, legalizing additional housing options in single family zoned neighborhoods across the state. The landmark legislation does not preclude the construction of single family homes but rather expands housing choices in the same areas,to meet the needs of Oregonians at all income levels. Perhaps most importantly,the bill seeks to dismantle historic racist housing policies,which excluded minority communities from our most affluent neighborhoods. Under HB2001,Lake Oswego's R-6 zone could allow for duplexes,townhomes,and other middle housing types. These housing types are critical to helping Lake Oswego accommodate needed new housing and address the Portland region's protracted housing crisis. A recent report shows that Oregon has underbuilt housing by over 155,000 units since the Great Recession. Importantly, the need for new housing has been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, the recent economic decline,and wildfire devastation. Given the urgent need for new housing options,Lake Oswego should avoid undermining housing affordability, especially in zones that have the best chances for redevelopment. Unfortunately,that is precisely what Ordinance 2853 would do. Specifically, it would unnecessarily restrict the permitted building footprint in the R-6 zone, causing a dramatic reduction in allowable square footage. By changing the way height is measured and counting previously-excluded structures toward lot coverage, Home Builders Association of Metropolitan Portland 1 Ordinance 2853 would lead to fewer homes. Because the R-6 zone currently allows lots to be used more efficiently than other zones, new housing is most attainable in the First Addition-Forest Hills Neighborhood. HBA is concerned that Ordinance 2853 undermines middle housing. Because the Ordinance increases the housing price-per-square-foot,it threatens to pre-emptively block middle housing from even coming to market. Importantly,HB2001 was written to explicitly protect against regulations that disproportionately impact the construction of this housing. Despite the Lake Oswego's stated desire to save trees,it is unclear whether the proposed changes will actually help to achieve this aim. Given the City's desire for alley-loaded garages, many trees are removed regardless of lot coverage standards, and would continue to be removed even with the proposed changes. In the shared interest of preserving as many trees as possible,HBA requests more time to work with the neighborhood associations and the City to carry on the important conversation around housing affordability and tree preservation. Instead of marching ahead with the proposed changes, Lake Oswego should reconvene the stakeholders for additional discussion and review. Doing so would support long-term relationship- building between the neighborhood, City, and development community. It would also give homeowners an opportunity to better understand the proposal's impact on their property values. Lake Oswego should hold off on adopting Ordinance 2853 and instead work to promote a robust conversation around housing affordability and tree preservation. Respectfully, Roseann John on Assistant Director of Government Affairs Cc: Councilor Theresa Kohlhoff Councilor John LaMotte Councilor Jackie Manz Councilor Daniel Nguyen Councilor Skip O'Neill Councilor John Wendland Home Builders Association of Metropolitan Portland 2