Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - 2010-04-06 PM CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES y 5 , April 6, 2010 Council President Kristin Johnson called the regular City Council meeting to order at 6:39 p.m. on April 6, 2010, in the City Council Chambers, 380 A Avenue. Present: Council President Johnson, Councilors Hennagin, Olson, Moncrieff, Tierney, and Jordan. Mayor Hoffman was excused Staff Present: Alex McIntyre, City Manager; David Powell, City Attorney; Robyn Christie, City Recorder; Bill Baars, Library Director; Cindy Glazier, Library Coordinator for Volunteer Services and Library Programs; Joel Komarek, LOIS Project Director; Jane Heisler, LOIS Communications Director; Guy Graham, Public Works Director; Russ Chevrette, Engineering Technician; Jane Blackstone, Economic Development Director; Laura Weigel, Neighborhood Planner Youth Council Present: Youth Councilors Cooper, Silbert, and Rathje. Youth Councilors Kosloff and Chandrana were excused. 3. PRESENTATIONS 3.1 LO Reads Recap Mr. Baars commented that one of the reasons why the Lake Oswego Library was the number one library in the state was the role that the Library played in the community. The Council viewed a video of photos from the 35+ LO Reads events, attended by over 9,000 people reading this year's selection, The Whistling Season. Mr. Baars mentioned that a piece written by Joan Freed during the LO Writes workshop would be placed in the Centennial time capsule in October. He thanked the program supporters, City staff, and the City Council for making this possible, noting that they have already begun planning their fifth year. Ms. Glazier asked for suggestions for a book for LO Reads 2011. She reviewed the criteria and asked the public to send suggestions to her or the library. Mr. Baars encouraged LO Reads participants to provide input regarding next year's program through the Open City Hall on the City's website Ms. Glazier indicated to Councilor Jordan that, after collecting all The Whistling Season books returned to the library, staff passed them on to the North Plains library for use in their program next February. She mentioned that this was the third time that the North Plains library has used the LO Reads book. 3.2 Arbor Week Proclamation Council President Johnson proclaimed the week of April 5, 2010, as Arbor Week in the City of Lake Oswego and urged all citizens to support efforts to protect trees and woodlands, to support the City's Urban Forestry Program, and to celebrate Lake Oswego Arbor Week by planting trees and promoting the well-being of trees for this and future generations. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 16 April 6, 2010 3.3 National Public Safety Telecommunications Week Council President Johnson proclaimed the week of April 11 through 17, 2010, as National Public Safety Communications Week in Lake Oswego, and urged all citizens to honor the employees of the Communications Center in recognize them for their diligence and professionalism in helping to keep our city, its citizens, employees, and visitors safe. She presented the proclamation to Donna MacDougal and Deena Streen and thanked them for their work. 3.4 LOIS Update Mr. Komarek reported that the ground anchors and pipe fusing was 100% complete and they were closing in on the pile installation. He indicated that, with the Blue Heron Bay work anticipated for completion by the end of next week, the team has begun planning with the contractor for the quality assurance and quality control phase. He presented a photo from a 2006 lake draw down that showed how constrained the interceptor has been in Blue Heron Bay. He showed a photo of the submerged manholes and described how workers would access them. He reported that the team learned in the preconstruction meeting on the pump stations that Northwest Natural Gas had a high-pressure gas line in Bryant Road into which the company needed to cut some valves. He said that the City would work with Northwest Natural Gas to coordinate the week-long lane closures and inform the public. He reported that staff has finished reviewing the contracts for the lake down phase, and would bring those to the City Manager for signature. He anticipated the pre -construction conference for the lake down phase occurring as early as the week of April 19. Ms. Heisler presented a list of meetings the team has held lately. She mentioned the article in the paper about the bid opening on March 4. She indicated that an Oregonian reporter happened to be very interested in the corrosion protection system and would publish an article about it next week. She noted the tour given last week to Adam Daniels from Congressman Schrader's office. She mentioned that they hoped to finish the lake down webisode in order to take it out to the neighborhoods, given that most people have never seen a 24 -foot draw down. She noted that TVCTV ran the other three webisodes. She presented an excerpt from the LOIS Facebook page, and indicated that they also had a Facebook page for the water project. She commented that the Citizen Information Coordinator made great short video updates that they posted on these pages, as well as articles and other information. She presented several pictures of the ongoing work, observing that boaters needed to pay attention to the City's navigation information. Mr. Komarek indicated that they were a little behind schedule in getting started on the lake down phase, but they anticipated making that up soon. He pointed out that the lake down bids came in very favorably, and the total project cost was now down to $95 million. He indicated to Council President Johnson that the last drawdown in 2006 was 10 feet. 3.5 Report of Audit Subcommittee Council President Johnson noted that Councilors Tierney, Jordan, and Olson were the subcommittee members. Councilor Tierney reported on the subcommittee's meeting with the Finance staff on March 23 to check on what actions staff was taking relative to fixing the deficiencies found in the 2008/2009 audit and to get a general overview of the department. He mentioned that all the Finance staff took the deficiencies very seriously. He indicated that, given that the proper controls were already in place when the deficiencies occurred, the management staff was focusing on bringing those controls to the front and making sure that they were being complied with, and on educating the supporting staff on why those controls were appropriate City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 16 April 6, 2010 He said that the subcommittee members came away with a high degree of confidence in the Finance Department management team, and their efforts to make the necessary adjustments and to train and provide oversight of the supporting staff. He mentioned the review of the state of the Finance Department overall. He reported that the Department was currently using contract help to get back on schedule for certain tasks, such as bank reconciliations. He said that they also discussed the capacities of the organization as it related to back up tasks, such as the lack of a back up person to do payroll. 4. CONSENT AGENDA Councilor Jordan moved the Consent Agenda. Councilor Olson seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken, and the motion passed with Council President Johnson, Councilors Hennagin, Olson, Moncrieff, Tierney, and Jordan voting "aye." [6-0] 4.1 REPORTS 4.1.1 ADA Ramp and Storm Drainage Retrofits (Royce Way) Action: Award a public improvement contract to Portland Road and driveway Company, Inc., in the amount of $100,952 4.1.2 Request for dedication of property to the public right - of - way at Westlake Park Action: Approval to permit the City Manager to approve a dedication of property located at Westlake Park to the public right-of-way in order for the new shade structure to be in compliance with standard 50.45.010(7)(b) of the Community Development Code 4.2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 4.2.1 January 11, 2010, Joint Meeting with the Tigard City Council 4.2.2 January 12, 2010, Special Meeting Action: Approve minutes as written END CONSENT AGENDA 5. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA 6. CITIZEN COMMENT • Chris McKinney, 432 Fifth Street She recalled that she and Ms. Schweisquth addressed the Council six months ago regarding the noise levels generated by the amplified live music at Maher's restaurant and other issues. She explained that she shared a common wall with the restaurant and that she could not sit at home and watch TV or rest when the amplified music played. She reported that they went through mediation to try to find a resolution that allowed the owners to run their business and her to have peace and quiet in her home. She reported that the soundproof wall that Maher's installed did not help that much against the music played between 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. on Fridays and Saturdays. She noted that the music was still amplified, despite Maher's agreement not to have amplified music. She mentioned that she has had to call the police occasionally because they played music past 10 p.m. She invited the Council to come to her house any Friday or Saturday evening between 7 p.m. and 10 p.m. so that they could experience her situation and the impact of the music. She indicated that she did not know what else she could do. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 16 April 6, 2010 • Diane Schweisquth, 462 Fifth Street She stated that Ms. McKinney came to her home last Saturday around 7:30 p.m. because she could not stay in her own home due to the music coming in from Maher's restaurant. She described the noise problem as two -fold. She indicated that the first issue was that Maher's was a business that operated in a space limited to less than 35 people with a small dining area, which continued to hire musicians/bands that played amplified music, even though the restaurant owners knew that was a problem for the neighbor sharing a common wall with them. She said that the second issue lay with the City's noise code enforcement practices, which viewed the temporary restaurant patrons as more important than the quality of life of the permanent property owner. She quoted from e-mails that she received last October from Mr. Powell regarding this matter discussing the City's enforcement practices. She noted Mr. Powell's information that the City allowed reasonable loud noise if deemed necessary to the operation of the business, and his later statement that "there was a point where pre -10 p.m. noise exceeds what is reasonable and necessary." She contended that that point has been reached when Ms. McKinney could not stay in her own home because of the noise. She described the noise coming from Maher's as loud, disturbing, unnecessary, and unreasonable. She pointed out that Maher's operated the business without amplified music on other days of the week, and the owners knew that it was disturbing to their neighbor. She asked the Mayor or the Council to direct the police and the City Code enforcement officers to enforce the City noise code, Section 34.10.537, when Ms. McKinney contacted them, and to issue a citation to Maher's restaurant at any time of day, and not just after 10 p.m. She asked the Council, in light of the City's focus on business development that included the development of mixed use properties, to recognize and consider the unique planning, development, and code issues (including the noise code) of mixing business and residential properties. She mentioned that she has also spoken to the Planning Commission. The City Council was Ms. McKinney's last hope for help. Councilor Olson commented that this testimony really bothered her because she has inquired about the progress of this issue since these ladies came to Council six months ago, and staff has always told her that it went through mediation and was resolved. Mr. Powell indicated that he was not aware of any report to staff that the mediation agreement did not work out. He commented that this was the first that he has heard that there was still a problem. Ms. McKinney mentioned that she had thought that they had reached an agreement through mediation, but, following the installation of the soundproofing (which had not been guaranteed to work), Maher's went back to the amplified instruments, which she had thought Maher's had agreed not to use. She indicated that Maher's has sent e-mails saying that musicians would not play acoustic. She gave her opinion that this was a total disregard of the mediation. Ms. Schweisquth mentioned that they have not received replies to their e-mails to the mediator, and did not know what else to do. She reiterated that Ms. McKinney could not stay in her home between 7 p.m. and 10 p.m. Friday and Saturday, and that the code enforcement officer would not enforce the noise code because they deemed the music necessary to the business. Councilor Hennagin asked if there had been a pre -mediation agreement to be bound by the mediation agreement. Ms. Schweisquth indicated that it had just been people getting together to resolve a situation, for which they had thought they had an understanding. • Jim Bolland, 804 Fifth Street He explained that he was here at the request of LONAC to share with the Council the comments that he had made following Ms. Blackstone's Saturday presentation to LONAC on the economic development program. He recalled that LONAC has been asking the City for years to implement the Quality of Life Task Force report and to use the quality of life indicators identified in that report. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 16 April 6, 2010 He discussed the important linkage between quality of life and economic development. He mentioned that his conversations with people regarding the City's economic development effort found mixed reviews, including why a community of only 37,000 was doing something like this. He indicated that he saw an opportunity for the City to identify measurable economic indicators for tracking and reporting the success of the program, which he contended would sell the program to the community. 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS 7.1 Recommendation from the Engineering Division to relinquish the City's interest in a 5 -foot wide by 50 -foot long strip of land along the front property line of a residential lot located at 3270 Lakeview Blvd. STAFF REPORT Mr. Chevrette explained that, in 1974, the City acquired this five-foot wide strip of land across the front of 3270 Lakeview Blvd as a condition of a variance to the front yard setback. He described the engineers' vision for streets like Lakeview Blvd at the time, for which staff sought every opportunity to acquire extra right-of-way as a condition of land use approvals. He noted the complete change of vision for streets in the past 36 years. He pointed out that this was the only five-foot strip on Lakeview Blvd acquired by the City. He mentioned the extreme unlikelihood of the City condemning 50 properties to obtain additional five- foot strips, should the City even decide to widen Lakeview Blvd. He recommended returning the five-foot strip of land to the present owners, which would allow the owners to make some changes to their property. He explained that, because the City actually owned fee title to the land, this action took a quitclaim deed, and not a street vacation. QUESTIONS OF STAFF Mr. Chevrette indicated to Councilor Hennagin that he estimated that the City has 10 to 20 strips like this scattered throughout the city, which were acquired between the late 1960s and early 1980s. He noted that the City could not use these strips today because of the legal constraints resulting from court decisions such as Nolan v. California Coastal Commission and Dolan v. Tigard. He confirmed to Councilor Moncrieff that this was the only five-foot strip on Lakeview Blvd. PUBLIC TESTIMONY Mr. Powell reviewed the testimony time limits and the hearing criteria. Council President Johnson opened the hearing to public testimony. Hearing none, she closed the hearing. COUNCIL DISCUSSION Councilor Olson moved to authorize the City Manager to execute a quitclaim deed to transfer ownership of the subject 5 -foot strip of land to the abutting owners. Councilor Hennagin seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken, and the motion passed with Council President Johnson, Councilors Hennagin, Olson, Moncrieff, Tierney, and Jordan voting "aye." [6-0] 8. REPORTS 8.1 Resolution 10-22, adopting the April 2010 Lake Oswego Economic Development Strategy Ms. Blackstone gave a PowerPoint presentation. She reviewed the background behind the City and Chamber work to gather input from the City staff and business community to develop a vision and the core strategies to implement it (p.55). City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 16 April 6, 2010 She mentioned that the themes that emerged during the planning process were oriented towards quality of life, a broader range of housing options, connectivity, more and better transportation and parking options, strategic higher density infill and redevelopment, lower vacancy rates, successful businesses, increased employment, and an improved tax base for the community (p.86, 90). She described building on Lake Oswego's strengths and addressing its weakness as opportunities (p.67). She mentioned that assumptions underlying the strategy included a collaborative public/private implementation effort with the Chamber as a key partner, flexibility to adjust over the five years within the framework of the four core strategies, and addressing many issues through the upcoming Comprehensive Plan update process. She noted that the strategy laid out estimated costs but it did not authorize funding. She presented the four core strategies: market Lake Oswego (p.73), leverage quality of life and place (p.74), provide exemplary City service to business (p.74), and retain and recruit businesses (p.75). She discussed the five-year priorities under each strategy (p.67). She indicated that staff has already begun working on how to improve the City's way of doing business with businesses. She commented that the fourth strategy of taking care of businesses was the most important element of an economic development program. She noted that targeted recruitment included retail, office, and industrial businesses. She mentioned including in the strategy indicators of success: economic indicators, program output measures, and survey feedback (p.75). She described how the City would use the strategy as a guide to decision making in the 2010 to 2015 timeframe (p.67). She thanked her colleagues on City staff for their invaluable work in developing this strategy. COUNCIL QUESTIONS Councilor Olson expressed her appreciation for the inclusion of measures of success, and asked for details on what they would be and how staff would develop them. Ms. Blackstone indicated that the City has actually been tracking many of these indicators for many years already, usually through the budget process. She said that she would bring back the format of the indicators in short order. Councilor Olson recalled the testimony at the Round Table from two residents speaking on behalf of a dozen parents with children with developmental disabilities who noted that, while the School District had an excellent life skills program for the children, the community had no job opportunities for developmentally disabled adults. Ms. Blackstone concurred with the Councilor that this issue did not come up during the strategy work sessions. She indicated that there were opportunities within the action items proposed in the strategy to address this issue with the business community, beginning with communicating the need. She commented that she would appreciate suggestions, given the program's limited resources. Councilor Hennagin mentioned that he found the term `connectivity' vague, ambiguous, and subject to many interpretations. He asked how it was used in this context. Ms. Blackstone indicated that it referred to a walkable community and communication connections. Councilor Hennagin asked what the concept of the City being more welcoming to new businesses entailed. Ms. Blackstone mentioned that many items on the list were collaborative efforts by the City and the Chamber. She commented that staff put a lot of effort into helping business applicants get through all the paperwork, and there should be some celebration of success. She observed that the small things meant a lot, such as picking up the phone or walking into a shop and saying hello. She indicated that she wanted to emphasize business outreach to non -retail businesses. Ms. Blackstone indicated to Councilor Hennagin that her goal was to have relatively flat funding for the nuts and bolts of delivering the program. She noted that, for the program as a whole, many of the action items were large capital projects involving other departments. Therefore, the funding would vary a lot depending on the mix of capital, planning, and ongoing program work. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 16 April 6, 2010 Councilor Jordan commented that she saw the strategy to expand the Gallery Without Walls more as a strategic placement of artwork in the business areas to draw people down the street, and not necessarily as a multiplication of the number of sculptures in the downtown. She observed that the Arts Council was having a hard time right now making sure that it selected quality pieces and installed them correctly. She suggested including a question on the survey of whether businesses, especially the bigger ones, had vocational programs for those with disabilities. She asked how many more spots would be available at the Farmers Market this year. Ms. Blackstone said that she did not personally know that information, but staff could provide it. Mr. McIntyre indicated to Councilor Olson that the City did have a waiting list of vendors for the Farmers Market. Councilor Tierney commented that the strategy was an impressive document with many good elements. He compared the market Lake Oswego strategy to the Chamber mission statement, and asked what the City's role would be in that. He asked what were the most specific practical indicators of success that Ms. Blackstone has seen other communities use to assess an economic development program. Ms. Blackstone mentioned job creation and employment. She pointed out that the difficulty lay in correlating the indicator to the program outcome, such as whether someone decided to locate his/her business in Lake Oswego because of the marketing strategy. She indicated that surveys and talking to the businesses could help with that, which made outreach an important part of the strategy. Councilor Tierney asked if Ms. Blackstone agreed with Councilor Olson that it was best to adopt a strategy with more specific indicators of success. Ms. Blackstone indicated that she would bring back a set of economic indicators as a broad tool for the Council and staff to use in looking at the overall health of the community along with other indicators of community health. Councilor Moncrieff observed that this was a policy document taking a long-term view over five years. Ms. Blackstone confirmed to the Councilor that staff would track the measurements as trends over a number of years because that yielded the most effective analysis. She indicated that the economic development strategies she researched took a variety of approaches to indicators, which was why she suggested the three part indicators of success as a way to look at several different measurement lines and produce a good picture. Councilor Moncrieff commented that she was interested in hearing what the Chamber and the business leaders had to say about this document, as she has been involved in its development for over a year. Councilor Olson mentioned that two businesses in the Palisades neighborhood shopping area recently left for downtown Lake Oswego. She asked if staff would recruit businesses to Palisades. Ms. Blackstone spoke of keeping an eye on all the districts. She observed that, while it was encouraging that businesses perceived the downtown as a good place to relocate, it did leave a vacancy elsewhere in the community. She commented that she was cautiously optimistic that, given the national and state trends, they might begin to see more consumer confidence, which would in turn fuel interest in Lake Oswego vacancies. She noted that Lake Oswego's vacancy rate overall was not terrible. Councilor Olson asked Ms. Blackstone to comment on the view that an economic development program was really the responsibility of the private sector. Ms. Blackstone mentioned that Lake Oswego was part of a group of cities in the region that actively influenced their local economies. She indicated that the common theme of these economic development programs was the city partnering with private partners. She commented that she thought the key was to not duplicate efforts and to try to be as efficient as possible. She emphasized that if it was going to be successful, then it had to be a collaboration. Councilor Jordan recalled seeing an ad somewhere that showed where $15 spent at a local community business went to in the community. She described it as a great opportunity for people to see why it was important to have businesses in their hometown. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 16 April 6, 2010 PUBLIC TESTIMONY Council President Johnson opened the floor to public testimony. • Jerry Wheeler, Chamber of Commerce Chief Executive Officer, 13594 Blazer Trail He expressed the Chamber's appreciation for the Council's commitment to funding the economic development program, as he had requested in public testimony last year before both the Council and the Budget Committee. He asked the Council to approve this strategy, which represented a year's worth of work by City staff and community volunteers, by adopting Resolution 10-22. He mentioned the three independent research projects conducted in the community focused on economic development. He noted that Ms. Blackstone has quietly built relationships over the past year so that they would not need to reinvent the wheel on programming, and they would have access to new funding resources to help pay for the ongoing costs of economic development. He commented that the collaboration between the public and private sectors, on which staff built the strategy, was the key to successful economic development. He noted that the common thread weaving through all the strategies was marketing. He indicated that the Chamber believed that it was equally important to market to both the local and the larger Metro region and beyond in order to achieve the maximum impact for current and future businesses. He applauded and thanked the City for taking a leadership role by committing resources and money to this endeavor. He commented that the Chamber provided daily leadership to the small businesses. He indicated that, while the Chamber lacked the City's financial resources, it stood ready to partner with the City in leading the way in implementing this plan. He pointed out that small businesses were the strong backbone of any community, stating that Lake Oswego was "small business -strong." He mentioned seeing more new businesses coming to the downtown recently than he has seen in the past six years. He commented that a vital, active Chamber and a successful economic development program would help businesses succeed. He urged the Council to adopt the strategy as a long-term investment whose results would be well worth the wait. He indicated to Councilor Hennagin that the Chamber was seeing more interest from prospective businesses wanting to come to downtown Lake Oswego; the empty storefronts were filling up. Councilor Tierney asked for Mr. Wheeler's thoughts on the indicators of success. Mr. Wheeler commented that Ms. Blackstone outlined them well. He mentioned the visual "empty or full storefront" as one indicator and the number of business licenses issued, which has started growing again. He agreed with Ms. Blackstone that it was difficulty to define which element of economic development was responsible for the success. He confirmed to the Councilor that the general economic indicators of the health of the community were one aspect of assessing whether the program was achieving its stated purpose. He indicated that the subjective method of just talking to the businesses was also an indicator of success. Mr. Wheeler indicated to Councilor Jordan that the City and Gramor Development paid for the advertisement at the Portland airport, and not the Chamber. Councilor Jordan suggested looking at it again as she had heard of people commenting on that advertisement when they ate at the restaurants here. Mr. McIntyre clarified that the Downtown Business Alliance partnered with the City for that advertisement; the program terminated two years ago because the partners decided to go to a Portland -live type advertising campaign instead for the sake of variety and cost. • Dan Heine, Bank of Oswego Mr. Heine thanked the Council and City staff for everything they did to make Lake Oswego a great place to live and work. He thanked the City for supporting local community banking, including the Bank of Oswego, by giving the banks deposits. He indicated that they used that money to extend credit to local businesses and individuals. He informed the Council that those deposits were City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 16 April 6, 2010 symbolic of the pro-business attitude in Lake Oswego, and generated calls from all across the nation, including the Wall Street Journal. He indicated that Ms. Blackstone and Mr. Williams asked him to share his experiences with economic development initiatives in other cities. He mentioned that his impressions represented the private sector in Lake Oswego. He pointed out that they were blessed to live and work in this special place, which factor they needed to preserve. He observed that Lake Oswego had it relatively good in comparison to other communities across the country that were truly suffering. He commented that they might not be able to control their own destiny as much as they would like with a development plan, in light of the new state tax measures. He suggested that the Council not have too high of expectations about attracting outside businesses, given that many businesses in Oregon have already voiced their displeasure with doing business in Oregon. He spoke of embracing this plan as a commitment to the long-term future of the community, and remembering to attract new businesses while retaining the existing businesses. He agreed that economic development should be a collaborative process in which the public and private sectors needed to work together better than they did currently. He mentioned the perceptions in the community that the private business sector was not unified or defined and lacked clout. He noted the recent research confirming another perception that the City needed to be more business friendly. He commended the Council, Mr. McIntyre, Ms. Blackstone, and Mr. Williams for their outstanding leadership in fostering a new attitude in the community about business. He encouraged the Council to take advantage of these three high-quality professionals who have spent countless hours listening to the business community. He indicated that creating and funding a soundly - based plan was an action that spoke louder than words. He discussed developing a set of measurable goals that focused on the benefits to the citizens and businesses of Lake Oswego. He mentioned increasing spending for goods and services in town, creating more family -living jobs, increasing the tax base, maintaining excellent schools, insuring health City finances, maintaining and building on the community's quality of life enhancements, and building community pride and a spirit of collaboration. He spoke to City leadership focusing on being good financial stewards of taxpayer resources. He described a strong balance sheet and taxpayer trust and pride as cornerstones in making future investments in infrastructure. He emphasized the vital importance of an excellent school system. He advocated for marketing first to the local businesses. He argued that they needed to change the perceptions of local businesses, and show them that the City would make a positive impact on their future growth and bottom line. He suggested reminding the diverse interest groups that Lake Oswego was a special and unique place in which to live and do business. He encouraged the community to work together better for a common cause. He contended that the community practicing the ideas of Communication, Coordination, and Connection would help with a successful implementation of the program. He referenced his life experience in working on economic development for over 40 years. He said that the City was doing all the right things right now. The Council has selected intelligent, resourceful, and experienced leadership, it has created and funded a results -oriented strategic plan, and it has asked the private sector to be actively engaged. Councilor Hennagin thanked Mr. Heine for his compliments. He asked whether Mr. Heine thought that the Council should postpone adopting the strategy until staff added the indicators of success to the plan. Mr. Heine urged the Council to approve the four objectives presented by staff, as they were excellent. He indicated that he thought that staff could put together the indicators in a couple of months. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 16 April 6, 2010 Councilor Moncrieff asked what collaboration would look like in terms of the businesses working together on the marketing effort. Mr. Heine indicated that collaboration meant fostering an attitude that `your opinion counts.' He cited the sense of partnering, talking, and listening to everybody's point of view that he saw at the Marylhurst workshops, which had a diverse group in attendance. He acknowledged that a consensus might be favorable or unfavorable to any given point of view, but the important thing was to include everyone in the discussion. He spoke of collaborating more by sharing resources, both financial and human. He mentioned his hope that eventually the private community could share a percentage of the program cost with the City. Councilor Moncrieff commented that she heard comments from the business community regarding the market research; the owners appreciated the stability of having the City involved. She spoke of continuing that financial partnering with the marketing strategy. Mr. Heine concurred. He mentioned his expectation that eventually the businesses would want to participate financially and have something at stake in the success of the program. He commented that if that did not occur, then he would worry about the long-term success. • Jim Francis, Chamber of Commerce President-elect He urged adoption of the plan. He held that the specifics for action and measurement would come with fleshing out the plan as they moved forward. He said that he was impressed with this well - drafted plan. He observed that Mr. McIntyre's foresight about economic development was a good move. He pointed out that the Chamber was a marketing organization. He noted the various activities already underway that portended the success of the plan. • Carolyne Jones, 2818 Poplar Way Councilor Tierney indicated to Ms. Jones that the planned retail center for the Marylhurst development was intended to serve the Marylhurst community and not the wider community; therefore, staff did not consider it in the five-year strategy. Ms. Jones commented that the property owners affected by the sensitive lands regulations felt that they have been leveraged out of the quality of life in Lake Oswego (Strategy #2) with limitations on their property rights and a diminishing of their property values. She referenced Mr. Wheeler's comments about a successful economy taking collaboration between the private and the public sectors. She encouraged the Council to recognize that property owners were an important cog in the wheel of a successful economy. COUNCIL DISCUSSION Councilor Tierney commented that the points were well taken. He stated his preference to include the measurements in the program, but he was comfortable with moving forward with the program this evening and waiting a reasonable time for staff to put the measurements in. Councilor Moncrieff indicated that she was comfortable moving forward with this policy document, as it was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Goal 9 (Economic Development) and with the Quality of Life Indicator No. 8 (Economic Opportunity and Vitality). Councilor Olson said that, while she too preferred including the measurements in the plan, Mr. Heine, Mr. Wheeler, and Mr. Francis' testimonies swayed her. She asked for consideration of a deadline by which staff brought the measurements back to Council. The Council agreed by consensus to Councilor Jordan's suggestion that staff bring the measurements back before the Council adopted the budget. Councilor Hennagin commented that he could not imagine a government program that would not produce statistics about its success. Since the Council would receive that information in any event, he would support the plan. Councilor Olson agreed with Councilor Jordan that they could consider the measurements as part of the budget process and adopt them at the same time. She commented that Ms. Jones had a City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 16 April 6, 2010 good point about citizens and the City's ability to maintain property values being another piece of the economic development puzzle. She indicated that their citizens' quality of life was just as important as their businesses' quality of life. Council President Johnson suggested using resources, such as Open City Hall, to obtain feedback from businesses and citizens on what they wanted to see in the city that might help with marketing. She pointed out that having the information publicly available would also help businesses know what the community was looking for. Councilor Jordan moved Resolution 10-22. Councilor Hennagin seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken, and the motion passed with Council President Johnson, Councilors Hennagin, Olson, Moncrieff, Tierney, and Jordan voting "aye." [6-0] Council President Johnson recessed the meeting at 8:35 p.m. for a break. She reconvened the meeting at 8:45 p.m. 8.2 Percent for Art Program Mr. Powell explained that the City's 17 -year-old Percent for Arts ordinance was ambiguous about whether it applied to the purchase of land, as opposed to construction only. He indicated that the ordinance added the word `purchase' in its description of City projects, but it did not make clear to what extent the actual purchase costs qualified as eligible costs under the ordinance. He reviewed the legal principles for interpreting an ambiguous ordinance and how they applied to this ordinance in particular (pp.94-95). He stated his opinion that the ordinance did not apply to the purchase of unimproved land (p.94) or to land with an improvement on it that the City intended to tear down (p.95). He discussed how the ordinance did apply to the cost of an improvement intended for public use on land purchased by the City but not to the cost of the underlying land (pp.95-96). He discussed the application of the ordinance to the West End Building, which had been the context of the original question about the application of the Percent for Arts program (pp.96-97). He observed that this was the only City purchase of land with an improvement on it, in which the Council had not yet decided on whether to retain the structure for public use or not. He argued that the City use of the building since 2007 constituted sufficient use of the structure for public purposes as to make the purchase cost of the improvements (building and parking lot) eligible costs under the Percent for Arts ordinance. He reviewed the options before the Council with respect to clearing up the ordinance language or making more significant changes to the ordinance (p.97). COUNCIL QUESTIONS Mr. Powell indicated to Councilor Olson that the Percent for Art ordinance did not apply to the Farr and nearby properties, as the City purchased them for open space to add to the Luscher Farm complex and they lay outside the city limits. He discussed the issue of applying the ordinance retroactively, which he did not recommend doing. He reiterated that the West End Building had been unique in that the Council had not yet ascertained the use at the time of purchase. Councilor Olson commented that she did not think that they should apply the ordinance retroactively, especially when the ultimate permanent use remained uncertain, as was the case with the West End Building. Mr. Powell indicated that he was not comfortable saying that, until the Council determined the permanent intent for the building, and no matter how much the City used the building, the City was not using the building for public purposes. He stated his opinion that if there was intent at the time of purchase to use the building as a public structure or to raze it, then the City should decide at that time whether to apply or not to apply the Percent for Arts ordinance. Changes of mind later on should not make any difference. He pointed out that the Council treated the West End Building differently from the very beginning. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 16 April 6, 2010 Council President Johnson spoke in support of clearing up this issue generally and with reference to the West End Building in order to avoid revisiting this issue in the future. Councilor Moncrieff concurred. Mr. Powell indicated to Councilor Hennagin that a Council consensus to direct him to maintain the intent of the current ordinance and to clarify the intent was appropriate, but if the Council gave him other direction, then it should vote. He clarified to the Councilor that the current ordinance required using the cost of appraisal at the time of purchase, and not today's appraisal. Mr. Powell indicated to Councilor Tierney that, .under the current ordinance, contributing or not contributing was not based on intended permanent use; it was based on intended use as a public building, whether permanently or for a number of years. Councilor Jordan supported Recommendation A, clarifying the language. She asked if the City applied the ordinance to the US Bank building, as the City did use the second floor for meeting space. Mr. Powell said that he doubted that the City applied the ordinance because it always intended to demolish the building for the park. Councilor Tierney commented that, while he supported clarifying the ordinance, it seemed to him that clarifying the language created a new ordinance. Mr. Powell indicated that he could bring the ordinance amendments back for a public hearing. Councilor Olson wondered whether the Council that passed the ordinance intentionally left the language vague in order to interpret it as desired. She said that she also favored Recommendation A and clarifying the language for more consistent application in the future. She held that the issue of clarifying the ordinance language was a separate issue from whether to apply the ordinance retroactively to the West End Building. Council President Johnson commented that the current interpretation they were using would not apply the ordinance to the West End Building. Mr. Powell reiterated his advice that the ordinance under its current interpretation did apply to the West End Building because the City's intent for purchasing it has proved over time to be a purchase for public use. He indicated that he was not suggesting that the Council adopt an ordinance that applied the Percent for Arts retroactively. Mr. Powell stated his opinion that, at some point, the City reached the point of no return, but it was not clear where that was because the Council has never before bought a building without a purpose in mind for it. He indicated to Councilor Hennagin that, while the main intent in the ordinance was to use the 1.5% for art on the purchased property, it did allow its use for other projects. Mr. McIntyre mentioned that he did not discuss this issue with Mr. Powell until after Mr. Powell drafted his opinion because he did not want to influence Mr. Powell's opinion. He reminded the Council that last year it chose to fund the continuation of the arts program at $100,000. He recalled using the terms `percent for arts' and `arts' a's one and the same. He pointed out that 1.5% of the $8 million cost of the building yielded $125,000. He argued that the $100,000 for the arts last year should be credited against the $125,000 with the remaining $25,000 credited against this year's funding for the arts allocation. He concurred that the Council should clean up the Code and create clarity around it to the greatest extent possible. He indicated that applying Mr. Powell's interpretation of the ordinance retroactively to the West End Building would likely end up near net zero in terms of accounting. Councilor Tierney indicated that, if the Council agreed that the City owed the Public Art Trust Fund $125,000, then he could not stretch the provision of $100,000 in operating funds as a credit against that amount. He argued that the $125,000 needed to come from the Parks fund. He recalled that the Council, during the Arts Council presentation, supported their efforts linked to economic development, which made this another challenge for the budget. He commented that the Council could interpret the ordinance to say that the City did not owe the money. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 16 April 6, 2010 Councilor Moncrieff agreed with Mr. Powell's interpretation. She commented that the community was well aware of the Percent for Arts ordinance, citing the community expectation in the Palisades neighborhood that the Luscher Farm purchase included a percent for arts to fund art for the site. She argued that the ordinance did apply to the West End Building, as it was purchased with the intent of using it as a public facility at the time. She spoke of honoring that commitment. Councilor Jordan commented that she saw the philosophical discussion regarding the use of the Percent for Arts funds, and whether continued support of the Arts Foundation as a City partnership with a charitable organization was worthwhile for economic development purposes, as a different discussion than the Percent for Arts itself. Councilor Olson commented that she tended to agree with Councilor Jordan about the City's level of commitment being a separate discussion. She argued that they should not go back and apply retroactively the cleaned up language, but rather move forward with it. Council President Johnson recalled that this issue came up originally because, while they had initially applied the ordinance to the West End Building, they took it off because of a discrepancy over whether or not the ordinance applied to the building. She argued that this was not an issue of retroactive application but rather of answering the question on the table. Councilor Olson pointed out that the Council did not apply the ordinance at the time of purchase, but rather Mr. McIntyre applied it in the proposed budget last year, possibly as a way to fund the arts. However, the Council funded the arts anyway. She spoke of discussing the philosophy behind funding the arts and not worrying about using the West End Building as a mechanism to do it. Councilor Hennagin indicated that he did not see this as an issue of retroactivity, but rather as an issue of what was the intent of the ordinance as enacted, which Mr. Powell has interpreted. He acknowledged Councilor Olson's concern about other facilities, but noted that the ordinance did not apply to anything outside the city limits anyway. He said that he would like to know, as part of the future discussion, if there were any other improvements purchased for public facilities. Council President Johnson noted the need for more discussion on how to fund the arts. She asked the Council if there was support for Option A, to clarify the language. The Council agreed by consensus. Mr. Powell indicated that, unless the Council directed him to bring the ordinance back for a public hearing, he would just bring it back for adoption. 8.3 Study Session on Glenmorrie Overlay Zone Ms. Weigel indicated that Glenmorrie has been working on implementing their plan since the neighborhood adopted it in 2000. She mentioned that a neighborhood association committee worked hard for over two years on identifying which provisions in the Glenmorrie plan they would like codified. She introduced Brenda Troisi from the Glenmorrie neighborhood. Ms. Troisi reviewed the location of Glenmorrie on the south side of town, bounded by Marylhurst, Skylands, and Hallinan. She indicated that the neighborhood held 200 homes on R-15 lots exclusively, which roomy spacious feel with green space they were trying to protect. She presented a photo to illustrate the unique character of the Glenmorrie neighborhood with its `country lane feel' She reviewed the neighborhood's process (begun in 2007) to re-examine its neighborhood plan, using a six -member task force and focusing primarily on what it needed to add to make the plan enforceable. She mentioned that they commenced this work in response to development that did not conform to the neighborhood character. She reported that their line -by-line examination found that, while the majority of the plan required no action, there were some elements needing implementation strategies. She presented the neighborhood plan goal addressed by the three proposals for the overlay. She indicated that, in developing the overlay, they considered whether the change reflected the City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 13 of 16 April 6, 2010 approved neighborhood plan and whether it responded to an existing and widespread neighborhood concern. She mentioned a third consideration of balancing the good of the neighborhood against individual property rights, a task that Task Force member Carolyne Jones helped with considerably. She reviewed the Task Force's public outreach strategies to obtain neighborhood feedback on a list of 11 possible proposals, which led to a reduction of the list down to seven proposals for further investigation. She indicated that, following the second open house, the Task Force reduced the seven down to the three issues the members felt were the central issues for the neighborhood. She presented a list of the last six items that the Task Force considered in order to inform the Council that these were issues of widespread concern to the neighborhood, should they come to the Council in a citywide context. She indicated to Councilor Olson that the neighborhood's concern regarding building permits had been a desire for notification to the immediate neighbors of significant remodels as a courtesy. Ms. Weigel confirmed that the City did not currently require notification. Ms. Troisi recounted an instance when a builder did kindly provide notification prior to build a new house, and made changes to his plans based on the neighbors' concerns. She commented that people would be much less annoyed if they had prior notification. She reiterated that they were trying to protect the neighborhood character of single-family detached homes on low-density lots with green space. She stated that the Task Force felt that these three proposals had the most potential to preserve the neighborhood character. She proposed a planter and buffering requirement for new development (pp. 105-106), as opposed to the optional status under the Infill Task Force recommendations. She explained that the neighborhood had many new `monster' houses, which the residents felt should be screened. She mentioned a concern to maintain the vegetation, as some new houses pulled out all the vegetation and put in sidewalks and lawns, which was not consistent with the neighborhood character. She noted that the proposal allowed for many options in meeting the requirement. Ms. Weigel commented that the neighborhood proposed the same plant units as the Infill Task Force has proposed, except for Alternative D, which came out of neighborhood conversations. Ms. Troisi proposed a hardscape maximum of 50% of the lot (p. 106). She pointed out that this was a rural neighborhood and they wanted to minimize the urban look and reduce the visual impact of concrete. She explained that their neighborhood had major drainage problems, and the people downstream of more pavement paid the price for it. She commented that this proposal might not do a lot, given that the Task Force could not find any properties that actually violated this standard. Ms. Weigel clarified that the idea was to prevent anyone from going beyond 50%, as there were some properties that came really close to the 50%. She mentioned that one resident had been concerned about this proposal because he wanted to build a deck. However, the type of deck he wanted to build was pervious, and therefore, excluded from the hardscape calculation. Councilor Hennagin asked if the purpose of the hardscape restriction was to allow the water to soak into the ground through permeable surfaces. Ms. Troisi explained that there were two different issues: drainage permeability and not looking like an urban concrete neighborhood. Ms. Troisi presented the definition of hardscape. She commented that natural -looking ponds were excluded and swimming pools included because first did not contribute to the paved -over look, and the second did. Ms. Weigel confirmed that Lake Grove had a similar proposal in its plan. She said that she worked with the City Attorney's Office to develop a definition of hardscape. She noted that Glenmorrie tweaked the definition to allow more leeway, while Lake Grove tweaked it to allow less leeway. Ms. Troisi proposed moving the bulk of structures away from the neighbors (p. 106), which was also an Infill Task Force proposal. She commented that a large house sitting in the middle of a City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 14 of 16 April 6, 2010 large lot could fit in on a street of small houses, citing an example in the Hallinan neighborhood. She indicated that the neighborhood felt strongly about this, and the Task Force did not want to take the chance that Infill might drop the requirement. If Infill kept it in, then this proposal could drop out of the overlay. She thanked Ms. Weigel without whose diligence and patience the Task Force would not have persevered for the 2.5 years it spent working on this. Ms. Weigel mentioned that having one of the original plan writers on the Task Force provided a great resource for the history of why certain statement were written in a certain way, which helped in developing the implementation strategies. Ms. Troisi emphasized that these proposals received significant neighborhood discussion over a long period of time. The Task Force had very good participation in the survey and at the meetings. It had a large e-mail distribution list also. She commented that it would be hard for a resident to say that he/she was unaware of this work. Ms. Weigel concurred that this neighborhood association was very active with good participation. COUNCIL QUESTIONS Ms. Troisi indicated to Councilor Jordan that they dropped the height limit restriction because they could not find any houses that violated it. She explained that the problem was more that the neighborhood had a preponderance of steeply sloped lots; a legal and not very tall house looked tall because it loomed over the people behind it. However, restricting building height to what appeared as reasonable from the neighbor's point of view meant building one-story houses. Ms. Troisi confirmed to Councilor Hennagin that they were recommending adoption of these three proposals, which they felt would have the biggest impact on preserving the neighborhood character (out of the 12 proposals that they started with). Ms. Weigel mentioned that another factor had been proposals requiring the least amount of regulation. Ms. Troisi indicated that the Association intended to write up a good neighbor guide as an unofficial addendum to the neighborhood plan, which would discuss the other issues that came up during the discussions. Councilor Hennagin mentioned that his time on the Council has convinced him that the 1950s land use planning in America, based upon the auto, cheap gas, large yards, and ever-expanding suburbs, was not sustainable. He wondered whether the City could preserve Glenmorrie in the future. Ms. Troisi pointed out that the present neighborhood zoning was R-15. She commented that if the City decided to change that zoning, then their very active neighborhood would have something to say about it. Council President Johnson noted that there was a public hearing on this proposal on May 18. 9. INFORMATION FROM THE COUNCIL 9.1 Councilor Information 9.2 Reports of Council Committees, Organizational Committees, and Intergovernmental Committees 10. REPORTS OF OFFICERS 10.1 City Manager 10.1.1 Review of Council Schedule 10.2 City Attorney 11. EXECUTIVE SESSION Councilor Jordan left the meeting at 9:41 p.m. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 15 of 16 April 6, 2010 Council President Johnson convened an Executive Session at 9:41 p.m. pursuant to ORS 192.660 (2) (f) to consider records that are exempt by law from public inspection and (h) to consult with attorney regarding legal rights and duties of a public body with regard to current litigation or litigation likely to be filed. Mr. Powell reviewed the Executive Session parameters. He noted for the record that no members of the public were present, other than staff. 12. RETURN TO OPEN SESSION Council President Johnson returned the meeting to open session at 9:51 p.m. 13. ADJOURNMENT Council President Johnson adjourned the meeting at 9:51 p.m. Respectfully submitted, �1 Robyn CWristie City Recorder APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: N June A 5,201,0 J,a k D. Hoffman,Vayor v City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 16 of 16 April 6, 2010 LAKE OSWEGO Centennial 1910-2010 Contact Email: Phone: AGENDA CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING Tuesday, April 6, 2010 6:30 p.m. Council Chambers, 380 AAvenue Robyn Christie, City Recorder rchristie@ci.oswego.or.us 503-675-3984 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 380 AAvenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 503-675-3984 www.ci.oswego.or.us Also published on the internet at: www.ci.oswego.or.us The meeting location is accessible to persons with disabilities. To request accommodations, please contact Public Affairs at 503-635-0236, 48 hours before the meeting. Page # 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. PRESENTATIONS (30 minutes) 3.1 LO Reads Recap 3.2 Arbor Week Proclamation 3.3 LOIS Update 3.4 Report of Audit Subcommittee 4. CONSENT AGENDA (5 minutes) ♦ The consent agenda allows the City Council to consider items that require no discussion. ♦ An item may only be discussed if it is pulled from the consent agenda. ♦ The City Council makes one motion covering all items included in the consent agenda. 4.1 REPORTS 4.1.1 ADA Ramp and Storm Drainage Retrofits (Royce Way) Action: Award a public improvement contract to Portland Road and driveway Company, Inc., in the amount of $100,952 Jack Hoffman, Mayor ■ Roger Hennagin, Councilor ■ Kristin Johnson, Councilor Donna Jordan, Councilor ■ Sally Moncrieff, Councilor . Mary Olson, Councilor ■ Bill Tierney, Councilor Page 2 4.1.2 Request for dedication of property to the public right-of-way at Westlake Park Action: Approval to permit the City Manager to approve a dedication of property located at Westlake Park to the public right-of-way in order for the new shade structure to be in compliance with standard 50.45.010(7)(b) of the Community Development Code 4.2 MINUTES 4.2.1 January 11, 2010, Joint Meeting with the Tigard City Council 4.2.2 January 12, 2010, Special Meeting Action: Approve minutes as written END CONSENT AGENDA 5. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA 6. CITIZEN COMMENT (30 minutes) The purpose of citizen comment is to allow citizens to present information or raise an issue regarding items not on the agenda or regarding agenda items that do not include a public hearing. A time limit of three minutes per citizen shall apply. 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS (30 minutes) 7.1 Recommendation from the Engineering Division to relinquish the City's interest in a 5 -foot wide by 50 -foot long strip of land along the front property line of a residential lot located at 3270 Lakeview Blvd. Public Hearing Process: Review of hearing procedure by David Powell, City Attorney Staff Report by Guy Graham, City Engineer/Public Works Director Testimony will be taken in the order received: • 5 minutes for a representative of a recognized neighborhood association, homeowner association, or government agency, or other incorporated public interest organization; • 3 minutes for other persons. Questions of Staff Discussion Motion: Authorize the City Manager to execute a quitclaim deed to transfer ownership of the subject 5 -foot strip of land to the abutting owners. Page 3 8. REPORTS (1 hour) 8.1 Resolution 10-22, adopting the April 2010 Lake Oswego Economic Development Strategy 8.2 Percent for Art Program 8.3 Study Session on Glenmorrie Overlay Zone 9. INFORMATION FROM COUNCIL (15 minutes) This agenda item provides an opportunity for individual Councilors to provide information to the Council on matters not otherwise on the agenda. Each Councilor will be given five minutes. 9.1 Councilor Information 9.2 Reports of Council Committees, Organizational Committees, and Intergovernmental Committees 10. REPORTS OF OFFICERS (5 minutes) 10.1 City Manager 10.1.1 Review of Council Schedule 10.2 City Attorney 11. ADJOURNMENT CABLE VIEWERS: This meeting will be shown live on Channel 28, at 6:30 p.m. The meeting will be rebroadcast at the following times on Channel 28: Wednesday 7:30 p.m. Thursday 7:00 a.m. Friday 2:30 a.m. Saturday 12:00 p.m. Sunday 4:00 p.m. Monday 11:00 P.M. Watch Council meetings live wherever you are via live streaming video at mms://www.ci.oswego.or.us/live CITY COUNCIL / LORA TENTATIVE SCHEDULE Items known as of 4/1/10 DATE MEETING Tuesday, Work Session, 5:30 p.m., Municipal Courtroom April 6 • Financial Update Regular Meeting, 6:30 p.m. Council Chambers • LO Reads Recap • Arbor Week Proclamation • Economic Development Strategy • LOIS Update • Percent for Art • ADA Ramp and Storm Drainage Retrofits (Royce Way) • Westlake Park right of way dedication Public Hearing • Return of 5 -foot strip of property at 3270 Lakeview Blvd. Study Session • Glenmorrie Overlay Zone Tuesday, Work Session, 5:30 p.m., Municipal Courtroom April 13 • Comp Plan/Periodic Review Scope Studv Session, 6:30 p.m. Council Chambers • Real Estate Development Workshop (Bruce Wood and Will Denecke) Monday, Budget Committee Meeting, 6:30 p.m. WEB April 19 Tuesday, Regular Meeting, 6:30 p.m. Council Chambers April 20 • Streetcar Update • Amy Carlton, recipient of Prudential Spirit of Community Award (youth volunteer) • Public Works Week Proclamation Public Hearing BOLD ITEMS — New issues added to schedule • Annexation of 5957 Waluga Drive • Annexation of 16211 Waluga Drive • Adoption of Infill Recommendation Monday, Budget Committee Meeting, 6:30 a.m. WEB April 26 Tuesday, Studv Session, 6:30 p.m. Council Chambers April 27 • Meeting with the Commission for Citizen Involvement (PC) • Neighborhood Planning Kit Sunday, Tour — Housing Options, time TBD May 2 Monday, Budget Committee Meeting, 6:30 p.m. WEB May 3 Tuesday, Cancelled May 4 Thursday, Streetcar Line Tour, 4-7 n.m. tentative May 6 BOLD ITEMS — New issues added to schedule CITY COUNCIL / LORA TENTATIVE SCHEDULE Items known as of 4/1/10 DATE MEETING Tuesday, Studv Session, 6:30 p.m. Council Chambers May 11 Water Treatment Decision Process • Strategic Investment Zone Discussion • Lake Oswego to Portland Transit Project Tuesday, Regular Meeting. 6:30 o.m. Council Chambers May 18 • Streetcar Update • LOIS Update • Landmark Designation Plaque and Historic Merit Award Presentation for National Historic Preservation Month • Sustainability Plan Progress Report • Clarification on referring Congregate Care Housing Ord. to Planning Commission Public Hearing • Flood Management Area Map Revision (LU 10-0003) • Glenmorrie Overlay Zone • CR&D Zone Amendments Tuesday, Studv Session, 6:30 o.m. Council Chambers May 25 • Lake Oswego to Portland Transit Project Thursday, lake Oswego Council to host Clackamas Cities Dinner May 27 To Be Scheduled • Emergency Response Plan • Implementation of Matrix report (Spring 2010) • Foothills Redevelopment Agreement • Municipal Finance • LOIS Bond Sale • Tour of Willamette River to see Foothills Dock and Water Treatment Plant intake • Prepare for Rail—Volution Conference (Oct 19-21, 2010) • Streetcar Locally Preferred Alternative Process • GB Arrington on Foothills as Transit Oriented Development • Lifelong Learning • IGA for Strategic Investment Zone with Clackamas County (June 1) • Study Session on Water Treatment Recommendation (June 15) • Public open house on Water Treatment Alternative (Council invited — June 24) • Joint Council Meeting with Tigard (July 5 or 12) • Adoption of Preferred Water Treatment Alternative (September) • Infill Plan Policy Amendments (June 1) Regular Updates • LOIS Update, 1st meeting every month • Streetcar Update, 2nd meeting every month • Sustainability Update, quarterly (2nd meeting, June, Sept., Dec.) • Financial Update, quarterly • Legislative Update, quarterly (15Y meeting, lune, Sept., Dec.) BOLD ITEMS — New issues added to schedule 3./ There are a number of reasons for our Library's number one ranking, not least of which is the role the Library plays in providing a sense of community. That is the essence of our Lake Oswego Community Reads program, and it was a major theme in this year's book. Apart from being a terrific literary work, The Whistlinq Season provided an excellent portrait of life in 1910, and as our city celebrates this centennial year, we also celebrated a living, ever-changing, and ever -developing sense of community in our program. This year over 9,000 people participated in over 35 events. We'd like to show you a short DVD with photos from some of these Lake Oswego Reads events. DVD (Thanks, Robyn!) One of the events mentioned on the DVD was Lake Oswego Writes, and I'm pleased to mention that a piece written by .loan Freed from one of the workshops will be placed in the centennial time capsule in October. We would be remiss if we didn't thank our program supporters, many of whom were mentioned at the end of the DVD, as well as City staff and you, our City Council, for making this and all the work we do at the Library possible. We have already had our first post -program meeting, and we will meet later this month to begin planning for our 2011 program. Cyndie - Book selection and criteria. We also encourage participants in this year's program to visit the City of Lake Oswego website and participate in the Open City Hall, where they can provide input regarding next year's program. rho help the Lake Oswego Library plan for future years of LO Reads, please share what you enjoyed about this year's LO Reads program and what would encourage your participation in future years? Again, thank you for your support, and we look forward to returning next year with an equally exciting report. -3.2 c"yf LAKE dsWEGO O R E G O N ftocfitmation Ardor Week ApriCS, 2010 WHEREAS, it was decreed by the Oregon State Legislature that the first full week in April shall be Arbor Week; and WHEREAS, trees can reduce the erosion of our precious topsoil by wind and water, cut heating and cooling costs, moderate the temperature, clean the air, produce life-giving oxygen, and provide habitat for wildlife; and WHEREAS, trees are a renewable resource giving us paper, wood for our homes, fuel for our fires, and beautify our community; and WHEREAS, trees, wherever they are planted, can be a source of j oy and spiritual renewal; and WHEREAS, the TREE CITY USA designation of Lake Oswego recognizes that the city meets the standards that effectively manage the community public tree resources, and encourages the implementation of community tree management; and WHEREAS, the City of Lake Oswego has made significant contributions toward enhancing quality of life by improving its forest resources. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that we, the Lake Oswego City Council do hereby proclaim the week of April 5, 2010, as Arbor Week in the City of Lake Oswego, and urge all citizens to support efforts to protect trees and woodlands, and to support our city's urban forestry program, and to celebrate Lake Oswego Arbor Week by planting trees and promoting the well being of trees for this and future generations. Kristin Johnson, Council President April 6, 2010 J " City LAKE U4WEGO O R E G O N (MOCGAXAVON X.AqIOAVAL PVBEIC S-A FEgy 9IEEEC09W9W'V9VIC'AqI0AVS UEEK WHEREAS, the Public Safety Dispatchers of the Lake Oswego Communications Center, who process on average over 140,000 telephone calls per year, are the first and most critical contact that our citizens have with emergency services; and WHEREAS, these dispatchers are the vital link to those calling for help and to police officers, firefighters, and paramedics; and WHEREAS, dispatchers monitor emergency personnel's activities by radio and telephone, and provide them with life saving information to ensure their safety; and WHEREAS, the safety of our police officers, firefighters, and paramedics is dependent upon the quality and accuracy of information obtained by all Communications Operators from the citizens who telephone the Communications Center; and WHEREAS, the Public Safety Dispatchers of the Lake Oswego Communications Center have contributed significantly to the apprehension of criminals, suppression of fire and the treatment of patients in life threatening situations; and WHEREAS, each dispatcher, the unseen individual providing a calm voice when emergencies arise, has exhibited compassion, empathy, and professionalism, keeping our city and citizens safe; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that we, the Lake Oswego City Council, do hereby proclaim the week of April 11 - 17, 2010, as NATIONAL PUBLIC SAFETY TELECOMMUNICATIONS WEEK in Lake Oswego and urge all citizens to honor the employees of the Communications Center and recognize them for their diligence and professionalism in helping to keep our city, its citizens, employees, and visitors safe. ✓ �, Kristin Johnson, Council President April 6, 2010 A PIe,eB�i � � j �,•'d� a r " v. y1 �0 gip►\ < LAKE OSWEGO Centennial 1910-2010 COUNCIL REPORT TO: Jack Hoffman, Mayor Members of the City Council Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager FROM: Matthew Tipton, PE, Associate Engineer Public Works Department CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 503-675-3984 www.ci.oswego.or.us SUBJECT: Public Improvement Contract for the 2010 ADA Ramp and Storm Drainage Improvements, Work Order #125 and #135 DATE: April 6, 2010 ACTION The Council is requested to award a public improvement contract to Portland Road and Driveway Company, Inc., in the amount of $100,952 for the 2010 ADA Ramp and Storm Drainage Improvement Programs. INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND Council action is required to award a contract of this type in order to comply with City and State contracting and purchasing procedures. The City has a program in place that targets neighborhoods in need of sidewalk ramp upgrades to meet the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). This year, staff prioritized Royce Way between Bryant Road and Westview Drive. The reason for selecting this location is in part due to the upcoming asphalt overlay project on Royce Way. The scope of work consists of 6 new sidewalk ramps, 250 linear feet of new sidewalk and 14 catch basins. The project was coupled with the storm drainage improvements due to the similarity of the skills required to perform the work and to reduce the cost of multiple contracts. DISCUSSION On Tuesday, March 22, 2010, the City opened bids for the above -referenced project. Four bids were received with the low bid being submitted by Portland Road and Driveway Company, Inc. Page 2 The bidders and the bid amounts are tabulated below: Portland Road and Driveway Company, Inc Braun Construction Brown Construction Gelco Construction Average of Bids Engineer's Estimate $100,952.00 $109,688.00 $113,794.00 $137,803.60 $116,007.86 $137,695.00 The Engineering Division has evaluated each bid submitted and determined the bid submitted by Portland Road and Driveway Company, Inc. to be responsive and responsible. Portland Road and Driveway met all prequalification requirements and have extensive local experience. Additionally, phone interviews were conducted and local references checked. The bidding documents for this project were prepared in accordance with the City's requirements for public improvement contracts. The bidding process was conducted in accordance with the City's public contracting procedures. ALTERNATIVES & FISCAL IMPACT The alternatives are to: 1) not accept staff's recommendation, reject all bids and re -bid the project, or 2) accept staff's recommendation and award the contract. Not awarding this contract would result in a missed opportunity to improve the pedestrian and storm water infrastructure prior to the asphalt overlay. It is unlikely that rejecting the bids and re -advertising would result in lower bid prices. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends Council award the public improvement contract to Portland Road and Driveway Company, Inc., of Clackamas, Oregon, in the amount of $100,952 for the 2010 ADA Ramp and Storm Drainage Improvements. ATTACHMENTS 1. Bid tabulation Reviewed by: AAW,V l f " Department Director Alex D. McIntyre City Manager y 0 a o 0 fD ID __ _ ___ F 3 C K t O O M W m 3 � m m. M L>+ Q> > 3 < m c c W o N M n v G] G) 7 3. o_ S ai ai m m 3 n ID W a L.t N N N m m A X 09 d m 0 c m o VI Q y tj O B < m caCT -n r I - D > > < < N 41 T T 'n 1; 01 V 0) 01 047 S O S F.. G � W _ LQCto (044 O O O N000N8 N0 N0 N0 N N MONa (� OppOS NS 80 00 8 8 8 0 0 0 <D ro3 8 8 0 0 0 O N N y N N 5N� 5N� o 0 0$ Ns 25 S o Jg o 8 25 a m 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 60 8 8 8 8 8,8 8 818 8 8 8 8 8 8 `D OOW NNS qpN N N+ O S O O O O O O tT O O O V 8 8 8 8 0 0 8 8 8 8 8 88 0 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 op a O NIM N N 1 N N (n « N N N N « N N N N v C m W V V V 0 0 0 f 8 8 8 8 91 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8— 8 8 8 8 8 N N m V V EA fA (/� N J N 41 bf W f4 N U V U 7 p fT f7� O O O U W U U U N N N W fn U U U 0 O O O O O O O m O O O O O O OO 8 O O O O OO OOO O O N N N O bi N N N fn W N « M N N N fA w N OOO 00 S 8 8 O O O S SS60O O O O O O O O 88 V 8 0 8 88'8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 pW N W !O O O O O O O A S O O O A A OD O W fT A O o O S 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 0 8 8 8 8 8 8 0 8 8 8 V S O O O S N N O N W f0 O O m O O W N O O O 8 s 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 — ---I — ---� — N N W M N N O N x o o m 8 -- 8 8 8 8 8 8 ppV� J N tNp t0D f0 p� ONi � NN+pp N OWi N O O O O A O fN4 O O 61 8 8 8 8 8 8 8`-- 8 8 8 8 8 8 N N N N UN �pp N d O O S S O O O O O O fN4 CV V N O OV 8 (N4 N N O fNp iAy pq O O O O S O O O O 0 d CD 3 n 0 H C 0 O Of O W O O S j O W W O O 0 8 8 N p 8 8 a 8 8 8 8 8 n � y S A o 0 8 �0 0 0 8 0 - 8 8 8 8 8 8 0 8 8 8 8 8 "t m N fNil «~ U fNJ N (4 ON+ (004 OA U N t0 DD O V N fT O N V A 8 8 N B 8 .04 0 8 8 8 a v f0 A 0 oN4 m fA f4 O T (4 S S W AVy O (044 S WN O O O 0 O LAKE OSWEGO Centennial 1910-2010 COUNCIL REPORT TO: Jack Hoffman, Mayor Members of the City Council Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 FROM: Kim Gilmer, Parks & Recreation Director; Theresa Paulson, Senior Planner Group Mackenzie 503-675-3984 www.ci.oswego.or.us SUBJECT: Request for dedication of property to the public right-of-way at Westlake Park DATE: March 31, 2010 ACTION This report requests City Council approval to permit the City Manager to approve a dedication of property located at Westlake Park to the public right -of way. INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND The Parks and Recreation Department is planning to remove and replace the existing shade structure located at the playground in Westlake Park. The existing structure is 14 feet in height and consists of a steel frame and a green high-density polyethylene fabric cover. The shade structure protects picnickers from the elements and protects users from foul balls from the adjacent baseball field. The structure's height is not tall enough to deter playground users from attempting to climb on the shade cover, which creates a safety hazard. Therefore, as a precautionary measure, the proposed replacement structure will be 17 feet in height which make climbing from the equipment onto the shade structure more difficult. In addition, the roof material has deteriorated and needs to be replaced. The City Council approved funding in the FY09-10 budget for replacement of this structure. The replacement will have the same footprint and be placed in the same location as the existing structure. The new shade structure will feature a structural steel frame with the same green high-density polyethylene fabric cover. DISCUSSION The Parks and Recreation Department applied for a Building Permit for the shade structure on January 29, 2010. Through the permit review process, Planning staff determined that a Minor Development approval would be required for the shade structure prior to building permit approval. A Pre -Application Conference (PA 10-0012) was held on February 18, 2010. Compliance with Community Development Code Standard Page 2 50.45.010(7)(b), requires all buildings/structures to be located within 30 -feet of a public street. The intent of this standard is to ensure that buildings are located within a reasonable distance (30') to the public right- of-way for convenient pedestrian access. In preparation of the Minor Development application, it became apparent that the existing shade structure was setback approximately 33 feet from the right-of-way (Bunick Drive), or three feet outside of the required distance from a public street (Exhibit A). Planning Department staff identified three options to the Parks and Recreation Department: Apply for a Class 2 Variance to standard 50.45.010(7)(b) for the additional 3 -foot setback. Extend a portion of the shade structure 3 feet towards the right-of-way in order to be within the 30 - foot setback. 3. Dedicate property to the public right-of-way, therefore bringing the structure into compliance with the 30 -foot setback. 1. Class 2 Variance This option requires the Parks and Recreation Department to prove that an undue hardship exists to successfully obtain a variance (i.e. topographical restrictions). The process would require a public hearing and has the potential to not be approved if a hardship cannot be proven. Parks staff cannot identify any hardship which would allow the variance. 2. Extending the shade structure 3 feet Extending the shade structure on one side will require re-engineering and remanufacturing of the structure. In addition, to make the structure aesthetically pleasing, an additional three feet would be needed to the opposite side of the structure to provide visual balance. There are well established trees surrounding the structure on all sides of the structure. Enlarging the roof of the structure would require these trees to be removed, and replacement trees would not be able to be replanted in the same area due to lack of space. 3. Dedication Property to the Public Right-of-Wav This option requires the Parks and Recreation Department to dedicate a portion of the park to the public right-of-way (Exhibit B). This results in bringing the right-of-way closer to the shade structure and results in the structure being within the 30' standard. After reviewing the options proposed by Planning Staff, it was determined that Option #3, dedication of property to the public right-of-way was the best option. This strategy was reviewed by the Engineering Division and the City Manager. Both agreed that this strategy was the most effective solution to this standard. ALTERNATIVES & FISCAL IMPACT No additional fiscal impacts will result by dedicating park property to the public right-of-way. Park Maintenance staff will continue to maintain the dedicated property along with rest of the park. Page 3 RECOMMENDATION The Parks and Recreation Department requests City Council approval to permit the City Manager to approve a dedication of property located at Westlake Park to the public right -of way in order for the new shade structure to be in compliance with standard 50.45.010(7)(b) of the Community Development Code. ATTACHMENTS 1. Exhibit A - Site Aerial to scale of existing shade structure 2. Exhibit B - Site Aerial with proposed area to be dedicated Reviewed by: Department Director Alex D. McIntyre City Manager DEFECTS IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT O m (D o w . X - o (p c T m o O XN OD O V W Z O ` r rD Z N 3 c O (D �J (D O �p S 3 (D O Q 7- 0 .d,w 4 v, n lz, U-1 co 'D d 4 .—f Is ,41 Ir C) CD CL , Name of Document For Recording: Dedication ` Dedicator: City of Lake Oswego Dedicatee: City of Lake Oswego Consideration: non -monetary Tax Statement to be mailed to: No change. Statutory Recordation Authority: ORS 205.130(3). After Recording, Return To: City of Lake Oswego, Ann: City Recorder, P.O. Box 369, Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Dedicator: Dedicatee: City of Lake Oswego City of Lake Oswego (For County Recording Use Only) DEDICATION Dedication and Purpose. The above named Dedicator does hereby dedicate to the Dedicatee, pursuant to ORS 92.175(1)(c), for the use of the general public forever that certain real property located in the City of Lake Oswego, State of Oregon that is more particularly bounded and described below, for the following purpose: public right of way. 2. Description of Dedicated Area. The real property which is the subject of this Dedication is located in the County of Clackamas, State of Oregon, and more particularly described as follows: See attached exhibit A Nature of Dedication. The designation of the City of Lake Oswego as the Dedicatee is for the benefit of the recording officer of the county in which the dedicated land is located. It is acknowledged by Dedicator and Dedicatee that this instrument is not to be construed as conveying any title, interest, or ownership directly to the Dedicatee as grantee, but that Dedicatee is named solely in the nature of a governmental representative of the general public. This instrument is a dedication to the public generally, not to any specific grantee, including to a municipality. See Carter v. Citv of Portland ,4 Or. 339, 347 (1873). This dedication does not create a separate parcel, as this dedication is in the nature of a public easement.; See Kurtz v. Southern Pac. Co., 80 Or. 213, 155 P. 367 (1916); Haberlv v. Tread2old, 67 Or. 425, 136 P. 334 (1913); Sharkev v. Citv of Portland, 58 Or. 353, 362, 106 P. 331, 114 P. 933 (1911). The appropriate governmental entity may exercise jurisdiction over the dedicated area, including the rights and procedures for vacation of the dedication, pursuant to ORS 271.080 — 271.230 and successor Oregon statutes. Upon change of governmental jurisdiction due to annexation, withdrawal, or otherwise, transfer of jurisdiction over the dedicated area shall occur as a matter of law and no conveyance or deed by Dedicatee is necessary. 4. Consideration. This Dedication is given without receipt of any monetary consideration. 5. Representation of Title. Dedicator warrants to the Dedicatee that Dedicator is the fee title owner of the real property upon which this dedicate is granted, free and clear of all taxes, liens and encumbrances, except those of record. 6. Construction. In construing this dedication and where the context so require, the singular includes the plural and all grammatical changes shall be implied to make the provisions hereof apply equally to corporations and to individuals. This document is accepted pursuant to aut horny a..d approved for recording. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned Dedicator has hereunto executed this Dedication on the date stated below the Dedicator's signature. For the Ci ake Oswego: J y/ -7110 Alex D. McIntyre, Citanager Date STATE OF OREGON County of Clackamas On this 7tj" day of PPS J I , 20 10 , this instrument was acknowledged before me by Alex D. McIntyre as City Manager of the City of Lake Oswego, a municipal Oregon corporation, and who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence that he was the city manager of the named City of Lake Oswego and had authority to sign on its behalf. WITNESS my hand and official seal Notary Signature 4 Commission expires: Gl ally L Notary Seal OFFICIAL SEAL ROBYN L CHRISTIE NOTAHV PUBLIC -OP': 7N CON.Na&u.;;N'10. 41700 IAY COMMISSION EXPIRES JUNE 2, 2011 2 IUsoIIIl1r_1 An 8.00 foot wide tract of land located in the southeast quarter of Section 6, Township 2 South, Range 1 East of the Willamette Meridian, City of Lake Oswego, County of Clackamas, State of Oregon; more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the most easterly corner of Lot 45, The Meadows (Plat #2946), said point being on the northwesterly right of way line of Bunick Drive (60.00 feet wide); thence along said right of way line, northeasterly along a 678.95 foot radius curve to the right (Delta = 16° 52' 40"; Long Chord = 199.28 feet; Chord Bearing = North 38' 59' 18" East) 200.00 feet to the True Point of Beginning; thence leaving said right of way line, North 42' 34' 22" West (radial to said right of way curve), 8.00 feet; thence northeasterly on a 686.95 foot radius curve to the right (Delta = 05' 29' 07"; Long Chord = 65.74 feet; Chord Bearing = North 50' 10' 12" East) 65.77 feet, said arc being offset 8.00 feet northwesterly of the existing northwesterly right of way line of Bunick Drive; thence South 37° 05' 15" East (radial to said right of way curve), 8.00 feet to a point on said northwesterly right of way line of Bunick Drive; thence along said right of way line, southwesterly along a 678.95 foot radius curve to the left (Delta = 05* 29' 07"; Long Chord = 64.98 feet; Chord Bearing = South 50' 10' 12" West) 65.00 feet to the True Point of Beginning. Said tract containing 523 square feet, more or less. Basis of Bearing: Plat of The Meadows (Clackamas County Plat #2946) 0 20 1 40 60 WESTLAKE PARK DEED DOC. 89-0034359 SE 1/4 SEC 6, T2S, R1 E, WM CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO, CLACKAMAS COUNTY, OR REGISTI:RE® P.71 OFF r-0)S10r'JAl,... :.AND -3U Rl9EYOR �.1.lLit•awl.� a ®R ECUN JULY 18, 1902 GERALD B. KING 1997 LOT 45 THE MEADOWS PLAT # 2,946 EXHIBIT B 30' SETBACK LINE 8.00' N 42° 34'22" W RADIAL PLAY SHELTER/ i I 1pph� ajN / S37°05'15"E (RADIA Y / / i r / ` ADDITIONAL 6Z ROW �' DEDICATION 523 SQ. FT. 7' TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING o LOT 153 AVERY LANE POINT OF / COMMENCEMENT MOST EASTERLY COR OF LOT 45 LOT 94 LOT 95 LOT 96 {oF qrr CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO EXHIBIT B DESIGN: DRAWN: CHECK: �pKf GBK I GBK I DA $ BUNICK DRIVE SCALE:I DATE: ENGINEERING ROW DEDICATION V=40, "=40' 04-02-2010 DEPARTMENT SHEET DWG. FILE NO. 0RfC�" WESTLAKE PARK PLAY SHELTER ><1 1 11PARKSIBUNICK ROW Name of Document For Recording: Quitclaim Deed (For County Recording Use Only) Grantor: City of Lake Oswego Grantee: Barry and Carolyn Brewis Consideration: $0.00 together with other good and valuable consideration. Tax Statement to be mailed to: No change. Statutory Recordation Authority: ORS 93.850. After Recording, Return To: Grantee QUITCLAIM DEED The City of Lake Oswego, a municipal corporation, "Grantor," for the consideration hereinafter stated, does hereby remise, release and quitclaim unto Barry and Carolyn, "Grantee," and unto grantee's heirs, successors and assigns all of the grantor's rights, title and interest in that certain real property with the tenements, hereditaments and appurtenances thereunto belonging or in anywise appertaining, situated in the County of Clackamas, State of Oregon, described as follows: That five foot wide strip of land described in document 74-5907, deed records of Clackamas County,Oregon. To have and to hold the same unto the said grantee and grantee's heirs, successors and assigns forever. The true consideration for this conveyance is non monetary. In construing this deed and where the context so requires, the singular includes the plural and all grammatical changes shall be implied to make provisions hereof apply equally to corporations and individuals. This deed is executed by authority vested with the City Manager pursuant to LOC 12.24.950. THIS INSTRUMENT WILL NOT ALLOW USE OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS INSTRUMENT IN VIOLATION OF APPLICABLE LAND USE LAWS AND REGULATIONS. BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS INSTRUMENT, THE PERSON ACQUIRING FEE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY SHOULD CHECK WITH THE APPROPRIATE CITY OR COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY APPROVED USES AND TO DETERMINE ANY LIMITS ON LAWSUITS AGAINST FARMING OR FOREST PRACTICES AS DEFINED IN ORS 30.930. After recording, return to Grantee Dated the 7 7"k, day of Ayr; 2010. i STATE OF OREGON County of / ��1Y1125 On this 7 day of /'/✓ City of L e ego By: Alex b. McIntyre )ss. 1 , 2010, this instrument was acknowledged before me by 464 fi• lRElhkj✓r✓ as City Manager of the City of Lake Oswego, a municipal Oregon corporation, and who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence that he was the city manager of the named City of Lake Oswego and had authority to sign on its behalf. WITNESS my hand and official seal Notary Signature Commission expires: r / Notary Seal OFFICIAL SEAL ROBYN L CHRISPE i'O--ARY PUBLIC -OR_ )N rdY COMMISSION EXPIRES JUNE 232011 After recording, return to Grantee LAKE OSWECA) Centennial 1910-2010 COUNCIL REPORT TO: Jack Hoffman, Mayor Members of the City Council Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager FROM: Robyn Christie, City Recorder City Manager's Office SUBJECT: Approval of Meeting Minutes DATE: April 1, 2010 ACTION Approve minutes as written. ATTACHMENTS • January 11, 2010, Joint Meeting with the Tigard City Council • January 12, 2010, Special Meeting Reviewed by: Alex D. McIntyre City Manager q' 2— CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 380 AAvenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 503-675-3984 www.ci.oswego.or.us JOINT MEETING LAKE OSWEGO AND TIGARD CITY COUNCILS January 11, 2010 MINUTES Mayor Jack Hoffman called the special joint City Council meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. on January 11, 2010, in the West End Building, Willamette Room, 4101 Kruse Way. Present: Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Jordan, Johnson, Olson, Moncrieff, and Tierney. Councilor Hennagin was excused. Staff Present: Alex McIntyre, City Manager; David Powell, City Attorney; Robyn Christie, City Recorder; Joel Komarek, LOIS Project Director; Jane Heisler, LOIS Communications Director 2. Welcome and Introductions Mayor Hoffman welcomed Mayor Craig Dirksen, Councilors Gretchen Buehner and Nick Wilson, and City Manager Craig Prosser from Tigard. He encouraged attendance at Rail -volution 2010, the 15 -year old regional conference started by Congressman Earl Blumenauer that has gone international (October 19 - 21, 2010, Portland). He introduced GB Arrington, an international expert on transit -oriented development (TOD) and a former employee of TriMet, now working for PB Placemaking Group. He mentioned that both he and Mayor Dirksen heard Mr. Arrington's presentation at last year's Rail volution. 3. GB Arrington presentation on Transit Oriented Development Mr. Arrington gave a PowerPoint presentation. He mentioned that he has worked on transit oriented developments (TODs) in the Portland region since the 1970s. He reviewed the services offered by his company (p.1, Slide 3). He defined placemaking as the process that linked transportation, land use planning, and development to create livable communities of lasting value (p.1, Slide 2). He indicated that he would discuss transit -oriented development (TOD), pedestrian oriented development (POD), and development -oriented transit (DOT) (p.1, Slide 4). He discussed the challenges facing TOD in the U.S (p.1, Slide 6). He cited the Sysco Systems headquarters in Silicon Valley, CA, as an example of TAD (transit adjacent development), the more common type of transit development in the U.S. He noted the complete disconnect between the land use pattern oriented to cars and the presence of the transit station. He indicated that TOD was still illegal in the majority of transit stops in the U.S. because communities left in place suburban auto -oriented zoning codes that require low density setbacks and high parking ratios. He discussed the characteristics of developments shaped by transit (p.2, Slide 1). He commented that because cars would still make the majority of trips in the Portland region, they needed to design developments to work for both the car and transit. He reviewed the fundamentals of a good TOD in creating a great place centered around transit (p.2, Slide 3), citing Orenco as a good example. He discussed the need to plan TODs as districts (p.2, Slide 5) using a more complex and broader strategy in linking places together. He discussed why Orenco Station worked as a TOD and the Round did not (p.2, Slide 6). He noted that Orenco had a broad strategy covering 190 acres with a variety of uses. The Round was surrounded by discontinuous parking lots and auto -oriented development in downtown Beaverton. He commented that the challenge was how to create a district around the Round. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 13 January 11, 2010 He mentioned the importance of the market in TOD (p.3, Slide 2). He indicated that TOD was the top investment prospect in the U.S. because it held its value well irrespective of the economic times. He described the TOD market as empty nesters and young urban professionals at higher income levels. He observed that the challenge was to create housing with a variety of price points in order to build TODs for everybody. He discussed the decline in U.S. household sizes since 1950 (p.2, Slide 3). He observed that a 30% market demand in the U.S. for walkable communities and a housing market of less than 2% walkable communities indicated a disconnect in terms of whom the market was supplying. He contended that, given the amount of single family home housing stock already built, a community could meet the market demand without building any new single family homes. He reviewed the results of a survey of TOD residents on why they moved into a TOD (p.3, Slide 4). He noted that developers sold TODs to residents on the convenience of being able to walk to buy a pint of milk, as opposed to selling individual residences. He mentioned the Orenco developer's claim that one could walk from Orenco to Hawaii by taking MAX to the airport. He presented the six principles of successful TODs (p.3, Slide 6). He discussed the specifics underlying the first principle of medium to high density (p.4, Slide 1). He mentioned that people often asked him how many dwelling units per acre a TOD should have in meeting this first principle. He explained that he refused to answer that question because the amount of density depended on the place. He noted that Hillsboro, Gresham, and Portland have all adopted the effective minimum density strategy. He discussed the best example of a TOD: the Rosslyn-Ballston corridor with its five transit stations just outside of Washington, D.C. (p.4, Slide 2) He explained that one reason for its success was the compact that the cities made with the neighborhoods to concentrate density and economic development around the stations and thus preserve the neighborhoods. He noted that changing land use on this scale also changed transportation behavior, which was one of the real payoffs of TOD. He indicated that in Arlington County, which built TODs, 73% of the people walked to transit in contrast to Fairfax County, which put the rail line in the middle of the freeway, where 15% walked to transit (p.4, Slide 2). He mentioned the New York Times statement that the Rosslyn-Ballston corridor continued to remain resilient in the worst recession in decades (p.4, Slide 3). He discussed specifics underlying the second TOD principle of a mix of uses, which was different from mixed uses (p.4, Slide 4). He indicated that prohibiting auto -oriented uses in the areas closest to transit meant eliminating drive-throughs at banks or fast food restaurants, but not the businesses themselves. He gave the example of Market Common at the Clarendon Station in the Rosslyn-Ballston corridor, which was a mixed-use development located in an old Sears store (p.4, Slide 5). He mentioned that a key element had been the developer working closely with the neighborhoods to get their support, as this part of suburban Washington, D.C., housed people with lots of power. He discussed the specifics underlying the third TOD principle of compact pedestrian -oriented (p.4, Slide 6). He indicated the importance of blocks sized so that pedestrians could walk around them in five minutes, which challenged the development community that always wanted as big a block as possible. He mentioned that downtown Portland's blocks of 200' by 200' were actually too tight to work in today's market, which liked a block length of 320' to 400'. He observed that building buildings out to the edge presented a challenge to planners who wanted all edges activated by ground floor retail. However, there was only so much market for active ground floor retail, and the challenge was to figure out how much was enough. He mentioned a rule of thumb that active main streets were usually about 600 feet long, as were malls, because it was difficult to get continuous pedestrian activity for more than 600 feet. He presented a graphic illustrating intensity of uses on a pedestrian scale from the core through the center to the edge (p. 5, Slide 1). He reviewed the Distance and Mode Share chart (p.5, Slide City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 13 January 11, 2010 2). He noted that every 100 feet away from the transit station, the mode share of office dropped by 1 %, which was why TODs should locate office as close to the station as possible and put the residential units further away. He explained that people would walk further to their residences than they would to their jobs. He discussed the specifics underlying the fourth TOD principle of an active defined center (p.5, Slide 3). He explained that the number of hours of activity depended on the personality of the community, which was different for every community. He described the Bloomington Central TOD in Minnesota, which was an adaptive reuse of a suburban office park at the stop between the airport and the Mall of America (p.5, Slide 4). He discussed the specifics underlying the fifth TOD principle of limited, managed parking (p.5, Slide 5). He commented that parking was the hardest thing to manage in a TOD. He indicated that getting rid of maximum and minimum parking ratios was an effective strategy. He suggested doing parking utilization studies to reduce the amount of parking when managing parking by district, as opposed to by building. He reviewed the data backing up the known fact that TODs created less traffic (p.5, Slide 6). He indicated that the challenge was to create building codes and assess impact fees that treated everyone the same. He presented the numbers illustrating the inequity of charging traffic impact fees for TODs based on the ITE manual trip generation numbers for multi -family units because TOD residents behaved differently (p.6, Slide 1). He observed that cities also sized their streets twice as wide as they needed to be for TODs. He discussed the specifics underlying the sixth TOD principle of public leadership (p.6, Slide 2). He emphasized the need to focus on implementing the plan, rather than simply having a plan. He presented the example of Arlington Heights, a community outside of Chicago with a revitalized downtown and Unirail for its transit (p.6, Slide 3). He indicated that this community was a very affluent community of around 100,000 in population. He discussed the principles behind development oriented transit (p.6, Slide 5). He commented that Tigard should be fighting over where to locate the stations because the stations defined the most important places. He indicated that he wanted TriMet to do a better job with the stations because civic architecture placemaking should be a part of the process and add value to the community. He discussed auto -oriented transit. He compared Dupont Circle in Washington, D.C. (a good example of transit) with Branch Avenue, an auto -oriented transit station built in 2000 in Washington, D.C. (p.7, Slide 1). He presented a plan map showing the differences between an auto -oriented station with parking next to the station and a development -oriented station with development next to the station (p.7, Slide 2). He mentioned that both station types had the same amount of parking. He observed that commuters were creatures of habit, tending to park in the same place, whether it was adjacent to the platform or not. He presented a graphic illustrating the equation of three steps: making a place, connecting to the community, and making transit work (p.7, Slide 3). He indicated that the order did not matter as long as a community did all three. He emphasized the need for people to own the responsibility for each of the three steps. He showed a graphic illustrating how TOD could work in creating a sense of arrival and creating a connection back to the community (p.7, Slide 4). He discussed the preferred hierarchy in the US for the more progressive transit agencies (p.7, Slide 5), which reversed the earlier hierarchy in putting pedestrians on top and park and rides at the bottom. He mentioned that some transit agencies still emphasized storing cars as a way to get to transit, citing the 119 new miles of transit RTD in Denver was building and the 22,000 new parking spaces. He observed that the Portland region had less than 4,000 parking spaces for transit. He spoke of the importance of deciding who had the responsibility for what part of a TOD (the transit, the local agencies, and the private developer) in looking for a seamless integration between City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 13 January 11, 2010 the three spheres (p.7, Slide 6). He discussed how to make transit behave, starting with design (p.8, Slide 1). He commented that it was more important to have a great destination than to get there quickly. He described the characteristics for a good transit station (p.8, Slide 3). He discussed looking at a station from an engineer's point of view versus the DOT's point of view (p.8, Slide 4). He indicated that the design process needed both those points of view because the transit agency would stay within the right-of-way but the community wanted the station to fit into the community. He discussed considerations for station locations (p.8, Slide 5). He presented four different strategies for station identities in placemaking (p.8, Slide 6). He cited Pioneer Square in Portland as the best station in Portland in terms of a station as a place in and of itself. He recalled that, as the TriMet staff person in charge of designing Pioneer Square, he simply turned the design over to the Friends of Pioneer Square who designed an invisible station. He discussed designing for development. He indicated that the Fruitvale Transit Village in the San Francisco BART system had an efficient transit station on one side and a revitalized low income community on the other side (p.9, Slides 2-5). Unfortunately, the design let the people get to their cars without going through the retail development. He commented that sometimes transportation could be too efficient. He reviewed the ten principles of development -oriented transit that his firm used in Baltimore (p.9, Slide 6). He discussed an example from New Zealand (p.10, Slide 3) in which they seamlessly integrated the underground commuter rail station with the above ground development as one pedestrian environment. He noted that it cost $100 billion to bury the station, but they got a 10 to 1 return on their investment in this redevelopment of a brown field. He described how Waitakere in suburban Auckland addressed the challenge facing most commuter rail systems of getting riders from one side of the tracks to the other side (p.10, Slides 1- 2). He described their solution as more about making a community connection than about TOD but noted that it was a good example of creative problem solving. COUNCIL QUESTIONS Councilor Buehner observed that Tigard had large senior citizen communities whose residents could not walk very far. She asked if Mr. Arrington has seen a situation of transit in large concentrated areas of seniors who needed the transit but had trouble getting to the station. Mr. Arrington concurred that America was aging but noted that there were a lot more active seniors as well. He mentioned that his firm has done a lot of work in south Florida with its high senior population, and that AARP was a strong advocate for TODs as active mixed use places that did not require a car. John Surrett commented that it did not make sense to him that TODs worked if the population was aging and leaving the employment base, and yet TODs put employment closest to the stations. He questioned the application of Mr. Arrington's TOD examples from the Washington, D.C. area to Lake Oswego, given that those areas had high population growth and federal government employment. He indicated that he saw a disconnect between those examples and what would make a TOD successful in Lake Oswego, given Mr. Arrington's assumptions. Mr. Arrington concurred that the City would need to scale a TOD to what was appropriate in Lake Oswego. He reiterated that each community needed to answer the right amount of density question for itself. He referenced Silverton, OR, the town where he grew up, as an example of a very walkable downtown. He stated that these principles worked in walkable compact spaces and for all ends of the demographic groups. He encouraged citizens to keep an open mind about the opportunity in front of the community and to work with the Council on future developments. Councilor Jordan commented that she has wondered about the planners' insistence of retail always on the bottom and other uses on top because of the question of how much retail could any one community take. She asked if a 200 to 400 foot stretch of retail mixed with office or apartment City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 13 January 11, 2010 vestibules types of uses, followed by another stretch of retail would work. She asked if there was a way to make sure that a retail establishment was viable because it was surrounded by other retail, yet not strung out so far that it was not where active people went. Mr. Arrington reiterated that the mixed use was the most difficult part to do. He spoke of the importance of working with experienced developers with a good track record, such as Lake Oswego working with Gramor on Lakeview Village. He explained that retail required lots of cars and lots of rooftops; therefore, the City needed to determine what its market could support. He observed that planners fell into the trap of ground floor retail as the way to create active walkable places when there were other ways to energize the street edge or to be more strategic about the placement of retail. He mentioned that they knew from studies that, as density and mix of uses increased, people would walk further. Therefore, retail could be an effective strategy to pull people into other areas, yet one still had to have the market fundamentals to support the retail. He said that a problem with a lot of planning is that it did not return to the market fundamentals in locating retail. Councilor Jordan mentioned that the real estate listings in Denver now listed a walkability score for the homes for sale. Mr. Arrington indicated that there was a national website that provided walkability scores for neighborhoods. Councilor Wilson observed that, even though Tigard was probably five years out from the actual design on a potential light rail project, the City actively promoted downtown and corridor development. He asked to what degree they could make assumptions about where stations would stand. Mr. Arrington said that he believed it was the job of the cities to tell the transit agencies where the stations ought to be, as land use came before transportation. He indicated that the way to do that was to make the right supportive land use decisions, as well as be willing to help pay for an extra station if the City wanted stations closer together than the transit agencies did. Mr. Arrington discussed the Rosslyn-Ballston TOD as an example of a jurisdiction (Arlington County) putting up money ($100 million) to move the planned alignment of the rail line from a surface alignment down the middle of the freeway to an underground alignment under Wilson Blvd in order to create its vision of dense walkable TODs. He indicated that, whether or not Tigard put up money, the City needed to do the planning and indicate to Metro and its regional partners that it knew what made sense and that it was taking steps today to reinforce the success of the future project. He explained that 40% of project justification was land use and economic development. He said that when he was at TriMet he wrote the original land use framework that the federal government now used as the largest single measure in its evaluations. He encouraged the Council to plan and implement its plan in the hope that people would put the stations in the right places. Carolyne Jones asked what experience Mr. Arrington had with developments in sloped areas, given that his examples were all in level places. Mr. Arrington commented that most TODs did happen on flat places. He mentioned Arvana, an old gold town that was now a Denver suburb, which put the parking for its TOD on the side of a hill. Councilor Buehner asked whether the significant slope issues faced by both Lake Oswego and Tigard argued for an underground project. Mr. Arrington pointed out that going underground became very expensive very quickly. He cautioned the Councils to be careful in doing any undergrounding, and to make sure that they would get a good return on that investment. He spoke of making what flat or compact areas they had special places and locating uses on hills that people would walk further for, such as residential. He referenced Tysons Corner as an example of a successful TOD with a number of hills (p.10, Slides 4-6). He said that part of the challenge was how to organize the land uses so that they were transit -friendly and still within walking distance. He mentioned that they supplemented the TOD in Tysons Corner with streetcars and buses to meet that challenge. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 13 January 11, 2010 Mayor Hoffman recessed the meeting at 7:05 p.m. for a break. He reconvened the meeting at 7:15 p.m. 4. Water Project Update Mr. Komarek gave a PowerPoint presentation. He reviewed the location and nature of the facilities involved in the Lake Oswego -Tigard Water Partnership Project (p.1, Slide 1). He indicated that the intake facility on the Clackamas River in Gladstone pumped water through a 27 -inch diameter pipeline to the water treatment plant in West Linn. Following treatment to drinking water standards, the system pumped the water over 35,000 feet of pipeline to Lake Oswego's Waluga Reservoir for transmittal to Tigard's distribution system via the Bonita Road pump station. He reviewed the drivers behind the cities entering into this partnership as individual entities, (p.2, Slide 3), as partners, and as regional entities (p.2, Slide 4). He presented an organizational chart of the partnership (p.3, Slide 5). He indicated that Councilors Tierney and Johnson represented Lake Oswego on the Oversight Committee with Councilors Buehner and Webb representing Tigard. He said that he and Kari Duncan (Lake Oswego Water Plant Manager) represented Lake Oswego on the Technical Committee with Dennis Koellermeier (Tigard Public Works Director) and Rob Murchison representing Tigard. He explained that the charge of the Technical Committee was to work with the Program Team, to meet periodically with the Oversight Committee, and to meet with a proposed Citizen Sounding Board. He introduced Jon Holland of Brown & Caldwell, the firm retained by the City to act as the program manager. He indicated that the Brown & Caldwell team would work as an extension of the Lake Oswego Water Team, which was comprised of himself (Project Director), David Prock (Deputy Director), Jane Heisler (Communications Director), Eric Day (Associate Planner), and Laura Barrie (Administrative Assistant). Mr. Holland explained that they called their team a `program management team' as opposed to a `project management team' because the partnership involved six interrelated projects that comprised the overall program. He indicated their intent to capitalize on efficiency opportunities by rolling together some of the repetitive tasks common to all six projects up to the program level. He reviewed the five basic functional areas: public outreach, program information, permits, project definition, and construction management. With respect to Project Definition, he noted that the team would work collaboratively with the Councils and their staffs to define the projects' vision in order to start the permitting process and to make the decisions necessary to inform the design engineers doing the actual design work what they would be designing, the costs, and the schedule. He mentioned that, in taking a holistic view of Construction Management, the team intended to leverage resources in order to save costs and accelerate the schedule. He noted that, while the design engineers and contractors comprised the extended program team, the City of Lake Oswego as the managing agency, and not the Brown & Caldwell program team, would contract with those firms. He reviewed the action steps anticipated for the program team over the next six months (p.3, Slide 6). He said that Terry Buckholz from Integrated Water Solutions would present on the permit process, Clark Worth from Barney & Worth would discuss the public communications strategy, and Jack Warburton from Brown & Caldwell would discuss selecting the water treatment process. He commented that their need to determine the pipeline routes through surveying and geotechnical exploration dovetailed with getting out front with their communications strategy. He noted that Lake Oswego had the lead on the water rights process. Ms. Buckholz presented a graphic illustrating the 42 different types of permits required for the six project components (p.4, Slide 7). She mentioned water rights, environmental permits, land use permits from six jurisdictions, easements and encroachments, and design approvals. She City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 13 January 11, 2010 reviewed the traditional permit acquisition process (p.4, Slide 8), or `hub and spoke' process that was neither collaborative, nor integrated, nor predictable. She mentioned the collaborative and integrated permit acquisition process they developed originally for obtaining environmental permits. She emphasized its predictability in that the agencies would agree on time frames within which they would review documentation and provide comments and concurrence. Also, agencies could not change their actions later on just because they wanted to; the Partnership program itself would have to change for the concurring agencies to impose additional conditions. She discussed the specific factors that the Partnership would include in developing this collaborative permit process (p.5, Slides 9-10). She said that the team would start on it right away in order to get through the process before the cities made large investments in the program design. She indicated that the process' focus on scientifically based and unbiased information was key in getting buy -in from the permitting agencies. She emphasized that, while the process obtained broad advisory input from those agencies, it also limited their concurrence at the different steps in the process to their legal authority. She mentioned that, while she has been leading these types of collaborative processes around the state for 12 years, this process included a new factor: an agreement signed by all the agencies agreeing to their review time frame, their input timeframes, and their points of concurrence. She cited the successful implementation of this kind of process for the Columbia River Crossing and the Tualatin Basin Water Supply projects. She indicated that the permit acquisition process would take three and a half years (p.6, Slide 11), at the end of which the cities would know the program mitigation requirements before investing money in design. She mentioned that most contentious part of the environmental permitting process would be how much water the cities could withdraw from the Clackamas River during the critical flow periods. At this point the program team would have a good idea of the overall impacts of the program and probable mitigation requirements. She said that another key point would be the biological opinion issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), which would set the required mitigation measures and withdrawal restrictions for the water intake. • COUNCIL QUESTIONS Ms. Buckholtz confirmed to Councilor Jordan that this process did not allow one agency to trump another agency by making a change on any given issue after the program team got approvals on the issue. She indicated that agencies also could not make changes once the cities were into the design process, unless the cities changed their program. She said that the program team would use ecological functions and values in evaluating the impact information so that the agencies could not require unnecessary mitigation by the cities. She indicated to Mayor Hoffman that mitigation would be required because the program would impact the water withdrawal from the Clackamas River. She clarified that neither the upcoming court case nor the Oregon Water Resource Department would handle the mitigation issue because the program required obtaining federal permits (Endangered Species Act regulation by NMFS) in addition to State water permits. She indicated to Mayor Hoffman that there was a template for the collaborative environmental process agreement, which the program team was in the process of redoing right now. She said that the precedents for the agreement were the Columbia River Crossing and the Tualatin Basin Water Supply projects. Councilor Buehner asked whether Tigard's aquifer storage could help expedite the environmental program by reducing the amount of water taken out of the Clackamas River during the summer. Ms. Buckholz indicated that it had potential, and was something that the program team would look at during Program Definition. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 13 January 11, 2010 Ms. Buckholz indicated to Councilor Wilson that the impact on endangered species would be the most contentious item in terms of impact, as the rest of the impacts were straightforward. She indicated to Mayor Dirksen that she did not have a pictorial representation of the new collaborative system. • COMMUNICATIONS Ms. Heisler mentioned that she would handle the communications for the project from the City side. She reviewed the foundational elements of a communications strategy (p.6, Slide 12). She commented that this program had all the ingredients to demand a comprehensive, clear, and ongoing communications strategy throughout the process. She cited several reasons for public outreach, including a long project spanning several years, a huge geographic area with many stakeholders, an expensive project, and Council decisions needing public support. She spoke of public input helping to balance the extreme technical nature of the program with other considerations. Mr. Worth concurred with Ms. Heisler's summary of the program challenges requiring public outreach. He commented that the most important challenges were the partnership nature of this project, involving two jurisdictions cooperating with each other, and the fact that key facilities, such as the water intake facility and the water treatment plant, were located in other jurisdictions. He observed that the many phases of this lengthy and technically complex program would engage a different set of people interested in each phase. In addition, the city councils would change over the next six years. Therefore, the educational process would have to continue. He reviewed the six-month goals for the communications strategy (January — June 2010) (p.7, Slides 13-14). He spoke of developing materials flexible enough to use throughout the process. He mentioned uncomplicating the project so that the average citizen could understand the key issues. He noted the complex technical decisions faced by the policy makers. He commented that they would depend on the news media to communicate information to the vast public, and therefore, the news media needed to go through the community education process as well. He referenced the purple handout listing the guidelines developed during the last phase of this project's planning, which the program team would revisit and update to reflect the current values of the communities. He reviewed the schedule for the first six months (p.8, Slide 15), noting that many actions started immediately, such as the citizen sounding board and public opinion research. He indicated that, while there has been outreach to key stakeholders and policy makers, the program team members did not know what the ratepayers thought about the project. He mentioned using focus groups and telephone surveys to survey public opinion and to verify the values and principles. He discussed the proposed citizen sounding board (p.8, Slide 16). He described it as a group of citizens who could provide advice to the program director and technical people based on their community expertise. It was a way for the team to test ideas ahead of time. He reviewed the purposes of the sounding board (p.9, Slide 17). He mentioned the program website coming online this month (p.9, Slide 18), and encouraged the Council members to visit it for more information and to direct citizens to it. • WATER TREATMENT DECISION PROCESS Mr. Warburton reviewed the goals for this decision (p.10, Slide 19). He noted that this process had a broader scope than found in the traditional engineering evaluation processes. He observed that monetizing the environmental and community factors was often a challenge. He referenced their successful work in Victoria, B.C., in which they helped 26 jurisdictions adopt a wastewater management plan by taking the triple bottom line and monetizing the elements in that program. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 13 January 11, 2010 He reviewed the steps of the overall process (p.10, Slide 20). He clarified that `experts' did nc mean technical experts but rather people with community and city knowledge. He noted the t workshops scheduled in the next six months. He described the process they would use to incorporate community values into their evaluatic (p.11, Slide 21). He noted that they had the same four quadrants identified in the communica strategy: technical, community, environmental, and economic. He indicated that they would develop specific measures for each quadrant and begin to identify the project scope as they received public input regarding community values on items such as whether the project shoull carbon neutral or just provide information on carbon emissions for all alternatives. He stated that the first big decision was on which technology was appropriate for the water treatment process. He mentioned the various alternatives available (p.11, Slide 22), noting that the cost increased with the complexity of the technology. Mayor Hoffman commented that, despite Lake Oswego taking water from the Clackamas River for years, no one has ever talked to the Council about a need for the advanced filtration processes. Mr. Komarek confirmed that the direct filtration process used currently by the City met current regulations. Mr. Warburton clarified that they knew that legislators were looking at regulating more pollutants in the environment than covered by the current regulations. This process was to provide the Councils with the information they needed to make their decision. Councilor Buehner recalled Tigard's consideration in 1999 to 2000 of joining in on the Wilsonville Willamette River treatment plant, which used the same four -step process. She asked if there was newer technology for the Councils to consider. Mr. Warburton explained that most of the advanced oxidation processes were developed for industrial situations. He commented that the degree of treatment chosen by the Councils would depend on various factors, such as the water quality, future investment, and potential future regulations. Mr. Warburton indicated that the expert team, which would serve as the foundation of the process, would be comprised of City staff, process experts from other firms, and a public health and records expert. He noted the Oversight Committee and the Citizen Sounding Board, which would bring the public perspective to the process (p.12, Slide 23). He mentioned the specifics proposed to engage the experts and the benefit to the Councils of receiving a recommendation that was both supportable and sustainable through potential criticisms. • COUNCIL QUESTIONS Councilor Jordan asked how involved Clackamas County would be in helping shape what went in above the City's water intake facility on the Clackamas River. She observed that a water treatment plant located above the City's intake point would change their water treatment process. She asked if there was a way to design the plant with sufficient flexibility to switch to the newer and more affordable technologies that might become available later on. Mr. Warburton speculated that, with the emergent issues now coming under regulatory scrutiny, the people in the Clackamas River watershed would focus more on not creating problems downstream. He indicated that it was a matter of good engineering and good design to build flexibility into the plant to accommodate new technologies. Mr. Komarek mentioned Lake Oswego's long-standing membership in the Clackamas River Water Providers, which funded a variety of projects in the watershed. He noted Lake Oswego's partnership with Water Environmental Services for Clackamas County and with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). He referenced the USGS's recent multi-year study assessment of pollutant sources in the watershed, particularly pesticides and herbicides. He indicated that they have found those pollutants in the Clackamas River but at levels well below the thresholds requiring treatment for removal. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 13 January 11, 2010 He commented that one of the first and best barriers to pollutants in the water supply system to eliminate the use of those pollutants in the watershed. He mentioned the ongoing work to develop a holistic water supply management plan to address these concerns through educati and a joint process with the Clackamas River Water Basin Council. He indicated that one benefit of the expert panel would be their input into the discussion of the contaminants of concern, and how far the cities should go in removing them and in providing flexibility to respond to future changes. He stated that this panel would help inform the Counc decision, as well as the community. • CONCLUSION Mr. Komarek reviewed the action items for the Councils (p.12, Slide 24). He mentioned Mr. Day's suggestion that they explore solar power at the treatment plant as part of sustainability. He commented that having community residents, such as Duke Castle, on the expert panel could help staff and the Councils better understand these decisions. He asked the Councils for their input regarding the proposed action items. Ms. Heisler noted that Councilor Jordan mentioned keeping the plant flexible to accommodate future changes. Councilor Buehner advocated for the expert panel, citing how helpful she had found them when going through the Willamette process. Councilor Tierney agreed with endorsing the communication strategy. He described the expert panel as a prudent way of approaching a complicated subject. He indicated that he did not see a reason for the citizen sounding board, as there was nothing in the literature about what its responsibilities would be. He recalled hearing comments at the Saturday Round Table stating that the City's Boards and Commissions were disconnected. Ms. Heisler commented that staff had not been clear on the sounding board's responsibilities but their intent was for the board to report to the program team, to help the team identify issues early on, and to provide feedback on alternatives. She emphasized that the board would not make recommendations. Mr. Komarek clarified that the sounding board was a staff proposal, for which they hoped to gain the support of the Councils. If staff did get that support, then they would create a clear charter statement for the group with a specific set of objectives and guidelines for interaction with the program team and take it to the Oversight Committee for review. Councilor Buehner asked if staff considered the time needed to get a citizen sounding board up to speed on the process, the need for continuity, and for a long-term membership. Mr. Komarek said that they did consider that. He cited that as a reason to keep the board's focus narrow, and aimed at specific issues. Councilor Wilson recalled that water quality had been a controversial issue during the Willamette River process. He observed that water quality has not surfaced as an issue with respect to the Clackamas River. He quoted an old adage: "The dose makes the poison." He expressed his concern that their technical ability to detect these compounds in the water far below any danger threshold might influence citizen committee members to ask for the most expensive treatment, as opposed to the necessary treatment. He spoke to carefully considering the expert and citizen members in order to avoid unnecessarily driving up the costs. Ms. Heisler noted that this process added a scientific review method to the usual process for arriving at a decision supported by the community. Mr. Komarek concurred that this was an emotional issue. He explained that staff wanted a public health expert on the team in order to explain to the citizens exactly what detecting contaminants at extremely low levels meant. Councilor Jordan observed that the LOIS project has gone well so far precisely because the City kept the communication lines open to the community as a whole and to individuals affected by the City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 13 January 11, 2010 work. She commented that she saw a citizen group as a way to measure the importance of the technical team's findings by those who would pay the bill. She spoke of taking the results of that process to larger focus groups in order to verify that the test case resonated with the whole community of Lake Oswego and Tigard. Mayor Dirksen held that the value of a citizen sounding board would be its ability to act as a microcosm of all the residents in the water service area. The cities could dialog with this smaller, representative group, which could help the cities gauge the issues and identify which issues the cities should bring to the attention of the entire community. Mayor Hoffman commented that the PowerPoint slide indicated that these eight community members would be like a jury of specialists, as opposed to typical citizens. He asked where this board fit in with respect to the Councils. Ms. Heisler stated that the Councils were the decision makers. She reiterated that the idea behind this proposal was to give the Councils a sustainable decision using a filter of community interest. Mr. Komarek clarified that staff did not mean to suggest another expert panel by listing fields of expertise for the sounding board (Slide 16). He explained that they were looking for citizens with those sorts of backgrounds who had their pulse of their neighborhood and could provide feedback to the program director from the grassroots level. Councilor Moncrieff stated that she shared the concerns about setting up yet another group, given that the Lake Oswego Council has learned that its existing boards and commissions were frustrated in feeling that they did not have sufficient opportunity for input and a meaningful contribution. She indicated that knowing that this board would have a definite understanding of their mission made her feel more comfortable, but she was still concerned that they not duplicate an effort that they could accomplish with their existing citizen boards. Councilor Olson commented that generally, she was not in favor of more layers of government, yet in this case, given the magnitude and impact of this project, she thought that some citizen input was a good idea. She indicated that she would defer to the staff recommendation on this in light of staff's experience with the LOIS project. Councilor Jordan spoke to the citizen sounding board having a broader range of representation than professionals who mimicked the technical group, such as parents of school age children and senior citizens. She encouraged bringing in comments from those actually footing the bill and drinking the water. Ms. Heisler commented that staff had not intended a stakeholders group. Councilor Jordan asked what was the point of the group if it was not a stakeholders group in some form. Councilor Buehner indicated that she would feel more comfortable with a more sophisticated citizen group. She observed that people with professional backgrounds also had children or were neighborhood activists. She commented that it was important to have citizens who were able to grasp this very complicated issue. Councilor Jordan acknowledged the point, but contended that having a degree did not necessarily guarantee interest in or comprehension of the project's complexities. She emphasized that another important characteristic, in addition to being able to understand the project, was to have some knowledge of the whole community and how the choices made by the decision makers would impact that community. Mayor Dirksen observed that the need for this board might be different in the two cities. He mentioned that Tigard already had a representative citizen group acting as an advisory board to the Tigard City Council in its capacity as a water provider, the Intergovernmental Water Board. He said that this board has been advising the Tigard Council from the beginning on all its actions respecting this partnership. He indicated to Mayor Hoffman that he thought that a citizen sounding board would be helpful through the entire process. He said that the Intergovernmental Water Board would continue acting City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 13 January 11, 2010 in that capacity for the Tigard Council but he was not certain how to integrate that with Lake Oswego. He suggested creating a board out of representatives from Lake Oswego's different boards and commissions. Councilor Olson suggested trying the staff suggestion and disbanding it if it did not work. She indicated that she liked Mayor Dirksen's idea of using Tigard's board as half the membership and Lake Oswego deciding how to add its own members to that group. Ms. Heisler commented that using members from existing boards and commissions might get the depth of community knowledge Councilor Jordan mentioned. Mayor Hoffman indicated that he was okay with a citizen sounding board. Mayor Dirksen suggested to the Tigard Councilors that they consider the Intergovernmental Water Board as a partial citizen sounding board. Mr. Komarek asked if the Councils were comfortable with the program team developing a charter statement and charge to determine on what basis to select these Lake Oswego community members. He noted that Tigard appeared to have a group already that might fit for their community. Mayor Hoffman commented that the Councilors were talking about taking people from existing boards and commissions. Mr. Powell indicated to Mr. Komarek that a citizen sounding board formed to give feedback to the project director would not constitute a public body under the public meetings law. However, if Tigard took an existing public body and combined it with a Lake Oswego group, he thought that Tigard's City Attorney would advise the Council to consider a meeting of the sounding board the same as a quorum meeting of the public body, and thus subject to the public meeting law. Councilor Jordan pointed out that a citizen sounding board comprised of a few representatives from the Tigard board and a few Lake Oswego representatives would be an unofficial group that represented the broader picture of each of the service areas. The representatives would then report to their own Council. Ms. Heisler suggested that staff take the feedback they have received tonight, take another try at the citizen sounding board, and run it through the Oversight Committee to see if staff was on the right track. Mr. Komarek indicated that he heard Council support for the staff approach to the communication strategy and for an expert panel regarding the water treatment plant process. He said that staff could discuss how to select representatives from standing committees for a sounding board. He noted that one of the challenges was how to make decisions quickly in order to move the process forward. He indicated to Councilor Jordan that staff was thinking of 8 to 12 members on the citizen board He indicated to Councilor Olson that staff estimated a $5,000 stipend for the experts on the panel, which would meet over the next six to eight months and generate a report. He said that the intent was to cover the participants' costs. He mentioned a four to five member panel for a possible total expenditure of $25,000. Bill, an audience member, asked for clarification of the recommendation to allow the firms of members of the expert panel to bid on the planning project. He suggested that it would be helpful to know whether the person advocating for a particular treatment technique worked for a firm that sold the materials behind that treatment. Mr. Komarek explained that the expert panel was part of the evaluation process. He commented that generally engineering firms and manufacturing firms were not the same, and therefore he was not concerned that there would be a potential conflict. Mr. Komarek stated that staff would be clear in the charge statement on where and why the program team wanted the expert panel's input. 5. ADJOURNMENT City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 13 January 11, 2010 Mayor Hoffman adjourned the meeting at 8:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Robyn C istie City Recorder APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: ON Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 13 of 13 January 11, 2010 UnO»Muxa CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING CW*W W -010 M10 \i MINUTES January 12, 2010 Mayor Jack Hoffman called the special City Council meeting to order at 6:36 p.m. on January 12, 2010, in the City Council Chambers, 380 A Avenue. Present: Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Jordan, Hennagin, Moncrieff, Olson, Tierney, and Johnson. Staff Present: Alex McIntyre, City Manager; David Powell, City Attorney; Robyn Christie, City Recorder; Jane Blackstone, Economic Development Director 3. STUDY SESSION 3.1 Lake Oswego Retail Market Analysis Ms. Blackstone introduced Mary Bosch from Marketek, who conducted a study of Lake Oswego's retail market on behalf of a partnership between the City and the business community. She noted that the public and private sectors shared the cost of this study. Ms. Bosch gave a PowerPoint presentation. She mentioned that the full report was available on the City's website. She indicated that she wove into her presentation information from a parallel study of the Lake Grove commercial district funded by Clackamas County. She presented the outline of the report (p.1, Slide 2) and reviewed the study goals (p.1, Slide 3). She observed that the City's hiring of an Economic Development Director was timely in light of the study's last goal of developing a game plan for implementation. She showed a graphic illustrating the study process (p.1, Slide 4). She explained that when she helped assess how a community competed for new business, she looked through the lens of an investor, a business prospector, and a developer. She noted the competitive factors that Lake Oswego needed to address in attracting retailers and shoppers (p.2, Slide 1). She presented a balance sheet of Lake Oswego's strengths and weaknesses community -wide (p.2, Slide 2), which she pointed out was weighed heavily on the side of strengths. She indicated that the first thing that investors would look at in considering a new retail market was income and market growth. She observed that, while Lake Oswego stood out in terms of incomes, it did not do so in terms of population growth. Therefore, it should play to its strength of high incomes and not emphasize its slow population growth. She mentioned that the analysis also showed strong market opportunities. She indicated that the business community was appreciative of the City's work down through the years in making Lake Oswego an outstanding community, and it realized the need for everyone — businesses and the City — to step up to the plate in providing the best service possible to those who have already invested in the community (p.2, Slide 3). She discussed the two main commercial districts, Downtown and Lake Grove, which she noted had about the same amount of ground floor square footage. She reviewed the strengths and weaknesses of the Downtown (p.2, Slide 4). She described the vacancies in the Downtown as reasonable, which looked good to visitors but also meant that there was little prime retail -ready commercial space to show prospects. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 13 January 12, 2010 She mentioned that in order to enhance its competitive position, the community needed to continue to work on concentrating retail into nodes and clusters, and to continue to create pedestrian - oriented environments. She agreed with the business owners that the lake was the community's biggest asset. She reviewed the strengths and weaknesses of Lake Grove (p.3, Slide 1), which she pointed out were different from the Downtown's. She mentioned the visitor/employee market in the Lake Grove area, which reinforced the need for the 28 dining establishments in Lake Grove and convenience goods. She indicated that the Lake Grove business community was aware of its differences and eager to play to its strengths as a neighborhood community-based center, while reaching out to the employment and visitor market (p.3, Slide 2). She reviewed the market area for the Downtown (p.3, Slide 3), and the characteristics of the market area population (p.3, Slide 4). She mentioned the two sources of retail potential demand, existing demand and future demand (p.4, Slide 1). She commented that the amount of retail leakage in the Downtown market area was not a surprise (p.4, Slide 2), as the research done by Bob Moore from The Consumer Marketplace this summer reinforced these findings. She put the need for 2.2 million feet of retail space to capture that leakage into perspective by noting that Washington Square was 1.5 million square feet of retail space. She presented a chart illustrating the amount of leakage per category, noting that the largest gap was in Shoppers Goods (p. 4, Slide 3). She indicated that 10% of that leakage was a reasonable and conservative recommendation for how much of that leakage the Downtown could capture (p.4, Slide 4). She cited the 135,000 square feet in retail already on the books and the additional 315,000 square feet for mixed use development in concluding that the capture rate was in the ballpark (p.5, Slide 1). She reviewed the market area for Lake Grove (p.5, Slide 2), noting that it pulled more from the other side of the freeway and from the community as a whole than the Downtown did. She showed a graphic illustrating the overlap of the two market areas (p.5, Slide 3) with about 65,000 square feet of overlapping demand and 24,000 households. She reviewed the characteristics of the market area population (p.5, Slide 4). She indicated that the market leakage of $67.6 million or 273,000 square feet (p.6, Slide 1) primarily in the categories of general merchandise and grocery demand. She noted the other market factors of employees, visitors, and the Portland region (p.6, Slide 2). She discussed the appropriate business mix for Lake Oswego. She showed a chart displaying information about four key shopping areas, including the retail anchors (p.6, Slide 3). She showed a color -coded map showing the locations of existing uses in the Downtown, such as retail, restaurant, etc. (p.6, Slide 4). She noted the auto -oriented uses of gas stations in the prime retail corridor. She presented a similar map for Lake Grove, (p. 7, Slide 1), noting the strong office and restaurant bases. She noted retail trends (p.7, Slide 2). She mentioned that, in these economic times, the retail businesses that were closing tended to be the homogenous chains and franchises, with the locally based businesses holding their own in this down market. She indicated that she saw in Lake Oswego a positive indicator of market interest in the expansions and new businesses coming in, as well as an increase in entrepreneurship (p.7, Slide 3). She discussed how Lake Oswego fared with respect to national downtown retail trends and themes (p.7, Slide 4). She indicated that Lake Oswego fared well in terms of its development of clusters, as well as becoming the community gathering place. She presented a target list of business and merchandising opportunities and target prospects in the Lake Oswego market (p 8, Slides 1, 2). She indicated that the Business Action Development Plan's retail strategy utilized the tried and true basics of building a successful retail district (p.8, Slide 3). City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 13 January 12, 2010 She discussed how the individual elements of the Business Action Development Plan applied to the Downtown and Lake Grove, beginning with marketing position statements (p.8, Slide 4; p. 9, Slide 1). She indicated that Lake Grove's key assets were its diversity of market served and its potential to serve a broad marketplace, while the Downtown's assets were its uniqueness as a lakefront arts and entertainment district with some specialty shopping. She discussed a draft approach to clustering businesses in the downtown (p.9, Slides 2, 3). She mentioned that, while it was more challenging to make this happen when the City did not own all the properties, it could be accomplished. She contended that pulling businesses together to create more synergy and more of a critical mass would attract more shoppers through cross -marketing and cross -customer traffic (p.9, Slide 3). She emphasized the importance of business clustering. She discussed the goals of a business marketing strategy (p.9, Slide 4). She spoke of the four legs of the table in the Business Action Plan (p. 10, Slide 1). She presented possible specific actions for the first leg of retail and product readiness (p. 10, Slides 2-3). She mentioned that this strategy was for the short-term in trying to fill the vacant properties and to encourage expansion. She discussed possible specific actions for the second leg of business retention and expansion (p.10, Slide 4). In reviewing possible specific actions for the third leg of business attraction, she noted that this leg was about packaging and promoting the community's vision to a targeted audience (p.11, Slide 1). She mentioned possible specific actions for the fourth leg of customer attraction (p.11, Slide 2). She commented that a major attraction element to reinforce in Lake Oswego was the arts assets, including possibly an off-season arts event. She discussed the roles and responsibilities of the public and private sectors in implementing a Business Development Action Plan (p.11, Slide 3). She stated that the most successful business development efforts centered around retail and small businesses were public/private partnerships. She indicated that managing the process was key to insuring implementation of the results. She stated her firm belief that the theme of implementation was "The readiness is all." (p.11, Slide 4). She indicated that she found Lake Oswego very ready to implement this work with participants eager to begin to implement a Business Development Action Plan. Ms. Blackstone presented an update on the activities of the City's economic development program. She indicated that these initiatives were works in progress, many of which responded to specific recommendations from Ms. Bosch's report. She discussed the economic development strategy (p.12, Slide 2) that staff developed in response to a specific Council request. She indicated that they have begun in earnest the planning work on how to support, attract, and retain local businesses, which would use the wealth of data in Ms. Bosch's report to make specific recommendations. She mentioned that this morning's workshop with the business community began the brainstorming vision for Lake Oswego's economic future. The second workshop would focus on success metrics and specific work program and priorities. She discussed their ever-increasing partnerships (p.12, Slide 3) with regional and local partners. She mentioned that their educational partners of PSU and Marylhurst offered a wealth of resources to the City as it considered ongoing economic development planning and implementation. She discussed the steps the City was taking to improve its way of doing business with businesses, especially with respect to communication and streamlining processes (p.12, Slide 4). She mentioned the Business Solutions Team and the work that Leslie Hamilton from Planning has already done as the Planning Business Liaison. She discussed additional initiatives (p.13, Slide 1). She mentioned a program discussed in the community of the City investing a portion of its resources in local banks with a strong history of community support activities. She clarified that this program did not take resources away from Wells Fargo, which had a strong and productive banking relationship with the City. Rather, it added to the pool of banks with which the City did business. She spoke of a top 50 outreach to Lake Oswego's largest employers, which was a business retention initiative to begin looking at the City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 13 January 12, 2010 non -retail commercial marketplace to identify their challenges and how the City could support those businesses in a stronger way. She mentioned a marketing strategy recommendation from the Marketek analysis that marketing the community assets was key to recruiting businesses and attracting customers. A small staff committee was working on an RFP for marketing in order to leverage the upcoming community events, especially the Centennial Celebration events, to deliver a message about Lake Oswego's business strengths. She reported that the Clackamas County Regional Partners has approached Lake Oswego to serve as a pilot community for its new Economic Gardening program. She mentioned that they had a number of small manufacturing businesses that could benefit from the investment in market research and competitive intelligence that the City could get from this program. She reported that Clackamas County has approached a number of cities about forming a strategic investment zone as a way of attracting large capital investments ($100,000 plus). She reviewed the ongoing City programs and projects that contributed to economic development (p.13, Slide 2). She commented that arts support and small things like holiday lights were greatly appreciated by the business community. COUNCIL QUESTIONS Ms. Bosch indicated to Councilor Johnson that the greatest potential for market area growth for the Downtown outside its boundaries was into the city. She mentioned that Downtown businesses reported that West Linn was part of the Downtown market area. She spoke of a long-term goal for the Downtown to pull more people from Portland as Lake Oswego got on the map as another alternate destination, and for Lake Grove to pull more from further up 217 and down 1-5. Councilor Hennagin asked if other geographical areas that Ms. Bosch has studied previously had similar problems to those she saw in Lake Oswego, such as vacancy and lack of retail space, and how they resolved them. Ms. Bosch said that she has worked in downtown San Jose, in small towns throughout Oregon, and in Portland neighborhoods. She indicated that there was no formula. She explained that retail space was always tied to location. One must always consider the vacancy rate within the context of those property locations. She said that most of the places where she has worked had much higher vacancies. She indicated that the strategies tended to be a variety of things, such as creating a larger space out of several smaller spaces to attract a larger retailer or getting developers to invest in order to bring confidence and credibility to a business district with new quality development, similar to what happened in the Downtown. Ms. Blackstone indicated to Councilor Hennagin that the business ombudsman would be a public employee, in this case, Leslie Hamilton of Planning, to serve as a contact person for general business assistance. She said that they would publicize the information on both the current and the new website and through handouts at business license time. She confirmed that she was not asking for a new FTE. Councilor Moncrieff commented that she was pleased to hear that the City was assigning a specific planner to help the business community navigate the often -confusing City Code. Ms. Blackstone confirmed that a big part of the upcoming changes to the Code were to streamline it and to make it more user-friendly. She explained that they were working with Planning to identify the sticking points for correction, things such as inconsistencies, definitions, or formerly prohibited materials that the City now allowed. Ms. Blackstone confirmed to Councilor Moncrieff that eventually the City would have information about the permitting process on the website for prospective businesses. She mentioned that Ms. Hamilton has done a good job of `spilling up' the materials in a short time, and posting more forms. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 13 January 12, 2010 Councilor Moncrieff commented that, based on what one heard on the news, it seemed counterintuitive that Lake Oswego could be under -retailed. Ms. Bosch explained that creating a database indicating that the city was under -retailed would not in itself attract businesses, but having information and the facts available was an essential tool for Ms. Blackstone and the marketing team to use in locating the right prospects and selling them on Lake Oswego. Ms. Bosch acknowledged that it was counter -intuitive in today's economy to say that Lake Oswego was under -retailed but she believed that that was a true statement. She cited the evidence they had that community residents were leaving the community on a regular basis to do most of their shopping. She indicated that, in terms of competition, most retailers knew that the more retail there was the more shoppers that came into the district because consumers wanted choice and competition. She indicated that Lake Oswego was far away from being oversupplied in many categories. She explained that it was a matter of thoughtful business development in finding the unique businesses and merchandise that would complement the existing businesses and bring more local and regional shoppers and diners into the community. Mayor Hoffman raised the question of consumer behavior: why did consumers leave the community to shop and why did they stay to do some shopping? Ms. Bosch referenced the findings of Bob Moore' consumer research this past summer in which he conducted a shopper survey. She mentioned the two main perceptions that Lake Oswego lacked a sufficient supply of retail stores and that the prices were higher. Ms. Blackstone commented that there seemed to be a lack of knowledge about what retail Lake Oswego did have. Councilor Jordan recalled that, during her campaign four years ago, she asked the Chamber if it had asked the people in Lake Oswego what they thought was missing from the community and why they did not shop here. She commented that this information would be very valuable, as well as the idea of filling in the missing pieces with businesses that would complement the existing retail mix and create the synergy that they were after. She referenced a building in the West Lake Grove Design District, built in the last five years with ground floor retail, office above, and townhouses behind. However, due to its isolation, professional dental offices occupied the ground floor. She spoke of making sure that the development done in the district did not put people in a similar position where it would take a long time to create a retail node. She spoke of the importance of working with developers in designing properties to work. She acknowledged the work that the City did with Marylhurst University but wondered how much the City worked with Lewis & Clark. She spoke of capturing the population attending the various schools and bringing them into Lake Oswego and Foothills. Councilor Tierney observed that there were some things that the City had more direct control over than others. He asked whether the Downtown development overlay was consistent with the vision Ms. Bosch mentioned in her presentation in terms of driving the City where it needed to go. Ms. Bosch indicated that she did not know the answer but she thought that was a good follow up question. Ms. Blackstone agreed that it warranted looking into. She mentioned the Downtown visioning exercise conducted this morning with discussions about appropriate density, mix of uses, and the implications of a Foothills development for the Downtown. She commented that a closer, more comprehensive look at Foothills planning was appropriate in light of everything that was going on. She indicated that the City's Downtown plan was moving ahead but needed fine-tuning with respect to marketing it. She speculated that a focus group of developers would yield specific ideas about densities and mixes of uses. Councilor Tierney wondered whether mandating ground floor retail, while well-intentioned, was self-defeating. He referenced the development Councilor Jordan mentioned and GB Arrington's comments that not every front door on the ground floor had to be retail. Ms. Bosch indicated that City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 13 January 12, 2010 this question of how to focus retail has faced every community in which she has worked. She spoke of the importance of determining the appropriate location for retail, observing that it did not work everywhere and sometimes conflicted with other goals, such as creating pedestrian -oriented business districts. She explained that creating isolated developments, without thinking about how to fill in the space in between appropriately, yielded satellite developments that did not always work. Councilor Tierney noted that the City controlled its Community Development Department and permits. He asked if Ms. Bosch's research supported the initiatives mentioned by Ms. Blackstone as being part of the solution. Ms. Bosch indicated that her information on deficiencies and needs was mainly anecdotal, based on a dozen conversations. She encouraged a more thorough customer survey to track those sorts of details. Councilor Tierney referenced the Matrix Report that laid out some issues but not with sufficient specificity. He indicated that he did not know how the report was working in the department. Councilor Jordan recalled asking a new business owner last week how the process went for them. The owner said that everything went fine and that they had no problems. Councilor Tierney asked what the City's intentions were relative to working with the Chamber. Ms. Blackstone mentioned an ongoing conversation in the business community about the appropriate organization to take the business community into a partnership with the City and into a more organized economic development future. She spoke of the opinion research project conducted by PSU MBA students regarding business groups' functions in the community, which was still being processed. She indicated that the biggest gap in the public/private partnership was the lack of a marketing program. Councilor Johnson argued that an important element in the long-term vitality of the Lake Oswego business districts was to encourage age diversity in the City's demographics. She spoke of encouraging young professionals to shop and set up their own businesses in Lake Oswego. She suggested asking the question of what the City could be doing to market itself to young professionals and families to get them to come here. Ms. Blackstone observed that this was a complex discussion. She indicated that focusing on entertainment and dining was the place to start in terms of retail because that got people to the community, spending money, and seeing what else was here. Councilor Hennagin mentioned his observation that, in the suburbs, having a group of related professionals (e.g., a group of six to eight lawyers) generated more business than a single lawyer would generate. He wondered whether becoming a destination for one kind of retail, such as handcrafted jewelry, would benefit the business districts. Ms. Blackstone commented that they could build on the existing boutiques and attract more diverse businesses that enhanced the shopping experience. She explained that restaurants were key anchors in any retail business district. She indicated that there was room for arts, entrepreneurs, and arts -oriented retail, but they did need to start from where they were. She pointed out that the City had some good guidance in identifying targets based on talking to the customers and the existing businesses about what the community wanted. Mayor Hoffman commented that the West Lake Grove Design District was at least 15 years old; it might be worth someone seeing whether it was working or not, and if not, why not. He suggested that someone re-evaluate the Downtown design district to see whether it was appropriate for this new economy. Mr. McIntyre stated that he wanted to go on record with respect to Wells Fargo Bank, which was the City's transactional banking partner for its payroll and accounts payable and receivable. He mentioned a misunderstanding in the media regarding the City possibly moving $1 million of its funds from Wells Fargo to community banks. He indicated that the media spin has shifted the story City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 13 January 12, 2010 from moving the funds as an economic tool to reinvest in the local community to a story critical of Wells Fargo and its practices because it was not a community partner. He emphasized that Wells Fargo was very much a community partner and has sponsored a number of community events. He stated that, while the City did not have any money invested in Wells Fargo, Wells Fargo had significant funds invested in Lake Oswego, carrying the line of credit for the West End Building and serving as LORA's banker. He reiterated his desire to clear up any misunderstanding regarding Wells Fargo and its practices. 3.2 Public Art Master Plan — Arts Council Don Caldwell, Arts Council Chair, indicated that Cheryl Brock, Executive Director, and members Malcolm Mathes and Ralph Tahran would make the presentation of the six-month update, fundraising efforts, and the Public Art Master Plan. He noted that members Pat Vessely and Chuck O'Leary were in the audience, as were Public Art Master Plan Committee members Judie Hammerstad and Margaret Snow. Ms. Brock gave a PowerPoint presentation. She observed that hearing the word `art' mentioned so many times in the previous presentation was a good thing for the Arts Council. She commented that their strongest program was the Gallery Without Walls. She thanked Susan Bitzer, the Program Manager, in particular for her work with contractors on the installations. She presented photos of the installations of several pieces (pp.2-5). She commented that the Arts Council's intent was to obtain the best artwork, which resulted in pieces both large and small. She described the hard work of the selection committee in researching and evaluating the proposals they had from over 30 artists. She observed that the siting process was just as important as selecting the art. She mentioned that the committee looked at safety issues, a diversity of materials, and a diversity of concepts in order to achieve a well-rounded and interesting exhibit every year. She showed a photo from last year's kickoff event (p.6), while discussing their plans to double the attendance at next year's kickoff event (August 25) through a more diverse celebration and event. She mentioned that the kickoff committee was working on a special Centennial project of a sculpture developed by the community. She indicated to Mayor Hoffman that they were working with Jane Blackstone and other City departments. She spoke of the educational and public tours they conducted of the Gallery Without Walls (pp.7- 8). She mentioned that, as a result of receiving more and more calls for tours from a wide diversity of groups around the region, they were developing a comprehensive marketing plan for the tours. She indicated that they developed the educational tours in partnership with the School District and Arts Literacy. She discussed the work of the Public Art Committee. She mentioned the all volunteer effort to install the Fairy Tree (p.9) and its dedication this spring. She noted the catalog of all the City - owned artwork (185 pieces or 130 art works). She invited the Council to a reception for past Chronicle pieces on January 28 here at City Hall to celebrate the artwork purchased through the Chronicle of the Life and Times of Lake Oswego. She thanked Ms. Snow and her committee for their work in moving pieces around at various public buildings. She mentioned an opportunity that the Arts Council had to locate a piece (Irish Ascendant) donated to the City by the Shorenstein Management Company at the West End Building in the Kruse Way entryway. Councilor Jordan noted that it was the piece currently located in the atrium of the Kruse Woods One building. Ms. Brock indicated to Mayor Hoffman that they did not yet know the value of the piece. She thanked the City Councilors who would be helping the Arts Council with the interviews for the new Public Arts Committee members. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 13 January 12, 2010 She described the work of the Chronicle committee in choosing 40 artists to invite to develop a piece of artwork that chronicled the life and times of Lake Oswego (p.10). She mentioned that they were working more closely with the artists this year to provide them with information about what was going on in the community that they could chronicle in order to obtain a more diverse and interesting picture of Lake Oswego. She noted that the Arts Council partnered with the Lakewood Center for the Arts and the Festival of the Arts for this three-day invitational show. She mentioned their preliminary conversations with local businesses about taking the Chronicle into the Downtown to share it more with the community and visitors this summer. She distributed the handout that they used in approaching the business community. Mr. Mathes continued the PowerPoint presentation, focusing on resource development. He mentioned a Matthew Arnold quote that he found in his research that the job of the arts was not only to entertain and provide pleasure, but also to educate and enlighten the public. He indicated that the job of the arts was very evident at the economic development meeting this morning, in that most participants agreed that public art played a vital role in Lake Oswego. He observed that the challenge was how to pay for these ongoing arts programs, as the Arts Council did not expect the City to cover all the expenses. Therefore, the Arts Council continued to develop revenue sources to help with the funding. He mentioned the Resource Development Committee, comprised of the people in charge of the various programs, whose job was to coordinate fundraising efforts and to avoid three different people approaching the same business. He commented that one result of this committee has been an evaluation of the costs and benefits of each program. He reported that all they found sponsors for all 14 sculptures this year plus additional annual sponsorships (p.11). He mentioned another fundraising effort, Art Parties, which increased awareness of the Arts Council and the artists exhibiting their work, as well as increasing the artist's income through sales and the Arts Council's through commissions. He indicated that they had 22 artists represented in the first two shows, and they were working on spring and summer Art Parties. He reported that their membership committee was developing a Centennial campaign to foster major giving for individuals, in addition to its efforts to increase general membership at the lower donation levels. He commented that, with the feedback they received on the importance of what they did, they felt that there was an opportunity to put out a higher giving category and help the Arts Council's bottom line. He discussed their most recent program to sell the rotating sculptures in 2010. He mentioned that three pieces have already sold, for which the Arts Council received a commission. He commented that this sales program was vital to the success of the Gallery Without Walls because artists knew that they might be able to sell their work, rather than having it simply sit in one location for two years. He recalled the early days when the Gallery had to beg people to display their artwork in comparison to today where people called the Arts Council asking that their work be displayed. He reported that their fundraising efforts have allowed the Arts Council to stay within budget and to contribute a larger percentage of the City Council's overall operating expenses. He commented that it cost money to move and install the sculpture pieces, which the City has provided. However, if they wanted to expand their programs and fund their projects, the Arts Council felt that it was important for it to meet a larger percentage of the expenses. He commented that what he has most enjoyed about working with people has been the wonderful partnerships the Arts Council has developed. He mentioned the library, the Whimsical Gardner, the Lakewood Center, the Festival of the Arts, the Rotary, and the City. Ms. Brock continued the PowerPoint presentation in discussing the Arts Council's organizational development over the last six months. She mentioned bringing in four new Board members with diverse skills and the ever-increasing number of volunteers, such as those who worked with the kids in the photo (p.12). She reported that their 65 regular volunteers put in around 2,000 hours City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 13 January 12, 2010 over the last six months. She observed that it took a lot of people to work in public art and a lot of strong partnerships. She attributed their success to those partnerships. Mayor Hoffman mentioned that, at the morning economic development meeting, he heard loud and clear that Lake Grove was also interested in art, as the discussion around the Lake Grove and Kruse Way tables named `art' as the Lake Oswego cache. He commented that the Gallery Without Walls was probably the premier compact sculpture gallery in the Pacific Northwest. He suggested putting a sculpture gallery down the Lake Grove Boones Ferry corridor, similar to EI Paseo. He doubted that anyone contacted DKS to ask them to include in their analysis sculpture -friendly locations. He emphasized that they needed to reach out of their silos in doing place making and looking at retail and increased support for the arts. He held that the community had the components it needed to create a Great Place. He encouraged the Economic Development Department to take advantage of Lake Oswego's tradition of art. He asked if anyone has contacted LOCAL 14 about hosting their event in Lake Oswego this year. He explained that the Lake Oswego Arts & Crafts League was started by 14 women 15 years ago. He spoke of the August 25 kickoff event attracting foot traffic, which drove retail and a sense of place. Mr. Caldwell observed that they first needed to build a reputation of having a great event before they could really drive foot traffic, but they were working on that. He recalled looking at whether to spread the Gallery Without Walls throughout the city, and concluding that it belonged in the Downtown. He mentioned Chuck O'Leary's suggestion that the Boones Ferry Corridor have a string of pearls type concept. Mr. Tahran observed that over the years the Arts Council has become the clearinghouse for all arts -related requests in the city. He mentioned that a variety of planning studies and documents were naming the Arts Council and assigning it responsibilities. He explained that the Arts Council decided to do a master plan in 2009 as a way of organizing all these requests in one document in order to visualize, prioritize, focus and promote their program. He indicated that the Master Plan expressed the Arts Council's mission, identified what it did as an organization, and defined how the Council processed all the ideas and information brought to the Council informally or formally through the various committee. He held that the Master Plan guided the City's efforts in its growth into a significant art community, which other communities now called for advice. He attributed the growth to their partnerships with various community agencies and their strong volunteers. He commented that, through the Master Plan, the Arts Council provided an efficient way to identify and capitalize on upcoming opportunities, such as how to incorporate art into the Foothills district. He recalled asking Bob Galante five years ago why public art had not been incorporated into one of the redevelopment projects, and hearing the answer that the Arts Council could not react fast enough to be part of the process. Consequently, the Arts Council found a way to make its decisions as quickly as needed. He presented a map showing the seven major focus areas in the master plan (p.13). He acknowledged that the first focus area of the Gallery Without Walls was the Arts Council's signature project. He mentioned that they have been involved in the initial planning conversations around the second focus area of the Foothills redevelopment area with the goal of incorporating art at the conceptual level, as opposed to winding up with plop art after the fact. He cited Lakefront Park as an example of their preferred methodology. He commented that the third focus area of the gateways to the city were significant and important in identifying communities, both the city gateways and the neighborhood gateways. He mentioned the two top priorities for gateways as the Rosemont Roundabout and the Lake Grove district. He indicated that he was the Arts Council member liaison to the Lake Grove Business Association. He said that he thought it was appropriate for the Council to emphasize the plaza areas of the City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 13 January 12, 2010 string of pearls concept, although they were willing to help however they could with this fourth focus area. He referenced Mayor Hoffman's comments about pedestrian traffic along Kruse Way in discussing the fifth focus area of Meadows Road. He reported that, in talking with a major property owner on Meadows Road about developing a linear parkway/art walk, they discovered that the property owner had been thinking along the same lines and was strongly interested in working with the Arts Council on the idea. He indicated that the sixth focus area of the neighborhood public art program came out of a request from the Lakewood Neighborhood for a piece of public art in their neighborhood. The neighborhood did fundraising for what became a matching program, went through the Public Art Committee, and really liked a particular piece that was three times their budget. However, the Committee talked with the artist and he did a piece especially for the neighborhood that was within their budget. He noted that the Arts Council also maintained the City art collection, which included cataloging the pieces as well as taking care of them physically. He spoke of increasing the visibility of the City's indoor permanent art collection through ongoing publicity and an arts education program. He indicated that the Arts Council intended to revisit the Master Plan annually at its goals retreat to use it in prioritizing their goals and to make sure that it remained relevant to the times. COUNCIL QUESTIONS Ms. Brock indicated to Councilor Moncrieff that a map of the walking tour was online at their website, artscouncillo.org. Councilor Moncrieff mentioned talking to many people who came to last year's kickoff event for the Gallery Without Walls who ended up dining and shopping locally. She concurred that there was a tight relationship between the arts and economic development. Mayor Hoffman observed that the purpose of public art was to get people out of the car, thus generating foot traffic. He asked if anyone has considered creating pedestrian -friendly walking connections using sculptures as the attractors, rather than retail anchors. He cited the placement of the Travis Pond sculpture in an alleyway as an example of something that did not invite a pedestrian in to any place. Mr. Caldwell indicated that when art was part of the conceptualizing stage of urban design projects, it became part of the design parameters with the intention of drawing people in. However, with the Gallery Without Walls, the Arts Council had to work within the existing right-of-ways but it did give serious consideration as to what piece of artwork was appropriate for a particular site. He described Foothills and the Lake Grove business areas as great opportunities to design the attention getters and rest stops during the conceptual stage. Mayor Hoffman asked if it were possible to increase the number of sculptures in the Downtown by 50% and position them in such a way that they would increase the sense of place that drew people out of their cars to walk from sculpture to sculpture in front of stores. He noted that it would have to be done in combination with the streetscape and LORA projects. Mr. Caldwell said that if the Council set that out as a goal and a primary design parameter, he would say yes, it was possible. Mayor Hoffman noted the importance of this idea increasing retail traffic. While people going from sculpture to sculpture and not shopping at the stores might be a Gallery Without Walls, that did not accomplish the economic development goals of generating revenues on a square foot basis. Mr. Tahran indicated that they could expand the number of sculptures, but probably not double the number, as one did not want a sculpture every five feet. He mentioned their discussions of an iPhone applet displaying the walking tour map and information about each sculpture. Councilor Hennagin wondered whether the City could ask developers to incorporate City -owned sculptures in their private developments. Mayor Hoffman noted that both Drew Prell and Barry Cain incorporated art in their developments. Mr. Caldwell indicated that the Arts Council was City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 13 January 12, 2010 developing a method for dealing with these kinds of requests. He commented that it would not work without the developer being seriously interested in incorporating art. Ms. Brock confirmed to Councilor Tierney that the City's contribution to the Arts Council came through the Parks & Rec Department budget, although she was not sure how it all worked. Councilor Tierney encouraged the Arts Council to resolve the confusion and to inform the City Council what the City was funding, what the funding sources were, and whether the funding level was sufficient to meet the Arts Council's needs. He referenced the benefits of public art mentioned this evening, and held that the cost of some of those benefits should be borne by the City. Councilor Jordan mentioned that it has been her great pleasure to work with Ms. Brock and the Arts Council this past year as the City Council liaison. She stated that the budget situation did not work. She concurred that arts were part of the city and the quality of life that people have come to expect. She agreed that the public agencies should support public art, and not just individual public members, which meant that the City needed to step up to do its part. She referenced the work that the Arts Council has done in the three years that she has been on the City Council in terms of cataloging the City art collection. She argued that the City Council needed to give the Arts Council more certainty regarding their budget line item, whether it was under Parks & Rec or Economic Development. She spoke of the arts as part of the City's annual spending, especially with the change to an annual budget, which made it more difficult for the Arts Council to do its work. Mayor Hoffman commented that the only other group that has come to the Council requesting more art has been the Economic Development people. He noted the duality of public art as recreation and as an economic development tool. He wondered whether they have been undervaluing public art in terms of the economic benefits it brought to the community. He suggested looking at the economic contribution of public art and the potential economic contribution that it could make to the whole city through indirect benefits, such as people coming to the August 25 kickoff event and spending retail dollars in Lake Oswego. Councilor Hennagin commended the Public Art Committee for cataloging the collection and for rotating the pieces out of the closet and on to the walls. Councilor Olson seconded Councilor Hennagin's remarks about enjoying the visibility of the collection. She commented that what has struck her for the last couple of years was how the Arts Council has matured. 3.3 Miscellaneous • Goal Setting retreat Mayor Hoffman mentioned that, in response to Councilor Olson's concerns about the space for the goal setting retreat, he met with Mr. McIntyre and Mr. Hertzberg to discuss the agenda and the set-up. He reported that they were comfortable with the situation for the Council and the 30 to 40 people who might attend. He reviewed the ambitious retreat agenda. The Council discussed Mr. Hertzberg's request to start earlier on Friday. The Council agreed to start at 10 a.m. on Friday. • TOD Tours Mayor Hoffman discussed taking a group of about 18 people up to Vancouver, B.C. in May or June. He suggested a mix of four Councilors, some City staff, and some downtown and neighborhood people. He spoke of having a core group of people who would have a common frame of reference in discussing Foothills and transit -oriented development (TOD). He mentioned a cost of $14,000, ($700 per person). He noted that Vancouver also had good examples of attainable/affordable housing. Councilor Olson asked whether there were local examples of TOD housing and well done TOD, such as in Gresham. She commented that it might be more beneficial to wait on both a Vancouver and a local tour until after the November election. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 13 January 12, 2010 Councilor Jordan mentioned that those going to the National League of Cities conference in Washington, D.C., could look at the Arlington TOD mentioned last night. Councilor Tierney commented that the Vancouver development had much that Lake Oswego could replicate, while he was not certain how relevant the Arlington TOD would be to Lake Oswego's situation. Mayor Hoffman mentioned that Patrick Condon and Gordon Price would be their guides in Vancouver. Councilor Moncrieff spoke in support of looking at more local examples in the Portland metro area. She recalled Gordon Price's comment that northeast Portland and north Portland were good examples of TODs. She mentioned hearing about cottage developments in Gresham. Mayor Hoffman asked if people could commit to a Saturday tour hitting development examples in the Portland Metro region. He suggested a group of 16 to 18, including some Planning Commissioners, Development Review Commissioners, neighborhood people, and downtown people. He indicated that he would work more on this project. Councilor Jordan mentioned that the comments made by a prominent developer at this morning's meeting regarding Orenco were entirely different from what the Council heard last night from the planning side. Mayor Hoffman mentioned a streetcar line tour taken by the Portland Transit Steering Committee last Friday with a briefing by the Metro director on timelines, current status of the engineers' work, alignments, and public outreach. He said that he talked about how Foothills related to the streetcar. He suggested proposing a similar tour for the upcoming Railvolution. • Stafford Councilor Olson asked if the City would have official testimony about Stafford at any of the Metro public hearings. Mayor Hoffman indicated that he had not planned on attending the hearings, but he could go. He commented that his testimony would not make any difference, as he has already been in contact with Metro and the CORE Four regarding Lake Oswego's position. Councilor Moncrieff held that it was important to testify, commenting that public testimony swayed her, even if she has already heard it. Councilor Jordan argued that reiterating in a public forum the general consensus of the population that the Council served sent the message that the Council was hearing the people and restating that consensus for the record. She pointed out that, whatever happened, there would be intergovernmental agreements developed. She thought that the positions of the local communities would be reflected in the way those agreements developed. Mayor Hoffman indicated that he would attend one of the hearings on January 20 or 21. Councilor Jordan mentioned the opportunities on the Metro website to provide feedback. She recalled that Metro hit Lake Oswego hard on the last MTIP funding because Metro received so much negative feedback in e-mails. • Urban/Rural Reserves Update Mayor Hoffman updated the Council on the status of urban/rural reserves. He noted that there were a number of maps going around showing different amounts of urban reserves, from David Bragdon's 30,000 acres to Clark & Liberty's 15,000 to 20,000 acres to the Washington County Farm Bureau's 17,000 acres. He said that all these maps showed Stafford as entirely urban reserve or partly urban reserve with the rest up for discussion. He stated that he has not seen any map showing Stafford as rural reserve. He mentioned that Clackamas County has been pushing an undesignated status for a number of months but he thought the chances of that going through were slim to none. He indicated that Metro looked at the types of agricultural land within the whole Portland Metro region, and not just in Stafford or Washington County. He noted that Stafford did not have as high a quality of agricultural land as Hillsboro and other areas. He explained that, to the Metro Councilors' way of thinking, it was more defensible to bring in conflicted land (Stafford) than foundation soils land (Washington City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 13 January 12, 2010 County) in terms of balancing urban and rural reserves. He concluded that it was very likely that Stafford would come in as urban reserve. He explained that if the CORE Four could not agree on what lands to designate urban and rural reserve, then the default process was the old process of identifying 20 years worth of land to bring inside the UGB. State statute dictated bringing in the poorest soils land first and the best soils land last. He said that the poorest, most conflicted soils land was three miles to the south of Lake Oswego. Therefore, if the urban/rural reserves process did not work, then Stafford stood a 99% chance of coming inside the UGB in 2010 or 2015 and eventually being urbanized. He pointed out that, if Stafford came in as an urban reserve, there were a lot of conditions to satisfy before the area became urban, such as concept planning, jurisdictional assignment, annexation, zoning, and infrastructure provision. It could be 15 to 20 years before the area closest to Lake Oswego going down to the river was developed, although the Borland area would urbanize sooner because it was next to the freeway and ready to be annexed. He indicated that he was putting most of his efforts into the conditions that would be part of the intergovernmental agreements that Councilor Jordan mentioned. He spoke of a possible condition that nothing could be done until there was a concept plan for the entire basin in place, and accepted by all four jurisdictions. Other possibilities were Stafford not coming in until all three jurisdictions and the main cities agreed on who would provide governance, or until there was light rail along 1-205. He said that he would bring up those sorts of arguments at MPAC tomorrow. He mentioned that staff was also talking with their peers from the other jurisdictions. He said that, while there were still negotiations going on between Charlotte Lehan and Tom Brian, he was relatively confident that they would reach a deal because Washington County had such great farmland that it would get no land for urbanization in the near future under the old process. Councilor Moncrieff mentioned her appreciation of the Mayor's willingness to attend one of the public hearings to represent their constituents because there were so few opportunities left to do so. Mayor Hoffman stated that he has been very clear with everyone to whom he has spoken that Lake Oswego had no time, energy, or interest in Stafford. Neither did they have the staff capacity to deal with planning it. He commented that the cost of developing Stafford was staggering. He gave the example of North Bethany, which cost between $60,000 to $120,000 per house to build the infrastructure alone. He said that the message that Lake Oswego was giving to people was that the City wanted to put its infrastructure in Foothills, and not in Stafford. 4. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Hoffman adjourned the meeting at 9:14 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Robyn Christie City Recorder APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: ON Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 13 of 13 January 12, 2010 LAKE OSWEGO Centennial 1910-2010 COUNCIL REPORT TO: Jack Hoffman, Mayor Members of the City Council Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager FROM: Russell Chevrette, Engineering Tech. III Public Works Department Engineering Division 7� / CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 503-675-3984 www.ci.oswego.or.us SUBJECT: A request to return ownership of a city -owned strip of land along 3270 Lakeview Boulevard to the abutting owner. DATE: March 24, 2010 Staff requests the City Council to authorize the City Manager to execute a quitclaim deed for the purpose of returning ownership of a city -owned strip of land along Lakeview Boulevard to the abutting owner. INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND The City has received a request (Exhibit 1) from Barry and Carolyn Brewis, owners of a residential property at 3270 Lakeview Boulevard, requesting the return of a 5 -foot wide strip of land that was acquired by the City of Lake Oswego along their lot's frontage in 1974. A tax map illustrating the strip of land is attached as Exhibit 2. As explained below, acting on this request would be a transaction of real property governed by ORS 221.725, which requires that the matter be considered at a public hearing. COMPLIANCE WITH STATUTES The subject strip of land was acquired by warranty deed ---not through a dedication of right-of-way. Therefore, the statutory street vacation process is not the appropriate method for relinquishing the public interest in the subject strip of land. Rather, the conveyance of the fee is the required action. The relinquishment of "City owned" real property is governed by the provisions of ORS 221.725. The statute has been satisfied as follows: a) Proper notice of the public hearing was published in the local newspaper at least once during the week prior to the public hearing. b) The public hearing is not occurring earlier than five days after publication of the notice c) The value of the property to the public is determined to be zero, as explained later in this report. If the City Council decides in favor of the request, the City Council would vote on a motion to authorize the Page 2 City Manager to execute a quitclaim deed granting the strip of land back to the abutting owners. Adoption of a resolution or ordinance is not required. To the best of staff's knowledge, this process for returning a strip of land that was conveyed for street purposes by warranty deed has only been used two or three times in the last 25 years. DISCUSSION History of the acquisition In 1974, the owner of a vacant lot located at 3270 Lakeview Boulevard applied for a 2.5 foot variance to the front yard setback in order to build a lake front house (VAR 4-74). Upon recommendation of the Public Works Director at that time, the variance was approved on condition that the property owner would dedicate 5 additional feet of right-of-way for future street improvements and sign a petition for the formation of a street Local Improvement District. As was typical of the time, the 5 -foot strip was conveyed to the City by warranty deed with the stipulation "for right-of-way purposes" See attached Exhibit 3. Reasoning behind the acquisition In 1970, four years prior to the subject acquisition, the City hired the consulting firm of CH2M to produce a "Traffic Safety Study & Arterial Street Plan" The Plan concluded that almost all of the street system was substandard and could not support the traffic produced by expected population growth. The Plan recommended that the right-of-way width on collector streets (like Lakeview Boulevard) should be 60 feet wide, with a pavement width of 44 feet to accommodate two travel lanes and on -street parking on both sides. Conventional curbs and sidewalks were also recommended for all arterials and collectors. In subsequent years, staff diligently took advantage of every opportunity to acquire additional right-of-way to achieve the "wide street" objective, including approving even the most innocuous variance on condition they surrender property for right-of-way expansion. (As a footnote, this approach to right-of-way acquisition has been long abandoned by city staff. In fact, subsequent Supreme Court cases, most notably Nolan v. California Coastal Commission (requiring a test of rational nexus) and Dolan v. City of Tigard (requiring a test of rough proportionality) have put an end to such practices. j Motivation behind owners' request for return of the 5 -foot stria Concurrent with this request before council, the owners of 3270 Lakeview Boulevard have applied for a Residential Infill Design (RID) Review for a major remodel of the existing dwelling (case file LU 10-0012). Among other things, the proposed remodel would transform the existing garage, whose door faces the street, to a side -loading garage that presents a more aesthetically pleasing facade to the street. This change would also remove the completely paved "front yard" and 5 -foot strip and replace it with 50% landscaping and 50% decorative paver driveway ---a considerable improvement that would be consistent with the newer homes along the street. (See landscape plan, Exhibit 4.) The existing lot and structure do not conform to several current zoning and development standards, and the return of the 5 -foot strip would reduce the number of exceptions the applicants are seeking through the RID Review process. Evaluation of the public need for the 5 -foot strip The 5 -foot strip is currently paved and serves as a wide driveway approach to the existing garage and front entryway. As shown on the tax map (Exhibit 2), this strip is the only taking of its kind along Lakeview Boulevard. It is evident from the attached photographs (Exhibits 5 and 6) that the existing right-of-way is wide enough to accommodate two travel lanes and parking on the shoulder. In addition, there is a paved pathway on the opposite side of the street, and the neighborhood has permission to park on the railroad right-of-way on the opposite side of the street. Except for having constructed the pathway on the railroad Page 3 side of the street in 1994, there have been no adopted plans to widen Lakeview Boulevard in the future, and there is no reason to believe that a wider right-of-way would be required under any imaginable scenario. If, for some reason, a wider right-of-way were to be needed, it is staff's opinion that it would be obtained from the adjacent railroad right-of-way at a far lesser cost than purchasing (through dozens of condemnations) additional right-of-way from the residential properties on the south side of the street. Staff therefore concludes that there is no public value in retaining ownership of the 5 -foot strip. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that City Council authorize the City Manager to execute a quitclaim deed to transfer ownership of the subject 5 -foot strip of land to the abutting owners. EXHIBITS 1. Brewis letter of request, December 20, 2009 2. Tax map 3. Warranty deed 74-5907 4. Proposed landscape/site plan 5. Frontage photo—looking east 6. Frontage photo—looking west ATTACHMENT Quitclaim deed Reviewed by: AAV\ 1 ` J� Departmentbirector c/ City Attorney Alex D. McIntyre / City Manager v December 20, 2009 Dear Mr. Chevrette: We are requesting that the City of Lake Oswego record a quitclaim deed for the northerly 5 feet conveyed to the City of Lake Oswego in 1974 (Fee No. 74005907) with regard to the property location of 3270 Lakeview Blvd (Lot 7, block 135, LAKEVIEW VILLAS). We have enclosed the fee of $175.00. We appreciate your prompt attention to this matter and if there are any issues or questions please feel free to call. Sincerel Barry and Carolyn Brewis 503-706-7258 Qs i 4� j 1"i fF L�i�+ �. ul 4 Vi 11M OPER: D F.. 7Ek.' 010 'REF -t,. "3,142, Rn in r n j•i 7 N - 8 01.1,x,300 ENIG FEES - ..Y .fit; t:,.,LneNri.fir I , E Cls; NE01. T ) G i ! i J.I,11�I s s. rlt'si > J.('Iivl EXHIBIT o m z Z 7 � � ba 1181HX3 ti oo dD oH grill „ n� o .lr� 00'ab _ 0 N '1�bQ R �� 9y�IZ5 00 z ' AP O o /p a- a o rlop ac31 � ' o 01 h C) Vol o /. -vj cn co � r,•a m;y W � / uA `� cP to 0 IP dD c tl+ w v J� 9 7.,•59, _ yin azo?� -otl \ .0rl ; 0 a- DEFECTS IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT ` FORM N. 633—WARRANTY D110. "Now w W IN Ra C. and Alice R. Hallberg t ' II KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, That Y g hereinafter ca,'h-d the grantor, for the consideration hereinafter stated,' to grantor paid hy CITY OF LAKE OSWI'GO For RighL of Way Purposes hereinafter called the grantee, dot,., lu•rehv grant. Inagain, ,.if lural rnnve•y unto the avid gr nde•e• and 4raote­'.4 heirs, successors and assigns, that certain real property, with tht• tenements, Irere.ditaments and :tppurtenances thereunto belonging or appertaining, sit- uate•d in the County of Clackamas areal :rate of Oregon, described its follows, to -wit: I Thr Nordily ; feet of Lot. 7, [iLock 1.35, ;AKFVIF.W VILLAS, Clackamas County, Ort -gun. I ,I �1 :I (if SPACE In:UI'f ICItNt, CONtitlUt DCr RIPTION ON REVIRSE SIDE) j� To llave and to Hold the same unto the said grantee alit/ grantee's heirs, successors and assigns forever. ;i And said grantor hereby covenants to and with said g lntee and granter's heirs, successors and assigns, that grantor is l.twlully seized in fee simple of the above granted orrmises, free from all encumbrances and that grantor will warrant and forever de•lend the above genoted prern.-s and ever✓ part and parcel thereof against the law- ful claines and demands of all persons whomsoever, exceed thuse claiming under the above described encumbrances. The true and ANUal consideration paid for this transfer, stated in terms of dollars, is $1.00--------- 'RHowever, rhe ectetal-oo,ideration c'unsists of or inclurles ocher property or value given or promised which is Iart of the ' alae Dh„le e'^nsid,rntinn (indicate which).' In construing this reed and where the contest so requires, the singulnr includes the plural. WITNESS grantor's hand this dray of 19 I� STATE OF ORF.('ON, County of 1!h'.;. •: ) ss. �"�. lA �. Ra C and Alice R. I!ILlber Personally uppe•nrr•d the ahove'nanlet/ Y g and acknolvlrrlge-d the foregoing instrument to he Lheir voluntnry act and deed. Before ane: � !C !•.'r.'c`G1,..�' ... (OI?F'ICIAI. SEAL) Notary'�ublic dor Oregon My comme.4ceor? a CpereY NOTE—`Iw —I.— b.rw..., rh..,mbel. '... If nor npl+h,nbl., should b. d.I.r.A. 5.. Ch.,r 467, 0.9 IL.— 1967, ...rn..d.d b, IN. 1967 Se.el.1 S-1— WARRANTY DEED Ray C. and Alice It. IIa1.Lherg 'to City of Lake Oswego AF'r F'R Rre:OnnING Re.l URN TO '= EXHIBIT o m Z w a c� /Zell - IF Q% t4 a u., � li V1 ..el ;,� � cam• •.41y.ia , Cil r9= C z 10 .-- VVas �`aQ 5 O O i, `VC Rfp '= EXHIBIT o m Z w a c� /Zell - IF Q% t4 a u., � li V1 ..el ;,� � cam• •.41y.ia , MAR 0 4 2010 FE) f Lake Oswego ty ®G9/nlr^ i,— r% ,-i 80�19m Ul ME m p�,� 0 w -i �n O N�f<rrr ri 0 J �rn _ r Y r a i • PWA awl— Eprr - _ fee I StoneridO e 503.387.5312 -.;•+-*• ,ra .��.�'� ram- - -- ; �.-\ ems- � rtk a -� . � 'b x • ..� � �� �w. ♦ . EXHIBIT Name of Document For Recording: Quitclaim Deed (For County Recording Use Only) Grantor: City of Lake Oswego Grantee: Barry and Carolyn Brewis Consideration:$0.00 together with other good and valuable consideration. Tax Statement to be mailed to: No change. Statutory Recordation Authority: ORS 93.850. After Recordine, Return To: Grantee QUITCLAIM DEED The City of Lake Oswego, a municipal corporation, "Grantor," for the consideration hereinafter stated, does hereby remise, release and quitclaim unto Barry and Carolyn, "Grantee," and unto grantee's heirs, successors and assigns all of the grantor's rights, title and interest in that certain real property with the tenements, hereditaments and appurtenances thereunto belonging or in anywise appertaining, situated in the County of Clackamas, State of Oregon, described as follows: That five foot wide strip of land described in document 74-5907, deed records of Clackamas County,Oregon. To have and to hold the same unto the said grantee and grantee's heirs, successors and assigns forever. The true consideration for this conveyance is non monetary. In construing this deed and where the context so requires, the singular includes the plural and all grammatical changes shall be implied to make provisions hereof apply equally to corporations and individuals. This deed is executed by authority vested with the City Manager pursuant to LOC 12.24.950. THIS INSTRUMENT WILL NOT ALLOW USE OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS INSTRUMENT IN VIOLATION OF APPLICABLE LAND USE LAWS AND REGULATIONS. BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS INSTRUMENT, THE PERSON ACQUIRING FEE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY SHOULD CHECK WITH THE APPROPRIATE CITY OR COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY APPROVED USES AND TO DETERMINE ANY LIMITS ON LAWSUITS AGAINST FARMING OR FOREST PRACTICES AS DEFINED IN ORS 30.930. After recording, return to Grantee Dated the day of 2010. City of Lake Oswego By: Alex D. McIntyre STATE OF OREGON ) )ss. County of On this day of , 2010, this instrument was acknowledged before me by as City Manager of the City of Lake Oswego, a municipal Oregon corporation, and who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence that he was the city manager of the named City of Lake Oswego and had authority to sign on its behalf. WITNESS my hand and official seal Notary Signature Notary Seal Commission expires: After recording, return to Grantee LAKE OSWEGO Centennial 1910-2010 COUNCIL REPORT TO: Jack Hoffman, Mayor Members of the City Council Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager FROM: Jane Blackstone, Economic Development Manager Department of Economic and Capital Development K / CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 503-675-3984 www.ci.oswego.or.us SUBJECT: Resolution 10-22 of the Lake Oswego City Council adopting the April 2010 Lake Oswego Economic Development Strategy DATE: March 29, 2010 ACTION Approve Resolution 10-22 that adopts the April 2010 Lake Oswego Economic Development Strategy. INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND In 2009, recognizing the economic impact of the recession on local businesses, the City Council adopted a goal to approve and fund an economic development plan which attracts, retains and supports local businesses. On a parallel track, the Chamber of Commerce convened the Strategic Business Alliance, including City representatives and a cross-section of business community stakeholders, to explore ways to promote economic development. As a result of these efforts, the City, Chamber and other members of the business community commissioned a shopper survey, retail market analysis, and opinion research on the City, School District and local business organizations. With the results of this work as a foundation, in January and February 2010, the City and Chamber co -hosted two economic development strategy work sessions with forty-five representatives of the City and business community. The work sessions produced business community input to the Economic Development Strategy to be presented for the Council's consideration and adoption on April 6, 2010, including an economic development vision, core strategies to move the community toward achievement of that vision, near-term City action steps consistent with those core strategies, and indicators of success. Page 2 DISCUSSION The Economic Development Strategy (Attachment 1) articulates a vision of Lake Oswego's economic future -- a snapshot of a vibrant, healthy, and sustainable community in 2025. To achieve this vision, a collaborative public-private economic development program will build on Lake Oswego's high quality of life and address identified weaknesses. The Chamber of Commerce will be a key partner in implementing the strategy, along with other community non -profits, business organizations, business and property owners, and regional and State economic development entities. The City's Economic Development program focuses on four core strategies and a five-year work plan of corresponding action priorities. The program will monitor and report on progress using a variety of measurement tools, including tracking of general economic indicators, status reports on performance of work program priorities, and surveys of shoppers and the business community. Strategy 1: Market Lake Oswego. Attract customers and businesses and leverage existing and new community events. This was the highest priority identified by business stakeholders in strategy work sessions. Actions include development of a marketing strategy and public-private funding and implementation program. Strategy 2: Leverage quality of life and place. Develop physical improvements and provide programs and events that create an environment where business and community will flourish. Actions include planning and implementation of Foothills, Streetcar, and North Anchor; downtown parking analysis and implementation of parking solutions; completion of Boones Ferry Road studies, a Lake Grove Design Handbook, and funding options for Lake Grove Village Center Plan implementation; expansion of the Gallery Without Walls and planning of new arts programs and events; and economic development input to the upcoming Comprehensive Plan update. Strategy 3: Provide exemplary City service to businesses. Improve City regulations, customer service, communication, and partnerships to create a climate more supportive of business. Actions include building a strong City Business Solutions Team, improving City regulations and permitting, welcoming new businesses, developing and maintaining demographic and economic data, and leveraging partnerships with the business community. Strategy 4: Retain and recruit businesses. Implement programs to strengthen and grow existing businesses and recruit new businesses. Action items include outreach to businesses, targeted recruitment of businesses, establishment of a Strategic Investment Zone incentive program, communication of available business resources, implementation of an economic gardening pilot project, business training, and study of a potential business incubator and additional incentives. Appendix A of the Strategy outlines a more detailed list of action items, responsible and supporting parties, and preliminary cost estimates. Page 3 ALTERNATIVES & FISCAL IMPACT The Strategy itself is a policy document, which does not require the expenditure of City funds. Action items provided for in the Strategy fall into several department budget categories and are subject to annual budget approval by City Council. Currently, less costly action items can be funded out of the existing Economic and Capital Development budget. Implementation of more costly action items such marketing, redevelopment projects and expansion of arts programming are dependent on development of public- private funding strategies. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that City Council approve Resolution 10-22 adopting the attached Lake Oswego Economic Development Strategy. ATTACHMENTS 1. Lake Oswego Economic Development Strategy Reviewed by: Brant Williams, Department Director David Powell, City Attorney I �k Alex D. In City Manager RESOLUTION 10-22 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO ADOPTING THE APRIL 2010 LAKE OSWEGO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY WHEREAS, in 2009 the Lake Oswego City Council adopted a goal to develop an economic development plan focused on supporting, retaining, and attracting local businesses; and WHEREAS, in 2010 the City Council adopted a restated goal to approve an economic development plan; and WHEREAS, in 2009 and early 2010, the City of Lake Oswego, in partnership with the Lake Oswego Chamber of Commerce and other business representatives, conducted a shopper survey, market study, and outreach to stakeholders in order to develop the April 2010 Economic Development Strategy; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that adoption of the April 2010 Economic Development Strategy fulfills the 2010 Council Goal to approve an economic development plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego that: Section 1. The City Council adopts the April 2010 Lake Oswego Economic Development Strategy in the form attached as Exhibit A. Section 2. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect upon passage. Considered and enacted at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego on the 6th day of April, 2010. AYES: NOES: EXCUSED: ABSTAIN: Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor ATTEST: Robyn Christie, City Recorder �L APP,RPVED AS 0 FORM David Powell, City Attor+ DEFECTS IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT Lake Oswego Economic Development Strategy A Five-year Plan for Economic Health and Community Vitality W Lake Oswego Economic Development Strategy A Five-year Plan for Economic Health and Community Vitality Contents Introduction...................................................................................................................................................1 Background....................................................................................................................................................2 Acknowledgments.........................................................................................................................................3 ExecutiveSummary .......................................................................................................................................4 EconomicLandscape.....................................................................................................................................6 Demographics........................................................................................................................................6 Retail..................................:...................................................................................................................6 Employment..........................................................................................................................................7 Housing..................................................................................................................................................8 Economic Development Strengths........................................................................................................8 EconomicDevelopment Issues..............................................................................................................8 StrategicOpportunities.........................................................................................................................9 Vision: Lake Oswego's Economic Future.....................................................................................................10 EconomicDevelopment Mission.................................................................................................................10 Partnership..................................................................................................................................................11 Economic Development Strategies.............................................................................................................11 Indicatorsof Success...................................................................................................................................13 Appendix A: City of Lake Oswego Economic Development Action Plan.................................................14 Appendix B: Economic Development Strategy Worksession 1 Notes.....................................................19 Appendix C: Economic Development Strategy Worksession 2 Notes.....................................................25 1 DEFECTS IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT Introduction The Lake Oswego City Council adopted as one its 2009 goals the establishment of an Economic Development Program based on supporting, retaining and attracting local businesses. A healthy economy is an essential component of a vibrant community, with employment opportunities, local retail and services, and strong tax base to generate the property taxes that support the highest quality City services and infrastructure for residents and businesses. This Five -Year Economic Development Strategy responds to Council's goal by articulating a vision for Lake Oswego's economic future; charting core strategies to move the community toward achievement of that vision; identifying near-term City action steps consistent with core strategies; and defining indicators of success. The success of the City's strategy is dependent on strong community partnerships. It recognizes that Lake Oswego's economic strength is highly dependent on the continued strength of the schools, arts programs, civic events, and other community amenities and services delivered by public and non-profit organizations. The City will work closely with the Lake Oswego Chamber of Commerce as a lead implementation partner, to leverage existing Chamber programs and build expanded marketing and economic development efforts. Other partners include business and property owners, the Downtown Business District Association, Lake Grove Business Association, School District, Arts Council and other civic and community organizations. New organizations or alliances may evolve as public-private programs are developed. The Strategy is intended to guide the City and key partners as they work together to improve Lake Oswego's economic vitality. It sets a strategic framework to guide decision-making, but recognizes that action steps may change from year to year based on the economic climate and issues and opportunities that may arise. It also acknowledges that the City Council's annual goals and budget will continue to drive the annual work program of the City's Economic Development Program. Background This report is the product of many hours of work by Lake Oswego's business community, City Council representatives, and City staff. Early in 2009, the Lake Oswego Chamber of Commerce initiated the Strategic Business Alliance, a group of community stakeholders representing the City, business owners, developers, and education. The Alliance conducted a roundtable discussion in the spring of 2009 to explore economic development needs and aspirations. As an outcome of that discussion, the City partnered with the Alliance to conduct research and analysis to support ongoing economic development planning by the public and private sectors. Continuing to build on the work of the Strategic Business Alliance, in January and February 2010 the City and Chamber hosted two worksessions with business and community stakeholders and gathered focused input to guide this strategy. This work is summarized in Appendices B and C. January 2010 Work Session Table Group Acknowledgments The Lake Oswego Chamber of Commerce, led by President Dr. Dale Rhoney and CEO Jerry Wheeler, and the Strategic Business Alliance, led by Dr. Bill Korach, have been invaluable partners, providing time, expertise, and financial resources in support of economic development data collection and the City's strategic planning effort. Special thanks to participants in the January and February 2010 Economic Development Strategy worksessions: Mayor Jack Hoffman City Councilor Sally Moncrieff City Councilor Donna Jordan City Councilor Mary Olson Deanna Bitar, Banette Properties Mark Birge, AKT LLP* Mike Buck, Gubanc's Pub Barry Cain, Gramor Properties Mike Diamond, Real Estate Investment Group Nick Diamond, Real Estate Investment Group David Dickson, Marylhurst University Andrew Edwards, Lakewood Center for the Arts Doug Fish, Fish Marketing* Jim Franceus, Summit Investment Advisors* Charlie Forsyth. West Coast Bank* Paul Graham, Graham's Book & Stationery Dan Heine, The Bank of Oswego Karen Jacobson, Ivey, Jacobson & Co, CPAs* Adelle Jenike, Jenike Real Estate Linda Kerl, The Lake Oswego Corporation* Bill Korach, Lake Oswego School District* Rob LeChevallier, Buckley LeChevallier Ramzan Magamedov, Griffon May Sandy Marron, Marylhurst University* Malcolm Mathes, Lake Oswego Arts Council Brian Monihan, Lake Oswego Review* Chuck O'Leary, Bankers Investment* Mary Olund, Grapevine Kelley Peake, Play Boutique Suzanne Regan, Tucci* Dale Rhoney, DDS; President, Chamber of Commerce* Chris Schetky, Windermere Cronin & Caplan Realty Group* Lisa Shaw -Ryan, Chuck's Place John Surrett, Lake Oswego Neighborhood Action Coalition Grant Watkinson, Sustainability Advisory Board Jerry Wheeler, CEO, Chamber of Commerce Carol Winston, Accessories from the Heart Gene Wizer, Wizer's Oswego Foods City Staff: Alex McIntyre, City Manager Brant Williams, Director, Economic & Capital Development Robert Galante, Director, Lake Oswego Redevelopment Agency Denise Frisbee, Director, Planning and Building Services Denny Egner, Assistant Planning Director Jane Blackstone, Economic Development Manager Christine Kirk, Public Affairs Manager * Chamber of Commerce Board Member Execrative Summary Lake Oswego Economic Development Strategy Ci of LAVE OSWEGO O R E G O N 4 By the year 2025, Lake Oswego will be a more vibrant, connected and sustainable community, known throughout the region as a unique and wonderful place to live, learn, work, play and enjoy arts and culture. Pedestrian - friendly shopping and dining districts are lively and commercial buildings are fully occupied with thriving businesses. Industrial uses are consolidated in a better -organized, more attractive and efficient district in the I- 5/west Lake Oswego area. Strategic higher -density infill and redevelopment, including the Foothills and downtown North Anchor at Is' and B projects, provide a broader range of housing options and additional locations for retail, civic, cultural and employment uses. Strong neighborhoods are connected by safe and attractive walking and bicycle routes, with transit options including Streetcar to Portland and internal bus circulation. River, lake and trees are enduring connections to natural beauty and visible symbols of a healthy community. Working through collaborative public-private partnerships, build on Lake Oswego's strong quality of life to improve community vitality and economic well-being for current and future generations. OPPORTuNITIEs Lake Oswego has the opportunity to build on and expand its positive attributes: great quality of life and amenities — a beautiful setting, recreational opportunities, arts and culture, community events, and high-quality housing and schools; a highly educated and affluent population; high quality office space; existing businesses; and strong retail potential. Issues and weaknesses also present opportunity for positive change: City regulations and permitting, parking, transit, housing options, office and retail vacancy. Market Lake Oswego Develop a marketing strategy focused on customer and business attraction and leverage of existing and new community events • Develop a public-private strategy for implementation funding • Launch and maintain a public-private marketing program Leverage quality of life and place Plan and begin Foothills redevelopment • Plan and implement Streetcar • Plan and implement North Anchor at 1St & B Perform downtown parking analysis and enact potential code changes/ projects • Facilitate redevelopment of the Wizer block • Expand Gallery Without Walls; plan new arts programs and events • Complete Boones Ferry Road studies and develop funding options for Lake Grove Village Center Plan implementation • Complete Lake Grove Design Handbook • Provide economic development input to Comp Plan update Provide exemplary City service to business • Build a City Business Solutions Team Improve City regulations and permitting; facilitate development • Maintain an economic development website • Deploy a new business toolkit and welcome protocol • Develop and maintain demographic data and economic indicators • Build and leverage partnerships with the business community and economic development partners Retain and recruit businesses • Conduct outreach to businesses • Establish Strategic Investment Zone • Communicate and leverage business assistance resources • Conduct economic gardening pilot program • Provide training • Complete and maintain retail property inventories • Conduct targeted recruitment • Study feasibility of a business incubator • Study potential incentive programs INDICATORS OF SUCCESS • Economic Indicators • Output Measures • Survey Feedback Economic Landscape The following contextual and analytic information is a summary of highlights from much more extensive data and analysis found in the sources footnoted below. Demographics With a 2009 population estimated at 37,752 within the city limits, Lake Oswego is Clackamas County's largest city, expected to grow at 0.59% per year, a slower rate than projected for the Portland metro area. Lake Oswego's population is older on average, more affluent, and more educated than the population of the Portland metro area.' Retail Retail activity is focused in downtown Lake Oswego and Lake Grove, each with over 700,000 square feet of retail space. Neighborhood centers in Palisades, Mountain Park, Westlake, and the Kruse Way area offer additional retail choices. A shopper survey conducted in the summer of 2009 indicated that 55% of city residents shop outside of Lake Oswego for goods and services other than gas and groceries .2 The October 2009 Lake Oswego Retail Market Analysis prepared by Marketek calculates leakage of $537 million of retail sales out of Lake Oswego's market area, or the equivalent of 2.3 million square feet of retail space. With effective business development, Marketek projects that Lake Grove could capture an additional 66,500 square feet of retail space and downtown Lake Oswego could capture an additional 279,300 square feet. ' Marketek, Inc., Lake Oswego Retail Market Analysis, October 2009. Note: An additional population of 6,072 resides in unincorporated areas within Lake Oswego's Urban Service Boundary, 2008 estimate. Z 2009 Survey of Lake Oswego Women conducted by Moore Information in July 2009. 0 City of Lake Oswego Business Areas ccmmerciai(Retail Industrial Neighborhood Retell Employment Lake Oswego had 19,521 jobs at 2,165 firms in 2008, an increase of 0.3% in jobs over 2007, but a decrease of 3% in number of firms over the same period. The average wage associated with these jobs is $53,303 -- higher than the $41,155 average in Clackamas County. Unemployment was 6.6% in November 2009 — lower than the State average of 11.1 % for the same period, but higher than historic Lake Oswego levels. The Lake Oswego rate is down from an 8.3% high in August 2009. Annual averages from 1999 through 2008 have ranged from 2.6% to 4.9%.3 The highest concentrations of Lake Oswego employees are in Finance and Insurance (17%), Professional, Scientific and Technical Services (12%), Government (11 %), Accommodation and Food Services (9%), Health Care and Social Assistance (8%) and Retail (7%). Approximately 9% of Lake Oswego jobs are in home-based businesses.4 3 Oregon Employment Department, February 2010. ° ECONorthwest, Economic Opportunities Analysis, July 2009 DRAFT. 7 Lake Oswego employment uses are concentrated in the Kruse Way office sub -market, industrial zones located off Boones Ferry Road near 1-5 and in the Foothills area, and throughout mixed —use retail districts in downtown and Lake Grove. Kruse Way has more than 2.3 million square feet of office space, with a higher - than -average suburban submarket vacancy rate of 22.7% for the fourth quarter of 2009. 5 Housing Fewer than one in seven Lake Oswego workers live in Lake Oswego.fi Input from stakeholders suggests that a broader range of housing types and pricing is needed to build a more sustainable live -work community and address the full range of community housing needs. This issue will be addressed in depth in the City's Comprehensive Plan process beginning in 2010. Economic Development Strengths' Lake Oswego's economic strengths derive from quality of life and amenities including a beautiful setting, recreational opportunities, high-quality housing and schools, dining and shops, Oswego Lake, cultural programs, community events, and proximity to Portland. The city is home to Marylhurst University, with the state's largest MBA program, and near Lewis & Clark College and Portland Community College. The community has a growing, highly educated and affluent population. Kruse Way is a prestigious address for office users, housing an industry cluster of Finance & Insurance; Real Estate Rental & Leasing; Professional, Scientific & Technical Services; and Information. Lake Oswego businesses and residents have access to 1-5, 1-205, Highway 43, bus service, and Portland International Airport. Unlike adjacent Multnomah County, with a 1.45% business income tax, Clackamas County does not levy a business income tax, an advantage in attracting firms that want to be near Portland. Economic Development Issues General market conditions remain a barrier to consumer spending, housing starts, business and employment growth and new investment throughout the nation. Recent studies, including stakeholder focus group input, indicate a number of additional issues that are specific challenges to economic development in Lake Oswego.7 5 Norris, Beggs & Simpson, Office Report, Portland Metro Area, Fourth Quarter 2009. 6 ECONorthwest, July 2009 DRAFT Summarized from 2009 Survey of Lake Oswego Women and 2009 Marketek and ECONorthwest reports cited above. Kruse Way office submarket vacancy rate reported by Norris, Beggs & Simpson. 8 The city has limited raw land and large parcels for industrial uses, and relatively high land costs. New employment and retail uses are driven to difficult and costly redevelopment projects. The 2009 shopper survey and stakeholder interviews indicate concerns about insufficient parking in downtown Lake Oswego, and the cost of providing required parking is cited as a deterrent to shopping and redevelopment. High office vacancy rates in the Kruse Way submarket are a challenge. Demand is low in the suburbs. Existing businesses are trading space, with the suburbs losing tenants to lower-priced opportunities in downtown Portland. Existing businesses are trading space but new businesses are not out there to fuel positive absorption.8 Lack of affordable housing is a deterrent to businesses with lower paid employees. Limited transit service is a competitive disadvantage for many Lake Oswego businesses. City regulations and permitting processes are cited by some stakeholders as a barrier to economic development, along with community concerns, resistance to rezoning, high fees, and overly restrictive sign codes. Strategic Opportunities There are many potential economic development initiatives and City projects that could strengthen Lake Oswego's economy and assist businesses. This five-year strategic plan focuses on strategies and action items that respond to the strengths and issues identified in data and analysis performed to date, are achievable, respond to community and Council priorities, and also move the community closer to achieving the economic future envisioned by stakeholders . 8 Norris, Beggs & Simpson, Office Report for Fourth Quarter 2009. Vision: Lake Oswego's Economic Future By the year 2025, Lake Oswego will be a more vibrant, connected and sustainable community, known throughout the region as a unique and wonderful place to live, learn, work, play and enjoy arts and culture. Pedestrian -friendly shopping and dining districts are lively and commercial buildings are fully occupied with thriving businesses. Industrial uses are consolidated in a better -organized, more attractive and efficient district in the 1-5/west Lake Oswego area. Strategic higher -density infill and redevelopment, including the Foothills and downtown North Anchor at 1st and B projects, provide a broader range of housing options and additional locations for retail, civic, cultural and employment uses. Strong neighborhoods are connected by safe and attractive walking and bicycle routes, with transit options including Streetcar to Portland and internal bus circulation. River, lake and trees are enduring connections to natural beauty and visible symbols of a healthy community. Economic Development Mission Working through collaborative public-private partnerships, build on Lake Oswego's strong quality of life to improve community vitality and economic well-being for current and future generations. 10 Partnership A healthy economy depends on many interrelated elements. Business success and services for residents are linked to strong community infrastructure, including high -performing schools, housing choices, parks, transportation, utility infrastructure, and arts and culture. Recognizing this, the City of Lake Oswego will coordinate and collaborate with community partners and regional and state economic development agents to efficiently implement economic development projects and programs. The Chamber of Commerce, with existing business networking, education and advocacy programs, will be a key partner in delivering and developing programs to benefit the business community. Several initiatives, such as marketing, new arts programs, and redevelopment projects, will require development of new public-private funding and implementation strategies. Economic Development Strategies Strategy priorities were developed with input from business community stakeholders, many of whom also reside in Lake Oswego. The strategies build on identified economic development strengths and address weaknesses and opportunities. Specific action steps are highlighted below and described in more detail in Appendix A — Action Plan. Strategy 1: Market Lake Oswego Marketing Lake Oswego to both internal and external audiences is a high priority of participants in strategy worksessions. The goal of marketing would be multi -faceted -- to attract customers to shop and dine in Lake Oswego, to encourage tourism, and to position Lake Oswego as a great place to locate a business, thus supporting commercial leasing efforts. Action items include development of a marketing strategy, budget, and funding/implementation plan, followed by implementation. r Strategy 2: Leverage quality of life and place Lake Oswego's quality of life and place are economic strengths that attract and retain residents, businesses, and visitors. There is potential to build on this strength by continuing to improve the City's infrastructure and create great places and events that nurture and support community and business. This strategy encompasses a diverse set of action items, including: - Foothills redevelopment - Streetcar extension - North Anchor project at 1St and B - Downtown parking analysis and potential code changes and parking projects - Arts programming and events - Actions to implement the Lake Grove Village Center Plan Strategy 3: Provide exemplary City service to business Focus groups and stakeholder interviews indicate concerns that City regulations and permitting are barriers to economic development. Making the City government more business -friendly is a high priority. Action items include development of a strong Business Solutions Team, improving City regulations and permitting, facilitating development projects, welcoming new businesses, developing demographic and economic data, and building and leveraging partnerships with the business community. 12 Strategy 4: Retain and recruit businesses Another high priority is supporting and growing existing businesses and recruiting new businesses to serve community needs, complement neighboring uses, and fill vacant commercial space. Action items include outreach to businesses to learn more about business needs, participation in the Clackamas County Strategic Investment Zone incentive program, communication of available business resources, an economic gardening pilot project, business training, and targeted recruitment. Actions also include study of a potential business incubator and additional incentive programs. Indicators of Success The Economic Development Program will monitor and report on progress toward achievement of economic development priorities using a variety of measurement tools: General Economic Indicators The Economic Development Program will develop and maintain a set of economic indicators that track Lake Oswego statistics against regional and state trends. Data will include population, age profile, employment, unemployment, number and type of firms, household income, commercial vacancy rates, and other relevant information. Program Output Measures The program will measure and report to Council on performance toward achievement of strategic priorities, including marketing efforts, recruitment and retention program delivery, and redevelopment and transportation project milestones. Survey Data The program will conduct periodic surveys of shoppers and the business community to track shopping patterns and determine perceived effectiveness of economic development activities. 13 p CD CD O w O 13 CD - 3 n� v Q CD 0 cc2 n sv sv c CZ CD 0 O 3 c7 O.� 1-1 1\ N N N A W N CD C 'o N C) O 'o FF 3 j fl NIS• O _0 CD CD CD a _0 c (D7 < Q O w Q pr n 3 O �G n � co olcfl o� N a CL M n CD cry n� -. v c CD CD ul cn Cn o < 0cn o o �,0-3 0, v o�CDCD. n tv c CD _ 3 m cm O. - in CD a 3 v CL SD CD' Q' cn n'. o CD o 0 3 '' < cD o CD o m o O _0 p (n' < fn O m o'� O - O CD CCD cri CD CD Q' O AO CD CL, OI co C' Q N CD O CO CL 3_ 3 C =3 (Cl m CD CD CD 3 CD �� . n� CD 00 CD c cn CD cn r. 0 C as E- c N c 0 (n CD CD N a 3 i Qt1I r iv v c; Cfl n N C v c n' CD CD 0 0 3 -o CD 3 CD ,0... 3 7 t 3p, o�p%n ml a� CD n n 7r C<D CD O C O C<D O Co _o O ..o nai cr a0 � 3 . CD >c�'��� CD Q' w a _0 c (D7 < Q O w Q pr n 3 CD o � co olcfl o� ,'o 0 0'.0 m_ CD (n w W* n� n n Cp i m CSD I 7 t 3p, o�p%n a� CD m 7r C<D CD O C O C<D O Co _o O ..o CD CD Q' w a _0 c (D7 < Q O w Q pr n 3 N C CD cn. CD r n=hi ni CD (n w W* 25- CD Cn N CD 0 ul 6 Q _ o 0 a m < CL n tv c CD CD m cm CD in CD a v CL SD CN c a o 0 C k C CD - CD 0 0 M; ml m m � ply O ppl c0 '! li m -Ti -a -0 -0-0 o c7 ', o -0 o n o C-) -u m CD Mm CD m CD CO <cr C')�' c m 3 m 3- 3 (n C.) 5'' 6c•c CD ate' CD °7 m ca -Gq CilC7 o�.c� c W' o� m a CD v CD- C) m o, C) m m 3 + n Q CD n o Ca j it Ei X v tD fl ro m 0 0 fl_ n• CD CD 0 a' as N Un w CD SL) r � CD CD CD O o En CD .+ I O : r so '? Er D! n 0 SL) CD n a� O 0 w A m CD co CD C7 n 0 CD o� �I C; C1 c C•> CD 0 N o� ia w N CD 3 CD O� O CD cu CCD `D 0 CD F cn a) N CD A w w o -'cn T 'CD otoO O C CCDCD CD d CD (D 2- 0 3 as CD C = C-) cD Q cc Q. CD -p x CD CL CD CL 0 cn ' o _0 m g I < I < `I �. i 0 CSI 42 0 0 0 w w o -'cn T 'CD otoO O C CCDCD CD d CD (D 2- 0 3 as CD C = C-) cD Q cc Q. CD -p x CD CL CD CL 0 cn ' o _0 m g i� of 42 I X `.< oj— CD Don in o'. 7 4 o �'� o c M' o m - -o �. o cflo' 3 oma cn I 0 O CD Cn r c • • • • O N C p C c o o _� n o o 00 0 C n 8 1 (7 iz > o p `' sv CD CD 3 v O. - `� CD �n CS N CQ .0 W CD c p' - C L a � CCDD 7 0 1n COU cn O Cn < O c SL) a) 7 CD CD C C CD o N cn O N (L O c N O 3 a' S C7 cn cc � Q m o C� o CD Q Z CD CCD Q !n' O sv c Cc„ FF RT n= c_ 3 F c N• `c c Q c 0> D p' Q v i y� sv� co .0 O cn Ln CSD 00 ' w CCD c CD a)- cn =. a:)v cQ cn t cD c cn c.) 0 v c v Q o p cn c pr p CD N• Q c E m�r sv q� m "0 z CD D p --.Li s C Q CD cn CD CD n � cn cn C7 3 0 C CD CD n O C7 ? C O CD CC 0 0 CSD Q p 3 O a < n in CD O CD CD 0 o a' � n r o 0 o f o' o aL CD n CD O O 7r CD S D w CD C i cn fl- _ r c t v o to c 3 cD t 3 C-') < c c �_ sv Q i u N rn I M;, r' M: D' ml m W W W W a (0 .N c) m ISI a I NN CD �vX -a m . _ • T CD O to O ., < CD S m CD w = CD 00 C <",'� Wo 57 n C< Q Q. CLCD CD CCD < CD CD - .n-. CD �_ d0-0 CD Q- CL CD n OI.-. O' CD -p =i 6 o CD ca. C p 7 -O CD CD O Cfl =� 0 CD CZ CD .O-. -0 O co Ogc�"r� CD 2 < CD O CD CD 0 o D �I n n o CD 0 CL D O i � I CD cn N CD C C CCD =� E3 CD -n a < .' CD CU jr CQ 'O '�-. O O 5- i _. cc CD .0 o n =� CD CD- -01 O n w ! � Q. 0 L CCD _I c� o � Cn CZ O CD ! cn O (DD CD i O CDD EF CCD _• � C.0 n _ O C1i. v c cO ca CD O O I c I � i All I N I I �- N •„ D D� i m i DI r� I ml m U C7 Di �'I c � ! c n ' c c S2 I E2 I M;, r' M: D' ml m c) m to � a I n � i �- p CD rflw�m� o 2 nv �'cn' <",'� Wo co 69 -I -I CJl CO Q C7 < O O p p N �,= co O < CD CD - c p W Cn Oi O •i p p n l R Oi0 I Cn CD C O O O CD = CD CL CD n OI.-. O' CD -p =i 6 o CD p p O p O "O `'' O Ef9 O Cn C/) 03 CD f r', + n� cl o! - Ogc�"r� O3 co: o D �I n n o CL D I i � I ? Ari 4�-- II V O CT o C)C� 0 o 0 cn CD- CCD C" 3 "O CSD a CDD • • • • • p' N1. Q. CCD 3 (D CDO nh n CD C CD CD .n-. CO cn .0 cc c CD O CD CDcn -p iv CD O co CD o. �• v CD 0 o o cn cn m sv g -- O m CD con cr CDD : CQ cn �' a cD ca CD t CM O 3 w a = v � cn � o CD_ n j CCD —.3 o.. iii 3 Cll — ¢ O ; : I cn CD n F 1 ? _ o cn cr o * to y o o 3 G) — 3 cD �' c0 O �• CCD M! S N,-� v 0 N CD C O v = to cn o G - -� p v O CCDCD _ O CL v O 0 O Q Q .. f� ca 0-0 (�D N o �_. Cep C = 3 O CD a _ CD O CD 7 CD n 0O O Q CD CD Ln iv CD O cn r �• m co o �, Q '' c -� _ n 3 o Q CD < o cn CD <n o CD CD v C1� o x '+ cn o u) cn Q, —_ o g w -; v C. W 3= o . c� C') o =. o o CD cn � m o ,c �. CD CD CD 7 C2 CD CQ__ ' C C= H CD = C1 n C - Cc' C6D iu O CD p n cr CD n cn CD Q= O O < Ln- cr O O CD a v CD < y O y CD tZ CD Sv cn m O Cp CD C O. CD CD n CD C -. _ p Cr N ''. CD CD p H -pp "p 7- Cl) NO Cn 3 cn cn Cn CD -n' fv _ p CD 0 CD �. CD O O CD CD Z cn v iv CD_ C3. !Z CD vi CD_ CCD 5, CD CC/) CD ca 0 CD CCD xp N CD N» p O CD Q . p cn. N CD p m c>' '.. v- NCD p 7r CD CD ` CD CD N J Q ,,, T I fn = 7 - NCD O S CL I I i I i l i ml m mI0 0 mcli cC.0cicn � cn to nla) n n �' C M CCD Ca =rcl W t='I m O o 3 0= TCDD CD 3 '. CD -a CD cin �- CD D' cn or CL 9 �I �� n C7 U q' 6a -1 CI. O,� 0 fv NI O C (D = c -n O UN1 7 t7_ O O CD 7 CD cn -gyp 0 CD_ 0 O O "Q C7 C7 0 0 C cn N' _0w C= O -I j Cn _ C.0 _- a_ m CD CD E = Hv CD 5-L �. CD N CD Cn n `G 00 o! x -0rp�n m = <'on o oma' o' (D �0 D n �� C N =-m ai 6. CD m c a � CD I n fT7 ca �r �' m O_ � ��. �, Wim' rn CCD CD m 0 � � O � � � O Ca O CD O O ?. COD O' CD — O O 7 X O O. O CA CD cc o CL NCDQ CII v n O :0_ '< CD O �Q• a 3. CSD Q ccn > n CCD cD C CD O cD O o O �. O .. 0 (D CD d O < C7 Cn cn O Q C')70 O CD O �' 0�1 =' N O cn a O c— CD 7 C CD CD v l cn Cn c O to 0 00 ca CSD � m CD m sv 0 � ', o CD ,I o to Q: �' CD 0 tv oo_ O �-a a o N, v' cn 3 a n n• a_3 CD CSD cn CD p CD L. O '', O CD CSD GI CD - O CCD t t t v < I < I (� O m �; n; n' C) 1-0 m C!. C=D3 CD CD CD CS! CCDM, 0-'.. CD Or Cr - N C 0 njn v r'A 0 Chin Qn69 C7 n 3 n' a -09 — a 0! n N CCD CD O a .� ons Do U•I = N cn (D o O �'O '�' CD CD 3 CD O - ocni `t O C::) O O In O O N Cn N C Cfl CD Cn 7 Ca (a (a O ca Appendix B: Economic Development Strategy Worksession 1 Notes LAKE OSVVEGO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY WORKSESSION # 'I January 12, 2010 Marylhurst University Session notes This three-hour workshop was the first of two hosted by the City of Lake Oswego in partnership with the Chamber of Commerce, with the objective of reaching public-private consensus on an economic development vision, goals, objectives, priorities, work program and success metrics. The results of the workshops will be used to create a draft Economic Development Strategy for consideration and adoption by City Council. Questions considered at this workshop included: What is our vision for Lake Oswego's economic future? What does success look like? What are our aspirations for physical amenities and improvements, business retention, business recruitment, tourism, transportation, mix of uses, marketing and promotion, with regard to the city as whole including Downtown, Lake Grove, neighborhood retail, industrial areas, and Kruse Way? The session began with a "vision tour" of Lake Oswego 2025 to give individual participants an opportunity to capture their thoughts. Tabletop discussions resulted in a vision for each of the economic development areas within Lake Oswego and indicators of success. At the conclusion of the workshop participants were asked to contribute a thought or concept from their personal "vision tour". ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AREAS VISIONING: RESULTS OF TABLETOP DISCUSSIONS Lake Grove Two groups participated in the visioning for Lake Grove. They included: Karen Jacobson, Carol Winston, Alex McIntyre, Mary Olson, John Surrett, Jerry Wheeler. Linda Kerl, Christine Kirk, J. Brian Monihon, Chuck O'Leary, Lisa Shaw -Ryan. Items in bold/underline were mentioned in both croups. Tvpes of economic activity and specific amenities and details ■ A uniquely local, neighborhood quality - including an artisanal Farmers Market, with local brands that operates year-round - that is "not Downtown" and "not Bridgeport", but a place that serves neighbors with quick and easy access to art, a library, restaurants and a microbrewery, and small (unique, not national chain) retail and service businesses. ■ Greater retail density along the street with infill above, protecting the neighborhood. ■ Trees are an important feature, with the tree canopy preserved and "keeping the `grove' in Lake Grove". ■ The area is Dedestrian-friendly.. ■ Development/investment is primarily private sector. 19 ■ There are actually 3 nodes: o The corner of Kruse and Boones Ferry is embraced as a hiih, pedestrian -friendly and family- oriented to the north, and more auto -focused to the south. Includes successful businesses, connections to the school and perhaps a hotel complex or other destination at the site of the Web Building. (Also cited in the Kruse Way group.) o The Mercantile area is redeveloped. perhaps with medical -related businesses/facilities. o Synergy is established with the Bridgeport area. Who is there? ■ Service and retail businesses that serve the neighborhood. ■ Local residents are the core customers. How do peoo/e oet there, and aet around while there? ■ There is a high level of foot traffic, but with easier driving to and access from the neighborhoods and to public parking. The key is greater accessibility. ■ A shuttle service would move oeovle from Lake Grove to Downtown. ■ Streetcar extended to the Kruse Way/ Boones Ferry intersection. ■ Promenade between Kruse Way and Bryant. Indicators of Success ■ Access for both vehicles and pedestrians resulting in increased foot traffic. ■ Developed property, with higher densibi. ■ Street improvements/beautification that creates vibrancv ■ Transportation options, with connections to 15, Mt Park, 2-5 Buildings, Downtown and throughout the communities. ■ Successful businesses. Hiahliahted by one of the aroups: "Completed street improvements will be a huge first step." Industrial Participants in visioning Industrial areas included: Sally Moncrieff, Denise Frisbee, Doug Fish, Sandy Marron, Charlie Forsyth, Adele Jenike, Denny Egner. Foothills Tvpes of economic activity and specific amenities and details ■ A non -industrial area with office employment. ■ Primarily residential with a high level of amenities and a strong connection to Downtown. ■ Amenities include tourism attractions, a marina and water taxi. ■ Treatment plant improvement is a key component. 1-5 Area Tvpes of economic activity and specific amenities and details • The area is a regional employment center. • The area is a green industry attractor and location of light industrial and auto -related uses; e.g. repair. • Flex/Incubator space is available. 20 A • Public art and gateway features are integrated to create an attractive gateway to Lake Oswego. • Restaurants and retail are geared to supporting the businesses located there. • 2010 Foothills -area business are relocated there. • Low height profile. • Potentially housing is included. • Access to 1-5 is leveraged as an important asset, with future high speed rail and on-call shuttle. Indicators of Success Foothills ■ No net loss of employment in Foothills. ■ "It smells better." 1-5 • Added green jobs. • Added start ups. • Fewer vacancies. • A unique place with Lake Oswego character. Neighborhood Retail Participants in visioning Neighborhood Retail included: Andrew Edwards, Mike Buck, Ramzan Magomedov, Brant Williams, Kelley Peake, Donna Jordon. Tvoes of economic activitv and soecific amenities and details, • Each area is unique (exception —all have pizza!) • Cafes, grocery, wine shops, taverns, and personal services and necessities that are synergistic with the unique neighborhood served. "One stop shopping without the feel of a Fred Meyer or Target." • Neighborhood friendly, conducive to circulation of people in a safe atmosphere. • Easy accessibility, with multi -modal access and interconnectivity. • Mixed use, potentially including housing or transition zoning. Indicators of Success • Integrated with neighborhoods. • Access. • Identity. • Neighborhood -friendly. • Some are ripe for redevelopment within the next 15 years. Downtown/ Foothills Two groups participated in the visioning for Downtown/Foothills. They included: Jack Hoffman, Dale Rhoney, Grant Watkinson, Nick Diamond, Deanna Bitar, David Dickson, Bill Korach, Mary Olund, Suzie Regan, Dan Heine, Mike Diamond, Malcolm Mathes. Items in bold/underline were mentioned in both grouos. Tv,oes of economic activitv and specific amenities and details • The Downtown area is an enhancement of what has previously been there, with new features and amenities announced at gateway points with a "grand entrance". • There is a strong sense of place, augmented by events, festivals, parks, arts, restaurants and ties to the waterfront. 21 • There is a combination of great retail, office and housing, so that people work, live and shop there. • Jobs are in retail and offices, in public and private sectors. • There is ease of access around State Street, and from Downtown to Foothills. • Highest retail density on A and B avenues. • There is a "people core" at Millennium Park and Lake — a kind of "mini -Pearl". • Within the first 10 years of the 2010 Economic Development Plan there is a hotel and/or library. • The river is a tourist 0000rtunity. and includes amenities such as a marina. • Foothills is not an industrial location., • There is less retail in Foothills than Downtown, with small boutiques and a pedestrian river/art walk. • The vision extends to Marylhurst. Who is there? • Downtown: Shoppers from Lake Oswego, Portland and West Linn; office workers, residents. • Foothills: Empty -nesters and downsizers with higher cultural needs, want to walk. How do people aet there, and aet around while there? • Access is by car and Streetcar. • Public transportation from Lake Grove. • Parking is important. • Vehicle and pedestrian connectivity between Downtown and Foothills. Indicators of Success • Excellent schools. • Prosperity of the business entities. • Vibrancy of the business community. • Businesses seeking to be here. • Existing stores upgraded. • Increased density of housing in Downtown and Foothills. • Increased users of Tryon Creek. • Increased shoppers from Portland and West Linn. • Year-round successful Farmers' Market. • A mix of uses but with an anchor. • Strong community banks Kruse Way 22 Participants in visioning Kruse Way included: Chris Schetky, Barry Cain, Bob Galante, Gene Wizer, Paul Graham, Jim Franceus. Tvpes of economic activity and specific amenities and details • The primary opportunity for Kruse Way lies with its employee population. • The area is characterized by Class A office facilities with mixed-use infill housing near the Centerpointe area. • The area is pleasant and walkable — pedestrian friendly, with "gems" between the buildings and a three-mile "string of pearls" art walk. Improved medians, lighting and walkability contribute to both a day and nighttime destination. • The Web buildine is a recreation center or other destination. (also cited in one of the Lake Grove groups) • Private development is key. • Lake Grove offers restaurants, specialty retail and entertainment for Kruse Way workers. How do people aet there, and aet around while there? • Private auto transportation remains critical, but a streetcar provides another option. • There are shuttles to Downtown and Lake Grove. • Pedestrian -friendly, park -like walkability. Success ■ Low vacancy rates. ■ Schools filled. ■ Increased population of younger professionals. ■ Attainable multi -story housing. ■ Increased nighttime activity. ■ Successful businesses. ■ Increased employment. 23 0 no = cr co 3' -0 r s U � 3 QJ mrD a 'r o m m e r; : o p- rb M o O 3 VI. m= a m C �•* Q O 3 d d N S D v� ((D cu r<D N ET 2:OD vi C m O 0 -�.. �-^. �. 3 r °' `r< m 0 ti Q `° v o m m rD C) o g �, v 3rD Q m ,�• o vi O `O Q O cu Iv ? CL O or •0 _ d 3 rn-.' N 3 QO O n -" O -•. ?c -n v p 7r Q �. C• C 7cu c O ¢\ QO rD c in 3 m O 7r O -+ d "O � rD CD N < •< O rD 0 m� d� Di '< •� O d m < O 7 n rD cu`n r. v+ O Q O O a 7 m (D �* p_ =, v m fl: O 6 O. d O p S p C Q m O y Q n O r. p 7c - n n (D (SD rD M O m fOi d N o 3 T fD o '° v c, CL' a O < -0 m O' c rD < O < O p o r+ O Q Q n d m < N rD 3 n ai n j . x m g m< m 2 O < O •`� d r�D m O_. a� X Q O X,rD -r cu �" r) 3 a ,•,• O o D 0 M T o m Q0 0 rD O a� yp O- < -� ^ s 3 nri r D �. O O N C �' ID °� m v+ ai 7 7 m 77 m .� N 3 v -M �-.-0 3 � ` m O (1 o„ 3 m o C D' m �, � r. a c 3 m o c D d rD `A o a v m -gyp - `Z °� M n� O m G 00 r, cr m M m< . o �, n, o m d 3 o ao c H O O -. j m a. O rD c Q D r S n m 3 n O O 3- Co = to O N 7 O -1 rrD CL G 3 • Z3 CLcu mm N C O N 0 �+ (D rD m ""` m _ rt< m .0 O m m v7 QQ rrD D :E N (D 3 r _. p O � 7 N O (D Ln Z (D v (D v D n c n O_ 2 D C7 o Q n O 3 3 S O 3 -y^ n 5. a n=i c m p O rD 3 3 D, c -T 3 m -* D, < as m— Z N 3 0 3 c m 3 c H v c< m O O (ND m m Q 9 O o oo m Ino m m 'a m v S 7 Q < -OG O CL OLn cSj C M -. O rD u,• m n O 3 O = O rD 7 Z Q O v 0 no = cr co 3' -0 r s U � 3 3 °c n o r'— mrD a 'r o m m e r; : o p- rb M o O 3 VI. m= a m o (D o- cCL <- � uz Q. N D 3 °' m 0 ti Q `° v o m m rD C) o g �, v 3rD rD m �' n d 7 Iv ? CL ,�.�. m 2 a rD o o p LO n M CU < c O 0 T G c m C? -N-r n O r a v O rD 0 = ttn (D m O v, Q7 L, O S = v O v < (D - O N M O m D m D N rm m A r n Appendix D: Economic Development Strategy Worksession 2 Notes LAKE OSWEGO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY WORKSESSION #'2 February 9, 2010 Marylhurst University Session notes This three-hour workshop was the second of two hosted by the City of Lake Oswego in partnership with the Chamber of Commerce, with the objective of reaching public-private consensus on an economic development vision, goals, objectives, priorities, work program and success metrics. The results of the workshops will be used to create a draft Economic Development Strategy for consideration and adoption by City Council. Questions considered at this workshop included: What economic development outcomes are most critical to each of the four key areas of commercial activity (Downtown, Lake Grove, 15 industrial and Kruse Way)? What are the major milestones toward the outcomes, and the timeframe in which they are anticipated to occur? What economic development tools are needed to "get there"? The session opened with a presentation by Jane Blackstone, Lake Oswego Economic Development Manager, on the "Toolkit" of Economic Development tools and methods. PRIORITIES, MILESTONE, AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TOOLS The session built on the area visions developed in Session One. Tabletop discussions resulted in priorities for driving each area vision, a timeline of events for achieving the priorities, and identification of some economic development tools. Tabletop discussion oarticinants were: Lake Grove: Paul Graham, Mike Buck, Bill Korach, Brian Monihon, Donna Jordon, Brant Williams, John Surrett, Chris Schetky. Industrial: Grant Watkinson, Denny Egner, Sandy Marron, Karen Jacobson, Christine Kirk, Adele Jenike, Jim Franceus, Mark Birge, Sally Moncrieff. Kruse Way: Dale Rhoney, Doug Fish, Linda Kerl, Malcolm Mathes, Charlie Forsyth, Rob LeChevallier, Ramzon Mogomedov, David Dickson, Jerry Wheeler. Downtown/ Foothills: Carol Winston, Alex McIntyre, Mary Olson, Suzie Regan, Lisa Shaw -Ryan, Gene Wizer, Kelley Peake, Barry Cain, Bob Galante, Andrew Edwards, J. Chuck O'Leary. Also present during the discussions were lane Blackstone, Lake Oswego Economic Development Manager; and Sue Diciple, the session facilitator. On the following page the economic development workplan drafted by participants in the tabletop exercise is illustrated. 25 DEFECTS IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT e KRUSE WAY ■ e INDUSTRIAL e 00 (D CD \ o CD \m 0 £ 0CD E[ /$ o 0 2 ƒ ; q E G x : 3�\ E /) mo f f� £_ k� m »J EEk «� 1 2 =± })} 2§ E r± E n & q; - a/, m 2 m c © : 3 � _ S E 2= n G o `§ \ � CD oa) w \ �2k u � i \ {kMCD J}\» § CD fn=CL ■ rL�E E7± CD ,i/ qE ♦ CL / w r 'a \ U ƒ R ) = \ � 2)CD ( X-C 0 20 kk C E 0 § =\tea �� 2cc _ ¥ _ CD c rr < rr [ ♦ rT 2 CD < °/[( /J \/® D= k\-0 ƒ /ra c fes°o ;§§» Cd =m $_« "UE 2B0 k%0 ]§= CD =qto =m- co ! a = a E- U) o _/ 2 2 = E° M o § 7 L c \ u / � c - n \ } § u CD CD N (a CD § § § _ J 0 c � ■ , ; t LAKE GROVE t DOWNTOWN/FOOTHILLS 1 o D o CD 0 s C v a c w ° < CL = y - CD y nCD 0 y Q _ y CD d y< O y a ill -< CD >r `G O (DD a CD l i rrm 0 cpm coo .D D -acs �coc Qoy o °<N a`Do ccs �'r Z�m <00 O 1 CD a N W y CD to co O fD c° � m W c -« p N CD -nG y c O 0 3 aCD K �, y = f�D -a cu CD CC W c O d• Q (D CD .L c c O �,� y Qa= d�� p, 01 y CD a' a G `� a c G N CD in Acc S iii O co 0 0 OCC 'M N C CD _ O _C W Z n CD oCL CL j� a �' a O 0 y p �t `O. O U-0 CD N O CD CD �D a' CL c O ,•+ O p CD — c < co CDD CC C<D N CD D) P1 1 O (C a' ° K p' �, O CD E p Ul p y Co c Q C p v; n C= G D `D 0° n CDD CD CL aa _ cry �o�y E� CL CD a s a y c a r �° < co a ^? N y a rl .� m a � 0 aCD N < ° ° °' o � O CD c a CD a X a=0 I `°3cWO KO O fA 2) y '� 0 � r m y a '. co ,� c �, N a �-a y -no w cn N D -� m c' O CO) CD �P: N o CD = a O M `� y o CDD c n L •— — — — — — — _ . — — — — — — — — — — — — » O CDc CD 0 c n ° o N r CD CDo c O m ao 0 O CD o p M a o U) O Cil CD < . m _ c p y Brt CD C CD '�. Hc p CD (D y " a 3 mCD O CO < >r a' 0 3 <D n O " a < O q rip, N CD y, < O CD n p c O a �: aye N _ 11 N v WHOLE GROUP DISCUSSION ITEMS PRIORITIES THEMES When the whole group convened at the close of the first tabletop discussion, the follo[A themes among all or most of the groups were identified. KEEP WHAT WE HAVE • Business retention • Cultivate and leverage existing events, activities, retail and service amenities QUALITY OF LIFE AND PLACE • Connectivity • Vibrancy: arts, shops, restaurants, people • Mixed uses • Diverse housing options TRANSPORTATION • Connectivity • Transportation options ai • Parking TOOLS AND METHODS • Marketing • Public and private funding mechanisms • User-friendly permitting process CONSTRAINTS THEMES Participants identified significant constraints brought up during the tabletop discussions. • Limited sources of financing and funding/incentives • Impacts of state business taxes on business recruitment and retention • Loss of private property/tax base to public property • Changing (aging) demographic • Numerous and diverse priorities MISSION CRITICAL PRIORITIES Participants were asked to return to their table discussions to identify the one or two most immediate and mission -critical economic develooment prioritv(s). The followina list was reported back and adopted by the full aroup. 0 Marketing (cited by 3 of the 4 tables) ■ A marketing plan ■ A comprehensive brand that represents the Lake Oswego lifestyle ■ Have/attract the "critical mass" population to support businesses and schools 0 Be development -ready, (cited by 2 tables) ■ Foothills first — "bricks and mortar" ■ North Anchor—"density and vibrancy" 10 Fill unleased space, both commercial and residential (cited by 1 table) * Establish clarity on "what Lake Oswego will be". (cited by 1 table) ♦ Develop business incentives. (cited by 1 table) 28 OTHER COMMENTS These were 3 written comments affixed to the board as members exited the session. "Lake Oswego should be viewed as/known as a university town. Better integration with Marylhurst University is needed." "Branding Lake Oswego: public art, art festivals, Lakewood Theatre; great restaurants; easy parking (make it so); and streetcar connections (make it so); physical beauty: streets, lake, etc.; shopping (target and enhance and increase numbers) and business infill at both ends; develop Foothills properly; enhance Downtown and Lake Grove in "most" ways. • Schools 29 Christie, Robyn From: Carolyne Jones Donescarolyne@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 4:23 PM To: Christie, Robyn Subject: My comments at last night's Council Meeting Hi Robin: Because Councilor Johnson kept interrupting my comments last night, I submit them in writing and ask they be included in the public record unaltered: "For us property owners who are affected by Sensitive Lands Regulations, we feel we have been leveraged out of quality of life and place, which is Strategy #2. Our rights to use our property have been limited, our property values have been dimished and in some cases, we are unable to sell our properties. As Mr. Wheeler mentioned, a successful economy is a collaboration between the private and the public and I would encourage Council to recognize that property owners are an important cog in the wheel of a successful economy." Thanks, Carolyne The New Busy think 9 to 5 is a cute idea. Combine multiple calendars with Hotmail. Get busv. LAKE OSWEGO Centennial 1910-2010 COUNCIL REPORT TO: Jack Hoffman, Mayor Members of the City Council Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager FROM: David Powell, City Attorney SUBJECT: Percent for Art Program General Applicability to Purchases of Land and/or Improvements Specific Applicability to Purchase of West End Building DATE: March 31, 2010 ACTION CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 503-675-3984 www.ci.oswego.or.us Provide direction as to whether Chapter 18 of the Lake Oswego Code (Percent for Art Program) should be amended to more clearly state the extent of its applicability to purchases. INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND During Budget Committee meetings last year, the City Council was preliminarily advised that Chapter 18 of the Lake Oswego Code does not mandate application of the Percent for Art Program to the cost of purchasing land. It was also advised that the Program does apply to the cost of purchasing improvements to be used, as opposed to being removed to facilitate construction. The purpose of this report is to expand upon and finalize the interpretation, to discuss its applicability to the purchase of the West End Building and to seek direction from the City Council as to whether the Code should be amended to clarify the language relating to the Percent for Art program. DISCUSSION Definitions and General Requirements Chapter 18 of the Lake Oswego Code requires that the budget for any "City Project" shall include a monetary contribution for public art equal to 1.5% of the "total cost" of a the project. 1 LOC 18.02.015 defines "City Project" as follows: 1 LOC 18.04.110 Page 2 Citv Proiect means any capital project in an amount over $25,000 paid for wholly or in part by the City of Lake Oswego to purchase, construct, rehabilitate or remodel any building, decorative or commemorative structure, park, parking facility, or any portion thereof within the limits of the City of Lake Oswego. "Project" does not include street, pathway or utility construction, emergency work, minor alterations, ordinary repair or maintenance necessary to preserve a facility. The same Code section provides the following definition of "total cost:" Total cost means the entire amount of the City's contribution toward the price for construction of a project. "Total cost" does not include costs for design and engineering, administration, fees and permits, building demolition, relocation of tenants, contingency funds, change order costs, environmental testing or indirect costs, such as interest during construction, advertising and legal fees. The 1.5% contribution for public art is to be deposited into the Public Art Trust Fund. The portion of the contribution representing 1% of total cost must be used for the acquisition and siting of art. Funds equaling the remaining .5% of total cost are to be used for administration of the public art program .2 2. Purchase of Unimproved Land The appropriate approach to interpreting legislation is to first examine the text and context of the enactment, together with any relevant legislative history. If the legislative intent remains ambiguous, the next step is to apply nontextual maxims of statutory construction .3 These principles of legislative analysis apply to municipal ordinances as well as state statues .4 It should be noted at the outset that the available legislative history sheds no light on the City Council's intent at the time of enactment as to how the Percent for Art Program is to be applied to the cost of purchases of land, improved or otherwise. Looking to the text and context of the ordinance, the above definition of does not state that the acquisition of unimproved land is a "City Project." While the verb "purchase" has been combined with "construct, rehabilitate or remodel," this list of verbs modifies "building, decorative or commemorative structure, and park, parking facility or any portion thereof." The adopted Code language could easily have included purchases of unimproved land for the purposes of constructing any of the listed facilities if that had been the legislative intent. Nothing in the text or context of the definition compels a conclusion that the list is not exhaustive.5 The above definition of the "total cost" specifies the "price of construction." Among the items expressly excluded is "building demolition." If the Code expressly excludes the costs of preparation of land for a z LOC 18.04.120 3 State v. Gaines, 346 Or 160 (2009); PGE v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 317 Or 606 (1993) 4 Hillsboro v. Housing Dev. Corp. of Washington Co., 61 Or App 484, 489 (1983) 5 When analyzing the text and context to determine legislative intent, it is not appropriate to insert what has been omitted. PGE v. BOLI, 317 Or at 611; ORS 174.010 Page 3 project, it would be incongruous to interpret it as implicitly including the cost of acquisition of that land. The text and context of these Code sections clearly evidence a legislative intent not to include the cost of acquiring unimproved land as a basis for calculating Percent for Art contributions. It is also helpful to note the historical state and regional context existing when Chapter 18 was adopted in 1993. The state Percent for Art requirements applied only to "the construction or alteration of any state building" as they do today.6 Portland's ordinance specifically excluded the cost of land acquisition,' as did the Metro Code.8 Beaverton's Percent for Art ordinance applied only to "actual construction cost"9 I have found no Metro -area ordinance, existing today or at the time of adoption of Chapter 18, that applies a percent for art requirement to the cost of purchasing unimproved land. I conclude that Chapter 18 of the Lake Oswego Code does not require a Percent for Art contribution based upon the cost of purchasing unimproved land. 3. Purchase of Land with Improvements to be removed for a City Project Since the Code does not mandate a Percent for Art contribution from the cost of purchasing unimproved land, and since it also expressly excludes the cost of demolition, the Code cannot logically be read as implicitly requiring a contribution from the cost of acquiring land with improvements that will be removed rather than incorporated into a qualifying City Project. As a result, I conclude that Chapter 18 does not require a Percent for Art contribution based upon the cost of purchasing land with improvements that will be removed to facilitate construction of a City Project. 4. Purchase of Land with Improvements to be used for a City Project As mentioned, the above definition of "total costs" identifies only the "price for construction" However, the definition of "City Project" includes projects to "purchase" qualifying facilities. To give effect to the word "purchase,"10 the definition of "total costs" must be read as including by implication the purchase cost of an improvement acquired for use as a qualifying facility." Giving meaning to "purchase" does not, however, require going beyond that to include the cost of the underlying land (as opposed to the improvement), especially in light of the analysis in the preceding three sections of this report.'2 Reading the Code language as applying the Percent for Art Program to the cost of such an improvement, but not the cost of underlying land, is consistent with a logical application of the Program. As an example, the current City of Portland Percent for Art ordinance applies to projects " * * *for the construction, 6 ORS 26.080. Portland Code, Former Section 5.74.020(B) 8 Metro Code, Section 2.07.020(a) 9 Beaverton Code, Section 3.06.015 to In determining legislative intent, language inserted by the enacting body should not be omitted. PGE v. BOLI, 317 Or at 611; ORS 174.010. 11 Laws should not be construed in a way that renders any provision meaningless. EQC v. City of Coos Bay, 171 Or App 106, 110 (2000) 12 Where there are multiple provisions of a law, statutory construction should occur in way that gives effect to all. ORS 174.010. Page 4 rehabilitation, remodeling, improvement or purchase for a public use of any building, structure, park, public utility, street, sidewalk or parking facility or any portion thereof * * *[emphasis added]." 13 The Portland definition of eligible costs states that "[w]hen an improvement project involves the acquisition of real property, costs attributable to land acquisition are not Eligible Costs, while costs attributable to improvements on the real property are Eligible Costs„14 I conclude that Chapter 18 of the Lake Oswego Code requires that, when a qualifying improvement is purchased for a public use, the purchase cost of the improvement (but not the underlying land) is included in the "total costs” from which the contribution for public art is to be calculated. S. Application of Chapter 18 to the purchase of the West End Building The City purchased the West End Building in 2006. Questions have arisen as to the proper application of Percent for Art requirements. Consistent with the preceding analysis, Chapter 18 does not require a contribution for public art based upon cost of the land underlying the West End Building. However, if the building and/or parking facility on that land have been purchased to be used (as opposed to being demolished to facilitate a project) a contribution to the Public Art Trust Fund should be made in a sum equal to 1.5% of the purchase cost of those improvements. At the time the property was purchased, the City Council intended to develop it as a community center. However, various development options were being considered, and no determination had been made as to whether the existing improvements would be incorporated into the project. Although the ultimate, "permanent" use of the West End Building property remains uncertain to date, a series of decisions has resulted in substantial use of the building and parking lot. The Parks and Recreation Department offices were moved to the building in 2007. Since then, building space has also been used for meetings, classes, receptions and events. More recently, the Lake Oswego Interceptor Sewer Project team and consultants have been housed at the building, as has the Lake Oswego/Tigard Water Project team. On June 16, 2009, the City Council adopted a strategy to forgo, at this time, development of a government - initiated community center at the West End Building. However the strategy also calls for the following: "Maximize the use of the West End Building and property in the near-term. This includes leasing, if fiscally prudent, the vacant portions of the building. By May 1, 2010, develop a financing strategy that does not require using General Fund revenues or reserves to pay the debt service on the West End Building and property • Develop a concept plan for future redevelopment of the West End property and other underdeveloped properties in the Boones Ferry/Kruse Way area" Even though these are "near-term" strategies, since 2007 the building and the associated parking facility have been devoted to uses having substantial extent and duration. As a result, I conclude that the 13 Portland Code, Section 5.74.020(A)(1) 14 1d., Section 5.74.020(B) Page 5 acquisition of the building and parking lot improvements should be considered a "City Project" for purposes of the Percent for Art ordinance, and that 1.5% of the purchase cost of these improvements (not including the purchase cost of the land) should be placed in the Public Art Trust Fund. RECOMMENDATION/ALTERNATIVES It is recommended that the City Council provide direction to staff as follows: A. Direct that amendments to Chapter 18 be prepared clarifying the applicability of the Percent for Art Program to purchases of land and improvements, consistent with the above analysis of the current Code language; or B. Direct that a work session be scheduled to solicit input from staff, the Arts Foundation and interested citizens regarding suggestions for adjustments to the Percent for Art Program; or C. Direct that no further action be taken at this time. ATTACHMENT Chapter 18 of the Lake Oswego Code (Percent for Art Program) CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO PERCENT FOR ART PROGRAM 18.02.005 Article 18.02 In General. Sections: 18.02.005 Title. 18.02.010 Purpose. 18.02.015 Definitions. 18.02.005 Title. LOC Chapter 18 shall be known as the "Percent for Art Program" of the City of Lake Oswego. (Ord. No. 2078, Enacted, 11/16/93) 18.02.010 Purpose. The City of Lake Oswego desires to expand the experience of its citizenry through public art of the highest quality in concept and execution. Public art contributes directly to the quality of life in the City of Lake Oswego because citizens view and interact with it daily in public spaces. Public art instills concern for beauty and good design in the public and private sectors by setting high aesthetic standards. Public art reflects and communicates the history, character and values of the community and thereby creates a sense of place. The public art process involves citizens and artists by inviting them to participate in important decisions about the design of their environment. The City therefore declares its policy to include works of art in projects of the City by establishing a Percent for Art program. (Ord. No. 2078, Enacted, 11/16/93) 18.02.015 Definitions. Capital Improvement Program (CIP) means the City's program for advance planning of capital improvements. Citv Proiect means any capital project in an amount over $25,000 paid for wholly or in part by the City of Lake Oswego to purchase, construct, rehabilitate or remodel any building, decorative or commemorative structure, park, parking facility or any portion thereof within the limits of the City of Lake Oswego. "Project" does not include street, pathway or utility construction, emergency work, minor alterations, ordinary repair or maintenance necessary to preserve a facility. Deaccessioning means relinquishing title to a work of public art. Eligible funds means a source of funds for projects from which art is not precluded as an object of expenditure. Participating Department means the department that is subject to this chapter by its sponsorship of a City project. Percent for Art means the program established by this ordinance to set aside a percentage of the total cost of City projects for public art. Public Art means all forms of original works of art accessible to the public and/or public employees including: a. Painting of all media, including both portable and permanently fixed works, such as murals; CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 18.02.015 PERCENT FOR ART PROGRAM b. Sculpture which may be in the round, bas-relief, high -relief, mobile, fountain, kinetic, electronic and others, in any material or combination of materials; c. Other visual media including, but not limited to, prints, drawings, stained glass, calligraphy, glass works, mosaics, photography, film, clay, fiber/textiles, wood, metals, plastics or other materials or combination of materials, or crafts or artifacts. d. Works of a wide range of materials, disciplines and media which are of specific duration, including performance events, and which are documented for public accessibility after the life of the piece has ended. e. Art works that possess functional as well as aesthetic qualities. Public Art Trust Fund means a City fund or account into which all moneys derived pursuant to this Chapter shall be deposited. Monetary contributions for public art shall also be deposited into the Public Art Trust Fund. Funds within the Public Art Trust Fund shall be solely be utilized for the purposes outline in this Chapter. Selection Committee means the committee appointed pursuant to guidelines adopted by the City Council, and responsible for reviewing proposed public art and making recommendations on the selection of public art. The selection committee shall include a representative of the participating department, the project architect or engineer (where applicable), artists, a citizen and any other members designated in the guidelines. Total cost means the entire amount of the City's contribution toward the price for construction of a project. "Total cost" does not include costs for design and engineering, administration, fees and permits, building demolition, relocation of tenants, contingency funds, change order costs, environmental testing or indirect costs, such as interest during construction, advertising and legal fees. (Ord. No. 2078, Enacted, 11/16/93; Ord. No. 2091, Amended, 04/19/94) (Ord. 2347, Amended, 02/04/2003) CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO PERCENT FOR ART PROGRAM 18.04.110 Article 18.04 Requirements for Dedication. Sections: 18.04.110 Dedication of 1.5% to Public Art. 18.04.120 Public Art Trust Fund. 18.04.110 Dedication of 1.5% to Public Art. Any City official or employee who authorizes or appropriates expenditures on behalf of a participating department for a City project shall, to the degree that the funds are eligible, include within the budget for the project a monetary contribution for public art equal to 1.5% of the total cost of the project. 1. Restricted funds: If funding for a particular City project is subject to legal restrictions that preclude public art as an object for expenditure, the portion of the City project that is funded with the restricted funds shall be exempt from the requirements of this Chapter. 2. Phased Droiects: As a general rule, where a City project will be constructed in phases, the 1.5% dedication shall be applied to the estimated total cost of each phase of the project at the time that funds for the phase are appropriated and encumbered. Nothing in this section prevents the Council from deciding to set aside all or part of the entire dedication from the funds of a particular phase, however, as the Council deems appropriate. In determining when to set aside the funds for a phased project, the City shall encourage an overall public are plan for phased work to ensure that art is not located on a piecemeal basis. (Ord. No. 2078, Enacted, 11/16/93) 18.04.120 Public Art Trust Fund. There is hereby created a special City fund or account called the Public Art Trust Fund into which the monetary contributions for Public Art shall be deposited. 1. 1.5% of the total cost of City projects shall be dedicated to public art. Such funds shall be deposited into the Public Art Trust Fund by the City Official or employee acting on behalf of the participating department at the time that budgeted funds are encumbered for construction of the project. a. I% of the total cost of City projects shall be used for costs associated with the acquisition of public art including, but not limited to, the design, purchase and siting of public art. b. .5% of the total cost of City Projects shall be used for costs associated with administration of the public art program, including, but not limited to, costs of selection, conservation and maintenance of the collection, community education, deaccessioning and registration of public art. 2. Monetary contributions shall be deposited in separate accounts within the Public Art Trust Fund if separate accounting is deemed appropriate by the City Manager or is required by law. 3. Monetary contributions made other than through the Percent for Art program shall be deposited in the Public Art Trust Fund and may be dedicated to or earmarked for a specific program or work of art, subject to acceptance by the City Council. 4. Disbursements from the Public Art Trust Fund shall be made only after authorization of the City Manager or the Manager's designee, and shall be made according to this Chapter and any guidelines adopted hereunder. (Ord. No. 2078, Enacted, 11/16/93; Ord. No. 2091, Amended, 04/19/94) (Ord. 2347, Amended, 02/04/2003) CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO PERCENT FOR ART PROGRAM 18.06.210 Article 18.06 Administration. Sections: 18.06.210 Siting of Art. 18.06.220 Program Guidelines. 18.06.230 Ownership. 18.06.210 Siting of Art. 1. Public art selected pursuant to this chapter may be sited in, on or about any City project or other property owned, leased or rented by or to the City of Lake Oswego in accordance with any restrictions placed on siting by the participating department. Public art may be attached or detached within or about such property, and may be either temporary or permanent. 2. The participating department shall consider the siting of public art as part of the design and engineering phase of any City project. If costs are incurred by the participating department to comply with this subsection prior to transfer of the 1.5% for the project to the Public Art Trust Fund, the department may deduct such costs from the applicable portion of the 1.5% at the time such funds are transferred. (Ord. No. 2078, Enacted, 11/16/93; Ord. No. 2091, Amended, 04/19/94) (Ord. 2347, Amended, 02/04/2003) 18.06.220 Program Guidelines. The City Council shall adopt guidelines for administration of the Percent for Art program. Such guidelines shall: 1. Provide for an annual plan for public art based upon the CIP. 2. Provide for the appointment of representatives to selection committees. 3. Provide for a method or methods of selecting and contracting with artists for the design, execution and siting of Public Art. 4. Determine the dedication and disbursement process for the Public Art Trust Fund. 5. Clarify the responsibility for maintenance of public art, including any extraordinary operations or maintenance costs associated with public art, prior to selection. 6. Facilitate the preservation of art objects, ethnic and cultural arts and crafts, and artifacts. 7. Provide a process to deaccession art. 8. Set forth any other matter appropriate to the administration of this Chapter. (Ord. No. 2078, Enacted, 11/16/93; Ord. No. 2091, Amended, 04/19/94) (Ord. 2347, Amended, 02/04/2003) 18.06.230 Ownership. All public art acquired pursuant to this Chapter shall be acquired in the name of the City of Lake Oswego, and title shall vest in the City of Lake Oswego. (Ord. No. 2078, Enacted, 11/16/93) LAKE OSWEGO Centennial 1910-2010 COUNCIL REPORT TO: Jack Hoffman, Mayor Members of the City Council Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager FROM: Laura Weigel, Neighborhood Planner Planning and Building Department rr. CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 503-675-3984 www.ci.oswego.or.us SUBJECT: Glenmorrie Overlay R-15 Overlay Study Session - Ordinance 2456 (LU 09-0043) DATE: March 29, 2010 ACTION No Council action is proposed for the April 6, 2010 study session. INTRODUCTION On May 18, 2010, the City Council is scheduled to hold a public hearing on the Glenmorrie R-15 Overlay District. On April 6, the Council is scheduled to hold a study session regarding the overlay. Members of the Glenmorrie Neighborhood Association will present and explain the provisions included in the overlay. This report provides an overview of the background leading up to the May 18 hearing. BACKGROUND 2000 Glenmorrie Neighborhood Plan adopted by City Council. 2000-2007 Numerous plan items are implemented City-wide and neighborhood continues working on plan implementation. 2008 Plan implementation committee forms and works with staff to identify neighborhood plan items that still need implementation strategies. Committee develops an overlay zone proposal to implement plan concepts. Jan. 2009 Ten overlay zone provisions (and other ideas) are presented to the neighborhood association for feedback. Meeting is advertised through LO Review, direct mail and email. Forty persons attended (184 parcels in the neighborhood). The Planning Commission receives an update from the committee on the status of plan implementation. March 2009 A survey is sent (Exhibit F-2) to all Glenmorrie residents asking for feedback on all concepts. This survey is also posted on-line. Page 2 ■ Approx. 200 surveys are mailed. ■ Sixty-five responses are received. ■ Ten surveys are completed online. ■ The survey response rate is 37.5 %. May 2009 Based on the survey results, the committee drops three provisions from consideration. June 2009 A second open house is held to present survey results, revisions to provisions and to vote on the remaining six provisions (a seventh provision related to a subset of the neighborhood and was voted on only by those residents who would be impacted). 45 households voted. Kev Provisions and Responses ■ Require the Applicant to post a notice on-site (similar to a tree cutting notice) when an external building permit for more than 500 sq. ft. is issued. Agree 34, Disagree 5, Neutral 5 ■ Require an applicant to wait 10 working days after a demolition permit is issued before demolishing the structure. Agree 31, Disagree 7, Neutral 6 ■ Do not allow any exceptions to house height (35 ft). Agree 29, Disagree 12, Neutral 4 ■ New side yard setback plane. Agree 35, Disagree 8, Neutral 2 ■ Require landscaping & buffering for new development. Agree 35, Disagree 8, Neutral 2 ■ Hardscape maximum of 50%. Agree 35, Disagree 8, Neutral 2 ■ Preserve "Ranch" style homes on Glenmorrie Terrace, Glenwood Court and Lilli Lane. Every household on these streets did not agree to pursue design standards to preserve the "ranch" style; therefore the committee dropped the provision. Sept. 2009 Based on the neighborhood vote the Glenmorrie neighborhood association board dropped three provisions and kept the provisions that have the greatest impact on maintaining neighborhood character. ■ Planting and Buffering ■ Hardscape maximum ■ Side yard setback plane A work session with Planning Commission was held (Exhibit D-2). March 2010 The Planning Commission held a public hearing and recommended adoption of the Glenmorrie R-15 Overlay Zone (Exhibit D-3) with the caveat that the City Attorney clarify the language pertaining to the definition of hardscape. The draft ordinance that was approved by the Planning Commission is included in this report (Exhibit F-1) as is the revised ordinance (Exhibit F1.1) Page 3 DISCUSSION All of the code concepts were generated from statements made in the Glenmorrie Plan. The three provisions proposed as the Glenmorrie Overlay Zone stem from: Goal 10, RAM iii - Develop design standards specific to Glenmorrie to ensure that all new residential development contributes positively to the neighborhood character, including: • Height, bulk • Size of paved areas • Appropriate setbacks, buffering and screening Planting and Buffering Current Code: There is no planting and buffering requirement. Proposed Change: Require planting and buffering for new development and remodels that increase the dwelling footprint by more than 400 square feet. A. Plan is required as part of the building permit application. B. Plantings have to be installed within 24 months of final home inspection. C. Native plants are encouraged (Consult Lake Oswego's Master Plan List). Planting and Buffering Plan must include: Provide plant units parallel and adjacent to the side yard and rear yard planes of the proposed structure or retaining wall as follows: (1) If a dwelling exists on an abutting lot: one plant unit for every 50 linear feet of the side yard and rear yard planes of the proposed retaining wall or structure; (2) If no dwelling exists on an abutting lot: one plant unit for every 50 linear feet of the side yard and rear yard planes of the proposed retaining wall or structure s extended 10 feet beyond the structure or retaining wall. (See illustration). Plant Unit Alternative Quantity, Size and Type of Plant Required 1 - 3" caliper canopy tree 2- 11/2" caliper under story tree Standard Plant Unit 13 - 3' high shrubs 1 - 3" caliper canopy tree 1 - 111'2 caliper under story tree 1 - 6' high evergreen trees Alternative Unit A 11- 3' high shrubs 2 - 11/2 caliper under story tree 3 - 6" high evergreen trees Alternative Unit B 7 - 3' high shrubs 2 - 3" caliper canopy tree Alternative Unit C 3 - 3' high shrubs Minimum 10' long trellis, arbor or pergola (minimum 6' tall) 1 - 11/21, caliper understory tree Alternative Unit D 10 climbing plants native Page 4 Existing landscaping units that are not removed during or after construction can count towards fulfilling the requirement. ❖ The Infill Task Force is proposing a similar standard city-wide as one of three alternative treatments under the side yard appearance and screening standards (50.08.045). The Glenmorrie provision would require the plantings for all new development, not just as an alternative treatment. Reason: Planting and Buffering will provide screening and enhance privacy and mitigate the visual impact of new development as well as help control erosion. Hardscape Maximum Current Code: No maximum percentage of hardscape is defined. Proposed Change: No more than 50% of the lot can be hardscaped. Hardscape would be a new definition included in the definition section of the Community Development Code (50.02). Hardscape. Structures, patios, retaining walls, paving, walks, and artificially -placed rock or gravel. "Hardscape" shall not include natural -appearing constructed ponds or walks consisting of organic materials. For purposes of the 50% maximum hardscape application in Glenmorrie, retaining walls, graveled or rocked areas and pervious decks shall not be considered "hardscape" Reason: Maintain the "country" character and address surface water drainage issues by minimizing paved areas and impact of structures on the environment. Side Yard Setback Plan Current Code: — No regulation governing the side yard setback plane. Proposed Change — Require a 12:12 side yard setback plane. ❖ The Infill Task Force and Planning Commission have proposed a new side yard setback plane (12:12) for new homes in the R-7.5, R-10 & R-15 zones. Glenmorrie has included this provision in their overlay zone in case the provision does not get adopted city-wide. If the provision is adopted city-wide it will not be in the overlay zone. Reason: New homes today are much larger than older homes in the neighborhood. Pushing the bulk of the house toward the center and away from adjacent properties helps mitigate the visual impact of larger houses. ALTERNATIVES & FISCAL IMPACT No alternatives are proposed at this time. The Glenmorrie R-15 Overlay Zone being brought forward on May 18 is a recommendation of the Planning Commission. Fiscal impact is minimal. The overlay does not direct the City to initiate new projects or programs. The code amendments do result in more complex requirements that may require additional time for staff review. l.I:14I0Iul18d4►U71HOW, No recommendation is provided for the study session. Page 5 EXHIBITS A. Notice of Appeal [No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use] B. Findings, Conclusions and Order B-1 Approved Planning Commission Findings, Conclusions & Order, March 22, 2010 C. Minutes: [No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use] D. Staff Reports/Memorandums D-1 Staff Memo dated January 13, 2009 (Work Session, January 26, 2009) D-2 Staff Memo dated September 17, 2009 (Work Session, September 30, 2009) D-3 Staff Report dated February 16, 2010 (Public Hearing March 8, 2010) E. Graphics: E-1 Map of Glenmorrie R-15 Overlay District Boundaries F. Written Materials F-1 Draft Ordinance 2546, January 26, 2010 F-1.1 Draft Ordinance 2546, March 26, 2010 F-2 Glenmorrie Overlay Survey and Flyer, March 2009 G. Letters G-1 E -Mail from Linda Poggi dated March 8, 2010 G-2 E -Mail from Liz Hartman dated March 8, 2010 Reviewed by: Depart est it for ,I Alex D. y nt r City Manager I BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION mptoo 2 OF THE 3 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 4 5 6 A REQUEST FOR A TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE ) LU 09-0043 - 1724 7 LAKE OSWEGO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ) (CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO & 8 CODE TO INCLUDE THE GLENMORRIE OVERLAY) GLENMORRIE NEIGHBORHOOD) 9 DISTRICT. ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & ORDER 10 11 12 NATURE OF APPLICATION 13 14 A legislative text amendment to the Lake Oswego Community Development Code to include the 15 Glenmorrie R-15 Overlay District. A request from the City of Lake Oswego to add a new section to the 16 Community Development Code, Section 50.08B. The Glenmorrie Neighborhood Association worked with 17 City of Lake Owego staff to create a new overlay zone to apply to the Glenmorrie n 18 ighborhood, which is almost exclusively zoned R -15 (a few parcels are zoned PNA). 19 20 HEARINGS 21 22 The Planning Commission held a public hearing and considered this application at its meeting of March 8, 23 2010. 24 25 CRITERIA AND STANDARDS 26 27 A. Citv of Lake Osweao Comprehensive Plan 28 Goal 2: Land Use Planning 29 Section 1 Land Use Policies and Regulations, Policy 4b and 24 30 Section 2 Community Design and Aesthetics, Policy 1 31 Special District Plans 32 Glenmorrie Neighborhood Plan 33 Goal 2: Land Use Planning: Residential Goal and Policy 3 34 Goal 10: Housing: Goal and Policy 1,3 35 36 B. Metro Urban Growth Manaaement Functional Plan 37 Title 1: Accommodation of Growth 38 39 C. Oregon Statewide Planning Goals 40 Goal 1: Citizen Involvement 41 Goal 2: Land Use Planning 42 43 D. Lake Oswego Development Code Procedural Requirements 44 LOC 50.01.010 Purpose 45 LOC 50.75 Legislative Decisions 46 LOC 50.75.005 Legislative Decisions Defined 47 LOC 50.75.1505 Criteria for a Legislative Decision 48 LOC 50.75.015 Required Notice to DLCD 49 LOC 50.75.020 Planning Commission Recommendation Required 50 LOC 50.75.025 City Council Review and Decision 51 LOC 50.75.030 Effective Date of Legislative Decision EXHIBIT B-1 LU 09-0043 LU 09-0043 PAGE 1 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 CONCLUSION The Planning Commission concludes that LU 09-0043 is in compliance with all applicable criteria. The Planning Commission recommended that the City Council adopt LU 09-0043 -Glenmorrie Overlay Zone after the City Attorney reviews it again to ensure that the definition, "hardscape," and the proposed exceptions made it very clear to users of the document what was included and what was excluded from the 50% hardscape calculation. FINDINGS AND REASONS The Planning Commission incorporates the staff report, dated February 15, 2010, on LU 09-0043 (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: The Planning Commission recommends that LU 09-0043 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 22nd day of March LU 09-0043 Philip Stewart /s/ Philip Stewart, Chair Planning Commission Iris McCaleb /s/ Iris McCaleb Administrative Support 2010. PAGE 2 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ATTEST: PRELIMINARY DECISION - March 8, 2010 AYES: Brockman, Glisson, Gustafson, Johnson, Jones, Paretchan, Stewart NOES: None ABSTAIN: None RECUSE: None EXCUSED: None ABSENT: None ADOPTION OF FINDINGS AND ORDER - March 22, 2010 AYES: Brockman, Glisson, Johnson, Jones, Stewart NOES: None ABSTAIN: None RECUSE: None EXCUSED: Gustafson, Paretchan ABSENT: None LU 09-0043 PAGE 3 Community Development Department Memorandum TO: Lake Oswego Planning Commission FROM: Laura Weigel, Neighborhood Planner DATE: January 13, 2009 SUBJECT: Glenmorrie Neighborhood Plan Implementation Committee Background The Planning Commission requested that neighborhoods developing implementation strategies check-in with the Commission for feedback and guidance on potential ideas throughout the process. On January 26 the Planning Commission is scheduled for a check-in from the Glenmorrie Neighborhood Plan Implementation Committee. At the Glenmorrie Neighborhood Association annual meeting in December of 2007 staff asked for volunteers to work on further implementing the neighborhood's adopted plan. Six neighbors volunteered and have been meeting with staff approximately twice a month since January 2008 to analyze the adopted plan to identify goals, policies and recommended action measures that still need an implementation strategy. The committee determined that a good portion of the plan has been implemented or that implementation is on-going and further action is not required. For the outstanding plan items the committee decided to discuss potential concepts to be included in an overlay zone for the Glenmorrie neighborhood. These concepts will be presented for discussion with the full neighborhood association at the Glenmorrie annual meeting on January 29 for further refinement. In addition to the meetings, several members of long range and current planning staff went on a tour of the Glenmorrie neighborhood with the committee to assess the neighborhood character and to explore ideas that would help maintain that character. Neighborhood Character Concepts Glenmorrie is almost exclusively zoned R -15 with the exception a few city owned Parks and Natural Area parcels. The overlay concepts that will be discussed with the neighborhood association on January 29 are directly tied to statements in the adopted plan and include: EXHIBIT D-1 LU 09-0043 Planning Commission Glenmorrie Neighborhood Plan Implementation Develop Design Standards — Goal 10, RAM iii 1. No exceptions to the existing height standards. 2. Create development standards to preserve the "ranch" character on Glenmorrie Terrace, Glenwood Court, & Lilly Lane. 3. The committee wants to include the new infill standards developed for structure design (50.08.045) if the new standards are not adopted as part of the infill process. The proposed standards include a street front setback plane and side yard setback planes for interior yards. 4. Increase privacy by increase side yard setbacks not adjacent to a street. When the primary structure is > 18 feet in height the setback should be 15 feet (not the current 10 feet). 5. Require landscaping and buffering in between properties and the street. 6. New fencing standards that create ornamental or symbolic fences rather than fences that create a visual barrier. Additionally, metal chain link fences would be prohibited (with exceptions). 7. Establish a 50% hardscape maximum on each lot to reduce development impact. Hardscape would include the house, walls, driveway, patios, decks, walkways, water features, etc. Goal 10, RAM xii 8. Encourage view protection of the Cascade Mountains, the Willamette River, Mt. Hood, Mt. St Helens, Mt. Scott, Mt. Tabor, Mt. Adams, and the Milwaukie/Oregon City area. Goal 10, Policy 5 9. Require applicants to notify abutting property owners when an applicant applies for building permit for more than 500 square feet. This notification would encourage abutting property owners to contact the applicant to discuss building plans prior to commencement. Next Steps for the Neighborhood Association ■ Open House/Annual Meeting to present ideas and obtain feedback ■ Neighbors talk to neighbors about the concepts and ask them to complete a survey to gauge support for the overlay concepts ■ Neighborhood association holds second open house to discuss revised overlay concepts ■ Neighborhood association votes on overlay concepts to present to Planning Commission and City Council ■ Neighborhood association presents overlay concepts to the Planning Commission and City Council in work sessions and public hearings for revisions and approval ■ Glenmorrie Overlay Zone is adopted by City Council and becomes part of the Community Development Code Question: Does the Planning Commission have any ideas, concerns or general feedback for the implementation committee prior to the presentation scheduled for Glenmorrie annual meeting? Planning Commission Glenmorrie Neighborhood Plan Implementation Building and Planning Services Department TO: Lake Oswego Planning Commission FROM: Laura Weigel, Neighborhood Planner DATE: September 17, 2009 Memorandum SUBJECT: Work Session — Proposed Glenmorrie Neighborhood Overlay Zone (PP 07-0016) At the work session scheduled for September 30th the Glenmorrie Neighborhood Plan Implementation Committee will present a proposed overlay zone for the neighborhood. The overlay zone could help maintain the unique character of the neighborhood and further implement the neighborhood plan. The committee would like to get feedback from the Commission on the proposed provisions in the overlay zone in preparation for the public hearing. Background 2000 Glenmorrie Neighborhood Plan adopted by City Council. 2000-2007 Numerous plan items are implemented City-wide and neighborhood continues works on plan implementation. 2008 Plan implementation committee forms and works with staff to identify neighborhood plan item that still need implementation strategies. Committee develops overlay zone proposal to implement plan concepts. Jan. 2009 10 overlay zone provisions (and other ideas) presented to the neighborhood association for feedback. Meeting advertised through LO Review, direct mail and email. 40 attendees (184 parcels in the neighborhood). Also, Planning Commission receives an update from the committee on the status of plan implementation. March 2009 Survey sent (Exhibit A) to all Glenmorrie residents asking for feedback on all concepts. Survey also posted on-line. ■ Approx. 200 mailed ■ 65 responses ■ 10 surveys completed online ■ 32.5 % response rate May 2009 Based on survey results, committee drops three provisions from consideration. EXHIBIT D-2 Planning Commission LU 09-0043 1 Proposed Glenmorrie Neighborhood Overlay Zone (PP 07-0016) June 2009 2nd open house held to present survey results, revisions to provisions and to vote on remaining six provisions (seventh provision relates to a subset of the neighborhood and was voted on only by those residents who would be impacted). 45 households voted. Kev Provisions and Responses ■ Require the Applicant to post a notice on-site (similar to a tree cutting notice) when an external building permit for more than 500 sq. ft. is issued. Agree 34, Disagree 5, Neutral 5 ■ Require an applicant to wait 10 working days after a demolition permit is issued before demolishing the structure Agree 31, Disagree 7, Neutral 6 ■ Do not allow any exceptions to house height (35ft). Agree 29, Disagree 12, Neutral 4 ■ New side yard setback plane. Agree 35, Disagree 8, Neutral 2 ■ Require landscaping & buffering for new development. Agree 35, Disagree 8, Neutral 2 ■ Hardscape maximum of 50%. Agree 35, Disagree 8, Neutral 2 ■ Preserve "Ranch" style homes on Glenmorrie Terrace, Glenwood Court and Lilli Lane. Every household on these streets did not agree to pursue design standards to preserve the "ranch" style; therefore the committee dropped the provision. Sept. 2009 Based on the neighborhood vote the Glenmorrie neighborhood association board dropped three provisions and kept the provisions that have the greatest impact on maintaining neighborhood character. ■ Side yard setback plane ■ Landscaping & buffering ■ Hardscape maximum Discussion All of the code concepts were generated from statements made in the Glenmorrie Plan. The three provisions proposed as the Glenmorrie Overlay Zone stem from: Goal 10, RAM iii - Develop design standards specific to Glenmorrie to ensure that all new residential development contributes positively to the neighborhood character, including: • Height, bulk • Size of paved areas • Appropriate setbacks, buffering and screening Planning Commission Glenmorrie Neighborhood Plan Implementation (PP 07-016) Side Yard Setback Plan Current Code: — No regulation governing side yard setback plane. Proposed Chance — Require a 12:12 side yard setback plane (Exhibit B) Infill Task Force is proposing anew side yard setback plane (12:12) for new homes (non - corner properties) in the R-7.5, R-10 & R-15 zones. Glenmorrie has included this provision in their overlay zone in case the provision does not get adopted city-wide. If the provision is adopted city-wide it will not be in the overlay zone. Reason: New homes today are much larger than older homes in the neighborhood. Pushing the bulk of the house toward the center and away from adjacent properties helps mitigate the visual impact of larger houses. Landscaping and Buffering Current Code: There is no landscaping buffering requirement. Proposed Chanae: Require landscaping and buffering for new development. A. Plan is required as part of the building permit application. B. Plan has to be installed within 24 months of final home inspection. C. Native plants are encouraged (Consult Lake Oswego's Master Plan List). Landscaping Plan must include: Provide one plant unit for every 50 lineal feet along the property line. Plant Unit Quantity, Size and Type of Plant Alternative Required 1 - 3" caliper canopy tree 2- 1112" caliper under story tree Standard Plant Unit 13 - 3' high shrubs 1 - 3" caliper canopy tree 1 - 1112" caliper under story tree 1 - 6' high evergreen trees Alternative Unit A 11 - 3' high shrubs 2- 11/2 caliper under story tree 3 - 6" high evergreen trees Alternative Unit B 7 - 3' high shrubs 2 - 3" caliper canopy tree Alternative Unit C 3 - 3' high shrubs Minimum 10' long trellis, arbor or pergola (minimum 6' tall) 1 - 1112„ caliper understory tree Alternative Unit D 10 climbing plants native Existing landscaping units that are not removed during or after construction can count towards fulfilling the requirement. There may be instances were it is not feasible to plant the landscaping units and the City Manager will determine when to waive the requirement. The Tree Code, Chapter 55 is still applicable. Planning Commission Glenmorrie Neighborhood Plan Implementation (PP 07-016) The Infill Task Force is proposing this same requirement in the R-15 as one of three alternative treatments under the side yard appearance and screening (50.08.045). The Glenmorrie provision would be required for all new development, not just an alternative treatment. Reason: Buffering and screening will enhance privacy and mitigate the visual impact of new development as well as help control erosion. Hardscape Maximum Current Code: No maximum percentage of hardscape is defined. Proposed Change: No more than 50% of the lot can be hardscaped. Hardscape would include house footprint, driveway, patios, deck, walkways, water features, pools, etc. Reason: Maintain the rural "country" character and address surface water drainage issues by minimizing paved areas and impact of structures on the environment. Conclusion The Glenmorrie Neighborhood Plan Implementation Committee would like respond to any questions the Commission may have in preparation for the public hearing. Exhibits Exhibit A: Glenmorrie Neighborhood Survey Exhibit B: Side Yard Setback Plane Illustration Planning Commission Glenmorrie Neighborhood Plan Implementation (PP 07-016) STAFF REPORT CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO PLANNING & BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT APPLICANT: City of Lake Oswego for the Glenmorrie Neighborhood Association PROPERTY OWNERS: N/A LEGAL DESCRIPTION N/A LOCATION: R-15 zone within the Glenmorrie Neighborhood Association boundaries: See map, Exhibit E1. COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION: N/A NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION: Glenmorrie Neighborhood Association APPLICANT'S REQUEST FILE NO: LU 09-0043 STAFF: Laura Weigel, Neighborhood Planner DATE OF REPORT: February 16, 2010 DATE OF HEARING: March 8, 2010 ZONING DESIGNATION: R-15 REQUEST: Amendment to the City of Lake Oswego Community Development Code to include a new Glenmorrie R-15 Overlay District. The City of Lake Oswego is making this application for the Glenmorrie Neighborhood Association to amend the text of the Lake Oswego Community Development Code (LOC) to include the Glenmorrie R-15 Overlay District [Exhibit F-1.1 II. APPLICABLE CRITERIA A. Citv of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan Goal 2: Land Use Planning Section 1 Land Use Policies and Regulations, Policy 4b and 24 Section 2 Community Design and Aesthetics, Policy 1 Special District Plans Glenmorrie Neighborhood Plan Goal 2: Land Use Planning: Residential Goal and Policy 3 Goal 10: Housing: Goal and Policy 1,3 EXHIBIT 0-3 LU 09-0043 Planning Commission Public Hearing 1 LU 09-0043 February 16, 2010 B. Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan Title 1: Accommodation of Growth C. Oreqon Statewide Planninq Goals Goal 1: Citizen Involvement Goal 2: Land Use Planning D. Lake Osweqo Development Code Procedural Requirements LOC 50.01.010 Purpose LOC 50.75 Legislative Decisions LOC 50.75.005 Legislative Decisions Defined LOC 50.75.1505 Criteria for a Legislative Decision LOC 50.75.015 Required Notice to DLCD LOC 50.75.020 Planning Commission Recommendation Required LOC 50.75.025 City Council Review and Decision LOC 50.75.030 Effective Date of Legislative Decision III. SUMMARY This memo addresses the creation of a new Glenmorrie R-15 Overlay District (New Article LOC 50.08- B) to implement the 2000 Glenmorrie Neighborhood Plan. It is proposed that the Planning Commission recommend these Community Development Code amendments for adoption by the City Council. Glenmorrie R-7.5 Overlav District (New Article LOC 50.08-B) The Glenmorrie Neighborhood Association proposes an overlay district that would add or modify three parts of the underlying R-15 base zone within the Glenmorrie neighborhood boundaries (Exhibit E-1), and would be implemented through a new article in the Community Development Code. The purpose of the overlay is to ensure that new residential development occurs in a way that is compatible with the unique character of the Glenmorrie Neighborhood by not adversely impacting the privacy of adjacent neighbors and by preserving the country character. Glenmorrie Neighborhood Association discussed overlay concepts with the Planning Commission on January 13, 2009 (Exhibit D-1) and September 17, 2009 (Exhibit D-2). The new regulations include: (See Ordinance, Exhibit F-1) 1. Hardscape Maximum - No more than 50% of the lot can be covered in hardscape. 2. Required planting and buffering for new houses or remodels. 3. Required side yard setback plane. The exact same regulation is currently recommended by Planning Commission in the new infill standards to be applicable citywide. Therefore, if this provision is adopted by City Council, it will be removed from the Glenmorrie Overlay zone. IV. APPLICABLE APPROVAL CRITERIA APPLICABLE CRITERIA - LAKE OSWEGO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Goal 2 Land Use Planninq Compliance with City Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan Goal 2: Land Use Planning, Section 1, Land Use Policies and Regulation, Policies 4b and c, and 24. Planning Commission Public Hearing 2 LU 09-0043 February 16, 2010 POLICIES 4. Require land use regulations to: b. Promote compatibility between development and existing and desired neighborhood character; c. Provide for the implementation of neighborhood plans. 24. Comprehensively evaluate proposed land use actions to determine the full range of potential negative impacts and require applicants to provide appropriate solutions prior to approval. Findinqs: The Glenmorrie R-15 Overlay District code is consistent with and implements the Comprehensive Plan Goal 2, Land Use Planning, Section 1, Land Use Policies and Regulation chapter because its regulations: Maintain the neighborhood's existing zoning and plan density designation consistent with the City's objective of meeting the Metro housing allocation targets and implementation of the State's Goal 10, and the Metro Housing Rule. Are intended to ensure that residential development occurs in a way that is compatible with the unique character of the Glenmorrie Neighborhood. Implements the goal, policies and action step of the Glenmorrie Neighborhood Plan. Conclusion: The Glenmorrie Neighborhood Overlay District conforms to Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan, Goal 2, Policy 4b and c and 24. Goal 2 Land Use Planninq, Section 2 Communitv Desiqn and Aesthetics Compliance with Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan, Goal 2 Land Use Planning, Section 2: Community Design and Aesthetics, Policies 1a and b, and 4. POLICIES Enact and maintain regulations and standards which require: a. New development to enhance the existing built environment in terms of size, scale, bulk, color, material and architectural design. b. Landscaping. 2. Ensure that both public and private development enhance the aesthetic quality of the community. Findinqs: The Glenmorrie R-15 Overlay District code is consistent with and implements the Comprehensive Plan Goal 2, Land Use Planning, Section 2: Community Design and Aesthetics because its regulations: Conform to and are consistent with the goals of this chapter to maintain and enhance appearance and design quality. Seek to further define the appearance and design quality of the Glenmorrie neighborhood. Enacts standards that require new development to be consistent with the scale and style of existing development and the desired character of the Glenmorrie neighborhood. Conclusion: The R-15 Overlay District code conforms to Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan, Goal 2, Section 2: Community Design and Aesthetics, Policies 1 a and 4. Planning Commission Public Hearing 3 LU 09-0043 February 16, 2010 SPECIAL DISTRICT PLANS GLENMORRIE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN Glenmorrie Land Use: Residential Goal Compliance with Glenmorrie Neighborhood Plan, Land Use: Residential Goal, Policy 1 GOAL Maintain and enhance the appearance and character of the residential areas of the Glenmorrie neighborhood. POLICIES 1. Work to ensure that development occurs in a way that is compatible with the unique character of the Glenmorrie neighborhood. Findinqs: The Glenmorrie R-15 Overlay District code is consistent with and implements the Glenmorrie Neighborhood Plan Land Use: Residential goal because its regulations seek to ensure: ■ Maintenance of the unique large, open lot character of the Glenmorrie neighborhood. ■ Development is compatible with the Glenmorrie neighborhood character. Conclusion: The Glenmorrie R-15 Overlay District code conforms to Glenmorrie Neighborhood Plan Land Use: Residential Goal, Policy 1. CONSISTENCY WITH METRO'S URBAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONAL PLAN The Metro Urban Growth Functional Plan was approved November 21, 1996 by the Metro Council, and became effective February 19, 1997. The purpose of the plan is to implement the Regional Urban Growth Goals and Objectives (RUGGO), including the 2040 Growth Concept. The Functional Plan must be addressed when Comprehensive Plan Map Amendments are proposed through the quasi-judicial or legislative processes. The following responses address compliance with the Metro Functional Plan. Response: Title 1 — Requirements for Housing and Employment Accommodation. This title requires changing local plans, if necessary, to increase permitted densities to assure sufficient capacity for the 2040 Growth Concept. The Glenmorrie R-15 Overlay District is consistent with this title in that the district maintains current Plan and Zoning Map densities within the Neighborhood Boundaries. Overall, the City of Lake Oswego has found that the City's current zoning designations when developed at allowed densities are in substantial compliance with this title. Title 2 — Regional Parkinq Policv. This title regulates the amount of parking permitted by use for jurisdictions in the Metro region. This title is not applicable to the code recommendations. Title 3 — Water Qualitv and Flood Management Conservation. This title is not applicable to the code recommendations. Title 4 — Retail in Emglovment and Industrial Areas. This Title does not apply. Planning Commission Public Hearing 4 LU 09-0043 February 16, 2010 Title 5 — Neighbor Cities and Rural Reserves defines Metro's policy regarding areas outside of the Urban Growth Boundary. These codes would apply within the Urban Growth Boundary; therefore, this Title does not apply. Title 6 — Regional Accessibility. This title recognizes the link between mode split, levels of congestion, street design and connectivity in creating a transportation system that works and supports the desired land use concept. This Title does not apply. Title 7 — Affordable Housinq_. This title is advisory only and recommends that local jurisdictions implement tools to facilitate development of affordable housing. This Title does not apply. Title 8, 9, and 10 require compliance, performance measures and definitions for implementation of the Functional Plan, and are not applicable. Conclusion: The Glenmorrie R-15 Overlay District complies with the relevant Titles of the Metro Functional Plan. COMPLIANCE WITH THE OREGON TRANSPORTATION PLANNING RULE (CHAPTER 660, DIVISION 12) This State of Oregon Administrative Rule applies to amendments to comprehensive plans, functional plans and land use regulations (OAR 660-12-060(1)). The rule is applicable because the application requests amendment of the City of Lake Oswego Community Development Code. OAR 660-12-060(1) and (2) provides as follows: (1) Amendments to comprehensive plans, functional plans and land use regulations which significantly affect a transportation facility shall assure that allowed land uses are consistent with the identified function, capacity and level of service of the facility. This shall be accomplished by either: (a) limiting allowed land uses to be consistent with the plan functions, capacity and level of service of the transportation facility; (b) amending the TSP [Transportation System Plan] to provide transportation facilities adequate to support the proposed land uses consistent with the requirements of this division; (c) altering land use designations, densities, or design requirements to reduce demand for automobile travel and meet travel needs through other modes. (2) A land use regulation amendment significantly affects the transportation facility if it: (a) changes the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility; (b) changes a standard implementing a functional classification system; (c) allows types or levels of land uses which would result in levels of travel or access which are inconsistent with the functional classification of a transportation facility; or (d) would reduce the level of service of the facility below the minimum acceptable level identified in TSP." Findinqs/Conclusion: OAR 660-12-060(1) and (2) is not applicable because the Glenmorrie R-15 Overlay does not propose to change land use designations or the functional classification of streets. OREGON STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS Goal 1, Citizen Involvement, Goal 2, Land Use Planning. The Glenmorrie R-15 Overlay District complies with the above relevant Oregon Statewide Planning Goals as follows: Planning Commission Public Hearing 5 LU 09-0043 February 16, 2010 Goal 1: Citizen Involvement The Glenmorrie R-15 Overlay District is in conformance to all procedural requirements of the Lake Oswego Zoning and Development Codes and has been reviewed to be consistent with the Citizen Involvement Goals of the City's acknowledged Comprehensive Plan. Goal 2: Land Use Planning The Glenmorrie R-15 Overlay District has been reviewed and determined to be consistent with the City's acknowledged land use planning and policy framework. This review has determined that there is a factual basis to approve the Glenmorrie R-15 Overlay District in that it is consistent with all applicable criteria. The Plan has also been coordinated with all applicable jurisdictions and agencies. LAKE OSWEGO DEVELOPMENT CODE PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS LOC 50.01.010 Purpose LOC 50.75 Legislative Decisions LOC 50.75.005 Legislative Decisions Defined LOC 50.75.1505 Criteria for a Legislative Decision LOC 50.75.015 Required Notice to DLCD LOC 50.75.020 Planning Commission Recommendation Required LOC 50.75.025 City Council Review and Decision LOC 50.75.030 Effective Date of Legislative Decision The City of Lake Oswego has conformed to all procedural requirements, evidence of which is contained in the record. V. CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION Staff has found that LU 09-0043, the Glenmorrie R-15 Overlay District conforms to all applicable decision-making criteria. Staff endorses the Glenmorrie R-15 Overlay District and recommends this Community Development Code amendment to the City Council for approval. EXHIBITS A. Notice of Appeal [No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use] B. Findings and Conclusions [No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use] C. Minutes: [No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use] D. Staff Reports D-1 January 13, 2009 D-2 September 17, 2009 E. Graphics: E-1 Map of Glenmorrie R-15 Overlay District Boundaries F. Written Materials F-1 Draft Ordinance 2546 G. Letters None Planning Commission Public Hearing 6 LU 09-0043 February 16, 2010 DEFECTS IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT m n rn u r P Hemlock s fQ t a G\- Ct � a w n Fry O� S er O 0 0 O o F r \ec ti 1_ W O e °aK"J�5 Glenmorrie Neighborhood Glenmorrie R-15 Overlay District 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 Feet Cdy of Lake Oswego-01/14/10 DRAFT 01/26/10 DRAFT ORDINANCE No. 2546 AN ORDINANCE OF THE LAKE OSWEGO CITY COUNCIL AMENDING CHAPTER 50 OF THE LAKE OSWEGO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE TO ADD NEW ARTICLE 50.08B RELATING TO THE GLENMORRIE R-15 OVERLAY DISTRICT, AND ADOPTING FINDINGS LU 09 -0043 - The City of Lake Oswego ordains as follows: The Lake Oswego Code is hereby amended by adding new text shown in bold and underlined tvpe as follows: Section 1. Section 50.02.005 Definitions. For the purposes of this Code certain terms and words are defined as follows: the words "used for" include "designed for" and vice -versa; words used in the present tense include the future, the singular tense includes the plural and vice -versa; the word "shall" is always mandatory; the word "may" is discretionary; the masculine gender includes the feminine gender, except as otherwise provided. The following terms shall mean: Hardscam shall mean structures. patios. man-made Dools, retaining walls. walkways. masonry work. woodwork and other non -plant elements on a lot. Excluded from hardscape: natural and natural- avDearing Donds Some paved areas use interlocking Ravers that have oven spaces which allow grass to grow in the openings. Where driveways contain mixed hardscape and greenscape, only the hardscape portion of the driveway would be included as hardscape. (See LOC Appendix 50.02.005 -XX for illustrations of driveways containing mixed hardscape and greenscape, andoonds). Section 2. Section 50.05.005 Zoning Districts The City is divided into the following zoning designations: Residential Map Designation Residential — Low Density R-15 Residential — Low Density R-10 Residential — Low Density R-.7.5 Residential — Medium Density (FAN) I R-6 Residential — Medium Density R-5 Residential — High Density R-3 Residential — High Density (WLG) I R-2.5 Residential — High Density I R-2 Residential — High Density R-0 Waterfront Cabanas WR Ordinance No. 2546 Page 1 of 6 EXHIBIT F-1 LU 09-0043 DRAFT 01/26/10 Design District (Old Town) DD Mixed Residential/Commercial Map Designation Residential — High Density (WLG) R -2.5/W WLG Office Commercial/Town/ Home OC/R-2.5 Residential WLG Office Commercial / Neighborhood OC/NC Commercial Commercial Map Designation Neighborhood Commercial NC General Commercial j GC Highway Commercial HC Office Campus OC East End General Commercial EC Campus Institutional CI Campus Research & Development CR&D Mixed Commerce MC Industrial Map Designation Industrial j I Industrial Park IP Public Use Map Designation Public Function PF Overlays,, Map Designation Planned Development PD Resource Conservation RC Resource Protection R P Willamette River Greenway GM Neighborhood Overlays LGlenmorrie R-15 Overlav District Yo Section 3. A new Article 50.0813 is hereby added to the Lake Oswego Community Development Code, Chapter 50 to read as follows Article 50.0813 Glenmorrie R-15 Overlav District. 50.08B.005 Purpose. The purpose of the overlav is to ensure that new residential development occurs in a wav that is comuatible with the unique character of the Glenmorrie Neighborhood by not adverselv impacting the privacv of adiacent neighbors and by rweservine the country character. 50.0813.010 ADDlicability. This article applies to all land within the Glenmorrie Overlav District, as shown on LOC ADDendix 50.08B.010 -A. 50.08B.015 Relationship to Other Standards. To the extent that anv requirement of this Article imposes a regulation relating to the same matter as rgulation in LOC Article 50.08, this Article shall prevail. Ordinance No. 2546 Page 2 of 6 DRAFT 01/26/10 50.08B.020 Hardscave Maximum No more than 50% of the lot can be covered in hardscape, however for purposes of the 50% maximum hardscape, retaining walls, graveled or rocked areas, and decking that is pervious shall not be counted as part of "hardscape." 50.08B.025. Plantings and Buffering 1. Applicability: A Plantings and Buffering Plan shall be submitted when a building permit is required for: a. Construction of new structures. b. Remodeling of existing structures that increases the footprint of the structure more than 400 square feet : or C. Construction of a retaining wall 4 feet or higher. 2. Plantings and Buffer Plan a. At the time of submission of the building permit application, the owner must either file a Plantings and Buffer Plan or a waiver (in part or whole) under subsection (c)(ii) below with the Citv Manager or have obtained an exception to the Plantings and Buffer Plan. b. Unless waived as provided in subsection (c), below, the Landscape and Buffer Plan shall meet the following requirements and of subsection (4), below: i. Plant Units: Provide one plant unit parallel and adiacent to the side vard and rear vard plane of the structure/ retaining wall and: (1) If an abutting neighboring structure exists: to an abutting existing neighboring structure at every 50 linear feet; or (2) If no structure exists on the abutting lot, then at every 50 linear feet, extending 10 feet bevond the structure/retaining wall. (See illustration). Added (2) when parcels abuts a vacant lot (which may not always be vacant... providing buffering for future neighbors). Plant Unit Alternative* Ouantitv, Size and Tvpe of Plant Required - I - 3" caliper canopv tree 2 — 1 in" caliper under story tree Standard Plant Unit 13 - 3' high shrubs 1 - 3" caliper canopv tree 1 - 11/2" caliper under story tree 1 - 6' high evergreen trees Alternative Unit A 11 - 3' high shrubs 2 — 11n" caliper under story tree 3 - 6" high evergreen trees Alternative Unit B__7 - 3' hiuh shrubs 2 - 3" caliper canopv tree Alternative Unit C__3 - 3' high shrubs Alternative Unit D 25 — 3' high shrubs Please see notes on following page. Ordinance No. 2546 Page 3 of 6 DRAFT 01/26/10 *Notes: (1). Corresponding plantings densitv shall be calculated and applied to structure lengths less 50 linear feet based on the percentage of the proposed structure length. If the percentage results in a fraction of a plant, the fraction shall be rounded up to the next whole number. (2). Where the area to plant the Plantings Unit overlap, the plants in that area may satisfv eal Planting Unit requirement. (3). Existing plants that are not removed during or after construction can count towards fulfi this requirement. (4). The Tree Code. Chapter 55 applies to a proposed tree removal. (5). Where a mitigation tree from a tree removal permit is required to be planted on the site, it may be included within the Planting Units provided it is marked on the Plantings and Buffer Plan as a mitigation tree. A; E=tin,z S=tnue i - a i v5=0LOt i NNW st:ue"M i low A FRONT YARD Plant Unit i Unit required due to iacant lot Area where units are required ii. Native plants are encouraged (Consult Lake Oswego's Master Plant List). C. Waiver. If the abutting property owner agrees in writing, a Plantings and Buffering Plan is not required for the side or rear vard of the structure/ retaining wall abuttine the existing neighboring structure. 4. Installation and Maintenance of Plantings. a. The Planting and Buffer Plan shall be installed prior to Owner's request for final inspection, and in anv event prior to occupancv of the dwelling or substantial use of the structure, or completion of the retaining wall. Ordinance No. 2546 Page 4 of 6 DEFECTS IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT DRAFT 01/26/10 b. The plantines shall be successfully maintained for a period of not less than three vears. 50.08B.030 Side Yard Setback Plane The side profile of a structure shall fit behind a plane that starts at the side property line and extends upward to 12 feet and slopes toward the center of the lot at a slope of 12:12 up to the maximum allowed heiLyht at the peak, as illustrated in LOC Appendix 50.08A.030 -A (see illustration below). Property Linc / / 12 / 12 12' I —r Side Yard Setback 7-E k Plane Maximum eight Building Envelope ' I Side Yard Setback Section 4. The Lake Oswego Community Development Code Chapter 50 Appendix is hereby amended by adding the Glenmorrie Overlay District map as shown on attached Exhibit A (LOC Appendix 50.08.010-A). Section 5. 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 .2010. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: David D. Powell City Attorney Ordinance No. 2546 Page 5 of 6 Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor Dated: Robyn Christie, City Recorder DRAFT 01/26/10 EXHIBIT A APPENDIX 50-0813-010 R-15 Glenmorrie Residential Overlay District 2. .✓. ry \ O Glenmorrie Neighborhood N ® Glenmorrie R-15 Overlay District 0 100 40D we 800 1,000 Ordinance No. 2546 Page 6 of 6 DRAFT 03/26/10 ORDINANCE No. 2546 AN ORDINANCE OF THE LAKE OSWEGO CITY COUNCIL AMENDING CHAPTER 50 OF THE LAKE OSWEGO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE TO ADD NEW ARTICLE 50.08B RELATING TO THE GLENMORRIE R-15 OVERLAY DISTRICT, AND ADOPTING FINDINGS LU 09 -0043 - The City of Lake Oswego ordains as follows: Section 1. Section 50.02.005 of the Lake Oswego Code (Definitions) is hereby amended to add a new definition as follows: Hardscane. Structures, patios, retaining walls, paving, walks, and artificially -placed rock or gravel. "Hardscape" shall not include natural -appearing constructed ponds or walks consisting of organic materials. Where a paved area contains mixed non -plant and plant elements, only the non -plant portions of the area shall be included as "hardscape." Following are illustrations of paved areas containing mixed hardscape and plant elements, and natural -appearing constructed ponds: Illustrations: at R _.vkFA 0110 ljo EXHIBIT F-1.1 LU 09-0043 Ordinance No. 2546 Page 1 of 7 DRAFT 03/26/10 Section 2. Section 50.05.005 of the Lake Oswego Code is hereby amended to add the new text shown in bold, underlined tvve as follows: Section 50.05.005 Zoning Districts The City is divided into the following zoning designations: Residential Map Designation Residential — Low Density R-15 Residential — Low Density R-10 Residential — Low Density R-.7.5 Residential — Medium Density (FAN) R-6 Residential — Medium Density R-5 Residential — High Density R-3 Residential — High Density (WLG) R-2.5 Residential — High Density R-2 Residential — High Density R-0 Waterfront Cabanas WR Design District (Old Town) DD Mixed Residential/Commercial Map Designation Residential — High Density (WLG) R -2.5/W WLG Office Commercial/Town/ Home OC/R-2.5 Residential WLG Office Commercial / Neighborhood OC/NC Commercial Commercial Map Designation Neighborhood Commercial NC General Commercial GC Highway Commercial HC Office Campus OC East End General Commercial EC Campus Institutional Cl Campus Research & Development CR&D Mixed Commerce MC Industrial Map Designation Industrial I Industrial Park IP Public Use Map Designation Public Function PF Overlays Map Designation Planned Development PD Resource Conservation RC Resource Protection RP Willamette River Greenway GM Neighborhood Overlays _Glenmorrie R-15 Overlav District GO Ordinance No. 2546 Page 2 of 7 DRAFT 03/26/10 Section 3. The Lake Oswego Code is hereby amended to add a new Article 50.08B as follows: Article 50.08B Glenmorrie R-15 Overlay District. 50.08B.005 Purpose. The purpose of the overlay is to ensure that new residential development occurs in a way that is compatible with the unique character of the Glenmorrie Neighborhood by not adversely impacting the privacy of adjacent neighbors and by preserving the country character. 50.08B.010 Applicability. This article applies to all land within the Glenmorrie Overlay District, as shown on LOC Appendix 50.08B.010 -A. 50.08B.015 Relationship to Other Standards. To the extent that any requirement of this Article imposes a regulation relating to the same matter as regulation in LOC Article 50.08, this Article shall prevail. 50.08B.020 Hardscape Maximum No more than 50% of a lot shall be covered in hardscape. For the purposes of this Section, retaining walls, graveled or rocked areas and pervious decks shall not be considered "hardscape." 50.08B.025 . Plantings and Buffering 1. Applicability: A Plantings and Buffering Plan shall be submitted when a building permit is required for: a. Construction of new structures. b. Remodeling that increases the footprint of an existing structure by more than 400 square feet; or C. Construction of a retaining wall 4 feet tall or higher. 2. Plantings and Buffering Plan a. At the time of submission of the building permit application, the applicant shall file either a Plantings and Buffering Plan or a waiver under subsection (c) below. b. The Plantings and Buffering Plan shall meet the following requirements: i. Plant Units: Ordinance No. 2546 Page 3 of 7 DRAFT 03/26/10 Provide plant units parallel and adjacent to the side yard and rear yard planes of the proposed structure or retaining wall as follows: (1) If a structure exists on an abutting lot: one plant unit for every 50 linear feet of the side yard and rear yard planes of the proposed retaining wall or structure; (2) If no structure exists on an abutting lot: one plant unit for every 50 linear feet of the side yard and rear yard planes of the proposed retaining wall or structure extended 10 feet beyond the structure or retaining wall. (See illustration). Plant Unit Alternative* Quantity, Size and Type of Plant Required 1 - 3" caliper canopy tree 2 — 11/2" caliper under story tree Standard Plant Unit 13 - 3' high shrubs 1 - 3" caliper canopy tree 1 - 11/2" caliper under story tree 1 - 6' high evergreen trees Alternative Unit A 11 - 3' high shrubs 2 — 11/2" caliper under story tree 3 - 6" high evergreen trees Alternative Unit B 7 - 3' high shrubs 2 - 3" caliper canopy tree Alternative Unit C 3 - 3' high shrubs Alternative Unit D 25 — 3' high shrubs ii. Where the linear measurement of the side or rear yard plane (plus the 10 -foot extension, if required) is less than 50 feet, or where dividing the linear measurement into 50 -foot segments results in a remainder segment of less than 50 feet, the planting density for that plane or remainder segment shall consist of a corresponding percentage of a Planting Unit. If the percentage results in a fraction of a plant, the fraction shall be rounded up to the next whole number. iii. Where required Plant Unit areas overlap, the plants in the overlapped area may satisfy both Plant Unit requirements. iv. Existing plants may be used to fulfill Plant Unit requirements. v. Native plants are encouraged (Consult Lake Oswego's Master Plant List). Ordinance No. 2546 Page 4 of 7 DRAFT 03/26/10 Ex ang Saucuue .amt W 1 i 1 New smut ne 10 feet !R Vac=Lw. FRO_. -YARD Plant tiuit $Umt requiued due tovacant lot Area v, here unity are required C. Waiver. If the abutting property owner consents in writing, a Plantings and Buffering Plan shall not be required for the side or rear yard of the proposed structure or retaining wall abutting the consenting owner's property. 4. Installation and Maintenance of Plantings. a. Plantings consistent with the Plantings and Buffering Plan shall be installed prior to the earlier of: i. A request for final inspection; ii. Occupancy of the dwelling or substantial use of the structure; or iii. Completion of the retaining wall. b. The required plantings shall be successfully maintained for a period of not less than three years. 50.08B.030 Side Yard Setback Plane The side profile of a structure shall fit behind a plane that starts at the side property line and extends upward to 12 feet and slopes toward the center of the lot at a slope of 12:12 up to the maximum allowed height at the peak, as illustrated below: Ordinance No. 2546 Page 5 of 7 DEFECTS IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT DRAFT 03/26/10 Property Line 12 � 12 12' , I Side Yard Setback 7-E k Plane ` ` Maximum height N Building', Envelope ' I Side Yard Setback Section 4. The Lake Oswego Community Development Code Chapter 50 Appendix is hereby amended by adding the Glenmorrie Overlay District map as shown on attached Exhibit A (LOC Appendix 50.08.010-A). Section 5. The provisions of this ordinance are severable. If any portion of this ...... , - is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the 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 .2010. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: David D. Powell City Attorney No. 2546 Page 6 of 7 Jack D. Hoffman Dated: Robyn Christie, City Recorder DRAFT 03/26/10 EXnjLbi i A APPENDIX 50.08B.010 -A R-15 Glenmorrie Residential Overlay District %J [� 1 a — =1 m R i>1 i amino I _ 1 Glenmorrie Neighborhood N Glenmorhe R-15 Overlay District 0 — 200 400 60 800 1,000 Ordinance No. 2546 Page 7 of 7 Hello Glenmorrie Neighbors! I Neighborhood Character You may be aware that the neighborhood association spent several years developing a Glenmorrie Neighborhood Plan that was adopted by the Lake Oswego City Council in 2000. The primary goal of the planning effort was to define Glenmorrie's neighborhood character and identify ways to preserve that character in the future. The plan can be viewed on-line at www.ci.oswego.or.us/plan/neighbor.htm. Since the plan's adoption the neighborhood association has worked to implement the goals, policies and recommended action measures outlined in the plan. As a part of Narrow, Winding that effort a volunteer committee of Glenmorrie neighbors worked with a City of Lake "Country Lane Streets" Oswego Neighborhood Planner during 2oo8 to analyze the plan and determine what still needs to be done to implement any outstanding plan items. W -171w% t.,.Q..r The committee decided that one way to implement some of the outstanding recom- mendations identified in the plan could be to create new development regulations in the form of a Glenmorrie Neighborhood overlay zone. An overlay zone is a set of develop- ment regulations that are required in addition to the underlying base zoning require- ments. A neighborhood overlay zone could better protect the character of the neighbor- hood through more robust regulation on new development to ensure that new houses "fit in" with the older houses. An overlay could contain a new regulation not addressed in the underlying base zone or alter an existing regulation. Glenmorrie is zoned almost exclusively R-15 (residential lots zoned to be a minimum of 3.5,000 square feet) with only a few parcels zoned as Park and Natural Areas. This R-15 zoning designation applies to other areas in the city and therefore does not necessarily take Glenmorrie's unique character into account. The committee, with the assistance of City staff, studied the existing zoning code and tracked the progress of the Infill Task Force (for more information on the Task Force, please visit www.ci.oswego.or.us/plan/) and the other updates to the Community Devel- opment Code that are currently under discussion by the Planning Commission. Together staff and the committee also toured the neighborhood. The committee analyzed the existing homes and landscape of the neighborhood to identify new regulations that could protect the character of the neighborhood when new development occurs. The committee worked diligently to keep the overlay concepts true to the original policy intent stated in the adopted plan. The overlay concepts, identified in the survey, are the result of over a year's worth of discussion, negotiation and thoughtful analysis by these dedicated neighbors. The concepts also reflects concerns raised by residents of the neighborhood overthe years. The committee consists of six volunteer members who are all are residents of Glenmor- rie and represent different geographic areas of the neighborhood and different points of view. Sonja Kollias is the Chair of the committee and was on the original plan steering committee, so she brings a first hand knowledge of the intent of the adopted plan. Additional committee member include; Liz Hartman, Chair of the Neighborhood Association and long time resident of the neighborhood, Carolyne Jones and Brenda Troisi who are neighborhood association board members and long time residents, Cynthia Pearson another long time resident, and Johanna McCormick a fairly new memberoffthee Glym4rgneighborhood. agdir Abundance of Natural Resources and the Sense of Privacy and Quiet Low Density, Detached Single -Family Residential Land Use Pattern A Sense of Spaciousness and Access to Views LU 09-0043 Where is the Neighborhood Association in the Process? In late January 2009 the neighborhood association board held an open house for all Glenmorrie neighbors to hear, comment and provide feedback on the overlay concepts they developed to implement the adopted plan. Approximately 40 people at- tended. But the board needs to hear from as many people as possible in regards to the proposed ideas. That's why you are receiving this flyer and survey. Your feedback is very impor- tant! Your neighbors need to hear your thoughts in order to refine the ideas based on everyone's viewpoint before moving forward. You may have a committee member knock on your door to discuss the ideas and to encourage you to respond to the survey. If a committee member does not make a stop at your house and you would like to receive a visit, please contact Laura Weigel, the Neighborhood Planner from the City of Lake Oswego assigned to assist the neighborhood with plan imple- mentation. You can contact Laura at lweigel@ci.oswego.or.us or 503.675.373o and she'll arrange for a Glenmorrie committee member to stop by. Or you can contact Liz Hartman at Glen- morrie@aol.com. What Happens Next? After the survey results are compiled, the concepts will be further refined by the Glenmorrie Neighborhood Association board and committee. Some of the ideas may evolve, some new ideas may emerge and/or some ideas may be dropped from consideration. It will depend on the feedback we get from YOU! After the ideas are further refined there will be another open house for the entire neighborhood to hear the ideas and pro- vide feedback again. If there is more feedback and the neigh- borhood wants the ideas further refined the committee and board will continue to work until the concepts presented can be approved by vote by the neighborhood at a general neigh- borhood association meeting. If the neighborhood votes to approve the overlay, the neighborhood association will present the overlay to the City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission and City Council who may also have ideas and recommenda- tions before the final overlay is adopted and enacted in the City's community development code. NOW is the time to GET Involved. We need to hear from you. START BY COMPLETING OUR SURVEY You can mail it in or complete it online at www.ci.oswego.or.us/plan/neighbor.htm PI .&n2I f$f Ise survey by April 15, 2009! 1998-2000 Glenmorrie develops neighborhood plan through extensive neighborhood outreach. 2000 City Council adopts neighborhood plan. 2000-2007 Numerous plan items are implemented city-wide and neighbors continue to work on plan implementation. 2008 City staff & neighborhood committee identify out- standing neighborhood plan policies that need implementation strategies and decide to discuss the creation of an overlay zone for the neighborhood. January 2009 Committee and neighborhood association board present overlay concepts to full neighborhood at an open house. March 2009 Neighbors talk to neighbors about the concepts and ask them to complete a survey to gauge support for the overlay concepts. NEXT STEPS Neighbors revise overlay concepts based on survey results. Neighborhood association holds second open house to discuss revised overlay concepts. Neighborhood association votes on overlay concepts to present to Planning Commission and City Council. Neighborhood association presents overlay concepts to the Planning Commission and City Council in work sessions and public hearings for revisions and approval. Glenmorrie Overlay Zone is adopted by City Council and becomes part of the Community Development Code. LU 09-0043 The Overlay ConCeptS: If you feel that you would like more information than is provided here prior to answering the survey questions, please go online and view the powerpoint presentation (www.ci.oswego.or.us/plan/neighbor. htm) or call Laura Weigel, Neighborhood Planner at 5o3.675.3730 or email her at lweigel@ci.oswego.or.us. If you already completed the survey at the Glenmorrie Annual Meeting and Open House in January, please do not complete this one. r,F'LlFP. AL ••-t - t1at uost closelv-1 • •• • •i I've lived in the Glenmorrie Less than Between Between Between Between More than Neighborhood ..... 2 years 3 & 5 years 6 & so Years 11 & i5 years i6 & 20 years 20 years There are ..... number of people living in my home. 1 2 3 4 5 More than 5 Of those living in the home ... are under the age of 18. o 1 2 34 More than 4 "� ­ �e by �t N d r � �.. �'��e 1�..+..•.. The existing adopted neighborhood plan contains the following statement: Goal io, recommended action measure iii - Develop design standards specific to Glenmorrie to ensure that all new residential development ...contributes positively to the neighborhood character, including: height, bulk, and sized of paved areas. ELIMINATE HEIGHT EXCEPTIONS Current Code: Allows exceptions to the base building height (35 feet) for roof forms or architectural features, such as cupolas and dormers. Proposed Change: No exceptions to maximum height. Reason: Nearly all homes in the neighborhood are lower in height than 35 feet. House Heights Do not allow any exceptions to the building height (35 Strongly Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Strongly Need more feet). Current code allows height exceptions for roof Agree Agree Disagree Disagree information forms and architectural features under certain conditions. ELIMINATE SIDEYARD SETBACK EXCEPTION Current Code: Requires a i5 -foot minimum side yard set' ac except vv en the h obse is less t ,37i TT - Current hig : Proposed Change: Regardless of house height, side yard setbacks should be 1.5 feet. Reason: Glenmorrie's lots are large enough to accommodate 15 -foot setbacks, which provides greater distance between homes and helps maintain privacy between neighbors. Side Yard Setback Remove the exception that allows side yard setbacks to be -10 feet instead of iAgree Agree Disagree Disagree information 5 feet when Strongly Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Strongly Need more the house is less than i8 feet in height. _ Page 3 of 8 EXHIBIT F-2 LU 09-0043 MOVE THE BULK OF STRUCTURES AWAY FROM NEIGHBORS: NEW SIDE YARD SETBACK PLANE Current Code - No regulation governing side yard setback plane. Proposed Change - The Infill Task Force is proposing a new side yard setback plane (12:12 pitch) for new homes (non -corner properties ) in the R-7.5, R-10 & R -i5 zones. Glenmorrie would like to include this concept in the neighborhood overlay in case the concept does not move forward city-wide. Reason: New homes today are much larger than older homes in the neighborhood. Pushing the bulk of the house toward the center and away from adjacent properties helps mitigate the visual impact of larger houses. Require a new side yard setback plane Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly Need more (12:12 pitch) for interior yards (a.k.a.non Neutral Agree Agree Disagree Disagree information corner yards). REQUIRE LANDSCAPING AND BUFFERING FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT (does not pertain to existing development) Current Code: There is no landscaping buffering requirement. Proposed Change: Require landscaping and buffering for new development. Reason: Buffering and screening will enhance privacy and mitigate the visual impact of new development as well as help control erosion. -40 Landscaping & Buffering Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly Need more Require Landscaping and Buffering for new development. Neutral Agree Agree Disagree Disagree information Please note: At this point this isjust a general idea. If residents agree with it conceptually, the committee will develop the idea further and bring a better defined concept back to the neighborhood for approval prior to moving forward. REFINE FENCING STANDARD FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION Current Code: Fences can't be higher than 6 feet. Fences within 10 feet of a street can't be higher than 4 feet. Proposed Change: See survey questions. Reason: Fences aren't common in the neighborhood; therefore, if they are built, they should blend in with the natural landscape. Front yard Maximum fence height within the front Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly Need more yard setback area - 4 feet. Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree information Front yard fencing should be ornamental or Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly Need more symbolic not a visual barrier. Aq ree Aq ree I I Neutral Disaq ree I I Disagree I information Isk Side & rear yard If 6— 5 feet incorporate an open design Strongly Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Strongly Need more where areas are permeable to light and air. Agree Agree I Disagree Disagree information All yards Limitations on the use of chain link fences I Strongly I Somewhat I Neutral I Somewhat I Strongly I Need more Agree Agree Disagree Disagree information Strongly I Somewhat Somewhat Strongly Need more Stone or brick fences are encouraged Agree Agree Neutral Disagree I Disagree information * The inteot i to llirrSit tt �,se of naked, bare metal, not well -screened vinyl clad metal. F'age4 if EXHIBIT F-2 LIMITTHE AMOU NT OF A LOTTHAT CAN BE COVERED BY HARDSCAPE Current Code: No maximum percentage of hardscape is defined. Proposed Change: No more than So% of the lot can be hardscaped. Hardscape would include house footprint, driveway, patios, deck, walkways, water features, pools, etc. Reason: Address surface water drainage issues by minimizing paved areas and impact of structures on the environ- ment and maintain the rural "country" character. Please Note: The committee analyzed the existing hardscape • - • • • • on their own lots and several other lots in the neighborhood • • = • • • = ' '' and almost all properties are under the 5o% threshold. The elmitigated through few that are above it are very noticeably covered in hard, impervious surfaces. 0;.% paving W 1: OL Hardscape Maximum ipthat no more than 50% of a lot can be hardscaped. Hardscape would include walls, driveway, patios, deck, walkways, water features, pools, etc. Strongly I Somewhat I Neutral I Somewhat Strongly Need more Agree Agree Disagree Disagree information The existing adopted neighborhood plan contains the following statement: Goal io, Policy 5 - Encourage those who build a two-story home to meet with neighbors. Also, in 2oo6 the neighborhood association decided they want to encourage the City to provide timely notification to neighbors when a house is to be remodeled with an addition greater than 1/ the size of the original house. BUILDING PERMIT NOTIFICATION Current Code: No notice is given to adjacent neighbors when a building permit is issued if the new house or addition meets the requirements of the zoning code. Proposed Change: Require the applicant to notify the immediately adjacent neighbors (approximately 4) when a building permit for more than Soo square feet is issued. Cost to applicant would including printing and mailing a letter to adjacent properties. Reason: Single family homes that are permitted outright in the R 3.5 zone do not have a formal review process to influence the design if all code standards are satisfied. If building notification were required it would need to be clear that there would be NO requirement to change the design if the adjacent neighbors had concerns. The notification is only to encourage a dialogue and possibly make the builder aware of the impact the new development could have on the adjacent neighbors privacy. Buildinq Permit Notification Require the Applicant to notify the adjacent neighbors Strongly I Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Strongly Need more when a building permit for more than 500 sq. ft. is issued. I Agree Agree Disagree Disagree information LU 09-0043 PLEASE ONLY RESPOND TO THIS SURVEY QUESTION IF YOU LIVE ON ONE OFTHE STREETS LISTED BELOW. Glenmorrie 's character developed naturally over many years and as a result there are many different styles of homes scattered throughout the neighborhood. However, Glenmorrie Terrace, Glenwood Court & Lilli Lane (see map) are lined with exclusively "ranch" style homes and collectively create the closest resemblance to an historic area within the neighborhood. Other historic areas in the City have developed design standards to ensure that the historic character is preserved when new development occurs. The Committee wants to gauge whether or not the neighbors living on these streets are interested in developing design standards to preserve the unique character of these ranch developments. Pru, � I R-7.5 \ What is Glenmorrie's "Ranch" Style? PNA *Appears to be single story from the street, but often -N.I0. PNA has daylight basement in the rear, PNA *. Usually designed. to emphasize width of fa4ade. Low-pitched roof. { P * Usually has an attached garage. Mt,ANOW LN OS PNA y1.�,worz c R-15 } } of Y ... i( R-io Comprehensive Plan for Glenmorrie u o Neighborhood Association Current Code: Current code allows the "ranch" style homes to be replaced with any style of home that meets the current zoning standards. Proposed Change: Develop standards that would require new development on the identified properties to look like "ranch" homes to preserve the character of these streets. Reason: "Ranch" style homes play a role in defining the character of the neighborhood. Please note. This new regulation would only be implemented if the property owners on the designated streets agree with the proposed regulation. Preserve the Glenmorrie "ranch" style homes on Glenmorrie Terrace, Glenwood Court & Lilli Lane *Develop regulations that would maintain the "ranch" style architecture when the houses are remodeled or replaced. Structures would need to look like one story Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly Need more Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree information from the front, have low pitched roofs designed to 9 9 9 9 - emphasize the length of the home, and possibly have an attached caraae. I live in one of the ranch homes that would be impacted by this new regulation. Please circle YES or NO LU 09-0043 The existing adopted neighborhood plan contains the following statement: Goal S, Recommended Action Measure xii- Identify Glenmorrie's key view resources, including the Cascade Mountains, the Willamette River and other territorial scenes, and develop means to prevent their obstruction by new development. Current Code: No view protection. Proposed Change: Require view protection. New development shall preserve and enhance views of the Cascade Mountains, the Willamette River, Mt. Hood, Mt. St. Helens, Mt. Scott, Mt. Tabor, Mt. Adams, and the Milwaukie/ Oregon City Area. The details of this proposed change will need to be developed if the neighborhood agrees that view protection should be required. Reason: Views are critical to Glenmorrie character and are accessible to everyone, either from individual property or as residents travel through local streets. AW View Protection �I Require view protection. New construction shall preserve and enhance views of the Cascade Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly Need more Mountains, the Willamette River, Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree information Mt. Hood, Mt. St. Helens, Mt. Scott, Mt. Tabor, Mt. Adams, and the Milwaukie/Oregon City Area. ADDITIONAL• NOT OF OVERLAY ZONE AD The Public View Encourage residents and others who store recreational vehicles and equipment, and Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly Need more other non -operational automobiles in front Neutral yards to relocate them away from public Agree Agree Disagree Disagree information view. Adjust the neiqhborhood boundary Adjust the neighborhood boundary to include those Strongly Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Strongly Need more parcels zoned R i5 northeast of Hallinan School (currently Agree Agree Disagree Disagree information parcels part of Hallinan Neiqhborhood Association) "'. a f' n �s Surface Water Strategies Request the City: to conduct a study to determine the best Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly Need more Neutral methods to address surface water Agree Agree Disagree Disagree information management problems & to use permeable surfaces, roadside ditches Strongly Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Strongly Need more and biofiltration to treat surface water runoff Agree Agree Disagree Disagree information Paae 7 of 8 1B T -F-2 LU 09-0043 Please provide your name and address for our records. If more than one person in your household would like to complete the survey, you can do so on-line at: www.ci.oswego.or.us/plan/neighbor.htm. Thanks so much for completing our survey! old d itiomat) Comi pmts: Tie Geon Corrie NAOMoMood Associatiom MaH49 you For your tithe! See you iN tie mei OA6orftood ! From: Linda Poggi[mailto:lindapoggi@windermere.com] Sent: Monday, March 08, 2010 3:14 PM To: Weigel, Laura Subject: RE: Glenmorrie Overlay Zone Laura, Please submit the following statement in regards to the proposed Glenmorrie Overlay sectior Hardscape Maximum: I strongly disagree with the inclusion of pavers and bricks as being included as part of the hardscape designated in section 2 of the proposed Glenmorrie overlay. I also do not support the general proposition of limiting homeowners to 50% hardscape lot coverage while at the same time imposing setback planes and trying to encourage a ranch style environment for the neighborhood. However, in the event that the neighborhood and council should proceed with the adoption of limiting Glenmorrie residents from covering more than 50% of their property with hardscape, the overlay should not consider pavers and bricks as part of the hardscape. If water run off is the driving factor for imposing a maximum lot coverage then permeable surfaces such as pavers and bricks should not be included. I am a real estate agent and emerging green technologies is of particular interest to me. To quote from my book "Green Building and Remodeling" by John Barrows and Lisa lannucci; "Installing permeable pavements is an effective means of controlling stormwater runoff and reducing the manmade effects of pollution. Permeable paving, which is also called pervious paving or porous pavement, prevents the water from evaporating or being dragged down the sewer drain. Instead, the water moves through cracks in the pavement material and slides into the soil. Permeable pavements can be made from a variety of materials, including individual paving blocks or cobble stones, plastic systems that are filled with sand or gravel, claybricks, or a more porous ashpalt/cement mix. Clay brick is produced in many local regions, keeping local transportation costs -and greenhouse emissions -down. Grass pavers have large areas between the pavers where grass can grow. Gravel pavers use gravel between the pavers. Permeable pavers can be used in walkways and driveways .... (etc) ...... Permeable pavement systems have been successfully used in a variety of soils and climates, and research has demonstrated the ability of all permeable pavements to significantly reduce urban runoff." (Page 228,229) Thank you for considering my statement as you discuss the Glenmorrie overlay proposals. I am a resident of the Glenmorrie neighborhood and live at: 1968 Glenmorrie Lane. . i Mi Real Estate Broker Windermere Cronin & Caplan Realty Group, Inc. Cell: 503-349-3383 V/M: 503-525-6682 Fax: 503-636-0908 www.LindaPoggi.com EXHIBIT G-1 LU 09-0043 From: Liz Hartman [mailto:glenmorrie@aol.com] Sent: Monday, March 08, 2010 11:53 AM To: btroisi@spiritone.com; cvnthianpearson(o)hotmail.com Cc: Weigel, Laura Subject: planning commission March 8, 2010 To the Planning Commission: The Glenmorrie Neighborhood Association board approved the recommendation of the Glenmorrie committee that reviewed the Glenmorrie Plan that developed the recommended three code proposals. The committee responded to a general meeting in 2007 that asked for a review of the plan and how neighborhood characteristics could be included in new development. The characteristics of the neighborhood include 15,000 sf lots which provide a sense of spaciousness (the "country" character) with dense foliage and privacy. These code proposals are designed to maintain that sense of privacy and spacious areas between houses. The board and committee included current residents in the Glenmorrie neighborhood. Neighbors have been made aware of this process through mailings, e-mails and open, general meetings. Liz Hartman, 503-697-7727. EXHIBIT G-2 LU 09-0043 LAKL: OSWEGO cenlenmal 1910.2010 i&§.� �s MEMORANDUM TO: Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor Members of the Lake Oswego City Council Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager FROM: David Powell, City Attorney SUBJECT: Edits to Draft Glenmorrie Overlay Ordinance (No. 2546) DATE: April 5, 2010 y1G1,0 g 3 CITY OF LAKE OSWV,GO 380 A Avenuc PO Box 369 Lake OsweDo. OR 97034 503-675-3984 www.ci.oswego.or.us The last paragraph of page 2 of the staff report (page 104 of the packet) for the Apri! 6, 2010 study session on the proposed G!enmorrie Overlay ordinance points out that the Planning Commission asked that the version of the draft ordinance be revised to clarify the definition of "hardscape." As I mentioned to the City Council previously, I informed the Planning Commission that I would like to suggest certain additional edits to the Council in order to further "tighten" the ordinance language — without changing the substance or effect of the neighborhood's intended regulations. Exhibit F1.1 (packet page 133) includes my suggested edits. Attached to this memo is a redline version of Exhibit F1.1 detailing the edits that have been made to Exhibit F-1 (the version presented to the Planning Commission). The purpose of this memo is to provide brief highlights of the reasons for the proposed language changes. Code section numbers below correspond to the Code sections in the attached redline draft ordinance. Section 50.02.005 Definitions An unnecessary restatement of the existing preface to the "Definitions" section of the Code has been deleted. The proposed definition of "hardscape" has been edited in a number of ways. Both the earlier and the attached version include "structures," as hardscape. The original inclusion of the terms "masonry work," "woodwork" and "man-made pools" was unnecessary as these elements are included within the Code definition of "structure." "Patios" and "retaining walls" have been left in as they are not treated as "structures" The term "walks" has been substituted for "walkways" because the latter term is defined in the Code as being "legally accessible to the pub!ic," a limitation not intended by the neighborhood. Page 2 The term "non -plant elements" has been deleted as the neighborhood did not intend soil, naturally - occurring rock or gravel, etc., to be included as "hardscape" It its place, the terms "paving" and "artificially -placed rock or gravel"' were added to more clearly meet the intent. Finally, rather than creating an appendix with illustrations of mixed driveways and natural -appearing constructed ponds, the illustrations will appear in the Code immediately following the definition. Section 50.08B.020 Hardscane Maximum The word "decks" was substituted for "decking," which is not defined in the Code. I understand that discussions about refining the term "pervious decks" (i.e. to specify the required frequency of gaps between deck elements or the width of gaps, etc.) resulted in consensus to leave the term as it is. Section 50.086.025 Plantings and Buffering As for the Plant Unit requirements in the table shown in subsection (2)(b)(i), hopefully the edits help to clarify matters somewhat, including specifying whether the various uses of the term "structure" refer to the proposed structure on the applicant's property or a structure on a neighboring lot. Because the contents are iargely regulatory (with the exception of the encouragement to use native plants), the paragraphs previously listed as "notes" have been made subparagraphs within the Code section. The original language of what is now listed as subsection (2)(b)(ii) could have been read to apply fractional Plant Unit requirements only where the subject plane of a proposed structure is less than 50 feet long. I understand, however, that the intent was to also apply fractional Plant Units where dividing a longer plane into 50 -foot segments results in a remainder segment. The subsection has been edited to apply to both situations. Original proposed subsections (4) and (5) have been eliminated. Nothing in the remainder of the overlay language exempts applicants from the requirement of the Tree Code or prohibits mitigation trees from counting toward Plant Unit requirements. Consequently the language in original subsections (4) and (5) is unnecessary. The diagram in the attached redline version is still the original version. Page 137 of your packet shows the edited version that depicts more typical dimensions, and more accurately shows that that the 10 -foot extension of a Plant Unit area occurs only when there is no structure on the abutting lot. Subsection (2)(c) has been edited for clarity. Similarly subsection (4) [which should now be renumbered as (3)] has also been edited and reformatted for clarity. ' It should be noted, however, that artificially -placed rock or gravel are not proposed to be considered "hardscape" for the purposes of the specific requirements of the Glenmorrie overlay (see proposed Section 50.088.020), as opposed to the general Code definition of "hardscape" Similarly decks (being "structures") would be "hardscape" in the proposed general Code definition, while "pervious decks" are proposed to be exempt from the Glenmorrie overlay restrictions (50.086.020). DEFECTS IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT DRAFT 03/26/10 DRAFT ORDINANCE No. 2546 AN ORDINANCE OF THE LAKE OSWEGO CITY COUNCIL AMENDING CHAPTER 50 OF THE LAKE OSWEGO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE TO ADD NEW ARTICLE 50.08B RELATING TO THE GLENMORRIE R-15 OVERLAY DISTRICT, AND ADOPTING FINDINGS LU 09 -0043 - The City of bake Oswego ordains as follows: Seedon 1. Section -50.02.005 of the Lake Oswego Code (Definitions) is hereby amended to add a new definition as follows: Seeiio" .50.02De#tnitionsr —FO F tiu,PWPOSeS of this Code ee iaiii t . . „ and viee versa; pr-esew tewiettiude ffie ftittiFe,-die t+taf te+fse includes the plus -a! and vice vefsa; n n " the masccilme Hardscaue. shall ifleaH stmettipesStructures, patios, raise peelsretaining walls, paving_w�riwalks, and 01heF 010n P101il eieffietits artificial) -placed rock or aravelon a hit. { cluded from- hitrdkif--,pet +tetural and iiatufai kippeafiirg pe+ids So ne J, the evenines Where dr-iveyoeys eoftteift4-Rkv-!9-ase—a contains mixed hafdseape nein.-plantand ieenseapeplant elements, only the hafdseape non -plant portions of the dray -arca wanld shall be included as -hardscape." {-&�C Apps 50.02.00-4 XX foFFollowing-arc illustrations of dfiyewaya5-payed areas containing mixed hardscape andeeiiseapeplant elements -aiidp�nds and natural -appearing constructed ponds: . .'a- -_ - M� ae = La �AV saw'* aw 10 ja as 'OL r Jadd illustrations of pondsl Section 2. Section 50_05_005 of the lake Oswego Code is herebymended to add the new text shown in bold._ underlined type as follows: Section 50.05.005 Zoning Districts The City is divided into the following zoning designations: Residential Map Designation Residential - Low Density I R-15 Residential - Low Density R-110 Ordinance No. 2546 Page 1 of 7 DRAFT 03/26/10 Residential — Low Density j R-.7.5 Residential — Medium Density (FAN) R-6 Residential Medium Density R-5 Residential — High Density ! R-3 Residential — High Density (WLG) R-2.5 Residential — High Density R-2 Residential — I Iigh Density R-0 Waterfront Cabanas WR Design District (Old Town) ! DD Mixed Residential/Commercial j Map Designation j Residential — High Density (WLG) R -2.5/W WLG Office Commercial/Town/ Ilome OC/R-2.5 Residential I WLG Office Commercial / Neighborhood OC/NC Commercial EC Commercial Map Designation Neighborhood Commercial NC General Commercial GC _Llighway Commercial HC Office Campus OC East End General Commercial EC Campus Institutional Cl Campus Research & Development CR&D Mixed Commerce I MC Industrial ! Map Designation Industrial I Industrial Park TP Public Use Map Designation Public Function PF Overlays Map Designation Planned Development PD Resource Conservation RC Resource Protection RP Willamette River Greenway GM Neighborhood Overlays _Glenmorrie R-15 Overlav District W Section 3. Aa new AFtiele 50.08B is hefeby added to the Lake Oswego Communify Development Code, ChapleF 50 W ferad as follows "The lake Oswego Code is hereb_amended to add a new Article 50_.0813 as follows: Article 50.08B Glenmorrie R-15 Overlay District. 50.08B.005 Purpose. The purpose of the overlay is to ensure that new residential development occurs in a way that is compatible with the unique character of the Glenmorrie Neighborhood by not adversely impacting the privacy of adjacent neighbors and by preserving the country character. Ordinance No. 2546 Page 2 of 7 DRAF'T 03/26/10 50.08B.010 Applicability. This article applies to all land within the Glenmorrie Overlay District, as shown on IAC Appendix 50.086.010-A. 50.08B.015 Relationship to Other Standards. To the extent that any requirement of this Article imposes a regulation relating to the same matter as regulation in LOC Article 50.08, this Article shall prevail. 50.086.020 Hardscape Maximum No more than 50% of Hie -.;lot catrshall_be covered in hardscape.._"-ever-#;F�Fpurposes er. the 50,010 1" hardseape, or the purposes of this Sectio:., retaining walls, graveled or rocked areas.- and deekiHe that is perwiouspervious dmk shall not be counted as pa - onsidered "hardscape." 50.088.025 . Plantings and Buffering I.. Applicability: A Plantings and Buffering Plan shall be submitted when a building permit is required for: a. Construction of new structures. b. Remodeling fextsting 1tuti+res that increases the footprint of tht-an existing structure more than 400 square feet ; or C. Construction of a retaining wall 4 feet , or higher. 2. Plantings and Butfer Plan a. At the time of submission of the building permit application, the ov, ner applicant must shall either file either a Plantings and Buffer Plan or a waiver (iii part of w4x�}under subsection (c)(4) below wish the (7 Mflftager or !u}rv-ri" lattti-f-S and WiNeF Plafl. b. l 1ffless-waved asPFOVided-in --t'%&, (t),, below. theThe Landscape and Buffer Plan shall meet the following requirements atuI4-: . i. Plant Units: Ordinance No. 2546 Page 3 of 7 DRAFT 03/26/10 Provide one plant unit: parallel and adjacent to the side vard and rear vard olanes of the nronosed structure retaining wall amlas follows: (1) If a structure exists on an abutting_ lot: one Mant unit for every 50 linear feet of the side vard and rear vard Manes of the nronosed retaining wall or structure -to sn- tfi�g at feet: or (2) If no structure exists on the -an abutting lot.—: then stone nlant unit for every 50 linear feet of the side vard and rear vard Manes of the nronosed retaining wall or structure —s extendede*tendi*g 10 feet beyond the structure/ or retaining wall. (See illustration). Arlt#ed t24-wheu-oflfeeis abuts it vaesnl lot twltieh miry trot a4wsw- ln, voetrnt:: nrovicling #wffer+t for fwure-neiQ4�l�ers, Plant Unit Alternative Ouantity. Size and Tvpe of Plant Reauired 1 - 3" caliper canonv tree 2 — 11/2" caliper under story tree _Standard Plant Unit__13 - 3' high shrubs 1- 3" caliaer canopv tree 1 - 1 in" caliper under story tree I - 6' high r,., _ trees _Alternative Unit A 11 - 3' high shrubs 2 —1tn" caliper under story tree 3 - 6" hig-h=, : . _ trees Alternative Unit B 7 - 3' high shrubs Alternative Unit C Alternative Unit D 2 - 3" caliper canonv tree 3 - 3' high shrubs 25 — 3' high shrubs deiisify shelf ed-tt-r ustWe le"tl l 50- Where the linear measurement of the side or rear yard plane (plus the 10 -foot extension. if required) is less than 50 feet, or where dividine the linear measurement into 50 -foot segments results in a remainder seament of less than 50 feet, the alantin« density for that plane or remainder scement shall consist of a corresnonding, percentage of a Plantine Unit. if the percentage results in a fraction of a plant, the fraction shall be rounded up to the next whole number. (2)iii. Where --t—plan! the the required Plamings +t -Plant Unit areas overlap, the plants in t#at-the ovcrlaatxd area may_satisfy e"both Wanti+i Plant Unit requirements. (3- Existing plants 4" iffe no! reii may be used to eoiffit t s- Wfilling fultill this -Plant Unit requirement.,. (, -applle-,-n,d PH) osed tf;ee Femoval (4). A''-heFe a;;tii'� 0V;A ed i! is niaFked (3H the 121 1 F it Ordinance No. 2546 Page 4 of 7 DRAFT 03/26/10 F.r-!ijw S=': =I 10 he • i Nen' Scucwe FRON71 ARRJ Vaczw La: Piamt U nit $ U=t requrtd due tc scant tot Area -,x-he— unity are required Native plants are encouraged (Consult Lake Oswego's Master Plant List). C. Waiver. if the abutting property owner iweeYcon ents_in writing, a Plantings and Buffering Plan is neishall not he required for the side or rear yard of the proposed structures sir retaining wall abutting the existingneighrfFtlelffe.consenting owns, , propeLly. 4. Installation and Maintenance of Plantings. a. The -Plantings consistent with the Planting and Buffer Plan shall be installed prior to the earlier of: i. A request for final inspection:,_ ail 4+ afw ear+ eeettpaneyOccupanSy- of the dwelling or substantial use of the structure . or iii. _eemplet-ion Completion of the retaining wall. b. . The required plantings shall be successfully maintained for a period of not less than three years. 50.08B.030 Side Yard Setback Plane The side profile of a structure shall fit behind a plane that starts at the side property line and extends upward to 12 feet and slopes toward the center of the lot at a slope of 12:12 up to the maximum allowed height at the peak, as illustrated in LOC Appendix 50.08A.030 -A (see illustration below). Ordinance No. 2546 Page 5 of 7 DRAFT03/26/10 hvp" Line 4� ' 12 r I 12 1 12' F ---- Side 1"ard Setback 7-E k Plane '.Maximum height � 1 Building Envelope l Side Yard Setback Section 4. The Lake Oswego Community B , , �Iopment Code Chapter 50 Appendix is hereby amended by adding the Glenmorri , Overlay District map as shown on attached Exhibit A (LOC Appendix 50.08.010-A). Section 5. 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 2010. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor Dated: ATTEST: Robyn Christie, City Recorder APPROVED AS TO FORM: David D. Powell City Attorney Ordinance No. 2546 Page 6 of 7 DRAFT 03/26/10 EXHIBIT A APPENDIX 50-08B-010 R-15 Glenmorrie Residential Overlay District Ordinance No. 2546 Page 7 of 7