HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - 2017-03-21��:•
is
Lake swe o City'Council Meetinmgmmpl"�g
Tuesday, March 21..2017
P
�111 III
F 5 �
k 1
�F �
t LOO Dun
j ! ��e ess
ion
the'ouncil is meetingin Executive Session under
authority of ORS 192.660 (2)'(f) consider records
that are exempt by law from public inspection,:1 r'�
to
Contact: Anne -Marie Simpson, City Recorder
Email: asimpson@lakeoswego.city
Phone: 503-534-4225
AGENDA
LAKE OSWEGO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
March 21, 2017
3:00 p.m.
Council Chambers, City Hall
The meeting location is accessible to persons with disabilities. To request accommodations, please contact the City Manager's
Office at 503-635-0215 48 hours before the meeting. Electronic presentations must be delivered to the City Recorder 24 hours
prior to the meeting.
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
4. CITIZEN COMMENT
4.1 Prior Citizen Comment Follow -Up
5. STUDY SESSIONS
5.1 Ordinance 2734, Uplands Neighborhood Plan, Transportation System Plan
Amendment, and Overlay Code (LU 17-0001)
5.2 Forest Highlands Water District Agreement
5.3 City Hall Rehabilitation Project
6. INFORMATION FROM COUNCIL
7. REPORTS OF OFFICERS
8. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Under authority of ORS 192.660 (2)(f) to consider records that are
exempt by law from public inspection.
9. ADJOURNMENT
503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city
LAKE OSWEGO
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITIZEN COMMENT
Date: Subject: 69t4-1<1 /-4& 2
Name: /A (r.- s�(�
Address:
City/State/Zip: 7
Phone:
Are you part of an Organized Presentation? Yes _ No -Z
If yes, list speakers in order of presentation:
I
You will be called to the microphone at the appropriate time.
Submit this form to the City Recorder before or at the meeting
TO: Kent Studebaker, Mayor
Members of the City Council
FROM: Sarah Selden, Senior Planner
5.1
COUNCIL REPORT
SUBJECT: Study Session for Uplands Neighborhood Plan (Ordinance 2734, LU 17-0001)
DATE: March 10, 2017 DATE OF MEETING: March 21, 2017
ACTION
Conduct a study session on the Uplands Neighborhood Plan, Uplands R-10 Overlay District
code, and Transportation System Plan (TSP) amendments. The study session provides an
opportunity for the Council to ask clarifying questions of staff and the Uplands Neighborhood
Planning Committee, and determine if any additional information is needed before the City
Council's April 4 public hearing.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on February 13, 2017 to consider the Uplands
Neighborhood Plan and implementing amendments, which was proposed on behalf of the
Uplands Neighborhood Association. The neighborhood association provided testimony in
support and helped to present the proposal. There was no testimony in opposition, though
many neighbors attended the hearing to observe. The Commission made no changes to the
proposal; they adopted their Findings, Conclusion and Order on February 27, 2017 (Exhibit B-1),
unanimously recommending approval. Draft minutes from the Commission's hearing can be
found as Exhibit C-1.
For background information and an explanation of the proposal, please refer to the staff report
prepared for the Planning Commission hearing (Exhibit D-1). The following attachments to
Ordinance 2734 (Exhibit A-1) are the key components of the proposal:
Uplands Neighborhood Plan (Attachment B). Describes the neighborhood's vision for Uplands
and outlines action steps for the neighborhood association and City to help achieve that vision.
Proposed for adoption into the Neighborhood and Special Districts Volume of the
Comprehensive Plan. See pages 5-7 of the Planning Commission hearing staff report for a
summary of the Plan.
503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city
Page 2
TSP Amendments (Attachment Q. Extends the Uplands Drive pathway project to add an
additional 1,600 linear feet of shoulder pathway from Ridgecrest drive to Country Club Road.
See page 7 of the Planning Commission hearing staff report for a summary of the proposed TSP
amendment.
Uplands R-10 Overlav District (Attachment D). Implements the Land Use policy direction from
the Neighborhood Plan, with a goal of promoting residential development that is compatible
with the existing and desired neighborhood character, as identified through the planning
process. The Uplands R-10 Overlay is the sixth neighborhood -specific zone or overlay developed
by a neighborhood association to implement a neighborhood plan; this approach follows
Comprehensive Plan policy direction for neighborhood planning and implementation. See pages
8-11 of the Planning Commission hearing staff report for a summary of the Overlay proposal,
and Attachment D (code language) for more detailed commentary on the proposed
development standards.
ALTERNATIVES & FISCAL IMPACT
The Plan and TSP amendments do not make specific requests for funding; however, projects are
identified that will be proposed as part of future City budget proposals and Capital
Improvement Plan updates, following additional study or scoping. Should the Council decide
that any of the new projects identified in the Plan or TSP amendment do not warrant future
scoping or study, the Council should consider removing those items from the ordinance.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council identify items in the proposed Plan, Overlay Code and TSP
amendments where additional information should be provided for the April 4, 2017 public
hearing.
EXHIBITS
This staff report and all exhibits referenced below are part of the record and can be found by
visiting the land use webpage for case file LU 17-0001. A link is provided at the end of this
report.
A. Draft Ordinances
A-1 Draft Ordinance 2734, dated 01/25/17
Attachment A— Reserved for City Council Findings (not included)
Attachment B — Proposed Neighborhood Plan, 02/01/17
Attachment C — Proposed TSP Amendments, 02/01/17
Attachment D — Proposed Uplands R-10 Overlay Code, 02/01/17
503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city
Page 3
B. Findings. Conclusion and Order
B-1 Planning Commission Findings, Conclusions and Order
C. Minutes
C-1 Excerpt of Draft Planning Commission Minutes (LU 17-0001), 02/13/17
D. Staff Reports
D-1 Planning Commission Staff Report, 02/01/17
E. Graphics/Plans
E-1 Map of Dividable Lots
F. Written Materials
G. Letters
G-1 Letter from Patty Schaffer, 02/13/17
BACKGROUND MATERIAL AND REFERENCES
Staff reports and public meeting materials that were prepared for these code amendments can
be found by visiting the project web page for LU 17-0001.
Use the link below to visit the City's "Project" page. In the "Search" box enter LU 17-0001 then
press "Submit":
http://www.ci.oswego.or.us/proiects
503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city
DRAFT 01/25/17
ORDINANCE 2734
EXHIBIT A-1
LU 17-0001
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO ADOPTING THE UPLANDS NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN
INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND SPECIAL DISTRICT PLANS VOLUME OF THE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN; AMENDING THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN TO EXPAND A PATHWAY PROJECT;
AMENDING THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE TO ADD THE UPLANDS R-10 OVERLAY
DISTRICT (LOC 50.05.012); AND ADOPTING FINDINGS (LU 17-0001).
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 February 13, 2017, at
which the staff report, testimony, and evidence were received and considered; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has recommended that LU 17-0001 be approved by the
City Council; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing on LU 17-0001 was held before the City Council of the City of Lake
Oswego on , 2017, at which the staff report, testimony, and evidence were
received and considered; and
WHEREAS, the Council finds that the Uplands Neighborhood Plan (Plan) should be adopted to
document the vision and objectives of Uplands' residents for the future their neighborhood,
and to identify actions needed to achieve this vision over time; and
WHEREAS, the Council finds that the Transportation System Plan should be amended to add a
new bicycle and pedestrian pathway on Uplands Drive; and
WHEREAS, the Council finds that the Community Development Code should be amended to
adopt a new Uplands R-10 Overlay District to ensure that development in Uplands' R-10 zone
promotes the desired neighborhood character described in the Plan; and
The City of Lake Oswego ordains as follows:
Section 1. The City Council hereby adopts the Findings and Conclusions (LU 17-001), attached
as Attachment A.
Section 2. The Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan (Vol. II, Neighborhood Plans section) is
hereby amended by adding Attachment B, Uplands Neighborhood Plan, dated
2017, as a neighborhood plan.
Section 3. The Lake Oswego Transportation System Plan is hereby amended as set forth in
Attachment C.
Ordinance 2734 EXHIBIT A-1/PAGE 1 OF 2
DRAFT 01/25/17
Section 4. The Lake Oswego Code is hereby amended by adding the new text shown in double
underlined type and deleting text shown in stFikethFeug14 type in Attachment D, dated
, 2017.
Section S. 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.
Enacted at the meeting of the Lake Oswego City Council of the City of Lake Oswego held on the
day of , 2017.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
EXCUSED:
Kent Studebaker, Mayor
Dated:
ATTEST:
Anne -Marie Simpson, City Recorder
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
David Powell
City Attorney
Ordinance 2734 EXHIBIT A-1/PAGE 2 OF 2
ATTACHMENT A
Reserved for City Council Findings (not included)
J:) ands
eig i Doriood
an
Planning Commission
Public Hearing Draft
February 1, 2017
A COOPERATIVE EFFORT BETWEEN THE
UPLANDS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION
AND CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Lake Oswego
City Council
Kent Studebaker, Mayor
Joe Buck
Jeff Gudman
Theresa Kohlhoff
John LaMotte
Jackie Manz
Skip O'Neill
Lake Oswego
PlanningCommission
Adrianne Brockman
Randy Arthur
Skip Baker
Ed Brockman
Bill Gaar
Robert Heape
John LaMotte
Bill Ward
City Staff
Rob Amsberry
Leslie Hamilton
Anne MacDonald
Erica Rooney
Sarah Selden
Scot Siegel
Uplands Neighborhood
Association Board
Tom Bland
Bruce Brown
Keith Dickerson
Don Eggleston
Bob Ervin
Jenna Fallon
Frank Gray
Susie Greer
Martin Jacobs
Brad Lyons
Paul Lyons
Audrey Mattison
Daniel McCulloch
Tom O'Connor
Patty Schaffer
Chris Thompson
Brian Williams
Kristine Williams
Uplands Neighborhood
Planning Committee
Bruce Brown
Bob Ervin
Brad Lyons
Paul Lyons
Audrey Mattison
Tom O'Connor
Patty Schaffer
Brian Williams
CONTENTS
Neighborhood History and Character 5
Land Use and Neighborhood Character 9
Transportation
Natural Systems
Open Space and Recreation
Neighborhood Involvement
Economic Development
13
21
27
31
33
DEDICATION
The Uplands Neighborhood Plan has been a journey traversed by
numerous dedicated Uplands residents and City of Lake Oswego
staff members. To prepare this plan has taken perseverance, passion,
imagination and a tremendous sense of duty to see the journey through.
We offer our deep gratitude to everyone who participated in any way
and helped to make this plan a reality.
C
Z
O
Z
rn_
0
0
0
D
Z
UPLANDS NEIGHBORHOOD VISION
The physical character of Uplands is that of the idealized Arcadian suburb where city
dwellers live in a quiet pastoral setting. Our homes are seen as rural sanctuaries from the
hectic urban metropolis. The hallmarks of our natural setting are Springbrook Park, at
the very heart of the neighborhood and Iron Mountain Natural Area Park which graces
our southern flank. Homes of diverse size and style rest on large lots which in turn front
an organic network of narrow streets. Generally, cars and pedestrians share the road
with the exception of Wembley Park Road and Twin Fir where there are informal sepa-
rated pedestrian paths.
The neighborhood is marked by an abundance of trees, both evergreen and deciduous,
along with lush yards and rights-of-way. Houses tend to be set well back from the street
but are separated from their neighbors by varying distances, some small, others broad.
Uplands is also a hilly neighborhood with few flat streets or lots. Most lots are above or
below their neighbors which gives the Uplands a hill -town feel.
UPLANDS NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN
PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT FEBRUARY 1, 2017
C
Z
O
cn
D
Z
C
D
Z
0
c/)
z
rn
I
I
O
D
Z
2 UPLANDS NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN
PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT FEBRUARY 1, 2017
PLAN ORGANIZATION AND PROCESS
The Uplands Neighborhood Plan has
been created by Uplands residents. It
details the characteristics that define
and shape the Uplands Neighborhood,
and recommends specific actions to
accomplish Uplands residents' unique
vision for the future.
The Uplands plan contains the following
chapters:
• Neighborhood History and
Character
• Land Use
• Transportation
• Natural Systems
• Open Space and Recreation
• Neighborhood Involvement
• Economic Development
Each chapter includes an Inventory and
Analysis, and a set of Neighborhood
Objectives and Action Steps.
Neighborhood Objectives are strategic
statements based on desires that
members identified during the Plan
development process. Objectives provide
broad direction for the future of the
neighborhood, and are supported by
specific Action Steps.
Action Steps are recommended
programs, projects, development
standards, or other courses of action for
the City and Uplands Neighborhood
Association. The completion of these
items will depend on a number of factors
such as citizen priorities, finances,
and staff availability. Action Steps
guide future City decision -makers and
Neighborhood Association leaders
on ways to implement the vision and
objectives of the Neighborhood Plan.
3
Relationship to Other Plans and Policies
Neighborhood plans are adopted into
the Neighborhood and Special Districts
Volume of the City's Comprehensive
Plan. The Uplands Neighborhood
Plan provides a policy framework for
neighborhood development regulations,
the Uplands R-10 Overlay Zone, which
serves as the regulatory component of the
neighborhood plan, to be adopted into the
Community Development Code (CDC).
New infrastructure and transportation
projects identified in the Plan are
proposed to be added to the City's
Transportation System Plan (TSP) and
Capital Improvement Plan (CIP).
Planning Process
The desire to develop a neighborhood
plan was identified many years ago by
the Uplands Neighborhood Association,
and in 2014, the Planning Commission
selected the neighborhood to receive
City staff assistance in developing a
plan. The effort was led by a group of
residents, the Uplands Neighborhood
Planning Committee, in cooperation
with the association board. The process
began with a neighborhood survey in
winter 2015 to develop the neighborhood
vision and identify planning priorities.
Following the development of a draft
Plan, a second survey was conducted
to guage support of the objectives and
action steps. Based on the land use action
steps, the Uplands R-10 Overlay code was
drafted and a third survey conducted on
the overlay standards. Throughout the
process, committee sought feedback at
monthly board meetings, and the board
has presented information and sought
feedback at four general membership
meetings.
UPLANDS NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN
PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT FEBRUARY 1, 2017
C
Z
O
cn
C
D
Z
0
c/)
z
rn
I
I
O
D
Z
4 UPLANDS NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN
PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT FEBRUARY 1, 2017
NEIGHBORHOOD HISTORY
AND CHARACTER
Context Within the City
What makes Uplands the neighborhood
that it is, is largely the result of where it is.
The Uplands Neighborhood can claim
to be at the heart of Lake Oswego, at
least geographically. Located midway
between Downtown on the east end, and
Lake Grove on the west end, Uplands
is centrally located for easy access, at
least by car, to both commercial hubs,
I-5 and Highway 43. Uplands also abuts
the nexus of two of the city's major
arterials, Boones Ferry Road and Country
Club Road. Having direct access to
these thoroughfares has its benefits and
shortcomings. While these arterials offer
access, they more often than not create
a barrier. Our southern boundary is
generally defined by Iron Mountain Park,
with a sharp topographic drop down
to the Hunt Club and Iron Mountain
Boulevard. On the east we are bordered
by the broad expanse of the Oswego Lake
Country Club. Paradoxically, our central
location, when coupled with surrounding
natural and man-made barriers, produces
a significant level of isolation
On the plus side, our isolated location is
what provides much of our neighborhood
character. We are a heavily wooded,
organically developed, low -traffic,
residential neighborhood which allows
an intimate relationship with nature.
While our commercial -free environment
provides peace and quiet and more
pastoral living environment, we also lack
some of the convenience afforded other
neighborhoods, like First Addition or
Evergreen, who are nearer commercial
development.
5
While most cities have either a north -
south or east -west division, Lake Oswego
has both. North and south is created
by the lake, and east and east by our
commercial hubs. On a map, Uplands
represents the quintessential "north of
the lake" neighborhood. We are nearly
dead -center along the east -west axis of
Oswego Lake so traveling to the south
side of town means taking the "long -way -
round" regardless of which direction you
go. Uplands residents are within easy
walking distance of both Lake Oswego
High School and Junior High School,
which serve the north half of the city.
The north -south divide has been more
defined in recent years by the service
districts of the various schools than actual
geography. Without this school based
perception, Uplands would be hard-
pressed to identify itself as east, west,
north or south.
UPLANDS NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN
PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT FEBRUARY 1, 2017
r
z
(./) 4
Z4
^^rn_
VJ
0
Z
04
0
Neighborhood History
The Uplands Neighborhood is located
in the northwest corner of what was
early Oswego's New Town, which
included Mile High and Iron Mountain
farms in the 1860's. During the 1860's
-1890's, investors and residents were
unsuccessful in their repeated efforts to
make Oswego into the "Pittsburgh of the
West". However today's legacy of the
Oregon Iron and Steel Company era are
the existing mines where iron ore was
extracted from the several adits located on
the south east side of Iron Mountain. A
narrow gage railway cut into the hillside
transported the ore to South Town's
smelter located on the Willamette River in
present day George Rogers Park in Lake
Oswego. Some of Portland's greatest
architectural heritage proudly displays
the magnificent cast iron details with ore
from Uplands mines and finest timber for
the smelter. Obsidian -like slag from the
smelter was returned to the hilltop and
deposited in what are now portions of the
ridge above Prestwick and Crest Roads.
Oswego languished for 30 years
following the end of the iron industry
and its population dropped from 540 to
approximately 300. Oregon Iron and Steel
Company transferred the abandoned
mining operation and land to the William
S. Ladd development company.
In 1912, Paul C. Murphy, real estate
developer attracted by Oswego's
potential as a resort area with wooded
hills, invested in 3,000 acres of Oregon
Iron and Steel Company around Sucker
Lake (later renamed Oswego Lake.
In 1923, the Ladd Estate Company
started building the Country Club
District (CCD), which departed from
the First Addition neighborhood's grid
development, and supported planning by
code development, already successfully
practiced in Portland. This process
protected residential areas from intrusion
by non-residential development by
restricting use, ownership, building
costs and architectural style. Given
the emphasis on natural beauty and
recreational opportunities, Paul Murphy
ushered in the theme of "Live Where
You Play", complete with an image of
a sailboat on Oswego Lake, an iteration
of which is now the City's logo. Market
Road was renamed Country Club Road.
The core of the CCD was the tournament -
quality golf course designed by H.
Chandler Egan, designer of Pebble Beach
Golf Course, which consisted of 18
long holes and exceptional views along
the ridge of the present day Uplands
neighborhood. Lots were sold above
the newly constructed Oswego Hunt
Equestrian Center, Polo Field and around
the new Oswego Lake Country Club
(OLCC), both completed in 1924. Added
incentive for Uplands and country club
lot sales included a lakefront lot for $100,
to encourage interest in the stump -filled
man-made pond that many still thought
of as Sucker Lake.
The first homes were architecturally
designed residences sited on present
day Ridgecrest, Prestwick, Glen Eagles,
Uplands and Twin Fir, typically English
cottage, Tudor, and Colonial style
homes. Roads were named with a nod
to British golfing and equestrian themes.
Current homeowners still occasionally
encounter original golf balls from those
early years. Many of the originally platted
Oregon Iron and Steel Company lots
include deeded easements in some cases
including access to five of Oswego Lake's
swim and boat parks.
6 UPLANDS NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN
PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT FEBRUARY 1, 2017
The original homes still standing:
Circa, Address and Architect
(where known)
• 1925
- 1400 Ridgecrest Road: Van Evera
Bailey
0 1928
-2240 Prestwick: Ernest Tucker
0 1929
- 2671 Glen Eagles Road
0 1930
-14870 Twin Fir Road
0 1930
-1950 Egan Way
0 1930
-14255 Uplands Drive
0 1935
-1500 Ridgecrest Road
0 1938
- 1700 Ridgecrest Road:Van Evera
Bailey
In the 1930s, a major fire swept through the
trees and brush above the Hunt Club, the
current Iron Mountain Park, and up to the
ridge, which was suppressed by several
surrounding volunteer fire departments. In
the 1940s, long-time residents volunteered
to serve in the airplane lookout shelter
that once stood at the highest point on
Prestwick Road. In the 1980s, a Boy Scout
Eagle Scout Project created a walking trail
over the abandoned narrow gage railway
whose iron rails had long since been
removed during the 1940s to aid in the
war's effort.
In the 1940s, a handful of homes joined
the original few in what was then broadly
described as Forest Hills, with the majority
of building and development taking place
in the 1950s following the release of more
land and the selloff of OLCC fairways.
From the 1960s to 1990s, Fir Ridge,
Uplands, Wembley Place and land -locked
Rainbow Terrace, Sherbrook, Sundeleaf,
Dolph and Bridge subdivisions were
developed.
An analysis of year built for Uplands
homes found that 73% of homes were
constructed before 1980, with the period
between 1940 to 1950 making up the largest
era at 40%.
7 UPLANDS NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN
PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT FEBRUARY 1, 2017
r
z
Z4
^^rn_
VJ
04
Z
04
0
Neighborhood Character
Statement
The physical character of Uplands is
that of the idealized Arcadian suburb
where city dwellers live in a quiet
pastoral setting. Our homes are seen as
rural sanctuaries from the hectic urban
metropolis. The hallmarks of our natural
setting are Springbrook Park, at the very
heart of the neighborhood and Iron
Mountain Park which graces our southern
flank. Homes of diverse size and style rest
on large lots which in turn front an organic
network of narrow streets. Generally,
cars and pedestrians share the road with
the exception of Wembley Park Road
and Twin Fir where there are informal
separated pedestrian paths.
The neighborhood is marked by an
abundance of trees, both evergreen and
deciduous, along with lush yards and
rights-of-way. Houses tend to be set well
back from the street but are separated
from their neighbors by varying distances,
some small, others broad. Uplands is also
a hilly neighborhood with few flat streets
or lots. Most lots are above or below their
neighbors which gives the Uplands a hill -
town feel.
Last, but certainly not least, Uplands is a
school oriented neighborhood where our
children, until recently, have been able
to walk to kindergarten through grade
12. This is unique among Lake Oswego
neighborhoods.
The residents of Uplands are diverse and
in flux. Young families that moved into
the neighborhood decades ago have aged
and as children have grown and flown the
nest the parents have remained making a
stable but maturing resident base.
But once again young families are moving
into Uplands and individual homes are
making a generational transition. As a
result our age demographic is broadening.
There is also a broad range of singles,
couples, families, incomes, ethnicities and
backgrounds. From 2013-2016, 100 new
families have moved to Uplands. Five
households are empty nesters, and 95
households have children, including five
college, 15 high school, 70 primary and
secondary students, five toddlers and five
babies.
8 UPLANDS NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN
PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT FEBRUARY 1, 2017
LAND USE & NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER
Purpose Statement
The xisting land uses and development
regulations generally support the
neighborhood's existing and desired character.
However, some aspects of the Community
Development Code allow a development
pattern that the neighborhood feels is not
compatible with the overall residential
character of Uplands Neighborhood.
Therefore the purpose of the Uplands
Neighborhood Plan Land Use Chapter to is
to outline the unique development patterns
in Uplands, and to identify actions needed to
preserve this essential neighborhood character.
Inventory and Analysis
The Uplands Neighborhood is 301 acres in
size:
• Residential: 172 acres
• Public Right of Way: 40 acres
• School Property: 30 acres
• Open Space and Parks: 59 acres
Uplands is approximately 6,000 feet long by
3,300 feet wide and is slightly football shaped.
There is approximately 265 feet of elevation
change from the high point to the low point of
the neighborhood.
As shown on the zoning map on the
following page, the neighborhood is zoned
predominantly for low-density residential
housing on lots at least 10,000 square feet
in size (R-10 zone). There is a small pocket
of R-5 zoning (5,000 square feet lot area
per dwelling) at the northwest corner of the
neighborhood, along Sherbrook Place, which
was primarily platted as a subdivision in the
1980s and includes two zero lot line dwellings.
Early build -out of the neighborhood was based
on an R-15 designation, and approximately
half of the R -10 -zoned lots exceed 15,000
square feet in size.
There are just under 400 single-family
dwellings in the neighborhood, which range
in size from 1,200 square feet up to several
thousand square feet.
73 percent of these homes were built prior
to 1980, and the remaining 27 percent from
1980 to present. The development pattern on
individual lots helps to create the pastoral
setting described in the Neighborhood
Character Statement. The large majority
of lots (89 percent) have no more than 30
percent lot coverage, with 55 percent of lots
not exceeding 20 percent, leaving much
area for open space and landscaping. The
building mass in relation to the lot size also
contributes to the sense of open space in the
neighborhood, with almost all development
falling well below the maximum buildable
floor area.
The architectural styles in the neighborhood
are rather eclectic. While mid-century ranch
tends to dominate the earlier development
of the Uplands with a few remnants of the
Country Club development period in the 20's
and 30's, newer home styles reflect craftsman,
English cottage, American bungalow, NW
modernist and non-descript amalgams of
multiple styles.
While the Community Development Code
permits one Secondary Dwelling Unit per
detached single family dwelling, there are
very few Secondary Dwelling Units in
the neighborhood and they appear to be
apartments within existing homes.
There are approximately 50 taxlots in the
neighborhood which exceed 20,000 square
feet, the minimum size to be divided in the
R-10 zone. The large majority of these lots are
too narrow to be fully divided side-by-side,
and would require the creation of one or more
UPLANDS NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN
PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT FEBRUARY 1, 2017
C
Z
O
cn
Z
M
04
Z
ON
0
D
Z
flag lots to place one house behind another,
In addition, many topographic and natural
resource constraints exist in the Uplands
neighborhood that limit the development
potential on these lots.
There is some very small scale urban farming
in the neighborhood. Several homes keep
chickens or ducks, there is a small vineyard,
and there are many private vegetable gardens
of varying sizes. There is no community
garden in the neighborhood.
There are two churches, Hope Church and
River West Church, which are conditional
uses in the R-10 zone. Hope Church is also a
designated a Tri -Met Park and Ride site.
There are two public school facilities, Lake
Oswego Junior High and Uplands Elementary
(currently shuttered and used for school
district programs). There is also one private
school, International Leadership Academy
located in Hope Church.
The two public schools include outdoor
recreational facilities available to the public.
Springbrook Park is a 52 -acre public nature
park in the center of the neighborhood.
The Lake Oswego Tennis Center is located
at the western edge of Springbrook Park
and is accessed from the Rainbow Terrace
subdivision of the neighborhood. It is a public
amenity for all Lake Oswego residents.
Additionally, there is Iron Mountain Natural
Area flanking Uplands on the south, and three
small unimproved City -owned open spaces
along Boones Ferry Road.
JA_
Uplands Neighborhood
Zoning Map N
F&MEnmaL PUGL.0 USE
R-15 WWA n .. w
R•10 P A
0 600 1,200 1.800
10 UPLANDS NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN
PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT FEBRUARY 1, 2017
Land Use Objectives
1. Ensure that new residential development
in the R-10 zone is compatible with the
existing pattern of development and
neighborhood character as described in the
plan's Neighborhood Character Statement.
2. Re-establish Uplands Elementary School
as the Uplands neighborhood public
elementary school.
3. Retain the Indoor Tennis Center land as
part of Springbrook Park.
4. Create a framework which provides the
Uplands Neighborhood Association with
meaningful input into land -use related
issues within the neighborhood.
Land Use Action Steps
Community Development Code
City and Neighborhood Responsibility
1. Develop and propose for City adoption
an overlay district for the Uplands R-10
zone, to modify the following Community
Development Code standards:
a. Flag Lots
Flag lots within the Uplands Overlay
District shall be limited to one flag lot
behind the non -flag lot. Development
on the flag lot shall meet all of the
dimensional standards for the R-10
zone relative to setbacks, maximum
area, maximum lot coverage, and
height. The minimum lot area (10,000
sq. ft.) must be contiguous.
b. Access Lanes
No new access lanes shall be allowed
to extend from one street to the next
by connecting to abutting developable
property.
c. Impervious Area
Total impervious shall not exceed 50%
of a lot area, including structures and
paved areas. Total impervious area in
the front yard shall not exceed 30% of
lot area.
d. Front Yard Setbacks
The minimum front yard setback shall
be the average of abutting building
setbacks along the same block face.
The minimum requirement shall be not
be less than 25 ft. or greater than 40 ft.
e. Buildiniz Height
Limit the height of primary dwellings
to 30 feet, regardless of the lot's slope.
Prohibit additional allowed building
height for roof forms and architectural
features, allowed pursuant to LOC
50.04.001.1.g.
f. Buildiniz Design
Revise the interior side yard setback
plane by lowering the roof pitch to
6:12.
2. Driveways
Only one driveway shall be permitted
along each lot frontage.
Neighborhood Programs/Projects
2. Provide easy -to -understand reference for
neighborhood zoning requirements that
includes:
• Minimum Lot Size
• Maximum Lot Coverage
• Setbacks
• Height
• Neighborhood Overlay Code
3. Create a standing Land Use Review
Committee of the neighborhood
association board to review all land use
applications within the neighborhood.
Three members nominated by and
approved by the neighborhood association
at the Fall Bi -annual general meeting when
officers and board members are elected.
The term of service shall be three years
with the initial members having staggered
terms of one, two and three years to allow
for opportunity for a new member to join
the committee every year.
11 UPLANDS NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN
PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT FEBRUARY 1, 2017
C
Z
O
cn
C
D
Z
0
c/)
z
rn
I
I
O
D
Z
12 UPLANDS NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN
PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT FEBRUARY 1, 2017
TRANSPORTATION
Purpose
This chapter outlines the existing
transportation and infrastructure
conditions within the neighborhood, and
recommend ways to improve rights-of-
way and support transportation choices
within the neighborhood. Particular
importance is placed on creating safe
pedestrian and bicycle routes within the
neighborhood, and to schools, bus stops
and nearby commercial areas.
Inventory and Analysis
Roads
The transportation system within the
Uplands Neighborhood consists mainly
of local roads but also includes two
neighborhood collectors: Wembley
Park Road and Twin Fir Road. The
neighborhood is bordered on the north
and west by two major arterials: Country
Club Road and Boones Ferry Road. There
has been discussion that Uplands Drive
should be reclassified from a local street
to a neighborhood collector.
13
Roads through the neighborhood's
interior meander in an organic pattern
with more curves than straight lines and
must be carefully navigated by passing
cars and pedestrians that share a narrow
space. While the public right-of-way for
these local streets generally ranges from
approximately 50 to 60 feet in width, the
paved travel lanes are much narrower,
typically 20 to 25 feet wide.
Curbs are a rarity in the neighborhood,
located only in the Rainbow Terrace,
Sherbrook, Dolph Court, Bridge Court
and Wembley Place subdivisions. The
curbless shoulders, and narrow and
meandering streets contribute to the quiet
country character of the neighborhood.
The unpaved right-of-way edge on the
predominantly curbless neighborhood
roads, currently serves diverse purposes,
from roadside drainage ditches and
shoulder walking areas, to extensions of
private front yard landscaping, to on -
street parking.
The lack of a consistent pattern, however,
results in an interrupted pedestrian
network and stormwater drainage
system, which are intended to function in
UPLANDS NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN
PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT FEBRUARY 1, 2017
r
z
C
r
D
Z
D
cry
Z
rn_
0
Z
0
0
connected ways. The absence of specific
design guidelines for the unpaved right-
of-way edge, along with lack of property
owner knowledge of allowed right-of-
way uses, also results in an inconsistent
streetscape character that could be
improved over time.
Access
The three busiest entrances/exits to the
neighborhood are Wembley Park Road,
Twin Fir Road, and Uplands Drive. While
all neighborhood street intersections
along Boones Ferry Road and Country
Club road have left turn refuge lanes,
none have traffic signals. These
intersections present daily challenges for
drivers. Pedestrians are also challenged
by crossing the major arterials to get to
and from TriMet stops located at several
planes along on the west side of Boones
Ferry Road and north side of Country
Club Road.
A number of single ingress/egress streets
exist: Sherbrook Place and Rainbow
Drive off of Boones Ferry Road, and
Sundeleaf Drive, Dolph Court and
Bridge Court off of Country Club
Road. Residents of these streets have no
alternatives out of their neighborhoods
other than crossing the major arterials.
14 UPLANDS NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN
PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT FEBRUARY 1, 2017
Transit
The neighborhood is currently served by
three TriMet bus lines along Boones Ferry
and Country Club Road.
• Line 37 - Lake Grove connects
residents eastbound to the Lake
Oswego Transit Center downtown,
and westbound to Lake Grove and out
to the Tualatin Park and Ride.
• Line 38 - Boones Ferry connects
residents north to downtown Portland
via Mountain Park, and south to
Tualatin via Kruse Way and 72nd
Street.
• Line 78 - Beaverton/Lake Oswego
connects residents east to the
downtown Lake Oswego Transit
Center, and west to the Beaverton
Transit Center.
The lines 37 and 38 provide weekday
service only, from morning through
evening rush hours. Hope Community
Church at Twin Fir and Boones Ferry
provides 12 park and ride spaces to serve
these bus lines on weekdays. As part
of TriMet's Service Enhancement Plan
the routes and frequencies of these two
lines are proposed to change following
completion of the Boones Ferry Road
project, and could provide more frequent
service to Uplands residents. Line 78
provides more frequent service, broader
hours and weekend service and is not
proposed to change.
15
Pedestrian and Bike Safety
Pedestrians and bicyclists have a tough
go of it in most areas of the Uplands
neighborhood. Sidewalks are almost
completely absent, located only in parts
of the Sherbrook, Dolph Court and
Bridge Court subdivisions. Pathways
are also very limited, located only along
one side of Wembley Park Road, from
Wembley Place to the western edge of
the neighborhood at Twin Fir. Uplands
Drive is dangerous for most of its length
with blind curves between Egan and
Ridgecrest, unsafe ditches near Country
Club, and limited to no shoulder space for
pedestrians. Blind curves on Wembley
Park between Prestwick and Crest are
hazardous at all times of the day and
night.
The City's Transportation System Plan
(TSP) identifies several improvements to
the pedestrian and bicycle network in the
Uplands neighborhood (see chart below).
These projects are also on the City's
Capital Improvement Plan. As of 2016, all
remain unfunded.
UPLANDS NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN
PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT FEBRUARY 1, 2017
C
Z
O
cn
Z
^^rn_
VJ
Z
0
Z
0
0
U
TABLE 1:
Uplands Pathway Projects from the Lake Oswego Capital Improvement Plan (CIP)
and Transportation System Plan (TSP)
Project Name
Fir Ridge Road Sidewalk:
Twin Fir to Wembley Park Rd.
(TSP Project ID #12, CIP Rank #60)
Twin Fir Rdoad Pathway:
Upper Drive & Boones Ferry Rd.
(TSP Project ID #30, CIP Rank #29 )
Glen Eagles Road Pathway:
Wembley Park Rd to Prestwick
(TSP Project ID #204, CIP Rank #94)
Glen Eagles Place Pathway:
Wembley Park Rd to Glen Eagles Rd
(TSP Project ID #205, CIP Rank #95)
Prestwick Road Pathway:
Glen Eagles Rd to Crest Dr
(TSP Project ID #206, CIP Rank #98)
Crest Drive Pathway:
Prestwick Rd to Ridgecrest
(TSP Project ID #207, CIP Rank #99)
Uplands Drive Pathway:
Ridgecrest Rd to Wembley Park Rd.
(TSP Project ID #208, CIP Rank #100)
Description
900' long, 5' wide separated concrete
sidewalk, 5' wide landscape strip on the
north side of street. Existing curbs. Extends
a connection.
3,500' long, 5' wide asphalt shoulder pathway;
include wide stripe with RPMs. Geotechnical
studies, retaining walls, and storm drainage
system required. Transit connection on Boones
Ferry.
1,920' long, 6' wide asphalt shoulder pathway.
525' long, 6' wide asphalt shoulder pathway.
880' long, 6' wide asphalt shoulder pathway.
1,500' long, 6' wide asphalt shoulder pathway.
900' long, 6' wide asphalt shoulder pathway.
16 UPLANDS NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN
PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT FEBRUARY 1, 2017
Wembley Park Road
Especially important to the neighborhood
is the improvement of Wembley Park
Road, which is funded in the Capital
Improvement Plan for reconstruction
and repaving from Country Club Road
to Twin Fir Road, and to improve
stormwater facilities. Design work is
slated to begin in 2019.
This is the longest thoroughfare with the
most traffic in the neighborhood and is in
the worst condition. The only improved
pathway in the neighborhood is on certain
stretches of Wembley Park Road. This
pathway is heavily traveled and widely
praised by residents but is especially hard
to access from streets that meet Wembley
Park, due to an absence of crosswalks.
Parents are very concerned for the safety
of their children as they cross Wembley
Park to access the pathway. Should
Uplands Elementary School re -open in
the future, these issues become even more
pressing. There are concerns that these
perilous conditions will be worsened
once the roadway is rebuilt unless proper
traffic calming devices or crosswalks are
installed.
Parking
There is very little shared parking except
at Hope Church, the Tennis Center,
and the schools. The main entrance to
Springbrook Park is without designated
parking spaces although cars are
often parked here, and park across the
pathway. If Iron Mountain Trail use
increases there will be a need for more
designated parking at the Glen Eagles
trailhead.
17
17 UPLANDS NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN
PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT FEBRUARY 1, 2017
18 UPLANDS NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN
PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT FEBRUARY 1, 2017
Transportation and
Transportation and
Right -of -Way Objectives
Right -of -Way Action Steps
1. Develop solutions to pedestrian/
Capital Improvements
bicyclist crossing concerns across local
City Responsibility
roads, neighborhood collectors and
major arterials.
1. Assess the following locations for
2. Improve roadway conditions and
traffic calming devices:
ensure regular ongoing maintenance.
a. Wembley Park Road curves
between Prestwick and
3. Increase and enhance trails and
Crest
pathways for walking and biking.
b. Wembley Park Road
r �
4. At major arterials create easier, safer
between Twin Fir & Fir Ridge
C. Uplands Drive between Egan &
Dentrances/exits
onto neighborhood
Ridgecrest
z
collectors.
Q
5. Use the space between the paved travel
2. Implement pedestrian activated
(/)
lane and private property line in a
crosswalk technology and traffic
way that preserves the natural flow
signals at these locations:
Z
of pedestrian travel and stormwater
a. Twin Fir Road at Boones Ferry
M
drainage.
Road
6. Design the right-of-way edge with
b. Uplands Drive at Country Club
Road
a cohesive pattern of vegetation,
c. Wembley Park Road at Country
off-street parking and stormwater
Club Road
O7.
management facilities.
Promote the need for site-specific
3. Fix the dangerously deep ditches
infrastructure solutions, necessitated
along Uplands Drive near Country
by the diverse neighborhood
Club, and along Glen Eagles Place near
Otopography.
Wembley Park to improve vehicular
Oand
pedestrian safety.
4. Update the Uplands Drive Pathway
project in the Transportation System
Plan (TSP) (project #208) and Capital
D
Improvement Plan (CIP), to extend the
z
project from Ridgecrest to Country
Club Road. The amended project
would be a new 1,600 foot long, 6 foot
wide asphalt shoulder pathway on
Uplands Drive from Wembley Park
Road to Country Club Road.
18 UPLANDS NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN
PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT FEBRUARY 1, 2017
Neighborhood Responsibility
5. Advocate for funding the design and
construction of Uplands neighborhood
sidewalks/pathways identified in the
City's Transportation System Plan
(TSP; see Table 1):
a. Fir Ridge Sidewalk (TSP #12)
b. Twin Fir Pathway (TSP #30)
c. Glen Eagles Road Pathway
(TSP #204 and #205)
d. Prestwick Road Pathway
(TSP # 206)
e. Crest Drive Pathway (TSP #207)
f. Uplands Drive Pathway (TSP #208)
6. Partner with the City in the design
of the Wembley Park Road capital
improvement project.
Projects/Programs
Neighborhood and City Responsibility
7. Using a collaborative process between
engineers, planners, and property
owners, develop a preliminary (10 to
20%) design concept plan for Uplands
Drive and Wembley Park Road. The
design plan will provide guidance
to the Engineering Department to
respond to Uplands property owners
who wish to improve the right-of-
way area abutting their property, or
who are required to make frontage
improvements with redevelopment.
The plan will identify designs
appropriate for the diverse
topographic, hydrologic, geologic,
and lot pattern conditions in the
neighborhood. Based on these
conditions and the available right-of-
way area, it will identify:
Street cross sections and plan views
Stormwater management
approaches
Pedestrian space and locations
19
Parking space and locations
Landscape design character
Edge treatments
A design plan will help to create a more
consistent pattern of transportation and
stormwater facilities that support natural
stormwater flow and functions. It is
intended to improve the right-of-way
area over time, while waiting for a full
reconstruction.
Neighborhood Responsibility
8. Distribute a set of right-of-way design
guidelines to all Uplands residents
that outlines the required process for
making improvements in the abutting
right-of-way area, and encourages
residents to make improvements
that are consistent with the desired
neighborhood character. The
following should be included:
a. Prior to making property
improvements near the road,
contact the City's Engineering
Department to:
• Determine the area that is in the
public right-of-way;
• Determine if improvements
could be permitted; and
• Determine if an Encroachment
Permit is needed under LOC
42.18.1010 Encroachments
Within Public Rights -of -Way/
Easements.
b. A three -foot -wide pedestrian travel
path must be maintained along the
shoulder of the paved roadway.
c. If a bike or pedestrian pathway is
planned for the right-of-way, new
trees should not be planted in this
area, and should instead be located
on private property.
UPLANDS NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN
PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT FEBRUARY 1, 2017
C
r
D
Z
C/7
d. New pavement for driveways
and or/on-street parking should be
minimized to reduce stormwater
runoff and to provide space for
stormwater management and
landscaping.
e. New gravel placed in the right -of
way should have a minimum
diameter of 1.5 inch (or more,
depending on slope) and should
be open -graded fractured rock to
minimize erosion and allow for
stormwater infiltration.
Where possible, hard surfaces (e.g.
rock or brick walls, asphalt
driveways and parking areas,
graveled surfaces) should be
balanced with vegetation to
support stormwater infiltration
and contribute to the landscaped
neighborhood character.
g. Where on -street parking spaces are
provided, pervious materials
should be used rather than asphalt.
20 UPLANDS NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN
PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT FEBRUARY 1, 2017
NATURAL SYSTEMS
Inventory & Analysis
Land and Topography
Uplands' topographic, geotechnical,
hydrologic, geographic and seismic
features, including abandoned mine
shafts, present unique development
challenges.
Located on uplift abutting Iron Mountain
Park, its southern boundary is 350'
above the Lake Oswego Hunt Club. The
topography slopes downward easterly
to Oswego Lake Country Club, northerly
to Country Club Road and westerly to
Boones Ferry Road. Equally unique is the
distribution of Uplands total area:
• 50%+ is public/institutional lands,
including Springbrook Park, Lake
Oswego Indoor Tennis Center,
Uplands Elementary / Lake Oswego
Junior High schools and Hope
Community and River West churches.
• 50%+ is remaining residential private
property, including five newer
subdivisions, located around Uplands
perimeter.
• 40%-50%+ is in a Sensitive Lands
Overlay for tree groves and stream
corridors.
21
Streams
Springbrook Creek drains part of the
Mountain Park neighborhood and
flows along Boones Ferry Road around
the western margin of the Uplands
neighborhood.
In Springbrook Park, the creek
and its tributary bisect the park
and include wetlands at its upper
reaches. Springbrook Park is a natural
watershed that also links all areas of
Uplands.
Trees and Wildlife
Uplands' tree canopy is higher than the
city average and provides more shade
for its stream corridors. However, the
water quality monitoring location nearer
Oswego Lake is warmer in mid -summer
than state requirements.
UPLANDS NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN
PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT FEBRUARY 1, 2017
z
^^rn_
VJ
Z
0
Z
0
0
U
r
z
U) 4
z 4
rn_
V ) and wastewater system worked well
4 in the older portion of Uplands located
00
04
Z
04
0
Neighborhood locations between
Springbrook Park and Iron Mountain
Natural Area have always been traversed
by wildlife. Wildlife has increased
in Uplands as land has developed in
neighborhoods north of Uplands and
reduced habitat. Springbrook and Iron
Mountain natural areas are only a few
hundred feet apart, so deer and coyotes
roam freely and share streets with
residents. Birdsongs permeate all of
Uplands.
Development and Stormwater
Management
Residential development began in the
1920's in accordance with Clackamas
County codes and was characterized
by homes on large lots with open ditch
stormwater conveyance along the
frontage of properties, and backyard
septic tanks/drain fields that drained into
existing ravines. This modest stormwater
along perimeter views.
Major growth with smaller ranch -style
homes occurred during the 1950s to 1960s
as new families were attracted to Uplands
walkable k-12 schools. Sanitary sewer
systems were installed after properties
were annexed into Lake Oswego in
1960. Annexation of roads was declined
at that time because of substandard
conditions and were not annexed until
1986. Development after annexation
included curbs, piping and catch basins in
some locations, particularly in Uplands'
subdivisions.
Increased development density, house
size and amount of impervious surface on
lots (including streets, driveways, roofs,
walkways, and patios), along with private
use of unimproved right-of-way edges,
have significantly impacted the flow of
stormwater throughout Uplands. Such
development has resulted in reduced
infiltration of rainwater and increased
flow velocity. Reduced infiltration rates
have in turn resulted in unmanaged
flows, pollutants and transport of run-off
over roads and adjacent properties.
Infiltration of rainwater is also limited in
the Uplands neighborhood because soils
are typically fine grained (making them
less permeable) and bedrock is located
near the land surface. Sloping topography
over much of the neighborhood also
means that runoff moves quickly
downhill.
Due to these manmade and natural
conditions, much of the rainwater runs
off the surface rather than infiltrating into
the ground. This means that there are
large volumes of water to manage during
large storms. Whether in roadside ditches
or streams, runoff is often present at
volumes or velocities that cause erosion.
As described further in this chapter,
there is limited stormwater infrastructure
present in Uplands to manage runoff in a
manner that protects property and natural
resources. Adding additional stormwater
infrastructure into this neighborhood will
require creativity and substantial funding.
22 UPLANDS NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN
PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT FEBRUARY 1, 2017
Right-of-way stormwater is managed
in three different ways in the Uplands
neighborhood:
1. Undeveloped roadside open ditches,
typically located on the steepest
grades, Uplands Drive, Glen Eagles
Road and mid-section portions of
Wembley Park Road, which are
approximately 60 to 90 years old. The
Glen Eagles Tributary culvert drains
lower Wembley Park Road and open
ditches on both sides of Glen Eagles
Road from Crest Drive. Uplands
Drive has open ditch drainage at the
intersection with Egan Way.
These roadside ditches, typically with
clay soils, continue to be degraded
by increased water flow, rate and
volume, largely resulting from uphill
development. Three private property
owner- funded and City -approved
projects have been constructed on
Glen Eagles Road during the last
decade to manage stormwater flow.
Additional City -funded right-of-way
repairs are needed to further protect
these natural conveyances.
2. Piped with catch basins and curbs
that connect to existing stormwater
pipes are located in newer
subdivisions, including Sherbrook,
Rainbow Terrace, Dolph and Bridge
Courts, Wembley Place and Fir Ridge
Road.
3. Curbless right-of-way edges with
drainage ditches filled in for shoulder
parking or landscaped extensions of
front yards, and some stormwater
piping. This condition is typical of
Crest Drive, Prestwick, upper section
of Uplands Drive, Glen Eagles Place/
Road/Court and most of Wembley
Park Road.
23
UPLANDS NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN
PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT FEBRUARY 1, 2017
Z
^^rn_
VJ
Z
0
Z
0
0
U
r
z
z
^^rn_
VJ
0
Z
0
0
Relying solely upon existing natural
conveyances and open roadside ditches is
no longer a viable solution for steep slopes
draining from Crest Drive, as evidenced
by:
• Glen Eagles Road's degrading open
ditches on both sides of the roadbed
are exacerbated by lack of uphill
conveyance for run-off, road side
slopes, and a diagonal pipe crossing
above Glen Eagles Court.
• The erosion level in the ravine below
the Glen Eagles culvert has been
observed to drop approximately one
inch per year during the last 20 years.
December 2015 stormwater flows
exceeded previous lateral heights, and
washed out the rock outcrop used for
erosion observations.
• Uplands Drive's single deep ditch is
undermining the abutting concrete
wall at the intersection of Egan Way.
Open ditches cause concern about
pedestrian and vehicular safety and
future pathways connectivity, as noted
in the Transportation chapter.
p
410
f' 3
S"TSrr j'yF:E -
Je
J,�.. �' +
Wembley Park Road Rehabilitation &
Stormwater Project
The approved and funded Wembley Park
Road Rehabilitation Project, scheduled to
begin design work in 2019, will provide
an opportunity for significant stormwater
improvements in its design and execution.
A portion of the Wembley Park right-
of-way drains from Crest Drive to Glen
Eagles Road and includes a stormwater
system of piping and catch basins that
outfall into an open roadside ditch. This
ditch connects with a conveyance to
Springbrook Creek, and ultimately flows
into Oswego Lake.
Improving stormwater treatment and
management for the roadway and this
drainage system in the course of this road
rehabilitation project is a high priority of
the Uplands neighborhood.
24 UPLANDS NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN
PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT FEBRUARY 1, 2017
Natural Systems Objectives
1. Reconstruct and repave Wembley Park
Road from Country Club Road to Twin
Fir Road, adding improved stormwater
facilities (see 2019-2021 CIP). Work
with the City to engage abutting property
owners in this project, and to help design
the project in a way that improves the
multiple functions of the Wembley Park
ROW.
2. Rehabilitate Springbrook Park's Stream
Corridor and Wetland to improve future
watershed capabilities and better manage
existing degradation of park trails and
water drainage onto abutting properties on
Wembley Park Road.
3. Limit impervious surface area on
residential lots to reduce stormwater
runoff.
4. Develop and maintain a coherent roadside
drainage system.
Natural Systems Action Items
Capital Improvements: Wembley Park
Road Rehabilitation Project
Neighborhood Responsibility
1. Meet with the City Budget Committee and
City Council to advocate for the funded
Wembley Park Road CIP project to be
completed as scheduled in 2019-2021.
2. Advocate for the Wembley Park Road
CIP project to be designed and funded in
accordance with low impact development
techniques identified in the Lake Oswego
Stormwater Management Manual
wherever possible, including swales and
plantings between vehicular traffic and
pedestrian passage. When completed,
the project should help prevent ongoing
stormwater degradation of roads, flooding
of yards/homes, runoff flowing over
25
abutting properties, erosion of conveyance
systems, and help to reduce pollutants
and better utilize Springbrook Park's
watershed potential.
City Responsibility
3. Conduct pre -planning meetings with
Uplands' residents regarding the Wembley
Park Road and right-of-way design to
discuss design components including type
of surfacing, curbs, planting beds/swales,
off-street parking, pathway, and other
concerns that best preserve the character of
the neighborhood and are code compliant.
Programs & Projects
Neighborhood Responsibility
1. Support City staff in modifying codes and
regulations to better manage hardscape
(impervious surfaces) and associated
surface water run-off.
2. Request ongoing City maintenance of the
roadside drainage system in the public
right-of-way. Help the City to identify and
prioritize maintenance needs by providing
documentation of specific surface water
and Sensitive Lands conditions that are not
functioning properly and/or are negatively
impacting private property.
3. Advocate for City adoption of incentives
for voluntary stormwater improvements
in the public right-of-way, which could be
implemented based on an updated drainage
plan.
4. Support the City's efforts to improve
stormwater management and treatment
by providing outreach and education to
Uplands residents.
UPLANDS NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN
PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT FEBRUARY 1, 2017
C
Z
O
cn
C
D
Z
0
c/)
z
rn
I
I
O
D
Z
26 UPLANDS NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN
PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT FEBRUARY 1, 2017
OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION
Inventory and Analysis
The center of the Uplands neighborhood
is Springbrook Park, a 52 -acre natural area
that is owned by the City of Lake Oswego.
The 2015 Uplands Neighborhood Survey
asked residents to rank open space and
recreation priorities on a scale of Not
Important to Extremely Important.
95% of respondents ranked as Very
Important or Extremely Important the
"Preservation of Springbrook Park
and Iron Mountain as natural areas."
Springbrook Park was cited by many
in listing things they like about the
neighborhood.
Springbrook Park was last logged in the
early 1960's when the portable sawmill
was removed. Over 40 years ago, a
petition drive resulted in an election with
80% of Lake Oswego residents voting
"yes" to acquire the 52 acres and preserve
the natural area for residents.
Friends of Springbrook Park, a 501(c)3
non-profit organization, was formed over
10 years ago and partners with the City to
maintain and enhance this natural area.
The park is one of the key strengths
identified about the Uplands
neighborhood. It is very accessible to
people who live in the neighborhood,
holds considerable diversity of birds and
wildlife, and is considered to be a healthy
natural area.
Over the last 10 years, dozens of volunteer
projects cleared about six of the 52 acres
of invasive plants, and over 2,000 native
trees and plants have been planted.
27
Recently, the City's Parks & Recreation
Department contracted to have invasive
ivy removed from Springbrook. These
efforts have resulted in major die -off of
ivy in 90% of the park.
UPLANDS NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN
PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT FEBRUARY 1, 2017
C
Z
0
(17
IP Z
M
O
Z
O
O
U
r
z
C
r
D
Z
C/7
Z
M
04
Z
04
0
Track and cross country teams from
LOHS have rebuilt and graveled two
miles of trails in Springbrook, to Oregon
State Park standards. Eagle Scout projects
have built and installed kiosks, trails
signs, and boot scrapers at entrances. New
trail entrance signs have been installed
through a neighborhood grant.
Looking forward, it will be important
to conduct more outreach to neighbors,
city-wide residents and the City Council
to maintain volunteer participation
and awareness of the park. The park
provides opportunities for educational
programs with schools, faculty, and
students; academic research with regional
universities on local habitat; partnering
with County, State, and regional
organizations for grants; and expanding
the Friends Forum to build a bigger vision
for our parks.
Springbrook Park is also the location of
the Lake Oswego Tennis Center. Recent
discussion regarding selling the Center
have stopped and relocation has been
removed from any near future plans.
The fields and playground at Uplands
Elementary School (currently closed)
and Lakeridge Junior High School also
provide open space and recreation
facilities for the neighborhood. 84% of
neighborhood survey respondents ranked
as Very Important or Extremely Important
the "Preservation of Uplands Elementary
and LOJHS play fields and equipment for
recreation and organized sports."
Prestwick Place is a garden area
developed by neighbors in a portion of
unused City right-of-way, and is now
maintained by Public Works Department.
Open Space & Recreation
Objectives
1. Continue to enhance and maintain
Springbrook Park and Iron Mountain
Park through the removal of invasive
plants and restoration of native
species.
2. Restore Springbrook Creek.
Open Space & Recreation
Action Steps
Neighborhood Responsibility
1. Partner with the Springbrook Park and
Iron Mountain Park friends groups to
support their goals and work plans,
including:
a. Community outreach and
education
b. Partnerships with local schools
c. Ongoing maintenance plans
d. Grant opportunities
28 UPLANDS NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN
PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT FEBRUARY 1, 2017
NEIGHBORHOOD INVOLVEMENT
Purpose
The main purpose of the neighborhood
association is to provide a forum for
residents to discuss matters of common
concern and represent the views of the
neighborhood before public bodies.
Matters of common concern include,
but are not limited to the livability of
the neighborhood, city and region;
participation in all phases of government
processes with special emphasis on
planning, land use and environmental
quality, and ongoing communication with
governments.
The Uplands neighborhood has low
levels of citizen involvement with the
association and is deficient in accurate
representation of the demographic mix,
as well as those who represent diverse
interests and come from all geographic
areas of the neighborhood. The
association's activity has been primarily
focused on responding to issues and
seeking solutions.
While this will always be a core mission
of the association, the board would like
to establish a plan that will address
how the neighbors can work together to
build a safe community by establishing a
consistent form of communication in hope
to solicit a greater demographic range of
involved neighbors, and to implement an
emergency preparedness plan.
29
UPLANDS NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN
PLANNING
PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT FEBRUARY 1, 2017
C
Z
O
cn
D
Z
U
U)
Z4
^^rn_
VJ
04
Z
04
0
Inventory and Analysis
The Uplands Neighborhood Association
meets monthly and holds general
membership meetings twice annually.
The neighborhood association board
composition is marginally older than
the median neighborhood age and
represents fewer households with
school age children than are present
in the neighborhood. Newsletters are
distributed twice a year, two weeks prior
to the bi-annual general membership
meeting. The association uses the
Nextdoor.com neighborhood social media
platform. This website helps facilitate
communication among neighbors.
Currently the website has 362 registered
neighbors.
A "Welcome to the Neighborhood" kit
that contains brochures, maps, most
recent newsletter and general information
about Lake Oswego is distributed by a
neighborhood association board member
to all new residents. An emergency
preparedness program is currently in
place but the program chair seat is vacant.
Some block captains have been identified
but interest is lacking. The neighborhood
has received support with CERT
(Certified Emergency Response Training)
and the association currently has a record
of residents that store emergency gas shut
off wrenches and walkie talkies in their
home.
The results of the 2015 neighborhood
survey ranked neighborhood emergency
preparedness as extremely important
to the citizens. Broad representation
in the neighborhood association was
very important while opportunities
for neighborhood events were only
moderately important.
Neighborhood Involvement
Objectives
1. Solicit residents to join the
neighborhood association, particularly
those who represent demographics
that are lacking on the board.
2. Strengthen the neighborhood's level of
emergency preparedness for natural
disasters.
3. Find another avenue of
communication to increase
neighborhood involvement.
Neighborhood Involvement
Action Steps
Programs/Projects
Neighborhood Responsibility
1. Implement an events committee that
will be responsible for creating new
neighborhood events. These events
will cater to young families and will be
held at different times.
2. Identify a chair for the emergency
preparedness program who can build
u pon the existing neighborhood
emergency preparedness program in
place.
3. Identify a resident that can create a
neighborhood website. The website
will provide citizens a location to
read up to date information on topics
related to the association or the
neighborhood itself.
30 UPLANDS NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN
PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT FEBRUARY 1, 2017
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Analysis
Uplands is predominantly zoned low
density residential R-10. Currently there
is no commercial or mixed-use zoning.
The neighborhood supports home-based
businesses that conform with existing City
regulations and recognizes the needs and
desires of people to engage in small-scale
business ventures.
Economic Development
Objectives
1. Maintain existing residential, Park and
Natural Area and Public Functions
zoning.
2. Ensure home-based businesses are
in conformity with relevant City sign
codes and are not disruptive to our
character.
Economic Development
Action Items
Neighborhood Responsibility
1. Obtain a list of current licensed home-
based businesses in Uplands. Maintain
the list with future business licenses as
they are issued.
2. Review the status of these businesses
annually to ensure they are code
compliant and not disruptive to the
neighborhood.
3. Monitor and participate in any future
City code change process that deals
with home-based businesses.
31 UPLANDS NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN
PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT FEBRUARY 1, 2017
C
Z
O
cn
r
z
ATTACHMENT C
(Ordinance 2734)
LU 17-0001
Updates to the Transportation System Plan
1. Page 88, Table 14 Pedestrian and Bicycle Projects
Amend Table 14 by adding new text shown in bold. double underlined tvoe and deleting text
shown in stF*l(ethFe"^", as shown below.
Table 14: Pedestrian and Bicycle Projects
Uplands Dr Pathway:
2.500' 9001 long, 6' wide
208 Pathways Country Club Rd. to
(7A & 7C) Wembley asphalt shoulder
Ppathway.
Park Rd.
February 1, 2017 ATTACHMENT C (ORDINANCE 2734)/PAGE 1 OF 3
LU 17-0001
NA confirmed
project
consistent with
goals of
TMP
Uplands
$900 Uplands
Neighborhood
52.000.000 Neiehborhood
Association
Plan
Board. mer
Incorporate
stormwater
runoff in design.
February 1, 2017 ATTACHMENT C (ORDINANCE 2734)/PAGE 1 OF 3
LU 17-0001
2. Page 103, Figure 7A Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects
Delete existing Figure 7A and replace with new Figure 7A.
V)
4--+
U
a)
d
L
a
L
V)
W
0
CL
m
a)
U
it
� O
FY, W
O
February 1, 2017
LU 17-0001
ATTACHMENT C (ORDINANCE 2734)/PAGE 2 OF 3
3. Page 107, Figure 7C Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects
Delete existing Figure 7C and replace with new Figure 7C.
V)
}d
U
U
0
L
ca
a.i
Q�
i
L�
U
U
Wi'
- J
IT
Jam. 111
February 1, 2017 ATTACHMENT C (ORDINANCE 2734)/PAGE 3 OF 3
LU 17-0001
ATTACHMENT D
(Ordinance 2734)
LU 17-0001
NOTE: Double underline text indicates new text to be added to the Community Development Code. The
entirety of Attachment D, Proposed Uplands R-10 Overlay District, is new text. Explanatory text is
provided in commentary boxes below key code sections and amendments. This is included for reference
as part of the public hearings, and will be deleted as part of the final ordinance adopted by City Council.
1.PURPOSE
The Durpose of the overlav is to ensure that development in the overlav district promotes the uniaue
character of the UDlands neiahborhood as described in the Uplands Neiahborhood Plan.
2. APPLICABILITY
This article aDDlies to lands within the UDlands R-10 Overlav District. as shown on Figure 50.05.012-A:
UDlands R-10 Overlav District.
il�ll_
W�pw�e 51I
Figure 50.05.012-A: Uplands R-10 Overlay District
' T
1
Uplands Neighborhood
Uplands R-10 Overlay District N
Uplands Neighborhood Boundary
0 goo 600 1,600
reef
DRAFT 02/01/17
LU 17-0001 ATTACHMENT D (ORDINANCE 2734)/PAGE 1 OF 8
To the extent that anv reauirement of this overlay imposes a reaulation relatina to the same matter as a
reaulation applicable to the residential low density zones. flaa lots. or circulation and connectivitv. this
section shall Drevail.
Commentary:
Overlay codes add to, or modify, the base zone requirements to address unique characteristics and
desires of specific geographic areas of the city.
4. YARD SETBACKS (Non -Flag Lotsj
a. Front Yard Setbacks
Front vard setbacks (other than for flaa lots) shall conform to the standards in Table 50.05.012 — 1.
TABLE 50.05.012-1 — FRONT YARD SETBACKS FOR NON -
FLAG LOTS
Non -corner Lot
Corner Lot
Front yard
setback [11 f21
Average of the Averaae of 25 ft. and
setbacks of the closest the setback of the
buildinas on the closest buildina on the
abuttina lots on the abuttina lot on the
same block face same block face
Where the averaae is less than 25 ft.:
The minimum setback is 25 ft.
Where the averaae is more than 40 ft.:
The minimum setback is 40 ft.
See Figure
50.05.012-B)
Minimum
Front Yard
Setback
f11 Abutting flag lots shall not be considered in determining the
average. The setback of the next abutting non -flag lot shall apply.
See Figure 50.05.012-B.
f21 If the lots abuts a vacant lot, or there are no abutting lots on the
same block face, the setback of the underlying zone shall apply.
DRAFT 02/01/17
LU 17-0001 ATTACHMENT D (ORDINANCE 2734)/PAGE 2 OF 8
Lot
Do Not Use
12� Abutting lot to use for front setback averaging
Abutting
Flag Lot
r 7
1 Subject property
r - - -
16 _ A
A-c-
C
Lot 8 =
Vacant
---9 Use 25 ft
A
No LotA
(Corner)
Use 25 ft. C B
Commentary: The distance that homes are set back from the front property line varies throughout the
neighborhood, however, many homes in Uplands are set back well beyond the required 25 ft. front
setback distance. In most cases, the unimproved public right-of-way between the road and front property
line creates additional distance to the house. The generous front yard area is one of the unique
characteristics of the Uplands neighborhood. There is concern that as properties redevelop, new homes
will increasingly be built at the minimum 25 ft. setback, which will change the character of the
neighborhood. There is a desire to ensure that setbacks are similar to neighboring homes. This
requirement applies to new construction,
additions, and remodels.
This approach is based on an existing
standard in LOC 50.04.003 General
Exceptions to Yard Requirements. This code
section allows front yard setback averaging
to reduce the required setback, when one or
both abutting lots have a legal house or
garage set back less than the current
requirement. Where there is only one
abutting property with a lesser setback, the
average is determined by the abutting
property and the minimum setback for the
zone.
A I I B
I C I
L J
Setback B
Setback C
Setback A
DRAFT 02/01/17
LU 17-0001 ATTACHMENT D (ORDINANCE 2734)/PAGE 3 OF 8
5. FLAG LOTS
a. Only one flaa lot may be created behind a non-flaa lot. No flaa lot may be created from an existina flaa
lot.
Commentary: The number of allowable flag lots is currently determined by the total area of the site
(each lot must be at least 10,000 sq. ft. in size). Two or more flag lots could be created behind the
street -facing lot, if the site was at least 36,000 sq. ft. — large enough to accommodate at least three
total lots, along with an access lane.
This proposal would limit the number of lots to two, one abutting the street and one behind it. Multiple
flag lot development is not seen as compatible with the character and development pattern of the
Uplands neighborhood because long access lanes, fences, and homes located ten feet off the access
lane result in a predominant view of hardscape, rather than the landscaped separation between
homes that characterizes most of the neighborhood.
L7_ ZT-M
Access lanes shall not extend or Droiect throuah the flaa lot to abuttina Drooerty.
Commentary:
"Access Lane: The area on private property that extends from the public right-of-way and is permitted
to provide ingress and egress to the property (or properties) by all applicable surface modes of
travel."
"Driveway: A vehicular accessway that has, as its primary purpose, the provision of a driveable
connection between a structure or parking area on a lot and connecting to the shared access
easement, access lane, private street, or public street system. "Driveway" may include parking pads,
turnaround areas, and parking lot aisles."
Existing code requires that "Access lanes shall extend through the partition site and be extended to
abutting developable property to provide a continuous connecting access lane where practicable."
Access lanes may serve two and not more than eight properties (LOC 50.06.003.1.d.ii, iv). This
requirement was added to the code in 2010, and no through connections have been built to date; all
developable lots in Uplands have frontage on a public street or access via an existing access lane.
The concept to create an intimate private lane cutting through blocks is not seen as compatible with
the meandering street pattern in hilly Uplands. The Uplands R-10 Overlay proposal would not allow a
private access lane to "cut through" a block and connect to the next street. Note: The code calls for
access to flag lots to be consolidated into a shared access lane (with the non -flag lot and/or other flag
lots) wherever practicable. If not practicable, the flag lot could be served by a driveway, which is not
required to be projected through to abutting property.
DRAFT 02/01/17
LU 17-0001 ATTACHMENT D (ORDINANCE 2734)/PAGE 4 OF 8
c. Lot Configuration Requirements
IN - - 11M. . 1 .
The front vard of a flaa lot is measured from the lot line that is most parallel and closest to the street.
Commentary: The front, rear and side yards are the required setbacks from the property line to the
building (front yard = 25 ft. setback), but setback standards do not prescribe the house orientation/
where the front door is located. The current flag lot regulations require that the front yard be located
between the house and the access lane (what's typically the "side").The City's old flag lot regulations
(prior to 2010 infill code amendments) called for the front yard of the flag lot to be located between
the house and street, but allowed some flexibility. The Uplands overlay proposal is to return to the
pre -2010 method, orienting the setbacks the same as non -flag lots.
i. Building Orientation
There is no buildina orientation requirement.
Commentary: The existing flag lot standards require that the front of the house be oriented toward
the access lane, or projection thereof. This code requirement was added with other flag lot standards
in 2010, and was intended to create a small private lane, with all homes facing toward that lane. The
Uplands Overlay proposal to limit flag lots and not allow connecting access lanes makes the existing
orientation standard unnecessary. The front yard, regardless of the front door location, would be
oriented to the street, but there would be no requirement pertaining to where the front door is located
(the "orientation").
The flag lot setback reauirements in LOC 50.07.007.e.v. shall not aoDly within the Uplands R-10
Overlav District. All setbacks shall be those established by this overlav and the underlvina R-10
zone.
Commentary: The existing flag lot standards have a 10 ft. setback from the front of the house to the
access lane, and provide flexibility in the distribution of side and rear yard setbacks, with the intent of
reflecting the setbacks on abutting properties. The result, as in the flag lots off of Wembley Park
Road, is that homes can appear closely stacked together down the lane, and can create uncertainty
in the application of standards.
a. No more than 50% of the lot may be covered with impervious surfaces.
Commentary: The Uplands overlay proposal would allow 15%-25% of a lot to be covered with
impervious surfaces such as patios and driveways, in addition to the building area counted toward
maximum lot coverage (25-35%). There are four other neighborhoods in Lake Oswego with a limit on
DRAFT 02/01/17
LU 17-0001 ATTACHMENT D (ORDINANCE 2734)/PAGE 5 OF 8
impervious surface. The two low-density neighborhoods have a 50% limit, and the two medium -high-
density neighborhoods have a 60% limit.
As defined by the Lake Oswego Utility Code (LOC 38),"Impervious surface means a hard surface area
which prevents or retards the entry of water into the soil mantle and/or causes water to run off the
surface in greater quantities or at an increase rate of flow than would occur under natural conditions.
"Impervious surface" includes, but is not limited to, rooftops, concrete or asphalt paving, compacted
gravel, walkways, patios, driveways, parking lots or storage areas, and oiled, macadam or other
surfaces which similarly impede the natural infiltration or runoff of surface water."
_qronarinc-
10,000 sq. ft. lot / 35% lot coverage: 1,500 sq. ft. additional impervious treatment allowed
20,000 sq. ft. lot / 25% lot coverage: 5,000 sq. ft. additional impervious treatment allowed
b. The area between the front lot line and the nearest eda_e of the buildina_ footprint shall not be covered
by more than 30% of impervious surface.
Commentary: The proposal to limit the impervious area between the building and front property line is
intended to prevent hardscape (primarily driveways) from being the predominant surface treatment in
the front yard. This is intended to support the existing and desired neighborhood character of generous
open space on lots, lush landscaping and an abundance of trees, rather than an abundance of
hardscape as viewed from the street.
7. STRUCTURE DESIGN
a. Maximum Permitted Heigh
The maximum permitted heiaht for Drimary structures. reaardless of slope. is 30 ft.
Commentary: Much of the Uplands neighborhood has some degree of slope. Existing code allows 4-5
ft. of additional building height on lots with slope. This existing standard, along with a 6 ft. allowance
for roof forms and architectural features, is depicted in the figure below.
Figure 50.04.001-A: Height Adjustment for Sloping Topography (existing code)
Base height - zonei
-L__
dependent ---
b -ft.
10
-------------- base height
4 -ft. adjustrnerrt
to base height for
---------------- -- topography
Exception
proposed to
be eliminated
401 Adjustment
proposed to be
prohibited
Slope is measured between the highest and lowest existing ground surface elevation within the
footprint of the dwelling, with the following classifications currently defining height:
DRAFT 02/01/17
LU 17-0001 ATTACHMENT D (ORDINANCE 2734)/PAGE 6 OF 8
• Flat Lot: No elevation change within the footprint (30 ft. max height)
• Lot with Sloping Topography: Elevation change of up to 10 ft. within the footprint of the dwelling
(34 ft. max height)
• Sloped Lot: Elevation change of 10 or more ft. within the footprint of the dwelling (35 ft. max height)
The neighborhood is concerned with the impact of additional height that can be constructed on lots
with slope, and is proposing a standard height measurement that would require the building to step
down with the slope, rather than allowing additional height for the downslope portion of the house.
1641111111111111:171n. Ila! "19158rit 0=1 . 16-IFTire =.8171
i. The additional heiaht allowed pursuant to LOC 50.04.001.1.a is not permitted.
Commentary: The Code sets a maximum base height for structures in low-density residential zones, with
additional height allowances for limited roof forms and architectural features that project above the maximum
base height. The maximum base height in the R-10 zone is 30 ft. for flat lots, 34 ft. for lots with sloping
topography, and 35 ft. for sloped lots. Roof forms may extend up to six feet higher than the base height (see
figure above) when specific dimensional standards are met. The Uplands neighborhood has many single story
ranches and split level homes that are well below the maximum base height in the zone. The neighborhood
association feels that additional height up to 6 feet would be less compatible with the lower structure height that
is common throughout the neighborhood. This recommendation is similar to the recent amendment to the
Evergreen Neighborhood R-7.5 Overlay.
c. Side Yard Setback Plane — Interior Yards
Except as set forth in LOC 50.06.001.2.e.ii. the side profile of a structure shall fit behind a plane
that starts at the side DroDerty line and extends upward to 12 ft. and slopes toward the center of
the lot at a slope of 6:12 UD to the maximum allowed heiaht at the peak.
Roof forms may Denetrate into the side vard setback Dlane per LOC 50.06.001.2.e.i.
Commentary: This standard modifies the existing side yard setback plane (illustrated below) by
lowering the pitch of the plane from 12:12 to 6:12. The 6:12 pitch is currently used for the front yard
setback plane. The 6:12 roof pitch measured at the side property line allows a side wall building height
of 16.5 ft. to fit within the setback plane, before adding possible projections such as dormers.
DRAFT 02/01/17
LU 17-0001 ATTACHMENT D (ORDINANCE 2734)/PAGE 7 OF 8
12'
All
Proi
Figure 50.06.001-G: Side Yard Setback Plane
Side Yard Setback
8. ON-SITE CIRCULATION — DRIVEWAYS AND FIRE ACCESS ROADS
Property
LirtE
r
12
i
i
i
i
1; 1
Side Yard Setback
a. Driveway Approaches — Locational Limitations and Restrictions
Onlv one drivewav access point shall be Dermitted alono each lot frontaae.
Maximum
Base
Height
Commentary: Lots with more than 75 ft. of frontage along a single public street are currently permitted
to have more than one driveway access (LOC 50.06.003.2 On -Site Circulation — Driveways and Fire
Access Roads). The additional driveway access allows for horseshoe- shaped driveways and results
in greater paved area, less landscaping, and reduced opportunities for on -street parking.
A corner lot has two street frontages, and one driveway approach would be permitted along each.
DRAFT 02/01/17
LU 17-0001 ATTACHMENT D (ORDINANCE 2734)/PAGE 8 OF 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
APPROVED: 02/27/17
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
A REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT TO THE )
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO ADD THE )
UPLANDS NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, AN )
AMENDMENT TO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM)
PLAN AND AMENDMENT TO COMMUNITY )
DEVELOPMENT CODE TO ADD UPLANDS )
R-10 OVERLAY. )
NATURE OF APPLICATION
EXHIBIT B-1
LU 17-0001
LU 17-0001 - 1912
(CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO)
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & ORDER
Legislative text amendments to:
• the Comprehensive Plan to adopt the Uplands Neighborhood Plan into the
Neighborhood and Special District Plans volume;
• the Transportation System Plan to extend a pathway project along
Uplands Drive; and
• the Community Development Code (LOC 50), to add the Uplands R-10
Overlay District, LOC 50.05.012.
These amendments are requested on behalf of the Uplands Neighborhood Association.
HEARINGS
The Planning Commission held a public hearing and considered this application at its
meeting on February 13, 2017.
CRITERIA AND STANDARDS
A. Any Applicable State Law
Oregon Revised Statute 197.307: Approval Standards for Certain Housing in
Urban Growth Areas
B. Citv of Lake Osweao Comprehensive Plan
Land Use Planning:
Development (Community Development Code)
Policy A -1.b
Policy A -1.d
LU 17-0001
Design Standards and Guidelines
Policy C-1
Policy C-5
EXHIBIT B-1/PAGE 1 OF 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
APPROVED: 02/27/17
Land Use Administration
Policy D-1
Policy D-3
Policy D-4
Inspiring Spaces and Places:
Goal 1
Policy 1
Policy 3
Policy 7
Complete Neighborhoods and Housing:
Housing Choice and Affordability
Policy B-1
Complete Neighborhoods
Policy C-3
Policy C-5
Policy C-7
Connected Community:
Safety
Policy A-1
Community Health and Public Safety:
Public Facilities and Services: Surface Water Management
Policy 1
Policy 3
Policy 5
Policy 8
Community Culture:
Civic Engagement
Policy 1
Policy 9
C. Citv of Lake Oswego Communitv Development Code
LOC 50.07.003.3.c.
LOC 50.07.003.16a
LOC 50.07.003.16b
LOC 50.07.003.16c
LOC 50.07.003.16.d.iii
LOC 50.07.003.16.e
LU 17-0001
Published Notice for Legislative Hearing
Legislative Decisions Defined
Criteria for Legislative Decision
Required Notice to DLCD
Planning Commission Recommendation Required
City Council Review and Decision
EXHIBIT B-1/PAGE 2 OF 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
APPROVED: 02/27/17
CONCLUSION
The Planning Commission concludes that LU 17-0001 is in compliance with all
applicable criteria.
FINDINGS AND REASONS
At the public hearing, one written letter was received in support, and one person
testified in support. The Planning Commission incorporates the staff report, dated
February 1, 2017, on LU 17-0001 (with all exhibits attached thereto) as support for its
decision.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION of the City of Lake Oswego that:
1. The Planning Commission recommends that proposed Ordinance 2734, with
Attachments B, C, and D (02/01/17) ALU 17-0001] be approved by the City Council.
I CERTIFY THAT THIS ORDER was presented to and APPROVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Lake Oswego.
DATED this 27th day of February 2017.
LU 17-0001
Rob Heape /s/
Rob Heape, Chair
Planning Commission
EXHIBIT B-1/PAGE 3 OF 4
1
2
3
4
s
6
7
s
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
APPROVED: 02/27/17
ATTEST:
PRELIMINARY DECISION - February 13, 2017
AYES: Arthur, Baker, A. Brockman, E. Brockman, Gaar, Heape, Ward
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
EXCUSED: None
ADOPTION OF FINDINGS AND ORDER - February 27, 2017
AYES:
Arthur, Baker, A. Brockman, E. Brockman, Gaar, Heape, Ward
NOES:
None
ABSTAIN:
None
EXCUSED:
None
LU 17-0001
EXHIBIT B-1/PAGE 4 OF 4
DRAFT: 03/08/2017
CALL TO ORDER
EXHIBIT C-1
LU 17-0001
PLEASE NOTE THAT THESE DRAFT MINUTES HAVE NOT BEEN REVIEWED
OR APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISION.
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
Planning Commission Minutes
EXCERPT OF LU 17-0001
February 13, 2017
Vice Chair Rob Heape called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber of City
Hall, 380 A Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon.
ROLL CALL
Members present were Vice Chair Robert Heape and Commissioners Randy Arthur, Skip
Baker, Adrianne Brockman, Ed Brockman, William Gaar and Bill Ward. Council Liaison
Theresa Kohlhoff was also present.
Staff present were Scot Siegel, Planning and Building Services Director; Jessica Numanoglu
Planning Manager; Sarah Selden, Senior Planner; David Powell, City Attorney; and Iris
McCaleb, Administrative Support.
PUBLIC HEARING
Uplands Neighborhood Plan and Uplands R-10 Overlav District (LU 17-0001)
A request from the City of Lake Oswego for adoption of the Uplands Neighborhood Plan into
the Comprehensive Plan, and amendment of the Transportation System Plan to include a new
pathway section on Uplands Drive. The Commission also considered amendments to the
Community Development Code (LOC 50) to add the Uplands R-10 Overlay District, LOC
50.05.012. Staff coordinator was Sarah Selden, Senior Planner.
Chair Heape opened the hearing. Mr. Powell outlined the applicable criteria and procedures.
At time of declarations no conflicts of interest were reported.
Staff Report
Ms. Selden introduced Bruce Brown, Chair of the Uplands Neighborhood Association (NA)
Neighborhood Planning Committee, who assisted with the presentation. She briefly reviewed
the three components of the land use request. Mr. Brown provided background on the
planning process, including assessment and visioning with the committee and neighborhood
constituency to gather information about neighborhood concerns, and drafting the Plan and
Code amendments. He noted there had been several check -ins with the Planning
Commission to gather feedback and fine-tune the proposed Plan and Code.
Mr. Brown reviewed the public involvement process and provided an overview of the Plan. He
noted that the Plan chapters were based on the neighborhood plan template developed by the
City and described the Plan focus areas: development compatibility, stormwater management,
pedestrian safety, and neighborhood capacity building.
City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission
Minutes of February 13, 2017 EXHIBIT C-1/PAGE 1 OF 5
DRAFT: 03/08/2017
Uplands R-10 Overlay District
Mr. Brown provided photo examples of the neighborhood's character, which he described as
very nature -based with a huge tree canopy and a large nature park intertwined with homes
and streets, which was what they would like to preserve. Ms. Selden provided an overview of
the proposed R-10 Overlay District. She explained that the overarching goal was to ensure
that new development was compatible with the existing development and preserved
neighborhood character. She reviewed the area where the Uplands R-10 Overly District would
apply and noted that the Overlay did not include the R-15 or R-5 zoned parcels within the
Uplands NA boundary.
Front Yard Setbacks
Ms. Selden stated that examples of neighborhood character related to front yard setbacks
included: deep setbacks which defined much of Uplands, and varied setback distances with
some homes on shallower lots placed closer to the street. She reviewed the elements of the
proposed standard for Setback Averaging.
Flag Lots
Ms. Selden reviewed the proposed Flag Lot standards related to the number of flag lots,
access lane extension, house orientation and setbacks.
She noted the Planning Commission's review of Flag Lot standards citywide and that the
Uplands Overlay served as a test case. She shared examples of a three -lot flag lot
development in Uplands, which neighbors felt was not compatible with the surrounding
development and inspired the proposed changes to the Code. She compared the current flag
lot standards with the proposed changes.
Mr. Brown added that what they were proposing reflected how many single -lot flag lots had
been developed throughout the neighborhood, perpetuating what was already a successful
formula in the neighborhood.
Ms. Selden noted an analysis of Uplands R-10 tax lots had been done to determine how many
lots would be impacted by this proposed change to the flag lot standards. She shared a map,
included in the staff report, showing lots that could be potentially impacted in Uplands and
described how they would be impacted or if they could be developed otherwise.
Limitation on Impervious Surface
Ms. Selden described how stormwater management was a challenge in Uplands for reasons
that were both natural and manmade. She acknowledged the limited stormwater management
infrastructure in the neighborhood, making a reduction in stormwater runoff particularly
important. She noted that four other neighborhoods had neighborhood zoning districts or
overlays that limited the amount of impervious surface, and described the proposed standards
for Uplands.
Ms. Selden noted that limiting the amount of impervious surface between the house and the
street was intended to limit the amount of runoff that went into the street and also contributed
to the neighborhood character.
Structure Design
Ms. Selden noted that there were two components, which related to height and the side yard
setback plane.
City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission
Minutes of February 13, 2017 EXHIBIT C-1/PAGE 2 OF 5
DRAFT: 03/08/2017
She described the hilly topography in Uplands and how the predominant development style of
ranch homes with one- and 1.5 -stories had worked well with these natural features. She noted
that home size had increased with new development, setbacks had been minimized and older
one- and 1.5 -story homes had been replaced with taller structures, with development on uphill
lots looming over established residences; she shared some examples. She noted the Overlay
proposes three code provisions to limit overall building height, and to reduce the height and
bulk of homes at the side yard setback.
Ms. Selden described how the existing Side Yard Setback Plane standard was applied, the
recent 2016 Annual CDC amendments that changed the new reference point from which to
measure, and what a building envelope could look like under the existing code. She indicated
that the resulting proposal was to modify the Side Yard Setback Plane standard so that the
roof pitch that established the interior side yard setback plane was lowered from a 12:12 pitch
to a 6:12 pitch.
On -Site Circulation — Driveway Approach Limitations
Ms. Selden noted how the proposed standard addressed concerns about how the right of way
was used, stormwater runoff, and impervious area and hardscape in the front yard. She
clarified that currently, if a lot was wider than 75 feet, two driveway approaches were permitted
on the frontage, and described the proposal to limit driveway access points to one along each
lot frontage.
Transportation System Plan (TSP) Amendments
Ms. Selden explained that the proposed TSP amendment was an extension of the Uplands
Drive Pathway. She noted that the pedestrian and bicycle pathway project in the TSP would
be extended by 1,600 ft., adding a section from Ridgecrest Drive to Country Club Road.
Decision -Making Criteria
Ms. Selden briefly reviewed the applicable decision-making criteria, discussed in detail in the
staff report, including Comprehensive Plan policies and State and Metro requirements. She
noted that the number of lots potentially impacted by the proposed Overlay would not reduce
the City's ability to meet required housing needs for large lot single family development. Mr.
Brown added that the Uplands area was well suited to the development of accessory dwelling
units.
Questions of Staff
Vice Chair Ward expressed his concern with limiting flag lots to only one lot and wondered if
the City would see Measure 49 claims. Ms. Selden noted that Measure 56 notice went out to
property owners 20 days prior to this public hearing and that some of the property owners
were in attendance and may be providing testimony. Vice Chair Ward added that applying
regular R-10 setbacks to flag lots would really enhance neighborhood compatibility. In
response to a question from Commissioner E. Brockman, Ms. Selden provided clarification
regarding the proposed front yard setback averaging and how it was determined. In response
to Commissioner E. Brockman's follow up question regarding the proposed front yard setback
standard, partitions, and smaller lots, staff noted that in those cases a minor variance to the
setback could be sought or the Residential Infill Design Review process could be used. Mr.
Brown added that the house could be designed to fit the smaller lot.
In response to a question from Commissioner Arthur regarding Measure 49 claims, City
Attorney Powell summarized the City's options in response to a Measure 49 claim. He noted
City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission
Minutes of February 13, 2017 EXHIBIT C-1/PAGE 3 OF 5
DRAFT: 03/08/2017
the City had a choice to either compensate the property owner for the reduced value or to
waive the regulation, if they agree with the claim that the property value had been adversely
impacted. He added that proving a Measure 49 claim involved a lot of steps.
In response to a question from Commissioner E. Brockman regarding public streets and the
smallest number of homes that were built on a new public street, Mr. Siegel recalled a
subdivision with about 10 homes on a cul-de-sac in the Oak Creek area, but noted they would
have to do further research to answer more fully. He added that there were varying street
profiles for public streets but none were as narrow as the 20 -foot width of an access lane.
In response to a question from Commissioner Gaar related to the proposal to reduce
impervious surfaces, Mr. Brown noted that reactions from neighbors were generally positive
and that people realized this was an issue throughout the neighborhood, especially with newer
development.
In response to a question from Commissioner Ward regarding the required right-of-way
dedication for public roadways in a subdivision, Mr. Siegel stated that the standard local street
dedication was 50 feet, but the City Engineer had the ability to deviate from this standard to
meet neighborhood character, but typically 40 feet would be the narrowest approved.
Public Testimony
Bob Ervin, 2240 Prestwick Road, Lake Osweao, 97034, Chair of the Uplands NA, thanked the
Commission for their time and effort over the several meetings held, as well as thanks to Ms.
Selden and Mr. Brown. He added they had done the best they could to develop a Plan that
suited the character of their neighborhood and noted that there was not a lot of room left in the
neighborhood to develop additional flag lots. Commissioner A. Brockman thanked him and the
committee for their work on the Plan, and noted there was a nice mix of homes in the
neighborhood in terms of affordability. Chair Heape asked about his recommendations to
address concerns expressed in the TSP regarding the dangers of crossing Country Club and
Boones Ferry Road. Mr. Ervin responded that they had proposed pedestrian activated lights
on Country Club, which was particularly dangerous at night for people getting off the bus. He
added that perhaps the medians could be improved at Rainbow and Twin Fir on Boones Ferry,
as well as at the exit from Country Club onto Uplands. Ms. Selden advised that the
Engineering Department had a study done recently to see which intersections in the City
would warrant the installation of signals and that they should have the results soon.
In response to a question from Commissioner Arthur about the benefits of limiting driveways to
one access, unless on a corner, Mr. Ervin stated that the benefits were to reduce runoff from
excessive concrete in the hilly neighborhood, as the lack of stormwater infrastructure resulted
in burdened ditches that resulted runoff into the streets. Secondly, it was also a pedestrian
hazard to cross two driveways instead of one. He stated that the NA did not think having two
driveway access points was necessary; it was clarified that there could be a driveway circle or
other layouts on the property to allow vehicles to turn around, provided it met the standards for
paved area.
Mr. Brown briefly addressed the Commission to add to Mr. Ervin's response on the last
question regarding driveway access, noting that street parking for visitors was relatively limited
in the Uplands neighborhood, which was further reduced if a home had two driveway access
points.
Ms. Selden noted that one piece of written testimony in support of the proposal was received
that afternoon and was provided to the Commissioners.
City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission
Minutes of February 13, 2017 EXHIBIT C-1/PAGE 4 OF 5
DRAFT: 03/08/2017
Chair Heape closed public testimony.
Deliberations
Commissioner A. Brockman moved to approve the Plan as written for LU 17-0001.
Commissioner Arthur seconded the motion.
Commissioner E. Brockman expressed concern about the 30% impervious surface
requirement in the front yard in conjunction with the elimination of two curb cuts. He was also
concerned about how many guests one could park on their property. He pointed out that there
could also be a safety issue if one had to back out of their driveway and there was not enough
room on the property to turn around.
Commissioners expressed their thanks for all of the work put into developing the Plan and
remarked that it was quite significant that there was no opposition expressed.
Commissioner Gaar stated that his main issue from a policy perspective was surface water
runoff; he observed that individuals who had come and provided comments were not in
opposition to the proposal related to limiting impervious surfaces and that the neighborhood
agreed. Regarding flag lots, he agreed that the limit to one flag lot was very important in terms
of maintaining neighborhood character as well as reducing impervious surface. He noted that
Measure 49 claims could be burdensome and expensive, and that in his experience the City
would waive the new requirements rather than pay out.
Mr. Siegel clarified in what cases the Residential Infill Design Review and variances could be
used related to the front yard setback.
Commissioner Ward recalled that the flag lot proposal for Uplands would inform citywide flag
lot regulations.
Commissioner E. Brockman suggested that larger fixes to address stormwater infrastructure
were also needed and wondered if stormwater SDC's could be increased to fund that. He
added that with the limit of 50% impervious surfaces, there would be less need to reduce the
impervious surface in the front yard area.
Commissioner E. Brockman moved to amend the motion to eliminate the 30% maximum of
impervious surface in the front vard standard. There was no second and the motion to amend
failed.
The original motion passed 7:0.
Mr. Powell advised that this was a preliminary decision concerning the Commission's
recommendation and that staff would return with the Findings, Conclusions and Order (final
decision) on February 27, 2017.
City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission
Minutes of February 13, 2017 EXHIBIT C-1/PAGE 5 OF 5
EXHIBIT D-1
LU 17-0001
STAFF REPORT
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
APPLICANT
City of Lake Oswego on behalf of Uplands
Neighborhood Association
LOCATION
Uplands Neighborhood
IOffl I IKe ; R e]C�
February 1, 2017
I. APPLICANT'S REQUEST
FILE NO.
LU 17-0001
STAFF
Sarah Selden, Senior Planner
PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING DATE
February 13, 2017
The City of Lake Oswego is making this application for the Uplands Neighborhood
Association to:
• Adopt the Uplands Neighborhood Plan ("Plan") as part of the Neighborhood and
Special District Plans volume of the Comprehensive Plan;
• Amend the Transportation System Plan (TSP) to include a new pathway section on
Uplands Drive; and
• Amend the Community Development Code (LOC 50) to add the Uplands R-10
Overlay District ("Overlay"), LOC 50.05.012.
Ordinance 2734, which would enact these changes, is attached as Exhibit A-1.
II. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
A. Anv Applicable State Law
Oregon Revised Statute 197.307: Approval Standards for Certain Housing in Urban
Growth Areas
Planning Commission Public Hearing
February 13, 2017
LU 17-0001 EXHIBIT D-1/PAGE 1 OF 22
B. City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan
Land Use Planning:
Development (Community Development Code)
Policy A -1.b
Policy A -1.d
Design Standards and Guidelines
Policy C-1
Policy C-5
Land Use Administration
Policy D-1
Policy D-3
Policy D-4
Inspiring Spaces and Places:
Goal 1
Policy 1
Policy 3
Policy 7
Complete Neighborhoods and Housing:
Housing Choice and Affordability
Policy B-1
Connected Community:
Complete Neighborhoods
Policy C-3
Policy C-5
Policy C-7
Safety
Policy A-1
Community Health and Public Safety:
Community Culture:
Public Facilities and Services: Surface Water
Management
Policy 1
Policy 3
Policy 5
Policy 8
Civic Engagement
Policy 1
Policy 9
Planning Commission Public Hearing
February 13, 2017
LU 17-0001 EXHIBIT D-1/PAGE 2 OF 22
C. Citv of Lake Oswego Communitv Development Code
LOC 50.07.003.3.c. Published Notice for Legislative Hearing
LOC 50.07.003.16a Legislative Decisions Defined
LOC 50.07.003.16b
LOC 50.07.003.16c
LOC 50.07.003.16.d.iii
LOC 50.07.003.16.e
III. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
Introduction/ Background
Criteria for Legislative Decision
Required Notice to DLCD
Planning Commission Recommendation Required
City Council Review and Decision
Neighborhood Planning
Neighborhood plans are official elements of the City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan,
and are intended to address the unique characteristics of Lake Oswego's individual
neighborhoods. The Comprehensive Plan calls for the City to:
"Develop specific Neighborhood Plans and implementing measures as a means to
enhance neighborhood livability and achieve desired neighborhood character.
Adopt specific Neighborhood Plans upon finding that the proposed changes are in
the public's interest and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. If appropriate,
implementation may be accomplished through creation of a new zoning district or a
new overlay zone." (Land Use Planning Policy D-4).
Neighborhood plans do not serve as decision-making criteria for individual minor or
ministerial development land use applications, e.g., land divisions or building permits. In
order to require ministerial and minor development applications to "achieve desired
neighborhood character" consistent with a neighborhood plan, the plan must be
implemented through development regulations. The Planning Commission and staff have
recommended that implementing code language be adopted concurrent with any
neighborhood plan.
To date, five adopted neighborhood plans have been implemented with some form of
neighborhood -specific zoning district or overlay zone. First Addition (R-6 and R-2 zones)
and Old Town (R -DD zone) have their own zoning districts, and the Evergreen, Lake Grove
and Glenmorrie neighborhoods have overlay zones that apply limited modifications to the
underlying residential zoning. The Uplands R-10 Overlay District would be the sixth
neighborhood to adopt a unique set of development standards.
The Uplands Neighborhood
The Uplands neighborhood is a low-density residential neighborhood of approximately 400
homes, which is primarily zoned R-10. The neighborhood also includes a significant amount
Planning Commission Public Hearing
February 13, 2017
LU 17-0001 EXHIBIT D-1/PAGE 3 OF 22
of land zoned for public functions and park and natural areas: the Lake Oswego Junior High
and Uplands Elementary School properties, along with the 52 -acre Springbrook Park.
The Uplands Neighborhood Association had been interested in developing a neighborhood
plan since at least 2005, when they applied for plan development assistance but were not
selected. Since that time, the neighborhood association continued their efforts toward the
eventual development of a neighborhood plan and conducting pre -planning work,
including a neighborhood survey and initial visioning.
In November 2014, the Planning Commission selected the Uplands Neighborhood
Association among those to receive assistance with neighborhood planning projects in the
coming year. The Uplands Neighborhood Association was the only group to request
assistance with development of a new neighborhood plan; they desired a full plan that
addressed all the major topics included in the City's Comprehensive Plan: land use,
transportation, natural systems, parks and recreation, neighborhood involvement, and
economic development. Among the goals of their planning process was to address
contextually appropriate infill that maintains neighborhood character while allowing for
future development; better manage stormwater; and reduce traffic speeds and enhance
non -vehicular travel.
Proposal Development and Public Involvement
In February 2015, the neighborhood association formed a seven -member Neighborhood
Planning Committee that included a mix of new and longstanding board members. Each
committee member took responsibility for one Plan topic area, or chapter. Staff began
working with the committee in March 2015 on their first task, a neighborhood survey to
identify neighborhood priorities for the plan, and to provide an opportunity for neighbors
to share their interests and concerns about neighborhood livability issues. The survey was
conducted using Survey Monkey, with a postcard announcement mailed to each
neighborhood address and an offer to deliver hard copies to anyone who preferred not to
take the survey online. The association received 90 responses, and the results served as a
foundation for drafting the Plan chapters.
In May 2015, the association held a biannual general membership meeting, publicized
through a mailed survey, at which they presented the survey results and initial
neighborhood inventory and analysis. The committee then developed the first draft of the
Neighborhood Plan chapters, which were reviewed by staff, revised, and presented to the
Planning Commission for a November 2015 work session. The draft Plan included Land Use
Action Steps outlining several concepts for a proposed neighborhood zoning overlay.
Following the initial draft plan and work session, the committee worked to refine the Plan
and to further develop the overlay code concepts. The Planning Commission held a second
work session in March 2016 to review an analysis of land use concerns related to the
overlay code concepts, and provide feedback prior to the development of code language
and the committee seeking neighborhood feedback. A third work session was held in May
Planning Commission Public Hearing
February 13, 2017
LU 17-0001 EXHIBIT D-1/PAGE 4 OF 22
2016 to look more closely at the question of lot sizes and zoning designations, and to
discuss right-of-way facilities and encroachments.
A fourth and final work session was held in December 2016, following the Uplands
Neighborhood Association's annual meeting at which a draft Plan and draft Code were
presented, and the distribution of a third neighborhood survey to seek feedback on the
proposed overlay code provisions. At the fourth work session, the Commission reviewed
and provided feedback on a revised draft Plan and the draft Uplands R-10 Overlay District
code language, and recommended advancing the amendments to public hearing. The
Uplands Neighborhood Association board met on January 19, 2017 to review the public
hearing version of the overlay code that incorporated changes in response to feedback
from the Planning Commission, and voted unanimously to recommend the public hearing
version of the code for public hearing and adoption.
Discussion
The following summarizes the proposed amendments in Ordinance 2734. For the proposed
Uplands Neighborhood Plan, please see Attachment B to Ordinance 2734; for proposed
amendments to the Transportation System Plan (TSP), see Attachment C; and for the
proposed Uplands R-10 Overlay District code provisions, see Attachment D. Attachment D
also includes staff commentary that provides additional explanation of the proposed
overlay district code.
Uplands Neighborhood Plan (Attachment B)
The proposed Plan includes seven chapters that serve to provide a complete overview of
the neighborhood and its residents' vision for the future of Uplands. The chapters do not
replace the city's Comprehensive Plan but provide a finer grained look at land use planning
issues of importance to Uplands. With the exception of the first chapter, each includes an
Inventory and Analysis to provide a factual basis and problem definition; Objectives that
state broad goals identified through the neighborhood outreach process; and Action Steps
to identify specific tasks needed to reach the neighborhood's objectives and realize their
long term vision for Uplands. The Uplands Neighborhood Plan does not propose any new
Policy statements for the Comprehensive Plan, but rather focuses on neighborhood
advocacy and neighborhood -specific amendments to the Community Development Code
(CDC), Transportation System Plan (TSP) and Capital Improvement Plan (CIP).
Following is a summary of each chapter:
1. Neighborhood History and Character
Provides background and context, and summarizes the neighborhood's character as
viewed by its residents.
2. Land Use
Summarizes the neighborhood's development pattern, includes action steps calling
for City adoption of the Uplands R-10 Overlay District, and neighborhood
association efforts to more actively review and respond to land use proposals. The
Planning Commission Public Hearing
February 13, 2017
LU 17-0001 EXHIBIT D-1/PAGE 5 OF 22
key issues for this chapter are addressed in the Overlay and summarized in the
description of Attachment D below.
3. Transportation
Focuses on improving pedestrian facilities and setting a framework for a more
consistent and functional right-of-way area. Streets in the Uplands neighborhood
generally have rights-of-way (ROW) that are much wider than the publically
improved area (50-80 feet vs. 20-30 feet). In most of the neighborhood, the area
between the paved travel lane and private property line lacks curbs, pathways or
sidewalks, which help to define the ROW edge. This area typically serves either as
an extension of the abutting property owner's landscaping (shrubs and hedges,
trees lawn, fences, rocks); privately maintained parking areas (paved or graveled),
roadside drainage ditches; or pathways in very limited locations.
City Code (Article 42.18 Public Rights -of -Way and Easements) requires a permit for
encroachments in the ROW, with some exceptions for lawns, plants and trees,
guardrails and handrails, and mailboxes if they do not create a line of sight traffic
hazard or conflict with federal Americans with Disabilities requirements (LOC
42.18.1015(2)).
The Engineering Department recommends that any property owner making
improvements near the road contact the City to review their proposal. This is
important even if an encroachment permit is not required, because the ROW serves
as a system of connected facilities that require movement or flow: vehicle, bike and
pedestrian travel, and stormwater drainage. Altering the ROW can have significant
impacts on the flow of these systems, and particularly for stormwater, could have
impacts on downstream neighbors. The flow of these systems and the hilly
neighborhood topography make each ROW location unique; this necessitates a site-
specific approach for ROW improvements.
The Neighborhood Association and City have observed that private improvements
in the right-of-way can help to beautify the neighborhood, but are typically done in
an un -coordinated manner, often without review by the City for potential ROW line
of sight traffic hazards or the necessity for encroachment permits. The Plan
includes an action step calling for the Neighborhood Association to conduct
outreach to Uplands property owners encouraging a more consistent and
coordinated pattern of ROW improvements, through distribution of ROW guidelines
to residents, which are outlined in the Plan. The Engineering Department would
benefit from having a plan for neighborhood ROW improvements to better respond
to requests from property owners, and to serve as a starting place for public
improvements. The guidelines were developed collaboratively between
Neighborhood Planning Committee members and the City's Engineering and
Planning staff.
Planning Commission Public Hearing
February 13, 2017
LU 17-0001 EXHIBIT D-1/PAGE 6 OF 22
4. Natural Systems
Describes the unique topographic, surface water, tree and wildlife conditions in
Uplands, with a focus on stormwater management. Key issues regarding
stormwater result from lack of infrastructure, poor drainage and sloping
topography; these issues are documented in the Plan. Tying to the ROW Action
Steps in the Transportation chapter, Natural Systems Action Steps focus on the
opportunity to design and implement the Wembley Park Road Rehabilitation CIP
project in a way that improves stormwater management, and the Neighborhood
Association's role in promoting improved neighborhood infrastructure.
S. Open Space and Recreation
Highlights Springbrook Park and Iron Mountain Park as key neighborhood assets,
and their importance to the livability and character of Uplands. Objectives and
Action Steps focus on Neighborhood Association outreach and partnerships to
support existing Friends groups for each park, continuing to maintain and enhance
these natural areas.
6. Neighborhood Involvement
Provides neighborhood objectives to increase and diversify involvement in the
association, with a focus on emergency preparedness planning and
communications.
7. Economic Development
Acknowledges and supports code -compliant home occupations, and calls for
neighborhood review and monitoring of home based businesses and applicable City
Codes to ensure continued compatibility with residential uses. (There is no
commercial zoning in Uplands.)
Transportation System Plan Amendments (Attachment C)
The Transportation System Plan 2015-2015 was adopted in 2014 and included all but one
desired transportation project in the Uplands neighborhood. The proposed TSP
amendments are proposed to expand an Uplands Drive shoulder pathway that is currently
listed in the TSP to be constructed from Wembley Park Road to Ridgecrest Drive. The
proposed TSP amendment would extend the project from Ridgecrest north to Country Club
Road.
Uplands Drive is one of the more heavily trafficked streets in the neighborhood, and
currently provides limited to no space for pedestrian travel off the paved travel lane. The
extension would add an additional 1,600 lineal feet of pathway to provide a safer and more
direct pedestrian route to Country Club Road for residents along the north eastern stretch
of Uplands Drive and along Eagan Way. The pathway would connect to an existing shoulder
pathway along the south side of Country Club Road, and to a TriMet bus stop located at the
Upland Drive/Country Club Road intersection. The TSP amendments revise the project
Planning Commission Public Hearing
February 13, 2017
LU 17-0001 EXHIBIT D-1/PAGE 7 OF 22
description in Table 14 and revise two Pedestrian and Bicycle Projects maps that include
this section of roadway.
Uplands R-10 Overlay District (Attachment D)
The purpose of the proposed Overlay is to promote development that is compatible with
existing and desired neighborhood character. The Overlay is more comprehensive than the
previous three neighborhood overlays adopted for the Glenmorrie, Lake Grove, and
Evergreen neighborhood, and includes five major sections with 12 standards that serve to
modify or add to the existing Community Development Code. A summary of the code
provisions is provided below, and additional analysis can be found in the staff commentary
provided in Attachment D.
Front Yard Setbacks
The distance that homes are set back from the front property line varies throughout the
neighborhood, however, many homes in Uplands are set back well beyond the required 25
foot front setback distance. In most cases, the unimproved public right-of-way between the
road and front property line creates additional distance to the house. The distance that
homes are set back in Uplands is a factor of topography, views, lot shape and how homes
were developed (e.g. 1940s subdivision vs. individual lot development) as well as a trend of
increasing lot coverage with new development.
The generous front yard area is one of the unique characteristics of the Uplands
neighborhood, and there is concern that as properties redevelop, new homes will
increasingly be built at or closer to the minimum 25 foot setback, which will change the
character of the neighborhood. The Overlay proposal establishes front yard setbacks based
on the average distance that abutting homes are set back from the front property line. This
proposal is intended to create compatible home siting, while responding to the varying
setback distances in different areas of the neighborhood.
Flag Lots
As defined by the Community Development Code (LOC 50.10.003.2 Definition of Terms):
"A flag lot is a lot that:
a. Has the actual building site located behind another lot; and
b. Takes access from the street via:
i. A driveway or access lane that is part of the lot and the width
narrows to less than the minimum lot width for the zone; or
ii. An access easement."
Several flag lots are located in the proposed Uplands R-10 Overlay, most of which have one
home located behind another lot, were developed under previous flag lot standards, and
are sited on oversized lots that maintain a sense of privacy and separation between homes.
In 2010, as part of the second round of Infill code amendments, several changes were
made to the flag lots standards, including orientation of development around 20 foot -wide
Planning Commission Public Hearing
February 13, 2017
LU 17-0001 EXHIBIT D-1/PAGE 8 OF 22
private access lanes, that act as mini streets for the flag lot homes. These changes were
intended to lessen the isolation of rear (flag) houses from the neighborhood, facilitate the
future extension of private access lanes to additional parcels, and create more site -
sensitive setbacks.
The Uplands neighborhood has seen one flag lot development under these 2010 code
amendments. With this development as an example, the Uplands Neighborhood
Association asserts that current flag lot standards are incompatible with the existing and
desired character of the Uplands neighborhood. Respondents to neighborhood surveys
conducted in January and December 2016 affirmed support for limiting the number of flag
lots on a parcel. Long access lanes, fences, and homes located ten feet off the lane result in
a predominant view of hardscape, rather than the landscaped separation from homes that
characterizes most of the neighborhood. Homes can also appear closely stacked together
because the required front setback from the access lane for flag lots is ten feet, compared
to the R-10 front setback of 25 feet for standard lots. Setbacks between abutting flag lot
homes can also appear minimal, because the house and yard orientation is rotated; the 25
and 30 foot front and rear yard setback areas for non -flag are designated as side yards on
flag lots, and allowed much smaller setbacks.
Access lanes serving two or more "rear" (flag) houses must also be planned to connect
through the back of the lot to abutting developable property, "wherever practicable." The
access lane concept to create an intimate private lane cutting through blocks is not seen as
compatible with the meandering street pattern in Uplands. The 2010 flag lot standards are
geared toward areas where there are many abutting parcels with flag lot potential, and
where a shared lane could provide a more organized and neighborly environment. In the
Uplands neighborhood, such opportunities are limited. Further, if the Uplands R-10 Overlay
limits flag lots to one rear lot, and prohibits connecting access lanes, the flag lot standards
requiring dwelling orientation to the access lane no longer serve their intended purpose.
The proposed Uplands R-10 Overlay includes several standards to modify the flag lot
standards in LOC 50.07.007.2. The proposal would limit the number of flag lots to one lot
behind a non -flag lot, prohibit the extension of an access lane to abutting developable
property, expressly provide that the front yard shall be parallel to the street, eliminate the
building orientation requirement, and apply the R-10 base zone setbacks rather than the
setbacks established by the flag lot code section. Please see the Attachment D
commentary for additional information on the flag lot amendments.
One consideration with a limitation in the creation of flag lots is the concern that owners
may have about a reduction of their development opportunities. Limitations on uses that
create a demonstrable reduction in property values have the potential for triggering
Measure 49 claims, which could result in a waiver of the limiting regulations in certain
cases.
Planning Commission Public Hearing
February 13, 2017
LU 17-0001 EXHIBIT D-1/PAGE 9 OF 22
An analysis of Uplands R-10 tax lots, as depicted on Exhibit E-1 shows that there are ten
lots large enough to be partitioned into three lots, but too small to be divided into four
lots, conservatively taking into account 20% of the lot for an access lane extending all the
way through the property (as required for projection of the lane). Of those ten lots:
• Five lots would not be impacted by the proposed flag lot limitation. Two have
sufficient width to be divided into three side-by-side lots, and three have sufficient
width to accommodate two non -flag lots along the street frontage, and one flag lot
behind.
The five remaining lots are too narrow to be partitioned side-by-side, but have
sufficient gross area to accommodate three 10,000 sq. ft. lots, one behind another.
The proposed Overlay does not prohibit the creation of a full public street to
provide street frontage to these lots, however their width is most likely too narrow
to accommodate a public right-of-way. These five lots also have site constraints in
the form of steep slopes and/or stream corridors. While these constraints do not
limit the number of permitted lots, it may limit their development likelihood, even
under current regulations. These five lots, which could only achieve their maximum
density through the creation of two flag lots, may have their development potential
impacted by the Overlay code.
Six additional parcels are large enough to be subdivided into four or more lots (two on the
River West Church property). While not as common, flag lots served by access lanes can
also be created through subdivisions. The Overlay code would not allow more than one flag
lot to be created on a parcel through a subdivision process, and these parcels would need
to create a public street. This could likely be accommodated on the majority of these
parcels, however some could have their development potential impacted by the Overlay
code.
Limitation on Impervious Surface
The amount of impervious surface is a concern because of its impact on stormwater in the
neighborhood. In Uplands, stormwater management is a challenge for reasons that are
both natural and manmade. Infiltration of rainwater is limited because the soils are
typically fine grained (making them less permeable) and bedrock is located near the
surface. Due to these conditions, much of the rainwater runs off the surface rather than
infiltrating into the ground. This means that there are large volumes of water to manage in
the winter, particularly during heavy showers or rains. Sloping topography over much of
the neighborhood also means that runoff moves quickly downhill, and runoff is often
present at volumes or velocities that cause erosion. The impermeable soil also results in
low stream volumes fed by groundwater in the summer.
There is limited stormwater infrastructure in the Uplands neighborhood to manage runoff
in a manner that protects property and natural resources, making a reduction in
stormwater runoff particularly important.
Planning Commission Public Hearing
February 13, 2017
LU 17-0001 EXHIBIT D-1/PAGE 10 OF 22
The R-10 base zone does not have a limit on the amount of impervious surface on a lot. Lot
coverage standards apply to all structures or portions that are over 30 in. in height, with
some exceptions (e.g. retaining walls, portions of eaves), however this does not limit the
area of driveway paving, patios, sports courts, or other hard surfaces. Maximum lot
coverage in the R-10 zone ranges from 25% to 35% based on the height of the primary
structure. This leaves another 65% to 75% of the lot area for other surface treatment.
There is no landscaping requirement for single family construction in the R-10 zone.
Four other neighborhoods have neighborhood zoning districts or overlays that limit the
amount of impervious surface. The limit in First Addition (R-6) and Old Town (R-0) is 60%.
The limit in Lake Grove (R -7.5/R-10) and Glenmorrie (R-15) is 50%.
Structure Design
The maximum permitted height in the R-10 zone is 30 feet on flat lots, and 34-35 feet on
lots with slope in the building footprint. The hilly topography in Uplands creates many
situations were abutting homes are at different grades, and where sloped building
footprints allow for taller heights under the current dimensional standards.
Historically, residential development in Uplands has worked with these natural features.
Oversized lots with small homes have provided generous separation between abutting
dwellings, and the predominance of single -story ranches and split level homes has resulted
in uphill homes of modest heights. As home size has increased with new development,
setbacks have been minimized and older one- and 1.5 -story homes have been replaced
with taller structures, with development on uphill lots looming over established residences
The Overlay proposes three code provisions to limit overall building height, and to reduce
the height and bulk of homes at the side yard setback. The maximum base height is
proposed to be limited to 30 feet, regardless of slope; the additional permitted building
height for roof forms and architectural features is proposed to be prohibited (as the
Evergreen R-7.5 Overlay was recently amended); and the roof pitch that establishes the
interior side yard setback plane is proposed to be lowered from a 12:12 pitch to a 6:12
pitch.
On -Site Circulation — Driveway approach limitations
One neighborhood concern with recent development is the amount of impervious area in
the front yard, and the extension of paving into the unimproved right-of-way edge in the
form of multiple driveway approaches. The construction of two driveway approaches is
permitted on lots with more than 75 feet of frontage, which applies to most lots in
Uplands. The maximum width of a driveway approach, measured at the right-of-way, is 12
feet per garage stall, not to exceed 30 feet, for a street facing garage, and 24 feet for a
side -loading garage. The additional driveway approach adds paved area to the front yard
and ROW, which has an impact on the visual character of the neighborhood as well as the
amount of impervious area. The Overlay proposes limiting driveway access points to one
per frontage, which would still allow two driveways for corners lots.
Planning Commission Public Hearing
February 13, 2017
LU 17-0001 EXHIBIT D-1/PAGE 11 OF 22
Variances
With the proposed Overlay, an applicant could still pursue a design variance through the
Residential Infill Design (RID) review process to receive an exception to the Overlay's
requirements for front yard setbacks, building height, and side yard setback planes. The
RID approval criteria address components of neighborhood character consistent with the
Neighborhood Association's concerns. They focus on design compatibility and scale within
the context of a neighborhood, and include consideration of: setbacks, setback plane, and
garage openings; distance and visibility from adjoining properties; preservation of existing
trees and other features of perceived value to adjoining properties; topography; perceived
building height, form, proportion, massing and orientation relative to adjoining properties;
treatment of elevations exposed to adjoining properties; perceived sight lines to and from
windows, decks and outdoor living spaces; fencing or screening; and landscaping.
IV. NOTICE OF APPLICATION
A. Newspaper Notice
On February 2, 2017, public notice of the proposed amendments and Planning
Commission public hearing will be published in the Lake Oswego Review.
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 the changes. The
notice was mailed to all property owners within the proposed Uplands R-10 Overlay
District on January 23, 2017.
C. DLCD Notice
Pursuant to LOC 50.07.003.16.c and ORS 197.610, staff provided required notice of
the proposed CDC text amendments to the Oregon Department of Land
Conservation and Development (DLCD).
D. Metro Notice
Pursuant to Metro Code 3.07.810 and .820, staff provided notice of the proposed
CDC text amendments to Metro not less than 35 days prior to the hearing date.
V. COMPLIANCE WITH APPROVAL CRITERIA
Legislative amendments to the CDC shall comply with the following criteria:
Planning Commission Public Hearing
February 13, 2017
LU 17-0001 EXHIBIT D-1/PAGE 12 OF 22
A. Anv Applicable State Law
Oregon Revised Statute 197.307: Approval Standards for Certain Housing in Urban
Growth Areas
Response: This statute requires that jurisdictions provide a clear and objective
approval path for "needed housing." The proposed Uplands R-10 Overlay District,
which applies to the development of single-family housing, maintains existing clear
and objective language for single-family dwellings. The code amendments also
maintain the existing Residential Infill Design (RID) Review variance procedure for
granting exceptions to the Overlay standards and varying other dimensional
standards, consistent with the two -track approach (clear and objective path and
design review path) that is authorized by the statute.
This criteria is met.
B. Applicable Provisions of the Citv of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan
Staff finds that the following Comprehensive Plan Policies are applicable to this
proposal:
Land Use Planning Chapter Policies (Statewide Planning Goal 2)
Development (Community Development Code)
A.1.b: Maintain land use regulations and standards to:*** (b) promote
compatibility between development and existing and desired neighborhood
character.
Response: The proposed CDC amendments promote compatibility of new single-
family development by revising standards for front yard setbacks, flag lots,
structure height, and side yard setback plane design to be more compatible with
the existing Uplands neighborhood character, which is marked by a predominance
of generous front yards, one and one -and -a -half -story homes, and a meandering
street network.
This criteria is met.
A -1.d: Provide for the implementation of adopted neighborhood plans.
Response: The Uplands R-10 Overlay District code provisions and TSP amendments
are proposed to implement the proposed Uplands Neighborhood Plan, which
includes Action Steps calling for these specific amendments.
Planning Commission Public Hearing
February 13, 2017
LU 17-0001 EXHIBIT D-1/PAGE 13 OF 22
This criteria is met.
Design Standards and Guidelines
C-1. Enact and maintain regulations and standards which require:
a. New development to enhance the existing built environment in terms of size,
scale, bulk, color, materials and architectural design;
Response: The purpose of the proposed Uplands R-10 Overlay District is to
promote new development that enhances the neighborhood by providing greater
compatibility with existing development in terms of size and scale. In the Uplands
neighborhood, existing R-10 zone dimensional standards allow new development to
be taller and closer to the street than most existing homes.
The hilly topography results in buildings on some lots looming over buildings on
neighboring lots. This is accentuated by the low heights characteristic of ranch -style
homes in the neighborhood. The allowed height of 34-35 feet on lots with sloping
topography and sloped lots, combined with additional allowed height for roof forms
and architectural features, permits new development that is typically much taller
than neighboring structures in the Uplands neighborhood, and can detract rather
than enhance the neighborhood environment. While all R-10 lots are subject to the
same height standards and allowances, the topography of Uplands results in
incompatible building heights.
The minimum required front setback of 25 feet is also less than the distance that
homes are typically set back in Uplands. The proposed Overlay establishes front
yard setbacks based on the established setbacks of neighboring homes to create
more contextually appropriate building siting, and to help maintain the generous
front yards unique to Uplands' character.
These proposed amendments are intended to ensure that new development
enhances the neighborhood by complementing surrounding development.
This criteria is met.
C-5. Adopt and maintain clear and objective standards for needed housing, pursuant
to state law.
Response: The proposed Uplands R-10 Overlay District is consistent with this policy.
See above response to Section B, Applicable State Law.
Planning Commission Public Hearing
February 13, 2017
LU 17-0001 EXHIBIT D-1/PAGE 14 OF 22
Land Use Administration
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
agencies and special districts.
Response: Metro and the DLCD were notified of the proposed text amendment at
least 35 days prior to the first Planning Commission hearing, as required by Metro
Code and State law.
This criteria is met.
D-3. A Neighborhood Association may request, or a group of citizens may submit a
petition requesting, that the City Council initiate a process to prepare a
Neighborhood Plan and implementing measures, without fee.
Response: The Uplands Neighborhood Association requested that the City assist in
developing a neighborhood plan. This request was approved by the Planning
Commission during their review of requests for neighborhood planning assistance,
and affirmed by the City Council in their 2015 review of Planning Commission goals.
Implementing measures for neighborhood plans, including CDC and TSP
amendments, are recommended for adoption concurrent with the Plan to provide
the regulatory basis for the Plan's vision and objectives.
This criteria is met.
D-4. Develop specific Neighborhood Plans and implementing measures as a means
to enhance neighborhood livability and achieve desired neighborhood character.
Adopt specific Neighborhood Plans upon finding that the proposed changes are in
the public's interest and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. If appropriate,
implementation may be accomplished through creation of a new zoning district or a
new overlay zone.
Response: The purpose of the proposed Uplands Neighborhood Plan is to enhance
neighborhood livability with regard to transportation, stormwater management,
parks, and neighborhood involvement. The Plan also identifies the defining aspects
of Uplands' neighborhood character and those that residents feel are important to
maintain. The Plan's Land Use Action Steps call for the adoption of a new Uplands
R-10 Overlay District to maintain this desired character as new development occurs,
and outlines the specific code provisions to be included in the Overlay.
Planning Commission Public Hearing
February 13, 2017
LU 17-0001 EXHIBIT D-1/PAGE 15 OF 22
The Uplands Neighborhood Association developed the Plan and Overlay based on
input from residents in the best interest of their neighborhood and to implement
their long-term neighborhood vision.
This criteria is met.
Community Culture
Civic EnRaRement Goal (Statewide Planning Goal 1)
1: Provide citizen involvement opportunities appropriate to the scale of a given
planning effort, ****.
2: Ensure that information related to land use planning and decision-making is
readily accessible to the public and easy to understand.
Response: Since the beginning of the planning process, the Uplands Neighborhood
Association has held four general membership meetings at which the Plan and Code
were discussed. General membership meetings were noticed with a mailed
newsletter, neighborhood sign, and on Nextdoor.com. Eighteen board meetings
were held during the planning period, noticed by neighborhood sign, and typically
on Nextdoor.com. The Neighborhood Association also conducted three surveys
during the planning process to get input on the neighborhood's vision and
priorities, provide feedback on the Plan objectives and action steps, and respond to
the proposed Overlay provisions. Fourteen of the 15 Neighborhood Association
board members met on January 19, 2017 and gave final unanimous approval to
forward the public hearing version of the amendments to the Planning Commission
for public hearing. The Planning Commission also held four work sessions with the
Uplands Neighborhood Planning Committee to review and provide feedback on the
Plan and Code. A notice required by ORS 227.186 (Ballot Measure 56) was sent to
all property owners in the Uplands R-10 zone with information about the proposed
code changes, and a notice of public hearing was sent to all Lake Oswego
Neighborhood Association chairs, along with local and regional organizations,
including LONAC, the Lake Oswego Chamber of Commerce, and Metropolitan
Homebuilders Association, and affected public agencies.
These criteria are met.
Inspiring Spaces and Places
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.
Planning Commission Public Hearing
February 13, 2017
LU 17-0001 EXHIBIT D-1/PAGE 16 OF 22
Response: The proposal is consistent with this policy, which is similar to Land Use
Policy C-1. See response to Policy C-1, above.
3: Establish standards for new development to preserve and enhance the natural
environment, and to integrate natural features and functions.
Response: The proposed Overlay includes a regulation limiting the total amount of
impervious area to 50% of a lot. This standard, similar to existing requirements in
four other neighborhoods, is intended to help reduce stormwater runoff, resulting
erosion and transfer of pollutants and sediment into the city's streams and Oswego
Lake. The proposed Overlay also limits the front yard to 30% impervious area,
which is intended to reduce stormwater runoff flowing more directly into the
street, where stormwater management facilities are limited. These standards are
intended to promote landscaped area over paved surfaces, and provide greater
natural infiltration.
This criteria is met.
7: Enhance the unique character of Lake Oswego's neighborhoods and
commercial districts as the City grows and changes by adopting plans, codes,
guidelines and other implementation measures.
Response: The Uplands Neighborhood Association's requests to develop a
neighborhood plan, beginning in 2005, were in anticipation of change in the
neighborhood, and then in response to an increased level of new residential
development in recent years. The proposed Uplands R-10 Overlay responds to
observations about new development and is intended to help shape this change in
a way that enhances the neighborhood.
This criteria is met.
Complete Neighborhoods and Housing (Statewide Planning Goal 10)
Housing Choice and Affordabilitv
13-1: 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.
Response: The Uplands Neighborhood Plan and Uplands R-10 Overlay District
maintain the existing base zoning of R-10, which permits one detached or attached
(zero lot line dwelling) home per lot, with a minimum size of 10,000 square feet.
One secondary dwelling unit is also permitted on each lot. The Overlay does include
Planning Commission Public Hearing
February 13, 2017
LU 17-0001 EXHIBIT D-1/PAGE 17 OF 22
one requirement, for flag lots, that may limit the creation of new homes on a small
number of lots.
Lake Oswego's Housing Needs Analysis (HNA), adopted in 2013, shows that Lake
Oswego has more low-density residential land than will likely be needed by the year
2035 to accommodate demand for single-family homes in the R-7.5, R-10 and R-15
zones. The HNA estimates a dwelling unit capacity of 1,646 units in these zones, and
a demand for 783 units, leaving a surplus of 863 units. The potential loss of
residential flag lots as described on pages 9-10 above is minimal, and does not
impact the City's ability to meet future low-density residential housing needs.
This criteria is met.
Complete Neighborhoods
C-3: Support development of Neighborhood Plans to maintain and enhance
livability and desired neighborhood character. Neighborhood plans shall be
determined to comply with and implement the Comprehensive Plan.
C-7: Require infill housing to be designed and developed in ways to be compatible
with existing neighborhood character.
Response: The proposal is consistent with these policies, which are similar to Land
Use Policy C-4. See response to Policy C-4, above.
C-5: Develop and implement a Transportation System Plan (TSP) that assures
multimodal access from residential neighborhoods to transit stops, commercial
services, employment areas, parks, and other activity centers.
AND
Connected Community Chapter Policy (Statewide Planning Goal 12):
Safety
A-1. Designate, implement, and maintain routes for walking and biking that
support safe movements from residential areas to, through and along
schools, parks, transit, employment centers, town centers, neighborhood
villages, and commercial corners and neighborhood commons.
Response: The Uplands Neighborhood Plan includes eight Action Steps for
improvements to the public right-of-way, aimed at providing safe pedestrian
connectivity through the construction of pathways, consideration of traffic
calming devices and improved crosswalks, and outreach and planning efforts
to improve right-of-way edge for pedestrians, until future pathways can be
Planning Commission Public Hearing
February 13, 2017
LU 17-0001 EXHIBIT D-1/PAGE 18 OF 22
constructed. The proposed TSP amendments extend the Uplands Drive
pathway project to help link residents neighborhood to Country Club Road
facilities, including a transit stop and shoulder pathway that connect Uplands
to destinations beyond the neighborhood.
These criteria are met.
Community Health and Public Safety Chapter
Public Facilities and Services: Surface Water Management Policies (Statewide
Planning Goal 6)
1. Use natural systems and non-structural methods to treat, convey and dispose of
storm water runoff at the source to the extent allowed by site characteristics.
3. Protect and improve existing drainage systems and easements by:
a. Prohibiting the encroachment of structures and other permanent im-
provements over public storm drainage lines and within easements and
drainage ways.
b. Discouraging modification to existing open drainage ways that negatively
impact surface water function.
5. Require all development and redevelopment to implement measures to minimize
runoff from the development site during and after construction.
8. Provide and maintain development standards that promote Low Impact
Development to improve water quality, reduce impervious surfaces, promote
infiltration, and preserve open space.
Response: The Overlay standard limiting the total amount of impervious area on
the lot to 50% ensures that half of the lot area provides for natural and non-
structural infiltration of stormwater, to the extent permitted by the soil conditions.
The goal is to reduce runoff and the need for structural methods to treat and
manage stormwater on-site. The Neighborhood Plan also proposes several Natural
Systems Action Steps to improve stormwater management in the public right-of-
way, including minimizing encroachments that modify roadside drainage systems,
and integrating stormwater management into the Wembley Park CIP project.
These criteria are met.
Community Culture Chapter/Civic Engagement Policies (Statewide Goal 1):
1. Provide citizen involvement opportunities appropriate to the scale of a given
planning effort, and ensure those affected by a Plan have opportunities to
participate in the planning process.
Planning Commission Public Hearing
February 13, 2017
LU 17-0001 EXHIBIT D-1/PAGE 19 OF 22
9. Utilize broadly representative, special citizen advisory bodies to provide input on
implementation of the Comprehensive Plan and other related land use planning
matters.
Response: Citizen involvement opportunities have included over twenty
neighborhood meetings, three neighborhood surveys, and mailed notice to all R-10
property owners of the proposed amendments and opportunity to comment at the
Planning Commission hearing.
The seven -member Uplands Neighborhood Planning Committee, designated by the
Neighborhood Association board, led the planning effort with ongoing input from
the full board.
These criteria are met.
C. Lake Oswego Communitv Development Code Procedural Requirements
LOC 50.07.003.3.c.
Published Notice for Legislative Hearing
LOC 50.07.003.16a
Legislative Decisions Defined
LOC 50.07.003.16b
Criteria for Legislative Decision
LOC 50.07.003.16c
Required Notice to DLCD
LOC 50.07.003.16.d.iii
Planning Commission Recommendation Required
LOC 50.07.003.16.e
City Council Review and Decision
Response:
The Community Development Code 50.07.003.16.a defines "legislative decisions" to
include amendments to the CDC and to Comprehensive Plan policies. Public
hearings by the Planning Commission for recommendations to the City Council for
"legislative decisions" are required to have at least 10 days prior published notice,
per LOC 50.07.003.16.d.iii and 50.07.003.3.c. Notice is defined as being published in
a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Lake Oswego at least ten days in
advance of the hearing, and mailed at least ten days in advance to the Commission
for Citizen Involvement and to all recognized neighborhood associations. The notice
shall include:
i. The time, date, and place of the public hearing;
ii. A brief description of the proposed legislative amendment; and
iii. A phone number for obtaining additional information.
Notice of the public hearing was posted at City Hall, the Adult Community Center,
the Library, and Palisades building on February 3, 2017. The hearing notice was
published in the Lake Oswego Review newspaper on February 2, 2017. Legislative
notice was mailed per LOC requirements on January 24, 2017.
Planning Commission Public Hearing
February 13, 2017
LU 17-0001 EXHIBIT D-1/PAGE 20 OF 22
The criteria for a legislative decision are addressed in Sections A and B, above. The
City notified DLCD and Metro of the proposed action 35 days before the initial
evidentiary hearings.
These criteria are met.
VI. CONCLUSION / RECOMMENDATION
The proposed amendments are in compliance with applicable City Comprehensive Plan
policies, state laws, and statewide planning goals. The amendments respond to
neighborhood input and incorporate feedback from the Planning Commission during its
public work sessions on the proposal.
Based on the information presented in this report, staff recommends that the Commission
recommend adoption of Ordinance 2734 (including all attachments) to the City Council.
EXHIBITS
This staff report and all exhibits referenced below are part of the record and can be found by
visiting the land use webpage for case file LU 17-0001. A link is provided at the end of this report.
A. Draft Ordinances
A-1 Draft Ordinance 2734, dated 01/25/17
Attachment A— Reserved for City Council Findings (not included)
Attachment B — Proposed Neighborhood Plan, 02/01/17
Attachment C — Proposed TSP Amendments, 02/01/17
Attachment D — Proposed Uplands R-10 Overlay Code, 02/01/17
B. Findings, Conclusion and Order (no current exhibits)
C. Minutes (no current exhibits)
D. Staff Reports (no current exhibits)
E. Graphics/Plans
E-1 Map of Dividable Lots
F. Written Materials
G. Letters (no current exhibits)
Planning Commission Public Hearing
February 13, 2017
LU 17-0001 EXHIBIT D-1/PAGE 21 OF 22
BACKGROUND MATERIAL AND REFERENCES
Staff reports and public meeting materials that were prepared for these code amendments can be
found by visiting the project web page for LU 17-0001.
Use the link below to visit the City's "Project" page. In the "Search" box enter LU 17-0001 then
press "Submit":
http://www.ci.osweRo.or.us/proiects
Planning Commission Public Hearing
February 13, 2017
LU 17-0001 EXHIBIT D-1/PAGE 22 OF 22
Rd
4�
a
a>
a
Aao
d �
°
�
O
`o
B
y
0
O
N
E
c
a
S
y N
N
s
O J
N
L
� o
(/J
a o m
`v/�
0
m = �_
N 0
o
3D a»an
0
N N
N N jp
W
O
O
U w
A y
w�e
y 2
C J
C M
J J L p)
O
.V
U) y0 a
co
VI N
TS
�
�y0 3[wwnS
40
a
N
aD poompaa
Rd
4�
Aao
d �
H
N _
0
O
N
y
O
C
S
O
Gooda\\
eAOJ1{S
a
0
>louo
EXHIBIT E-1/PAGE 1 OF 1 (eM
oa m 500008
10 du E
o m`
S
N
Q
7
.p
F
30
4
CD
Aao
y
U
N _
N
�
N�0
o
O J
N
r
� o
t�
0
U
`v/�
0
m = �_
c
U o
N
�
d
R
� O
Q
4
4
70
�
�y0 3[wwnS
40
7
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
February 13, 2017
Iris McCaleb
imccaleb@lakeoswego.city
RE: Uplands Neighborhood Plan, Overlay, and TSP amendment - Testimony
I, Patty Schaffer, resident of the Uplands Neighborhood for 8+ years am in full support of the
neighborhood plan overlay and TSP amendment.
Since I have lived in the Uplands neighborhood, the character has changed significantly due to new
home developments. Homes are either being demolished or lots split and very large homes built that do
not fit the character of the neighborhood. Yes, these are beautiful homes, but am astonished with the
outright disregard of the negative impact it is causing neighbors. I believe this overlay will assist with
reducing the impacts new buildings will have on neighboring properties.
The demographics of our neighborhood has slowing been shifting from "empty nesters" to young
families. As time passes, I see many younger children walking to bus stops, walking to and from schools,
and walking to our wonderful parks. In combination of an increase of children playing, more homes
built which leads to more cars on the road. I have witnessed many instances in which cars and
pedestrians share the road. I believe a pathway for walkers and bikers will reduce the risks of a
dangerous situation.
Please take my thoughts into consideration when making your decision. As a neighborhood board
member, I will take part in all steps necessary to partner with the City for achievement of these
initiatives.
Thank you,
Patty Schaffer
14611 Uplands Drive
Lake Oswego, OR 97034
971-400-6397
LU 17-0001 EXHIBIT G-1/PAGE 1 OF 1
t,A E
s
ti 1
U J O
PLANNING
B
U I
L
D I
N
G
A N D
SERVICES
UPLANDS NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN &
OVERLAY CODE (Ord. 2734)
City Council Study Session
March 21, 2 0 1 7
Ordinance Components
• Adopt Uplands Neighborhood Plan into
Comprehensive Plan Volume II:
Neighborhood and Special District Plans
•Amend Community Development Code
(CDC) to add Uplands R-10 Overlay District
(LOC 50.08.012)
• Amend Transportation System Plan (TSP) to
extend pathway project (Uplands Drive)
Assessment +
Vision
Public Hearing
Draft
Draft Plan
Draft
Overlay Code
Planning Commission
Hearing &
Recommendation
Neighborhood
& Commission
Review
City Council Hearing
& Adoption
Public Involvement
• Led by Neighborhood Planning Committee
• 4 general membership meetings with
newsletters
• 15+ board meetings
• 3 surveys
Planning Commission Review
• 4 work sessions with Planning Commission
• Planning Commission Hearing Feb. 13
o No testimony in opposition
o No changes made to ordinance
Neig-i��or_zooc �_an
Plan Summary
• 22 Objectives: Broad direction for future
• 21 Action Steps:
• 1 Code Amendment (R-10 Overlay District)
• 1 TSP Amendment (Extend Uplands Drive
pathway)
• 6 City/Neighborhood Projects
• 18 Neighborhood Actions (advocacy for project
funding, outreach, board projects)
Plan Chapters
kn
Plan Focus Areas
1. Development Compatibility
• Overlay Code
2. Stormwater Management
• ROW guidelines, design concept plan
• Advocacy for maintenance and improvements
• Wembley Park Road CIP project
3. Pedestrian Safety
• ROW guidelines
• Traffic calming & new signals
4. Neighborhood Capacity Building
• Committee work
• Engagement
It I" 'k3A
■
t ► _ FC3 �3� + N
-
i
71
.$Ai.2��..\ .-� ! 3 � 'y> -y N" �PGY-` -:� y 5": y � - Jg..` N •�-+ :.
NZ
�'l..
Wembley Park Road CIP
Project
• Road rehabilitation
• Stormwater facility
improvements
• Funded to begin design
in 2019-2010
• Completion 2021-2022
Stormwater Management
• High neighborhood priority
• Opportunity through
Wembley Park CIP
• Advocacy and collaboration
with City
-
JYgWw .�... • � r� cAk,. . f. _
-10 Oveir'-ay district
IAI(E OSNIL\
JR HIGH S HWL
V
SPRINGBROOKI IRK
V
Eanm„
or
d
Jena �
E
3
Qx
a'
9�
LO INDOOR
f
TENNIS CENTER
hMt
Csr_ maw
L
BPI INGBRGOK
IIID
Oc
MI K
Jp�ands
O
I
Fa
/
Rd
a
[3
n
�6
�. 1 Ritlge Rd y PaM Crest
IN Fir Ct
C� RON
N
q
RiRK IN
` PARH
P,�Pa sew Pd
/ L_
°g
Lily Bay
oY�� Asn Uplands Neighborhood
•.. Ti MPK T
Uplands R-10 Overlay District
E OSNEC-0 N
O CB
Hi" = Uplands Neighborhood Boundary
0 400 800 1,600
Feet
12129/2018
ront Yairc Set"0:)acks
Deep setbacks define much of
However, setback distance
varies
Proposed Standard
• Front yard setback = average setbacks of closest buildings, on
abutting lots, on same block face
• Minimum required is not less than 25 ft., not more than 40 ft.
• Direction for lots abutting corner, vacant, flag lot
Do Not Use
Abutting lot to use for front setback averaging abutting
Flag tot
r —
I Subject property r - - -
L_� i
A
B
Lot B =
Vacant
Use 25 ft. No Lot A - - -
A
(Corner)
C Use 25 ft. C B
� _ag �.OtS
Number of flag lots
Access lane extension
House orientation
Setbacks
FLA L T
3 G O
1 { t
UT
4
1 4 Al
41
F{
Number of Flag Lots
-Lot Partition two lots behind
-
Flag
Lot
Flag Lot
9
Would not be permitted
- Lot Partition, one lot behind
Access Lane
Would still be permitted
rt
Access Lane Extension
Rdge -
j I ir W
Potential Future
Connection of
j: --Access Lane
w
o
w �
CO
1 _ _ Existing Access Lane
I 1
Wemb N
Y,.
• .i• � �� i Tr.
- � iii _ ' _ �;i
_"
�}� - �.
-� % ��
_ R�
��
x
�- -
,`'�`
` ,�...
��` [ �
• �*
!-
1
ront25ft- front setback
12 ft access lane, with a ft.
shoulders
Proposed
Front25 ft.
-(bAktt
setback
25 R-rnln.
front setback
• Only one flag
lot may be
created behind
a non -flag lot.
• Access lanes
shall not extend
to abutting
developable
property.
• Front yard faces
street
• Front door can
face street
• Same setbacks
as non -flag lots
Current Code
• Future
extension
of access
lane
30 f
• Front
yard &
door face
r..• --
loft -
access
lane
'
3Uh. Sides +rear
mustequal at
10 ft
least Sdft.
front
setback,
50 ft.z-
total side
30 h. rear setback
+ rear
1.:
setback
•'-t loksidesmbsck
ront25ft- front setback
12 ft access lane, with a ft.
shoulders
Proposed
Front25 ft.
-(bAktt
setback
25 R-rnln.
front setback
• Only one flag
lot may be
created behind
a non -flag lot.
• Access lanes
shall not extend
to abutting
developable
property.
• Front yard faces
street
• Front door can
face street
• Same setbacks
as non -flag lots
t L �
�T�
Dividable Lots
r' i�`'- r�'"'�� \- -�-�-�/•/•�~ Subdividable
-Pu
blicstreetneeded
to serve 4 or more lots under
Wheather one \ proposed overlay
Sufficient lot width for 2or moreLOa Potentially" Impacted
%.....P non-lglots
3 Lots
Or =
4Lots S.
0 5 Lots
e���_� `� y Labels on parcels signify. Year built and
L�Ji ^ �„� V '� 1 . JAG r • it slopes greater than 20% are present.
R-10 n RtvePr
' o• a
to % � � '
e� °�� Falstaff g°�y oq,( ` 4%� ..�
I Y �� S� I ` � p5 � ' • 1
✓� a 'r � � �
t r
i _ �s�b/eY ♦ -dM
or
J/ o
a
i
Carman Df Ahyltis Ct
"0In-
UP-,aid
Rd
Rd
i � � I R-15
`
I— — ♦` Ridge R �b%y Park - _ ` Cfest
1 R-10 ��� ''•• �
Said �sy, / d Blvd
R � OJ ,
Glee? i i o
00
€dgemon Rd 1 I -J Be
.44
1 Uplands R-10 Zone
Dividable Lots N
Analysis Takin Into Account 20% for Access
:-J. _ n 0 200 40o soa soa 1,000 1,200 �.
Red Ceder Waya -eet
rookside Rd o.-.-_�� �<
=mpervious Area �,imit
0. 1
;v �ztY 4 ���„�,�
J
Total Impervious Area =
Proposed SApproximately 50% of Lot
{12,000 s.f. lot, 6,000 s f. impervious)
a. No more than 50% of the
lot may be covered with
impervious surfaces.
• Includes lot coverage
(structures), plus other
hard surfaces
b. The area between the front
lot line and the nearest
edge of the building
footprint shall not be
covered by more than 30%
of impervious surface.
Impervious Area
.f� (Ratio)
+
s
ti
ti ti
y Impervious Area
'
(Roof) i
r �
f�. Impervious Area
(Drive may)
1
max • ' 1
m7per jous' 1
1 3 1
Structure design
Height
Side Yard Setback Plane
`d1i 10 . .
N,l ...d
t
An
�yy
s
fjyp�
...
t
Ao5F#r
-
of -.
�y i'
, Ar•I
_ 4
It
+A r k
-----------
--------
---------
t
♦'
P
�• ' i
`
� ' t ., r, +'
2 - ` � . 4� � :.
� .- � .1�� f� . _ 'ii `
• f531i.�.
,,
'
_
y�r� -
--
.I+•-�.� ;'.- �
x �
�
--"
� y � x
.`rte
.�v k� * ,
�►�, . ,� �'" _� .
��� .�� ��``''� ..�� � _ ,.� �
�, r , -
� ` � �`�� r �c
� � �. � ,�. '�� � Y _ � -} ' . -
I % * � � - � ' � `_ :
�'"� : . � x — - #�';.�i+�� � '
�r � + �+�'.,_ '�� _
' � ,�a ���:r� f,
�;� � � �-,
_1 � i ,��; ._ '4
� ,. . . � _`� �`
*' � i �� , ��� � _ . . ��'�- � ~-
� � �• _ ., ,�. -- - � -� - -- �
_ *r �` � ' _ ^� '_+� yr
� � �. �* � � � � ' ��' ` -
�� � � � �F� 5 _ .
� �y r �{ �#+. �s'r' . . .._ ' ��
t - �, � � �� #-
� � .... .
. 1
*
. . ' " " "' _ . _ - . . ' �fi .
_ ' y l
�_: " _� ; '. w. �r .
:-F=f-=-�- .. . . , .� .r .;���#� 5 , � �I� � ,
�,-,�---�- �- w� � �o.� ; - F� �� �
' —.. ' �. �.r+1�, � i
��+�4
� . #� "1 _ '�, r
� _ . *7� f� 'a✓ r1y � ��f��1
f+�� � � _ 1 � t��_� _ �
• . . � ���'
� r N . L ' " . •
• '� �� ,'�� �'S��� *��� ! ��
� � . .•��' 'r • ,. :,r..,
•#F_ . � ..
F � ��� z �f�.�'.
R �` � � - t"'; t��•� i - .
• �.�;�� T _ �
� ` � F�}� �•�r* --
���_
� � � #
� f �
Height: Proposed Standard
a. Maximum permitted height, regardless of slope,
is 30 ft.
Bose h etgh t - zone
dependent
---------------
------ - ------ m .. ..............
6 -ft
exoeptbn to
louse height
A -ft. cidiustment
to bove height fog
-
---- - - - - - - - - - -- topography
Height: Proposed Standard
b. Additional building
height for roof
projections and
architectural features
is prohibited.
<_ 6 ft.
additional
height
V
Roof Area Limitations
IndmdualRowPOEM- Pldnvlwa I M41tipie R40FFams-Man View
aNW; ;lill+�s
Fol iv1W
--------------
Side Yard Setback Plane -
Existing
All owed '— •' k ` PIroperty
Rrojecti-Dn *.` Line
r �
r -
Maximum
1� base
� �
- L-- -
Height
12'
k
i
k c s y WIIII 1
OL--
Side Y-ard Whack Side Yard Se kback
Side Yard Setback Plane -
Existing
in mai height
New reference paint: Finished grade at foundation
(2016 Annual CDC Amendments)
t.
12:12
pitch
10 ft. setback
♦
Side Yard Setback Plane -
Proposed
30 ft. max height
12:12
6:12 r pitch
pitch
•
WAL� 4
New reference point: Finished grade at foundation
(2016 Annual CDC Amendments)
10 ft. setback
-IK
1
�
•
i
driveway Approac-aes
Proposed Standard
Only one driveway access point shall be permitted
along each lot frontage.
r
This would he prohibited
"transportation
System ?_an
Amenc.ment
Extension of Uplands Drive
Pathway
Extends existing pedestrian & bicycle
shoulder pathway project #208, by
1,600 ft.
Adds section from Ridgecrest Dive to
Country Club Road
�OVJOHf�' '%ob
CL J& �evA.pR '�yy r
Gfl ■'O pAMEOUs
G� W •
y it
�F
5
ti
qbR°°
mor r n5
of, Ccn[er
C
a
�tu49 LEy pq j
� °RESIC
f +y
l
� � d
J�C41 � 6eM�kre n �, o
Council Action
• Identify any questions or additional information for
public hearing
• Hold public hearing on April 4 and adopt findings,
or return with final ordinance on April 18
TO: Kent Studebaker, Mayor
Members of the City Council
FROM: Scott Lazenby, City Manager
5.2
COUNCIL REPORT
SUBJECT: WATER SERVICE TO FORMER FOREST HIGHLANDS WATER DISTRICT CUSTOMERS
DATE: March 13, 2017 for City Council Meeting of March 21, 2017
ACTION
Provide direction to staff.
INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND
The Forest Highlands Water District was created to provide water to properties in the area that
has become the northern section of Urban Service Area. From 1959 to 1991, Lake Oswego
operated and maintained the district's system through an intergovernmental agreement. In
1991, another intergovernmental agreement provided for the dissolution of the district. As part
of the agreement (attached), the City committed to providing water to remaining properties in
the district for 25 years. The actual transfer of assets to the City did not occur until the entry of
the Boundary Commission's order dissolving the district, which City records show was final on
April 28th of the following year. This means the agreement expires on April 28, 2017.
The City's Master Fee Resolution provides that out -of -city water customers pay a rate that is 1.5
times the rate paid by in -city residents. The agreement with the Forest Highlands district
provides that out -of -city customers in the former district would pay the in -city rate plus "an
amount which is substantially equivalent to the ad valorem property tax then paid on average
by residential properties within the City to fund improvement and maintenance of the City's
water supply system," or the out -of -city rate, whichever is less.
Even though we have issued "full faith and credit" bonds for the water system upgrade (a
liability borne by city residents only), the utility is fully supported by customer rates, so the
Forest Highlands district customers have been paying the in -city rate (this is explicitly noted in
the Master Fee Resolution).
503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city
Page 2
The 1991 agreement noted that "fewer than 275" properties remain within the district. In the
subsequent 25 years, many of these have annexed to Lake Oswego; only 77 remain
unincorporated (see map, attached).
The 1991 agreement did not specify what would happen when the term of the agreement
expires.
1&9111VI191►
There are several options available to the City at this point:
a) Discontinue providing water service (with suitable notice). The property owners could
then form their own public or private water district.
b) Provide water service under the same terms and conditions as for other out -of -city
properties. The property owners would have the option of paying the lower in -city rate
by annexing to Lake Oswego.
c) Continue providing water under the same terms as in the expiring 1991 agreement, for
a specified number of years.
One option that is not available is to "extend the agreement." The 1991 agreement is with a
governmental entity that no longer exists. But the City Council can unilaterally set pricing and
service policies, subject to state laws applying to extra -territorial service extensions.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends option (b). While discontinuing service would relieve a small burden on our
maintenance staff and water supply system, it's not a good idea to encourage the formation of
new service districts within Lake Oswego's Urban Service Area. The out -of -city rate is higher
than what the households have been paying, but the water bill will, in most cases, still be less
than the total utility bill paid by city residents (which includes sewer, street, and stormwater
utility fees).
The Council could direct staff to hold off on making any changes to the water rate until next
fall's Master Fee Resolution update (effective in early 2018).
ATTACHMENTS
1. 1991 Agreement
2. Map
503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city
ATTACHMENT 1
EXHIBIT A
FOREST HIGHLANDS WATER DISTRICT - CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this day of
1991 pursuant to the authority granted in Chapter
190 of the Oregon Revised Statutes ("ORS") by and between the CITY
OF LAKE OSWEGO, a municipal corporation of the State of Oregon,
hereinafter called "City," and the FOREST HIGHLANDS WATER DISTRICT,
a municipal corporation of the State of Oregon organized under
Chapter 264 of the ORS, hereinafter called the "District." This
agreement is to provide for the transfer of responsibility for
water services from the District to the City as a result of the
dissolution of the District.
WHEREAS, the City has adopted an urban services policy
which will result in its providing municipal services to various
unincorporated areas presently within Clackamas County and adjacent
to the City; and
WHEREAS, at the present time, District is a surplus water
customer of City;
WHEREAS, at the present time, maintenance and billing
functions for District are performed by City pursuant to prior
agreement;
WHEREAS, at the present time, district provides water
service to fewer than 275 properties, and the parties have no
expectation that the number of properties served by District will
increase significantly over the next 25 years.
WHEREAS, District has no bonded indebtedness;
WHEREAS, the parties believe that the District's
customers can be more efficiently -served if the City operates the
District's water system;
WHEREAS, under present law, ORS 264«875(1), City may
agree to assume District's responsibilities for a period not to
exceed 25 years;
WHEREAS, City, under present law, is without authority
to impose ad valorem real property taxes on property located
outside City;
WHEREAS, the public is served by the City and the
District planning• together for an orderly transition of service
responsibilities from District to City in contemplation of and upon
District's dissolution; and
WHEREAS, the parties intend to maintain and improve the
quality of water service within the present District boundaries
upon transfer of water services;
0
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises
contained herein, the City and the District agree as follows:
1. Upon execution of this agreement, District agrees
to commence and pursue with reasonable diligence dissolution
procedures under ORS Chapter 198. The parties anticipate that the
dissolution will occur on or near July 1, 1991.
2. At the time of dissolution, all district assets and
liabilities will be transferred to the City.
3. District shall pay in full all of its current
accounts payable prior to its dissolution.
4. City agrees to maintain the property transferred to
the City under the terms of this agreement to at least its present
standard of service and repair. city agrees to so maintain such
property for a period of 25 years from the date transfer of
District assets to City is complete regardless of whether the
District's customers are ever annexed to City.
5. City shall provide water service to all non-City
properties within the District presently receiving water from the
District for a period of 25 years from the date transfer of
District's assets to City is complete. New water service to non-
City properties within the former District's boundaries shall be
made subject to appropriate governmental land use, health, and
other regulations.
6. City shall be entitled to charge each property
within the former District's boundaries for water supply and system
maintenance: (1) the sum of (a) the same rate then charged to
residents of City for such services and (b) an amount which is
substantially equivalent to the ad valorem property tax then paid
on average by residential properties within the City to fund
improvement and maintenance of the City's water supply system, or
(2) the rate charged to other residential properties located
outside the City, whichever is less. Other service and development
charges shall be assessed at the same rate charged for residential
properties located outside the City.
7. At the time City's obligation to maintain property
transferred and to provide water service to residential properties
formerly within the District expires, City may continue to provide
maintenance and water service to such properties pursuant to this
Agreement for such period or periods as it in its discretion it so
chooses. In addition, should all or part of the properties located
Page 2 - INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT
(forest.agr) March 18, 1991
,)AA
within the former District become annexed to City, this Agreement
shall terminate with respect to any property so annexed.
S. This Agreement may be executed in two or more
counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, but
all of which shall constitute one and the same instrument, and, in
making proof of this Agreement, it shall not be necessary to
produce or account for more than one such counterpart.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the authorized representatives of the
City and the District as parties hereto pursuant to the authority
granted to them hereby approve this agreement and accept the
provisions contained herein.
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
By
Alice L. Schlenker, Mayor
Date:
BV
Kris Hitchcock, City
Recorder
Date:
APPROVE TO FORM,
/jJ,efffrey 'j'reJ O'oifditV, City
0
FOREST HIGHLANDS WATER DISTRICT
By 00, 'hal 'Z
Alan Knox, Chairmah
Date:BV
Gordon Robert,/ Secretary
Date;
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Page 3 - INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT
(foreat.agr) March 18, 1991
LX0
Richard A.
Wilhelm, District
Attorney
Page 3 - INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT
(foreat.agr) March 18, 1991
LX0
7 —A
43 e
f
Lakc
7-7
High Schoci
.Nn
Lake
05wegO
High School
-77
LO L
Hi h
ich d
ATTACHMENT 2
-------------
f
I—lalVrt_i' II
wpm
—Former Forest Highlands
_F Water District customers
shown in gray
TO: Kent Studebaker, Mayor
Members of the City Council
FROM: Scott Lazenby, City Manager
Jordan Wheeler, Deputy City Manager
SUBJECT: City Hall Rehabilitation Options and Costs
DATE: March 10, 2017
ACTION
5.3
COUNCIL REPORT
Receive updated information on the estimated costs for addressing the condition of City Hall
including the options for replacing the building's envelope, performing voluntary upgrades and
deferred maintenance, seismic retrofitting, and replacement. Provide direction to staff on the
Council's preferred option for addressing the short term and long term issues for the building.
We are also requesting the Council's direction on the funding plan for the project.
INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND
On February 7, the City Council (acting as the LORA Board) received information on the findings
of the latest study on the condition of City Hall. The study included a seismic evaluation and
materials analysis to help determine the options for repairing and recladding the building's
envelope. To review, the architect (Mackenzie) found that the building was designed for the
relatively light weight of the existing EIFS system and other siding systems such as brick,
artificial brick panels, Hardieplank, and other envelope systems would require extensive
changes and seismic retrofits to the structure of the building. For discussion, Mackenzie
provided preliminary rough order of magnitude cost estimates for repairing and replacing the
building's envelope and an estimate for constructing a new City Hall for comparison.
The Council requested staff to return with the refined cost estimates for the range of options
for City Hall. Mackenzie hired Construction Focus, Inc. (CFI) to complete the refined cost
estimates for recladding City Hall, recladding City Hall and preforming life safety level seismic
retrofits, and demolishing the existing building and constructing a new City Hall in the same
location. As requested, CFI also included pricing information for the voluntary seismic upgrades
and the deferred maintenance items for the existing City Hall building.
503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city
Page 2
DISCUSSION
Updated Probable Cost Estimate Summaries
The construction hard costs were developed based on CFI's review of available design
documents, Mackenzie's reports, system narratives, original construction documents, and site
visits. The updated cost estimates are summarized in the table below.
City Hall Rehabilitation Options
Building Envelope
Only (EFIS)
$7.9 million
Envelope +
Voluntary Seismic
and Maintenance
Upgrades
$7.9 — $22.3 million
Option 1: Buildinq Envelope
Envelope +
Maintenance + Full
Seismic Retrofit of
the Existing Building
$29 million
New Building
(40k sq.ft./3 stories)
(Life safety —
Essential level)
$16.8 — $21.2 million
The updated estimate for replacing the building's envelope with the same cladding material
(EFIS) is $7.9 million. That figure also includes replacing the external windows and the
building's roof. It also includes a 35% construction cost contingency. Given the extensive
visible damage to the building due to the water intrusion, and the length of time the problem
has persisted, the estimator determined it would be prudent to carry a large contingency to
cover not only the unknown design factors but the existing conditions and the probable
damage to the interior of the building which will not be fully known and understood until the
cladding is removed. The updated figure includes soft costs and escalation. Note: an earlier
estimate by a company with experience in this type of work yielded a total cost of around $5.6
million. The estimate for the "hard cost" of construction was very similar; the difference is
primarily attributable to soft costs and contingencies for construction and cost inflation.
Option 2: Buildinq Envelope, Voluntary Seismic Upqrades and Maintenance Items
The costs for the building envelope, voluntary seismic, and maintenance upgrades is presented
as a range since the final budget will be determined by the type and number of items the
Council decides to include. The highest end of the cost range ($22.3 million) includes all the
upgrades and improvements to illustrate the full cost of a remodel.
Several of the voluntary seismic and deferred maintenance items listed are related, though not
entirely dependent upon each other. For example, while not necessary except for the envelope
replacement, it could be advantageous to replace the 2nd and 3rd floor gyperete and carpeting
at the same time, especially if the voluntary seismic upgrades associated with the floor
diaphragms were installed (dragstruts).
It is important to note that the voluntary seismic upgrades will not bring the building into
compliance with current life safety seismic requirements. Additionally, the deferred
503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city
Page 3
maintenance items do not fully address the emergency egress and ADA deficiencies that have
been identified in previous studies of the building.
The voluntary seismic upgrades included were selected to correspond to a list of potential
building maintenance items identified by the Facilities Department, since the construction
activities included in those upgrades likely overlap.
Voluntary Seismic Upgrades
Cross Ties I $32,000
Girder to Girder Connections I $110,000
Dragstruts I $242,000
With the exception of a few items, the deferred maintenance needs and architecture upgrades
are not essential or time critical, but include replacement of aging systems and remodeling to
improve the function and operations of City Hall. Cost estimates for the items are included for
informational purposes, but also because it would also be an ideal time to perform the work
when construction activity is mobilized at the site. For example, replacing the roof requires
removal of the rooftop mechanical units, which would be an ideal time to replace the HVAC
system.
Remodeling costs are included for your information, but represent projects that are not
essential. However, if the 2nd floor was to be repurposed for staff or public functions,
associated costs for internal reconfiguring would be expected. Also, if it becomes necessary to
relocate staff for the repairs and upgrades, it would present an opportunity to perform interior
work such as reconfiguring the public areas on the 1St or 3rd floors and upgrading signage and
interior information displays.
The list below is not exhaustive, but includes the major items that could be included in a full
retrofit and upgrade of City Hall.
Deferred Maintenance and Voluntary Architecture Upgrades
Front and Rear ADA Entrances
$84,000
Replace Gyperete & Carpet
$842,000
Replace Elevators
I $1,308,000
Replace Generator
I $260,000
Replace HVAC
$2,723,000
Replace Southeast Deck
Parking Garage Enclosure Wall
Parking Garage Corrosion Remediation
Remodel 2nd Floor
Remodel Public & Staff Areas
Replace Traffic Coatings
Wayfinding Signage
$47,000
$64,000
$10,000
$2,189,000
$3,944,000
$127,000
$22,000
503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city
Page 4
If the Council decides to opt for the replacement of the building's envelope, our
recommendation would be to at least include the voluntary seismic upgrades and the ADA
improvements bringing the probable cost to about $8.4 million. With the seismic upgrades to
the floor diaphragms, some minimum repair of gyperete and flooring will probably be needed.
We also recommend that we continue to set aside funds for the future replacement of the
HVAC, elevators, and generator.
Option 3: Seismic Retrofit
A cost estimate for retrofitting City Hall with new systems is included in the package as a
comparison to the cost of a new building. The premium for the seismic upgrades to bring the
building to a life safety level would approach or exceed the cost for a new facility, especially if
including the replacement costs for the building systems and remodeling.
Option 4: Replace
The cost to replace City Hall is also presented as a range to show the difference between
constructing a new building at the life -safety and essential facility levels. The cost estimates
assume a new class A office building of the same design but built to today's standards.
Additional assumptions included using metal paneling instead of EFIS, building systems at a
LEED silver rating level, and a steel structure building. The base cost for a 3 -story, 40,000
square foot building at the life safety level is $16.8 million.
The estimate for the construction hard costs is approximately $245 per square foot, which is
within the range of recently completed civic buildings (see Attachment 3).
If a new building was constructed at the current location of City Hall without Police and 911
dispatch services, we could assume a total building size between 30,000 and 40,000 square feet
unless other departments or services are relocated. A more in-depth space planning analysis
will allow the City to appropriately 'right -size' the building. The Police Department currently
occupies about 9,000 square feet in City Hall, but with a new building we may want to consider
options such as relocating records storage and including additional meeting rooms. Using the
same assumptions for a 35,000 square foot building, the estimated cost would be about $15
million.
Other Options
Status Quo/Set-aside Funds for a Future Project
The Council also has the option to maintain status quo on the building and defer the decision
and/or project for the future. This year the Budget Committee agreed to begin to set aside
funds for the future repairs to City Hall, and our plan is to continue to build funds from the
building's users for future repairs and maintenance needs. But at the current contribution level
in the cost allocation, it would take several decades to assemble enough funds to retrofit the
building or even replace the envelope.
503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city
Page 5
It's not clear what the longer term effects of the water intrusion problem may have on the
building; so far it appears that the damage appears to be limited to non -load barring wall
assemblies with evidence of corrosion on the first floor structural steel framing and light gage
wall framing. As in the case of just replacing the envelope, the seismic risks would not be
addressed if the project is deferred.
In the longer term, asking voters to approve a general obligation bond could be a strategy, but
confidence would be low for the voters passing a bond, until after the school district's
measures.
FUNDING OPTIONS
• Tax Increment Financing/Urban Renewal
Last year the LORA Board planned for the City Hall repair work to be funded by urban
renewal dollars. At that time it was hoped that the building's envelope could be
replaced by a better performing cladding system that would also improve the design
and appearance of City Hall. The cost estimate was also lower. Regardless, urban
renewal remains as an option for any of the rehabilitation options, including
replacement.
If the scope only included the replacement of the EFIS envelope and did not include
changes or enhancements to the building's appearance, then it would not be advisable
to use urban renewal on repair items only. But, it is likely that even with just the
replacement of the envelope, enough of the building's exterior would change (such as
removing the planter boxes and adding color) allowing for the use of urban renewal as
the source of funding. Even so, we would advise not to use urban renewal funds on
strictly maintenance items for the existing building such as the generator, elevators, and
other upgrades.
However, if the Council decides to replace the building, then urban renewal for the
entire project is an option, although we would still recommend a portion be funded by
the General Fund or by one of the other options discussed below.
The East End Redevelopment District has capacity for completely funding both the
Police Facility project and a new City Hall, but it would require tradeoffs with other
projects in the redevelopment plan. To finance both projects would require phasing the
construction, but that would be our recommendation anyway.
• General Fund
Similar to the funding for the new Maintenance Center, the City can decide to allocate
surplus General Fund dollars towards project. But even at a savings rate of $1 million
per year it would take a decade to save enough to fund any major repair or replacement
project. But a combination of an allocation of surplus general funds, urban renewal, and
bonding would be a balanced approach.
503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city
Page 6
• Full Faith and Credit Bonding
We could bond against the annual "rent" charged to the departments to finance a
portion of the project. Beginning with the current fiscal year's budget, using our
administrative cost allocation we began to charge departments an annual "rent" for the
future repairs and maintenance needs for City Hall. The current budget charges
$250,000 through the cost allocation which is then transferred to the Capital Reserve
Fund.
For a $5 million bond, the annual cost would be approximately $375,000 for 20 years. A
$4 million bond would cost $300,000 for 20 years. Note that this rent charge is
allocated to a variety of funds, since most of the administrative support functions are
housed in city hall. The general fund's share is approximately 80%.
• Capital Reserve Fund
Last year the Budget Committee and City Council agreed to allocate funds for the future
repairs to City Hall. In addition to the annual charge through the cost allocation,
departments housed in City Hall (planning, city manager's office, finance, and municipal
court) contributed a total of $670,000 from their carryover savings toward the future
repairs. A total of $920,000 is now currently set aside in the Capital Reserve Fund for
City Hall.
• General Obligation Bond
Another option for the Council to consider is asking the voters to approve a General
Obligation Bond.
RECOMMENDATION
There is good reason that City Hall has been studied and analyzed over the years without
significant action. There isn't an easy choice for solving the building's most pressing problems,
and investing millions of the public's dollars into their City Hall should be well spent. At the
same time, we have an obligation to the public to maintain their buildings and persistent
structural, seismic, and systems issues with City Hall will eventually need to be addressed.
On one hand, replacing the envelope is still the cheapest option and it would address the most
pressing environmental issue with the building. But limiting the project to just the repair will
forgo a favorable opportunity to address many of the other issues with the building.
Furthermore, there are still the risks and unknowns with the removal of the envelope which
have the potential of driving up costs, and it would not alleviate the seismic performance
concerns with the building. But by replacing the envelope, the Council would be taking another
giant step in the direction of maintaining public facilities and infrastructure and we could
continue to plan and set aside for future upgrades to the building.
503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city
Page 7
On the other hand, inaction following the previous studies is a reflection of the hard choice
when the cost of a retrofit and upgrade is comparable to constructing a new building. A new
building, properly designed and constructed, and with the memory of the lessons learned,
would be more high performing, energy efficient, better functioning, and structurally sound for
generations to come.
Either option is a valid choice, and will serve the citizens well to address the problems with City
Hall. If the Council decides to replace the EIFS envelope, windows, and roof, we recommend
that at least the voluntary seismic measures are also included in the scope. If the Council
decides to replace the building, we recommend that City Hall remain a standalone building in
the current location and that the Police Facility project continues as planned. In addition to the
cost savings of not having to build a much larger building to essential facility standards, two
buildings would make the block more architecturally interesting, and staggering the
construction would mean that we would not have to relocate police and 911 dispatch functions
to a temporary space.
Funding Recommendation
Our recommendation for either option (repair or replace) would be to use a combination of
sources, both urban renewal and general funds/bonding. In the replacement scenario, if the
Council decides to just make repairs to the building (especially without significant appearance
upgrades), we would advise against using just urban renewal. But, if the project includes an
upgrade to the EFIS and visual appearance of City Hall, urban renewal can be used for the
fagade improvement, and any maintenance items could be funded by the Capital Reserve Fund
or annual "rent."
If the Council decides to build a new City Hall, our recommendation would be to set a maximum
of $10 million from the east end urban renewal district, and fund the remaining portion using
the existing set-aside in the capital reserve and bonding $4 million, using our internal rent
charge to pay the bond debt service. This will dedicate $15 million for the new building, which
is close, if not sufficient, for funding the project.
ATTACHMENTS
1. City Hall Options Cost Summaries
2. Statements of Probable Costs
3. City Hall Construction Costs Comparison
503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city
Lake Oswego City Hall
BUILDING ENVELOPE RANGE
NEW BUILDING RANGE
Project Cost Summary Comparison ATTACHMENT 1
Pre -Design
Building Envelope Only Envelope, Maintenance, 19
Voluntary Seismic
Envelope, Maintenance, 19
Full Seismic (Life Safety)
New Building New Building
(Life Safety) (Essential Facility)
Comments
CFI Probable Cost CFI Probable Cost
CFI Probable Cost CFI Probable Cost
CFI Probable Cost
02128117 02128117
02128117
02128117 02128117
Construction Cost of Facility
Building Hardcost
$3,308,975 13 $3,308,975 13
$4,163,102 13
$9,782,577 $9,782,577
Seismic & Deferred Maintenance
$0 $11,987,214 17
$16,161,3381
$0 $3,782,197
Parking Structure Hardcost
$0 $0
$0
$691,164 $691,164
Sitework Hardcost
$0 3 $0 3
$0 3
$575,724 $575,724
Right of Way Improvements Hardcost
$0 $0
$0
$0 $0
Excluded
Demolition and Abatement Hardcost
$0 3 $0 3
$0 3
$402,152 $402,152
Margins
Escalation
$595,616 $595,616 IS
$749,358
$2,061,291 $2,061,291
Allowance
Contingency
$1,366,607 $1,366,60718
$1,719,361
$016 $01°
Allowance
General Conditions
$448,052 $448,052 IS
$563,705
$0 14 $0 14
8.5% of GC cost
Overhead & Profit (General Contracting)
$428,944 $428,944 IS
$539,664
$0 14 $0 14
7.5% of GC cost
Bonds & Insurance
$49,213 $49,213 IS
$172,527
$0 M $0 14
Allowance
Subtotal
$6,197,406 $18,184,620
$24,069,056
$13,512,908 $17,295,105
1.5% for Solar
$92,961 $272,769
$361,036
$202,694 $259,427
1.5% of GC cost
Mold Remediation
$522,500 8 $522,500 8
$522,500 8
$09 $0 9
Total Construction Costs
$6,812,867 $18,979,889
$24,952,592
$13,715,602 $17,554,532
$170.32 /sf $474.50 /sf
$342.89 /sf $438.86 /sf
$623.81 /sf
Consultants Costs
A/E Design and Construction - Base
$533,900 4 $2,277,587
$1,331,345 $1,715,238
Allowance
$2,994,311
Envelope Consultant
$56,935 6 $56,935 6
$56,935 °
$0 15 $0 15
Allowance
EIFS Insurance
$75,00016 $75,00016
$0
$0 $0
A/E LEED Design and Documentation
$0 $0
$0
$0 $0
Excluded
Reimbursables
$20,000 $20,000
$20,000
$20,000 $20,000
Allowance
Owner's Project Manager
$68,129 $189,799
$249,526
$137,156 $175,545
1% of Construction Cost
Marketing Materials
$0 $0
$0
$0 $0
Excluded
Topo and Boundary Survey
$3,000 $3,000
$3,000
$3,000 $3,000
Allowance
Special Inspections
$10,000 $20,000
$25,000
$25,000 $25,000
Allowance
Geotechnical Services
$0 $25,000
$25,000
$25,000 $25,000
Allowance
Environmental Services
$0 $0
$0
$0 $0
N/A
Hazardous Material Survey/Testing/Mitigation Specs
$7,000 $7,000
$7,000
$0 $0
Allowance
Commissioning
$0 $0
$0
$0 $0
Excluded
Arborist
$0 $0
$0
$0 $0
Excluded
Subtotal -Consultants
$773,964 $2,674,321
$3,380,772
$1,541,501 $1,963,783
ConsultantsContingency
$58,047 $200,574
$253,558
$115,613 $147,284
7.5% of Consultant costs
Total Consultants Costs
$832,011 $2,874,895
$3,634,330
$1,657,114 $2,111,067
$20.80 /sf $71.87 /sf
$41.43 /sf $52.78 /sf
$90.86 /sf
Owner Costs
Land Acquisition
$0 $0
$0 $0
N/A
$0
Relocation of Over Head Power Lines to Underground
$0 $0
$0
$0 $0
N/A
Fixtures, Furniture & Equipment (FF&E)
$0 $0
$0
$320,000 $320,000
$8.00 per sfAllowance (New Construction)
Appliances
$0 $0
$0
$20,000 $20,000
Allowance
Lockers/Storage
$0 $0
$0
$0 $0
Excluded
Shelving
$0 $0
$0
$0 $0
Excluded
Fitness Equipment
$0 $0
$0
$0 $0
N/A
Telephone/Data/AV/Security Equipment
$0 $0
$0
$80,0001, $80,0001,
LEED Registration
$0 $0
$0
$0 $0
Excluded
Moving Allowance
$100,00011 $100,00011
$100,00011
$100,000 $100,000
Allowance CLO moving costw/in the building is$300/workstation
Temporary Facilities
$0 $0
$0
$576,00010 $576,00010
N/A
Permit Fees
$48,531 $76,462
$76,462
$106,723 $106,723
Allowance Per Permit Fee Estimates
1% For Art
$68,129 $189,799
$249,526
$137,156 $175,545
1% of Construction Cost
Radio Antenna
$0 $0
$0
$0 $0
Excluded
BOLI Fees
$7,500 $7,500
$7,500
$7,500 $7,500
0.1% of GCC or $7500 max
Subtotal- Owner Costs
$224,160 $373,761
$433,488
$1,347,379 $1,385,768
Owner Contingency
$16,812 1 $28,032
$32,512
$101,05$103,933
7.5% of Owner Costs
Total Owner Costs
$240,972 $401,793
$1,448,432 $1,489,701
$466,000
$6.02 /sf $10.04 /sf
$11.65 /sf
$36.21 /sf $37.24 /sf
Total Project Cost
$7,885,849
$22,256,576
$29,052,921
$16,821,148 $21,155,300
$726.32 /sf
$197.15 /sf $556.41 /sf
$420.53 /sf $528.88 /sf
BUILDING ENVELOPE RANGE
NEW BUILDING RANGE
Building Size:
40,000 SF
Notes
1 Includes Ceiling Repair and MEP, Sprinkler & Specialty Trade Allowance
6 Excludes Traffic Control
11 Furniture Moves to accommodate construction while occupied
36 Based on $15,000 per party
2 Includes Landscape Irrigation & Repair, and Planter Alteration or Repair Allowance
7 Assumes 2020 Construction, at 6% per year
12 $2/sf Allowance
17 Includes Margins
3 Included in Building Hard Cost
8 $10-12/sf for remediation in an occupied building. Based on standard procedures
for fungal growth remediation
13 Includes Envelope Renovation, North Entry Canopy, Roof replacement, and demo
18 Envelope Only
4 Based on M. Proposal dated July 27th, 2016
9 Not required for New Construction
14 Included in Construction Hardcosts
19 Upgrades to address Vibration issues excluded from scope
5 Excludes Bonding
10 Assumes 16 month relocation for 30,000sf of office space at $1.60/sf/month
1S Included in A/E Design Fee
Lake Oswego City Hall Cost Summary
$170.32 /sf
$82.72 /sf
N/A
18.0% Hardcosts
35.0% of GC cost
8.5% of GC cost
7.5% of GC cost
Allowance
$154.94 /sf
1.5% of GC cost
Comments
Envelope Only
Pre -Design
Consultants Costs
LOW RANGE
Allowance
CFI Probable Cost
$533,900.00 °
02128117
Construction Cost of Facility
Allowance
Envelope Remediation Hardcost
$3,308,975.00 13
Sitework Hardcost
$0.00 1
Right of Way Improvements Hardcost
$0.00
Demolition and Abatement Hardcost
$0.00,
Margins
Owner's Project Manager
Escalation
$595,615.50 7
Contingency
$1,366,606.68
General Conditions
$448,051.76
Overhead & Profit (General Contracting)
$428,943.67
Bonds & Insurance
$49,213.00
Subtotal
$6,197,405.60
1.5% for Solar
$92,961.08
Mold Remediation
$522,500.00 s
Total Construction Costs
$6,812,866.69
$170.32 /sf
$82.72 /sf
N/A
18.0% Hardcosts
35.0% of GC cost
8.5% of GC cost
7.5% of GC cost
Allowance
$154.94 /sf
1.5% of GC cost
Comments
Envelope Only
Pre -Design
Consultants Costs
Allowance
A/E Design and Construction - Base
$533,900.00 °
Envelope Consultant
$56,935.00 °
Allowance
EIFS Insurance
$75,000.00 16
Allowance
A/E LEED Design and Documentation
$0.00
Excluded
Reimbursables
$20,000.00
Allowance
Owner's Project Manager
$68,128.67
1% of construction Cost
Marketing Materials
$0.00
Excluded
Topo and Boundary Survey
$3,000.00
Allowance
Special Inspections
$10,000.00
Allowance
Geotechnical Services
$0.00
Allowance
Environmental Services
$0.00
N/A
Hazardous Material Survey/Testing/Mitigation Specs
$7,000.00
Allowance
Commissioning
$0.00
Excluded
Arborist
$0.00
Excluded
Subtotal -Consultants
$773,963.67
0.1% of GCC or $7500 max
Consultants Contingency
$58,047.28
7.5% of Consultant Costs
Total Consultants Costs
$832,010.94
$20.80 /sf
Owner Costs
N/A
Land Acquisition
$0.00
Relocation of Over Head Power Lines to Underground
$0.00
N/A
Fixtures, Furniture & Equipment (FF&E)
$0.00
$8.00 per sf Allowance(New construction)
Appliances
$0.00
Lockers/Storage
$0.00
Excluded
Shelving
$0.00
Excluded
Fitness Equipment
$0.00
N/A
Telephone/Data/AV/Security Equipment
$0.00
Excluded
LEED Registration
$0.00
Excluded
Moving Allowance
$100,000.0011
Allowance CLO moving costw/in the building is $300/workstation
Temporary Facilities
$0.00
N/A
Permit Fees
$48,531.00
Allowance Per Permit Fee Estimates
1% For Art
$68,128.67
1% of Construction Cost
Radio Antenna
$0.00
Excluded
BOLI Fees
$7,500.00
0.1% of GCC or $7500 max
Subtotal - Owner Costs
$224,159.67
Owner Contingency
$16,811.98
7.5% of Owner Costs
Total Owner Costs
$240,971.64
$6.02 /sf
Total Project Cost $7,885,849.27 $197.15 per SF
Building Size:
40,000 SF
Notes
1 Includes Ceiling Repair and MEP, Sprinkler & Specialty Trade Allowance
2 Includes Landscape Irrigation & Repair, and Planter Alteration or Repair Allowance
3 Included in Building Hard Cost
4 Based on M. Proposal dated July 27th, 2016
5 Excludes Bonding
6 Excludes Traffic Control
7 Assumes 2020 Construction, at 6% per year
8 $10-12/sf for remediation in an occupied building. Based on standard procedures for fungal growth remediation
9 Not required for New Construction
10 Assumes 16 month relocation for 30,000sf of office space at $1.60/sf/month
11 Furniture Moves to accommodate construction while occupied
12 $2/sf Allowance
13 Includes Envelope Renovation, North Entry Canopy, Roof replacement, demo
14 Included in Construction Hardcosts
15 Included in A/E Design Fee
16 Based on $15,000 per party
17 Includes Margins
18 Envelope Only
Lake Oswego City Hall Cost Summary Envelope, Maintenance & Voluntary Seismic
Pre -Design
>v2u..0 /sr
Consultants Costs
HIGH RANGE
A/E Design and Construction - Base
CFI Pro61ble Cost
02128117
Construction Cost of Facility
$56,935.00 a
Envelope Remediation Hardcost
$3,308,975.00 as
Sitework Hardcost
$0.00'
Demolition and Abatement Hardcost
$0.001
Margins
$189,798.88
Escalation
$595,615.50 7
Contingency
$1,366,606.68
General Conditions
$448,051.76
Overhead & Profit (General Contracting)
$428,943.67
Bonds & Insurance
$49,213.00
Subtotal
$6,197,405.60
Voluntary Seismic Upgrade Hardcosts
$0.00
V1: Cross Ties
$31,632.00 17
V2: Girder to Girder Connection
$109,531.00 17
V3: HSS Dragstrut
$241,890.00 t7
Maintenance & Architectural Upgrade Hardcosts
1 $2,874,894.46
Al: Replace Elevators
$1,308,384.00 "
A3: Replace Gyperete & Carpet
$842,359.00 17
A4: Replace HVAC
$2,723,083.00 17
A5: Replace Traffic Coatings
$127,308.00 17
A6: Remodel Public & Staff Areas
$3,943,506.00 a'
A7: Remodel Vacated Police Space
$2,189,497.00 17
A& Replace Southeast Deck
$46,900.00 17
A9: Front & Rear ADA Entrances
$84,285.00 17
All: Wayfinding Signage
$21,981.00 17
Al2: Generator Replacement
$242,968.00 17
A13: Parking Garage Enclosure Wall
$63,809.00 17
A14: Parking Garage Corrosion Remediation
$10,080.00 17
Subtotal
$11,987,213.00
1.5% for Solar
$272,769.28
Mold Remediation
$522,500.00 a
Total Construction Costs
$18,979,887.88
>v2u..0 /sr
Consultants Costs
A/E Design and Construction - Base
$2,277,586.55
Envelope Consultant
$56,935.00 a
EIFS Insurance
$75,000.00 16
A/E DEED Design and Documentation
$0.00
Reimbursables
$20,000.00
Owner's Project Manager
$189,798.88
Marketing Materials
$0.00
Topo and Boundary Survey
$3,000.00
Special Inspections
$20,000.00
Geotechnical Services
$25,000.00
Environmental Services
$0.00
Hazardous Material Survey/Testing/Mitigation Specs
$7,000.00
Commissioning
$0.00
Arborist
$0.00
Subtotal -Consultants
$2,674,320.42
Consultants Contingency
$200,574.03
Total Consultants Costs
1 $2,874,894.46
a/l.tl/ /ST
Owner Costs
Land Acquisition
$0.00
Relocation of Over Head Power Lines to Underground
$0.00
Fixtures, Furniture & Equipment (FF&E)
$0.00
Appliances
$0.00
Lockers/Storage
$0.00
Shelving
$0.00
Fitness Equipment
$0.00
Telephone/Data/AV/Security Equipment
$0.00
DEED Registration
$0.00
Moving Allowance
$100,000.00 11
Temporary Facilities
$0.00
Permit Fees
$76,462.00
1% For Art
$189,798.88
Radio Antenna
$0.00
BOLI Fees
$7,500.00
Subtotal - Owner Costs
$373,760.88
Owner Contingency
$28,032.07
Total Owner Costs
$401,792.94
y1U.Uq /St
Comments
$33.09/0
18.0% Hard-
350%
ardcosts350% of GC cost
8.5% of GC cost
7.5% of GC cost
Allowance
$154.94 /sf
$299.68 /sf
1.5% of GC cost
12% of Construction Cost
Allowance
Allowance
Excluded
Allowance
1% of Construction Cost
Excluded
Allowance
Allowance
Allowance
N/A
Allowance
Excluded
Excluded
7.5% of Consultant Costs
N/A
N/A
$8.00 persf Allowance(New Construction)
Excluded
Excluded
N/A
Excluded
Excluded
dlowance CLO moving cost w/in the buildingis$300/workstation
N/A
dlowance Per Permit Fee Estimates
1% of Construction Cost
Excluded
0.1% of GCC or $7500 max
7.5% of owner Costs
Total Project Cost $22,256,57s.z9 $556.41 per SF
Building Size: 40,000 SF
Notes
1 Includes Ceiling Repair and MEP, Sprinkler & Specialty Trade Allowance 30 Assumes 16 month relocation for 30,000sf of office space at $1.601
2 Includes Landscape Irrigation & Repair, and Planter Alteration or Repair Allowance 11 Furniture Moves to accommodate construction while occupied
3 Included in Building Hard Cost 12 $2/sf Allowance
4 Based on M. Proposal dated July 27th, 2016 13 Includes Envelope Renovation, North Entry Canopy, Roof replacement, demo
5 Excludes Bonding 14 Included in Construction Hardcosts
6 Excludes Traffic Control 15 Included in A/E Design Fee
7 Assumes 2020 Construction, at 6% par year 16 Based on $15,000 per party
8$10-12/sf for remediation in an occupied building. Based on standard procedures for fungal growth remediation 17 Includes Mark -Ups
9 Not required for New Construction 18 Envelope Only
Lake Oswego City Hall Cost Summary
Construction Cost of Facil
nvelope Upgrade Hardcosts
eismic Upgrade
laintenance & Architectural Upgrade
itework Hardcost
ight of Way Improvements
emolition and Abatement
largins
Escalation
Contingency
General Conditions
Overhead & Profit (General Contracting)
Bonds &Insurance
Subtotal
.5% for Solar
told Remediation
otal Construction Costs
Consultants Costs
Construction - Base
Jltant
n and Documentation
t Manager
erials
Clary Survey
ons
�rvices
Services
erial Survey/Testing/Mitigation Specs
ntingency
ants Costs
Subtotal - Consultants
I
Ind Acquisition
location of Over Head Power Lines to Underground
xtures, Furniture & Equipment (FF&E)
Appliances
Jckers/Storage
Shelving
tress Equipment
flephone/Data/AV/Security Equipment
:ED Registration
loving Allowance
�mporary Facilities
�rmit Fees
V For Art
tdio Antenna
SLI Fees
Subtotal - Owner Costs
wrier Contingency
Dtal Owner Costs
Envelope, Maintenance & Full Seismic (Life Safety)
Pre -Design
Comments
CFI Probable Cost
02128117
$4,163,102.0013 $104.oa /sf
$4,816,386.2917 $1zo.41 /sf
$11,344,952.1811 $283.62 /sf
$0.00,
12% of Construction Cost
$0.00
N/A
$0.00,
$8.00 per sf Allowance (New Construction)
$749,358.361
18.0% Hardcosts
$1,719,361.13
35.0% of GC cost
$563,704.83
8.5% of GC cost
$539,664.47
7.5% of GC cost
$172,527.00
Allowance
24,069,056.26
$601.73 /sf
1.5% of GC cost
$361,035.84
$522,500.00 s
24,952,592.11
$623.81 /sf
$2,994,311.05
12% of Construction Cost
$56,935.004
Allowance
$0.00
$8.00 per sf Allowance (New Construction)
$0.00
Excluded
$20,000.00
Allowance
$249,525.92
1% of Construction Cost
$0.00
Excluded
$3,000.00
Allowance
$25,000.00
Allowance
$25,000.00
Allowance
$0.00
N/A
$7,000.00
Allowance
$0.00
Excluded
$0.00
Excluded
$3,380,771.97
0.1% of GCC or $7500 max
$253,557.90
7.50% of Consultant Costs
$3,634,329.87
7.50% of Owner Costs
$90.86 /sf
$0.00
N/A
$0.00
N/A
$0.00
$8.00 per sf Allowance (New Construction)
$0.00
$0.00
Excluded
$0.00
Excluded
$0.00
N/A
$0.00
Excluded
$0.00
Excluded
u
$100,000.00
Allowance CLO moving cost w/in the building is $300/workstation
$0.00
N/A
$76,462.00
Allowance Per Permit Fee Estimates
$249,525.92
1% of Construction Cost
$0.00
Excluded
$7,500.00
0.1% of GCC or $7500 max
$433,487.92
$32,511.59
7.50% of Owner Costs
$465,999.52
$11.65 /sf
Total Project Cost I $29,052,921.49 I $726.32 per SF
Building Size: 40,000 SF
Exclusions: Off-site improvements to public right-of-way or utilities
Notes
1 Includes Ceiling Repair and MEP, Sprinkler & Specialty Trade Allowance
2 Includes Landscape Irrigation & Repair, and Planter Alteration or Repair Allowance
3 Included in Building Hard Cost
4 Based on M. Proposal dated July 27th, 2016
5 Excludes Bonding
6 Excludes Traffic Control
7 Assumes 2020 Construction, at 6% per year
8 $10-12/sf for remediation in an occupied building. Based on standard procedures for fungal growth remediation
9 Not required for New Construction
30 Assumes 16 month relocation for 30,000sf of office space at $1.60/sf/month
11 Furniture Moves to accommodate construction while occupied
12 $2/sf Allowance
13 Includes Envelope Renovation, North Entry Canopy, Roof replacement, demo
14 Included in Construction Hardcosts
15 Included in A/E Design Fee
16 Based on $15,000 per party
17 Includes Margins
18 Envelope Only
Lake Oswego City Hall Cost Summary
$342.89 /sf
New Building (Life Safety)
Pre -Design
Comments
$244.56 /sf
N/A
18.0% Hardcosts
Included in Hard Costs
Included in Hard Costs
Included in Hard Costs
Included in Hard Costs
$337.82 /sf
1.5% of GC cost
Consultants Costs
LOW RANGE
10% of construction Cost
CFI Probable Cost
$1,331,344.97
02128117
Construction Cost of Facility
Allowance
Building Hardcost
$9,782,577.00
Parking Structure Hardcost
$691,164.00
Sitework Hardcost
$575,724.00
Right of Way Improvements Hardcost
$0.00
Demolition and Abatement Hardcost
$402,152.00
Margins
Excluded
Escalation
$2,061,291.06
Contingency
$0.00 14
General Conditions
$0.00 14
Overhead & Profit (General Contracting)
$0.00 14
Bonds & Insurance
$0.00 14
Subtotal
$13,512,908.06
1.5% for Solar
$202,693.62
Mold Remediation
$0.00'
Total Construction Costs
$13,715,601.68
$342.89 /sf
New Building (Life Safety)
Pre -Design
Comments
$244.56 /sf
N/A
18.0% Hardcosts
Included in Hard Costs
Included in Hard Costs
Included in Hard Costs
Included in Hard Costs
$337.82 /sf
1.5% of GC cost
Consultants Costs
10% of construction Cost
A/E Design and Construction - Base
$1,331,344.97
Envelope Consultant
$0.001,
Allowance
A/E LEED Design and Documentation
$0.00
Excluded
Reimbursables
$20,000.00
Allowance
Owner's Project Manager
$137,156.02
1% of construction Cost
Marketing Materials
$0.00
Excluded
Topo and Boundary Survey
$3,000.00
Allowance
Special Inspections
$25,000.00
Allowance
Geotechnical Services
$25,000.00
Allowance
Environmental Services
$0.00
N/A
Hazardous Material Survey/Testing/Mitigation Specs
$0.00
Allowance
Commissioning
$0.00
Excluded
Arborist
$0.00
Excluded
Subtotal -Consultants
$1,541,500.98
Excluded
Consultants Contingency
$115,612.57
7.5%ofCon sultantCosts
Total Consultants Costs
$1,657,113.56
$41.43 /sf
Owner Costs
N/A
Land Acquisition
$0.00
Relocation of Over Head Power Lines to Underground
$0.00
N/A
Fixtures, Furniture & Equipment (FF&E)
$320,000.00
$8.00 per sfAllowance (New Construction)
Appliances
$20,000.00
Lockers/Storage
$0.00
Excluded
Shelving
$0.00
Excluded
Fitness Equipment
$0.00
N/A
Telephone/Data/AV/Security Equipment
$80,000.0012
Allowance
LEED Registration
$0.00
Excluded
Moving Allowance
$100,000.00
Allowance CLO moving costw/in the building is $300/workstation
Temporary Facilities
$576,000.00 10
N/A
Permit Fees
$106,723.00
Allowance Per Permit Fee Estimates
1% For Art
$137,156.02
1% of Construction Cost
Radio Antenna
$0.00
Excluded
BOLI Fees
$7,500.00
0.1% 0.1% of GCC or $7500 max
Subtotal - Owner Costs
$1,347,379.02
Owner Contingency
$101,053.43
7.5% of Owner Costs
Total Owner Costs
$1,448,432.44
$36.21 /sf
Total Project Cost $16,821,147.68 $420.53 per SF
Building Size:
40,000 SicI
Notes
1 Includes Ceiling Repair and MEP, Sprinkler & Specialty Trade Allowance
2 Includes Landscape Irrigation & Repair, and Planter Alteration or Repair Allowance
3 Included in Building Hard Cost
4 Based on M. Proposal dated July 27th, 2016
5 Excludes Bonding
6 Excludes Traffic Control
7 Assumes 2020 Construction, at 6% per year
8 $10-12/sf for remediation in an occupied building. Based on standard procedures for fungal growth remediation
9 Not required for New Construction
10 Assumes 16 month relocation for 30,000sf of office space at $1.60/sf/month
11 Furniture Moves to accommodate construction while occupied
12 $2/sf Allowance
13 Includes Envelope Renovation, North Entry Canopy, Roof replacement, demo
14 Included in Construction Hardcosts
15 Included in A/E Design Fee
16 Based on $15,000 per party
17 Includes Margins
18 Envelope Only
Lake Oswego City Hall Cost Summary
$438.86 /sf
New Building (Essential Facility)
Pre -Design
Comments
$244.56 /sf
$94.55 /sf
N/A
18.0% Hardcosts
Included in Hard Costs
Included in Hard Costs
Included in Hard Costs
Included in Hard Costs
$432.38 /sf
1.5% of GC cost
Consultants Costs
HIGH RANGE
10% of Construction Cost
CFI Probable Cost
$1,715,237.96
01/28/17
Construction Cost of Facility
Allowance
Building Hardcost
$9,782,577.00
Essential Facility Alternate
$3,782,197.00
Parking Structure Hardcost
$691,164.00
Sitework Hardcost
$575,724.00
Right of Way Improvements Hardcost
$0.00
Demolition and Abatement Hardcost
$402,152.00
Margins
$3,000.00
Escalation
$2,061,291.00
Contingency
$0.00 14
General Conditions
$0.00,
Overhead & Profit (General Contracting)
$0.00 ,
Bonds & Insurance
$0.00 14
Subtotal
$17, 295,105.00
1.5% for Solar
$259,426.58
Mold Remediation
$0.00'
Total Construction Costs
$17,554,531.58
$438.86 /sf
New Building (Essential Facility)
Pre -Design
Comments
$244.56 /sf
$94.55 /sf
N/A
18.0% Hardcosts
Included in Hard Costs
Included in Hard Costs
Included in Hard Costs
Included in Hard Costs
$432.38 /sf
1.5% of GC cost
Consultants Costs
10% of Construction Cost
A/E Design and Construction - Base
$1,715,237.96
Envelope Consultant
$0.00 ss
Allowance
A/E LEED Design and Documentation
$0.00
Excluded
Reimbursables
$20,000.00
Allowance
Owner's Project Manager
$175,545.32
1% of Construction Cost
Marketing Materials
$0.00
Excluded
Topo and Boundary Survey
$3,000.00
Allowance
Special Inspections
$25,000.00
Allowance
Geotechnical Services
$25,000.00
Allowance
Environmental Services
$0.00
N/A
Hazardous Material Survey/Testing/Mitigation Specs
$0.00
Allowance
Commissioning
$0.00
Excluded
Arborist
$0.00
Excluded
Subtotal - Consultants
$1,963,783.27
Excluded
Co nsulta nts Contingency
$147,283.75
7.5% of Consultant Costs
Total Consultants Costs
$2,111,067.02
$52.78 /sf
Owner Costs
N/A
Land Acquisition
$0.00
Relocation of Over Head Power Lines to Underground
$0.00
N/A
Fixtures, Furniture & Equipment (FF&E)
$320,000.00
$8.00 per sfAllowance(New Construction)
Appliances
$20,000.00
Lockers/Storage
$0.00
Excluded
Shelving
$0.00
Excluded
Fitness Equipment
$0.00
N/A
Telephone/Data/AV/Security Equipment
$80,000.00 1z
Excluded
LEED Registration
$0.00
Excluded
Moving Allowance
$100,000.00
Allowance CLO moving costw/in the building is $300/workstation
Temporary Facilities
$576,000.00 10
N/A
Permit Fees
$106,723.00
Allowance Per Permit Fee Estimates
1% For Art
$175,545.32
1% of Construction Cost
Radio Antenna
$0.00
Excluded
BOLI Fees
$7,500.00
0.1% of GCC or $7500 max
Subtotal - Owner Costs
$1,385,768.32
Owner Contingency
$103,932.62
7.5% of owner costs
Total Owner Costs
$1,489,700.94
$37.24 /sf
Total Project Cost $21,155,299.53 $528.88 per SF
I Building Size:
40,000 SFS
Notes
1 Includes Ceiling Repair and MEP, Sprinkler & Specialty Trade Allowance
2 Includes landscape Irrigation & Repair, and Planter Alteration or Repair Allowance
3 Included in Building Hard Cost
4 Based on M. Proposal dated July 27th, 2016
5 Excludes Bonding
6 Excludes Traffic Control
7 Assumes 2020 Construction, at 6% per year
8 $10-12/sf for remediation in an occupied building. Based on standard procedures for fungal growth remediation
9 Not required for New Construction
30 Assumes 16 month relocation for 30,000sf of office space at $1.60/sf/month
11 Furniture Moves to accommodate construction while occupied
12 $2/sf Allowance
13 Includes Envelope Renovation, North Entry Canopy, Roof replacement, demo
14 Included in Construction Hardcosts
15 Included in A/E Design Fee
16 Based on $15,000 per party
17 Includes Margins
18 Envelope Only
New City Hall Building Options - Estimated Costs
$244.56 per square foot
18% of hardcosts
1.50% 1.5% of GC cost
10% of construction cost
1% of construction cost
7.50% of consultant costs
$8 per square foot
1.0% of construction cost
7.50% of owner costs
New Building
New Building
New Building Size
Size
Size
40,000
35,000
30,000
Construction Costs
Building hardcost
9,782,577
8,559,600
7,336,800
Parking Structure Hardcost
691,164
691,164
691,164
Sitework Hardcost
575,724
575,724
575,724
Demolition
402,152
402,152
402,152
Escalation
2,061,291
1,841,155
1,621,051
Sub -total
13,512,908
12,069, 795
10,626,891
1.5% for Solar
202,694
181,047
159,403
Total Construction Costs
13,715,602
12,250,842
10,786,295
Consultant Costs
A/E Design and Construction
1,331,291
1,186,980
1,062,689
Reimbursables
20,000
20,000
20,000
Owner's Project Manager
137,156
122,508
107,863
Topo and Boundary Survey
3,000
3,000
3,000
Special Inspections
25,000
25,000
25,000
Geotechnical Services
25,000
25,000
25,000
Sub -total
1,541,447
1,382,488
1,243,552
Consultant Contingency
115,609
103,687
93,266
Total Consultant Costs
1,657,055
1,486,175
1,336,818
Owner Costs
Fixtures, Furniture & Equipment
320,000
280,000
240,000
Appliances
20,000
20,000
20,000
Tele/Data/AV/Security
80,000
80,000
80,000
Moving Allowance
100,000
100,000
100,000
Temporary Facilities
576,000
576,000
576,000
Permit Fees
106,723
106,723
106,723
1% for Art
137,156
122,508
107,863
BOLI Fees
7,500
7,500
7,500
Sub -total
1,347,379
1,292,731
1,238,086
Owner Contingency
101,053
96,955
92,856
Total Owner Costs
1,448,432
1,389,686
1,330,942
TOTAL PROJECT COST
16,821,089
15,126,703
13,454,055
$244.56 per square foot
18% of hardcosts
1.50% 1.5% of GC cost
10% of construction cost
1% of construction cost
7.50% of consultant costs
$8 per square foot
1.0% of construction cost
7.50% of owner costs
Construction
_IFOCUS
Integrated Project Solutions
!-417yF-
LAKE OSWEGO CITY HALL
ENVELOPE REPLACEMENT
` 2,
ED
❑ ❑
STATEMENT OF PROBABLE COST
Prepared by:
Steve Gunn
President
Construction Focus, Inc.
CONSTRUCTION FOCUS, INC.
EUGENE,OREGON
ATTACHMENT 2
February 23, 2017
Revision #2
Prepared for:
Mackenzie
Portland, OR
V: 541-686-2031 sgunn@constructionfocus.com
LOC
Interior
South/West
North/East
South/West
South/West
North/East
North/East
Interior
Interior
Interior
Interior
Interior
Interior
LAKE OSWEGO CITY HALL
ENVELOPE REPLACEMENT
Statement of Probable Cost
ITEM I DESCRIPTION I QNTY I UNIT I $/UNIT
ENVELOPE
1#A1: Exterior Wall Renovation at EFIS Claddinq
Access and Demolition
Permits
sidewalk & street closures
Traffic control
flaggers & fencing
Erosion control
allowance
Demolition chute
3,360.00
Dust barrier
framing/sheathing
Landscape & planter repairs
allowance
Scaffolding & tenting
11.20
Salvage and protect all wall mounted
items
Misc paving repairs and patching
12, 880.00
Demo cladding
x_EIFS
Demo wall sheathing
x_gyp sheathing
Demo framing
x_steel framing
Demo framing
x_steel framing
Demo insulation
x_batt insul
Demo wall board
x_gypsum board
Repairs and New Construction
Cladding
EIFS
Flashing
allowance
Sealants
allowance
Wall sheathing
Dens-Glas Gold
Weather barrier
liquid -applied
Flexible flashing
Permabarrier_40 mil
Wall framing
steel stud framing
Structural steel repairs -allowance
Wall framing
steel stud framing
Structural steel repairs -allowance
Insulation @ walls
batt insulation
Gypsum wall bd
Gypsum wall bd repairs
Vapor barrier
polyethelene
Wall base
4" rubber
Ceiling access
temp remove/replace grid
Paint walls
prime + 2 top coats
MEP
allowance for repairs
Final cleaning
I#A2: Replace North Entry Canopv
Demo canopy glass/mtl firm
Structural repairs
Canopy glass/mtl firm
Cladding repairs
Flashings
14,782 SF
i1LS
15,247.68
1 I LS
16, 800.00
1 I LS
8,400.00
1 I LS
3,360.00
5,7601 SF
10.08
1 I LS
78, 400.00
14,782 SF
11.20
14,782 SF
0.23
1 I LS
12, 880.00
14,782 SF
7.84
14,782 SF
2.46
6,412 SF
4.05
3,341 SF
4.05
14,782 SF
1.71
14,782 SF
2.46
14,782 SF
14,782 SF
14,782 SF
14,782 SF
14,782 SF
2,847 LF
6,412 SF
641 SF
3,341 SF
668 SF
14,782 SF
14,782 SF
1,478 SF
14,782 SF
480 LF
5,760 SF
16,260 SF
14,782 SF
5,760 SF
I
660ISF
1ILS
660 SF
304 SF
11 LS
26.88
1.12
0.90
3.03
2.47
6.16
8.52
56.00
8.52
56.00
1.12
5.04
8.96
0.57
2.24
13.44
1.40
6.72
0.68
17.92
1, 680.00
100.80
45.94
448.00
1/4
TOTAL $
1,615,175
15,248
16,800
8,400
3,360
58,061
78,400
165,558
3,400
12,880
115,891
36,364
25,969
13,531
25,277
36,364
397,340
16,556
13,304
44,789
36,512
17,540
54,630
35,896
28,465
37,408
16,556
74,501
13,245
8,426
1,075
77,414
22,764
99,335
3,917
94,449
11,827
1,680
66,528
13,966
448
ARCH: Mackenzie CONSTRUCTION FOCUS, INC. ESTIMATE DATE: Feb 23, 2017
DWG DATE:1/24/2017 541-686-2031 REVISION #: 2
DESIGN LEVEL: Concept EUGENE, OREGON CONST. START: 3 QTR -20
LOC
South/West
North/East
South/West
South/West
North/East
North/East
Windows
LAKE OSWEGO CITY HALL
ENVELOPE REPLACEMENT
Statement of Probable Cost
ITEM I DESCRIPTION I QNTY I UNIT
1#2: Exterior Wall Renovation at Tile Claddinq 2,205 SF
Access and Demolition
Scaffolding
Salvage and protect all wall mounted items
Demo cladding
x_tile cladding
Demo wall sheathing
x_gyp sheathing
Demo framing
x_steel framing
Demo framing
x_steel framing
Demo insulation
x_batt insul
Demo wall board
x_gypsum board
Repairs and New Construction
Flashing
Cladding
tile, match existing
Flashing
allowance
Wall sheathing
Dens-Glas Gold
Weather barrier
liquid -applied
Flexible flashing
Permabarrier40 mil
Wall framing
steel stud framing
Structural steel repairs -allowance
Wall framing
steel stud framing
Structural steel repairs -allowance
Insulation @ walls
batt insulation
Gypsum wall bd
Gypsum wall bd repairs
Ceiling access
temp remove/replace grid
Paint walls
prime + 2 top coats
Electrical
allowance for re -wiring
Final cleaning
1#5: Window and Door Replacement
Access and Demolition
Demo windows
x_windows/storefront/glass blk
Demo doors
x_stl door/frm
Repairs and New Construction
Replace doors
HMfrm/HM-dr_3x7
Storefront
Kawneer 451 T alum
Curtain wall
Kawneer 1600 alum
Metal connector
steel angle
Flashing
sill & head sm flashing
Paint door
2 -top coats
2,20511 SF
1ILS
2,2051 SF
2,2051 SF
975 SF
252 SF
2,2051 SF
2,2051 SF
2,2051 SF
2,2051 SF
2,2051 SF
2,2051 SF
2,847 LF
975 SF
98ISF
252ISF
50 I SF
2,2051 SF
2,2051 SF
2211 SF
1,320 SF
2,426 SF
2,2051 SF
1,320 SF
5,062 SF
2/4
$/UNIT TOTAL $
233,629
11.20
672.00
6.28
2.76
4.54
4.54
1.92
2.76
31.36
1.12
3.03
2.47
6.16
8.52
56.00
8.52
56.00
1.12
5.04
8.96
13.44
1.40
6.72
0.68
5,062 SF
15.68
4 EA
296.68
4 EA
Z352.00
4,879 SF
84.00
183 SF
100.80
910 LF
42.07
1,820 LF
12.32
4 EA
123.20
24,696
672
13,847
6,086
4,427
1,144
4,234
6,086
69,149
2,470
6,681
5,446
17,540
8,307
5,488
2,147
2,800
2,470
11,113
1,976
17,741
3,396
14,818
898
579,448
79,372
1,187
9,408
409,836
18,446
38,284
22,422
493
ENVELOPE TOTAL 2,522,702
ARCH: Mackenzie CONSTRUCTION FOCUS, INC. ESTIMATE DATE: Feb 23, 2017
DWG DATE:1/24/2017 541-686-2031 REVISION #: 2
DESIGN LEVEL: Concept EUGENE, OREGON CONST. START: 3 QTR -20
LAKE OSWEGO CITY HALL 3/4
ENVELOPE REPLACEMENT
Statement of Probable Cost
LOC
I ITEM
Demo decking
I DESCRIPTION
Demo flashing
I QNTY
UNIT
x_roof framing
$/UNIT
x_batt ins
TOTAL $
INTERIOR RENOVATIONS
Repairs and New Construction
Roofing
BUR
I#7: Interior Renovations
polyiso/tapered
5,062 SF I
I
118,066
Remove window treatment
ext. windows
5,062 SF
0.93
4,708
Demo trim/casing
x_window trim
2,620 LF
3.04
7,965
Window treatment
shades
5,062 SF
12.56
63,579
Window trim
match existing
2,620 LF
12.32
32,278
Finish trim
3 cts clear sealer on hd wd
2,620 LF
3.64
9,537
INTERIOR RENOVATIONS
TOTAL
118,066
ROOF
I#6: Roofinq Replacement
Access and Demolition
Demo roofing
x_membrane
Demo decking
x_T&G plywood
Demo flashing
x_parapet cap/skirt/etc.
Demo framing
x_roof framing
Demo insulation
x_batt ins
Removal of rooftop equip
crane time
Repairs and New Construction
Roofing
BUR
Insulation: rigid
polyiso/tapered
Insulation: batt
R-25
Cover board
densdeck
Decking
3/4" T&G plywood
Flashing
parapet cap/skirting/etc
Roof drains
drain/overflow/piping
Pavers
concrete pavers
Terrace surface
pea gravel
13,364 SF I 1 589,777
13,364 SF
1.57
20,981
13,3641 SF
2.35
31,405
630 LF
4.951
3,119
3,341. SF
16.801
56,129
13,364 SF
0.49
6,548
1ILS
13,440.001
13,440
13,3641 SF
17.92
239,483
13,364 SF
5.72
76,442
13,364 SF
1.29
17,240
13,3641 SF
2.47
33,009
13,3641 SF
3.13
41,829
630 LF
26.88
16,934
7 I EA
3,192.00
22,344
5161 SF
17.92
9,247
8301 SF
1.96
1,627
ARCH: Mackenzie CONSTRUCTION FOCUS, INC. ESTIMATE DATE: Feb 23, 2017
DWG DATE:1/24/2017 541-686-2031 REVISION #: 2
DESIGN LEVEL: Concept EUGENE, OREGON CONST. START: 3 QTR -20
LAKE OSWEGO CITY HALL 4/4
ENVELOPE REPLACEMENT
Statement of Probable Cost
LOC I ITEM
I DESCRIPTION
I QNTY UNIT
$/UNIT
TOTAL $
1#6 Parapet Extension
@ 12%: 397,077
480 LF
@ 18%: 595,615
78,429
Access for framing
roof structure demo
4801 LF
12.37
5,938
Tube steel supports
HSS 3x3x1/4
1,960 LB
4.71
9,233
Cladding
EIFS
1,440 SF
26.881
38,707
Parapet Wall sheathing
Dens-Glas Gold
2,880 SF
3.03
8,726
Parapet Weather barrier
liquid -applied
1,440 SF
2.471
3,557
Parapet Wall framing
steel stud framing
1,440 SF
8.52
12,269
HARDCOST TOTAL
ROOF TOTAL 668,207
1 3,308,975
The above HARDCOST TOTAL does not include typical general contractor markups.
Those plus contingencies are listed below as part of a Low -High Range.
Variables include fluctuations in market conditions, material selections, and design considerations.
The Cost Estimate Range will be consolidated as we move closer to the actual Bid Date.
LOW RANGE
HIGH RANGE
Markups:
@ 12%: 397,077
Inflation
@ 18%: 595,615
@ 25%: 926,513
Contingency
@ 35%: 1,366,607
393,768
Gen Conditions @ 8.5%:
448,052
376,975
Profit & Overhead @ 7.5%:
428,944
44,037
Performance Bond:
49,213
2,138,370
Markup Subtotals:
2,888,430
5,447,345
BASE BID TOTAL
NOTES
Refer to the Project Narrative dated January 23, 2017 for more specific information
Wage rates: BOLI
EXCLUSIONS
Design fees, permit fees, system development fees, utility hookup charges, testing, BOLI fee.
Hazardous materials abatement, moving expenses, anti -graffiti coating, fireproofing.
Furniture relocation
Overexcavation, rock excavation, wet weather sitework.
6,197,405
ARCH: Mackenzie CONSTRUCTION FOCUS, INC. ESTIMATE DATE: Feb 23, 2017
DWG DATE:1/24/2017 541-686-2031 REVISION #: 2
DESIGN LEVEL: Concept EUGENE, OREGON CONST. START: 3 QTR -20
Construction
_IFOCUS
Integrated Project Solutions
!-417yF-
LAKE OSWEGO CITY HALL
VOLUNTARY UPGRADES
ED
STATEMENT OF PROBABLE COST
Prepared by:
Steve Gunn
President
Construction Focus, Inc.
CONSTRUCTION FOCUS, INC.
EUGENE,OREGON
February 28, 2017
Revision #3
Prepared for:
Mackenzie
Portland, OR
V: 541-686-2031 sgunn@constructionfocus.com
LAKE OSWEGO CITY HALL 1/2
VOLUNTARY UPGRADES
Cost Summary
TOTAL $
SEISMIC REPAIRS AT SECOND FLOOR
V1: Cross Ties 15,174
V2: Girder -to -Girder Connection 36,170
V3: HSS Dragstrut 80,630
TOTAL: 1317974
SEISMIC REPAIRS AT THIRD FLOOR
V 1: Cross Ties 137349
V2: Girder -to -Girder Connection 367170
V3: Tubesteel Dragstrut 807630
TOTAL: 1307149
SEISMIC REPAIRS AT ROOF
V1: Cross Ties 37109
V2: Girder -to -Girder Connection 377191
V3: HSS Dragstrut 807630
TOTAL: 1207931
OTHER ARCHITECTURAL UPGRADES
#A1: Replace Elevators
1,308,384
#A4: Replace HVAC
2,7231083
#A5: Replace Traffic Coatings
1271308
#A9: Front and Rear ADA Entrances
847285
#A11: Wayfinding Signage
217981
#Al2: Generator Replacement
2421968
#A13: Parking Garage Enclosure Wall
637809
#A14: Parking Garage Corrosion Remediation
107080
TOTAL: 415811899
ROOF
#A8: Replace Southeast Deck
46,900
TOTAL: 46,9001
ARCH: Mackenzie CONSTRUCTION FOCUS, INC. ESTIMATE DATE: Feb 28, 2017
DWG DATE: 1/24/2017 541-686-2031 REVISION #: 3
DESIGN LEVEL: Concept EUGENE, OREGON CONST. START: 3 QTR -20
LAKE OSWEGO CITY HALL 2i2
VOLUNTARY UPGRADES
Cost Summary
FIRST FLOOR
#A3: Replace Carpet 2707206
#A6: Remodel Public and Staff Areas 1,967,302
TOTAL: 272371508
SECOND FLOOR
#A3: Replace Carpet 3007724
#A7: Remodel Police Space 2,189,497
TOTAL: 2490,221
THIRD FLOOR
#A3: Replace Carpet 2717429
#A6: Remodel Public and Staff Areas 1,976,204
TOTAL: 2,247,633
VOLUNTARY UPGRADES TOTAL: 11,987,214
THESE GC MARKUPS ARE INCLUDED IN EACH LINE ITEM:
Inflation (3 years)
18.0%
Contingency:
130.0%
General Conditions:
8.5%
Profit & OH:
7.5%
Performance Bond:
1.0%
NOTES
Refer to the Project Narrative dated January 23, 2017 for more specific information
Wage rates: BOLI
EXCLUSIONS
Design fees, permit fees, system development fees, utility hookup charges, testing, BOLI fee.
Asbestos abatement, moving expenses, anti -graffiti coating, fireproofing.
Furniture relocation
Overexcavation, rock excavation, wet weather sitework.
ARCH: Mackenzie CONSTRUCTION FOCUS, INC. ESTIMATE DATE: Feb 28, 2017
DWG DATE: 1/24/2017 541-686-2031 REVISION #: 3
DESIGN LEVEL: Concept EUGENE, OREGON CONST. START: 3 QTR -20
LAKE OSWEGO CITY HALL
VOLUNTARY UPGRADES
Statement of Probable Cost
LOC I ITEM
I DESCRIPTION
QNTY I UNIT
$/UNIT
SEISMIC REPAIRS
AT SECOND FLOOR
Dragstrut nailer
D -fir 2x4
IV1: Cross Ties
strut to girder
MEP
Hardcost:
Strap connection
MSTC24 across beam/joist
93IEA
23.03
Wall replacement
allowance for replace
1ILS
1, 120.001
Gyperete
remove and repair
93IEA
56.001
Markups
Subtotal:
IV2: Girder -to -Girder Connection
Hardcost:
Connector
welding at exist'g connections
35IEA
352.68
MEP
allowance for modification
1ILS 1
224.00
Ceiling access
temp remove/replace grid
560ISF 1
13.44
Markups
Subtotal:
IV3: HSS Draqstrut
Shoring
temporary support
Demo beam
x_GLB dragstrut
Steel dragstrut
HSS 8x4x3/8"
Dragstrut nailer
D -fir 2x4
Connector
strut to girder
MEP
allowance for modification
Ceiling access
temp remove/replace grid
Markups
Subtotal:
Hardcost:
110 LF
39.201
110 LF
28.091
110 LF
184.971
110 LF
9.10
8IEA
415.231
1 I LS
896.00
880ISF
13.441
SEISMIC REPAIRS AT SECOND FLOOR TOTAL
SEISMIC REPAIRS AT THIRD FLOOR
IV1: Cross Ties I Hardcost:
Strap connection MSTC24 across beam/joist 83IEA 23.03
Wall replacement allowance for replace 1ILS 896.00
Gyperete remove and repair 83IEA 56.001
Markups
Subtotal:
IV2: Girder -to -Girder Connection I Hardcost:
Connector welding at exist'g connections 35IEA 352.68
MEP allowance for modification J. LS 224.00
Ceiling access temp remove/replace grid 560 SF 13.44
Markups
Subtotal:
1/6
TOTAL $
8,430
2,130
1,120
5,180
6,744
15,1741
20,094
12,344
224
7,526
16,075
36,170
44,795
4,312
3,090
20,347
1,001
3,322
896
11,827
35,836
80,630
131,974
7,416
1,900
896
4,620
5,9331
13,349
20,094
12,344
224
7,526
16,075
36,170
ARCH: Mackenzie CONSTRUCTION FOCUS, INC. ESTIMATE DATE: Feb 28, 2017
DWG DATE:1/24/2017 541-686-2031 REVISION #: 3
DESIGN LEVEL: Concept EUGENE, OREGON CONST. START: 3 QTR -20
LOC I ITEM
IV3: Tubesteel Dragstrut
Shoring
Demo beam
Steel dragstrut
Dragstrut nailer
Connector
MEP
Ceiling access
LAKE OSWEGO CITY HALL 2/6
VOLUNTARY UPGRADES
Statement of Probable Cost
DESCRIPTION I QNTY I UNIT I $/UNIT I TOTAL $
temporary support
x_GLB dragstrut
HSS 8x4x3/8"
D -fir 2x4
strut to girder
allowance for modification
temp remove/replace grid
Markups
Subtotal:
SEISMIC REPAIRS AT THIRD FLOOR HARDCOSTJ 130,149
SEISMIC REPAIRS AT ROOF
IV'I: Cross Ties
Strap connection MSTC24 across beam/joist
Markups
Subtotal:
IV2: Girder -to -Girder Connection
Connector welding at exist'g connections
MEP allowance for modification
Ceiling access temp remove/replace grid
Markups
Subtotal:
IV3: HSS Draqstrut
Shoring
Hardcost:
44,795
110 LF
39.20
4,312
110 LF
28.09
3,090
1101 LF
184.97
20,347
1101 LF
9.10
1,001
8 I EA
415.23
3,322
1 I LS
896.00
896
8801 SF
13.44
11,827
35,836
80,630
SEISMIC REPAIRS AT THIRD FLOOR HARDCOSTJ 130,149
SEISMIC REPAIRS AT ROOF
IV'I: Cross Ties
Strap connection MSTC24 across beam/joist
Markups
Subtotal:
IV2: Girder -to -Girder Connection
Connector welding at exist'g connections
MEP allowance for modification
Ceiling access temp remove/replace grid
Markups
Subtotal:
IV3: HSS Draqstrut
Shoring
temporary support
Demo beam
x_GLB dragstrut
Steel dragstrut
HSS 8x4x3/8"
Dragstrut nailer
D -fir 2x4
Connector
strut to girder
MEP
allowance for modification
Ceiling access
temp remove/replace grid
3,322
Markups
LS
Subtotal:
I Hardcost:
75 I EA 23.03
I Hardcost:
36 EA 352.68
1 LS 224.00
576 SF 13.44
1,727
1,727
1,3821
3,109
20,662
12,696
224
7,741
16,5301
37,191
110 I LF
110 1 LF
Hardcost: 1
39.20
28.09
44,795
4,312
3,090
110
LF
184.97
20,347
110
LF
9.10
1,001
8
EA
415.23
3,322
1
880
LS
896.001
896
SF 13.441
11,827
35,836
80,630
SEISMIC REPAIRS AT ROOF HARDCOSTJ 120,931
ARCH: Mackenzie CONSTRUCTION FOCUS, INC. ESTIMATE DATE: Feb 28, 2017
DWG DATE:1/24/2017 541-686-2031 REVISION #: 3
DESIGN LEVEL: Concept EUGENE, OREGON CONST. START: 3 QTR -20
LAKE OSWEGO CITY HALL
VOLUNTARY UPGRADES
Statement of Probable Cost
3/6
LOC
ITEM
I DESCRIPTION
QNTY
I UNIT
$/UNIT
TOTAL $
OTHER ARCHITECTURAL UPGRADES
Buildinq Gross Area
I
35,9171SF
3rd Floor Gross Area
i
10,655iSF
2nd Floor Gross Area
I
11,8051SF
1st Floor Gross Area
I
10,6071SF
Basement Floor Gross Area
I
2,8501SF
1#A1: Replace Elevators
I
Hardcost: 1
726,880
Demo elevator
x_cab/equip_2-stop
1I EA
16,800.001
16,800
Demo elevator
x_cab/equip -stop
2IEA
24,640.001
49,280
Elevator
_4
cab/equip_2-stop
1IEA
190,400.001
190,400
Elevator
cab/equip 4 -stop
2IEA
235,200.001
470,400
Markups
5811504+
Subtotal:
1,308,3841
I#A4: Replace HVAC
I
Hardcost: I
1,512,824
Roof
Demo HVAC
x_equip/ductwork/accessories
35,917 SF
1.24
44,537
Ceilings
remove & replace
35,917 SF
9.521
341,930
HVAC system -new
VRF/ERV/controls
35,917 SF
31.361
1,126,357
Markups
11210,2591
Subtotal:
2,723,083
I#A5: Replace Traffic Coatinqs
7,217 SF I
Hardcost:
70,727
Demo coating
x_traffic coating/prep deck
7,217 SF
1.961
14,145
Install coating
traffic coating/flashings
7,217 SF
7.84
56,581
Markups
56,581
Subtotal:
127,308
I#A9: Front and Rear ADA Entrances
I
Hardcost:
46,825
Demo storefront
288 SF
17.92
5,161
Automatic sliding doors
2IPR
13,440.00
26,880
Associated storefront
176 SF
84.001
14,784
Markups
37,4601
Subtotal:
84,285
1#A11: Wavfindinq Siqnaqe
I
Hardcost:
12,212
3rd FI
Room signage
10,655 SF
0.34
3,623
2nd FI
Room signage
11,805 SF
0.34
4,014
1st FI
Room signage
10,607 SF
0.34
3,606
Bsmt
Room signage
2,850 SF
0.341
969
Markups
9,769
Subtotal:
21,981
ARCH: Mackenzie CONSTRUCTION FOCUS, INC. ESTIMATE DATE: Feb 28, 2017
DWG DATE:1/24/2017 541-686-2031 REVISION #: 3
DESIGN LEVEL: Concept EUGENE, OREGON CONST. START: 3 QTR -20
LAKE OSWEGO CITY HALL
VOLUNTARY UPGRADES
Statement of Probable Cost
LOC I ITEM I DESCRIPTION
1#Al2: Generator Replacement
Demo generator
Misc electrical upgrades allowance
Generator, ATS & sound enclo:50KW
Concrete pad
Markups
Subtotal:
1#A13: Parkinq Garaqe Enclosure Wall
Wall prep remove plaster
Wall coating parge coat
Wall painting prime + 2 -top coats
Note: Parking deck coating is included in another section
Markups
Subtotal:
QNTY I UNIT
1I EA
1ILS
1I EA
1ILS
2,7041 SF
2,7041 SF
2,7041 SF
$/UNIT
Hardcost.-
8,960.00
ardcost:8,960.00
22, 400.00
100, 800.00
2,822.40
Hardcost:
1.01
10.08
2.02
4/6
TOTAL $
134,982
8,960
22,400
100,800
2,822
107,9861
242,968
35,449
2,731
27,256
5,462
28,3601
63,809
1#A14: Parking Garaqe Corrosion Remediation I Hardcost: 5,600
Corrosion remediation allowance 1ILS 5,600.001 5,600
Markups 4,480
Subtotal: 10,080
OTHER ARCHITECTURAL UPGRADES TOTAL 4,581,899
ROOF
1#A8: Replace Southeast Deck
Access and Demolition
Demo roofing
x_membrane
Demo conc
x_topping slab
Demo decking
x_plywood
Demo flashing
x_parapet cap/skirt/etc.
Remove railings
4511_1`
Demo insulation
x_batt ins
Repairs and New Construction
Roofing
single -ply, fully adhered
Insulation
polyiso/tapered
Cover board
densdeck
Decking
3/4" T&G plywood
Flashing
parapet cap/skirting/etc
490 SF I Hardcost: 26,056
490 SF
1.571
769
4901 SF
3.36
1,646
490 SF
1.881
921
4511_1`
4.95
223
45I1_1`
8.96
403
490ISF 1
0.491
240
490ISF 1
11.541
5,655
490 SF
5.72
2,803
4901 SF
2.47
1,210
4901 SF
3.13
1,534
4511_1`
26.88
1,210
ARCH: Mackenzie CONSTRUCTION FOCUS, INC. ESTIMATE DATE: Feb 28, 2017
DWG DATE:1/24/2017 541-686-2031 REVISION #: 3
DESIGN LEVEL: Concept EUGENE, OREGON CONST. START: 3 QTR -20
LOC ITEM
Railings
Roof drains
Slab
FIRST FLOOR
I#A3: Replace Carpet
Demo carpet
Demo gyperete
Flooring
Wall base
Floor topping
LAKE OSWEGO CITY HALL
VOLUNTARY UPGRADES
Statement of Probable Cost
DESCRIPTION QNTY I UNIT $/UNIT
steel tube railing -painted 4511_1 84.00
drain/overflow/piping :IEA 3,192.00
2 1/2" conc. topping slab 490 SF 5.04
Markups
Subtotal:
x_carpet/base
x_gyperete
carpet
4" rubber
gyperete
#A6: Remodel Public and Staff Areas
Demolition allowance
New construction allowance
Note: Carpet demo is included elsewhere
Note: HVAC replacement is included elsewhere
SECOND FLOOR
I#A3: Replace Carpet
Demo carpet
Demo gyperete
Flooring
Wall base
Floor topping
ARCH: Mackenzie
DWG DATE:1/24/2017
DESIGN LEVEL: Concept
x_carpet/base
x_gyperete
carpet
4" rubber
gyperete
Markups
Subtotal:
Markups
Subtotal:
Markups
Subtotal:
CONSTRUCTION FOCUS, INC.
541-686-2031
EUGENE,OREGON
ROOF TOTAL
10,607 SF I Hardcost:
10,607 SF
1.80
10,607 SF
2.69
10,607 SF
5.04
2,7581 LF
2.24
10,607 SF
4.04
10,607 SF I Hardcost:
10,607 SF 7.84
10,607 SF 95.20
FIRST FLOOR TOTAL
11,805 SF Hardcost: 1 167,069
21,249
31,755
59,497
6,875
47,692
133,655
300,724
ESTIMATE DATE: Feb 28, 2017
REVISION #: 3
CONST. START: 3 QTR -20
5/6
TOTAL $
3,780
3,192
2,470
20,844
46,900
46,900
150,115
19,093
28,533
53,459
6,178
42,852
120,092
270,206
1,092,945
83,159
1,009,786
874,356
1,967,302
2,237,508
11805 SF
1.80
11,805 SF
2.69
11,805SF
5.041
3,069
LF
2.24
11,805
SF
4.04
LAKE OSWEGO CITY HALL
VOLUNTARY UPGRADES
Statement of Probable Cost
LOC I ITEM DESCRIPTION
I#A7: Remodel Police Space
Demolition allowance
New construction allowance
Note: Carpet demo is included elsewhere
Note: HVAC replacement is included elsewhere
THIRD FLOOR
$/UNIT
I#A3: Replace Carpet
11,805 SF
Demo carpet
x_carpet/base
Demo gyperete
x_gyperete
Flooring
carpet
Wall base
4" rubber
Floor topping
gyperete
I#A6: Remodel Public and Staff Areas
Demolition allowance
New construction allowance
Note: Carpet demo is included elsewhere
Note: HVAC replacement is included elsewhere
6/6
QNTY UNIT
$/UNIT
TOTAL $
11,805 SF
Hardcost:
17216,387
11,8051 SF
7.84
92,551
11,805 SF
95.201
1,123,836
Markups 973,110
Subtotal: 2,189,497
SECOND FLOOR TOTAL 2,490,221
10,655 SF
I Hardcost:
150,794
10,655 SF
1.801
19,179
10,6551 SF
2.69
28,662
10,6551 SF
5.04
53,701
2,7701!_F
2.24
6,205
10,6551 SF
4.04
43,046
Markups
120,6351
Subtotal:
271,429
10,655 SF
I Hardcost: I
1,097,891
10,6551 SF
7.84
83,535
10,6551 SF
95.20
1,014,356
Markups 878,313
Subtotal: 1,976,204
THIRD FLOOR TOTAL 2,247,633
PROJECT TOTAL 1 11,987,214
NOTES
Refer to the Project Narrative dated January 23, 2017 for more specific information
Wage rates: BOLI
EXCLUSIONS
Design fees, permit fees, system development fees, utility hookup charges, testing, BOLI fee.
Asbestos abatement, moving expenses, anti -graffiti coating, fireproofing.
Overexcavation, rock excavation, wet weather sitework.
ARCH: Mackenzie CONSTRUCTION FOCUS, INC. ESTIMATE DATE: Feb 28, 2017
DWG DATE:1/24/2017 541-686-2031 REVISION #: 3
DESIGN LEVEL: Concept EUGENE, OREGON CONST. START: 3 QTR -20
Construction
_IFOCUS
Integrated Project Solutions
!-417yF-
LAKE OSWEGO CITY HALL
FULL SEISMIC RETROFIT
ED
STATEMENT OF PROBABLE COST
Prepared by:
Steve Gunn
President
Construction Focus, Inc.
CONSTRUCTION FOCUS, INC.
EUGENE,OREGON
February 23, 2017
Revision #2
Prepared for:
Mackenzie
Portland, OR
V: 541-686-2031 sgunn@constructionfocus.com
LAKE OSWEGO CITY HALL
FULL SEISMIC RETROFIT
Statement of Probable Cost
1/17
LOC
I ITEM
I DESCRIPTION
QNTY
UNIT
$/UNIT
TOTAL $ 1
1
SEISMIC REPAIRS AT BASEMENT
IS1: Shotcrete to Existinq Wall
3,554 SF
295,809
Wall prep
x_furring/insul/gypbd
3,554 SF
3.921
13,932
Perimeter Shotcrete
4"T w/ epxy dwls @ 16" ocew
2,190 SF
53.76
117,734
Core Shotcrete
4"T w/ epxy dwls @ 16" ocew
1,364 SF
53.76
73,329
Flr framing changes
shore/replace Igrs/mod flr
156 LF
319.20
49,795
MEP
allowance for modification
156 LF
28.00
4,368
Architectural work
Wall furring
stl furring/insul/gypbd
1,364 SF
14.001
19,096
Ceiling access
temp remove/replace grid
936 SF
13.44
12,580
Paint walls: conc
prime + 2 top coats
3,554 SF
1.40
4,976
IS4: Draqstrut to Parkinq Deck
30,239
Wall prep
x_paint & finishes
196 SF
1.68
329
Shotcrete dragstrut
12"x12"_w/reinf
196 LF
151.201
29,635
Paint walls: conc
prime + 2 top coats
196 SF
1.40
274
JB1: Column Strengthening at Grid 9 (3 ea)
24,619
Steel column strengthening
MC8x22.8
1,094.4 LB
6.161
6,742
Existing wall
demo & replace
336 SF
26.101
8,770
Floor structure: access
demo & replace
144 SF
39.20
5,645
MEP
allowance for modification
1ILS
1,232.00
1,232
Carpet repairs
remove/replace
120ISF
7.84
941
Ceiling access
temp remove/replace grid
96ISF
13.44
1,290
DB2: Braced Frame at Grid 9
30,112
Brace frame
diag. HSS 6x.5 w/gusset
2,604.5 LB
6.16
16,044
Architectural work
Existing wall
demo & replace
4.16 SF
26.101
10,858
Floor structure: access
demo & replace
32ISF
39.20
1,254
MEP
allowance for modification
J. LS
784.00
784
Paint steel
2- top coats
2,604 LB
0.45
1,172
B2: Beam Strenqtheninq at Grid 9 (1 ea)
14,040
Beam strengthening
add plates & angles
1,104.6I1 -B
6.16
6,804
MEP
allowance for modification
J. LS
784.00
784
Ceiling access
temp remove/replace grid
480 SF
13.44
6,451
�B5: Concrete Pilaster
10,316
Demo conc wall
as req'd to install pilaster
45IVLF
42.56
1,915
Shotcrete pilaster
16"x16"x15'H_w/reinf
45IVLF
128.801
5,796
Architectural work
Wall furring
stl furring/insul/gypbd
45ISF
14.001
630
Ceiling access
temp remove/replace grid
48ISF
13.44
645
Paint walls: conc
prime + 2 top coats
950ISF
1.40
1,329
ARCH: Mackenzie CONSTRUCTION FOCUS, INC. ESTIMATE DATE: Feb 23, 2017
DWG DATE:1/24/2017 541-686-2031 REVISION #: 2
DESIGN LEVEL: Concept EUGENE, OREGON CONST. START: 3 QTR -20
LAKE OSWEGO CITY HALL 2/17
FULL SEISMIC RETROFIT
Statement of Probable Cost
LOC
ITEM
I DESCRIPTION
QNTY I UNIT
$/UNIT
TOTAL $
�B6: Enlarqed Concrete Pilaster
I
11,522
Interior
Shotcrete pilaster -enlarge
6"T cvr_15'H w/ epxy dwls
40ISF
69.44
2,791
Exterior
Shotcrete pilaster -enlarge
6"T cvr_15'H w/ epxy dwls
80ISF
69.44
5,583
Architectural work
Wall furring
stl furring/insul/gypbd
121ISF
14.001
1,688
Ceiling access
temp remove/replace grid
96ISF
13.44
1,290
Paint walls: conc
prime + 2 top coats
121ISF
1.40
169
NF1: Pad Footings Below Cores
I
83,534
Atftgs
Sawcut/demo slab
x_5" conc
702 SF
12.32
8,649
Excavation
72.8 BCY
235.201
17,123
Backfill
65.5 TN
89.601
5,871
Pad ftg (4 ea) -enlarge
4'x4'> 6'x6'x20"
80ILF
174.72
13,978
Pad ftg (7 ea) -enlarge
5'x5'> 6'x6'x20"
154 LF
174.72
26,907
Conc slab patch
5"T_reinf conc
702 SF
15.68
11,007
F1: Pad Footinq Below Concrete Columns
I
8,568
Atftgs
Sawcut/demo slab
x_5" conc
72ISF
12.32
887
Excavation
7.51 BCY
235.20
1,757
Backfill
6.7 TN
89.601
602
Pad ftg (1 ea) -enlarge
5'x5'> 7'x7'x20"
24ILF
174.72
4,193
Conc slab patch
5"T_reinf conc
72ISF
15.68
1,129
NF1: Foundations at Street Level
I
79,924
Shoring
temp support
80ILF
39.201
3,136
Atftgs
Sawcut/demo slab
x_5" conc
720ISF
12.32
8,870
Demo ftgs
x_pad ftg 4'x4'
6I EA
179.20
1,075
Excavation
106.7 BCY
235.20
25,089
Backfill
96.0 TN
89.601
8,602
Cont ftg
f/pl/fin5' W x 3' D
7211-1
291.20
20,966
Conc slab patch
5"T_reinf conc
720ISF
15.68
11,290
Parking striping
repair at fdn work
1ILS
896.00
896
NF1: Foundations Below Basement Walls
I
49,265
Atftgs
Sawcut/demo slab
x_5" conc
414 SF
12.32
5,100
Excavation
42.91 BCY
235.20
10,099
Backfill
38.6 TN
89.601
3,462
Pad ftg (3 ea) -enlarge
5'x5'x12" > 6'x36'x18"
84I1 -F
174.72
14,676
Pad ftg (2 ea) -enlarge
5'x5'x12" > 6'x21'x18"
54I1 -F
174.72
9,435
Conc slab patch
5"T_reinf conc
414ISF
15.68
6,492
ARCH: Mackenzie CONSTRUCTION FOCUS, INC. ESTIMATE DATE: Feb 23, 2017
DWG DATE:1/24/2017 541-686-2031 REVISION #: 2
DESIGN LEVEL: Concept EUGENE, OREGON CONST. START: 3 QTR -20
LAKE OSWEGO CITY HALL 3/17
FULL SEISMIC RETROFIT
Statement of Probable Cost
LOC
ITEM
I DESCRIPTION
QNTY
I UNIT
$/UNIT
TOTAL $
IFl: Foundations Below Elevated
Garaqe Walls
37,127
Atftgs Sawcut/demo slab
x_5" conc
312 SF
12.32
3,844
Excavation
32.41 BCY
235.20
7,611
Backfill
29.1ITN
89.601
2,609
Cont ftg (4 ea) -enlarge
2'w x 1'd > 4'w x 1.5'd
104 LF
174.72
18,171
Conc slab patch
5"T reinf conc
312 SF
15.68
4,892
Foundations Below Brace Frame
I
15,666
Shoring
temp support
80I1-1`
39.201
3,136
At ftgs Sawcut/demo slab
x_5" conc
1681 SF
12.32
2,070
Excavation
15.61 BCY
235.20
3,660
Backfill
14.0ITN
89.601
1,254
Cont ftg-new
f/pl/fin_4' W x 1.5'D
20ILF
145.60
2,912
Conc slab patch
5" T_reinf conc
1681 SF
15.68
2,634
SEISMIC REPAIRS AT BASEMENT
TOTAL
690,740
SEISMIC REPAIRS AT FIRST FLOOR
IS1: Shotcrete to Existinq Wall
1,364 SF I
149,785
Wall prep
x_furring/insul/gypbd
1,364 SF
3.921
5,347
Core Shotcrete
4"T w/ epxy dwls @ 16" ocew
1,364 SF
53.76
73,329
Flr framing changes
shore/replace Igrs/mod flr
96I1 -F
319.20
30,643
MEP
allowance for modification
96I1 -F
28.00
2,688
Architectural work
Wall furring
stl furring/insul/gypbd
1,364 SF
14.001
19,096
Carpet repairs
remove/replace
1,152 SF
7.84
9,032
Ceiling access
temp remove/replace grid
576 SF
13.44
7,741
Paint walls: conc
prime + 2 top coats
:1,364 SF
1.40
1,910
131: Braced Frame at Grid 1
I
33,325
Shoring
temp support
80I1 -F
39.201
3,136
Brace frame
diag. HSS 6x.5 w/gusset
2,672.0 LB
6.16
16,460
Existing wall
demo & replace
280 SF
26.101
7,308
Floor structure: access
demo & replace
32ISF
39.20
1,254
MEP
allowance for modification
1ILS
784.00
784
Carpet repairs
remove/replace
200 SF
7.84
1,568
Ceiling access
temp remove/replace grid
J.20 SF
13.44
1,613
Paint steel
2- top coats
2,672 LB
0.45
1,202
ARCH: Mackenzie CONSTRUCTION FOCUS, INC. ESTIMATE DATE: Feb 23, 2017
DWG DATE:1/24/2017 541-686-2031 REVISION #: 2
DESIGN LEVEL: Concept EUGENE, OREGON CONST. START: 3 QTR -20
LAKE OSWEGO CITY HALL 4/17
FULL SEISMIC RETROFIT
Statement of Probable Cost
LOC
ITEM
I DESCRIPTION
QNTY
I UNIT
Demo steel
$/UNIT
4 EA
TOTAL $
IBl: Column Strenqtheninq at Grids G & 1 (2 ea)
Demo steel
x_column
16,375
Steel column strengthening
MC8x22.8
729.6 LB
6.161
4,494
Existing wall
demo & replace
224 SF
26.101
5,846
Floor structure: access
demo & replace
96ISF
39.20
3,763
MEP
allowance for modification
1ILS
784.00
784
Carpet repairs
remove/replace
80ISF
7.84
627
Ceiling access
temp remove/replace grid
64ISF
13.44
860
B1: Column Strenqtheninq at Grids A3 & A5
I
MEP
25,462
Steel column strengthening
MC8x22.8
1,459.2 LB
6.161
8,989
Existing wall
demo & replace
448 SF
26.101
11,693
Floor structure: access
demo & replace
64ISF
39.20
2,509
MEP
allowance for modification
1ILS
784.00
784
Carpet repairs
remove/replace
80ISF
7.84
627
Ceiling access
temp remove/replace grid
64ISF
13.44
860
� B2: Braced Frame at Grid 9
30,189
Brace frame
diag. HSS 6x.5 w/gusset
2,672.0 LB
6.16
16,460
Existing wall
demo & replace
280 SF
26.101
7,308
Floor structure: access
demo & replace
32ISF
39.20
1,254
MEP
allowance for modification
J. LS
784.00
784
Carpet repairs
remove/replace
200 SF
7.84
1,568
Ceiling access
temp remove/replace grid
J.20 SF
13.44
1,613
Paint steel
2- top coats
2,672 LB
0.45
1,202
B4: Braced Frame at Grid L 182,427
Demo planters
x_concrete
J. LS
1,344.00
1,344
Demo steel
x_floor beam
4 EA
2,116.03
8,464
Demo steel
x_column
6 EA
2,116.03
12,696
Shoring
temp support
80 LF
39.20
3,136
Brace frame
diag. HSS 6x.5 w/gusset
5,833.8 LB
6.16
35,936
Steel floor beam
W 14x82
4,920.0 LB
6.16
30,307
Steel column
W10x68
6,528.0 LB
6.16
40,212
Existing wall
demo & replace
840 SF
26.10
21,924
Floor structure: access
demo & replace
240 SF
39.20
9,408
MEP
allowance for modification
1 LS
1,680.00
1,680
Carpet repairs
remove/replace
600 SF
7.84
4,704
Ceiling access
temp remove/replace grid
360 SF
13.44
4,838
Paint steel
2- top coats
17,282 LB
0.45
7,777
ARCH: Mackenzie CONSTRUCTION FOCUS, INC. ESTIMATE DATE: Feb 23, 2017
DWG DATE:1/24/2017 541-686-2031 REVISION #: 2
DESIGN LEVEL: Concept EUGENE, OREGON CONST. START: 3 QTR -20
LAKE OSWEGO CITY HALL 5/17
FULL SEISMIC RETROFIT
Statement of Probable Cost
LOC
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
QNTY
I UNIT
$/UNIT
I
TOTAL $
I134: Braced Frame at Grid A
69,106
Shoring
temp support
80I1 -F
39.201
3,136
Brace frame
diag. HSS 6x.5 w/gusset
3,057.8 LB
6.16
18,836
Steel floor beam
W14x82
2,624.0 LB
6.161
16,164
Steel column
W10x68
1,088.0 LB
6.161
6,702
Existing wall
demo & replace
420 SF
26.101
10,962
Floor structure: access
demo & replace
120 SF
39.20
4,704
MEP
allowance for modification
1ILS
784.00
784
Carpet repairs
remove/replace
300 SF
7.84
2,352
Ceiling access
temp remove/replace grid
180 SF
13.44
2,419
Paint steel
2- top coats
6,77011-1
0.45
3,046
NF1: Foundation Expansion
I
57,943
Shoring
temp support
80I1-1`
39.201
3,136
At ftgs Sawcut/demo slab
x_5" conc
7201 SF
12.32
8,870
Demo ftgs
x_pad ftg_4'x4'
4I EA
179.20
717
Excavation
106.7IBCY
67.201
7,168
Backfill
96.0ITN
50.401
4,838
Pad ftg
f/pl/fin_5' W x 3'D
72ILF
291.201
20,966
Conc slab patch
5"T_reinf conc
720SF
15.68
11,290
Planter demo
285 SF
3.36
958
IV2: Girder -to -Girder Connection
I
30,478
Connector
welding at exist'g connections
35IEA
649.35
22,727
MEP
allowance for modification
1ILS
224.00
224
Ceiling access
temp remove/replace grid
560ISF
13.44
7,526
IV1: Cross Ties
I
8,430
Strap connection
MSTC24 across beam/joist
93IEA
23.03
2,130
Wall replacement
allowance for replace
1ILS
1, 120.001
1,120
Gyperete
remove and repair
93IEA
56.001
5,180
SEISMIC REPAIRS AT FIRST FLOOR TOTAL 603,521
ARCH: Mackenzie CONSTRUCTION FOCUS, INC. ESTIMATE DATE: Feb 23, 2017
DWG DATE:1/24/2017 541-686-2031 REVISION #: 2
DESIGN LEVEL: Concept EUGENE, OREGON CONST. START: 3 QTR -20
LAKE OSWEGO CITY HALL 6/17
FULL SEISMIC RETROFIT
Statement of Probable Cost
LOC
I ITEM
I DESCRIPTION
QNTY
I UNIT
$/UNIT
I
TOTAL $
SEISMIC REPAIRS AT SECOND FLOOR
IS1: Shotcrete to Existinq Wall
1,094 SF I
144,569
Wall prep
x_furring/insul/gypbd
:1,094 SF
3.921
4,288
Core Shotcrete
4"T w/ epxy dwls @ 16" ocew
1,364 SF
53.76
73,329
Flr framing changes
shore/replace Igrs/mod flr
96I1 -F
319.20
30,643
MEP
allowance for modification
96I1-1`
28.00
2,688
Architectural work
Wall furring
stl furring/insul/gypbd
1,094 SF
14.001
15,316
Carpet repairs
remove/replace
1,152 SF
7.84
9,032
Ceiling access
temp remove/replace grid
576 SF
13.44
7,741
Paint walls: conc
prime + 2 top coats
1,094 SF
1.40
1,532
B1: Braced Frame at Grid 1
I
33,325
Shoring
temp support
80I1 -F
39.201
3,136
Brace frame
diag. HSS 6x.5 w/gusset
2,672.0 LB
6.16
16,460
Existing wall
demo & replace
280 SF
26.101
7,308
Floor structure: access
demo & replace
32ISF
39.20
1,254
MEP
allowance for modification
J. LS
784.00
784
Carpet repairs
remove/replace
200 SF
7.84
1,568
Ceiling access
temp remove/replace grid
J.20 SF
13.44
1,613
Paint steel
2- top coats
2,672 LB
0.45
1,202
JB1: Column Strenqtheninq at Grids G & 1 (2 ea)
I
I
16,375
Steel column strengthening
MC8x22.8
729.6 LB
6.161
4,494
Existing wall
demo & replace
224 SF
26.101
5,846
Floor structure: access
demo & replace
96ISF
39.20
3,763
MEP
allowance for modification
1ILS
784.00
784
Carpet repairs
remove/replace
80ISF
7.84
627
Ceiling access
temp remove/replace grid
64ISF
13.44
860
B2: Braced Frame at Grid 9
I
33,325
Shoring
temp support
80I1-1`
39.201
3,136
Brace frame
diag. HSS 6x.5 w/gusset
2,672.0 LB
6.16
16,460
Existing wall
demo & replace
280 SF
26.101
7,308
Floor structure: access
demo & replace
32ISF
39.20
1,254
MEP
allowance for modification
J. LS
784.00
784
Carpet repairs
remove/replace
200 SF
7.84
1,568
Ceiling access
temp remove/replace grid
J.20 SF
13.44
1,613
Paint steel
2- top coats
2,672 LB
0.45
1,202
ARCH: Mackenzie CONSTRUCTION FOCUS, INC. ESTIMATE DATE: Feb 23, 2017
DWG DATE:1/24/2017 541-686-2031 REVISION #: 2
DESIGN LEVEL: Concept EUGENE, OREGON CONST. START: 3 QTR -20
LAKE OSWEGO CITY HALL 7/17
FULL SEISMIC RETROFIT
Statement of Probable Cost
LOC
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
QNTY
I UNIT
$/UNIT
TOTAL $
B3: Braced Frame at Grid L
181,083
Demo steel
x_floor beam
4I EA
2,116.03
8,464
Demo steel
x_column
6I EA
2,116.03
12,696
Shoring
temp support
80I1 -F
39.201
3,136
Brace frame
diag. HSS 6x.5 w/gusset
5,833.8 LB
6.16
35,936
Steel floor beam
W 14x82
4,920.01 LB
6.16
30,307
Steel column
W10x68
6,528.0 LB
6.161
40,212
Existing wall
demo & replace
840 SF
26.101
21,924
Floor structure: access
demo & replace
240 SF
39.20
9,408
MEP
allowance for modification
1ILS
1,680.00
1,680
Carpet repairs
remove/replace
600 SF
7.84
4,704
Ceiling access
temp remove/replace grid
360 SF
13.44
4,838
Paint steel
2- top coats
17,282 LB
0.45
7,777
�B4: Braced Frame at Grid A
69,106
Shoring
temp support
80I1-1`
39.201
3,136
Brace frame
diag. HSS 6x.5 w/gusset
3,057.8 LB
6.16
18,836
Steel floor beam
W 14x82
2,624.0 LB
6.16
16,164
Steel column
W10x68
1,088.0 LB
6.16
6,702
Existing wall
demo & replace
420 SF
26.10
10,962
Floor structure: access
demo & replace
120 SF
39.20
4,704
MEP
allowance for modification
1 LS
784.00
784
Carpet repairs
remove/replace
300 SF
7.84
2,352
Ceiling access
temp remove/replace grid
180 SF
13.44
2,419
Paint steel
2- top coats
6,770 LB
0.45
3,046
B4: Column Strenqtheninq at
Grids A3 & A5
25,462
Steel column strengthening
MC8x22.8
1,459.2 LB
6.161
8,989
Existing wall
demo & replace
448 SF
26.101
11,693
Floor structure: access
demo & replace
64ISF
39.20
2,509
MEP
allowance for modification
1ILS
784.00
784
Carpet repairs
remove/replace
80ISF
7.84
627
Ceiling access
temp remove/replace grid
64ISF
13.44
860
IV1: Cross Ties
1
8,430
Strap connection
MSTC24 across beam/joist
93IEA
23.03
2,130
Gyperete
remove and repair
93IEA
56.00
5,180
Wall replacement
allowance for replace
1ILS
1,120.00
1,120
IV2: Girder -to -Girder Connection
1
30,478
Connector
welding at exist'g connections
35IEA
649.35
22,727
MEP
allowance for modification
1ILS
224.00
224
Ceiling access
temp remove/replace grid
560ISF
13.44
7,526
ARCH: Mackenzie CONSTRUCTION FOCUS, INC. ESTIMATE DATE: Feb 23, 2017
DWG DATE:1/24/2017 541-686-2031 REVISION #: 2
DESIGN LEVEL: Concept EUGENE, OREGON CONST. START: 3 QTR -20
LOC
Core
SEISMIC REPAIRS AT SECOND FLOOR TOTAL 588,926
SEISMIC REPAIRS AT THIRD FLOOR
LAKE OSWEGO CITY HALL
Brace frame
diag. HSS 4x.25 w/gusset
8/17
1,094 SF I
FULL SEISMIC RETROFIT
144,569
Wall prep
x_furring/insul/gypbd
:1,094 SF
Statement of Probable Cost
4,288
Shotcrete
47 w/ epxy dwls @ 16" ocew
ITEM
I DESCRIPTION I QNTY I UNIT I
$/UNIT I
TOTAL $
IV3: HSS Draqstrut
96ILF
319.201
30,643
46,772
Shoring
temporary support
1J.0 LF
39.20
4,312
Demo beam
x_GLB dragstrut
1J.0 LF
28.09
3,090
Steel dragstrut
HSS 8x4x3/8"
110 LF
184.971
20,347
Dragstrut nailer
D -fir 2x4
110LF
9.10
1,001
Connector
strut to girder
8IEA
662.46
5,300
MEP
allowance for modification
1ILS
896.00
896
Ceiling access
temp remove/replace grid
880ISF
13.44
11,827
SEISMIC REPAIRS AT SECOND FLOOR TOTAL 588,926
SEISMIC REPAIRS AT THIRD FLOOR
temp support
Brace frame
diag. HSS 4x.25 w/gusset
ISI: Shotcrete to Existinq Wall
1,094 SF I
I
144,569
Wall prep
x_furring/insul/gypbd
:1,094 SF
3.921
4,288
Shotcrete
47 w/ epxy dwls @ 16" ocew
1,364 SF
53.76
73,329
Flr framing changes
shore/replace Igrs/mod flr
96ILF
319.201
30,643
MEP
allowance for modification
96ILF
28.00
2,688
Architectural work
Wall furring
stl furring/insul/gypbd
1,094 SF
14.001
15,316
Carpet repairs
remove/replace
1,152 SF
7.84
9,032
Ceiling access
temp remove/replace grid
576 SF
13.44
7,741
Paint walls: conc
prime + 2 top coats
1,094 SF
1.40
1,532
1131: Braced Frame at Grid 1 (2 ea)
Shoring
temp support
Brace frame
diag. HSS 4x.25 w/gusset
Steel columns
diag. HSS 6x.5
Existing wall
demo & replace
Floor structure: access
demo & replace
MEP
allowance for modification
Carpet repairs
remove/replace
Ceiling access
temp remove/replace grid
Paint steel
2- top coats
B1: Beam Strenqtheninq at Grid 1 (3 eal
Beam strengthening add plates & angles
MEP allowance for modification
Ceiling access temp remove/replace grid
I
80I1-1`
39.20
2,937.0 LB
6.16
1,127.7 LB
6.16
448 SF
26.10
32ISF
39.20
1ILS
784.00
400 SF
7.84
240 SF
13.44
4,065 LB
0.45
3,313.8 I LB
1ILS
480 I SF
6.161
784.00
13.44
50,096
3,136
18,092
6,947
11,693
1,254
784
3,136
3,226
1,829
27,648
20,413
784
6,451
ARCH: Mackenzie CONSTRUCTION FOCUS, INC. ESTIMATE DATE: Feb 23, 2017
DWG DATE:1/24/2017 541-686-2031 REVISION #: 2
DESIGN LEVEL: Concept EUGENE, OREGON CONST. START: 3 QTR -20
LAKE OSWEGO CITY HALL 9/17
FULL SEISMIC RETROFIT
Statement of Probable Cost
LOC
ITEM
I DESCRIPTION
QNTY
I UNIT
Demo steel
$/UNIT
6 EA
TOTAL $
IBl: Column Strenqtheninq at Grids G & 1 (2 ea)
Shoring
temp support
16,375
Steel column strengthening
MC8x22.8
729.6 LB
6.161
4,494
Existing wall
demo & replace
224 SF
26.101
5,846
Floor structure: access
demo & replace
96ISF
39.20
3,763
MEP
allowance for modification
1ILS
784.00
784
Carpet repairs
remove/replace
80ISF
7.84
627
Ceiling access
temp remove/replace grid
64ISF
13.44
860
B1: Column Strenqtheninq at Grids A3 & A5
I
Carpet repairs
25,462
Steel column strengthening
MC8x22.8
1,459.2 LB
6.161
8,989
Existing wall
demo & replace
448 SF
26.101
11,693
Floor structure: access
demo & replace
64ISF
39.20
2,509
MEP
allowance for modification
1ILS
784.00
784
Carpet repairs
remove/replace
80ISF
7.84
627
Ceiling access
temp remove/replace grid
64ISF
13.44
860
B2: Braced Frame at Grid 9
I
33,325
Shoring
temp support
80I1-1`
39.201
3,136
Brace frame
diag. HSS 6x.5 w/gusset
2,672.0 LB
6.16
16,460
Existing wall
demo & replace
280 SF
26.101
7,308
Floor structure: access
demo & replace
32ISF
39.20
1,254
MEP
allowance for modification
J. LS
784.00
784
Carpet repairs
remove/replace
200 SF
7.84
1,568
Ceiling access
temp remove/replace grid
120 SF
13.44
1,613
Paint steel
2- top coats
2,672 LB
0.45
1,202
B3: Braced Frame at Grid L 181,083
Demo steel
x_floor beam
4 EA
2,116.03
8,464
Demo steel
x_column
6 EA
2,116.03
12,696
Shoring
temp support
80 LF
39.20
3,136
Brace frame
diag. HSS 6x.5 w/gusset
5,833.8 LB
6.16
35,936
Steel floor beam
W 14x82
4,920.0 LB
6.16
30,307
Steel column
W10x68
6,528.0 LB
6.16
40,212
Existing wall
demo & replace
840 SF
26.10
21,924
Floor structure: access
demo & replace
240 SF
39.20
9,408
MEP
allowance for modification
1 LS
1,680.00
1,680
Carpet repairs
remove/replace
600 SF
7.84
4,704
Ceiling access
temp remove/replace grid
360 SF
13.44
4,838
Paint steel
2- top coats
17,282 LB
0.45
7,777
ARCH: Mackenzie CONSTRUCTION FOCUS, INC. ESTIMATE DATE: Feb 23, 2017
DWG DATE:1/24/2017 541-686-2031 REVISION #: 2
DESIGN LEVEL: Concept EUGENE, OREGON CONST. START: 3 QTR -20
LOC
SEISMIC REPAIRS AT THIRD FLOOR HARDCOSTJ 629,194
ARCH: Mackenzie CONSTRUCTION FOCUS, INC. ESTIMATE DATE: Feb 23, 2017
DWG DATE:1/24/2017 541-686-2031 REVISION #: 2
DESIGN LEVEL: Concept EUGENE, OREGON CONST. START: 3 QTR -20
LAKE OSWEGO CITY HALL
10/17
FULL SEISMIC RETROFIT
Statement of Probable Cost
ITEM
I DESCRIPTION I
QNTY
I UNIT I
$/UNIT
I
TOTAL $
134: Braced Frame at Grid
A
65,970
Brace frame
diag. HSS 6x.5 w/gusset
3,057.8 LB
6.16
18,836
Steel floor beam
W14x82
2,624.0 LB
6.161
16,164
Steel column
W10x68
1,088.0 LB
6.161
6,702
Existing wall
demo & replace
420 SF
26.101
10,962
Floor structure: access
demo & replace
120 SF
39.20
4,704
MEP
allowance for modification
J. LS
784.00
784
Carpet repairs
remove/replace
300 SF
7.84
2,352
Ceiling access
temp remove/replace grid
180 SF
13.44
2,419
Paint steel
2- top coats
6,77011-1
0.45
3,046
IV1: Cross Ties
I
7,416
Strap connection
MSTC24 across beam/joist
831 EA
23.03
1,900
Gyperete
remove and repair
831 EA
56.00
4,620
Wall replacement
allowance for replace
1ILS
896.00
896
IV2: Girder -to -Girder Connection
30,478
Connector
welding at exist'g connections
35IEA
649.35
22,727
MEP
allowance for modification
J. LS
224.00
224
Ceiling access
temp remove/replace grid
560 SF
13.44
7,526
IV3: Tubesteel Dracistrut
I
46,772
Shoring
temporary support
110 LF
39.20
4,312
Demo beam
x_GLB dragstrut
J.10 LF
28.09
3,090
Steel dragstrut
HSS 8x4x3/8"
J.10 LF
184.971
20,347
Dragstrut nailer
D -fir 2x4
110 LF
9.10
1,001
Connector
strut to girder
8IEA
662.46
5,300
MEP
allowance for modification
1ILS
896.00
896
Ceiling access
temp remove/replace grid
880ISF
13.44
11,827
SEISMIC REPAIRS AT THIRD FLOOR HARDCOSTJ 629,194
ARCH: Mackenzie CONSTRUCTION FOCUS, INC. ESTIMATE DATE: Feb 23, 2017
DWG DATE:1/24/2017 541-686-2031 REVISION #: 2
DESIGN LEVEL: Concept EUGENE, OREGON CONST. START: 3 QTR -20
LAKE OSWEGO CITY HALL 11/17
FULL SEISMIC RETROFIT
Statement of Probable Cost
LOC I ITEM I DESCRIPTION I QNTY I UNIT I $/UNIT I TOTAL $
SEISMIC REPAIRS AT ROOF
IV1: Cross Ties
1,727
Strap connection
MSTC24 across beam/joist
75IEA
23.03
1,727
IV2: Girder -to -Girder Connection
31,342
Connector
welding at exist'g connections
36IEA
649.35
23,377
MEP
allowance for modification
J. LS
224.00
224
Ceiling access
temp remove/replace grid
576 SF
13.44
7,741
IV3: HSS Dragstrut
1
46,772
Shoring
temporary support
110 LF
39.20
4,312
Demo beam
x_GLB dragstrut
110 LF
28.09
3,090
Steel dragstrut
HSS 8x4x3/8"
110 LF
184.971
20,347
Dragstrut nailer
D -fir 2x4
110 LF
9.10
1,001
Connector
strut to girder
8I EA
662.46
5,300
MEP
allowance for modification
1ILS
896.00
896
Ceiling access
temp remove/replace grid
880ISF
13.44
11,827
SEISMIC REPAIRS AT ROOF
HARDCOSTJ
79,842
III ENVELOPE
1#A1: Exterior Wall Renovation at EFIS Claddinq
14,782 SF
2,012,516
Access and Demolition
Permits
sidewalk & street closures
1ILS
15,247.68
15,248
Traffic control
flaggers & fencing
1ILS
16,800.00
16,800
Erosion control
alowance
1ILS
8,400.001
8,400
Demolition chute
1ILS
3,360.001
3,360
Interior Dust barrier
framing/sheathing'
5,760ILF
10.081
58,061
Landscape & planter repairs
allowance
1ILS
78,400.00
78,400
1,448,771 Scaffolding & tenting
14,782 SF
11.20
165,558
Salvage and protect all wall mounted
items
14,782 SF
0.23
3,400
Misc paving repairs and patching
1ILS
12,880.001
12,880
Demo cladding
x_EIFS
14,782 SF
7.84
115,891
Demo wall sheathing
x_gyp sheathing
14,782 SF
2.46
36,364
South/West Demo framing
x_steel framing
6,412 SF
4.05
25,969
North/East Demo framing
x_steel framing
3,341 SF
4.05
13,531
Demo insulation
x_batt insul
14,782 SF
1.71
25,277
Demo wall board
x_gypsum board
14,782 SF
2.46
36,364
Repairs and New Construction
Cladding
metal panels w/rainscreen
14,782 SF
53.76
794,680
Flashing
allowance
:14,782 SF
1.121
16,556
Sealants
allowance
:14,782 SF
0.901
13,304
Wall sheathing
Dens-Glas Gold
14,782 SF
3.03
44,789
Weather barrier
liquid -applied
:14,782 SF
2.471
36,512
Flexible flashinq
Permabarrier 40 mil
2,847 SF
6.16
17,540
ARCH: Mackenzie CONSTRUCTION FOCUS, INC. ESTIMATE DATE: Feb 23, 2017
DWG DATE:1/24/2017 541-686-2031 REVISION #: 2
DESIGN LEVEL: Concept EUGENE, OREGON CONST. START: 3 QTR -20
LAKE OSWEGO CITY HALL 12/17
FULL SEISMIC RETROFIT
Statement of Probable Cost
LOC
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
QNTY
UNIT
$/UNIT
TOTAL $
South/West
Wall framing
steel stud framing
6,412 SF
8.52
54,630
South/West
Structural steel repairs -allowance
641 SF
56.001
35,896
North/East
Wall framing
steel stud framing
3,341 SF
8.52
28,465
North/East
Structural steel repairs -allowance
668 SF
56.001
37,408
Insulation @ walls
batt insulation
:14,782 SF
1.12
16,556
Interior
Gypsum wall bd
:14,782 SF
5.04
74,501
Interior
Gypsum wall bd repairs
:1,478 SF
8.961
13,245
Interior
Vapor barrier
polyethelene
14,782 SF
0.571
8,426
Interior
Wall base
4" rubber
480 LF
2.24
1,075
Interior
Ceiling access
temp remove/replace grid
5,760 SF
13.44
77,414
Interior
Paint walls
prime + 2 top coats
16,260 SF
1.40
22,764
MEP
allowance for repairs
14,782 SF
6.72
99,335
Final cleaning
5,760 SF
0.681
3,917
I#A2: Replace North Entry Canopv
94,449
Demo canopy
glass/mtl firm
660 SF
17.92
11,827
Structural repairs
1ILS
1, 680.001
1,680
Canopy
glass/mtl firm
660 SF
100.801
66,528
Cladding repairs
304 SF
45.94
13,966
Flashings
1ILS
448.001
448
1#2: Exterior Wall Renovation at Tile Cladding
2,205 SF
233,629
Access and Demolition
Scaffolding
2,205 SF
11.20
24,696
Salvage and protect all wall
mounted items
1 LS
672.00
672
Demo cladding
x_tile cladding
2,205 SF
6.28
13,847
Demo wall sheathing
x_gyp sheathing
2,205 SF
2.76
6,086
South/West
Demo framing
x_steel framing
975 SF
4.54
4,427
North/East
Demo framing
x_steel framing
252 SF
4.54
1,144
Demo insulation
x_batt insul
2,205 SF
1.92
4,234
Demo wall board
x_gypsum board
2,205 SF
2.76
6,086
Repairs and New Construction
Cladding
tile, match existing
2,205 SF
31.36
69,149
Flashing
allowance
2,205 SF
1.12
2,470
Wall sheathing
Dens-Glas Gold
2,205 SF
3.03
6,681
Weather barrier
liquid -applied
2,205 SF
2.47
5,446
Flexible flashing
Permabarrier_40 mil
2,847 SF
6.16
17,540
South/West
Wall framing
steel stud framing
975 SF
8.52
8,307
South/West
Structural steel repairs -allowance
98 SF
56.00
5,488
North/East
Wall framing
steel stud framing
252 SF
8.52
2,147
North/East
Structural steel repairs -allowance
50 SF
56.00
2,800
Insulation @ walls
batt insulation
2,205 SF
1.12
2,470
Gypsum wall bd
2,205 SF
5.04
11,113
Gypsum wall bd repairs
221 SF
8.96
1,976
Ceiling access
temp remove/replace grid
1,320 SF
13.44
17,741
Paint walls
prime + 2 top coats
2,426 SF
1.40
3,396
Electrical
allowance for re -wiring
2,205 SF
6.72
14,818
Final cleaning
1,320 SF
0.68
898
ARCH: Mackenzie CONSTRUCTION FOCUS, INC. ESTIMATE DATE: Feb 23, 2017
DWG DATE:1/24/2017 541-686-2031 REVISION #: 2
DESIGN LEVEL: Concept EUGENE, OREGON CONST. START: 3 QTR -20
LAKE OSWEGO CITY HALL
FULL SEISMIC RETROFIT
Statement of Probable Cost
LOC I ITEM
I DESCRIPTION
QNTY UNIT $/UNIT
1#5: Window and Door Replacement
59062 SF
35,9171SF
Access and Demolition
3rd Floor Gross Area 1
Demo windows
x_windows/storefront/glass blk
5,062 SF
15.68
Demo doors
x_stl door/frm
4I EA
296.68
Repairs and New Construction
1 st Floor Gross Area 1
10,6071SF
Replace doors
HMfrm/HM-dr_3x7
4IEA
2,352.00
Storefront
Kawneer 451 T alum
4,879ISF
84.00
Curtain wall
Kawneer 1600 alum
183ISF
100.80
Windows Metal connector
steel angle
910LF
42.07
Flashing
sill & head sm flashing
1,820 LF
12.32
Paint door
2 -top coats
4IEA
123.20
13/17
TOTAL $
579,448
79,372
1,187
9,408
409,836
18,446
38,284
22,422
493
ENVELOPE TOTAL 2,920,042
OTHER ARCHITECTURAL UPGRADES
Buildinq Gross Area I
35,9171SF
3rd Floor Gross Area 1
10,6551SF
2nd Floor Gross Area 1
11,8051SF
1 st Floor Gross Area 1
10,6071SF
Basement Floor Gross Area 1
2,8501SF
1#A1: Replace Elevators
I 1
726,880
Demo elevator
x_cab/equip_2-stop
1I EA
16,800.001
16,800
Demo elevator
x_cab/equip -stop
2IEA
24,640.001
49,280
Elevator
_4
cab/equip_2-stop
1IEA
190,400.001
190,400
Elevator
cab/equip 4 -stop
2IEA
235,200.001
470,400
1#3: Planter Wall Renovation
1,847 SF
1
74,083
Demo cladding
x_tile cladding
1,847 SF
6.281
11,599
Water barrier
liquid -applied
1,847 SF
2.471
4,562
Cladding
tile, match existing
:1,847 SF
31.361
57,922
1#A4: Replace HVAC
1
1,512,824
Roof Demo HVAC
x_equip/ductwork/accessories
35,917 SF
1.241
44,537
Ceilings
remove & replace
35,917 SF
9.521
341,930
HVAC system -new
VRF/ERV/controls
35,917 SF
31.361
1,126,357
1#A5: Replace Traffic Coatings
7,217 SF
1 1
70,727
Demo coating
x_traffic coating/prep deck
7,217 SF
1.961
14,145
Install coating
traffic coating/flashings
7,217 SF
7.84
56,581
ARCH: Mackenzie CONSTRUCTION FOCUS, INC. ESTIMATE DATE: Feb 23, 2017
DWG DATE:1/24/2017 541-686-2031 REVISION #: 2
DESIGN LEVEL: Concept EUGENE, OREGON CONST. START: 3 QTR -20
LAKE OSWEGO CITY HALL
I 1
14/17
FULL SEISMIC RETROFIT
10,655 SF
0.34
3,623
Statement of Probable Cost
11,805 SF
0.34
4,014
LOC I ITEM I DESCRIPTION I QNTY I UNIT I
$/UNIT I
TOTAL $
I#A9: Front and Rear ADA Entrances
Bsmt Room signage
2,850 SF
46,825
Demo storefront
288ISF
17.92
5,161
Automatic sliding doors
2IPR
13,440.00
26,880
Associated storefront
176ISF
84.001
14,784
1#A11: Wavfindinq Siqnaqe
I 1
12,212
3rd FI Room signage
10,655 SF
0.34
3,623
2nd FI Room signage
11,805 SF
0.34
4,014
1st FI Room signage
10,607 SF
0.34
3,606
Bsmt Room signage
2,850 SF
0.34 1
969
1#Al2: Generator Replacement
I
134,982
Demo generator
J. EA
8,960.001
8,960
Misc electrical upgrades allowance
J. LS
22,400.001
22,400
Generator, ATS & sound enclo.50KW
1IEA
100,800.001
100,800
Concrete pad
1ILS
2,822.401
2,822
1#A13: Parkinq Garaqe Enclosure Wall
I
35,449
Wall prep remove plaster
2,704 SF
1.01
2,731
Wall coating parge coat
2,704 SF
10.081
27,256
Wall painting prime + 2 -top coats
2,704 SF
2.02
5,462
Note: Parking deck coating is included in another section
1#A14: Parking Garaqe Corrosion Remediation
I
5,600
Corrosion remediation allowance
J. LS
5,600.001
5,600
1#7: Interior Renovations
5,062 SF
I
118,066
Remove window treatment ext. windows
5,062 SF
0.93
4,708
Demo trim/casing x_window trim
2,620 LF
3.04
7,965
Window treatment shades
5,062 SF
12.56
63,579
Window trim match existing
2,620 LF
12.32
32,278
Finish trim 3 cts clear sealer on hd wd
2,620 LF
3.64
9,537
OTHER ARCHITECTURAL UPGRADES TOTAL 2,737,649
ARCH: Mackenzie CONSTRUCTION FOCUS, INC. ESTIMATE DATE: Feb 23, 2017
DWG DATE:1/24/2017 541-686-2031 REVISION #: 2
DESIGN LEVEL: Concept EUGENE, OREGON CONST. START: 3 QTR -20
LAKE OSWEGO CITY HALL
FULL SEISMIC RETROFIT
Statement of Probable Cost
LOC I ITEM I DESCRIPTION I QNTY I UNIT I $/UNIT
ROOF
15/17
TOTAL $
1#6: Roofinq Replacement
13,364 SF
I
589,777
Access and Demolition
Demo roofing
x_membrane
13,364 SF
1.571
20,981
Demo decking
x_T&G plywood
13,364 SF
2.351
31,405
Demo flashing
x_parapet cap/skirt/etc.
630 LF
4.95
3,119
Demo framing
x_roof framing
3,341 SF
16.80
56,129
Demo insulation
x_batt ins
13,364 SF
0.49
6,548
Removal of rooftop equip
crane time
1ILS
13,440.00
13,440
Repairs and New Construction
Roofing
BUR
13,364 SF
17.921
239,483
Insulation: rigid
polyiso/tapered
13,364 SF
5.721
76,442
Insulation: batt
R-25
13,364 SF
1.291
17,240
Cover board
densdeck
13,3641 SF
2.47
33,009
Decking
3/4" T&G plywood
13,364 SF
3.13
41,829
Flashing
parapet cap/skirting/etc
630 LF
26.88
16,934
Roof drains
drain/overflow/piping
7I EA
3,192.00
22,344
Pavers
concrete pavers
5161 SF
17.92
9,247
Terrace surface
pea gravel
_
830 SF 1.961
1,627
1#6 Parapet Extension
480 LF
117,137
Access for framing
roof structure demo
4801 LF
12.37
5,938
Tube steel supports
HSS 3x3x1/4
1,960 LB
4.71
9,233
Cladding
metal panels w/rainscreen
1,440 SF
53.76
77,414
Parapet Wall sheathing
Dens-Glas Gold
2,880 SF
3.03
8,726
Parapet Weather barrier
liquid -applied
1,440 SF
2.471
3,557
Parapet Wall framing
steel stud framing
1,440 SF
8.52
12,269,
#A8: Replace Southeast Deck
490 SF
29,182
Access and Demolition
_
Demo roofing
x_membrane
490 SF
1.57
769
Demo conc
x_topping slab
490 SF
3.36
1,646
Demo decking
x_plywood
490 SF
1.88
921
Demo flashing
x_parapet cap/skirt/etc.
45 LF
4.95
223
Remove railings
45 LF
8.96
403
Demo insulation
x_batt ins
490 SF
0.49
240
Repairs and New Construction
Roofing
single -ply, fully adhered
490 SF
17.92
8,781
Insulation
polyiso/tapered
490 SF
5.72
2,803
Cover board
densdeck
490 SF
2.47
1,210
Decking
3/4" T&G plywood
490 SF
3.13
1,534
Flashing
parapet cap/skirting/etc
45 LF
26.88
1,210
Railings
steel tube railing -painted
45 LF
84.00
3,780
Roof drains
drain/overflow/piping
1 EA
3,192.00
3,192
Topping slab
2.5" tk w/rebar
490 SF
5.04
2,470
ROOF TOTALI
736,096
ARCH: Mackenzie CONSTRUCTION FOCUS, INC. ESTIMATE DATE: Feb 23, 2017
DWG DATE:1/24/2017 541-686-2031 REVISION #: 2
DESIGN LEVEL: Concept EUGENE, OREGON CONST. START: 3 QTR -20
LOC I ITEM
FIRST FLOOR
I#A3: Replace Carpet
Demo carpet
Demo gyperete
Flooring
Wall base
Floor topping
LAKE OSWEGO CITY HALL 16/17
FULL SEISMIC RETROFIT
Statement of Probable Cost
DESCRIPTION I QNTY I UNIT I $/UNIT I TOTAL $
x_carpet/base
x_gyperete
carpet
4" rubber
gyperete
I#A6: Remodel Public and Staff Areas
Demolition allowance
New construction allowance
Note: Carpet demo is included elsewhere
Note: HVAC replacement is included elsewhere
SECOND FLOOR
10,607 SF
10,655 SF
150,115
10,607 SF
1.80
19,093
10,607 SF
2.69
28,533
10,607 SF
5.041
53,459
2,758 LF
2.241
6,178
10,607 SF
4.04
42,852
10,607 SF I
I
1,092,945
10,607 SF
7.841
83,159
10,607 SF
95.20
1,009,786
FIRST FLOOR
TOTAL
1,243,060
1#A3: Replace Carpet
10,655 SF
11,805 SF
I
167,069
Demo carpet
x_carpet/base
11,805 SF
1.80
21,249
Demo gyperete
x_gyperete
11,805 SF
2.69
31,755
Flooring
carpet
11,805 SF
5.04
59,497
Wall base
4" rubber
3,069 LF
2.24
6,875
Floor topping
gyperete
11,805 TF --7
4.04
47,692
I#A7: Remodel Police Space
11,805 SF I
I
1,216,387
Demolition
allowance
11,805 SF
7.841
92,551
New construction
allowance
1:1,805 SF
95.20
1,123,836
THIRD FLOOR
1#A3: Replace Carpet
Demo carpet
Demo gyperete
Flooring
Wall base
Floor topping
ARCH: Mackenzie
DWG DATE:1/24/2017
DESIGN LEVEL: Concept
SECOND FLOOR TOTAL 1,383,456
CONSTRUCTION FOCUS, INC. ESTIMATE DATE: Feb 23, 2017
541-686-2031 REVISION #: 2
EUGENE, OREGON CONST. START: 3 QTR -20
10,655 SF
I
150,794
x_carpet/base
10,655 SF
1.801
19,179
x_gyperete
10,6551 SF
2.69
28,662
carpet
10,6551 SF
5.04
53,701
4" rubber
2,770ILF
2.24
6,205
gyperete
10,6551 SF
4.04
43,046
CONSTRUCTION FOCUS, INC. ESTIMATE DATE: Feb 23, 2017
541-686-2031 REVISION #: 2
EUGENE, OREGON CONST. START: 3 QTR -20
LAKE OSWEGO CITY HALL
FULL SEISMIC RETROFIT
Statement of Probable Cost
LOC I ITEM I DESCRIPTION QNTY UNIT
I#A6: Remodel Public and Staff Areas 10,655 SF
Demolition allowance 10,6551 SF
New construction allowance 10,655 SF
Note: Carpet demo is included elsewhere
Note: HVAC replacement is included elsewhere
17/17
$/UNIT TOTAL $
1,097,891
7.84 83,535
95.20 1,014,356
THIRD FLOOR TOTAL 1,248,685
HARDCOST TOTAL 1 12,861,210
The above HARDCOST TOTAL does not include typical general contractor markups.
Those plus contingencies are listed below as part of a Low -High Range.
Variables include fluctuations in market conditions, material selections, and design considerations.
The Cost Estimate Range will be consolidated as we move closer to the actual Bid Date.
LOW RANGE
HIGH RANGE
Markups:
@ 12%: 1,543,345
Inflation
@ 18%: 2,315,018
@ 25%: 3,601,139
Contingency
@ 35%: 5,311,680
1,530,484
Gen Conditions @ 8.5%:
1,741,472
1,465,213
Profit & Overhead @ 7.5%:
1,667,203
152,411
Performance Bond:
172,527
8,292,593
Markup Subtotals:
11,207,901
21,153,803
BASE BID TOTAL
NOTES
Refer to the Project Narrative dated January 23, 2017 for more specific information
Wage rates: BOLI
EXCLUSIONS
Design fees, permit fees, system development fees, utility hookup charges, testing, BOLI fee.
Hazardous materials abatement, moving expenses, anti -graffiti coating, fireproofing.
Furniture relocation
Overexcavation, rock excavation, wet weather sitework.
24, 069,111
ARCH: Mackenzie CONSTRUCTION FOCUS, INC. ESTIMATE DATE: Feb 23, 2017
DWG DATE:1/24/2017 541-686-2031 REVISION #: 2
DESIGN LEVEL: Concept EUGENE, OREGON CONST. START: 3 QTR -20
Construction
_IFOCUS
Integrated Project Solutions
!-41rvF-
LAKE OSWEGO CITY HALL
NEW CONSTRUCTION
February 23, 2017
Revision #2
STATEMENT OF PROBABLE COST
Prepared by:
Steve Gunn
President
Construction Focus, Inc.
CONSTRUCTION FOCUS, INC.
EUGENE,OREGON
Prepared for:
Mackenzie
Portland, OR
V: 541-686-2031 sgunn@constructionfocus.com
LAKE OSWEGO CITY HALL
NEW CONSTRUCTION
Statement of Probable Cost
LOC ITEM I DESCRIPTION
LAKE OSWEGO CITY HALL
Building Gross Area
3rd Floor Gross Area
2nd Floor Gross Area
1 st Floor Gross Area
Basement Gross Area
Roof Gross Area
Main Roof Gross Area
3rd Floor Roof Gross Area
Parking Structure Gross Area
1st Floor Parking Gross Area
Basement Parking Gross Area
3rd Floor Room Count
2nd Floor Room Count
1 st Floor Room Count
Basement Room Count
Site Gross Area
Exterior Envelope
Building Perimeter
QNTY I UNIT I $/UNIT
49,460 1 SF
11,600jSF
13,213 1SF
11,4151SF
13,232 1 SF
13,3641SF
12,018jSF
1,3461SF
16,341 SF
8,108jSF
8,2331SF
20JEA
20JEA
20JEA
3IEA
13,6301sF
16,9871SF
475 1LF
13,232 I SF
13,232 SF
BASEMENT
13,232 SF
2.25
13,232 SF
Basement Gross Area
13,232 SF
Earthwork at Building
3IEA
11,235.001
Excavation
5.46
Bsmt
Aggregate base
crushed rock
1,605.001
Backfill
17,120.00
1 I LS 1
l Concrete
12,8321SF 1
0-171
Slab on grade
5" tk w/rebar
Elevator pits
slab & walls
Footings
pad and continuous ftgs
Core
CIP conc walls
12"T reinf
Basement
CIP column
16"x16"x15'H_w/reinf
Steel
Interior
Exit stair
stringers/tread/landing
Tower crane
linsulation & Waterproofinq
Elev Pit
Waterproofing
Doors, Frames, and Hardware
Doors
HMfrm/HM-dr_3x7
Floor Coverings
Flooring
sealed conc
Wall base
4" rubber
Parking coatings
striping
QNTY I UNIT I $/UNIT
49,460 1 SF
11,600jSF
13,213 1SF
11,4151SF
13,232 1 SF
13,3641SF
12,018jSF
1,3461SF
16,341 SF
8,108jSF
8,2331SF
20JEA
20JEA
20JEA
3IEA
13,6301sF
16,9871SF
475 1LF
13,232 I SF
13,232 SF
2.04
13,232 SF
2.25
13,232 SF
1.61
13,232 SF
11.24
3IEA
11,235.001
13,232 SF
5.46
1,350 SF
48.15
:15 EA
1,605.001
1 SET
17,120.00
1 I LS 1
150, 870.00
1/10
TOTAL $
78,069
26,993
29,772
21,304
343,757
148,728
33,705
72,247
65,003
24,075
167,990
17,120
150,870
ARCH: Mackenzie CONSTRUCTION FOCUS, INC. ESTIMATE DATE: Feb 23, 2017
DWG DATE:1/24/2017 541-686-2031 REVISION #: 2
DESIGN LEVEL: Concept EUGENE, OREGON CONST. START: 3 QTR -20
5,460
6801SF 1 8.0LL_
5,460
6,741
3IEA I
2,247.001
6,741
3,260
4001SF
2.141
856
1041LF 1
2.141
223
12,8321SF 1
0-171
2,181
ARCH: Mackenzie CONSTRUCTION FOCUS, INC. ESTIMATE DATE: Feb 23, 2017
DWG DATE:1/24/2017 541-686-2031 REVISION #: 2
DESIGN LEVEL: Concept EUGENE, OREGON CONST. START: 3 QTR -20
LAKE OSWEGO CITY HALL 2/10
NEW CONSTRUCTION
Statement of Probable Cost
LOC
I ITEM
I DESCRIPTION
I QNTY I UNIT I
$/UNIT I
TOTAL $
(Wallboard and cover
14,460
Gypsum bd: wall
5/8" type: X LVL 4
3,000 SF
4.82
14,460
IPaintinq
'
4,654
Traffic coatings
13,232 SF
0.11
1,456
Painting: wall
prime/2 top ct_on gyp bd
3,000 SF
0.97 (
2,910
Painting: doors
1 ct primer/2 cts finish
3IEA
96.30
289
(Light Gaqe Framinq
1
8,835
Partition walls
stl stds
1,500 SF
5.89
8,835
(Vertical Transport
1
278,200
Elevator
cab/equip_2-stop
J. EA
64,200.00(
64,200
Elevator
cab/equip 4 -stop
2IEA
107,000.00 (
214,000
IFire Sprinklers
1
49,620
Fire sprinklers
13,232ISF
3.751
49,620
IPlumbinq
1
30,816
Plumbing fixtures and piping
6IEA
5,136.00 (
30,816
HVAC
1
200
HVAC system
exhaust
400ISF
0.50
200
Electrical
1
56,633
Lighting
13,232ISF
4.281
56,633
BASEMENT TOTAL
1,048,695
PARKING STRUCTURE
Deck
Gross Area
I 8,233 SF I
Pkg
I Earthwork
1
I
48,575
Pkg
Excavation
8,233 SF
2.04
16,795
Pkg
Aggregate base
crushed rock
8,233 SF
2.25 (
18,524
Pkg
Backfill
8,233 SF
1.61 (
13,255
Pkg
(Concrete
,
569,685
Slab on grade
5" tk w/rebar
8,233 SF
10.17
83,730
Pad ftg
15I EA
1,177.00
17,655
Cont ftg
4'w x 1.5'd
2601 LF
117.70
30,602
Parking deck
hollow core conc
8,108 SF
22.47 (
182,187
Topping slab
3.5" tk w/rebar
8,108 SF
5.57
45,162
CIP conc walls
12"T reinf
2,704 SF
48.15 (
130,198
Parge coating
single coat
2,704 SF
6.96 (
18,820
Garage
CIP conc beam
12"x12"_w/reinf
196 LF
144.45 (
28,312
CIP column
16"x16"x15'H_w/reinf
15IEA
1,605.00 (
24,075
Stairs
stl w/ conc treads/Inding
152ISF
58.85
8,945
Pkg
IFinishes
,
6,793
Traffic coatings
8,233 SF
0.11
906
Painting: walls
5,408 SF
0.97 (
5,246
Parking signage
allowance
1ILS
642.00(
642
ARCH: Mackenzie CONSTRUCTION FOCUS, INC. ESTIMATE DATE: Feb 23, 2017
DWG DATE:1/24/2017 541-686-2031 REVISION #: 2
DESIGN LEVEL: Concept EUGENE, OREGON CONST. START: 3 QTR -20
LAKE OSWEGO CITY HALL 3/10
NEW CONSTRUCTION
Statement of Probable Cost
LOC I ITEM I DESCRIPTION I QNTY I UNIT I $/UNIT I TOTAL $
Pkg IMEP 66,111
Fire sprinklers 8,233 SF 3.751 30,874
Electrical power & lighting 8,233 SF 4.28 35,237
PARKING STRUCTURE TOTALI 691,164
ARCH: Mackenzie CONSTRUCTION FOCUS, INC. ESTIMATE DATE: Feb 23, 2017
DWG DATE:1/24/2017 541-686-2031 REVISION #: 2
DESIGN LEVEL: Concept EUGENE, OREGON CONST. START: 3 QTR -20
FIRST FLOOR
First
Floor Gross Area
I 11,415ISF I
(Concrete
1
1
151,295
Pad ftg
2IEA
1, 605.00(
3,210
Topping slab
3.5" tk w/rebar
11,415 SF
5.57
63,582
Core
CIP conc walls
12"T reinf
1,755 SF
48.15
84,503
(Columns, Beams, and Braced Frame
1
351,805
1st Fir
Steel structure
col/beam/joists/decking
11,415 SF
27.82
317,565
Interior
Exit stair
stringers/tread/landing
2ISET
17,120.00 (
34,240
(Finish Carpentry
1
35,284
Finish carpentry
allowance
11,415ISF
1.61
18,378
Casework
base/uppers/ctr
40I1-1`
422.651
16,906
Ilnsulation & Waterproofing
1
42,781
Insulation: wall
acoustic
24,733 SF
0.971
23,991
Planters
Waterproofing
2,340 SF
8.031
18,790
Doors, Frames, and Hardware
1
56,710
Doors
HMfrm/HM-dr_3x7
20IEA
2,247.00 (
44,940
Automatic door operators
2IEA
4,066.00
8,132
Sally Port
Overhead coiling door
1I EA
3,638.00
3,638
(Glass & Glazing
1
I
9,878
Interior
Relites & sidelites
hm w/ safety glazing
228ISF
42.80
9,771
Mirrors
2x3 framed
4IEA
26.75
107
I Floor Coverings
1
I
82,718
Flooring
carpet/sv/cer-tile
11,415 SF
6.691
76,366
Wall base
4" rubber
2,968 LF
2.14
6,351
I Ceilings
1
I
85,807
Ceiling
act w/ grid
10,274ISF
7.49
76,949
Ceiling
gyp bd w/ framing
1,142 SF
7.76
8,858
(Wallboard and cover
1
I
142,960
Gypsum bd: wall
5/8" type: X LVL 4
27,200 SF
4.82
131,104
Janitor
Wall cover
FRP
32ISF
6.691
214
Wall cover
ceramic thin set
544 SF
21.40
11,642
I Painting
1
I
29,417
Painting: wall
prime/2 top ct_on gyp bd
27,200 SF
0.971
26,384
Painting: ceiling
prime/2 top ct_on gyp bd
1,142 SF
0.971
1,107
Painting: doors
1 ct primer/2 cts finish
20IEA
96.30
1,926
ARCH: Mackenzie CONSTRUCTION FOCUS, INC. ESTIMATE DATE: Feb 23, 2017
DWG DATE:1/24/2017 541-686-2031 REVISION #: 2
DESIGN LEVEL: Concept EUGENE, OREGON CONST. START: 3 QTR -20
LAKE OSWEGO CITY HALL 4/10
NEW CONSTRUCTION
Statement of Probable Cost
LOC
I ITEM
I DESCRIPTION
I QNTY
I UNIT I
$/UNIT I
TOTAL $
(Light Gaqe Framinq
85,558
Partition walls
stl stds
13,000 SF
5.89
76,570
Soffit walls
stl stds
1,2001 SF
7.49
8,988
(Specialties and Equipment
1
92,568
Boards
marker/white/tack
_to EA
856.001
8,560
Signage
acrylic
20IEA
58.851
1,177
Records
mobile storage
1ILS
64,200.001
64,200
Toilet accessories
50IEA
133.75
6,688
Toilet compartments
7IEA
1,177.001
8,239
Appliances
OFC(
3IEA
236.191
709
FEC
8IEA
374.501
2,996
IFire Sprinklers
1
42,806
Fire sprinklers
11,415 SF
3.75
42,806
IPlumbinq
1
1
77,040
Plumbing fixtures and piping
15 EA
5,136.001
77,040
I HVAC
1
293,137
HVAC system
VRF/ERV/controls
.11,415 SF
25.68
293,137
I Electrical
1
366,536
Power and gear
11,415 SF
9.63
109,926
Lighting
11,415 SF
10.171
116,091
Devices & connections
11,415 SF
5.351
61,070
Low voltage
11,415 SF
6.96
79,448
FIRST FLOOR TOTAL
1,946,300
SECOND FLOOR
Second
Floor Gross Area
I 13,213 SF I
I Co ncrete
1
1
158,100
Topping slab
3.5" tk w/rebar
13,213 SF
5.57
73,596
Core CIP conc walls
12"T reinf
1,755 SF
48.151
84,503
(Columns, Beams, and Braced Frame
1
1
401,826
Steel structure
col/beam/joists/decking
13,213 SF
27.821
367,586
Interior Exit stair
stringers/tread/landing
2ISET
17,120.001
34,240
(Finish Carpentry
1
1
38,179
Finish carpentry
allowance
13,213ISF
1.61
21,273
Casework
base/uppers/ctr
40I1 -F
422.651
16,906
Ilnsulation
1
1
27,769
Insulation: wall
acoustic
28,628 SF
0.971
27,769
(Glass & Glazinq
1
11,417
Interior Relites & sidelites
hm w/ safety glazing
264 SF
42.80
11,310
Mirrors
2x3 framed
4IEA
26.75
107
Doors, Frames, and Hardware
1
44,940
Doors
HMfrm/HM-dr 3x7
20IEA
2,247.001
44,940
ARCH: Mackenzie CONSTRUCTION FOCUS, INC. ESTIMATE DATE: Feb 23, 2017
DWG DATE:1/24/2017 541-686-2031 REVISION #: 2
DESIGN LEVEL: Concept EUGENE, OREGON CONST. START: 3 QTR -20
LAKE OSWEGO CITY HALL 5/10
NEW CONSTRUCTION
Statement of Probable Cost
LOC
I ITEM
I DESCRIPTION
I QNTY
I UNIT
I
$/UNIT I
TOTAL $
Floor Coverinqs
95,747
Flooring
carpet/sv/cer-tile
13,213 SF
6.691
88,395
Wall base
4" rubber
3,435 LF
2.14
7,352
ICeilings
1
99,322
Ceiling
act w/ grid
11,892 SF
7.49
89,069
Ceiling
gyp bd w/ framing
1,321ISF
7.76
10,253
(Wallboard and cover
1
142,960
Gypsum bd: wall
5/8" type: X LVL 4
27,200ISF
4.82
131,104
Janitor Wall cover
FRP
32ISF
6.691
214
Wall cover
ceramic thin set
544 SF
21.40
11,642
IPaintinq
1
29,592
Painting: wall
prime/2 top ct_on gyp bd
27,200 SF
0.971
26,384
Painting: ceiling
prime/2 top ct_on gyp bd
1,321ISF
0.971
1,282
Painting: doors
1 ct primer/2 cts finish
20IEA
96.30
1,926
ILight Gaqe Framinq
1
85,558
Partition walls
stl stds
13,000 SF
5.89
76,570
Soffit walls
stl stds
1,2001 SF
7.49
8,988
ISDecialties and Equipment
1
28,368
Boards
marker/white/tack
101 EA
856.00
8,560
Signage
acrylic
20IEA
58.851
1,177
Toilet accessories
501 EA
133.75
6,688
Toilet compartments
7I EA
1,177.00
8,239
Appliances
OFC(
3IEA
236.191
709
FEC
8I EA
374.50
2,996
IFire Sprinklers
49,549
Fire sprinklers
13,213ISF
3.751
49,549
IPlumbinq
77,040
Plumbing fixtures and piping
15IEA
5,136.00 (
77,040
I HVAC
339,310
HVAC system
VRF/ERV/controls
13,213ISF
25.68
339,310
I Electrical
424,269
Power and gear
13,213ISF
9.63
127,241
Lighting
13,213 SF
10.171
134,376
Devices & connections
13,213SF
5.35
70,690
Low voltage
13,213 SF
6.96
91,962
SECOND FLOOR TOTAL
2,053,945
THIRD FLOOR
Third
Floor Gross Area
I 11,600ISF I
I Concrete
1
1
149,115
Topping slab
3.5" tk w/rebar
1:1,600 SF
5.571
64,612
Core CIP conc walls
12"T reinf
1,755 SF
48.15
84,503
ARCH: Mackenzie CONSTRUCTION FOCUS, INC. ESTIMATE DATE: Feb 23, 2017
DWG DATE:1/24/2017 541-686-2031 REVISION #: 2
DESIGN LEVEL: Concept EUGENE, OREGON CONST. START: 3 QTR -20
LAKE OSWEGO CITY HALL 6/10
NEW CONSTRUCTION
Statement of Probable Cost
LOC
I ITEM
I DESCRIPTION
QNTY
I UNIT
$/UNIT
TOTAL $
3rd FI lColumns, Beams, and Braced Frame
356,952
Steel structure
col/beam/joists/decking
11,600ISF
27.821
322,712
Interior Exit stair
stringers/tread/landing
2ISET
17,120.001
34,240
Finish Carpentry
I
35,582
Finish carpentry
allowance
11,600ISF
1.61
18,676
Casework
base/uppers/ctr
40I1 -F
422.651
16,906
l insulation
I
24,379
Insulation: wall
acoustic
25,133 SF
0.971
24,379
lGlass & Glazinq
I
10,037
Interior Relites & sidelites
hm w/ safety glazing
232 SF
42.80
9,930
Mirrors
2x3 framed
4IEA
26.751
107
Doors, Frames, and Hardware
I
44,940
Doors
HMfrm/HM-dr_3x7
20IEA
2,247.001
44,940
Floor Coverings
I
84,058
Flooring
carpet/sv/cer-tile
11,600 SF
6.691
77,604
Wall base
4" rubber
3,016 LF
2.14
6,454
Ceilings
I
87,197
Ceiling
act w/ grid
10,440 SF
7.49
78,196
Ceiling
gyp bd w/ framing
1,160ISF
7.76
9,002
lWallboard and cover
I
142,960
Gypsum bd: wall
5/8" type: X LVL 4
27,200ISF
4.82
131,104
.janitor Wall cover
FRP
32ISF
6.691
214
Wall cover
ceramic thin set
544 SF
21.40
11,642
IPaintinq
,
29,435
Painting: wall
prime/2 top ct_on gyp bd
27,200 SF
0.971
26,384
Painting: ceiling
prime/2 top ct_on gyp bd
1,160ISF
0.971
1,125
Painting: doors
1 ct primer/2 cts finish
20IEA
96.30
1,926
Light Gaqe Framinq
I
85,558
Partition walls
stl stds
13,000 SF
5.89
76,570
Soffit walls
stl stds
1,2001 SF
7.49
8,988
Specialties and Equipment
,
28,368
Boards
marker/white/tack
10IEA
856.001
8,560
Signage
acrylic
20IEA
58.851
1,177
Toilet accessories
50IEA
133.75
6,688
Toilet compartments
7IEA
1,177.001
8,239
Appliances
OFCI
3IEA
236.191
709
FEC
8IEA
374.501
2,996
Fire Sprinklers
I
43,500
Fire sprinklers
11,600ISF
3.75
43,500
IPlumbinq
I
77,040
Plumbing fixtures and piping
15IEA
5,136.001
77,040
HVAC
I
297,888
HVAC system
VRF/ERV/controls
11,600ISF
25.68
297,888
ARCH: Mackenzie
CONSTRUCTION FOCUS, INC.
ESTIMATE DATE:
Feb 23, 2017
DWG DATE:1/24/2017
541-686-2031
REVISION #: 2
DESIGN LEVEL: Concept
EUGENE, OREGON
CONST. START: 3 QTR -20
LAKE OSWEGO CITY HALL 7/10
NEW CONSTRUCTION
Statement of Probable Cost
LOC ITEM
DESCRIPTION QNTY I UNIT
$/UNIT
TOTAL $
Electrical
Roof Gross Area
372,476
Power and gear
11,600 SF
9.63
111,708
Lighting
11,600 SF
10.171
117,972
Devices & connections
11,600 SF
5.35
62,060
Low voltage
11,600ISF
6.96
80,736
THIRD FLOOR TOTAL 1,869,486
ROOF
Roof Gross Area
13,364 ASF I
I Roofina
1
380,232
Roof Slab at HVAC units
1,500 SF
7.49
11,235
Roofing
BUR
12,874 SF
17.121
220,403
Insulation
polyiso/tapered
12,874 SF
5.461
70,292
Cover board
densdeck
12,8741 SF
2.36
30,383
Flashing
parapet cap/skirting/etc
630 LF
25.68
16,178
Roof drains
drain/overflow/piping
7IEA
3,049.501
21,347
Pavers
concrete pavers
5161 SF
17.12
8,834
Terrace surface
pea gravel
830 SF
1.881
1,560
Roof ISteel
batt insulation
1
1
343,188
Steel structure
col/beam/joists/decking
13,364 SF
25.681
343,188
Southeast Deck
sill & head sm flashing
490 SF
11.771
22,399
Roofing
BUR
490 SF
17.121
8,389
Insulation
polyiso/tapered
490 SF
5.461
2,675
Cover board
densdeck
490 SF
2.36
1,156
Flashing
parapet cap/skirting/etc
45I1_1`
25.68
1,156
Railings
steel tube railing -painted
45I1_1`
80.251
3,611
Roof drains
drain/overflow/piping
1IEA
3,049.501
3,050
Topping slab
2.5" tk w/rebar
490ISF
4.82
2,362
ROOF TOTAL 745,818
ENVELOPE
Envelope Gross Area
16,987 SF
Exterior Walls
2,030,807
Scaffolding & tenting
.16,987 SF
10.70
181,761
Cladding
metal panels w/rainscreen
16,987 SF
51.36
872,452
Flashing
allowance
.16,987 SF
1.071
18,176
Sealants
allowance
.16,987 SF
0.861
14,609
Wall sheathing
Dens-Glas Gold
16,987 SF
2.89
49,092
Weather barrier
liquid -applied
16,987 SF
2.36
40,089
Exterior Flexible flashing
Permabarrier40 mil
2,847 LF
5.89
16,769
Wall framing
steel stud framing
:16,987 SF
8.14
138,274
Insulation
batt insulation
:16,987 SF
1.071
18,176
Insulation -continuous
1" polyiso
:16,987 SF
1.82
30,916
Flashings
sill & head sm flashing
:1,820 LF
11.771
21,421
Storefront
Kawneer 451 T alum
4,879 SF
80.251
391,540
ARCH: Mackenzie CONSTRUCTION FOCUS, INC. ESTIMATE DATE: Feb 23, 2017
DWG DATE:1/24/2017 541-686-2031 REVISION #: 2
DESIGN LEVEL: Concept EUGENE, OREGON CONST. START: 3 QTR -20
LAKE OSWEGO CITY HALL 8/10
NEW CONSTRUCTION
Statement of Probable Cost
LOC
ITEM
DESCRIPTION I
QNTY I UNIT I
$/UNIT I
TOTAL $
Curtain wall
Kawneer 1600 alum
183ISF 1
96.301
17,623
Exterior
Doors
HMfrm/HM-dr_3x7
4IEA 1
2,247.001
8,988
Window shades
manual
4,879ISF 1
12.841
62,646
Window trim
2,620 LF 1
11.771
30,837
Finish trim
3 cts clear sealer on hd wd
2,620 LF 1
3.211
8,410
Interior
Gypsum bd-. wall
5/8" type: X LVL 4
16,987 SF
4.821
81,877
Interior
Vapor barrier
polyethelene
16,987 SF 1
0.541
9,173
Wall base
4" rubber
480 LF 1
2.141
1,027
Interior
Painting: wall
prime + 2 top coats
16,987 SF 1
0.971
16,477
Exterior
Paint doors
2 -top coats
4IEA 1
117.701
471
(North Entry Canopv
660 SF
87,526
Structural columns
ftgs/columns/cladding
2IEA
11,770.00
23,540
Canopy
glass/mtl frm
660ISF 1
96.301
63,558
Flashings
1ILS 1
428.001
428
ENVELOPE TOTAL
2,118,333
SITEWORK
I Demolition
1
402,152
Building demo
main building and garage
65 801 SF
5.891
387,568
Site demo
hardscapes, landscapes, utils.
13,630 SF
1.071
14,584
Earthwork
119,649
Site
Erosion control and prep
1 LS
8,025.00
8,025
Site
Mobilization
1 LS
9,630.00
9,630
Site
Survey
1 LS
19,260.00
19,260
Site
Excavation
13,630 SF
2.04
27,805
Site
Geotextile
13,630 SF
0.17
2,317
Site
Aggregate base
crushed rock
13,630 SF
2.25
30,668
Site
Backfill
13,630 SF
1.61
21,944
I Hardscapes
1
106,607
Pavement
AC paving
1,636 SF
2.25
3,680
Pavement
conc drive
1,772 SF
8.03
14,228
Sidewalk
conc
3,408 SF
6.00
20,445
Curb
conc
886 LF
23.54
20,855
Stairs/ramp
conc
682 SF
69.55
47,398
(Site Improvements
183,747
Planters
conc w/ tile _wtr barrier
2,154 SF
69.55
149,811
Striping
painting/symbols
1,636 SF
0.75
1,227
Signage
monument signage
1 EA
10,700.00
10,700
Signage
ADA parking
6 EA
155.15
931
Site furnishings
benches, bike parking, etc
24 EA
695.50
16,692
Fencing/gates
20 LF
48.15
963
Handrails
galv steel/paint
40 LF
85.60
3,424
Landscapinq
1
27,156
Planter landscaping
ground cvr, shrubs, etc
2,800 SF
4.71
13,188
General landscaping
lawns & plants
2,726 SF
3.75
10,223
Trees
street trees
10 EA
374.50
3,745
ARCH: Mackenzie CONSTRUCTION FOCUS, INC. ESTIMATE DATE: Feb 23, 2017
DWG DATE: 1/24/2017 541-686-2031 REVISION #: 2
DESIGN LEVEL: Concept EUGENE, OREGON CONST. START: 3 QTR -20
LOC I ITEM
(Site Utilities
Storm
Catch basin
Area drain
Sanitary service
Sanitary service
Oil/water separator
Fire water service
Fire water service
Fire water service
Fire water service
Electric service
Site lighting
Domestic water piping
LAKE OSWEGO CITY HALL 9/10
NEW CONSTRUCTION
Statement of Probable Cost
DESCRIPTION
QNTY I UNIT
$/UNIT
TOTAL $
Markups:
@ 12%: 1,374,194
138,565
allowance
1I LS
26,750. 00
26,750
allowance
6I EA
1,177.00
7,062
allowance
3IEA
321.00
963
allowance
1ILS
8,560.00
8,560
man hole
1. EA
4,066.001
4,066
allowance
1. EA
9,095.001
9,095
allowance
1ILS
10, 700.001
10,700
vault & BFP
1IEA
12,840.00
12,840
fire hydrant
1IEA
2,675.001
2,675
FDC
1IEA
856.001
856
allowance
1ILS
5,350.001
5,350
8 I EA
5,136.00
41,088
allowance
1ILS
8,560.001
8,560
SITEWORK TOTALS 977,876
HARDCOST TOTAL
1 11,451,617
The above HARDCOST TOTAL does not include typical general contractor markups.
Those plus contingencies are listed below as part of a Low -High Range.
Variables include fluctuations in market conditions, material selections, and design considerations.
The Cost Estimate Range will be consolidated as we move closer to the actual Bid Date.
LOW RANGE
HIGH RANGE
Markups:
@ 12%: 1,374,194
Inflation
@ 18%: 2,061,291
@ 15%: 1,923,872
Contingency
@ 25%: 3,378,227
1,106,226
Gen Conditions @ 7.5%:
1,266,835
1,030,634
Profit & Overhead @ 6.5%:
1,180,268
123,822
Performance Bond:
140,856
5,558,748
Markup Subtotals:
8,027,477
17,010,364
BASE BID TOTAL
19,479,093
SOLAR
1255,155
Allowance for 1.5% of the Construction Costs
292,186
17,265,520
BASE BID PLUS SOLAR TOTAL
19,771,280
ALTERNATE
13,359,747
Essential Facility, add:
3,782,197
1
ARCH: Mackenzie
CONSTRUCTION FOCUS, INC.
ESTIMATE DATE: Feb 23, 2017
DWG DATE:1/24/2017
541-686-2031
REVISION #: 2
DESIGN LEVEL: Concept
EUGENE, OREGON
CONST. START: 3 QTR -20
LAKE OSWEGO CITY HALL
NEW CONSTRUCTION
Statement of Probable Cost
LOC I ITEM I DESCRIPTION I QNTY I UNIT I $/UNIT
NOTES
Refer to the Project Narrative dated January 23, 2017 for more specific information
Wage rates: BOLI
EXCLUSIONS
Design fees, permit fees, system development fees, utility hookup charges, testing, BOLI fee.
Asbestos abatement, moving expenses, anti -graffiti coating, fireproofing.
Overexcavation, rock excavation, wet weather sitework.
10/10
TOTAL $
ARCH: Mackenzie CONSTRUCTION FOCUS, INC. ESTIMATE DATE: Feb 23, 2017
DWG DATE:1/24/2017 541-686-2031 REVISION #: 2
DESIGN LEVEL: Concept EUGENE, OREGON CONST. START: 3 QTR -20
City Hall Cost Comparison ATTACHMENT 3 February 27, 2017
Canby City Hall and Library 2016 35,000 $6,900,000.00 $197.14 $203.060
Average Cost Per Scl Ft (with site work): $343.56 *Includes premium for essential facility
PROJECT (Building Only)
Wilsonville City Hall (Oregon)
2007
29,694
$7,019,488.00
$173.40
COST PER SQ. FT.
PROJECT
68,530
$13,797,840.50
$201.34
JArtwork
(Building Cost Only
pathway, parking (91 stalls), sidewalks
TOTAL
2008 104,200
WITH INFLATION
FEATURES
$243.7600
2.5 acres
YEAR
Albany Fire (Oregon)
CONSTRUCTION
24,265
@ 3% PER YEAR
INCLUDED IN
AREA OF SITE (IF
In
PROJECT (Building + Site)
COMPLETED
SIZE (SQ. FT.)
COST
COST PER SQ. FT.
TO 2017
COST
INCLUDED IN COST)
ADDITIONAL COSTS INCLUDED
Canby City Hall and Library 2016 35,000 $6,900,000.00 $197.14 $203.060
Average Cost Per Scl Ft (with site work): $343.56 *Includes premium for essential facility
PROJECT (Building Only)
Wilsonville City Hall (Oregon)
2007
29,694
$7,019,488.00
$173.40
plaza, outdoor amphitheater, water features, pavilion, lighted
2009
68,530
$13,797,840.50
$201.34
JArtwork
(Building Cost Only
pathway, parking (91 stalls), sidewalks
Meridian City Hall (Idaho)
2008 104,200
$20,000,000.00
$191.94
$243.7600
2.5 acres
Albany Fire (Oregon)
Sept 17
24,265
courtyard, terraced amphitheater, civic plaza, water features, green
$259.24
In
roof, sidewalks
Shoreline City Hall (Washington)
2009 67,000
$28,000,000.00
$417.91
$518.20 0W!)
3 acres
Sept 17
40,367
$10,728,426.77
$265.77
outdoor stage, plaza, sidewalks, temporary skate park, surface
parking, rain garden, 14,000 sf parking garage (37 spaces), surface
Kenmore City Hall (Washington)
2010 36,930
$9,500,000.00
$257.24
$311.26 0000
3 acres parking (22 spaces), green roof
2 -story police, 4 -story city hall, parking (49 stalls), green roof, plaza,
sidewalks
Olympia City Hall (Washington)
2011 89,000
$33,300,000.00
$374.16
$441.50000
1 city block
library, civic offices, solar panels, LED lighting, sitework
Canby City Hall and Library 2016 35,000 $6,900,000.00 $197.14 $203.060
Average Cost Per Scl Ft (with site work): $343.56 *Includes premium for essential facility
PROJECT (Building Only)
Wilsonville City Hall (Oregon)
2007
29,694
$7,019,488.00
$173.40
Kaiser City Hall (Oregon)
2009
68,530
$13,797,840.50
$201.34
JArtwork
(Building Cost Only
In
Construction
Albany Fire (Oregon)
Sept 17
24,265
$6,290,465.39
$259.24
In
Construction
Albany Police (Oregon)
Sept 17
40,367
$10,728,426.77
$265.77
Lake Oswego Police (Oregon) In Design 33,690 $10,300,000.00 $305.73
Average Cost Per Scl Ft (building only):
Average Cost Per Scl Ft Minus Essential Facility Premium (1S%):
Lake Oswego City Hall
Lake Oswego City Hall Projection Estimated
(Oregon), Life -Safety 2020
Lake Oswego City Hall ProjectionI Estimated
(Oregon), Essential Facility 2020
40,000 $9,782,577.00
40,000 $13,564,774.00
$244.56
$339.12
$225.420
included police facilities
$249.66000
$259.2400
$265.7700
$305.7300
$261.16 *Includes premium for essential facility
$221.99
$244.5610 *Site and parking costs excluded
$339.12 00 *Site and parking costs excluded
LEGEND
LEED Gold
LEED Silver
1 0
1 0
Isite work
IParking Garage 1
JArtwork
(Building Cost Only
10 JEssential Facility
10
Rehabilitatic
ti
r
•� „4 • - Aw — • { J
�. n
?�
I. r
•�� iJ
Building Envelope Only (EIFS) $7.9 million i
Envelope + Voluntary Seismic and
Maintenance UDarades
Envelope + Upgrades + Full
Seismic Retrofit
New Building
(40k sq.ft./3 stories)
(Life safety - Essential level)
$7.9-
M
07
$22.3 million
$29 million
$16.8-
$21.2
million
L` J
10) C 0�D O U CQ O
Voluntary Seismic Upgrades
$384,000
Deferred Maintenance Items and
Architectural Upgrades $0 - $12 million
b� TOP 09 PMME'
Q6 SD
-�M�9
b
-ww R.Om 9
o•Q
,__�:.i r
— .w,-
-IP -a B
ri SOJ'H ELEVATION
9&
WEST ELEVATION
I
Urban Renewal
General Fund
FF&C Bonding
Capital Reserve Fund
General Obligation Bond
F