The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda Packet - 2002-02-05 AMCity Councilors Judie Hammerstad, Mayor Ellie McPeak, Council President Jack Hoffman Karl Rohde Bill Schoen Gay Graham John Turchi CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MORNING MEETING Tuesday, February 5, 2002 7:30 a.m. Council Chambers City Hall 380 A Avenue AGENDA Also published on the internet at: ci.oswego.or.us Contact: Robyn Christie, City Recorder E -Mail: public_affairs@ci.oswego.or.us Phone: (503) 675-3984 This meeting is in a handicapped accessible location. For any special accommodations, please contact Public Affairs, (503) 635-0236, 48 hours before the meeting. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. REVIEW EVENING AGENDA 4. ItEVIEW FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS 5. OTHER BUSINESS 5.1 Variance Amendments 6. EXECUTIVE SESSION If needed, pursuant to ORS 192.660(1) 7. RETURN TO OPEN SESSION 8. ADJOURNMENT City Council Morning Meeting February 5, 2002 Page l CITY COUNCIL / LORA TENTATIVE SCHEDULE ROLLING UPDATE DATE MORNING EVENING MEETINGS MEETINGS — 7:30 a.m. — 6:00 p.m. Thursday, Interviews for the Library Advisory Board February 7 4:30 .m., Council Work Room Tuesday, Special Meeting February 12 Public Hearings • Lake Forest Neighborhood Plan (LU 00-0023) • Variance Amendments (LU 99-0059) LORA Special Meeting • East End Plan Update, Crandall Arambula Tuesday, Agenda Review Regular Session February 19 Future Agenda Schedule • Recommendation on 5th and A Avenue crossing • Boones Ferry Road Award, Kittleson Public Hearings • Long Terni Care Housing (LU 99-0070) • Annexation of 5800 Meadows Road (AN 02-0001/Ordinance 2320) • Annexation of 5300 Meadows Road AN 01-0006/Ordinance 2315 Tuesday, No MeetinP February 26 Monday, Study Session March 4 • Street Utility • Neighborhood Path wa Projects Tuesday, Agenda Review Regular Session March 5 Future Agenda Schedule Amending the master fees schedule to conform to the development code revision (Res. 02-08) • Traffic Signal Hwy. 43 and A Avenue, ODOT • Bid approval for the ACC entryway and computer room project Public Hearings • Floodplain Standards LU 00-0024 March 7-12 National League of Cities, Washington D.0 Monday, Budget Committee, 6:00 Main Fire Station March 11 Tuesday, Special Meeting March 12 . Presentation on George Rogers Park Master Plan • Neighborhood Planning__ Tuesday, Agenda Review Regular Session March 19 Future Agenda Schedule Public Hearings Tuesday, No Meeting March 26 BOLD ITEMS — New issues added to schedule Items known as of 2/1/02 N:\Agendas\Agendaforms\Schedule.doc CITY COUNCIL / LORA TENTATIVE SCHEDULE ROLLING UPDATE Monday, Stud v Session_ (4-6P.m.) A rill • DATE MORNING EVENING MEETINGS MEETINGS — 7:30 a.m. — 6:00 p.m. Tuesday, Agenda Review Regular Session April 2 Future Agenda Schedule Public Hearings Tuesday, Special Meeting April 9 . Infill 'I'ask Force Report AWAITING MEETING DATE NO SPECIFIC DATE AT THIS TIME STATUS • Joint Meeting with School Board ....................................Quarterly • Council goal update.........................................................Monthly • Water Policies.................................................................Spring 2002 • Public Facilities..............................................................After March 15 • Sedoruk/Prince Zoning Map Amendments ....................May 7, 2002 • Willamette River Greenway Text Amendment .............. FUTURE STUDY SESSIONS • Field Usage Fees.............................................................April 9, 2002 • Lakefront Zoning District ...............................................May 14, 2002 • Affordable Housing ........................................................June 11, 2002 • East-West Shuttle...........................................................July 9, 2002 • Youth Activities..............................................................August 5, 2002 • Natural Resources...........................................................September 10, 2002 • Sustainability (public forum) ..........................................November 12, 2002 BOLD ITEMS — New issues added to schedule Llems known as of 2/1/02 N',:Agendas\Agendaforms\Schedule.doc Lake Oswegon City Council Hearing on Density Guidelines Public Comments - January 15, 2002 Comprehensive Plan • MD violates Goals 5 and 10. Partitioning • Forces increased level of development that may not otherwise occur. • Prevents limited land division to accommodate family needs - granny flat, auxiliary unit. • Attracts higher property taxes due to developable value of new lots. • Not required by METRO so don't implement. nnununity Impacts • Development to full density damages neighborhood character. • Double impact of coupling MD with D Market Forces • MD runs counter to current market forces that are biased to large houses on large lots (RIS or better) • The housing norm in LO is 4K - MD will force more large houses on small lots. Timing • Wait for In -Fill Task Force Report. • Extend sensitive lands protections to FH before imposing MD. METRO • What are the consequences if LO says no or delays implementation. Politics • Majority of FH opposes MD. Property Rights • Forces division use of land that runs counter to personal preference. • Eliminate density transfer. Facts • Subdivision is required when dividing land into four or more units. • MD is required of all subdivisions. • Partition is land division resulting in two or three units. • MD requires owner to file a plan when requesting land partition. Environment • FI -I is unprotected by sensitive lands restrictions while in County. Fictions • FI -I is planned, platted and developed. Recommendations • Apply MD only to land of 5 acres or more in "undeveloped" areas (Stafford). • Implement PC recommendation to adjust MD to exclude sensitive lands. Summary of Testimony Received January 15, 2002 Density Guidelines Density Guidelines - Summary of Testimony Comment: Minimum densities will cause development that is out of character with established areas. Response: Development can occur at the maximum density now: e.g. R-7.5 : 5-6 units per acrc. I)ensitN Guidelines— Summary of Testimony Comment: Density guidelines undermine Goal 5 by accelerating destruction of wildlife habitat. Response: All sensitive lands are protected by LOC Chapter 48.17 regardless of density. I)rnsih (;uidelines— tiununary of festimony Comment : Density guidelines violate Goal 10, Housing. Response: The Metro Functional Plan was found to be in compliance with Goal 10 by DLCD. Density Guidelines — SununarN of Testimony Comment: The proposed minimum density ordinance compromises freedom to choose. Response: A property owner may retain a single house on a lot and is not required to subdivide. Density Guidelines — Summary of Testimony Comment: Minimum density would be acceptable if the base zoning was correct. Response: Zones were establish,:.i with extensive public involvement when plans were originally acknowledged. A neighborhood plan is an option. Density Guidelines — Summary of Testimony Comment: Minimum density runs counter to market demand for large houses on large lots (R-15 or larger). Response: Property owners may continue to choose to purchase a large parcel and construct one house. Density Guidelines — Summary of Testimony Comment: Density guidelines will result in school crowding. Response: There will be no effect on schools — minimum density requires 80% of the maximum allowed density. 5 ih-nIli IN' Guidelines — Summary of Testimony Comment: Transfer of density should be eliminated if minimum density is approved. Response: The minimum number of lots may be reduced on sites with constraints (floodplains, natural resources, etc.) Transferring density is not required. Density Guidelines — Summary of Testimony omment: The Council should wait for the recommendations of the Infill Task Force. Response: The Infill Task Force is addressing design compatibility with existing dwellings — not density. Recommendations are due in April. Density Guidelines — Summary of Testimony Comment: City Sensitive Lands protection should extend to unincorporated areas before imposing density guidelines. Response: The Council will be considering a resolution under which the City would refuse to annex a parcel on which natural resources have been removed. Density Guidelines — Sunimar.N of Testimony Response: Density guidelines should only be applied to large parcels (five acres or larger; e.g., Stafford). Comment: Minimum densities promote efficient use of land regardless of the size. I)ensity Guidelines — SummarN (if Testimony Response: The City should focus its density in areas such as town centers, main streets and transportation corridors— not in neighborhoods. Comment: Density guidelines are not changes to higher densities, but require more efficient use of larger parcels, under existing zoning. Density Guidelines— Summary of Testimony Response: 'There are inadequate pathways and roads in Forest Highlands for increased density. Comment: Density guidelines do not increase the zoned density. Developers must provide improvements or agree to participate in future improvements.