Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda Packet - 2010-05-18 PM
LAKE OSWEGO AGENDA CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO Centennial 1910-2010 CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Tuesday, May 18, 2010 Lake Oswego,OR 97034 6:30 p.m. 503-675-3984 Council Chambers, 380 A Avenue www.ci.oswego.or.us Contact: Robyn Christie, City Recorder Also published on the internet at: Email: rchristie@ci.oswego.or.us www.ci.oswego.or.us Phone: 503-675-3984 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 Distinguished Service Award, Police Chief Dan Duncan 3.2 Landmark Designation Plaque and Historic Merit Award Presentation for National Historic Preservation Month 3.3 Lake Oswego School District Water Quality Curriculum 3.4 LOIS Update 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 Resignation of Ann Pritchard from the Library Advisory Board Action: Accept resignation Jack Hoffman,Mayor • Roger Hennagin, Councilor ■ Kristin Johnson,Councilor Donna Jordan,Councilor • Sally Moncrieff, Councilor • Mary Olson,Councilor • Bill Tierney,Councilor • Page 2 4.2 RESOLUTIONS 4.2.1 Resolution 10-26, authorizing certain officials to conduct bank transactions on behalf of the City ACTION: Adopt Resolution 10-26 4.3 MINUTES 4.3.1 February 2, 2010, regular meeting 4.3.2 February 9, 2010, special meeting 4.3.3 February 16, 2010, special meeting 4.3.4 February 16, 2010, regular meeting 4.3.5 March 2, 2010, special meeting 4.3.6 April 27, 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 (1 1/2 hours) 7.1 Ordinance 2549, an ordinance of the City of Lake Oswego amending LOC Article 50.44 (Flood Management Area) regarding applicability, map amendments, and the flood management area for a portion of Springbrook Creek (LU 10-0003) Public Hearing Process: Review of hearing procedure by David Powell, City Attorney Staff Report by Paul Espe, Associate Planner The following time limits on testimony shall be observed, but may be changed by the Council: Testimony will be taken in the following order: in support of amendment, in Page 3 opposition to amendment, neutral. • 10 minutes for a representative of a recognized neighborhood association, homeowner association, or government agency, or other incorporated public interest organization; • 5 minutes for other persons. Questions of Staff Discussion Motion: Move to tentatively approve LU 10-0003 and Ordinance No. 2549 and direct staff to return with findings, conclusions and a final ordinance for adoption on June 15, 2010. 7.2 Ordinance 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 (LU 09-0043) Public Hearing Process: Review of hearing procedure by David Powell, City Attorney Staff Report by Laura Weigel, Neighborhood Planner The following time limits on testimony shall be observed, but may be changed by the Council: Testimony will be taken in the following order: in support of amendment, in opposition to amendment, neutral. • 10 minutes for a representative of a recognized neighborhood association, homeowner association, or government agency, or other incorporated public interest organization; • 5 minutes for other persons. Questions of Staff Discussion Motion: Move to tentatively approve LU 09-0043 and Ordinance No. 2546 and direct staff to return with findings, conclusions and a final ordinance for adoption on June 15, 2010. r Page 4 7.3 Ordinance 2552, an ordinance of the Lake Oswego City Council amending LOC Chapter 50 (Community Development Code), Section 50.11.010 to limit the square footage of delicatessens, bakeries, and restaurants in the Campus Research And Development (CR&D) zone, and adopting findings (LU 09-0034) Public Hearing Process: Review of hearing procedure by David Powell, City Attorney Staff Report by Andy Gulizia, Associate Planner Testimony will be taken in the following order: Testimony by the appellant/applicant, those in support of the application, those in opposition to the application, and rebuttal by the applicant. The following time limits on testimony shall be observed: • 15 minutes for the appellant/applicant's presentation; • 10 minutes for a representative of a recognized neighborhood association, homeowner association, government or government agency, or other incorporated public interest organization; • 5 minutes for other persons (Any person in attendance at the hearing and entitled to testify on appeal may cede his or her time for testimony to another person entitled to testify and thereby increase that person's time for testimony. No person's testimony may be increased to greater than 10 minutes.) • 5 minutes for the applicant's rebuttal. Questions of Staff Discussion Motion: Move to tentatively approve LU 09-0034 and Ordinance No. 2552 and direct staff to return with findings, conclusions and a final ordinance for adoption on June 15, 2010. 8. REPORTS (30 minutes) 8.1 Definition Amendment - "Congregate Housing" 8.2 Amendment to a public improvement contract for Lake Full phase of LOIS 9. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND ORDER (10 minutes) 9.1 Ordinance 2524, an ordinance of the Lake Oswego City Council amending portions of the Lake Oswego Code, Chapter 50 (Community Development Code) to promote compatibility of new residential development with the character of existing development (LU 08-0053-1729) Motion: Move to continue Ordinance 2524 to June 1, 2010 Page 5 10. 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. 10.1 Councilor Information 10.2 Reports of Council Committees, Organizational Committees, and Intergovernmental Committees 11. REPORTS OF OFFICERS (5 minutes) 11.1 City Manager 11.1.1 Review of Council Schedule 11.2 City Attorney 12. 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. Friday 2:30 a.m. Thursday 7:00 a.m. Saturday 12:00 p.m. Watch Council meetings live wherever you are via live streaming video at mms://www.ci.oswego.or.us/live U CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO LAKE OSWEGO Centennial 1910-2010 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego. OR 97034 COUNCIL REPORT503-675o33984 www.ci.osweg TO: Jack Hoffman, Mayor Members of the City Council Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager FROM: Paul Espe, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Historic Preservation Month Proclamation, Presentation of Historic Preservation Merit Awards and a Landmark Designation Plaque DATE: May 18, 2010 ACTION The Historic Resources Advisory Board requests City Council participation in National Historic Preservation Month. The Board also requests a reading of the attached proclamation in order to proclaim May, 2009 as National Historic Preservation Month and call upon the residents of the City of Lake Oswego to join their fellow citizens across the United States in recognizing and participating in this special observance. The Board also requests that the Council present two Historic Preservation Merit awards and a Landmark Designation plaque. INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND Lake Oswego's heritage is highlighted each May in conjunction with activities across the nation to celebrate National Historic Preservation Month. The Board promotes Lake Oswego's unique place in Oregon's history by honoring special landmarks in the community through the Landmark Designation Plaque Program. This program honors those in the community who preserve Lake Oswego's heritage through stewardship of their property. A Historic Preservation Merit Award is also given annually in recognition of a resident of the City who has made a substantial contribution to historic preservation. An exhibit in the City Hall lobby will highlight Preservation, Sustainability, the City's Iron Heritage and Mid-Century Architecture. These items will be exhibited along with items related to Lake Oswego's Centennial Celebration. Preservation Month activities are funded in part by a Certified Local Government Grant provided by the National Parks Service and State of Oregon. HISTORIC PRESERVATION MERIT AWARD Judie Hammerstad, former mayor of the City of Lake Oswego and Jerry Knippel, Special Projects Coordinator have been selected by the Board to receive Historic Preservation Merit Awards for 2010. DEFECTS IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT Page 2 Judie Hammerstad is a native Oregonian. She was born in Portland, grew up in Salem and moved back to Oregon in 1972 after living in Chicago, Boston, and Palo Alto, CA for .. >� 12 years while her husband, John received medical , training in Portland. Judie and John have lived in Lake • +�,,•;:i Oswego since 1972. liii .A4w i,1 Judie's 30 year career in elected office began in 1981 as a h ,i.. .- ' two-term member and chair of the Lake Oswego School "` ' �` �• Board. She served in the Oregon State House of , •. _ ' 6. ' Representatives in 1987-88 and served for two terms as -A—L.4.- .,.•• = , Clackamas County Commissioner in 1990. She served two .` :. s terms as Lake Oswego's mayor from 2001-2009 where her ' major accomplishments include downtown redevelopment, promotion of the arts, acquisition redevelopment of open space and parks projects. She was instrumental in the acquisition of Foothills Park and the restoration of Oswego's Iron Furnace. Jerry Knippel led numerous City projects to their completion, as Special Projects Coordinator for the City of Lake Oswego. A short list of these accomplishments would include the Iron Furnace, Foothills Park, Hazelia Field and numerous other parks, open space, and trail projects including the Kincaid Curlicue. Jerry was hired by the City on November 9, 1998 as a Maintenance Field Manager. In August, 2006, he became the Director of Special Projects, and he remained in that position until he left the City on October 31, 2009. Before he came to the City, he worked for the City of Dunedin, FL in the Public Works department. He has a BA from the University of South Florida in Interdisciplinary Social Science and Public Administration. Jerry's boundless creativity included hiring 450 hungry contractors, to clear Woodmont Park, a seven-acre Lake Oswego park that was overgrown with weeds. The dedicated crew worked for 10 days from morning until night eating- yes, eating- all of the vegetation in sight. The crew, of course, wasn't human. It was a crew of 450 goats that cleared the park of its non-native vegetation by doing what they do best. This was a creative solution to an otherwise expensive field clearing project v ., -.,�;, and serves as evidence to Jerry's innovative problem solving and 'g_ y, ,.ceiproject management abilities. F ••, Kier'if; '440! - '1:41'x LANDMARK PLAQUE RECIPIENT -,,i • • :: i t/ !"y�:.� _. ,,, The plaque program recognizes stewardship of historic properties .4,,.''`"�. "' i �:iti on the City's Landmark Designation List (LDL) by adorning the ' ' i' -:....„...i-*: property with a custom cast bronze plaque. This honor is ;';�::-_.c -� .., *- Aif4t�+ bestowed upon selected property owners to recognize the .0'�._ • - ,....,/ ```' contribution of these buildings to historic preservation and Lake +4'�► Oswego's cultural heritage. 4 Al - ., Ken Hick and Cheri D. Cooley-Hick, owners of the Joseph Bickner a, =' Building, have been selected to receive this year's landmark '- - .r plaque. Additional information about their property and its 111 fir, - - �, +1 historical significance is found below. . Page 3 1. Joseph Bickner Building Owner: Ken Hick and Cheri D. Cooley-Hick, Cascade Investment and Management Group, LLC. Constructed: 1897 Address: 468 N. State Street Style: Commercial The Joseph Bickner Building is located near the southwest corner of B Avenue and State Street. It is composed of a commercial building and an 1' adjoining residential building; the primary ~ elevations of both buildings are covered with a brick facade. "' ' The wood frame residential building is the only ; dwelling on State Street remaining from the historic period. Generally described as a nom. Vernacular Style building, it has an intersectingMkt 11. - gable roof and horizontal lap siding that is finished with rake and corner boards. Alterations include the addition of mill finish aluminum doors to the rear elevation and the attachment of a brick facade. The commercial building which now occupies the northern half of the property also consists of wood frame construction. It is a two story, rectangular structure that is covered by a truncated hip roof and clad with horizontal lap siding. The long windows which have been covered, appear to have openings that are still intact. All of these features are common to turn-of-the century and earlier commercial buildings. In addition to the changes to the facade, a two story addition has also been made to the rear of the building. Margarette Schroder purchased this property from Oregon Iron and Steel in 1888. In 1896, a dispute between property owners resulted in the loss of the property to Clackamas County. Joseph Bickner purchased this property from the Sheriff in 1897. The Bickner family owned the property through much of the historic period. This vernacular style commercial building housed the Bickner Store for many years in the early 1900's. In later years, the store was the location of the Roger's Brothers business. The building also was a hotel. Ms. Joseph Bickner lead her family west in 1887 in order to visit her sister, Clara Gans (Mrs. Henry Gans). The Bickners went back to South Dakota but returned to Oswego to live permanently in 1894. The original Bickner Store opened on the corner of McVey and Erickson Streets. Joseph had purchased the business from Henry Gans who had been running a small grocery in "South Town" for several years. The Bickners operated the south town business until approximately 1914. The original store was torn down to make way for a new house in 1928. The Bickner's second store on State Street, which opened in 1903, six years after Bickner had purchased the building, sold food, footwear and other goods to farmers in the area. A Bickner family history was prepared by Edith Bickner Brown, states that this building originally housed "an old hotel, one of several in Oswego at the time." The Bickner's circulated around the community each morning taking grocery orders as it was the only grocery store in that part of town. Joseph and his wife, Victoria, had five sons and two daughters. Joseph Bickner and his sons Charles, John and William are all listed in the 1916-17 Clackamas County Directory. They worked at Joseph Bickner and Son's General Merchandise Store. Page 4 RECOMMENDATION The Historic Resources Advisory Board recommends awarding Historic Preservation Merit Awards to Judie Hammerstad and Jerry Knippel and a Landmark Designation Plaque to Ken Hick and Cheri D. Cooley-Hick. ATTACHMENTS 1. Proclamation Reviewed by: 611 Department Directory Alex D. McIntyre City Manager 3. _ City LAKE y enn 6of is OSWEGO OREGON cProclamatzon National-Treservation !Month Old is the New Green 'WHEREAS,historic preservation is integral to the Lake Oswego Centennial Celebration, honoring the past, celebrating the present and imagining the future;and, WHEREAS, historic preservation is an effective tool for promoting sustainable practices, vitalizing neighborhoods,fostering local pride and maintaining community character while enhancing livability;and WHEREAS, a sustainable Lake Oswego is a community that meets the vital human needs of the present without compromising our ability to meet future needs;and, WHEREAS,historic preservation is relevant for communities across the nation,both urban and rural and for Americans of all ages, all walks of life and all ethnic backgrounds;and WHEREAS, it is important to celebrate the role of history in our lives and the contributions made by dedicated individuals in helping to preserve the tangible aspects of the heritage that has shaped us as a people; and WHEREAS, "Old is the New Green"is the theme for National Historic Preservation Month 2010, cosponsored by the City of Lake Oswego and the National Trust for Historic Preservation. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED,that we,the Lake Oswego City Council, proclaim May 2010 as National Historic Preservation Month and call upon the people of the City of Lake Oswego to join their fellow citizens across the United States in recognizing and participatin: in this special observance. ek A Ja 1. Hoffman,Mayor May 18,2010 City TT oLAKEOSwEc Centennia11910-301of OswEGo OREGON ?roc(amation National'Preservation Month Old is the New Green WHEREAS,historic preservation is integral to the Lake Oswego Centennial Celebration, honoring the past, celebrating the present and imagining the future;and, WHEREAS, historic preservation is an effective tool for promoting sustainable practices, vitalizing neighborhoods,fostering local pride and maintaining community character while enhancing livability; and WHEREAS,a sustainable Lake Oswego is a community that meets the vital human needs of the present without compromising our ability to meet future needs;and, WHEREAS,historic preservation is relevant for communities across the nation,both urban and rural and for Americans of all ages, all walks of life and all ethnic backgrounds;and WHEREAS, it is important to celebrate the role of history in our lives and the contributions made by dedicated individuals in helping to preserve the tangible aspects of the heritage that has shaped us as a people; and WHEREAS, "Old is the New Green"is the theme for National Historic Preservation Month 2010,cosponsored by the City of Lake Oswego and the National Trust for Historic Preservation. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED,that we, the Lake Oswego City Council, proclaim May 2010 as National Historic Preservation Month and call upon the people of the City of Lake Oswego to join their fellow citizens across the United States in recognizing and participating in this special observance. Jack D. Hoffman,Mayor May 18,2010 1 LAKE OSWEGO SCHOOL DISTRICT Billed Surface Water FY2005-06 throught FY2008-09, with estimate for FY2009-10 FY2009-10 FY2010-11 ACCT ti SERVICE ADDRESS FY2005-06 FY2006-07 I FY2007-08 I FY2008-09 estimate estimate 01-2659-00 1133 Andrews Rd Forest Hills Elementary $ 2,980 $ 3,129 $ 3,223 $ 3,321 $ 3,421 $ 3,660 02-2203-00 1235 Overlook Dr Lakeridge High School 13,061 13,714 14,125 14,554 $ 14,991 $ 16,040 03-0433-00 2055 Wembley Park Rd Uplands Elementary School 1,490 1,565 1,612 1,661 $ 1,710 $ 1,830 03-1225-00 2501 Country Club Rd Lake Oswego High School 11,242 11,804 12,158 12,527 S 12,903 $ 13,807 03-1279-00 2500 Country Club Rd Lake Oswego Junior High School 11,396 11,965 12,324 12,698 $ 13,079 $ 13,995 03-1786-00 16800 Hawthorne Dr Halinan Elementary School 3,857 4,050 4,171 4,298 $ 4,427 $ 4,737 04-0733-00 15777 Bones Ferry Rd Lake Grove Elementary School 3,682 3,866 3,982 4,103 $ 4,226 $ 4,521 04-0895-00 4200 Douglas Way LOSD Maintenance Barn 2,630 2,761 2,844 2,930 $ 3,018 $ 3,230 04-2806-00 5860 McEwan Rd River Grove Elementary 2,893 3,037 3,128 3,223 $ 3,320 $ 3,553 05-0868-00 4700 Jean Rd Waluga Junior High school 11,220 11,781 12,134 12,503 $ 12,878 $ 13,780 05-4102-00 3400 Royce Way Westridge Elementary 3,331 3,498 3,602 3,712 $ 3,823 $ 4,091 07-1300-00 1500 Greentree Rd Palisades Elementary 3,769 3,958 4,076 4,200 $ 4,326 $ 4,629 08-5734-00 551Kingsgate Rd Oak Creek Elementary 3,156 3,313 3,413 3,516 $ 3,622 $ 3,876 Total FY $ 74,708 $ 78,441 $ 80,793 $ 83,248 $ 85,745 $ 91,747 5%increase 3%increase 3%increase 3%increase 7%increase* This equals 1 FTE Utility Worker and the.3 FTE Temporary person from the Maintenance Dept. Based on estimate from Based on Budget Proposed Budget Total Revenue $ 1,727,334 $ 1,678,498 $ 1,798,789 $ 1,811,771 $ 1,823,000 $ 1,893,000 Trans to Other Funds (832,000) (947,000) *=based on 7/1/10 rate increase in the Master Fees and Charges 2010 Capital Outlay (135,000) (305,000) Repairs and Maint. (200,000) (200,000) Prof.and Tech. (150,000) (556,000) Debt Service (235,000) (235,000) $ 271,000.00 $ (350,000.00) W 1 05-18-2010 9:35 AM SURFACE WATER MAY 2010 PAGE: 267 ZONE: < All Zones , TOTAL PAGE CHARGE TYPE: CURRENT PRINT SEQUENCE: ACCOUNT NUM SERVICE STATUS: ON ONLY ACCOUNT STATUS: Active VALUES RATE TABLE PU/CONT/VOL USERS MULTI-UNITS EFFECTIVE USERS TAX CHARGE 1 SURFACE WATER-1 1 12,392 430 17,750.74 0.00 297,502.39 1S SUR WTR RES SHARED 1 36 2 52.35 0.00 438.69 UBA UTIL BILL ASSIST 1 18 18.00 0.00 150.84 *** TOTALS *** 12,446 432 17,821.09 0.00 298,091.92 tZ Ja : b S� Lake Oswego School District Elementary Water Quality Curriculum During the past two years we have seen a much deeper understanding among our students of the lake and the surrounding watersheds. This has been due to the development of a partnership between the school district, the City of Lake Oswego and the Lake Corporation. The availability of science labs at the elementary level, our connections with local and city resources, and our existing science programs all have combined to make these last several years the best we've seen in terms of awareness and understanding among our students of water related issues. This interconnectedness between community, city, and schools has allowed us to develop and enhance our concept based science curriculum. We would like to thank the city for its support and interest in helping our students appreciate the challenges and benefits of their unique community. The past two years: The district has made a concerted effort at all levels to more fully expand and develop student awareness of our lake and the surrounding watershed. Towards this end the following have occurred: * We have established ties with the city of Lake Oswego. Dave Gilbey from the city visited many schools to talk about the"big pipe"project and how the city works to protect its water quality. * We have established relationships with the Lake Corporation and in conjunction with Mark Rosenkranz developed ideas about how to increase awareness among students of the importance of water quality testing. Students discussed issues facing the lake including invasive species, water flow and differing community perceptions. This resulted in: • Every elementary principal teaching a lesson to all 5/6 graders about the lake and its related issues. > Every 6th grade student in the district visiting the Hallinan Science Lab for an extended lesson on water quality testing(including testing samples from their own areas). • Visits to three areas in the L.O. watershed, including Waluga Park, George Rogers Park, and the Hunt Club to understand how our water moves from each location to the Tualatin and Willamette Rivers. These trips were done in conjunction with Stephanie Wagner from the friends of Tryon Creek RD iN1t2 • j-.4.---,SS,,,ArD Q 1 k o0 , • 1_,,,,) '3 7.• --'Yr.)aV -r-^"xvj 4 0417),,i_cre -a--titE -12v/4°O J vorm IVB 44' -r,' -2:%1917(11-1° LYr r 1 Ongoing(Curriculum) * Each grade level has a connection to water quality and conservation awareness. At grades 1/2 it's done in conjunction with plants and weather, at 3/4 it's in relationship to the chemistry of water and the interaction between water and living things and, at 5/6 we have an entire nine-week unit entitled"Water Planet". This is our standard curriculum. * We have established partnerships with Tualatin Valley Wildlife Refuge and Tryon Creek State Park. Water quality awareness and the role water plays in life are integral parts of the field trips we take. * Every school participates at the 5/6 level in Outdoor School. A full day unit on water is part of this curriculum. This involves testing, conservation, and the interrelationship between water and living things. 4. 1 . 1 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO LAKE OSWEGO Centennial 1910-2010 380 A Avenue 1111 PO Box 369 Lake Oswego,OR 97034 COUNCIL REPORT 503-675-3984 www.ci.oswego.or.us TO: Jack Hoffman, Mayor Members of the City Council Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager FROM: Robyn Christie, City Recorder City Manager's Office SUBJECT: Resignation from the Library Advisory Board DATE: May 12, 2010 ACTION Accept the resignation of Ann Pritchard from the Library Advisory Board. Reviewed by: Alex D. McIntyre City Manager r U / CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO LAKE OSWEGO Centennial 1910-2010 380 A Avenue 1111 PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 COUNCIL REPORT 503-675-3984 www.ci.oswego.or.us TO: Jack Hoffman, Mayor Members of the City Council Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager FROM: Ursula Euler, Finance Director SUBJECT: Resolution 10-26, Authorizing Certain Officials to Conduct Bank Transactions on Behalf of the City DATE: May 7, 2010 ACTION Adopt Resolution 10-26 to confirm City those officials by title who are authorized to transact business with banks and other depositories. INTRODUCTION To help the government fight the funding of terrorism and money laundering activities, U.S. federal law requires financial institutions to obtain, verify, and record certain identifying information from any entity or individual seeking to conduct business with the financial institution. As a result, the City of Lake Oswego and other cities are required to provide this resolution. It identifies municipal offices so that the holders of these offices may initiate and change the type and nature of bank services and the underlying agreements. As separate attachment the holders of those offices are identified by name and verified through signature on a Certificate of Incumbency. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION Every City relies on the ability of certain offices and officials to enter into relationships with banks and other financial institutions and to initiate and change services. It has been past practice, and we would like to confirm this here, to authorize the following offices: City Manager Assistant City Manager Finance Director City Recorder They are bonded positions and actions are bound by the City's financial policies, internal control requirements, and the appropriate commercial banking agreement. Page 2 Both, a copy of the resolution and the, to be completed, Certificate of Incumbency will be forwarded to Wells Fargo Bank and other depositories, with whom we already hold an agreement or with whom we may enter into a banking relationship in the future, in confirmation of authorized offices and their incumbents. From time to time the need arises to change the names and signatures. In that case a revised Certificate of Incumbency is submitted. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended to adopt Resolution 10-26. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution 10-26 2. Certificate of Incumbency Reviewed by: Attif Fitt'Attorney Alex D. McIntyre City Manager RESOLUTION 10-26 A RESOLUTION OF THE LAKE OSWEGO CITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZING CERTAIN OFFICIALS TO CONDUCT BANK TRANSACTIONS ON BEHALF OF THE CITY WHEREAS pursuant to federal regulations, banks and other depositories of the City, require a City Council resolution designating City officials that have authority to initiate and conduct transactions with a bank or other financial institution (simply referred to as Bank from here on) on behalf of the City; BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego as follows: Section 1. The following officials of the City: City Manager; Assistant City Manager; Finance Director; or City Recorder are authorized to: (a) open or close one or more deposit and/or securities accounts; (b) execute and deliver in City's name such agreement(s) regarding the Accounts and the services related thereto as the Bank may from time to time require; (c) initiate and execute transactions on the Accounts, including (i) funds transfers and withdrawals, (ii) automated clearing house ("ACH") transactions to the Accounts, (iii) endorsement on behalf of the City, and otherwise negotiation of, checks and other items payable to the City; (iv) signing of checks and other instruments, (v) investment of City's funds on such terms and conditions as prescribed by City investment policies. Section 2. The above City Officials are authorized to enter into such agreements and documents as the Bank may require with respect to any of the foregoing products, services or activities, in such form and on such terms and conditions as may be agreed to by the Bank and the City Officials signing such agreements and documents; Section 3. Except to the extent provided otherwise in any agreement between the City and the Bank for any of the products, services or activities authorized by this resolution, the City authorizes the Bank to rely on any act or communication, including telephone, wire or electronic communication, purporting to be done by any of the above-listed Officials if such reliance is in good faith; Page 1 of 2 — Resolution 10-26 Section 4. This resolution is in addition to, and not by way of limitation on, other resolutions, if any, of the City Council in favor of the Bank, and the authority conferred by this resolution shall be deemed retroactive and any and all acts authorized by this resolution performed prior to the passage of these resolutions are hereby approved and ratified; Section 5. This resolution shall continue in full force and effect until superceded by a resolution duly adopted by the City Council and attested by the City Recorder; Any such reslution shall be forwarded as appropriate; and Section 6. Effective Date. This resolution shall take effect upon passage. Considered and enacted at the meeting of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego on the 18th day of May, 2010. AYES: NOES: EXCUSED: ABSTAIN: Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor ATTEST: Robyn Christie, City Recorder APP OVE►- AS 0 F RM: • / 1 I David Powell 1 City Attorney Page 2 of 2 — Resolution 10-26 a 3 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO LAKE OSWEGO Centennial 1910-2010 380 A Avenue Ill PO Box 369 Lake Oswego,OR 97034 COUNCIL REPORT 503-675-3984 www.ci.oswego.or.us 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: May 10, 2010 ACTION Approve minutes as written. ATTACHMENTS • February 2, 2010, regular meeting • February 9, 2010, special meeting • February 16, 2010, special meeting • February 16, 2010, regular meeting • March 2, 2010, special meeting • April 27, 2010, special meeting Reviewed by: Alex D. McIntyre City Manager r (,,ti���;�> CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES February 2, 2010 Mayor Jack Hoffman called the regular City Council meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. on February 2, 2010, in the City Council Chambers, 380 A Avenue. Present: Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Johnson, Hennagin, Olson, Moncrieff, Tierney, and Jordan. Staff Present: Alex McIntyre, City Manager; David Powell, City Attorney; Robyn Christie, City Recorder; Joel Komarek, LOIS Project Director; Jane Heisler, LOIS Communications Director; Kim Gilmer, Parks & Rec Director 3. PRESENTATIONS 3.1 Presentation of Distinguished Service Award to Craig Diamond for his service on the Natural Resources Advisory Board and Sustainability Advisory Board Mayor Hoffman presented a Distinguished Service Award to Craig Diamond and thanked him for his service. He mentioned that Mr. Diamond served on the Natural Resources Advisory Board from 2006-2009 (co-chair, 2006-2007). His passion for sustainability led him to create the Sustainability Advisory Board, on which he also served as co-chair. He has been an articulate spokesman for sustainability and encouraged the Council and City staff to adopt sustainability. Mayor Hoffman noted that Mr. Diamond was moving to Hartford, CT. Mr. Diamond thanked the Council and the City for giving him the opportunity to form the Sustainability Advisory Board. He recognized the Council's leadership in sustainability and Ms. Papaefthimiou and Ms. Millhauser for their great work. 3.2 Presentation of Distinguished Service Award to Nancy Niland Shatsky for her service on the Library Advisory Board Mayor Hoffman presented a Distinguished Service Award to Nancy Niland Shatsky and thanked her for her service. He indicated that she joined the Board in March 2007 and served as chair from July 2008. He spoke of her work on the Library Planned Giving Program and the LO Reads Steering Committee, as well as representing the library at citywide events. Ms. Shatsky thanked the library staff and her family for their support. She commented that serving on the Board has been a great experience. She invited the Council members and audience to attend the many LO Reads events occurring this month. 3.3 Proclamation honoring the League of Women Voters on its 90th anniversary Mayor Hoffman introduced Lynn Gordon, League of Women Voters. Ms. Gordon gave a brief overview of the history of the League, which began in 1920 with the conversion of the National American Women's Suffrage Association to the new organization. She described the League's work as political but non-partisan in educating voters on issues, advocating for the passage of legislation, and initiating get out the vote campaigns, as well as other activities as part of their effort to make democracy work. She mentioned that the League sponsored the first Meet the Candidate forum in 1928. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 11 February 2, 2010 She described how the League grew in Lake Oswego, beginning in 1955, to become the League of Women Voters in Clackamas County with expansion into Milwaukie and east Clackamas County in 2002. She thanked the Council for recognizing the League on its 90th anniversary. Mayor Hoffman read the proclamation and presented it to Ms. Gordon. 3.4 LOIS Update Ms. Heisler mentioned that many barges would leave the lake once the contractor finished installing the less than 50 anchors remaining. She indicated that they were just under 57% on the pipe fusing and replacement. She explained that what Councilor Hennagin saw regarding the pipe fusing machine at the trestle had been the contractor bringing in a smaller machine because they have finished fusing the 42-inch pipe. Mr. Komarek indicated that the contractor expected to complete the ground installation work around February 15. He mentioned that staff was working closely with the Lake Corporation and the contractor to manage the marine traffic congestion that would occur at the entrance to Half Moon Bay and near the entrance of the East Arm when the contractor began focusing on the pile work in those areas. He spoke of the completion of the manhole installations this week and the progress on the placement of the buoyant tether brackets, to which the contractor would attach the 42-inch pipe by mid-February. He mentioned the Council's contract award to J.W. Fowler on January 5 for the Bryant Road and Foothills Road pump stations, and the bid opening on the Lake Down Phase scheduled for mid- February with a tentative Council contract award in early March. He spoke of the Council's authorization to include the cured in place plastic (CIPP) pipe rehabilitation of West Bay, Lakewood Bay, and Foothills into the Lake Down phase for potential cost savings, and the seismic retrofit of the elevated pipe in the Foothills Road area. Ms. Heisler mentioned scheduling Meet the Contractor meetings for the Bryant and Foothill neighbors. She indicated that they were also working with different easement associations to work out the details of the LOIS work, including Village on the Lake, Forest Hills, and Springbrook. She noted the Council LOIS subcommittee meeting last week, a new video on the website on pipe bending, an article about the pump station contractor, the soon completion of the third webisode, the placement of videos on Facebook and YouTube, an upcoming article in Hello LO on the Lake Down Phase, and the Council weekly update in the Digest. She presented several photos of various aspects of the project work. Mr. Komarek noted the acceleration in the schedule of the CIPP work and the Foothills seismic upgrade work from the later part of 2011/2012 to the second or third quarter of 2011. He explained that the project cost estimate was now just under $100 million, with the good bidding climate and the deferral of a portion of the Foothills sewer replacement until they knew more about the redevelopment and streetcar activities in the Foothills area. COUNCIL QUESTIONS Ms. Heisler thanked Mayor Hoffman for his report that the shareholders at the Lake Corporation Shareholders Meeting had been complimentary with respect to the contractor and the staff, as staff did try to stay on top of any issues. Mr. Komarek indicated to Mayor Hoffman that it was likely that staff would nominate the project for national and international engineering awards, as it was an innovative use of materials and an application not done before. Councilor Hennagin congratulated staff that the cost of this project has come down from an original estimate of $120 to $124 million to under$100 million. Mr. Komarek commented that staff was proud of that and always looking for ways to economize and improve efficiencies, such as packing in as much work as they thought could reasonably be done while the bidding climate was good. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 11 February 2, 2010 r Councilor Jordan commented that the City's change of direction on the project, which occurred shortly after Mr. McIntyre came on board, has proved to be the right action and made a major contribution to the reduction in cost. She expressed her appreciation for the staff advice and willingness to undertake this difficult task. Councilor Tierney observed that the project was under budget, on schedule, and looked terrific. Mr. Komarek, on behalf of the LOIS team and Brown & Caldwell, thanked the Council for its continued support and interest in this project. 4. CONSENT AGENDA Councilor Hennagin moved adoption of the Consent Agenda. Councilor Jordan seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken, and the motion passed with Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Johnson, Hennagin, Olson, Moncrieff, Tierney, and Jordan voting "aye." [7-0] 4.1 REPORTS 4.1.1 Resignation of Craig Diamond from the Sustainability Advisory Board, effective February 28, 2010 Action: Accept resignation 4.1.2 Service contract renewal to provide temporary workers for Parks Maintenance activities Action: Approve renewal of service contract with The Personnel Department in the amount of $185,000. 4.2 RESOLUTIONS 4.2.1 Resolution 10-07, authorizing an amendment to the Intergovernmental Agreement with the Clackamas County Department of Human Resources, Social Services Division, for Fiscal Year 2009-2010 Action: Adopt Resolution 10-07 4.2.2 Resolution 10-11, authorizing an intergovernmental agreement with the City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services for the purpose of facilitating a habitat enhancement project on Tryon Creek in an area that includes real property owned by the City of Lake Oswego Action: This item was pulled for discussion. END CONSENT AGENDA 5. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA 5.1 Resolution 10-11, authorizing an intergovernmental agreement with the City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services for the purpose of facilitating a habitat enhancement project on Tryon Creek in an area that includes real property owned by the City of Lake Oswego Ms. Gilmer recalled that last January she had discussed with Council the components of an IGA with the Portland Bureau of Environmental Services (BES) regarding a stream restoration project along Tryon Creek that included City property. She reviewed the project location on a combination of Metro, Portland, and Lake Oswego properties along the creek in Tryon State Park. She described the proposed work to grade back the bank and to slow the creek down through increased meandering, as well as through wooden structures and boulders placed in the creek (p.21). She mentioned that BES's initial cost estimates came in at more than their grant, and, therefore, they scaled back the amount of debris that they would place in the creek. She used plans of the City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 11 February 2, 2010 i project area (pp.22-23) in describing the proposed restoration work. She used plans of the project area (pp.23-24) in describing the proposed mitigation measures that BES would take in different areas on the project site. She mentioned the use of shrubs, trees, and native grasses. She indicated that the mitigation on the Lake Oswego property would improve the bank and create a little grassy meadow that would be easier for the City to maintain in the long run. She pointed out the area on Lake Oswego property where BES would deposit the soil that it had to remove from the project site. She explained that this would minimize the grading that the City would have to do eventually in building a trail at that location. She mentioned the removal of 13 trees, which BES would either chip on site or lay down as wildlife habitat. She mentioned the environmental testing that BES had done at the park site in 1999. The insignificant amounts of hydrocarbons and heavy metals found would not require clean up when the City built its pathway. She indicated that staff negotiated with BES that, in the event of any necessary clean up, the two organizations would either share the costs, modify the project, or terminate the project. She described the provision in the BES project design for a 50-foot corridor without trees along a desirable trail alignment for a pedestrian bridge crossing from Foothills Park to Tryon Cove Park. She explained that the City stood a better chance of getting permits from the environmental agencies along this alignment, which also allowed an ADA-accessible pathway. She indicated that BES did not grant a trail easement to the City for the narrow portion of its property that the preferred trail alignment crossed because they were not yet certain about the results of their re- master planning of the water treatment plant. However, they did agree to work in good faith towards getting a pathway. Mr. Powell concurred, noting that the language in paragraph 9, p. 29, was not a guarantee but rather a good faith obligation on Portland's part. COUNCIL QUESTIONS Ms. Gilmer confirmed to Councilor Hennagin that what BES intended to accomplish with the project was to lay back the steep slope next to the creek to provide for a wider creek channel. She noted that it affected about 50 linear feet of City property. Mayor Hoffman commented that the idea was to allow the stream to find the most efficient way to get from the pipe under Hwy 43 to the Willamette River, which could include finding a new channel. Mayor Hoffman observed that one of the problems that they had with many creeks was that the creeks were channelized. A goal of watershed management was to unchannelize the smaller creeks and eliminate the culvert. Ms. Gilmer recalled an Oregon Fish &Wildlife project from last summer that created a series of steps up to the culvert as a way for fish to get up to and through the culvert. Mayor Hoffman indicated to Councilor Hennagin that Metro, Portland, and Lake Oswego pooled their money to purchase the Jarvis property in 2002, with the property divided up according to contribution amount. Ms. Gilmer indicated to Councilor Olson that the increased acreage from the mitigation should not increase the City's maintenance level because those areas would return to a natural state, and the City was not maintaining what was there now anyway. Councilor Jordan moved to adopt Resolution 10-11. Councilor Johnson seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken, and the motion passed with Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Johnson, Hennagin, Olson, Moncrieff, Tierney, and Jordan voting "aye." [7-0] 6. CITIZEN COMMENT Councilor Johnson moved to suspend the Council rules and set the time limit at three minutes per citizen. Councilor Jordan seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken, and the motion passed with Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Johnson, Hennagin, Moncrieff, Tierney, and Jordan voting "aye." Councilor Olson voted 'no.' [6-1] City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 11 February 2, 2010 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS 7.1 Resolution 10-03, a resolution of the Lake Oswego City Council approving a change in the methodology relating to system development charges for the water utility, and, Ordinance No. 2547, amending Chapter 39 of the Lake Oswego Code relating to Water System Development Charges STAFF REPORT Mr. Komarek indicated that staff was seeking Council approval of Resolution 10-03 to modify the City's current water SDCs methodology. He introduced Jon Ghilarducci, a principal with FCS Group, a municipal financial consulting firm. He recalled the July 2009 staff presentation to the Council of the findings of the technical analysis, and the September 2009 staff report to Council on staff conversations with Metro staff regarding how to use SDCs to encourage vibrant communities and different types of development. He mentioned Council's direction in September for staff to publish the 90-day notice. Mr. Ghilarducci gave an abbreviated presentation of the technical analysis findings. He discussed the calculation methodology for the two components of an SDC, the reimbursement fee and the improvement fee, which represented one share of system capacity to serve each increment of new growth. He reviewed their key assumptions behind the SDC methodology, including the use of the demand forecasts from the 2007 Corolla Report, improvement fee cost estimates updated to current year dollars, and a 20-year CIP but not future financing costs. He indicated that they calculated the charges on a meter equivalent basis (Lake Oswego used a 3/4 inch meter). He mentioned their use of a technical, cost-based, solution, as opposed to a policy- based solution. He reviewed the fee calculations resulting in a reimbursement fee of$947 per meter equivalent and an improvement fee of$5,041 per meter equivalent, plus an additional $416 for administrative cost recovery, for a total SDC of$6,404 per meter equivalent. He presented the schedule showing the charges increasing by meter size. He presented a comparison of area water SDCs. He pointed out that it was an apples to oranges comparison, as each system was different. He recommended Council adoption of the $6,404 per meter equivalent SDC, clarification of Code language regarding the application of credit to new connections, and consideration of phasing in the charge. Mr. Komarek indicated that staff presented this same information to the Homebuilders Association and local developers so that they would understand the City's approach and numbers. He reported that both groups expressed concern with the City enacting the fee all at once (they preferred a phased approach) and including speculative future debt financing costs. He noted that Resolution 10-03 phased in the fee in three parts and did not include debt financing in the fee. COUNCIL QUESTIONS Mr. Komarek indicated to Councilor Tierney that he would report back on the percentage increase in the cost estimates from the master plan costs to 2009 dollars, per the Engineering News-Record construction cost index. Mr. Ghilarducci indicated to Councilor Tierney that Wilsonville reduced its SDC temporarily to give relief to the development community. Mr. Ghilarducci indicated to Councilor Hennagin that the 40% of the $78 million allocated to growth was roughly proportional to what was left to grow to build out, according to the forecasts in the Joint Water Supply report. He said that the $78 million included more than Lake Oswego's share in the LO/Tigard water project, as it included the master plan projects as well. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 11 February 2, 2010 Councilor Hennagin asked what the logic was behind not including the debt service for a bond. Mr. Ghilarducci indicated that the two main concerns were the speculation inherent in trying to determine how much debt the City would issue in the future and what the interest costs would be, and double-charging new homes through a one-time SDC that included those costs, in addition to the ongoing water rates that repaid the debt. Mr. Komarek indicated to Councilor Olson that the number of new units included the projected growth in the City's USB outside the city limits (including Foothills) plus some development in the Stafford area. Councilor Olson asked if the difference between the $32 million and the $78 million represented system upgrades needed regardless of whether the city grew. Mr. Komarek explained that each project had a different cost allocation for growth-related costs and for capacity for existing customers costs, although the bottom line was roughly proportional. He gave an example of the raw water transmission main cost allocation of 60% for serving existing customers and 40% for growth. Mr. Ghilarducci clarified to Councilor Tierney that because the improvement fee reduced the rate burden for every ratepayer in the future, a homeowner paying both an SDC and the ongoing water rate was not charged twice. Mr. Powell recommended re-inserting the word 'capital' before 'improvement plan' in Section 1.b of the proposed ordinance (p.61) for consistency with other references to the `capital improvement plan' in the ordinance. PUBLIC TESTIMONY Mayor Hoffman opened the hearing to public testimony. • Ernie Platt, Homebuilders Association (HBA) He thanked staff for the considerable time they spent in helping the Homebuilders Association to understand this complex SDC. He mentioned his appreciation of the Council asking similar questions to what the HBA members had asked. He noted that it was a 157% increase over the current rate, which was a lot for anyone in business to absorb, especially during these tough economic times when developers did not have the additional financing to pay for such a large increase. He stated that the Homebuilders Association fully supported the staff recommendation to phase the SDC in three parts, reaching the final number in two years, and not to include the debt financing costs. He commented that they were not happy about the increase but understood that those who used the water needed to pay for it. Mr. Platt indicated to Mayor Hoffman that developers paid the SDC when the City issued the building permit. Mayor Hoffman observed that the challenge from a builder's perspective was up fronting the SDC fee and then waiting until the house sale closed for payback. Mr. Platt commented that more and more often they were finding construction financing sufficient to cover the construction but not the upfront fees; a builder had to use operating capital extracted from his business while the project was under construction. He indicated to Councilor Hennagin that the cause was a combination of tighter construction loans and the loan to value calculation. • John Surrett, 1685 Edgecliffe Terrace He asked a series of questions. Mr. Komarek indicated that staff did not include SDC revenue in the water rate forecast because the bond rating agencies did not allow inclusion of that revenue when bonding. Mr. Ghilarducci explained that the bond market required a jurisdiction to set its water rates to recover the debt service and would not even consider using SDC revenues. Mr. Komarek noted that the bond market did not like the variability in the collection of SDC revenues. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 11 February 2, 2010 Mr. Komarek directed Mr. Surrett to the Corolla Report for the projected population growth figures for Lake Oswego and Tigard. Mr. Surrett commented that Tigard had an aggressive population growth and expansion program, (looking to increase from a mid-40,000 population to 100,000) while Lake Oswego's growth projection of half of one percent a year was quite conservative. Mr. Ghilarducci indicated to Mr. Surrett that Tigard was due to update its SDCs to reflect the costs of the partnership agreement. Mr. Komarek stated that the forecasted number of residents in the Stafford Triangle at build out was around 6,900. Mr. Surrett asked how the City would be able to show beneficial use for the purposes of increasing water rights on the Clackamas to 16 mgd when the people in the Stafford Triangle did not exist. He mentioned that LONAC submitted testimony endorsing the Stafford Triangle as rural reserve. Mr. Komarek indicated that he would be happy to meet with Mr. Surrett to discuss the population forecasts. Councilor Jordan pointed out that the City could not put SDCs towards the cost of a project that it was anticipating right now in its rate calculation, but somewhere down the line, it could apply the SDCs to the expansion part of a project. Mr. Ghilarducci observed that the issue with SDCs was always cash flow. The City needed to build the projects now, yet it collected the SDCs incrementally over time. He discussed how this related to rates. He explained that water rates needed to meet all the utility's cash needs, such as operating expenses, debt service, and capital cash funding, and to meet revenue bond coverage requirements. Since bond market did not allow the City to count SDCs in meeting the coverage test, SDCs did not have a dollar for dollar impact on the water rates, even though the City could use them to pay the debt service. Mayor Hoffman closed the hearing to public testimony. COUNCIL DISCUSSION Councilor Jordan moved to adopt Resolution 10-03 and to enact Ordinance 2547. Councilor Johnson seconded the motion. Councilor Moncrieff thanked Mr. Platt, the Homebuilders Association, and staff for working cooperatively on this matter. Councilor Tierney indicated that he supported the resolution with some hesitancy. He discussed his concern that the City continue to look at SDCs across the entire spectrum of housing growth in Lake Oswego, especially with regards to attainable housing. He commented that SDCs were an impediment to some of the Council's goals. A voice vote was taken, and the motion passed with Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Johnson, Hennagin, Olson, Moncrieff, Tierney, and Jordan voting "aye." [7-0] Councilor Olson asked to see the comparison to other jurisdictions table again. Mr. Komarek confirmed that Lake Oswego would hit the high end on SDCs in a year. Councilor Olson asked staff to let the Council know when Tigard updated its SDCs. Mr. Komarek indicated to Mayor Hoffman that staff presented the full range of SDCs across all utilities to the Council last July. Mayor Hoffman commented that the Council needed to keep track of that information when it discussed attainable housing. Councilor Jordan pointed out that there were alternatives that the Council could take with respect to SDCs in order to make things work in favor of affordable housing projects. Mayor Hoffman recalled that, at a meeting with Metro staff, they identified opportunities to promote certain types of developments, with the big benefits coming from the transportation SDCs and surface water fees. 8. INFORMATION FROM THE COUNCIL 8.1 Councilor Information City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 11 February 2, 2010 8.1.2 Centennial Celebration Councilor Jordan announced that the new website, [0100.com, with the Centennial events schedule, was up and running. She mentioned that the video of Lake Oswego history was also available at the website. 8.1.3 LO Reads Councilor Hennagin reminded the audience that February was LO Reads month. He mentioned an open house this Thursday at Graham's Stationary and Chrisman Framing Galleries and the unveiling of 18 paintings done by local artists reflecting their thoughts after reading LO Reads book selection, The Whistling Season. 8.2 Reports of Council Committees, Organizational Committees, and Intergovernmental Committees 8.2.1 National League of Cities (NLC) Annual Meeting Report Councilor Tierney reported that, as a consequence of attending some sessions associated with First Tier Suburbs (a special group within the NLC), the new NLC president appointed him to the group's Steering Committee. He said that he asked staff to check with their Washington lobbyists to see what value this appointment might have. He mentioned that he would talk with Mr. McIntyre about potential travel costs associated with his participation. He observed that active participation in an organization probably meant getting more out of the organization for the community. Mayor Hoffman mentioned the benefits in learning from other people, as opposed to keeping a narrow focus. 8.2.2 Metro Policy Advisory Committee (MPAC) Report Mayor Hoffman reported that MPAC made its last recommendation with respect to urban and rural reserves to leave Stafford undesignated. He indicated that it was now up to Metro and the Core 4. He mentioned the anticipation of a decision by the end of February. If they made no decision, then the process reverted to the old method based on soil types. In that case, Stafford would undoubtedly come in 2010 or 2015. 8.2.3 Mayors' Streetcar Summit Mayor Hoffman announced that he would attend the Mayors' Streetcar Summit in Washington, D.C., at the end of this month. This involved ten mayors from around the country meeting with Rep. Blumenauer and various agencies to discuss streetcars and the New Starts program. 9. REPORTS OF OFFICERS 9.1 City Manager Mr. McIntyre announced that the City received notice today from the State that it has funded the City's Safe Routes to School project of Pilkington Road/Jean Road to Dawn Street. He explained that staff would use the funds for the preliminary engineering with construction slated for next year. He indicated to the Mayor that he would notify the interested parties. 9.1.1 Review of Council Schedule 9.2 City Attorney Mayor Hoffman recessed the meeting for a break at 8:17 p.m. He reconvened the meeting at 8:24 p.m. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 11 February 2, 2010 I 10. EXECUTIVE SESSION 10.1 Closed session under authority of ORS 192.660 (2) (d) conduct deliberations with persons designated to carry on labor negotiations Mayor Hoffman recessed the meeting to Executive Session at 8:24 p.m. He reviewed the Executive Session parameters. 11. RETURN TO OPEN SESSION Mayor Hoffman reconvened the regular meeting at 9:02 p.m. The Council reviewed the remainder of the draft goals at Councilor Olson's request. The Council discussed the goal relating to the City's financial audit. Councilor Tierney suggested striking the word 'strive' from `Strive for the audit...'. He held that the goal should be the City having no material weaknesses in light of the audit. Mr. McIntyre mentioned Ms. Euler's concern that she was inheriting the `material weaknesses,' and that she did not want to be held accountable for those errors. Councilor Tierney pointed out that all the material weaknesses were date specific events. Councilor Olson commented that Ms. Euler was addressing those identified areas, which were fixable; Council would check back in March and expect a lot of progress in fixing them. Mr. McIntyre acknowledged that ultimately he was accountable for the situation. He indicated that Ms. Euler, as she unearthed the non-computer financial systems in place now at the City, was seeing a need for a big fix in order to get on rock solid financial ground again. He clarified that all the money was accounted for, but Ms. Euler was giving the rudimentary, fundamental elements of the organization's non-computer financial systems `F grades.' Councilor Tierney mentioned goal language indicating that the Council understood that the issues were systemic, and that the solutions would fix the problems. Councilor Johnson suggested a compromise goal of the City achieving an audit without any material weaknesses or errors in the next two years. Mayor Hoffman commented that that was not a goal for the Council, as the Council would not do that work. Mr. McIntyre recalled the Council discussion of a goal as something achievable. He suggested that Councilor Tierney's goal was not achievable as of today, although it would be in two years. He observed that an unspoken expectation was that the City would have a clean audit. He noted that the City has always had a clean audit, even though it had some material weaknesses showing up in this year's audit. He indicated that staff was struggling in the financial arena to strengthen the foundations. Councilor Jordan observed that they were trying to support the identification of system changes that would eliminate material weaknesses. Councilor Olson indicated that her goal was to strengthen the Financial Department to the point where the City no longer had material weaknesses. Councilor Moncrieff agreed. Mayor Hoffman described the goal as telling the City Manager that the Council would give him the tools that he needed to succeed, as opposed to the Council controlling things. The Council agreed on a goal of strengthening the financial systems in order to eliminate material weaknesses in future audits. Councilor Olson mentioned another goal of the Council receiving rock solid financial reports from the Finance Department in order to do its job. Mr. McIntyre indicated to Councilor Tierney that Council had asked staff to identify untapped funding opportunities, which he acknowledged might not be a goal. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 11 February 2, 2010 Councilor Tierney asked to see a summary of the cost allocation study before the Council adopted the report's recommendations. He noted that the recovery of the indirect program costs of implementing the cost study allocation study recommendations would be in the budget. Mr. McIntyre explained that this involved an internal administrative policy, which he would provide to the Council. He confirmed to Councilor Jordan that this was not a new policy, as the new study updated the figures in the previous cost allocation study. Mr. McIntyre indicated that the five-year capital improvement plan (CIP) would come to Council in March for approval; the first year of the CIP would then go into the FY 2010/2011 budget. Councilor Tierney referenced "Department budgets will fully fund all positions in budget reasonable amounts in line item accounts for unforeseen circumstances." He asked whether departments had contingency funds. Mr. McIntyre clarified that the City funded contingencies by fund, and not by department. He explained that the idea was to provide some flexibility within the budget in order to allow him to respond to unforeseen circumstances. He mentioned that, per Council direction, the budget was lean; the only thing left to cut were people. He commented that a budget could be so tight that it was inflexible and effectively hamstrung the entire organization. Councilor Tierney concurred on having a contingency, provided that it was done under Mr. McIntyre's control and not on a department basis. Councilor Tierney referenced "Fund streets and Comprehensive Plan improvements from revenues generated in the street funds." He spoke to using other funding sources, such as franchise fees, to fund street improvements. Mr. McIntyre clarified that this bullet meant that whatever revenues were coming into the street fund he would use on the streets. He would not use other revenue sources unless the Council directed him to do so. He indicated that all franchise fees currently went into the general fund, but he would check into whether some of the PGE franchise fee was supposed to go to the street fund. Mr. McIntyre indicated to Councilor Olson that he would "fund the balance of the Foothills Framework Plan from the general fund reserves" (p.4, #4) because he could not pay that amount of money out of operations. He said that he called this out explicitly in order to verify that what he heard Council say at goal setting regarding funding one-time costs was correct. He confirmed that the City would get the money back. He indicated to Councilor Olson that the language about "developing a baseline budget unless otherwise directed" (p.3) was the same language that staff presented at goal setting. Since he did not hear anything different, he was presenting it again for verification. He mentioned his intention to have the department heads (on a monthly basis) brief the Council on what services each department provided. He referenced his earlier comment about how the organization has absorbed many services that were now part of the baseline. He described another staff pilot effort to plug performance measures into the budget in order to give Council a sense of measures for City services. Councilor Olson expressed her concern that if they added services in one area (such as strengthening the Finance Department), then they needed to cut somewhere else. She commented that she hesitated to agree to the baseline budget. Councilor Jordan recalled her concern at goal setting that she did not know what the baseline services were. She observed that if Clackamas County Social Services did reduce the amount of money it gave to Lake Oswego to provide services, the City would still have to provide those services unless it had a filter in place that eliminated the service because the cost benefit was not worth it. She indicated that she trusted that staff was using filters to decide whether to end a service or not. Since she did not know what those were, she would like information on the filters. She commented that the City has provided services to its citizens through projects funded for a few years, and then continued the service after the funding ran out because the people liked the service. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 11 February 2, 2010 Mayor Hoffman mentioned his assumption that the City would aspire to meet Lake Oswego citizen needs and expectations, which the City Manager would do through building a baseline budget. Councilor Jordan concurred but pointed out that citizens often had no perspective that if the City did not offer a program that only 10 to 12 people used, then the City might have money to maintain the streets and fill potholes. She reiterated that she wanted to know what services were truly baseline at this point in time. Councilor Tierney mentioned the need to fund increased personnel costs and PERS. He indicated that the other part of the equation was finding more revenue or reducing services. Councilor Moncrieff recalled that Ms. Gilmer tried to do that through the budget, and the Council pulled her down. She spoke to having respect for the process and the plan for addressing the many legitimate needs in the community, as opposed to a knee-jerk reaction when one need came forward. Mr. McIntyre indicated to Mayor Hoffman that staff would write up the Council's direction and return on February 16. 12. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Hoffman adjourned the meeting at 9:31 p.m. Respectfully submitted, I//45 Robyn Christie City Recorder APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: ON Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 11 February 2, 2010 t»witio CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES February 9, 2010 Mayor Jack Hoffman called the special City Council meeting to order at 5:33 p.m. on February 9, 2010, in the City Council Chambers, 380 A Avenue. Present: Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Jordan, Hennagin, Olson, Moncrieff, and Tierney. Councilor Johnson was excused. Staff Present: Alex McIntyre, City Manager; David Powell, City Attorney; Robyn Christie, City Recorder; Sidaro Sin, Senior Planner; Bob Galante, Redevelopment Director 3. STUDY SESSION 3.1 Mayor's Institute on City Design: Design Matters for Successful Cities Mayor Hoffman mentioned that he gave a 20-minute presentation on a North Anchor project at First and B to the attendees at the Mayor's Institute on City Design last July. He indicated that the mayors from the cities of Lake Oswego, Gresham, Beaverton, Bellingham, Los Altos, Chico, Napa, and Hillsboro attended. He stated the names of the experts on the expert panel: Ellen Dunham Jones (Georgia Institute of Technology), Skip Graffam (OLIN), Paul Morris (Parsons Brinckerhoff), Gordon Price (Simon Fraser University), Michele Reeves (retail expert), Jeff Schnabel (PSU), Roxi Thoren (architect specializing in urban farming), and William Wenk (landscape architect). He reviewed the questions that the experts were prepared to answer with respect to his presentation. • Was a civic use, such as a library, an appropriate anchor for the retail at First & B? • What other uses could be combined with the project to help spur pedestrian activity along the full length of First Street? • What were the optimal programming space and mix of uses? • How could the library be designed to be a profit and not a barrier to the adjacent residential neighborhood? • How could the project best interface with State Street and reach across State Street to provide connectivity with Foothills. • How could a new library be developed and programmed? The Council watched the video of the Mayor's presentation and the experts' commentary. Mayor Hoffman occasionally paused the video for a comment. Mayor Hoffman noted that Michele Reeves was a retail expert. She preferred using restaurants over libraries to generate foot traffic for retail, as people went to the library to get their books and then left. Mayor Hoffman noted that someone later on spoke of programming cultural events at the library to generate foot traffic. Mayor Hoffman indicated that Ellen Dunham Jones from the Georgia Institute of Technology argued that there would be an enormous market for an urban lifestyle within the suburbs. Mayor Hoffman noted that the speaker and others recommended that the City approach the owner of the Wizer site and suggest a public/private partnership. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 5 February 9, 2010 Mayor Hoffman indicated that he would invite Paul Morris, a financial expert on public/private partnerships, to speak to the Council when he was in Portland this spring. Mayor Hoffman mentioned that Paul Morris' focus was on Foothills as the component that would drive retail and make the whole town of Lake Oswego successful. COUNCIL QUESTIONS Mr. Galante indicated to Councilor Jordan that he guesstimated a height of 18 to 22 feet for any elevated crossing of Hwy 43, although crossing over the railroad tracks required something substantially higher. He indicated that there was probably a 65-foot grade change down into the Foothills area from State Street; any crossing would not be graceful or visually pleasing. Mayor Hoffman recalled that the experts challenged the mayors to think bigger, which was one of his take aways from the conference. He spoke of combining Downtown and Foothills in figuring out how to get down to the river. He mentioned the debate about whether a multi-use library would fit at the edge of the core or some other place, such as Wizer's. He agreed with Councilor Hennagin that tying Foothills to the Downtown required more crossings than the two usually discussed. Councilor Moncrieff commented that the idea of Foothills wanting to come to the Downtown, as suggested by one of the speakers, was a new way of looking at the situation for her. She mentioned another comment about maintaining edges for the local businesses that could not afford the 'Sur la Table' lease prices, but would create the vibrant, multi-generational diverse urban feel that they were discussing. She recalled this topic coming up this morning at the Strategic Business Alliance when some Downtown business owners expressed concern about the high leases. Mayor Hoffman identifed Jeff Schnabel of PSU as the speaker who pointed out that nothing was broken at First & B now; the current businesses located there were successful. He mentioned that Michele Reeves, who worked extensively on Mississippi Street in Portland, has moved back to town and was available to talk to the Council about retail. Councilor Jordan commented that Ms. Reeves' point during the wrap up was important: the key block at Wizer's would redevelop. She remarked that, while she would love a library with a reading room overlooking the lake, she expected that many businesses would like a view of the lake and would also provide a tax benefit to the community. She mentioned a comment that the public money investment in the Downtown should be in an area that would not redevelop quickly on its own and was the best economically viable site at this time. Mayor Hoffman recessed the meeting for a break at 6:50 p.m. He reconvened the meeting at 6:55 p.m. 3.2 Urban Design Presentation Mr. Sin gave a slideshow presentation of urban design ideas and elements that he saw in Vancouver, B.C., on the recent trip taken there by Council and staff members. He described his presentation as a "visual exploration in the art of possibilities." He noted that the government and growth planning for the Portland Metro region and the Greater Vancouver Regional District were very similar, such as Portland having an urban growth boundary and Vancouver an urban containment boundary. He noted that the two areas were also similar with 2.2 million people living in 25 jurisdictions on 450 square miles of land In the Portland-Vancouver area, and 2.1 million people living in 21 jurisdictions on 1,100 square miles of land in the Vancouver, B.C. area. Both areas had regional growth strategies and public transportation systems. He mentioned that one take away from Vancouver for him was the idea that multifamily did not need to be large or bulky. He spoke of using single-family design elements and alleyways, and placing multi-family on corners to use two different street frontages to address the larger mass. He City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 5 February 9, 2010 described several examples in the Kitsilano area of mixed-use developments on a major arterial that did not look like multi-family but fit in well with the single-family residential neighborhoods behind them. He noted that the local streets coming off the main corridors were very narrow. Councilor Moncrieff pointed out how the phased landscaping and the mature trees added to the character. She commented that Vancouver must have as stringent a tree code as Lake Oswego Councilor Tierney asked how Vancouver created multi-family buildings that felt like they were part of the neighborhood. He noted that the multi-family units recently build in First Addition clearly stood out as different from the neighborhood. David Leland explained that part of the reason was that virtually every development deal in Vancouver was negotiated with the City. He indicated that these negotiations went beyond the typical Code process, in that Vancouver had economists on staff to work with the developers. He mentioned another factor that there was no Court of Appeals beyond the Vancouver City Council, which allowed a certain rigor not seen in the U.S. Mayor Hoffman pointed out that First Addition had a multi-family zone that stopped, as opposed to integrating multi-family into a single-family zone. Councilor Jordan commented that, while it would be interesting to put this kind of housing in a neighborhood like hers, her neighborhood had no alleys. Instead, it had deep narrow lots with flag lot-like driveways going down the side. Mr. Sin pointed out that, in Vancouver, the character and feeling of the streetscape had the final say in determining compatibility, even more than the design of the structure itself. He showed examples of housing with parking sideloaded and rearloaded. He described how a corner mixed use development in Kitsilano transitioned to single-family residential using building structure, architectural elements, and streetscape. He agreed with Councilor Jordan that this example was similar to the Lake Grove Village Center plan. Councilor Jordan recalled that the town she grew up in looked similar to this example, with residential units built in the 1920s and 1930s to accommodate families, rather than single-family homes. Mr. Leland commented that part of what they saw in Vancouver was the difference between a performance environment and a prescriptive environment. A performance environment was staff- intensive and time-consuming, requiring negotiations on every development to build something that created a sense of community. However, the solutions were not built into the code. He recalled asking the Vancouver Chief of Planning if they could have achieved the sense of place using a form-based code. The Chief categorically stated no; it required a transactional relationship between the public and the private sectors. Mr. Sin showed examples of low and mid-rise developments, which involved larger community open spaces and grander pedestrian walkways. He mentioned the strong sense of community he encountered when a resident told him how much she loved living in this area because of its accessibility to a variety of services. He pointed out the internal pedestrian alleys, the underground parking, and the mix of building heights. Mayor Hoffman commented that this area averaged 16 units per acre using a `horizontal skyscraper' concept, which might be applicable to Foothills. Councilor Moncrieff mentioned that the families with young children lived in this area, pointing out the elementary school right across the street from this development. Mr. Sin showed a brewery redeveloped as a senior assisted living facility. He presented examples of different types of mixed uses along the corridors in Vancouver, from three to four stories to taller (25-story) buildings. Mr. Leland mentioned that Vancouver was a cultural melting pot with a tremendous in-migration from the Far East where intense urban living was the norm. People were ready to move a family into a high-rise environment. Mayor Hoffman recalled that the Urban Land Institute's report on Lake Oswego discussed how the different generations in Lake Oswego viewed housing. He mentioned that he has read data indicating that they had sufficient single-family homes to last for the next 20 years because the demand was changing from a single-family residence in the suburbs to something else. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 5 February 9, 2010 r Councilor Jordan observed that Lake Oswego's strong school system as one factor that could pull people into the community. She commented that people might be willing to live in something smaller and different because of the educational opportunities available and the quality of life. Mr. Sin showed other examples of mixed-use developments, including a grocery store with condominiums above and a Home Depot store down the block. Mayor Hoffman pointed out that the Home Depot had so little parking that people paid to have their purchases delivered to their homes. Mr. Sin showed the Portico project with underground parking and a strong pedestrian connection to a nearby park. He pointed out how the design of the interior courtyards emphasized the pedestrian scale and reduced the impact of the four to twelve story buildings framing the connection. He noted how the massing of the buildings, architectural elements, and personal elements, such as rooftop gardens, combined to reduce the scale of the tall buildings in this and other developments. He showed examples of higher density center type of developments that illustrated how the visual impact could be addressed through design elements and designing in context in order to create a more efficient use of land and infrastructure. He began with Collingwood, a redeveloped industrial site with a high percentage of single family residential. He explained that one reason why this project was so successful was the coordination with the neighborhood residents regarding the services, green spaces, and community amenities they wanted to see in the area. Mr. Leland commented that the Collingwood example illustrated the negotiated relationship with the developer, in that the pedestrian on the street experienced a three to four story environment, yet the development included high rises. Councilor Tierney wondered what impact the elevated rail line running through the development had. Councilor Moncrieff commented that she thought it had less of a visual impact because a pedestrian at the street level did not see the tracks and rails, and there was opportunity for more green spaces. Mr. Sin showed the Surrey Town Center, an area under development over the next five to eight years per the development plan. He indicated the unusual architectural anchor building with a large public plaza in front of it. He showed the Port Moody area, which was similar in socio-economics to Lake Oswego. He indicated that Port Moody decided to develop a town center close to the commuter rail line with its focal point of a one story green grocery building. He mentioned the mixed uses and the variety of building heights from one story to 20 stories. Mr. Leland commented that two years ago there were two powerful forces at work in Port Moody that Lake Oswego did not have: tremendous in-migration and the pre-selling of many of the buildings before construction started. He indicated that, in Canada, a developer could use his 25% down payment on constructing the development instead of holding it in an escrow account. Mr. Sin showed an example of the pedestrian scale seen when walking down the street with the shorter buildings to the front and the taller buildings behind. He noted that the mix of street furniture and landscaping also worked to bring the area down to the pedestrian scale. COUNCIL DISCUSSION Councilor Jordan mentioned that parking was a major topic at this morning's economic strategy session. She suggested looking at various options for parking cars, other than huge parking garages, including an experimental strategy in Portland to use a parking garage as car storage, similar to boat storage. She pointed out that no matter how much they tried to create a walkable community, people would still drive in to the retail and activity centers. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 5 February 9, 2010 Mayor Hoffman pointed out that parking need not be right in front of a store. He cited Bridgeport Village with its parking at the end of the block. He spoke of creating a pedestrian friendly environment to get people out of their cars to walk two blocks instead of 20 feet. Mr. Galante commented that mechanized parking would require changing the definition of a parking space in the Lake Oswego Code. He indicated that the current definition of a parking space was an on-ground space of a certain dimension with a certain backup area. Councilor Jordan asked how they could work creatively with developers in order to get what they wanted for the community without having to rewrite the code all the time. She commented that she saw the current code provisions as the biggest impediment to developments of innovative design and creativity. Mayor Hoffman suggested talking with Mr. Leland, as he thought there ways to do it. Mr. Galante mentioned that staff was trying to develop a strategy for having a code that met the City's future needs for flexibility. Councilor Jordan mentioned that they also did not want to inflict something on the neighborhoods that the residents did not want. Mayor Hoffman expressed his hope that the Council, the Planning Commission, the Development Review Commission, and others could return to Vancouver, B.C. this year as they worked their way through issues with respect to the Downtown and Foothills. Councilor Tierney commented that he would like to know what drove the design of the multi- family development in First Addition, whether it was the Code or the desire of the developers. Mayor Hoffman speculated that it was the developer building to the Code while trying to maximize the structure to make the development pencil out. Councilor Jordan recalled remarks made by Councilors Olson and Hennagin about saving existing housing and redeveloping it rather than tearing it down. She pointed out that there was a break point when it became more expensive to renovate an older house than it did to build a new one. She commented that one way of maximizing investment on an expensive land was to build multi-family housing for four families instead of a 4,000 square foot single-family house. Mayor Hoffman observed that making that choice was the lesson from Vancouver, although one had to work with the neighborhoods to get community buy-in of the concept. Councilor Hennagin commented that putting parking underneath added significantly to the expense of the structure. Mayor Hoffman acknowledged the point but held that there were ways for a jurisdiction to work with a developer to achieve the desired product. Councilor Jordan mentioned that some builders put in basements simply to maximize the building; putting in four parking spaces instead of a theater room would accomplish the same objective. 4. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Hoffman adjourned the meeting at 7:48 p.m. Respectfully submitted, •Robyn Christie City Recorder APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: ON Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 5 February 9, 2010 r CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES February 16, 2010 Councilor Donna Jordan called the special City Council meeting to order at 5:55 p.m. on February 16, 2010, in the City Council Chambers, 380 A Avenue. Present: Mayor Hoffman (6:00), Councilors Johnson, Hennagin, Olson, Tierney, and Jordan. Councilor Moncrieff was excused. Staff Present: Alex McIntyre, City Manager; David Powell, City Attorney; Robyn Christie, City Recorder; Jane Blackstone, Economic Development Director 3. WORK SESSION 3.1 Strategic Investment Zone Presentation Ms. Blackstone introduced Renate Mengeiberg, Clackamas County Economic Development Manager. She mentioned that the County has invited a number of jurisdictions to participate in a Strategic Investment Zone. She explained that these zones offered property tax incentives to attract large businesses to the county and compensated the participating jurisdictions with a community service fee (p.1, Staff Report). Ms. Mengelberg gave a PowerPoint presentation on the Strategic Investment Zone program. She indicated that the County based this program on the State's 10-year-old Strategic Investment program, which was designed to attract very large capital-intensive businesses, such as Intel, by mitigating the impact of the State's property tax-dependent tax system and making Oregon more attractive to these large businesses. She explained that the Zone addressed a problem with the Investment program, which required businesses to answer questions before city councils and the County Commission. Business owners were uncomfortable with the potential for revealing confidential information. Therefore, the Zone established those parameters up front; if a business met the requirements, then it would receive the tax abatement. She indicated that the County's preliminary meetings with local cities found strong interest in the Zone program. She presented a map showing the proposed Urban Strategic Zone for Clackamas County (p.1, Handout). She explained that the urban zone required a minimum $100 million investment with a maximum community service fee of$2 million, while the rural zone's thresholds were $25 million and $500,000 respectively. She reviewed the program's objectives (p.1, Handout), noting the emphasis on increasing local hiring, contracting, and tax revenues in this effort aimed at business recruitment, retention, and expansion. She discussed the two program components (pp.2-3, Staff Report) of a 15-year property tax abatement and a community service fee She asked the Council if it wanted the County to continue to partner with the City on this program. If so, what criteria did the members want to put on the businesses in return for the abatement? In addition, what ideas did the members have regarding the community service fee? She reviewed the County public process, noting that it would end in intergovernmental agreements with the participating jurisdictions and businesses. She mentioned that the State had to approve the Zone request. She pointed out that forming these Zones would give Clackamas County a competitive advantage in Oregon, as currently Gresham had the only Zone in the state. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 3 February 16, 2010 She reviewed their recommendations for the requirements to be placed on businesses, based on discussions with economic development managers and city managers from around the county (p.2-3, Handout; p.2, Staff Report) These included signing a First Source hiring agreement partnering with the County's workforce partners, and meeting all the standard zoning, permitting, and environmental requirements (including fees). She mentioned discussion of a claw back provision requiring a company that left town within 10 years to pay back the abatement it received. She indicated that Lake Oswego could add other provisions to the list as it wished. She reviewed the recommendations on how to distribute the community service fee (the 25% of abated taxes up to $2 million). These included the receiving City using the proceeds to mitigate the impacts of the business on infrastructure and for strategic projects needing funding. She presented a matrix of Strategic Investment Program projects in the Portland Metro area (p.4, Handout). She reviewed the Genentech and additional Intel plant in Hillsboro. She presented a chart of the revenue impacts of a $250 million investment on Lake Oswego. She mentioned the three community revenue generators of the program: property taxes on the first $100 million, 25% of the abated taxes up to $2 million a year, and 50% of personal income taxes on employees hired by the new business (p.3, Handout). COUNCIL QUESTIONS Ms. Mengelberg confirmed to Councilor Hennagin that a business had to locate in Lake Oswego for the City to obtain an advantage from the program. Ms. Blackstone concurred with Councilor Hennagin that Lake Oswego did not have large enough land parcels to accommodate the facility size associated with this kind of large industrial capital investment. She observed that the City might be able to take advantage of this program in the future, should more compact technologies arise in the future that did not require the same commitment in land. She commented that, with the County doing much of the legwork, this was a good opportunity for the City to send the signal that it was a participant in regional economic development efforts. Mayor Hoffman observed that there was no financial or other disadvantage to the City to participate now. He mentioned Portland's zoning for vertical industrial on its central east side. He commented that West Lake Grove in Lake Oswego was a candidate for vertical industrial. He agreed with Ms. Blackstone that they did not know what industry would look like in 10 to 20 years. Ms. Mengelberg answered a series of questions from Councilor Olson. She said that Clackamas County has not participated in the State's Strategic Investment Program. She indicated that the State statute mandated the 15-year tax abatement period. She explained that the State would collect the personal income taxes from the new employees and write the community a check the following year. She confirmed that Lake Oswego could decide later on what additions it wanted to make to the requirements list. Ms. Mengelberg answered several questions from Councilor Jordan. She indicated that, when she came back to the Council, she would brief the members on the issues raised during the County's meeting with the taxing districts to explain the program and during the public hearings process. She explained that the program was a partnership between the County and the City. While the County would market the program through a variety of methods, the City also had a role in developing its own marketing approaches. She said that she has not heard that Tualatin was looking at this kind of program. Hillsboro was the only city that she has heard was considering it. Councilor Jordan commented that if Lake Oswego had the right tools and right incentive with property owners, it might be able to assemble a large enough property to attract investment. Ms. Blackstone mentioned the business development and recruitment programs at the state level, as well as the advantage of being a part of the world that offered these kinds of incentives. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 3 February 16, 2010 Ms. Mengelberg confirmed to Councilor Hennagin that the urban map showed the cities invited by the County to participate. She mentioned that the rural map covered unincorporated Clackamas County, Canby, Molalla, Estacada, and Sandy. She noted the reduced scale of the program in the rural areas, given that the land had to be zoned for industrial use with appropriate infrastructure. She indicated to Councilor Hennagin that, while the County was not recommending a minimum number of employees, the City could do so. She said that traded sector was the type of industry this program considered. She defined traded sector as a business that sold its product or service outside the region and/or state and internationally. Ms. Blackstone noted the list of several Strategic Investment Program projects in the Council packet. Ms. Blackstone indicated to Mayor Hoffman that the staff recommendation was to continue to pursue this opportunity. She commented that having a program consistent with others in the region put Lake Oswego in a better competitive position versus imposing a number of more restrictive elements. She mentioned that the conversation around additional requirements has stayed away from employment requirements difficult to track, and focused more on ideas such as green requirements. Councilor Tierney commented that a program promoting heavy capital investment with the attendant job creation, local property tax revenue, and disproportionately lower employee impact on the community made sense for the region. He observed that if Lake Oswego attracted a $100 million taxable investment in the community, he would be very happy. Mayor Hoffman observed that an advantage of the program for communities like Lake Oswego and Gladstone that lacked the necessary industrial land was the fact that the new employees would likely want to live close to their work. Therefore, those employees would locate in Clackamas County communities within a short commuting distance of their work place. Ms. Mengelberg indicated to Councilor Jordan that she ran the numbers on the question and found that, for the urban zone, a company pulling out in year 11 (and not having to pay back the abatement) was not an issue financially. Councilor Johnson spoke of the importance to the business community of having predictability and certainty in making large capital investments in the community. She cited the inconsistent numbers the company that she works for heard before and after building a new industrial plant. Ms. Mengelberg indicated to Councilor Hennagin that the County viewed the program as an additional effective business recruitment tool. The Council agreed by consensus to direct staff to continue to pursue this program with the County. 4. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Hoffman adjourned the meeting at 6:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Robyn Christie APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: City Recorder ON Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 3 February 16, 2010 i,.utiia CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES February 16, 2010 Mayor Jack Hoffman called the regular City Council meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. on February 16, 2010, in the City Council Chambers, 380 A Avenue. Present: Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Johnson, Hennagin, Olson, Tierney, and Jordan. Councilor Moncrieff was excused. Staff Present: Alex McIntyre, City Manager; David Powell, City Attorney; Robyn Christie, City Recorder; Joel Komarek, LOIS Project Director; Gary Evans, Asst Parks & Rec Director; Guy Graham, Public Works Director Youth Council Present: Youth Councilors Cooper, Silbert, and Chandrana. 3. PRESENTATIONS 4. CONSENT AGENDA Councilor Johnson moved the consent agenda as amended. Councilor Hennagin seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken, and the motion passed with Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Johnson, Hennagin, Olson, Tierney, and Jordan voting `aye.' [6-0] 4.1 REPORTS 4.1.1 Contract award for a Multi-site Parks Maintenance Contract Action: This item was pulled and rescheduled for March 2, 2010. 4.1.2 Contract award for Pavement Design Services Action: This item was pulled for discussion. 4.1.3 Amendment to the Foothills Dock Contract Action: This item was pulled for discussion. 4.1.4 Resignation of Ruth C. Cohen from the 50+ Advisory Board Action: Accept resignation. 4.2 RESOLUTIONS 4.2.1 Resolution 10-13, adopting a collective bargaining agreement between the Lake Oswego Police Officers' Association and the City of Lake Oswego Action: Adopt Resolution 10-13. 4.3 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 4.3.1 December 1, 2009, regular meeting Action: Approve minutes as corrected. END CONSENT AGENDA 5. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 9 February 16, 2010 5.1.1 Contract award for Pavement Design Services Mr. Graham indicated that this pavement design work would help staff determine what the best course of treatment was for the pavement preservation program. He referenced the questions raised by Councilor Tierney earlier today with respect to cost and timing. He noted the criteria and scoring listed in Exhibit A with the fee score weighted as 20% of the criteria and the notes discussing some of the reasons why the Evaluation Committee chose GeoDesign. He indicated that staff intended to get this contract award on an early December Council agenda in hopes of doing some of the projects this construction season (and taking advantage of the competitive bidding climate), as opposed to waiting another year. He noted that GeoDesign could provide the information quicker and that its fee schedule provided more detail, which allowed staff to better evaluate which projects would make the most sense to do this year. He indicated that he did not evaluate the contract. Mr. Powell clarified to Councilor Olson that MACTEC did not object to the City's standard form, but rather asked for clarification on a point in the City's standard contract relating to the indemnity provision. He noted that the proposal reviewers did not find the question a matter of substance nor MACTEC unwilling to sign the standard form. He confirmed that it was not a factor in not selecting that candidate. Councilor Olson asked why GeoDesign could provide data and designs within six weeks but MACTEC would take twelve weeks. Mr. Graham indicated that GeoDesign was a local firm and MACTEC an East Coast firm. He supposed that MACTEC would take more time to get their people in place, but he could get a more definite answer from his staff. He said that Ms. Shum was comfortable with GeoDesign's ability to meet their proposed schedule. Councilor Hennagin asked whether the highway engineering terminology employed by GeoDesign in their letter related directly to a PCI (pavement condition index). Mr. Graham explained that the PCI was primarily a visual rating but the deflectometers and dropping weight tests provided actual data regarding the pavement conditions down to the subgrade. He indicated that this data would help engineers design the appropriate pavement to maximize the existing materials. He confirmed that GeoDesign proposed using these tests on the higher classification roadways, e.g. arterials. Mr. Graham indicated to Mayor Hoffman that he would ask Ms. Shum why staff chose A Avenue from 10th Street to State Street. He speculated that the PCI analysis found that section needing attention in the next couple of years. He explained to the Mayor that the City would use the data provided by GeoDesign in the design of the pavements and in determining whether to use a strategy of pavement restoration or pavement preservation. Councilor Tierney mentioned that he asked to remove this item from the Consent Agenda initially because of the $37,000 difference between the bid winner and the low bid non-winner. He indicated that he was trying to understand why the City was spending money on this planning effort, rather than putting the money into the streets themselves. Mr. Graham confirmed to Councilor Tierney that the scope of work provided by staff had included the projects listed in the GeoDesign letter (p.9). He indicated that he did not think that these projects were in the 2009/2010 capital budget. Councilor Tierney asked, if that was so, then why did the six weeks versus the twelve weeks make a difference when the project would cost the $37,000 more and still not be done until the summer of 2011. Mr. Graham explained that staff hoped to do some of the work in the summer of 2010. By getting an early start, staff could get bid packages out in April and May for more competitive bids than the City would see later in the year when firms were busier. Councilor Tierney expressed his concern that staff could have had this item ready to go earlier than February. Mr. Graham said that, with the bids due back in November, staff had intended to bring it forward sooner. He commented that he did not know why it had taken so long to get to City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 9 February 16, 2010 Council, although the combination of training new staff and making process improvements might have affected it. He took the Councilor's point and indicated his hope to sequence things in a way that maximized the City's investments. Mr. Graham indicated to Councilor Tierney that staff would do the street overlay projects going to bid shortly after July. He confirmed that this summer the State would do the two federal stimulus projects left from last year. Councilor Tierney reiterated his concern that, had the Council received this item sooner, they might have been able to put the $37,000 difference into the pavement, as only 10 points separated this bid and the low bid. Mr. Graham indicated that staff evaluated the proposals for the best value, and that there was art as well as science involved in the selection. He mentioned that, moving forward, his staff would better identify what the criteria were and how to evaluate the criteria, and perhaps give more weight to the cost factor. Councilor Tierney commented that the capital budget contained a general amount for street overlays, which gave staff the discretion to make intelligent decisions based on their expertise. He argued that the planning for a project could be done in one fiscal year and the actual construction funded the next year, a process that he thought would make things cheaper. Mr. Graham concurred, and indicated that staff intended to start to program things next year to address these very concerns. Mr. Graham indicated to Councilor Jordan that the last time the strict evaluation work was done was three years ago. He explained that the strategy was to do this work just in advance of when projects were coming due as part of figuring out which treatment was the best investment for a given road. Councilor Jordan commented that the Council making this award in December would have made sense because the company would have then returned the data in time for bidding in April or May. She asked what happened if the company's analysis of the first roads they studied found that those roads would take more time and money than the City had, but in the meantime, they have not looked at the other roads, some of which could be done in 2010. Mr. Graham indicated that staff would meet with the design firm to discuss how to make those determinations early on. He reiterated staff's hope to get projects done early enough to take advantage of the competitive bidding season. Mr. Graham indicated to Councilor Jordan that he would find out, of the streets that the City did testing on three years ago, which streets were actually done. Councilor Jordan indicated to Mayor Hoffman that Country Club was done when they put in the green medians. Mr. Graham confirmed to Mayor Hoffman that any overlay projects done July 1, 2010, would come off the list. Mr. Powell referenced Councilor Olson's earlier question about MACTEC. He clarified that MACTEC proposed three contract amendments relating to site responsibility, how long to keep samples and waste, and what constituted excusable delay. Councilor Johnson moved to award a public improvement contract to GeoDesign, Inc., for pavement design services in the amount not to exceed $114,825. Councilor Jordan seconded the motion. Mr. Graham indicated to Councilor Hennagin that the $1.2 million budgeted annually for street maintenance went for slurry seals and overlays. Councilor Hennagin observed that the difference in these bids was a small percentage of what the City might save this year. Councilor Tierney indicated that it was a slightly larger percentage with respect to overlays, as the capital budget had about $800,000 allocated for overlays. Councilor Olson concurred with Councilor Tierney that this item coming earlier to the Council could have saved $37,000. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 9 February 16, 2010 A voice vote was taken, and the motion passed with Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Johnson, Hennagin, Olson, and Jordan voting `aye.' Councilor Tierney voted 'no.' [5-1] 5.2.2 Amendment to the Foothills Dock Contract Mr. Evans indicated that the difference in the real cost to the City between what staff presented in December and this item was $8,324. He presented the staff request for Council approval of $122,647 to finish the dock project, which was $16,647 more than staff proposed in December. He explained that when the contractor looked at the hillside for the entry, he said that they could not drive pile the pilings in, and that it would take an additional $6,000 to $9,000 to do the work. He explained that, after receiving the design documents for the redesigned entry from the Oregon Marine Board, which has provided the City with a number of free services, staff obtained cost estimates of$25,000 more than originally anticipated. He mentioned that the City was splitting the additional costs with the Marine Board (who wanted the dock installed even more than the City), which was why the real cost to the City was approximately $8,324. Mr. Evans indicated to Councilor Olson that there was no visual difference between the entryway redesign and the entryway design approved with the greenway permit. He explained that there would be horizontal pilings instead of vertical pilings, and six feet of concrete instead of asphalt. Otherwise, it was all the same. He mentioned that Jessica in Planning told him that there was no need to retake the redesign through the process. Mr. Evans clarified to Councilor Hennagin that the contractor needed to drive the pilings in with an impact hammer (instead of the preferred vibratory hammer) because they hit bedrock at a shallower depth than anticipated. This increased the project costs because the City had to buy the `stinger-style head mounts' used by the impact hammer, since they remained mounted on the end of the pile driven into the bedrock, and the contractor had to rent the impact hammer. Mr. Evans indicated to Mayor Hoffman that staff would inform the neighbors across the river when the City intended to start construction. He said that staff anticipated beginning construction in July 2010 and finishing the project in mid-August. Councilor Johnson moved to approve a contract amendment for $122,647 awarded to Axis Crane, Inc, for completion of the Foothills Dock project. Councilor Jordan seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken, and the motion passed with Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Johnson, Hennagin, Olson, Tierney, and Jordan voting `aye.' [6-0] 6. CITIZEN COMMENT • Lisa Bucy, Information Outreach Coordinator, Acting District Manager for Clackamas County Soil and Water Conservation District, 221 Mollala Avenue, #102 She reviewed the programs provided by this Special District serving the citizens of Clackamas County. She mentioned a rural conservation program, a wheat management program, education and outreach on combating invasive species, and a riparian program to replace invasive plants with native species to prevent erosion. She indicated that their urban program focused on low impact development, green water harvesting, green gardens, edible landscapes, and nativescaping. She spoke of their new equipment rental program for conservation through which small growers could access equipment locally that they did not use on a regular basis and could not afford to purchase. She mentioned their general district brochure and their new Rural Lifestyles Handbook, which was available for download at their website. She said that Clair Klock, Resource Conservationist, has done a number of conservation videos for the Clackamas County Government channel. Mayor Hoffman mentioned that Lake Oswego citizens supported this district through property taxes with a vector of .0475 cents. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 9 February 16, 2010 Ms. Bucy indicated to Councilor Olson that she has spoken with Hamlet CPO residents, and intended to keep them informed of District programs. Ms. Bucy indicated to Councilor Tierney that the District could help the City in developing a watershed goal by providing technical information. • Doug Oliphant, 16820 Allen Road, Adult Community Center (ACC) Foundation President He mentioned the commitment of Foundation (an endowment fund created to make an annual amount of revenue available to the ACC) to support and enhance the quality of emotional and intellectual life of the aging populace in the community. He indicated that the Foundation's equity currently exceeded $300,000. He indicated that this fall the Foundation would hold the first fund-raiser in its region-wide initiative to increase public awareness and education of brain health and wellness with the objective of raising $50,000. He explained their intention to invest the moneyin an upgrade and renovation of p p9 the ACC to make it a showcase for a new interior design concept proven to stimulate the mind and p enhance brain wellness. He reported that the Providence Health Services has made a firm commitment as their major sponsor with their Brain Institute committed to providing speakers and new research information for this program. He mentioned that a volunteer with extensive event management experience would help the Foundation with the fundraiser. He mentioned that City staff and the 50 Plus Advisory Board have indicated their support for this program. He commented that, in light of the City's plans for a Lifelong Learning Center, they hoped that the City did not develop an independent brain health program in competition with the Foundation's, but rather would work together as partners with the Foundation. He remarked that the Foundation had more flexibility in raising money than the City did. • Doug Ryder, 1217 Lakefront Road, ACC Foundation Vice President He indicated that the Foundation interpreted the Minter bequest as money to be spent on the ACC. He reiterated the Foundation's hope that they could have a public/private partnership with the City in using the Minter funds to upgrade the ACC as a showcase for the leading edge neurotechnology and research on how interior design affected the creative and thinking processes. He mentioned that the Foundation would hold its fall fundraiser at Marylhurst, another partner along with Providence Health Systems. He mentioned that Foundation Board member George Gardner was guiding the Foundation through its fundraising efforts, as he had been a key person in the successful OMSI effort to raise $20 million. He observed that this long-term initiative was new for the Board, and one that they hoped to get City support for and use of the Minter funds. He confirmed to Mayor Hoffman that the Foundation was working with City staff, the 50 Plus Advisory Board, and others. • Charles "Skip" Ormsby, 1780 SW Birdshill Road, Portland, Oregon He asked the Council to schedule on its agenda by mid-June a presentation by John Charles of the Cascade Policy Institute regarding the costs of projects in the region and their impact, which Mr. Charles made to LONAC. He suggested hearing the presentation before the Council selected a locally preferred alternative for the Willamette Shoreline right-of-way and the Hwy 43 corridor. He urged consideration of the Metro Auditor's February 3 report on transportation planning outcomes. 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS 7.1 Resolution 10-02, a resolution of the Lake Oswego City Council, acting as the Lake Oswego Public Contracting Review Board pursuant to ORS 279A.060, making certain City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 9 February 16, 2010 findings and approving a special procurement of a contract amendment for engineering design and construction management relating to the replacement of the Lake Oswego Interceptor Sewer, and authorizing the City Manager to execute the contract amendment. STAFF REPORT Mr. Komarek stated that this was a request for a special procurement of a contract amendment to the Brown & Caldwell contract in the amount of$5,349,778. He noted that Brown & Caldwell has served as the consulting engineering firm for the LOIS project since 2002. He indicated that this special procurement to the existing contract was for Brown & Caldwell to continue to provide construction management services through the end of the project. He discussed his compliance with the City's public contracting policies and procedures in submitting findings to the Council in support of this special procurement. He indicated that there was a public benefit to this procurement, and that the City did not compromise competition in the community with this special procurement. He referenced his reasons for making this request (pp.76-77), including Brown & Caldwell's exemplary service since 2002, the continuity provided by the same firm providing these services over the life of the project (pp.68-67), and the fees being commensurate with the fees charged by other firms providing similar services. He pointed out that the contract amount reflected both the experience Brown & Caldwell gained on prior project phases and the extra services the firm proposed in light of the unique construction atmosphere of public works in Lake Oswego. He noted that this was a time and materials contract with a not to exceed ceiling, meaning that the City paid only for services rendered. PUBLIC TESTIMONY Mayor Hoffman reviewed the testimony procedures and time limits. He opened the hearing to public testimony. Seeing none, he closed the hearing to public testimony. QUESTIONS OF STAFF Councilor Hennagin commented that he was pleased with Brown & Caldwell's work, but he had been surprised at the dollar amount of the request. He asked staff had not included this work in prior agreements with Brown & Caldwell. Mr. Komarek explained that he and Mr. McIntyre decided not to authorize the last increment of work in the last contract amendment because Mr. McIntyre was new to the City at the time and unfamiliar with Brown & Caldwell, and because staff wanted to make sure that Brown & Caldwell performed the construction management services satisfactorily on the first two phases before authorizing the services for the remaining phases. Mr. Komarek confirmed to Councilor Hennagin that this amendment authorized construction management services and any additional design work for Project Phases 3 through 6. He confirmed that staff foresaw this dollar amount in the original project planning. Mr. Komarek indicated to Councilor Tierney that staff did not include authorization for the Foothills elevated pipe seismic upgrade because Lake Oswego and Portland were both using Brown & Caldwell for work on the elevated pipelines in the area in order to get some economies of scale in sharing expenses. Since staff did not yet know the entire scope of work that the Portland Bureau of Environmental Services wanted to undertake with regard to their elevated pipelines, they did not know what the cost would be, or whether they might find some additional money already in the Brown & Caldwell contract to pay for that work. COUNCIL DISCUSSION Councilor Jordan moved to approve Resolution 10-02, a resolution of the Lake Oswego City Council, acting as the Lake Oswego Public Contracting Review Board pursuant to ORS 279A.060, making certain findings and approving a special procurement of a contract City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 9 February 16, 2010 amendment for engineering design and construction management relating to the replacement of the Lake Oswego Interceptor Sewer, and authorizing the City Manager to execute the contract amendment. Councilor Johnson seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken, and the motion passed with Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Johnson, Hennagin, Olson, Tierney, and Jordan voting `aye.' [6-0] 8. REPORTS 8.1 Authorization of a work change directive expanding the scope of work for the Lake Full Phase of the Lake Oswego Interceptor Sewer Project. Mr. Komarek asked the Council to authorize the City Manager to issue a work change directive to accelerate some work originally contemplated for the Lake Down phase for execution during the Lake Full phase. He reviewed the reasons behind this staff request (p.104). He discussed the risk inherent in the Lake Down phase, given the amount of work scheduled in a short construction schedule. He explained that reducing the scope of work for the Lake Down phase by having the Lake Full contractor, who already had equipment mobilized on site and was one of the premier pile driving contractors in the region, install these six piles made sense. He mentioned staff's conclusion that the Advanced American Construction proposal was conservative (p.105). He proposed performing the work on a time and materials basis, as opposed to a lump sum agreement, so that the City paid only for the work actually done. He indicated that once the work was completed and the final costs tallied, the City Manager would execute a change order for the final work. COUNCIL QUESTIONS Mr. Komarek indicated to Councilor Hennagin that staff chose to believe that Council would approve this request, and consequently did not include this work in the RFP for the Lake Down work. At Councilor Hennagin's request, Mr. Komarek explained how the deep well anode piles related to protecting the adjacent piles from corrosion (p.104). He explained that the staff economic analysis found that to construct all system components out of stainless steel (non-corrosive in water) would be cost prohibitive. He said that staff used stainless steel for those system components that they would never need to access, and chose a corrosive protection system to offset the corrosive effects on the non-stainless steel (carbon steel) materials throughout the life of the LOIS system. He explained in detail how the impressed current system worked by creating a battery inside the piles, which corroded instead of the piles. He mentioned that staff used a similar system 10 years ago on the water transmission pipelines. He indicated to Councilor Tierney that there were no environmental negatives to this corrosion protection system, as the anodes were surrounded by an insulating material suitable for potable water environments and contained entirely within the pipes. Mr. Komarek indicated to Councilor Tierney that the contractor agreed that time and materials was the most effective and fair method to both parties in paying only for the work done. He mentioned that the 'not to exceed' amount might be lower yet, but the contractor was not yet certain. Councilor Jordan declared a potential conflict of interest and recused herself from the discussion and vote on this item, as Advanced American Construction was a client of her husband's law firm. Councilor Hennagin moved to authorize the City Manager to issue a work change directive authorizing the installation of six deep-well anode piles as part of the Lake Full Phase of the Lake Oswego Interceptor Sewer Project and, upon completion and acceptance of this work, to execute a change order to the public improvement contract. Councilor Johnson seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken, and the motion passed,with Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Johnson, Hennagin, Olson, and Tierney voting `aye.' [5-0] City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 9 February 16, 2010 8.2 Life Long Learning Program This item was re-scheduled to March 2. 9. INFORMATION FROM THE COUNCIL 9.1 Councilor Information 9.1.1 Lake Oswego Reads Councilor Hennagin commended the staff overseeing the LO Reads program, especially Cindy Glazier. He mentioned that the tickets to the talk by the author of The Whistling Season were sold out for tomorrow night with a waiting list. 9.2 Reports of Council Committees, Organizational Committees, and Intergovernmental Committees 9.2.1 JPACT (Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation) Councilor Jordan reported that the Metro JPACT approved the list of projects for lobbying on in Washington, D.C., this March. She said that the list did not include any Lake Oswego-specific projects but it did include asking for more money for the Sellwood Bridge. She mentioned the expectation of the Transportation Department making an announcement tomorrow regarding the federal stimulus program "Tiger grants." 9.2.2 Railvolution Mayor Hoffman mentioned that some Council members attended the Railvolution kick off event today in downtown Portland for the conference set for October 18-21, 2010. Mr. Powell indicated to Councilor Olson that the Council would adopt the time changes to Citizen Comment at the March 2 meeting. 10. REPORTS OF OFFICERS 10.1 City Manager Mr. McIntyre indicated that staff would schedule items for the March 16 meeting, now that most Council members would not be in Washington, D.C., on that date, and rebuild the future agendas accordingly. He indicated to Councilor Olson that he and Councilor Tierney would attend the National League of Cities Conference, and possibly Councilor Hennagin. 10.1.1 Review of Council Schedule Ms. Christie indicated to Councilor Olson that the adoption of infill recommendations on April 23 was a public hearing. Mr. McIntyre indicated to Councilor Olson that moving items for the 'to be scheduled' list to an agenda depended partly on the item requested and on staff capacity. Councilor Olson observed that some items have been on the list for a year, such as Percent for Art and the clarification on referring congregate care. She pointed out that the financial update scheduled for April 6 was only six days after the end of the quarter. Mr. McIntyre stated that staff has decided to give Council the financial update to the close of February, and not to the close of March. He indicated that the Budget Committee citizen members would also attend the April 6 meeting. Councilor Olson expressed concern that having the financial updates at non-televised work sessions meant that the public did not see the information. Mr. McIntyre clarified that the update would be during the regular meeting. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 9 February 16, 2010 Mayor Hoffman spoke to adding the electric car to the work session agenda. Councilor Tierney mentioned that he asked a PGE employee involved with electric cars and public policy if he would be interested in attending a work session, and he said yes. Councilor Jordan suggested inviting the Sustainability Advisory Board as well. Councilor Hennagin commented that he thought that the Council had already clarified what to do with the congregate care housing ordinance. Mr. Powell confirmed Councilor Jordan's comment that the Planning Commission would go through it first. He indicated staff's understanding that the Council would like a study session on the issue. Mayor Hoffman suggested that Ms. Frisbee or Mr. Egner lay out the issues at the study session. 10.2 City Attorney 11. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Hoffman adjourned the meeting at 7:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, '1 Robyn Christie City Recorder APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: ON Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 9 February 16, 2010 CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES March 2, 2010 Mayor Jack Hoffman called the special City Council meeting to order at 5:35 p.m. on March 2, 2010, in the Municipal Courtroom, 380 A Avenue. Present: Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Hennagin, Moncrieff, Olson, and Tierney. Councilors Johnson and Jordan were excused. Staff Present: Alex McIntyre, City Manager; David Powell, City Attorney; Jane McGarvin, Asst City Recorder; David Donaldson, Asst City Manager 3. WORK SESSION 3.1 Allied Waste Update Mr. Donaldson introduced Carol Dion, General Manager for Allied Waste of Lake Oswego. Ms. Dion indicated that they were here tonight to restart the conversation regarding Allied Waste's proposal, first presented to the Council last November, to increase rates by a little less than 7% on a 35-gallon cart. She explained that this amounted to $1.77 per month increase for most Lake Oswego customers. She confirmed to Mayor Hoffman that they would be happy to take the Council on a tour of the Wilsonville recycling center. She mentioned that Allied Waste purchased Rossman Sanitary in 2000. She confirmed to Mayor Hoffman that Allied Waste merged with Republic Services at the end of 2008. She spoke of the seamless transition made by Allied Waste, to the effect that some Lake Oswego customers still have not realized that Rossman was no longer their provider. She indicated that the average length of employee service with the company was 13 years, with many 20 plus year employees. She introduced Todd Irvine, Operations Manager, Ray Phelps (an employee and Mountain Park resident), and Steve Brum, Comptroller. She directed the Council to the information provided in the packet describing the company's goals, services, and activities (pp.3-14). She confirmed to Councilor Hennagin that her responsibilities including the company's operations in West Linn, Wilsonville, Portland, and the two Metro transfer stations. She mentioned that another company would take over running the North Portland transfer station but Allied Waste would retain responsibility for the Oregon City site. Councilor Moncrieff expressed her appreciation for the excellent service provided by Allied Waste's drivers. She asked why drop boxes were included as part of the franchise, as opposed to being left to the open market competition. She cited the experience of her neighbor, who called Flannery's for service, only to be told that Keller handled Lake Oswego. She mentioned that the neighbor obtained a $157 quote from Flannery's, which was more than Keller. Ms. Dion explained that, in Oregon, most cities and counties included drop box service as part of the franchise agreement and offered all three industry lines (residential, commercial, and industrial), although Portland was an exception with a residential franchise only. She indicated that 1-800-GOTJUNK provided a different service, in that they cleaned out basements, etc., and they were supposed to use the franchise hauler to haul the trash. She confirmed to Councilor Tierney that the drop box rate was regulated. She clarified to Councilor Moncrieff that the benefit to the City of a franchised service was the assurance of a certain level of service and that the waste would end up where the company said it would end up. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 3 March 2, 2010 She acknowledged that the service might be more expensive than one offered on the open market. She explained that the efficiencies, consistencies, certainties, and safety gained with a franchise service providing not only residential but commercial and industrial services also benefited the customers. She commented that, while a residential customer making occasional use of a drop box might not appreciate these assurances, the industrial customers with half a dozen boxes hauled out of their site each week did appreciate it. She confirmed to Mayor Hoffman that the commercial side, being more lucrative, subsidized the residential service to a certain extent. Councilor Hennagin asked why Allied Waste did not offer a 20-gallon bin to those opting for monthly pick-up (instead of weekly pick-up). He mentioned that he had been told that he had to use a 35-gallon bin with this service, which he did not understand, as all he needed (with proper recycling) was a 20-gallon bin. Ms. Dion indicated that that was a good idea and something that they could easily implement. Councilor Tierney referenced Allied Waste's rate increases of 8.25% in 2007, 7.28% in 2008, and a request for a 6.7% increase in 2009. He asked what the company was forecasting locally to reduce these dramatic increases. He asked for discussion of the operating costs, other expenses, and the management allocation. Mr. Phelps distributed financial charts. Mr. Brum explained that the packet of charts highlighted the major cost drivers affecting the company's rate of return. He indicated that the first chart showed the six main types of expenses, of which disposal, labor, and fuel were the primary expenses. He explained that Metro, and not Allied Waste, controlled the costs of disposal, which represented one-third of Allied's total costs. Metro's disposal costs have increased 6+% every year for the past three years. Mr. Brum indicated to Mayor Hoffman that Allied Waste projected its 2009 revenues from Lake Oswego at $6.2 million ($3.2 million residential, $2 million commercial, $500,000 disposal pass through costs, $70,000 recyclables). He discussed the labor costs (one-quarter of their total costs) of pay, health care, and pension. Mr. Irvine indicated to Councilor Hennagin that their employees were part of the same collective bargaining agreement for Clackamas County Haulers. Mr. Brum reviewed the chart showing other expenses, such as repair and maintenance on vehicles and facilities, rent, franchise fees, and administrative overhead costs. Mr. Brum confirmed to Councilor Hennagin that they spread out their large capital investments through depreciation over several years, citing the $2 million investment in the curbside co-mingled recycling program established in 2004 as an example. Mr. Irvine indicated to Mayor Hoffman that they figured an additional six to seven hours a week in additional costs to service First Addition. Mr. Brum clarified to Councilor Tierney that the management allocation of$330,000 was the company's share of the costs for the costs of capital for investment. He mentioned that they received some cost savings in the national leverage that the company obtained from establishing contracts with vendors. He explained that Clackamas County audited the franchise haulers every year with a full formal audit every other year. He indicated that Allied Waste was one of nearly a dozen haulers in the county rolled into a composite. He referenced the chart showing that, while Allied had about 18% of the garbage business in Clackamas County, it had only 10% of the overhead costs in the composite, and was comparable or below the percentage of revenue in the composite. He reviewed a chart showing the company's rate of return over the past three years in comparison to the composite for the county. He confirmed to Councilor Tierney that the Clackamas County term 'rate of return' meant the same thing as the company's margin (revenue less expenses). He explained that the County adjusted the rates annually to maintain the rate of return in the 8% to City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 3 March 2, 2010 12% range, using a 10% target. He noted Allied's rate of return increase from 4% in 2006 to match the County 8% in 2008. He reviewed the 2009 and 2010 projections. He explained that the decline in revenues came primarily from the significant drop in recyclables revenue (4% down to 1% of the revenue stream) due to market forces. He indicated to Councilor Tierney that the industry saw some improvements in the metal markets, but the recyclables in the curbside materials (two-thirds of recyclables collected in Lake Oswego) have plateaued. Councilor Hennagin recalled that the Allied letter to Mr. Donaldson (pp.15-16) listed the economy as a justification for a rate increase. He asked if Allied anticipated its profit margin to increase above projections if the economy turned around. Mr. Brum commented that they hoped so, especially in the industrial service. He indicated that Lake Oswego has seen steady residential and commercial growth over the years but not as much Allied saw in other cities in the state. Councilor Hennagin asked if the value of recyclables might increase as the economy improved or resources became scarcer. He commented that a 75% reduction in recyclables revenues was substantial. Mr. Brum concurred, indicating that they hoped the market would improve. Mr. Irvine explained that in his letter he had been explaining that Allied was asking for something less than the typical 8% to 12% rate increase because the economy was taking a toll on everyone. He spoke of their efforts to take an optimistic approach on the 2010 projections. Mr. Brum reviewed a chart showing the recyclables revenues. He observed that the revenues peaked in 2008 at the same time as the fuel prices peaked, and dropped along with the decrease in fuel prices. He indicated that the prices for curbside recycling and cardboard (the major commodity streams coming from Lake Oswego) have decreased significantly. He indicated to Councilor Olson that the County composite rate of return came out in early summer after the County finished its audits. He mentioned their 2009 projection of 5%. He explained that, without a 2010 rate increase, they projected that rate to erode down to 2.6%; with the rate increase, it would increase to 6.9% (with a full 12 months). He indicated to Councilor Olson that the industry standard with respect to rate of return in Clackamas and Washington Counties was 8% to 12%. He reviewed the County's rate adjustment methodology. Mr. Irvine indicated that they would forward the letter that Chris Bell (Chris Bell & Associates) prepared in 2004 to answer this same question raised by the then City Council. Mr. Brum reviewed a chart showing the labor costs, which have increased steadily over the years. He noted the next chart showing fuel and disposal costs, with the fuel peaking in 2008 and subsequently dropping 34%. He indicated to Councilor Hennagin that they based their fuel cost projections on research from fuel websites. He indicated to Councilor Tierney that the 2011/2012 disposal fees were Metro's projections. Mr. Donaldson mentioned a conversation that he and Mr. McIntyre had with Mr. Jordan at Metro, in which Mr. Jordan stated that the disposal costs would increase. He commented that all around the country it was confirmed that the less garbage received, the higher the rates increased. 4. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Hoffman adjourned the meeting at 6:26 p.m. Respectfully submitted, APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: ,-` 0/i4 ON Robyn Christie Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor City Recorder City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 3 March 2, 2010 d LAKkthu14.:($ CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES April 27, 2010 Mayor Jack Hoffman called the special City Council meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. on April 27, 2010, in the City Council Chambers, 380 A Avenue. Present: Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Johnson, Olson, Moncrieff, Tierney, and Jordan. Councilor Hennagin was excused. Staff Present: David Powell, City Attorney; Robyn Christie, City Recorder; Sidaro Sin, Senior Planner; Denny Egner, Asst Planning Director; CCI Present: Lynne Paretchen, Adrianne Brockman, Jon Gustafson, Philip Stewart (Chair), Russell Jones. Julia Glisson was excused 3. STUDY SESSION 3.1 Annual meeting of the City Council and the Commission for Citizen Involvement Mayor Hoffman referenced the April 20, 2010, memo that the City received from Richard Whitman, DLD Director, notifying Lake Oswego that DLCD approved its periodic review work plan, and setting a deadline date of April 20, 2013, for submission of the review to Metro and DLCD. He noted that Lake Oswego's last major Comprehensive Plan update had been in 1994. He explained that the community would drive the work with the staff, the Council, and the Planning Commission supporting the work, rather like a `three-legged stool.' Mr. Sin indicated that staff wanted to obtain feedback from the Council regarding the tasks identified in the staff report (p.2), and feedback from both the Council and the Commission for Citizen Involvement (CCI) on what elements to include in the public engagement process. He reviewed the proposed schedule (p.2) covering the four main topic areas of timeline, public involvement strategy, plan updates, and the speaker series. He spoke of staff's intent to start an intensive education/outreach program in summer 2010, culminating in a large public meeting in the fall/winter to solicit public feedback on a unified vision statement (combined from existing vision statements). Mayor Hoffman mentioned a meeting this Friday with consultant Todd Chase (FCS) who would present preliminary demographic information and prepare a report on Lake Oswego's demographics within two months. Mr. Sin explained that the Council adoption of a unified vision would establish where the community wanted to go, and provide staff with a framework for identifying the different policy options and any changes in the Comprehensive Plan needed to achieve that vision. He mentioned the intent this time round to include an action plan to implement the identified action items. He reported that, by the end of June, staff hoped to get back consolidated feedback from the Boards and Commission on the 2000/2001 Council vision (with its updates) that staff sent to each group. He asked for input on the staff proposal for the composition of the Citizen Steering Committee (p.2). He described the three at-large positions as representing any of the various interest groups in the community, such as economic development, religious, or youth. He explained that staff hoped to engage those not typically participating in the land use process. He noted the speaker series and the proposal to use the Natural Step sustainability principles in guide the update process (p.2). City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 7 April 27, 2010 He mentioned that staff was currently considering hiring consultants to work on an on call basis to fill in the gaps on the public engagement process where staff needed help, rather than the consultants conducting the process. Mayor Hoffman spoke to the Council and the Planning Commission working on this process on a monthly basis, including several additional joint meetings. He described the speaker series (scheduled during a Council study session) as a small community gathering for those in the community interested in the topics and speakers. He indicated that they were thinking of speakers who would provide a policy framework from a different perspective. He mentioned that public involvement meant neighborhood involvement. Councilor Hennagin asked for clarification on how the initial set up for the Comprehensive Plan review would occur. Mayor Hoffman explained that the Council would select the Steering Committee members as soon as possible, as staff, although it has done a great deal of preparatory work in the last 18 months, wanted to get moving on the work plan immediately. He reiterated the intent of using a broad-based community approach to include input from community organizations. Councilor Jordan observed that the staff invitations in the last couple of weeks to the Boards and Commissions to review the vision statement and provide feedback would likely produce many people interested in participating in the update. She commented that revisiting the 2000/2001 Council vision statement (p.43), which this Council has not discussed in depth, was a good starting place. Mr. Sin indicated to Chair Stewart that staff was looking at 11 to 14 members on the Steering Committee with the intent of keeping it to a manageable size. Councilor Tierney indicated that he liked the concept for doing periodic review, as well as the State format. He asked staff to take the State format and add to it the additional tasks listed on the work plan submitted to the Council (Task 6). Mr. Sin mentioned that only the five task items submitted to DLCD in the work program were subject to the three-year time limit. He commented that, even though the additional nine chapter items were not subject to that deadline, staff intended to finish all tasks at the same time as much as possible. Councilor Tierney asked staff to identify which items in the work program that the consultants would work on, in order to give Council a sense of the resources involved. He described the public engagement component as a huge challenge in making it dynamic and finding those members of a 37,000 population who were interested in a vision and understood how it related to what would happen on the street in the next five years. He commented that he expected to see positive, interesting, and creative elements, including things taken from communities who already went through a successful process. Councilor Olson acknowledged the great job that staff was doing in engaging the Boards and Commissions and obtaining their input. She wondered whether they should include some neighborhood people on the Steering Committee, as Lake Oswego was a community of neighborhoods and there were no neighborhood people on the Committee. Mayor Hoffman mentioned his expectation that one of the three at-large positions would have a neighborhood focus and perspective. He commented that he liked using the Boards and Commissions because, while they each had a focus on their own specialty area, this Committee would force them to look beyond their own particular interest area in considering other areas as part of a `comprehensive' look. Mr. Sin mentioned that staff struggled with how to get a neighborhood representative who would represent the city neighborhoods overall, as opposed to their own local neighborhood. Councilor Jordan pointed out that there would be many other opportunities outside the Steering Committee for neighborhoods to comment on the Comprehensive Plan and the vision. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 7 April 27, 2010 Mayor Hoffman observed that if the Council heard input solely from the Steering Committee, then it has failed. He agreed with Councilor Tierney that the City had to go out to the various community interest organizations and demographic sectors and solicit input. Councilor Johnson commented that the challenge was not only getting as many people as possible involved, but also doing it effectively and efficiently within the short timeline. She described the challenge facing the Steering Committee as, not only evaluating issues that came up, but also funneling all the different input from people. She argued that it would be very important to involve as many people as possible, especially the neighborhood chairs who could get the word out quickly. Mr. Sin indicated to Chair Stewart that there likely would be opportunities during the process to spin off smaller task forces to deal with specific topics. Mayor Hoffman agreed that that was an opportunity to reach out to even more citizens who had specific interests, such as affordable/sustainable housing or bike/pathway advocates. Mr. Sin indicated to Councilor Hennagin that the Steering Committee would meet at least once a month, and possibly every other week as they got the process going. Mr. Sin indicated to Councilor Tierney that, since the Budget Committee and the Community Forestry Commission met only on an occasional basis, staff was not considering them for inclusion on the Steering Committee. Councilor Jordan suggested publishing the vision statement next month in the Review and asking the citizens to send feedback and suggestions, even if the statement was already on the City website. She described it as a good way of letting people know that this was happening and that they should watch for committee meetings that they could attend. Mr. Sin indicated to Commissioner Paretchen that staff could frame the question and provide background on the vision statement and examples on how other communities have used vision statements. Mayor Hoffman asked for feedback on the nine-year old vision statement on p. 43. He noted that every Council (up to 2008) did update it somewhat. Councilor Tierney mentioned the Council aspirations sent to Metro. Commissioner Brockman suggested turning the vision statement into questions with a request for feedback and mailing it to Lake Oswego citizens, using the water utility mailing list for addresses. She recalled getting a 6% return on a newsletter Multnomah County once sent out. Councilor Jordan suggested sending it out with the water bill. Councilor Tierney asked why the vision statement spoke of developing Stafford when the Comprehensive Plan said not to develop it at all. Commissioner Brockman faulted the vision statement as one-dimensional. She described it as a good beginning, which the City could expand to discuss the community in a three-dimensional framework. She spoke of discussing issues such as building height and the nature of things in the core area. Mayor Hoffman indicated to Councilor Olson that, as he recalled, `water transportation' under Transportation Options referred to water taxis in the context of Foothills. Mr. Sin indicated to Commissioner Paretchen that staff hoped to keep the vision statement to one page. Mr. Egner used the phrase 'like layers of an onion.' Councilor Jordan commented that she found the `layers' concept interesting because an issue that she had with the vision statement when she first saw it was that a list format gave the impression that the items were listed in priority order, which she did not think was the case. She spoke in support of finding a way to format the vision, using the three-dimensional concept mentioned by Commissioner Brockman. Mayor Hoffman asked if any of the seven bolded topics should not be included or if something was missing. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 7 April 27, 2010 r Councilor Moncrieff asked how the Council would use the vision statement as a tool. She commented that she saw a list of things as echoing the Comprehensive Plan, and therefore, redundant. Mr. Sin described the vision as a guiding document that would help shape decisions and inform the discussion. He indicated that staff would refer back to it in evaluating different policies, goals, and options as part of the process of reaching the preferred alternative for any particular goal or policy. Councilor Moncrieff commented that she thought that the Comprehensive Plan was what shaped policy. Mr. Sin acknowledged that that was so, but indicated that the vision statement also helped shape policy. He described the vision statement as the broader document just above the Comprehensive Plan. The 20 plus year vision for the community described the different elements of the Comprehensive Plan, while the Comprehensive Plan delved into the specifics of those elements. Commissioner Jones suggested that the bolded statement speaking of the full service downtown located in the center of the city should also emphasize Lake Grove. He indicated to Mayor Hoffman that making `center' plural would be sufficient to draw attention to the fact the Lake Oswego had two downtowns, one on the Westside and one on the Eastside. Councilor Jordan recalled that the Council had struggled with this paragraph. She commented that Lake Oswego now had a new vision of economic development, as development was occurring in more places in the community than the downtown. She emphasized the need to look more holistically at the business opportunities and various centers of activity. Commissioner Gustafson commented that the first paragraph summed up all that followed, effectively creating a short, powerful, and encompassing vision statement. He argued for this paragraph serving as the main focus and standing alone. They could put any expanded details on the reverse side of the page, and thus avoid the `list' perception. Mayor Hoffman pointed out that place making was one of the numerous functions of a downtown. He cited the town plaza in small European cities as identifying the downtown. He commented that Millennium Plaza did the same thing for Lake Oswego in serving as the heart of the community. Commissioner Jones commented that Lake Grove and Kruse Way together constituted the West End and would develop in conjunction. He reiterated that they should emphasize both the Eastside and the Westside. Councilor Johnson spoke in support of Commissioner Gustafson's idea of a strong general vision statement accompanied by a second tier vision with more specifics. She suggested connecting the vision statement with the quality of life indicators as a way to create a stronger model than a vision statement developed by a group. Councilor Olson suggested seeing what parts of the Council's aspirations statement (sent to Metro) they might want to integrate into this vision, as it was a more recent Council vision. Councilor Tierney pointed out that city vision statements tended to use the same words and were therefore applicable to every city and town in the U.S. He reiterated that the challenge was how to engage the community around something more specific to Lake Oswego that looked at the realities and tradeoffs relating to this community. He commented that he found it appropriate to start off with a unified vision statement that was subject to modification during the process. He argued that it was something more than the simple, straightforward summary referenced by Commissioner Gustafson, and should include the multi-dimensions mentioned by Commissioner Brockman. He asked whether they should be developing things for the next 20 years to address the baby boomers or a more diverse demographic. He argued that people would respond more passionately to something to specific than they would to nice general words, such as 'we want diverse family friendly neighborhoods with attainable housing.' Commissioner Gustafson commented that the point of involving the Boards and Commissions and the neighborhood chairs was to get a reaction from their perspective of what needed to City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 7 April 27, 2010 r happen in order to reach the vision as presented to them in a short and sweet vision statement. He described the vision statement as a starting point for discussion of the various items that stood out as priorities to different individuals. Councilor Moncrieff concurred that the community needed to come together to decide what it wanted Lake Oswego to be in the future. She commented that the statements in the vision statement could provide a robust community discussion regarding the direction for the community and how to get where the community wanted to go. Commissioner Brockman mentioned her long-held opinion that the weakness of the statewide planning goals was that they did not consider three-dimensional relationships or the aesthetics and quality of the urban environment. She argued that one portion of the vision statement should visualize how they wanted to community to look and the buildings to interrelate. She noted that the statement did not mention Mt. Hood, which she viewed as a tremendous asset to the community. She commented that a great community had a soul, and they should be thinking about what would giver their community a soul. Mayor Hoffman suggested that a great community had great social capital, which was the same thing as a soul, or the inter-network of the community. Commissioner Paretchen agreed with using the first paragraph to state the general values but without general platitudes and generic phrases. She held that lists could be clear and used to identify the specifics of the city's soul, which were those elements valued by the residents that made Lake Oswego a unique community. They could also use a list to describe how they could build on those elements and add to them in the future. Councilor Jordan suggested asking that question first: what was the essence of Lake Oswego that made it Lake Oswego? From there they could build their vision of how to maintain and improve the community. Councilor Jordan indicated to Commissioner Jones that `Community Center' in the paragraph on recreational and cultural opportunities (p.43) —at the time the vision statement was written —did refer to a specific building, as opposed to downtown centers. Councilor Olson concurred with Councilor Tierney that the vision statement had too much specificity. Mayor Hoffman read the vision statement of the Coca-Cola Company as an example of a vision statement. He agreed that most city vision statements echoed each other. He mentioned wondering sometimes whether a vision statement was even necessary. Councilor Tierney commented that, while staff would be deeply involved in this challenging work, it would be successful only if it were a community effort. He mentioned the two paths that they could take with respect to the periodic review: periodic review light and periodic review in depth. He recalled hearing comments from people who were knowledgeable that Lake Oswego had a very good Comprehensive Plan, which required only a little tweaking and then they could move on. He held that the more challenging path of engaging the community was the right way to go. Mayor Hoffman commented that staff would be looking to groups for ideas for dynamic public engagement and thinking outside the box. Councilor Jordan pointed out that the Council crafted this vision statement around the things that were happening in 2000 and 2001. She described it, not as a vision for 25 years from now, but more as what that Council hoped to accomplish in its term of office. She suggested that this Council had a blank slate of paper. Commissioner Brockman suggested that a mailer should have not only the vision statement but also the process, how people could get involved, and staff contact information. She spoke of the Planning Commission dedicating some nights to hearing people's views and putting them on the record. She mentioned using cable access TV to announce public involvement opportunities. Mayor Hoffman indicated that he liked the idea of the Planning Commission hearing public input on this because some people might feel more comfortable talking before the Commission than before the Council. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 7 April 27, 2010 Commissioner Paretchen encouraged expanding the Steering Committee to include a neighborhood representative from each end of the city. She suggested creating a smaller Executive Committee within the larger Steering Committee to make the executive decisions, as it was difficult to get 15 people to agree on when to meet. Commissioner Brockman expressed her hope that the Steering Committee would record the information that it heard and pass it on to the Planning Commission and the City Council, as opposed to filtering things out. She held that, in order for the City to have a successful process, the citizens needed to see that what they said was communicated to the decision makers. Councilor Moncrieff commented that the Mayor's Round Tables have been a good place to hear from citizens who normally did not come to the Council meetings. Mayor Hoffman asked for any ideas on how to make things comfortable for those normally uncomfortable coming to City Hall. Councilor Olson mentioned the schools and the PTOs as a way to engage the families, as parents with school age children did not have time to testify before the City Council. She agreed with the Council members making themselves physically available away from City Hall. Councilor Tierney suggested having the School Board appoint a member of the Steering Committee. Commissioner Gustafson suggested using the old-fashioned comment card to allow those who did not want to testify to submit their comments. Councilor Jordan spoke of placing comment card boxes at the library and City Hall. Councilor Tierney commented that, in other surveys, the two elements that people cited as reasons for moving to Lake Oswego were the lake and the schools, neither of which the vision statement mentioned. Councilor Johnson noted that the quality of life indicators included the schools. Councilor Olson referenced the sentence in the statement that spoke of visual access to the lake. Councilor Jordan suggested balancing the neighborhood representatives with one from an older, established neighborhood (such as Old Town or First Addition) and one from a newer neighborhood (such as Westlake or Palisades). Councilor Moncrieff suggested utilizing the format used at the Strategic Business Alliance workshops, which allowed each of the 42 participants to have a say in the final outcome. She spoke of setting up some opportunities where a representative from each of the 22 neighborhood associations and one from each of the Boards and Commissions met to provide input on each of the Comprehensive Plan chapters. Mayor Hoffman mentioned discussions about holding some big group, small group community forums in September. He spoke of making sure that they had a representative sample of the 37,000 city residents. Mayor Hoffman asked for any thoughts about the process for working towards a vision statement. Councilor Jordan asked whether it would be possible to reach some level of unanimity on the Council about a draft in time to put it out for community comment at the June Coming Together. Mr. Sin mentioned June or July as a fast but realistic timeline that allowed quality work. Councilor Jordan recalled a Council discussion that, once Council adopted the plan, the CCI should continue to keep up the community engagement and check in every year on how well the Council was doing in implementing the vision direction. She commented that they did not want to find out 15 years down the road that the Council went off in a different direction. Mayor Hoffman suggested that the Council and the Commission take a tour of Lake Oswego and look at it with 2030 eyes. • Council Reminders Mayor Hoffman discussed the two upcoming tours of the Council, the streetcar alignment tour and the housing options tour. He explained that, in order for the tours not to constitute a public meeting under the public meetings law, the Council could not engage in debate or discussion of policy. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 7 April 27, 2010 r Council members could ask questions to clarify what they were seeing, but these were fact- gathering tours. He mentioned that there would be a designated photographer to take pictures of the buildings or elements that the Council viewed. Mr. Powell confirmed that these were on site inspections of a program project, and not public meetings. The Council members should hold all discussion for the Council Chambers. He explained that the Attorney General's interpretation was that deliberations towards a decision including receiving information in anticipation of a decision, but there was an exception for on site inspections. He mentioned that staff has invited the media on the tour, which, while not strictly necessary under the law, was a good idea because it helped insure that there was nothing secretive about the tours. Mayor Hoffman reminded the Council that any e-mails discussing Council issues were public records, even if sent from a private computer. Mayor Hoffman indicated to Councilor Olson that the Council would not go on the actual proposed alignment of the streetcar where it left the current tracks to go out onto Macadam. However, since that alignment was only a block away, the Council would be able to see it. He mentioned that they would look at the locations requiring one track or allowing two tracks, and the proximity of houses in Dunthorpe and John's Landing to the tracks. Mayor Hoffman confirmed to Mr. Sin that the Council gave direction to him to move forward with the tasks as described in the staff report. He spoke of scheduling another joint meeting in July or August. 4. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Hoffman adjourned the meeting at 7:54 p.m. Respectfully submitted, 4 A`)/ Robyn 6hristie City Recorder APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: ON Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 7 April 27, 2010 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO LAKE OSWEGO Centennial 1910-2010 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego,OR 97034 503-675-3984 COUNCIL REPORT www.ci.oswego.or.us TO: Jack Hoffman, Mayor Members of the City Council Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager FROM: Laura Weigel, Neighborhood Planner Planning and Building Department SUBJECT: Glenmorrie R-15 Overlay (LU 09-0043/Ordinance 2456) DATE: May 4, 2010 ACTION Hold a public hearing and tentatively approve LU 09-0043 and Ordinance 2456, code changes to implement the Glenmorrie Neighborhood Plan. INTRODUCTION The Planning Commission held a public heading on March 8, 2010. The Commission recommended adoption of the code changes proposed by the Glenmorrie Neighborhood Association. Their Findings, Conclusion and Order were adopted on March 22, 2010. The City Council held a study session on April 6, 2010. 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. The survey response rate is 37.5 %. Page 2 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. 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 with changes requested by the Planning Commission is included in this report (Exhibit F-1.1). DISCUSSION The Glenmorrie R-15 Overlay District was developed based on a detailed analysis of the neighborhood plan. The purpose of the two proposed code provisions is to "ensure that all new residential development contributes positively to the neighborhood character, including: height, bulk, size of paved areas and appropriate setbacks, buffering and screening." The Overlay District will create a new article in the code (LOC 50.08B) that applies two special development standards within the Glenmorrie neighborhood. The underlying R-15 base zone standards will continue to apply within the new overlay district, while the overlay standards will prevail. The Glenmorrie Overlay originally included a third code provision, a required side yard setback plane. The City Council gave preliminary approval to a similar city-wide provision on Tuesday, April 20, 2010 as part of the infill code changes. With adoption city-wide the provision is not needed in the Glenmorrie Overlay. As neighborhood redevelopment takes place, these new standards will help Glenmorrie maintain its unique character. The standards consist of the following: 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). Page 3 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 dwellingexists on an abuttinglot: 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 Standard Plant 2 - 11/2°caliper under story tree 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 Minimum 10' long trellis, arbor or pergola (minimum 6' tall) 1 - 11/2„ 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. ❖ 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. There will need to be a reference to the new infill standards in the final adopted ordinance. 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." Page 4 Reason: Maintain the "country" character and address surface water drainage issues by minimizing paved areas and impact of structures on the environment. ALTERNATIVES & FISCAL IMPACT No alternatives are proposed at this time. 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. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council tentatively approve LU 09-0043 and Ordinance 2456 and direct staff to return with findings, conclusions and a final ordinance for adoption on June 15, 2010. 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 C-1 Planning Commission Minutes, January 26, 2009 C-2 Planning Commission Minutes, September 30, 2009 C-3 Planning Commission Minutes, March 8, 2010 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) D-4 Staff Report dated March 29, 2010 (City Council Study Session, April 6, 2010) E. Graphics: E-1 Map of Glenmorrie R-15 Overlay District Boundaries F. Written Materials F-1 Draft Ordinance 2546, January 26, 2010 (Please note that this exhibit is superseded by F-1. 1 and is therefore not included with this staff report.) 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 +y: Department Dir ,t• C/ itI Alex D. Mclntyr: City Manag // ' (may 4-7,5751421,--7 1 BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION 110 2 OF THE 3 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGOAPP 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. City of Lake Oswego 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 Reauirements 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 r l CONCLUSION 2 3 The Planning Commission concludes that LU 09-0043 is in compliance with all applicable criteria.The 4 Planning Commission recommended that the City Council adopt LU 09-0043-Glenmorrie Overlay Zone 5 after the City Attorney reviews it again to ensure that the definition, "hardscape,"and the proposed 6 exceptions made it very clear to users of the document what was included and what was excluded from 7 the 50% hardscape calculation. 8 9 10 FINDINGS AND REASONS 11 12 The Planning Commission incorporates the staff report, dated February 15, 2010, on LU 09-0043(with all 13 exhibits attached thereto) as support for its decision. 14 15 16 ORDER 17 18 IT IS ORDERED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION of the City of Lake Oswego that: 19 20 1. The Planning Commission recommends that LU 09-0043 be approved by the City Council. 21 22 I CERTIFY THAT THIS ORDER was presented to and APPROVED by the Planning Commission of the 23 City of Lake Oswego. 24 25 26 DATED this 22nd day of March 2010. 27 28 29 30 Philip Stewart /s/ 31 Philip Stewart, Chair 32 Planning Commission 33 34 35 36 Iris McCaleb /s/ 37 Iris McCaleb 38 Administrative Support 39 LU 09-0043 PAGE 2 1 ATTEST: 2 3 PRELIMINARY DECISION - March 8, 2010 4 5 AYES: Brockman, Glisson, Gustafson, Johnson, Jones, Paretchan, Stewart 6 NOES: None 7 ABSTAIN: None 8 RECUSE: None 9 EXCUSED: None 10 ABSENT: None 11 12 ADOPTION OF FINDINGS AND ORDER - March 22,2010 13 14 AYES: Brockman, Glisson, Johnson, Jones, Stewart 15 NOES: None 16 ABSTAIN: None 17 RECUSE: None 18 EXCUSED: Gustafson, Paretchan 19 ABSENT: None LU 09-0043 PAGE 3 _ ,tr OF LAKE OSµf City of Lake Oswego �` Planning Commission Minutes rOVe OREGON January 26, 2009 APP CALL TO ORDER Chair Julia Glisson called the Planning Commission meeting of Monday, January 26, 2009 to order at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, at 380 "A" Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon. II. ROLL CALL Members present were Chair Glisson, Vice Chair Philip Stewart and Commissioners Adrianne Brockman and Scot Siegel. Commissioner Alison Webster was excused. Staff present were Dennis Egner, Long Range Planning Manager; Sarah Selden, Neighborhood Planner; Laura Weigel, Neighborhood Planner, Sidaro Sin, Senior Planner; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney and Iris Treinen,Administrative Support. Mayor Jack Hoffman thanked the Planning Commission for their hard work. He reported the City Council was almost finished setting new goals. He looked forward to an upcoming joint Planning Commission/Development Review Commission/City Council meeting in which the participants would discuss Comprehensive Plan and land use issues. III. CITIZEN COMMENT None. IV. MINUTES Commissioner Brockman moved to . •: . e the Minutes of November 24. 2008. Commissioner Siegel secondeI otion and it passed 3:0. Chair Glisson recused. Commissio.- - :rockman moved to approve the Minutes of December 8. 2008, C. stoner Siegel seconded the motion and it passed 4:0. V. WORK SESSION Glenmorrie Neighborhood Plan Laura Weigel, Neighborhood Planner, presented the staff report. Liz Hartman, Chair of the Glenmorrie Neighborhood Association, reported the implementation committee had been going through the neighborhood plan in detail to identify what still needed to be implemented and they had fashioned a list of implementation strategies they were about to present at a full Association meeting. They planned to follow up with a neighborhood EXHIBIT C-1 LU 09-0043 City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of January 26, 2009 Page 1 of 12 • survey and then discuss the results at another open house before the Association voted on the implementation plan and forwarded it to the Planning Commission. Ms. Hartman explained neighborhood residents wanted the neighborhood to continue to enjoy large lots, privacy and neighborhood character. She said they would talk about transferring six properties along Highway 43 that were currently in the Hallinan Neighborhood Association to the Glenmorrie Neighborhood Association. She and Ms. Weigel highlighted some of the strategies that would be vetted at the upcoming meeting. They included a design overlay; requiring a building permit for a structure larger than 500 sq. ft.; encouraging view protection; working with the City to use the best methods to control surface water; ensuring that residents stored recreational and non-operational vehicles out of public view; not allowing any exception to the current height standard; preserving the ranch-style character of houses on three streets; landscaping and buffering requirements; new fencing standards; a limit on the percentage of hardscape on each parcel; and a roof pitch standard to ensure the bulk of a structure was pushed away from the neighbors. During the questioning period, Ms. Hartman clarified that the committee hoped to hold the second full neighborhood meeting in May. Commissioner Siegel suggested they frame survey questions in a manner that would help people understand there were tradeoffs to be considered when they were comparing strategies. The Commissioners thanked the committee for their work. VI. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS Comprehensive Plan Update— Periodic Review / Visioning (PP 08-0012) The City • proposing to update the Comprehensive Plan through the state-required periodic re "-w process and the City-initiated visioning process. The Comprehensive Plan is the •:sis for all land use planning and growth management actions in Lake Oswego. ' e City is requesting consideration and approval of the proposed evaluation and fork program. The hearing had been continued from January 12, 2009. Chair Glisson opened the public hearing and explained t. applicable criteria and procedure. She asked the Commissioners to declare any flict of interest. None were declared. Sidaro Sin, Senior Planner, and Sarah Seld• ', Neighborhood Planner, presented the staff report. They reported that Met - was generally supportive of the draft evaluation/work program. They asked - Planning Commission to recommend it to the City Council. They recalled the C. missioners had preferred Option 3 at the previous meeting. The visioning/public gagement process would begin at the same time as periodic review preparation .nd the Planning Commission would continue to address "hot" community issue-, such as infill, natural resources planning, neighborhood planning and a Com . .nity Development Code rewrite. Ms. Selden d'• ussed visioning. She said the City would use past studies and reports to develop a • •mmunity profile that described where the City was now and inform where it was =.•ing. Her research showed that other cities had used a broader or a narrower sc•.e process depending on their goals and budget. She said the Commissioners did not ave to recommend a particular scope now; staff could come back after the City Council approved the work program and ask for specific recommendations regarding the process City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of January 26,2009 Page 2 of 12 `,Si 01 LAKE OSkeCO City of Lake Oswego _- Planning Commission MinutesaApprnnin ____ OREGON September 30, 2009 I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Philip Stewart called the Planning Commission meeting of September 30, 2009 to order at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 380 "A" Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon. II. ROLL CALL Members present were Chair Philip Stewart, Vice Chair Julia Glisson and Commissioners Adrianne Brockman, Jon Gustafson, Russell Jones and Lynne Paretchan. Jim Johnson was excused. Staff present were Dennis Egner, Long Range Planning Manager; Laura Weigel, Neighborhood Planner; Sarah Selden, Neighborhood Planner; Leslie Hamilton, Associate Planner and Iris McCaleb, Administrative Support. III. CITIZEN COMMENT Peter Sweet, 796 1st Street, wanted to know why the code did not require perm- ..le surface driveways or eco roofs. The Commissioners and staff explained that • - First Addition Neighbors/Forest Hills Neighborhood Association (FAN) could .• end their neighborhood plan to require that. They explained that if he wanted the r-.uirements to apply citywide, he could attend the City Council's Clean Streams Plan - dy session and hearing on October 27th and November 17th and also talk with the .stainability Advisory Board (SAB). The Commissioners said they would also keep h.- equest in mind as they worked on code amendments. IV. COUNCIL UPDATE Mr. Egner reported that the City Council plan. d to continue to discuss how to respond to Metro staff recommendations in the - gional Transportation Plan and the Urban Growth Report at their October 6th mee . g. The primary issue was the recommendation to designate the entire Stafford basis .s urban reserves. V. GENERAL ORGANIZATION CHEDULE REVIEW Rolling Agenda The Commission s rescheduled the infill public hearing to December 14th. Staff planned to • : a public open house the week before. They planned to offer the Commissi► ers an overview of the staff report at the October 26th meeting so the Corn ioners had enough time to examine it thoroughly and discuss it before the he. g. The Planning Commission was scheduled to discuss goals for 2010 with the • y Council on December 7th. EXHIBIT C-2 LU 09-0043 City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of September 30, 2009 Page 1 of 9 Cheryl Uchida said she and Jeff Novak had submitted some concerns in writin• .•• - agreed with the comments Mr. Siegel, Mr. Buck, and Ms. Kreb •-. ade. She indicated she did not want to see Albertsons' Boones Fe '..• access used by trucks. She said staff and the consultant should di - e report with the stakeholders who had served on the Lake Grove = enter Plan Advisory Committee. She said the Village Center took • .dor portion of her neighborhood association area and they were co - • a•out cut-through traffic and the impact on transitional streets. The ing Commission then took a short break. PP 07-0016 —Glenmorrie Neighborhood Plan Implementation The Glenmorrie Neighborhood Plan Implementation Committee was preparing for a hearing on a proposed overlay zone. They outlined the provisions they wanted to apply and asked for feedback. Laura Weigel, Neighborhood Planner, had prepared the staff report. Brenda Troisi and Liz Hartman represented the Glenmorrie Neighborhood Plan Implementation Committee. They explained Glenmorrie had an adopted neighborhood plan, but new development in the neighborhood conflicted with its vision. The neighborhood developed an overlay zone to codify the most important goals of the neighborhood plan that would maintain the current neighborhood character of large, spacious lots, abundant greenery, privacy and views. They had started with a longer list of potential requirements and narrowed them down to the three new code provisions after surveying the neighborhood association through neighborhood meetings and votes. Concepts that they still feel are important to maintaining neighborhood character, but don't require regulation will be addressed in a new "Good Neighbor Guide." They added that they were pleased to hear the City was going to change the template for neighborhood planning to make the process easier to understand. The neighborhood representatives said the overlay would apply a side yard setback plane; landscaping and buffering requirements; and limit hardscape to 50% of the lot. They explained that the Infill Task Force was proposing the side yard setback plane recommendation and if it was adopted citywide the provision would be removed from the Glenmorrie overlay. They wanted to require a landscape plan with buffering and native species and to require the developer to plant it within a specified time period. They clarified that they proposed the hardscape limitation to control appearance as well as to address drainage issues. During the questioning period, the neighborhood representatives clarified the neighborhood was zoned R-15. One or two lots in the neighborhood might be a little smaller than 15,000 sq. ft., and some lots were large enough to subdivide. The PowerPoint presentation included examples of alternatives to hardscape including a ribbon driveway (two-track driveway with vegetation in the middle). The representatives clarified that the alternatives were a suggestion, not a requirement. They clarified that they thought that swimming pools were hardscape, but plastic-lined fishponds were not. Chair Stewart suggested they distinguish between natural features that allowed water to be absorbed by the soil and features that used treated pool water. The representatives explained they had decided on the 50% threshold by examining Committee members' properties and properties that seemed to be too "paved over." Usually that was because of a driveway. They clarified they did not want to limit decks and patios and things that made outdoor space more enjoyable. They explained that they didn't want to have lots with big houses and driveways and decks that left almost no green space, which was not in character with the neighborhood. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of September 30, 2009 Page 6 of 9 • The Commissioners suggested the neighborhood needed to do more work on the hardscape provisions. Commissioner Paretchan suggested they not penalize a flag lot that needed a long driveway and that two-track driveways might not be very practical. The Commissioners explained the reason some houses with side-loading garages had so much pavement in front could be due to the current code and it was also a trade-off to avoid having a three-car garage facing the street. The Commissioners said they were considering changing that code and they were also working on code amendments that would apply the side yard setback plane and address landscaped buffering. Commissioner Jones liked the idea of limiting the percentage of hardscape, even for flag lots, because that might result in larger flag lots. Vice Chair Glisson supported the concept, but was not sure if 50% was the appropriate threshold. She suggested the neighborhood consider allowing some exceptions for things like patios and decks. She liked the idea of a ribbon driveway. Commissioner Brockman suggested the overlay could require the landscaping to be in by the time the occupancy permit was issued, but Commissioner Gustafson cautioned it should not have to be planted at the wrong time of year. Mr. Egner said the developer could be required to post a performance bond that ensured the landscaping would be completed. Commissioner Paretchan asked if the landscape-screening requirement conflicted with the character of open views. The neighborhood representatives explained the greenery they liked the most was screening shrubbery, like Rhododendrons, that would grow to about six to ten feet high between houses. They had decided to require buffering greenery after they found neighbors could not agree on some kind of fencing requirement. Chair Stewart observed the Commissioners supported the effort and wanted the neighborhood to refine it and move forward with it. The Commissioners complimented the neighborhood on their materials and presentation and their decision to put some things in a Good Neighbor Guide. The Planning Commission then took a short break. VIII. COMMISSION FOR CITIZEN INVOLVMENT PP 09-0013 — Skylands Neighborhood A request from the Skylands neighborhood for recognition by the City of e Oswego as a neighborhood association. Laura Weigel, Neighborhood Planner, presented the sta port. Randall Duncan, 18034 Skvland Circle, President of the Skylands Neia rhood Association, said the neighborhood had just been reinstated as a Clack. as County Community Planning Organization (CPO) and they had met all the res . ements to be formally recognized as a Lake Oswego neighborhood association f r. Duncan explained they wanted to be more involved in City and County dec. ..n-making. During the questioning period, he clarified that the bylaws limited vo • to those over age 18 and that a property owner who also owned a business the neighborhood was only allowed one vote. He explained the bylaws s.- ied that the "board shall help other new neighborhood assocations trying to • elop or be recognized" because the county counsel had asked for that provision Commis ..ner Brockman moved to recommend that the City recognize the Skvlands Nei.' sorhood Association. Commissioner Paretchan seconded the motion and it ssed 6:0. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of September 30, 2009 Page 7 of 9 LAKE OSWEGO Centennia11910-2010City of Lake Oswego /tie Planning Commission Minutesnmitg Com March 8, 2010 CALL TO ORDER Chair Philip Stewart called the Planning Commission meeting of March 8, 2010 to order at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 380 "A" Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon. II. ROLL CALL Members present were Chair Philip Stewart, Vice Chair Julia Glisson (arrived 6:49 p.m.) and Commissioners Adrianne Brockman, Jon Gustafson, Jim Johnson, Russell Jones and Lynne Paretchan (arrived 6:35 p.m.). Mayor Jack Hoffman and Council Liaison Bill Tierney participated in part of the meeting. Staff present were Debra Andreades, Senior Planner; Laura Weigel and Sarah Selden, Neighborhood Planners; Erica Rooney, Assistant City Engineer; Paul Espe, Associate Planner; David Powell, City Attorney; and Iris McCaleb, Administrative Support. III. CITIZEN COMMENT None. IV. COUNCIL UPDATE Mayor Hoffman thanked the Planning Commissioners for their work. 'e highlighted projects the City Council was working on that the Planning Commi : on would also be involved in. He said he planned to work more closely with City b•:rds and commissions this year. Council Liaison Tierney reported that the City Co cil had adopted goals for 2010. They would use the new Centennial Celebration seal for three years. They had reduced the time allotment for Citizen Comm: at Council meetings to three minutes. V. MINUTES Commissioner Brockman moved . approve the Minutes of January 11. 2010. Commissioner Jones seconde. e motion and it passed 5:0. Vice Chair Glisson and Commissioner Paretchan w- - not present during the vote. VI. PRESENTATION OF ' APITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN (CIP) Erica Roone 'ssistant City Engineer/Engineering Services Manager, reported the City had .- ided to update the CIP annually. Her department had a list of $362 million worth - projects to work on (not including LOIS and the Tigard/Lake Oswego water pr.. -ct), but there would not be enough funds available in Fiscal Year 2010-2011 to ance them all. The Finance Department was balancing requests from all City City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission EXHIBIT C-3 Minutes of March 8, 2010 LU 09-0043 Page 1 of 8 departments and would give Public Works a project funding allocation. The De.,• - would then make adjustments and propose a list of projects that fit th- • -.. ed budget. The Planning Commission was to consider whether •- . .posed projects were consistent with the Comprehensive Plan -ir March 22nd meeting. The Commissioners wanted assuran - • e public would have a chance to read and comment on the pro.. . aff advised that the draft proposal would be available to both the ••- stoners and the public about a week before the hearing and that it • . .e published on the City website. VII. PUBLIC HEARING LU 09-0043 — Glenmorrie Overlay Zone. A request from the City of Lake Oswego and the Glenmorrie Neighborhood Association for a new overlay zone to apply to the Glenmorrie neighborhood, all of which is zoned R-15. Chair Stewart opened the public hearing and explained the applicable procedure and criteria. He asked the Commissioners to declare any conflict of interest regarding the application. None were declared. Staff Report Laura Weigel, Neighborhood Planner, presented the staff report. She reported the Glenmorrie Neighborhood Association had formed a committee to work on implementing their neighborhood plan. One implementation tool was to develop an overlay for the neighborhood. After a neighborhood vetting process the Association had narrowed the number of potential new code provisions from ten to the three they currently proposed. She said it was not unusual for a neighborhood to have its own unique zoning regulations. First Addition Neighbors/Forest Hills Neighborhood Association (FAN), Old Town and Evergreen already had them and Lake Grove, Palisades and Lake Forest were considering overlays. She reported the Glenmorrie overlay would control the percentage of hardscape allowed on each lot and apply planting and buffering requirements. Ms. Weigel explained that Glenmorrie preferred to control the amount of "hardscape" rather than the amount of "impervious surface" because for them the issue was aesthetics as well as drainage. She said the proposal complied with applicable criteria and recommended that the Planning Commission recommend it to the City Council. She said the overlay also included a new side yard setback plane that was proposed in the citywide Community Development Code (CDC) infill amendments currently under consideration by the Planning Commission. If this provision were adopted citywide, it would be removed from the Glenmorrie Overlay. During the questioning period, Ms. Weigel clarified that a deck that allowed water to drain through it would not be counted as hardscape. She said the hardscape standards Glenmorrie proposed were more flexible than those Lake Grove was considering because Glenmorrie did not classify graveled or rocked areas and certain types of ponds as hardscape. When asked, Ms. Weigel recalled that rocked areas were areas of boulders, not stone "patios" and that stone pavers would be counted as hardscape. She recalled the committee had decided to set the limit of hardscape at 50% after they analyzed lots owned by committee members and lots that seemed to have a lot of hardscape on them. They were particularly keen to analyze lots with a lot of front paving to access side loading garages. The committee members found their own lots ranged from 30% to 35% hardscape and the lots that appeared to have 50% of hardscape on them were actually under 50%. Their conclusion was that a 50% threshold still offered a lot of room to pave. Commissioners Jones and Brockman agreed the proposed overlay City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of March 8, 2010 Page 2 of 8 J • implemented Glenmorrie's goals. Ms. Weigel confirmed that the neighborhood association was aware that the Planning Commission had modified the planting options for landscaped buffering in the Community Development Code (CDC) amendments, and that what the neighborhood proposed was not exactly the same as what the Planning Commission had recommended as part of infill. Public Testimony Ben Rivera, 17433 Brookhurst Drive, had submitted a Citizen Input form but declined to testify when called. Deliberations Chair Stewart closed the public hearing. Commissioner Brockman moved to approve LU 09-0043. Commissioner Jones seconded the motion and discussion followed. Commissioner Paretchan was concerned that the way the proposed code had been crafted was not clear enough for a code user. She was particularly concerned that the hardscape definition and the hardscape maximum provision were worded inconsistently. For example, staff confirmed that the term, "woodwork" in the hardscape definition meant that a wood deck would be considered hardscape, but the hardscape maximum provision said pervious decking was not counted as part of hardscape. Commissioner Paretchan was also concerned about adopting a definition of hardscape in the overlay code that was different from how it was defined in the general code. Staff pointed out the hardscape definition would apply citywide, but the exceptions would be in a CDC section that was exclusively about the Glenmorrie overlay. Commissioner Paretchan indicated she could support the proposed overlay if the City Attorney examined and clarified the proposed language before it went to City Council. Commissioner Brockman amended her motion to recommend that the City Council adopt LU 09-0043 - Glenmorrie Overlay Zone after the City Attorney reviewed it to ensure it used proper language and 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. Commissioner Jones seconded the amended motion and it passed 7:0. The Planning Commission then took a five-minute break before they met as the Commission for Citizen Involvement (CCI). VIII. COMMISSION FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT Chair Stewart called the meeting of the Commission for Citizen Involvemen •rder. Staff Report Sarah Selden, Neighborhood Planner, presented th- - - report. Ms. Selden pointed out the Lake Oswego Neighborhood Association ' nual Status Report was attached to the staff report. She reported staff was w. g with three less active neighborhoods to help them be more active: Oak C - -, McVey-South Shore and Bryant. Staff was working on an expanded reso - guide to offer neighborhoods. They would present the draft to the Planning • mission in April. The staff rep.- aised some questions about neighborhood meetings, communication with ne . - .orhoods and whether the CCI should be a separate body from the Planning C.- ission. Staff research showed that communities that only involved their CCI in City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of March 8, 2010 Page 3 of 8 r os. 0,LAKE OSwfc Community Development ° Department AillW Memorandum r OREGON 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 1 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 2 Glenmorrie Neighborhood Plan Implementation `,S.4 04 LAKE osty Av Building and Planning '' ► m Services Department ciTM--- Memorandum OREGON TO: Lake Oswego Planning Commission FROM: Laura Weigel, Neighborhood Planner DATE: September 17, 2009 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. Key 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 2 Glenmorrie Neighborhood Plan Implementation (PP 07-016) Side Yard Setback Plan Current Code: — No regulation governing side yard setback plane. Proposed Change— Require a 12:12 side yard setback plane (Exhibit B) Infill Task Force is proposing a new 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 Change: 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 - 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 Minimum 10' long trellis, arbor or pergola (minimum 6' tall) 1 - 11/2, 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 3 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 4 Glenmorrie Neighborhood Plan Implementation (PP 07-016) STAFF REPORT CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO PLANNING & BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT APPLICANT: FILE NO: City of Lake Oswego for the LU 09-0043 Glenmorrie Neighborhood Association PROPERTY OWNERS: STAFF: N/A Laura Weigel, Neighborhood Planner LEGAL DESCRIPTION DATE OF REPORT: N/A February 16, 2010 LOCATION: DATE OF HEARING: R-15 zone within the Glenmorrie March 8, 2010 Neighborhood Association boundaries: See map, Exhibit El. COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION: ZONING DESIGNATION: N/A R-15 NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION: REQUEST: Glenmorrie Neighborhood Association Amendment to the City of Lake Oswego Community Development Code to include a new Glenmorrie R-15 Overlay District. APPLICANT'S REQUEST 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.] II. APPLICABLE CRITERIA A. City 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 D-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. Oregon Statewide Planning Goals Goal 1: Citizen Involvement Goal 2: Land Use Planning D. Lake Oswego Development Code Procedural Reauirements 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 Overlay District (New Article LOC 50.08-B1 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 Planning 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 r 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. Findings: 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 Planning, Section 2 Community Design and Aesthetics Compliance with Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan, Goal 2 Land Use Planning, Section 2: Community Design and Aesthetics, Policies la and b, and 4. POLICIES 1. Enact and maintain regulations and standards which require: a. New development to enhance the existing built environment in terms of size, scale, bulk, color, material and architectural design. b. Landscaping. 2. Ensure that both public and private development enhance the aesthetic quality of the community. Findings: 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 la 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. Findings: 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 Parking Policy. 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 Quality and Flood Management Conservation. This title is not applicable to the code recommendations. Title 4 — Retail in Employment and Industrial Areas. This Title does not apply. Planning Commission Public Hearing 4 LU 09-0043 February 16, 2010 J 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 Housing. 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 r 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 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO LAKE OSWEGO Centennial 1910-2010 380 A Avenue big COUNCIL REPORT PO Box 369 Lake Oswego,OR 97034 www.cisoswego.or.0 s TO: Jack Hoffman, Mayor Members of the City Council Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager FROM: Laura Weigel, Neighborhood Planner Planning and Building Department 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. EXHIBIT D-4 LU 09-0043 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. Key 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 - 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 Minimum 10' long trellis, arbor or pergola (minimum 6' tall) 1 - 11n 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. RECOMMENDATION 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: Department Director Alex D. McIntyre City Manager DEFECTS IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT z(--- — ft'' — Ti— f -c-; \ Arrina" rj'), .4ik 40-"Ilr • >,i - '- 6° 4i6e.' ''.. Aitr k \ .,, ,,.- . — -----'---7 w' ,-, - ______ tifiii.-- i 0., ,,-.- ---j_ A '(- - miiiimpt .,,,:,__ s - _,. - , .4-. ** it,,. .p. bt. -- Hemlock S `4,,,. Avii - le,. al miiiirdivi _.*IPINI $ . N‘ 1 1 -T. la , Q„. twi 1 I Vi i Ma 4 0 , 0 1 mak vim m PP -rry IIV1A /11111111111M111111* \_c ..er #.4.,* T t"\-V t *1. '' W #i\,. ## ' . A/ v ♦ Iliiito cV. c��r 1 0 4t 1� o .1::. t_yr 't*** 4. a *i.i.),.** 447,„ c'.114 ' Si J 1 Glenmorrie Neighborhood.11,44.11 _ - 1IIc / � * ' rict��" 7�: 0 200400600800 1000.v1q1_ t44 , ____\ � City of Lake Oswego-01/14/10 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: ,,;_ * 2:$411 PI\ "-a ,... ...', 1-:- ---.'"::::`": -4"iiii f' J, T - f t' !' f.. ..0,'-- . , sw . r_- v : +r • • '46 14- EXHIBIT F-1.1 LU 09-0043 Ordinance No.2546 Page 1 of 7 . y 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 tvne as follows: Section 50.05.005 Zoning Districts The City is divided into the following zoning designations: Residential Map Designation I 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 I 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 CI Campus Research&Development CR&D Mixed Commerce MC Industrial Map Designation Industrial 1 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 LGlenmorrie R-15 Overlay 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." 50.086.025 . 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 Exna Suuctura to /"T Vacant Lot 0 New Structure `" 10 feet FRONT YARD Plant Unit 'Unit required due to vacant lot Area where units 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 • DRAFT 03/26/10 7-E k Plane Property • Line ' j�� • t 112 • Maximum 'X 12 % eight . IN 12• 1 I Building Envelope Side Yard Setback 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: Jack D. Hoffman Dated: ATTEST: Robyn Christie, City Recorder APPROVED AS TO FORM: David D.Powell City Attorney Ordinance No. 2546 Page 6 of 7 DEFECTS Ili ORIGINAL DOCUMENT DRAFT 03/26/10 EXHIBIT A APPENDIX 50.08B.010-A R-15 Glenmorrie Residential Overlay District a 1 i v ✓ j k..,tilk , J i . ..414•4444 4\, lielidodr ' --! , • l''',16, .,....7 A._ 4\'''' \e"----- - ,A.._Sr.„.." "1111p 1,11" \ • -\,/ • oma',z\s , , , o 0 * I , : ..„„,, _ ___, ,,,,,,„„ , ` Glenmorrie Neighborhood , "--1-- I Gienmome R-15 Overlay D strct 4 4 0 0 — 200 .O 600 60Cc]C - � - .-. Ordinance No. 2546 Page 7 of 7 . • — -i geetia1vrrie Nei3iW oraood Associatioi March 2009 Hello Glenmorrie Neighbors! 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 2008 to analyze the plan and determine what still needs to be done to implement any outstanding plan items. The committee decided that one way to implement some of the outstanding recom- mendations ecom 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- 1471. r 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 Abundance of Natural "fit in"with the older houses. An overlay could contain a new regulation not addressed Resources and the Sense of in the underlying base zone or alter an existing regulation. Privacy and Quiet Glenmorrie is zoned almost exclusively R-as(residential lots zoned to be a minimum of � r as,000 square feet)with only a few parcels zoned as Park and Natural Areas.This R-ss zoning designation applies to other areas in the city and therefore does not necessarily ya 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 Low Density, Detached opment Code that are currently under discussion by the Planning Commission.Together Single Family Residential staff and the committee also toured the neighborhood.The committee analyzed the Land Use Pattern 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 over the years. A Sense of Spaciousness and Access to Views 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 t &` d`,..""+"jf " 4,400 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. �' ,x .�V Additional committee member include; Liz Hartman,Chair ofthe Neighborhood • Association and long time resident of the neighborhood,Carolyne Jones and Brenda 4 Troisi who are neighborhood association board members and long time residents, Cynthia Pearson another long time resident, and Johanna McCormick a fairly new _ - member�ftthheeGl or neighborhood. ii LU 09-0043 geeNmvrrie Neiaat vraood Associativti OverCay Timeeise aaed Process Where is the Neighborhood Association 1998- 2000 in the Process? Glenmorrie develops neighborhood plan through In late January 2009 the neighborhood association board held extensive neighborhood outreach. an open house for all Glenmorrie neighbors to hear,comment and provide feedback on the overlay concepts they developed 2000 to implement the adopted plan.Approximately 40 people at- City Council adopts neighborhood plan. 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- 2000-2007 tant! Your neighbors need to hear your thoughts in order to Numerous plan items are implemented city-wide and refine the ideas based on everyone's viewpoint before moving neighbors continue to work on plan implementation. forward. 2008 You may have a committee member knock on your door to City staff& neighborhood committee identify out- discuss the ideas and to encourage you to respond to the standing neighborhood plan policies that need survey. If a committee member does not make a stop at your implementation strategies and decide to house and you would like to receive a visit, please contact discuss the creation of an overlay zone for the Laura Weigel,the Neighborhood Planner from the City of Lake neighborhood. Oswego assigned to assist the neighborhood with plan imple- mentation.You can contact Laura at Iweigel®a ci.oswego.or.us or 503.675.3730 and she'll arrange for a Glenmorrie committee January 2009 member to stop by.Or you can contact Liz Hartman at Glen- Committee and neighborhood association board morrie®aol.com. present overlay concepts to full neighborhood at an open house. What Happens Next? After the survey results are compiled,the concepts will be March 2009 further refined by the Glenmorrie Neighborhood Association Neighbors talk to neighbors about the concepts and board and committee.Some of the ideas may evolve,some ask them to complete a survey to gauge support for new ideas may emerge and/or some ideas may be dropped the overlay concepts. from consideration. It will depend on the feedback we get from YOU! NEXT STEPS After the ideas are further refined there will be another open Neighbors revise overlay concepts based on house for the entire neighborhood to hear the ideas and pro- survey results. vide feedback again. If there is more feedback and the neigh- borhood wants the ideas further refined the committee and Neighborhood association holds second open house board will continue to work until the concepts presented can to discuss revised overlay concepts. be approved by vote by the neighborhood at a general neigh- borhood association meeting. If the neighborhood votes to Neighborhood association votes on overlay approve the overlay,the neighborhood association will present concepts to present to Planning Commission and the overlay to the City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission City Council. and City Council who may also have ideas and recommenda- tions before the final overlay is adopted and enacted in the Neighborhood association presents overlay concepts City's community development code. to the Planning Commission and City Council in work NOW is the time to GET Involved. sessions and public hearings for revisions and We need to hear from you. approval. START BY COMPLETING OUR SURVEY You can mail it in or complete it online at Glenmorrie Overlay Zone is adopted by City Council www.ci.oswego.or.us/plan/neighbor.htm and becomes part of the Community I e surveybyApril 1 200 ! Development Code. PI P en2 df 85, 9 EXHIBIT F 2 LU 09-0043 geammorrie Neiga6orAood Associatioi Overeay Co,eepts Survey Spris9 2009 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 503.675.3730 or email her at Iweigel@a 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. GENERAL QUESTIONS Please circle the response that most closely reflects your opinion. I've lived in the Glenmorrie Less than Between Between Between Between More than Neighborhood 2 years 3&5 years 6&10 Years 11&15 years i6& 20 years zo 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 of18. o 1 2 3 4 Morethan4 DESIGN STANDARD QUESTIONS The existing adopted neighborhood plan contains the following statement:Goal 10, 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 Somewhat Strongly Need more feet).Current code allows height exceptions for roof Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree information forms and architectural features under certain conditions. ELIMINATE SIDE YARD SETBACK EXCEPTION Current Code: Requires a a5-foot minimum side yard setback except when the house is less than 18 feet high. Proposed Change: Regardless of house height, side yard setbacks should be 25 feet. Reason:Glenmorrie's lots are large enough to accommodate 25-foot setbacks, which provides greater distance between homes and helps maintain privacy between neighbors. Side Yard Setback Remove the exception that allows side yard Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly Need more setbacks to be io feet instead of 15 feet when Neutral the house is less than i8 feet in height. Agree Agree Disagree Disagree information 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-15 zones.Glenmorrie would like to include this concept in the neighborhood overlay in case I 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. r ' , I _ ii("' J �E p.' a� t�. ' 1 1II IBJ 1 ' := ra 4. ,. » ::L:: . . . .,„ , , _. ,.,. , Witheti a 1. r �, With ..::.-P. Side Yard Setback Plane Require a new side yard setback plane Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly Need more . (12:12 pitch)for interior yards(a.k.a.non- Neutral corner yards). Agree Agree Disagree Disagree information- 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. 41110 Landscaping&Buffering Require Landscaping and Buffering for new development. Strongly Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Strongly Need more Agree Agree Disagree Disagree information Please note:At this point this is just 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. S Front yard I Maximum fence height within the front Strongly Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Strongly Need more yard setback area-4 feet. Agree Agree Disagree Disagree information Front yard fencing should be ornamental orStrongly Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Strongly Need more symbolic not a visual barrier. Agree I Agree I I Disagree Disagree I information b Side&rear yard If over 5 feet incorporate an open design Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly Need more Neutral where areas are permeable to light and air. Agree Agree Disagree Disagree information All yards 7 * Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly Need more Limitations on the use of chain link fences Neutral Agree Agree Disagree Disagree information 8 Stone or brick fences are encouraged Strongly Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Strongly Need more Agree Agree Disagree Disagree information *The intent its to limit tont use of naked, bare metal, not well-screened vinyl clad metal. Page 4 B EXHIBIT F-2 LTJ-99-043 LIMIT THE AMOUNT OFA LOT THAT CAN BE COVERED BY HARDSCAPE Current Code: No maximum percentage of hardscape is defined. Proposed Change: No more than 5o%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 oto d Illustration show how on their own lots and several other lots in the neighborhood e a it of hardscape can be and almost all properties are under the so%threshold.The m' iya-ed through alternative few that are above it are very noticeably covered in hard, ;• impervious surfaces. d paving materials „"1•1 1.000, w mow se westr .. b 11.111-0,"0011-16..1.' ntew w "`Ribbon"Driveway . . '0, `' ..a L 9 Hardscape Maximum Require that no more than 5o%of a lot can be Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly Need more hardscaped.Hardscape would include walls,driveway, Neutral • patios,deck,walkways,water features, pools,etc. Agree Agree Disagree Disagree nformation COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN NEIGHBORS QUESTION The existing adopted neighborhood plan contains the following statement:Goal ao, Policy 5-Encourage those who build a two-story home to meet with neighbors.Also, in 2006 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 1/4 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 15 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. 10 Building Permit Notification Require the Applicant to notify the adjacent neighbors Strongly Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Strongly Need more when a building permit for more than 500 sq.ft.is issued. Agree Agree Disagree Disagree information P EXHIBIT-F-2 LU 09-0043 PRESERVE"RANCH"STYLE HOMES IN DESIGNATED AREAS 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. „ z „ 2 j5 PNA R.0 li a m c4``� r S � BurtuM�v„pd, � R-1 1'4R-7.5 What is Glenmorrie's"Ranch"Style? 21 ` PNA f „ 00 R-,5 `�� „ *Appears to be single story from the street, but often LwL�"A.�IR PNA y has daylight basement in the rear. g PNA *Usually designed to emphasize width of facade. * Low-pitched roof. P a 1 R-15 *Usually has an attached garage. I} z h- ` k • MVe0. ° vin • + °rennr `" ""'°'',aye f.5 -. 1‹.' .- t s. �a .r s r t '"" '''.4.. lji i� 'F' SA OS _ g ' II8 t .}q....., PNA 1.` • v.! r I r; v' ' CI x R.tS °Af tT• � e°"W Y '0" { "'' } o e s AO' - + _ * o, R-10 °' Comprehensive Plan for Glenmorrie o,,,,,,,,,,,o,,,,,,,,,,, . ...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 , Neutral Somewhat - Strongly Need more from the front, have low pitched roofs designed to Agree Agree i Disagree Disagree information ilib emphasize the length of the home,and possibly have an attached garage. • I live in one of the ranch homes that would be impacted by this new regulation. Please circle YES or NO Page6of8 EXHIBIT-F-2 LU 09-0043 11111 1 I I I I_ I I i ___,... VIEW PROTECTION QUESTION The existing adopted neighborhood plan contains the following statement:Goal 5, 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. 1411) View .;:.:.'. I . Require view protection. New construction shall preserve and enhance views of the Cascade Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly Need more Mountains,the Willamette River, Neutral Agree Agree Disagree Disagree information Mt.Hood,Mt.St.Helens,Mt.Scott, Mt.Tabor,Mt.Adams,and the - Milwaukie/Oregon City Area. i ADDITIONAL IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES THAT ARE NOT PART OF THE OVERLAY ZONE I 0 The Public View I I Encourage residents and others who store _ recreational vehicles and equipment,and other non operational automobiles in front Strongly Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Strongly Need more yards to relocate them away from public Agree Agree ; Disagree Disagree information view. • 41117) Adjust the neighborhood boundary Adjust the neighborhood boundary to include those i Strongly Somewhat ' Somewhat Strongly Need more parcels zoned R 15 northeast of Hallinan School(currently: Agree Agree Neutral ; Disagree Disagree information parcels part of Hallinan Neighborhood Association) .. IIj : N. /*" c 1 \-.., o: c / Ems... 10 1 .. I ,... _ i 15 Surface Water Strategies Request the City: • to conduct a study to determine the best Strongly i Somewhat: Neutral Somewhat Strongly Need more methods to address surface water Agree ; Agree Disagree Disagree information management problems& to use permeable surfaces, roadside ditches Strongly •Somewhat Somewhat Strongly Need more Neutral and biofiltration to treat surface water runoff Agree Agree Disagree Disagree ��„, Page 7 of 8 EXHIBIT 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! AdditiotiaC COM/MONIS: Please mail in the completed survey in the pre-paid envelope or you can email it to: Laura Weigel, Iweigel®a ci.oswego. Tae GCcNu1orrie Neigiworaood Associatioti taaiijs you For yowr tirtie! See yot iN tae NeigI6oraood! Page : o EXHIBIT F-2 LU 09-0043 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 section 2, 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. .�usct� P619e Real Estate Broker Windermere Cronin & Caplan Realty Group, Inc. Cell: 503-349-3383 V/M: 503-525-6682 Fax: 503-636-0908 www.LindaP000i.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; cvnthianbearson(a�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 1 2� CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO LAKE OSWEGO Centennial 1910-2010 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego,OR 97034 503-675-3984 COUNCIL REPORT www.ci.oswego.or.us TO: Jack Hoffman, Mayor Members of the City Council Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager FROM: Paul Espe, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Revisions to Flood Management Area Map and Amendments to Community Development Code (LU 10-0003/Ordinance 2549) DATE: May 3, 2010 ACTION Hold a public hearing and tentatively approve LU 10-0003 and Ordinance 2549, a revision to the City's Flood Management Area Map and amending Articles 50.02, 50.44 and 50.79 of the Community Development Code. INTRODUCTION Proposed Ordinance 2549 will revise the City's Flood Management Area map to include new information from a detailed study of Springbrook Creek (Upper Springbrook Creek Flood Insurance Study) recently approved by FEMA. The proposed map revision was prepared in response to concerns of residents of the Spring Creek Condominiums who were being assessed inappropriate flood insurance premiums. Staff is also proposing code text amendments that clarify when flood map amendments are required. The code changes clarify that certain minor map revisions can occur administratively without a formal amendment to the City's Flood Management Area map. BACKGROUND The City initiated the map revision process in November, 2008 when it notified residents along Springbrook Creek about proposed changes to the Flood Insurance Rate Map 41005C, Panel 0012D for Lake Oswego, along Springbrook Creek. FEMA granted preliminary approval of the map on December 30, 2009 and instructed the City to revise their existing map to reflect these changes. On February 25, 2010, staff hosted an open house to discuss the proposed Flood Management Area map revisions and code changes with affected neighbors. A work session with the Planning Commission was held on March 8, 2010 and a public hearing was held on March 22, 2010. No testimony against the proposal was received at the hearing. The Planning Commission adopted findings in support of the proposed changes on April 12, 2010. Page 2 DISCUSSION Flood Management Area Map Amendments: The Flood Management Area map identifies where the City floodplain regulations apply. The map revision is based on the results of the detailed study conducted by Pacific Water Resources, Inc., for a 3460 foot reach of Springbrook Creek between Lower Twin Fir Road and Spring Lane. The original Springbrook Creek Flood Insurance Study, completed in 1986, did not evaluate the stream above Boones Way. Recognizing there was a floodplain associated with the stream, the reach between Boones Way and Country Club Road was classified as an "unnumbered A Zone". Meaning, base flood elevations were not established. For purposes of flood insurance rate setting, properties within an unnumbered A Zone are presumed to be at the highest risk thus pay the highest rates. Additionally, the City has completed a significant stream restoration project and a large culvert replacement along this reach of stream. Each project was designed to manage flood flows and enhance stream health. While the 1986 Study provided very little level of detail for this reach, the 2009 Upper Springbrook Creek Flood Insurance Study used peak flood flows that reflect current urbanized watershed conditions, advanced aerial photography, significant field survey data and modern computer modeling tools to more accurately map the floodplain. The new study more accurately delineates the true location of the floodplain. The results show a widening of the floodplain (an intended result of a stream restoration project) in some locations and a narrowing in others. Approximately eleven properties were removed from the floodplain and two, previously unmapped, properties were included. Furthermore, the study has developed Base Flood Elevations for this segment of the stream, allowing home owners to determine the true proximity between structures and the floodplain and assign the correct insurance rates for those affected properties. Code Amendments: The proposed code amendments clarify when City Flood Management Map amendments are required. The proposed text amendments include language that enables an applicant to bypass the City map amendment process when they follow certain FEMA processes for amending and revising Flood Insurance Rate Maps. In general, major changes require a City Flood Management Map amendment and the minor, single property changes do not. The code amendments are intended to be consistent with FEMA and Metro requirements. ALTERNATIVES & FISCAL IMPACT No alternatives are proposed at this time. The proposed Flood Management Area Map and Code amendments are a recommendation of the Planning Commission. Fiscal impact is minimal. The map changes are necessary for properties in the City to remain eligible for flood insurance through the National Flood Insurance Program. The floodplain designation will be removed from some properties and they will no longer need to carry flood insurance. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council tentatively approve LU 10-0003 and Ordinance 2549 and direct staff to return with findings, conclusions and a final ordinance for adoption on June 15, 2010. - y Page 3 EXHIBITS A. Notice of Appeal [No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use] B. Findings and Conclusions B-1 Approved Findings, dated April 12, 2010 C. Minutes C-1 Planning Commission Minutes (Work Session), March 8, 2010 C-2 Draft Planning Commission Minutes (Public Hearing), March 22, 2010 D. Staff Report D-1 Planning Commission, dated March 11, 2010 E. Graphic Exhibits [No current exhibits] F. Written Materials F-1 Draft Ordinance 2549 (Please note that this exhibit is superseded by F-1.1 and is therefore not included with this staff report.) F-1.1 Draft Ordinance 2549, dated April 12, 2010 F-2 Letter of Map Revision Determination Document from FEMA G. Letters [No current exhibits] Reviewed by: / 61e'''''-i-c--//Q14-)-C:C--- Depart ent Directo 4, tidk GYfy Attorney v Alex D. McIntyre - Y City Manager BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION O 1 OF THE OP° 3 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 4 5 A REQUEST FOR A ZONING MAP REVISION ) LU 10-0003- 1726 6 AND TEXT AMENDMENT TO ARTICLES 50.02 ) (CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO) 7 (DEFINITIONS) 50.44 (FLOOD MANAGEMENT ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS &ORDER 8 AREA)AND 50.79 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW ) 9 10 11 NATURE OF APPLICATION 12 13 A revision to the Flood Management Area Map and amendments to the Community Development Code 14 Articles 50.02 (Definitions), 50.44 (Flood Management Area) and 50.79 (Development Type and Review 15 Criteria). The map amendment is in response to a Letter of Map Revision from FEMA to reconfigure the 16 floodplain and establish new base flood elevations for a 2,030-foot reach of Springbrook Creek. 17 18 HEARINGS 19 20 The Planning Commission held a public hearing and considered this application at its meeting of March 21 22, 2010. 22 23 CRITERIA AND STANDARDS 24 25 A. City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan 26 27 Goal 1 Citizen Involvement 28 Policies 1, 2 and 5 29 30 Goal 7: Natural Disasters and Hazards 31 Section 1 Land Use Policies and Regulations, Policy 23 32 33 B. Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan 34 35 Title 4: Industrial and Other Employment Areas, Sections 3.07.410-3.07.450 36 37 C. City of Lake Oswego Community Development Code 38 39 LOC 50.01.010 Purpose 40 LOC 50.05.005 Zoning Districts 41 LOC 50.05.010 Zoning Map 42 LOC 50.79.030 Major Development 43 LOC 50.77.007 Burden of Proof 44 LOC 50.77.030 Application Procedures 45 LOC 50.82.005-.020 Review of Major Development Applications and Appeals 46 LOC 50.83.005-.040 Hearings before a Hearing Body 47 LOC 50.75.005 Legislative Decision Defined 48 LOC 50.75.010 Criteria for Legislative Decision 49 LOC 50.75.015 Required Notice to DLCD 50 LOC 50.79.020 Planning Commission Recommendation Required 51 LOC 50.79.025 City Council Review and Decision 52 53 D. Metro Urban Growth Funcitional Plan 54 Title 3—Water Quality and Flood Management 55 EXHIBIT B-1 56 LU 10-0003 LU 10-0003 PAGE 1 I CONCLUSION 7 3 The Planning Commission concludes that LU 10-0003 is in compliance with all applicable criteria. 4 5 FINDINGS AND REASONS 6 7 The Planning Commission incorporates the staff report, dated March 11, 2010, on LU 10-0003(with all 8 exhibits attached thereto) as support for its decision. The Planning Commission made no deliberations or 9 supplementary findings. 10 11 ORDER 12 13 IT IS ORDERED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION of the City of Lake Oswego that: 14 15 1. The Planning Commission recommends that LU 10-0003 be approved by the City Council. 16 17 I CERTIFY THAT THIS ORDER was presented to and APPROVED by the Planning Commission of the 18 City of Lake Oswego. 19 20 21 DATED this 12th day of April 2010. 22 23 24 25 Philip Stewart /s/ 26 Philip Stewart, Chair 27 Planning Commission 28 29 30 31 Iris McCaleb /s/ 32 Iris McCaleb 33 Administrative Support 34 35 36 ATTEST: 37 38 PRELIMINARY DECISION - March 22, 2010 39 40 AYES: Brockman, Glisson, Johnson, Jones, Stewart 41 NOES: None 42 ABSTAIN: None 43 RECUSE: None 44 EXCUSED: Paretchan, Gustafson 45 ABSENT: None 46 47 ADOPTION OF FINDINGS AND ORDER - April 12,2010 48 49 AYES: Brockman, Glisson, Gustafson, Johnson, Paretchan, Stewart 50 NOES: None 51 ABSTAIN: None 52 RECUSE: None 53 EXCUSED: Jones 54 ABSENT: None LU 10-0003 PAGE 2 LAKE OSWEGO Centennial 1910.2010 City of Lake Oswego tele Planning Commission Minutes 109100614 March 8, 2010 CALL TO ORDER Chair Philip Stewart called the Planning Commission meeting of March 8, 2010 to order at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 380 "A" Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon. II. ROLL CALL Members present were Chair Philip Stewart, Vice Chair Julia Glisson (arrived 6:49 p.m.) and Commissioners Adrianne Brockman, Jon Gustafson, Jim Johnson, Russell Jones and Lynne Paretchan (arrived 6:35 p.m.). Mayor Jack Hoffman and Council Liaison Bill Tierney participated in part of the meeting. Staff present were Debra Andreades, Senior Planner; Laura Weigel and Sarah Selden, Neighborhood Planners; Erica Rooney, Assistant City Engineer; Paul Espe, Associate Planner; David Powell, City Attorney; and Iris McCaleb, Administrative Support. III. CITIZEN COMMENT None. IV. COUNCIL UPDATE Mayor Hoffman thanked the Planning Commissioners for their work. He highlight=- projects the City Council was working on that the Planning Commission would - :• be involved in. He said he planned to work more closely with City boards and c•• issions this year. Council Liaison Tierney reported that the City Council had a.• • ed goals for 2010. They would use the new Centennial Celebration City seal fo ree years. They had reduced the time allotment for Citizen Comment at Co it meetings to three minutes. V. MINUTES Commissioner Brockman moved to a• ove the Minutes of January 11. 2010. Commissioner Jones seconded the •- ion and it passed 5:0. Vice Chair Glisson and Commissioner Paretchan were n• •resent during the vote. VI. PRESENTATION OF C" ' AL IMPROVEMENT PLAN (CIP) Erica Rooney, • sistant City Engineer/Engineering Services Manager, reported the City had de•..ed to update the CIP annually. Her department he EXHIBIT C-1 worth • •rojects to work on (not including LOIS and the Tigar pr. t), but there would not be enough funds available in Fisc LU 10-0003 ance them all. The Finance Department was balancing City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of March 8, 2010 Page 1 of 8 • the City could not lock in an application until the application was filed. Ms. Seld: clarified that interested neighbors could arrange to meet with the staff planner and .ok at the plans. She recalled that some had suggested staff scan everything into •• files and post them online, however that would require additional staffing sources. Commissioner Paretchan suggested if it was important enough that staffi•• resources could be reallocated to accomplish it. Ms. Selden asked if the Commissioners were still interested in .ringing the idea of having a separate CCI forward at the joint City Council/CCI eeting on April 27th. Commissioner Paretchan said no. Commissioner Gustafs• observed that the staff summary of citizen involvement activities and opportuniti= showed there was a lot of opportunity in the City for citizen involvement and he r: ailed Commissioner Brockman had suggested the City needed to do a better job of • esenting all those opportunities to the public. Because the opportunities were there e did not believe the City needed to have a separate CCI, but could do a be - job of presenting the opportunities. Commissioner Brockman indicated that in - • ideal world the City would want to have a separate CCI to help the City go forward ,ith projects such as the Comprehensive Plan update; water, sewer and trolley. Sh- aid she would support that, but she questioned whether the City Council would be r= eptive to the idea. Ms. Selden asked if there wer- any other items staff should list when they prepared the staff memorandum for th= joint meeting on April 27th. Commissioner Gustafson suggested asking if the y Council wanted to expand the scope of the CCI. It would be their decision, not •- Planning Commission's decision. Ms. Selden invited the Commissioners to _end staff their ideas in the next couple of weeks so they could incorporate they into the memorandum. She related that planning staff would also address Cit ouncil priorities for neighborhood planning and how to move the neighborh•.d enhancement program forward in their report. Commissioner Paretchan noted -- Commissioners had not known there was to be an April 27th joint City Cou it/CCI meeting until that evening, so they had not talked about what they wanted to .iscuss at the meeting. Ms. Selden suggested they discuss it again at the next Manning Commission meeting and convey more of their ideas to staff. IX. PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION LU 10-0003 — Adoption of Changes to the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) and the City's Flood Management Area Map in the Vicinity of Springbrook Creek. Paul Espe, Associate Planner. presented the staff report. He referred to the proposed revised flood management area map and explained the City had responded to concerns of residents of a condominium complex in that area that their property had been incorrectly mapped within the 100-year floodplain and they were being assessed inappropriate flood insurance premiums. A consultant had conducted the water resource study; Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) had granted preliminary approval; and the City was required to adopt the FEMA map revisions before May 14. 2010. The map amendments changed the upper reach of the Creek to more closely match the physical floodplain in that area. The related code amendments were necessary to bring the code into compliance with the National Flood Insurance Program and to allow the City to allow minor changes and help owners avoid a more cumbersome process if their property should not have been in the floodplain in the first place. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of March 8, 2010 Page 7 of 8 During the questioning period, Mr. Espe and Commissioner Johnson explained that the original map was wrong because the original hydrologic studies had used aerial photographs — not field studies — to determine where the floodplain was and they had not taken the urbanized nature of the creek into account. He said the City had already made other mapping changes in other places in the City based on photographs taken just after the 1996 flood and it had made changes to the map along the lake and canals a couple of years ago. Commissioner Brockman recalled the City had built a retention basin at the corner of Country Club and Boones Ferry Roads that likely reduced a potential 100-year flood. Mr. Espe advised that after the dam at Oswego Lake was modified the floodplain around the lake could possibly change. Commissioner Paretchan suggested that Lost Dog Creek might be another candidate for remapping. Mr. Espe reported that only residents of the affected condominiums had attended the public open house. They supported the changes. The public hearing was scheduled on March 22, 2010. X. OTHER BUSINESS— PLANNING COMMISSION Findings, Conclusions and Order LU 09-0034 (Ordinance 2552) — Campus Research & D= - opment Zone Amendments Commissioner Johnson moved to adopt LU 09-0034-1 , Findings. Conclusions and Order. Commissioner Brockman seconded the mo and it passed 7:0. Xl. SCHEDULE REVIEW The Planning Commission add e City Council/CCI meeting on April 27th to their schedule. They asked st-' • give them more notice of the annual City Council/CCI meeting next year. XII. ADJOURNM • Th- being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stewart a•journed the meeting at 8:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Iris McCaleb /s/ Iris McCaleb Administrative Support City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of March 8, 2010 Page 8 of 8 LAS osWc0 City of Lake Oswego Centennial 1910-2010 Planning Commission MinutesIsjO) March 22 2010 CALL TO ORDER Chair Philip Stewart called the Planning Commission meeting of March 22, 2010, to order at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber of City Hall at 380 "A" Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon. II. ROLL CALL Members present were Chair Philip Stewart, Vice Chair Julia Glisson and Commissioners Adrianne Brockman, Jon Gustafson, Jim Johnson and Russell Jones. Commissioners Jon Gustafson and Lynne Paretchan were excused. Staff present were Debra Andreades. Senior Planner; Hamid Pishvaie, Assistant Planning Director; Anthony Hooper, Management Analyst, Public Works Department; Paul Espe, Associate Planner; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney and Iris McCaleb, Administrative Support. III. CITIZEN COMMENT None. IV. COUNCIL UPDATE None. V. MINUTES Commissioner Brockman moved to accept the Mi es of February 8. 2010. Vice Chair Glisson seconded the motion and it passed 4• . Chair Stewart abstained. Commissioner Brockman moved to ept the Minutes of February 22, 2010. as corrected. and the minutes of Oc er 12, 2009. as presented. Vice Chair Glisson seconded the motion and it pas d 5:0. VI. CAPITAL IMPROVEME LAN Review of 201 1-2014/15 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and Advisory Recommend on to the City Council. Debra ndreades, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. Anthony Hooper, M gement Analyst, Public Works Department, advised that staff had selected the ojects they proposed for funding in the next fiscal year's budget after considering the EXHIBIT C-2 City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission LU 10-0003 Minutes of March 22, 2010 Page 1 of 5 need for each project and how well it fit the City's sustainability goal. He indicated it - a draft list that the City Manager, the Citizens Budget Committee and the Cit '•uncil would each examine and could revise. During the ensuing discussio. ice Chair Glisson noticed one project was referred to in three different locatio the CIP. Mr. Hooper planned to discuss that with the engineers in charge o e project and then report back. Public Testimo John Pullen, 18 Britten Court, suggested • - document should more clearly identify which projects were funded and whic -re unfunded and identify the revenue source for each funded project. He noted - - the draft CIP did not specify how all of the federal stimulus money was to be sp-- . Commissioner John . moved to advise the City Council that the March 17, 2010 Draft CIP was consi - with the Comprehensive Plan: and to recommend that the document beain with, Lxecutive Summary that listed funded and unfunded projects and identify wheritederal stimulus funds were to be used. Vice Chair Glisson seconded the motion it passed 5:0. VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS LU 10-0003 — Springbrook Creek Flood Area Map Amendments. A request from the City of Lake Oswego regarding text changes to the City's Flood Management Area standards (Article 50.44 of the Community Development Code) and changes to the City's Flood Management Area Map in the vicinity of Springbrook Creek. Chair Stewart opened the public hearing and explained the applicable procedure and criteria. He asked the Commissioners to declare any conflict of interest related to the application. None were declared. Staff Report Paul Espe, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. He referred to the revised maps and pointed out that as a result of the study, eleven properties had been removed from the floodplain and two others had been added. He advised that after adoption of the maps and code amendments the City would still be eligible for the national flood insurance program. There was no public testimony. Deliberations Commissioner Brockman observed that no one had come forward to raise any issues related to the proposed maps. Commissioner Johnson observed the new maps did a better job of delineating the floodplain and the result was the City had a more accurate tool to use. Commissioner Brockman moved to approve LU 10-0003. Commissioner Jones seconded the motion and it passed 5:0. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of March 22, 2010 Page 2 of 5 U STAFF REPORT CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO PLANNING DIVISION APPLICANT: FILE NO: City of Lake Oswego LU 10-0003 PROPERTY OWNERS: STAFF: Multiple property owners along Springbrook Paul Espe, Associate Planner and Creek Dennis Egner, AICP, Long Range Planning Manager LEGAL DESCRIPTION: DATE OF REPORT: None March 11, 2010 LOCATION: DATE OF HEARING: A 2030-foot reach of Springbrook Creek March 22, 2010 from approximately 545 feet downstream of Boones Way to a Point approximately 130 feet upstream of Spring Lane COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION: ZONING DESIGNATION: N/A N/A NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION: REQUEST: Lake Grove Flood Management Area Map Revision / Text Amendment to Articles 50.02 (Definitions) 50.44 (Flood Management Area) and 50.79 (Development Review). I. APPLICANT'S REQUEST The City is proposing a revision to the Flood Management Area Map and amendments to the Community Development Code Articles 50.02 (Definitions), 50.44 (Flood Management Area) and 50.79 (Development Type and Review Criteria). The map amendment is in response to a Letter of Map Revision from FEMA to reconfigure the floodplain and establish new base flood elevations for a 2,030-foot reach of Springbrook Creek. EXHIBIT D-1 Planning Commission Public Hearing 1 LU 10-0003 March 22, 2010 The proposed code amendments add language that facilitates FEMA's Map revision and amendment process. The code changes help to assure that properties in the City are eligible for flood insurance through the National Flood Insurance Program. II. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Section 50.75.010 of the Community Development Code sets forth the criteria for legislative decisions involving map and code text amendments. The section states: A legislative decision is generally a policy decision which is up to the discretion of the City Council, but shall: 1. Comply with any applicable state law; 2. Comply with any applicable Statewide Planning Goal or Administrative Rule adopted pursuant to ORS Chapter 197; and 3. In the case of a legislative amendment to this Community Development Code, comply with any applicable provision of the Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan. The applicable laws, goals, policies, and code requirements are listed below. Staff findings and conclusions are provided in Section V. A. City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan Goal 1: Citizen Involvement Policies 1, 2 & 5 Goal 7: Natural Disasters and Hazards (Section 1 Flood Hazards) Policies 3, 4, 9 B. StateWide Planning Goals Goal 1: Citizen Involvement Goal 7: Natural Hazards C. City of Lake Oswego Community Development Code: LOC 50.01.010 Purpose LOC 50.05.005 Zoning Districts LOC 50.05.010 Zoning Map LOC 50.79.030 Major Development LOC 50.77.007 Burden of Proof LOC 50.77.030 Application Procedures LOC 50.82.005-.020 Review of Major Development Applications and Appeals LOC 50.83.005-.040 Hearings before a Hearing Body LOC 50.75.005 Legislative Decision Defined LOC 50.75.010 Criteria for Legislative Decision LOC 50.75.015 Required Notice to DLCD LOC 50.79.020 Planning Commission Recommendation Required LOC 50.79.025 City Council Review and Decision Planning Commission Public Hearing 2 LU 10-0003 March 22, 2010 D. Metro Urban Growth Functional Plan Title 3 — Water Quality and Flood Management III. SUMMARY/ORGANIZATION This report addresses the amendment of the Flood Management Area Map and amendments to three separate sections of the Community Development Code: • Article 50.02 (Definitions) • Article 50.44 (Flood Management Area) • 50.79 (Development Type and Review Criteria) Staffs analysis of the proposed amendments consists of two parts: • A summary of proposed map and code amendments and background information. • Specific findings and conclusions that show how the map and code amendments comply with all applicable Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies, State Wide Planning Goals, and Metro Functional Plan requirements. IV. SUMMARY OF MAP REVISION, CODE AMENDMENTS AND BACKGROUND A. Map Revision and Code Amendments (Background Information) The main reason for completing the upper Springbrook Creek Flood Insurance Study was due to the concern that residents of the Spring Creek Condominiums were being assessed inappropriate flood insurance premiums. Many of these condominium buildings located downstream of Spring Lane are currently mapped within the 100 year floodplain. The original Springbrook Creek Flood Insurance Study, completed in 1986, used peak flood flow estimates that did not take into consideration the urbanized nature of the Springbrook Creek Watershed. The 2009 Upper Springbrook Creek Flood Insurance Study used peak flood flows that reflect current urbanized watershed conditions. The City initiated a map amendment process with FEMA in June, 2008. The details of this process are discussed below. In 2002, the City of Lake Oswego partnered with Clean Water Services in Washington County to have a new flood study completed for Oswego Lake and the Oswego Canal. Clean Water Services was in the process of conducting a major study of the entire Tualatin Basin. The Lake Oswego portion of the study generated new flood maps that depict a rise in the level of the base flood along the Tualatin River, the Oswego Canal. and Oswego Lake. Around the lake, the base flood elevation increased by 2.5 feet. On December 17, 2007, the new flood maps were approved by FEMA and the Flood Insurance Program. In 2008, the City adopted the new maps and revised its flood management area standards. Planning Commission Public Hearing 3 LU 10-0003 March 22. 2010 The adopted maps identify the area of"Special Flood Hazard." This is the area determined to have a 1% chance of flooding in any given year and is more commonly known as the 100-year floodplain (it is also recognized as the area that is subject to the "base flood"). The area of Special Flood Hazard is identified in a report by FEMA, the Preliminary Flood Insurance Study for Clackamas County, Oregon and Incorporated Cities, dated September 30, 2006. The report includes an updated digitized Flood Insurance Rate Map which serves as a data source for the City's Flood Management Area Map. The study and Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map are on file with the Engineering Division. 1. Flood Management Area Map Changes The City Engineering department hired Pacific Water Resources to conduct a Hydrologic Study of Spring brook Creek in December 2007. The City initiated the Letter of Map Revision process in November 2009 when it notified residents along Springbrook Creek about revisions to the Flood Insurance Rate Map 41005C, Panel 0012D for Lake Oswego, along Springbrook Creek. FEMA granted preliminary approval of the map on December 30, 2009 and has deemed May 14, to be the final date for the City to adopt the Letter of Map Revision. Upon receiving the Notice of FEMA's preliminary approval, the City initiated the process of amending its Flood Management Area maps by revising Appendix 50.44.005 (Map B) to be consistent with the Letter of Map Revision. The Flood Management Area map is a zoning overlay map that identifies where the City floodplain regulations apply. The map revision is based on the results of the detailed study conducted by Pacific Water Resources, Inc., for Springbrook Creek from approximately 545 feet downstream of Boones Way to a point approximately 100 feet upstream of Spring Lane. The study reach is approximately 2,030 feet long. Staff sponsored an open house on February 25, 2010 to provide an opportunity for citizens to learn more about the map amendments and code changes. The open house provided background information on the Flood Management Area and an opportunity for residents to review the FEMA flood maps. 2. Flood Management Area Code Amendments The proposed code amendments are primarily intended to be consistent With FEMA's regulations and provide some additional language to support minor changes to the Flood Management Area map. Some of these map changes can occur administratively. The proposed text amendments include language that enables an applicant to utilize FEMA's process when amending and revising Flood Insurance Rate Maps. An explanation of these procedures is discussed below. Planning Commission Public Hearing 4 LU 10-0003 March 22, 2010 FEMA's Administrative Procedures for Map Revision. This process is for property owners that believe their property may be inadvertently shown in a Special Flood Hazard Area. These owners may submit a detailed study and elevation information to FEMA for a formal determination of the property's location relative to the Special Flood Hazard Area. Letter of Map Amendment Process: The Letter of Map Amendment is an administrative procedure to change the designation of properties on the Flood Insurance Rate Map. Owners of structures or unimproved parcels of land built on natural ground (not raised above the base flood by the placement of fill) may request a Letter of Map Amendment. A Letter of Map Amendment may be issued by FEMA following submittal of a written application demonstrating that the area is not within the Special Flood Hazard Area. Letter of Map Revision - Fill Process: The Letter of Map Revision-Fill, process is intended to allow map revisions where small areas of earthen fill may have been placed during construction, elevating a small area within the Special Flood Hazard Area above the Base Flood Elevation. Because of the limited extent of the elevated area and the limitations of the map scale, it may not have been possible for FEMA to show this area as being outside the Special Flood Hazard Area when the FIRM was created. FEMA does not amend the Flood Insurance Rate Map as a result of a Letter of Map Amendment or Letter of Map Revision-Fill, but uses the "letter" to demonstrate that a specific parcel is out of the Flood Hazard Area. Letter of Map Revision Process: A Letter of Map Revision is FEMA's process to modify the Flood Insurance Rate Map, or Flood Boundary and Floodway Map, or both. Letters of Map Revisions are generally based on the implementation of physical measures that affect the hydrologic characteristics of a flooding source and thus result in the modification of the existing regulatory floodway, the effective Base Flood Elevations, or the Special Flood Hazard Areas. The Letter of Map Revision officially revises the Flood Insurance Rate Map or Flood Boundary and Floodway Map, and sometimes the Flood Insurance Study report, and when appropriate, includes a description of the modifications. The Letter of Map Revision is generally accompanied by an annotated copy of the affected portions of the Flood Insurance Rate Map, Flood Boundary and Flood Map, or Flood Insurance Study report. All requests for changes to effective maps, other than those initiated by FEMA, must be made in writing by the City Manager or an official designated by the City Manager. Because a Letter of Map Revision officially revises the effective National Flood Insurance Program Map, it is a public record that the community must maintain. A Letter of Map Revision is a more substantial change and should be noted on the community's master flood map. Similar to the Planning Commission Public Hearing 5 LU 10-0003 March 22, 2010 Letter of Map Amendment and Letter of Map Revision-Fill, FEMA requires engineering analysis before they will issue a Letter of Map Revision. The process also requires a public notice period, a review period by FEMA (sometimes as long as six months), and an appeal period for property owners affected by the change. This is the process the City is currently following to amend the Flood Maps for the Springbrook Creek Area. B. Code Changes 1. Approach With the Letter of Map Amendment or the Letter of Map Revision- Fill process. the scale of the proposed map change is generally very small and is usually related to a specific property. These are owner-initiated changes that are processed administratively and are kept on file at the City. They do result in a change to the Flood Insurance Rate Map or the City's Flood Management Area maps. The proposed code amendments are written to make this clear. The changes to the code also clarify the Letter of Map Revision process (the process that that amends the Flood Insurance Rate Map) and also triggers the process to amend the City's Flood Management Area Map. 2. Revisions to Article 50.02 (Definitions) This article is proposed for revision to better comply with FEMA regulations. These terms are related to Article 50.44, but are found in the "Definitions" section of the code. Summaries of the code changes are listed below: Definitions (LOC 50.02.005) a. Except for the "Flood Management Area" definition, flood related definitions were moved from the General Definition Article (Article 50.02.) to the flood management section of the code (Article 50.44) because they are unique to flood management. b. The definition of"Flood Management Area" found under (LOC 50.44.005(2)) has been changed so that the areas that are within the mapped Flood Management Area would not be subject to the flood management standards if a Letter of Map Amendment or a Letter of Map Revision-Fill for the structure or parcel is issued. Planning Commission Public Hearing 6 LU 10-0003 March 22, 2010 3. Revisions to Article 50.44 (Flood Management Area) Summaries of the code changes are listed below: a. Applicability (LOC 50.44.005) Language was added to the Applicability (Section 50.44.005) to include FEMA map amendment and revision processes for properties that are subject to a letter of Map Amendment or a Letter of Map Revision-Fill. b. Map Administration (LOC 50.44.015) The Map Administration Section of the code (50.44.015) was amended to clarify and integrate the FEMA procedural framework related to the Letter of Map Amendment, Letter of Map Revision-Fill, and the Letter of Map Revision. A Letter of Map Revision is a more substantial map change over a larger area. As with the Letter of Map Amendment, and Letter of Map Revision- Fill process, FEMA requires extensive engineering analysis for these changes. The Letter of Map Revision process requires a public notice to property owners, a specified review period by FEMA (sometimes up to 6 months), and an appeal period for property owners affected by the change. 4. Revisions to LOC 50.79.020 (Minor Development Classification) a. Minor Development Classification LOC 50.79.020 A reference to the Flood Management Article (50.44) was added to the Minor Development Classification Article (Article 50.79.020(2) (n)). V. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE CRITERIA A. City Of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan Policies GOAL 1: CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT Land Use Policies 1, 2 & 5 1. Provide opportunities for citizen participation in preparing and revising local land use plans and ordinances. 2. Provide citizen involvement opportunities that are appropriate to the scale of a given planning effort. Large area plans, affecting a large portion of community residents and groups require citizen involvement opportunities of a broader scope than that required for more limited land use decisions. 5. Seek citizen input through service organizations, interest groups and individuals, as well as through neighborhood organizations. Planning Commission Public Hearing 7 LU 10-0003 March 22, 2010 Findings: This Goal insures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process. The City's acknowledged Comprehensive Plan and Community Development Code contain all the necessary requirements for a citizen involvement program which clearly define the procedures by which the general public will be notified in the on-going land use planning process and enables citizens to comprehend the issues and become involved in decision making. All required notification measures and opportunities for input are specified in these documents and were provided during this process. Through FEMA's process, the Letter of Map Revision will be published in the local paper and the 90 day appeal period established by FEMA began January 14, 2010 after which the Letter of Map Revision will become effective. FEMA has deemed May 14, to be the effective date and the final date of adoption of the Letter of Map Revision. The City Engineering department notified residents along Springbook Creek of these changes in November, 2009. After the Letter of Map Revision was issued, the City sponsored an open house on February 25, 2010, to provide an opportunity for citizens to learn more about the map revisions and code changes. The open house provided background information on the Flood Management Area and an opportunity for residents to review the FEMA flood maps. Citizens and neighborhood groups will have further opportunity to participate in the review of the proposed amendments during the City's public hearing processes. Conclusion: The amendments are consistent with the above policies. GOAL 7: AREAS SUBJECT TO NATURAL DISASTERS AND HAZARDS Relevant policies include Policies 3, 4, and 9 Policy 3. Review development proposals, including public facilities, filling and grading, within areas subject to flooding to ensure: a. Conformance with FEMA and other regulatory agencies; b. Reasonable protection of public facilities; c. The flow, velocity and elevation of flood waters are not changed so as to endanger other property; d. Natural systems such as fish and wildlife habitat, vegetation, wetlands and stream corridors are protected; and, Planning Commission Public Hearing 8 LU 10-0003 March 22, 2010 r e. Other problems associated with flooding such as ponding, poor drainage, high water tables and unstable soils are addressed. Findings: The City is revising its Flood Management Area maps to include new information from the detailed study of Springbrook Creek and approved by the Letter of Map Revision from FEMA. The City is amending the applicable code sections to integrate FEMA's map revision process with the City code and remain in compliance with the National Flood Insurance Program. Statewide Planning Goal 7 requires that local governments participate in the Flood Insurance Program administered under FEMA. The proposal conforms with FEMA and other regulatory agencies. Conclusion: The amendments comply with Goal 7, Policy 3. Policy 4. Protect, restore and maintain the natural systems of floodplains including riparian vegetation, wooded areas, wetlands and fish and wildlife habitat. Findings: The map amendments are in response to a Letter of Map Revision from FEMA to reconfigure the floodplain and establish new base flood elevations for a 2,030 foot reach of Springbrook Creek. The map revision provides more accurate floodplain information. The proposed code amendments are primarily to add language that facilitates FEMA's Map revision and amendment processes. Establishing the location of the floodplain and providing accurate base flood elevation data allows for the continued protection and maintenance for this section of Springbrook Creek, implementing Policy 4. Conclusion: The amendments comply with Goal 7, Policy 4. Policy 9. Protect, restore and maintain watercourses within the floodplain. Findings: The proposed map revision and code amendments protect the watercourses within the Springbrook Creek floodplain. The proposed map revision to revise FIRM 41005C. Panel 0012D for Lake Oswego, along Springbrook Creek implements Policy 9 by providing accurate flood information for this reach of Springbrook Creek. This revision more accurately identifies the location of the floodplain for this watercourse. Conclusion: The amendments comply with Goal 7, Policy 9. B. Consistency with Statewide Planning Goals Goal 1 - Citizen Involvement Findings: Please refer to findings under City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan, Goal 1- Citizen Involvement, Policies 1, 2 & 5. Conclusion: Adequate opportunities for citizen involvement are being made available, consistent with the requirements of Statewide Goal 1. Planning Commission Public Hearing 9 LU 10-0003 March 22, 2010 • Goal 7 - Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards This goal requires jurisdictions "to protect life and property from natural disasters and hazards." It requires communities to use "appropriate safeguards" in known areas of natural disasters and hazards. The adoption of a revised flood Management Area Map and code amendments to comply with the Federal Emergency Management Agency regulations is consistent with this Goal. Conclusion: The amendments are consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 7. C. Lake Oswego Community Development Code Procedural Requirements LOC 50.01 .010 Purpose LOC 50.05.005 Zoning Districts LOC 50.05.010 Zoning Map LOC 50.79.030 Major Development LOC 50.77.007 Burden of Proof LOC 50.77.030 Application Procedures LOC 50.82.005-.020 Review of Major Development Applications and Appeals LOC 5 .83 Hearings before a Hearing Body LOC 50.75.005 Legislative Decision Defined LOC 50.75.010 Criteria for Legislative Decision LOC 50.75.015 Required Notice to DLCD LOC 50.79.020 Planning Commission Recommendation Required LOC 50.79.025 City Council Review and Decision Findings: The application has been submitted, noticed and reviewed in accordance with the City of Lake Oswego Community Development Code requirements. Approval of this application will result in revisions to the Flood Management Area Map and code amendments to Articles 50.02 (Definitions) 50.44 (Flood Management Area) and 50.44.005 (Applicability). Conclusion: The record indicates that the application complies with all of the above applicable procedural requirements. D. Consistency with The Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan Title 3 of the Metro Urban Growth Functional Plan addresses water quality and flood hazards. The City of Lake Oswego amended its floodplain standards in 2003 to comply with Metro Title 3 requirements. The new map revision and code amendments do not make any changes that would take the City out of compliance with Title 3. The proposed code Planning Commission Public Hearing 10 LU 10-0003 March 22, 2010 amendments were sent to Metro staff for review. No comments were received. Conclusion: The proposed map and code changes are consistent with Title 3 of Metro's Urban Growth Functional Plan. VI. CONCLUSION / RECOMMENDATION This proposal complies with all applicable Community Development Code criteria, the City's Comprehensive Plan, Metro's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan and Statewide Goals and Policies. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of LU 10-0003 to the City Council. VII. 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 [No Current Exhibits reserved for hearing use] E. Graphics E-1 Revised Flood Management Area Map (Appendix 50.44.005-B) F. Written Materials F-1 Draft Ordinance 2549 revising the Flood Management Area Map and amending Articles 50.02 (Definitions), 50.44 (Floodway Management Area) and 50.79 (Development Type and Review Criteria). F=2..... Letter of Map Revision (LOMB) from FEMA. G. Letters None Planning Commission Public Hearing 11 LU 10-0003 March 22, 2010 • DEFECTS IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT REVISED Flood Management Area Map Appendix 50.44.005 Map B \._ iiii �!,�1u:•ei� For Flood Hazard Map '/ i / i I t, Fl - Springbrook Creek / Twin Fr ( 1 ryPC�•Mmuul Chunw FbW Mo alt110 year flood • li//) a%"��' -. C7 r' 'M =Flaodd a/da•tir-SFW1 In,uanwrevnnant lie 49 1 ��' ( .. �$- 1,570sa amofo2�anmsal cluttcz Itaoa arra uroas gd•,au,1 tW ei]Oot ? LL h1'e annual chance hood(FEMA Zone XI A223 .r�! ' .1, WJ Oe,.�-. 17fc� FYvrdvaylarwvAMnIM IOfYyearMallkrm tallaurin la�� 'I+ {1L0_M15006 '1[': aneyxh •aneu +adereblwrwlt hghly llet f,; 7 15001 ra•�r tNl '�I L 1y 15010' MS15012 -. -i5ee Fkwd Insura,nrn Study for , >' —^ 15125 1 .'G'as ,. - I ti 6 Y1 N FEM{&rse Fwad E�raron IBFE)I t00 year n wd cicr.rtcn{00 � pn•� 15706 3 G JSet 15134 8o, CI t677. .- 1' Wemp 0 _ 100 200 300 400 500 n7\ 11^/ "4`1,11.4 '1514, a1 15'147 "IS t x� ;X u 1/3� 'aY� 16 \�' I b �! 0- 1512e•W 151.0 - 15t>t '�-� b `� Sb3� ,94,:lif!" -,.. . ���` wsgn o . 15235 15200 g y � /,\-, ' a, Ys g \/ ,"�i.' k. °I.,!1 � i$277 52 7 _..�.. -I. Q r' � Way �'aulllro >.ln - 7 -- 's$ _' c t1Y 4.Z" 1530: T i ..-.g — e = r , �'i _i+ SCA,. t 21 =II 3 /57004 sus , }} Y . 15J00� i1MC14 h 5 i1�4- a 8 _ " Q Atli/!I 192 atfr 190 ■ / /1�•_. 1 J S �Or . %- J ,5450 ,•...�� ����V' %;:��0/��/.5:1� ''eeie6 � .+�M ' L"ii j %� �<� 1 I Z s�►lj.. 194 Ii /i -fes► c,;.'''' Ill „......„,., 15430 ( ill 142 �� s%:I i 'r f" ,,s. MN R.0 Cedv 4\ r„,,,,,, /. Way s Ji y1 {gam. is„ tatin '� is _. i o �/� -r ' CI + ♦„33 f ' J •.' �._ 4r 5 ❑ (� �ii t Alit s ..,, rif nn' A 1ism , EXHIBIT E-1 LU 10-0003 ORDINANCE NO 2549 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO AMENDING LOC ARTICLE 50.44 (FLOOD MANAGEMENT AREA) REGARDING APPLICABILITY, MAP AMENDMENTS, AND THE FLOOD MANAGEMENT AREA FOR A PORTION OF SPRINGBROOK CREEK (LU 10-0003). WHEREAS, a notice of public hearing for consideration of this Ordinance was duly given in the manner required by law; and, WHEREAS, a public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on March 22, 2010 and Lake Oswego City Council on May 18, 2010 to review the Planning Commission's recommendation to amend Section 50.02.005, Definitions, Article 50.44 Flood Management Area, Section 50.79.020 Minor Development Classification, and LOC Appendix 50.44.005-B; and, WHEREAS, LOC 50.44.015 specifies that, where amendments to the Flood Management Area Map are due to changes to the Special Flood Hazard Areas depicted on Flood Insurance Rate maps on the National Flood Insurance Program, the City amendment would be dependent on successful compliance with the map revision process of the National Flood Insurance Program (40 CFR 65); and, WHEREAS, FEMA has approved a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) for a portion of Springbrook Creek, published their decision, and the 90 day appeal period ends April 14, 2010 after which the LOMR became effective; and, WHEREAS, the Staff Report dated March 11, 2010, addresses applicable criteria and is hereby incorporated; and, WHEREAS, these amendments are consistent with LOC Article 50.44 (Flood Management Area), and Chapter 7, (Flood Hazards) of the City of Lake Oswego's acknowledged Comprehensive Plan. WHEREAS, the purpose of the following amendments are to comply with the Federal Emergency Management Agency regulations relating to flood insurance. The City of Lake Oswego ordains as follows: Section 1. Section 50.02.005 of the Lake Oswego Code is hereby amended by adding the text shown in double underlined type and deleting the text shown in strikethrough type,as follows: EXHIBIT F-1.1 LU 10-0003 Draft-Ordinance No. 2549, LU 10-0003 Revisions to the FIRM Springbrook Creek April 12,2010 Page 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: Filling (fill). A deposit of material by artificial means, generally for pu:poses-ef development or redevelopment. Fill material includes, but is not limited to, sand, gravel, of normally dry land area from the overflow of inland waters or the unusual and-rapid aecumulation of runoff of surface waters from any source. Flood, Base. The floc ha•-_ : . - . - - •.,• _ _ : - . - - - ., given year. The "Base Flood" is also known as the "100 year flood". Flood Boundary and Floodway Map. The official FEMA map of a community, issued by Flood Hazard Area, Special or "Areas of Special Flood Hazards". Area of special flood hazard shall be defined as stated in 11 .. - . -_ . „ See. 594 -- •. _ •- -- ° :•. • .•. ' -•- . ornmunity subject to a 1 percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year. The area may be designated as Zone A on the FHBM. After detailed ratemaking has been completed in preparation for publication of the flood insurance rate map, Zone A usually is refined into Zones A, AO, AH, Al 30, AE, A99, AR, AR/A1 30, AR/AE, AR/AO, AR/AH, AR/A, VO, or V1 30, VE, or V. or as such definition is amended by the Federal Insurance .^A—"-'stvatic n after Juno 3, 2008. For purposes of LOC Article 50.11, Flood Management Area, the term "special flood hazard arca" is Llyncnymous in meaning with the phrase "area of special flood hazard". - - - ' - : (FIR :: The official map on which the Federal Insurance • _ -•- : - -- ., . - _'. :._ s and the risk premium zones applicable to the community. "Special Flood Hazard Area" shall he given the - - Flood Management Area. See LOC 50.44.012. • .. _ - --: • -- !! . flood boundary as shown on the most recent Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) and . ., ., - ... . - _-d Ins u.a nce-Pregfain by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The Flood Management Area inundated during the February 1996 flood along the Willamette River, the T..al tin Riv- . - -- e ,. . . - t .. • :. . Flood Proofing. To make . - - •_• ' - . . _ .. •- - -- . - - -- - - - - -- -pability of resisting hydrostatic and hydrody ., •.- ..•• - - .. . . watercourse and the adjacent land areas that must be reserved in order to discharge the Draft-Ordinance No.2549, LU 10-0003 Revisions to the FIRM Springbrook Creek April 12,2010 Page 2 base flood ..ithout .. . . ' - - -- .. - . foot. Flood-..ayFloodway Frir o. The area of the floodplain •-- . . -- 2 : _ . . Section 2. Section 50.44.005 of the Lake Oswego Code is hereby amended by adding the text shown in double underlined type and deleting the text shown in strike- through type, as follows: Section 50.44.005 Applicability. This Article shall apply to all development within the "Flood Management Area" except if a development or a parcel is the subiect of a Letter of Man Amendment (LOMA) or Letter of Map Revision—Fill (LOMR-F) issued by FEMA. at the reauest of the property owner. 2. The Flood Management Area includes: Administtation in a scientific and engineering report entitled "The Flood Insurance Study for ClackmCounty, OR and Incorporated Cities" dated June 17, 2008, with the accompanying current Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), which arc h reby adopted by reference and declared to be a part of this ordinance. The Flood Insurance Study and-the FIRM are on file at the Planning Division. is. The area of inundation by the February 1996 flood along the Willamette River. 3. The Flood Management Area is depicted on Flood Management Area Maps included as Appendix 50.44.005 A D. Section 3. A new Section 50.44.012 is added to Lake Oswego Code,Article 55.44 as follows: Section 50.44.012 Definitions. For purposes of this Article, the following definitions shall apply: Filling (fill). A deposit of material by artificial means, generally for purposes of development or redevelopment. Fill material includes, but is not limited to, sand, gravel, soil, rock, and inorganic building materials. Flood or Flooding. A general and temporary condition of partial or complete inundation of normally dry land area from the overflow of inland waters or the unusual and rapid accumulation of runoff of surface waters from any source. Flood, Base. The flood having a one percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. The "Base Flood" is also known as the "100-year flood". Flood Boundary and Floodwav Map. The official FEMA map of a community, issued by the Federal Insurance Administrator, where the boundaries of the floodway and floodway fringe have been designated. Flood Hazard Area, Special or "Areas of Special Flood Hazards". Area of special flood hazard shall be defined as stated in 44 Code of Federal Regulations Sec. 59.1: Draft-Ordinance No.2549,LU 10-0003 Revisions to the FIRM Springbrook Creek April 12,2010 Page 3 The land in the floodplain within a community subject to a 1 percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year. The area may be designated as Zone A on the FHBM. After detailed ratemaking has been completed in preparation for publication of the flood insurance rate map, Zone A usually is refined into Zones A, AO, AH, A1-30, AE, A99, AR, AR/A1-30, ARAE, AR/AO, AR/AH, AR/A, VO, or V1-30, VE, or V. or as such definition is amended by the Federal Insurance Administration after June 3, 2008. The term "special flood hazard area" is synonymous in meaning with the phrase "area of special flood hazard". Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). The official map on which the Federal Insurance Administrator has delineated both the areas of special flood hazards and the risk premium zones applicable to the community. Flood Management Area. The area depicted on the Flood Management Area Maps, LOC Appendix 50.44.012-A-D. The Flood Management Area Map shows: a. FEMA Mapped Areas: i. The areas of special flood hazard, as identified by the Federal Insurance Administration in a scientific and engineering report entitled "The Flood Insurance Study for Clackamas County, OR and Incorporated Cities" dated June 17, 2008, ii. The Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), as issued by FEMA at the time of last amendment of the Flood Management Area Map was effective pursuant to LOC 50.44.015, and iii. The Flood Boundary and Floodway Maps created for the National Flood Insurance Program by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA); which are hereby adopted by reference and declared to be a part of this ordinance b. The area inundated during the February 1996 flood along the Willamette River, the Tualatin River, and the Oswego Canal to the south of Bryant Road. Flood-Proofing. To make a structure watertight with walls substantially impermeable to the passage of water and with structural components having the capability of resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads and effects of buoyancy. Floodway. The area within the floodplain which includes the channel of a river or other watercourse and the adjacent land areas that must be reserved in order to discharge the base flood without cumulatively increasing the water surface elevation more than one foot. Floodway Fringe. The area of the floodplain lying outside the floodway. Draft-Ordinance No. 2549,LU 10-0003 Revisions to the FIRM Springbrook Creek April 12,2010 Page 4 t J Section 4. Section 50.44.015 of the Lake Oswego Code is hereby amended by adding the text shown in double underlined type and deleting the text shown in strike- through type, as follows: Section 50.44.015 Map Administration. Amendments to the Map. The purpose of this section is to provide a process for amending the Flood Management Area Map. LOC Appendix 50.44.012-A–D. 1. Revision of FIRM. If amendments to the Flood Management Area Map are due to result in changes to the Special Flood Hazards Areas depicted on Flood Insurance Rate Maps of the National Flood Insurance Program_or by Letter of Man Revision [but not including Letter of Man Revision–Fill (LOMR-F11. the City amendment shall be dependent upon successful compliance with the map revision process of the National Flood Insurance Program (40 CFR 65). When FEMA amends the FIRM. includina as a result of a Letter of Man Revision (LOMR) but not includina by a LOMR-F. a public hearing shall be held. and notice given in the same manner as for a man error in subsection (2) below. The amendment of the Flood Management Area Map shall be recommended by the Planning Commission. and amended by the City Council upon finding that the man revision process of the National. Flood Insurance Program (40 CFR 65) was followed and that FEMA has amended the FIRM by the LOMR process. 2. Man Error: a. Within 90 days of receiving information establishing a possible error in the existence or location of a Flood Management Area, the City Manager shall provide notice of a public hearing at which the Planning Commission will review the error for compliance with LOC Article 50.44. Notice of the hearing shall be sent to property owners who have property that will be included or withdrawn from the Flood Management area as a result of the change. Notice shall also be sent to owners of property within 100 feet of the affected properties. Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission shall make a recommendation to the City Council as to whether the Flood Management Area boundaries should be changed. b. — -. The City Council shall amend the Flood Management Area Map if the information demonstrates that there is an error : . -- .. . ... •- •- - ... Management Area have changed since adoption of theon the Flood Management Area Map. Section 5. Section 50.79.0020 of the Lake Oswego Code is hereby amended by adding the text shown in double underlined type and deleting the text shown in strike- through type,as follows: Section 50.79.020 Minor Development Classification. 1. A Minor Development is a development which requires a permit from the City that requires a more discretionary level of review than a ministerial decision. "Minor Development" is intended to include decisions defined as "limited land use decisions" pursuant to ORS 197.015 (12). 2. "Minor Development" includes: a. In the DD zone: Draft-Ordinance No.2549, LU 10-0003 Revisions to the FIRM Springbrook Creek April 12,2010 Page 5 i. Construction of new single family detached dwellings, duplexes, multi-family dwellings, zero lot line dwellings or exterior modification of a structure containing a non- conforming use that requires a building permit; ii. Expansion or reconstruction that result in a change of use (e.g. from single family to duplex) or in an expansion of floor area of an existing structure by more than 50%. iii. Any exterior modification of a single family detached dwelling that reduces setbacks pursuant to LOC 50.09.025 (5). b. Construction or exterior modification of a detached single family structure, duplex, zero lot line dwelling or a structure accessory to such structures which: i. Does not qualify as a ministerial decision pursuant to LOC 55.79.010 (2)(b)(i) through (viii); or ii. Requires one or more variances. c. Involves a determination by the City Manager that a use not expressly permitted in the zone may be allowed pursuant to the considerations contained in LOC 50.04.015. In such case, the required notice shall include a description of the proposed use and the reasons for the City Manager's determination. d. Involves an improvement to an existing school facility that will increase the capacity of the school facility, generate additional traffic, or generate significant additional noise or other negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood. e. Secondary dwelling units. f. Construction of a structure other than a detached single family dwelling, duplex, zero lot line dwelling or accessory structure, or an exterior modification of such a structure which does not qualify as a ministerial development pursuant to LOC 50.79.010 (2)(c). g. Lot line adjustments which would increase allowable density on the site. h. Partitions. i. Subdivisions (with or without a Planned Development overlay). j. Review of development phases subject to an ODPS. k. A change of use from one permitted use to another that increases on-site parking or loading requirements or which changes access requirements pursuant to LOC Article 50.55 or that will result in the construction of private streets, driveways. 1. Determining an RC District protection area pursuant to LOC 50.16.055. m. Construction of a structure described in LOC 50.60.005 (2). n. Fill in the floodway or fill in quantities greater than 10 cubic yards when located elsewhere in the Flood Management Area, excluding fill for single family detached dwellings, duplexes, zero lot line dwellings, water dependent uses, or related accessory structures when the fill is located within the floodplain of Oswego Lake. as provided by LOC Article 50.44. o. Outright permitted residential dwellings, other than in the DD zone, when processed through the Residential Infill Design Review process (LOC Article 50.72). p. Variances, Class 1 or Class 2. q. Construction of any public or private road, or major transportation or utility facility within a delineated RP District or buffer or RC protection area. r. Permitted uses in the PNA zone that are not listed as exempt in LOC 50.79.005 or classified as a ministerial use. Draft-Ordinance No.2549, LU 10-0003 Revisions to the FIRM Springbrook Creek April 12,2010 Page 6 • 3. Minor developments are initially decided by the City Manager subject to notice, the opportunity to request a hearing, and appeal as provided by LOC Article 50.81. Section 6. LOC Appendices 50.44.005-A, 50.44.005-C, and 50.44.005-D are renumbered as LOC Appendices 50.44.012-A, 50.44.012-C, and 50.44.012-D respectively. Section 7. LOC Appendix 50.44.005-B is hereby replaced by Attachment A,and renumbered as LOC Appendix 50.44.012-B. Section 8. Effective Date of this Ordinance: Pursuant to Lake Oswego City Charter, Section 34, this ordinance shall be effective on the 30`h day after its enactment. Read by title only and enacted at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego held on day of , 2010. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: EXCUSED: Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor Dated: ATTEST: Robyn Christie, City Recorder APPROVED AS TO FORM: David D. Powell, City Attorney Draft-Ordinance No. 2549, LU 10-0003 Revisions to the FIRM Springbrook Creek April 12,2010 Page 7 DEFECTS IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT 7 ,, Z In I+ {� t •,n s r 3-r �+ .• .,_ 00 •' �;V t,, • ?J 4 ►'''• I _ i. I �1 H! IFIltt p� '1i71 ! + �. l,„• .it 4 F�s� F 474 ,1.t tri-i- . ,. ... , t_. ... w • ,ii,...,► ,n .r tr_1 .#11 4 ",, t.., / 44' Rr . x ,' . L�4, .154.,...,„ +� _ `1 y + j.. 1..„U.r1rrR. I. . ,. r 7{ 4 .1- 4 l f I Q) ter f.�• '.ii, j� 47�ry7 . 1 1�� 1 '. ; Jilk ' -, {'Y►�j� l+' I. `` ` --� ►.,,.1*^ E r1 t i `"914 t. 4^at.iiv.'111[ , ,%,-.410''''� ,..,____,7% \ I . ,�1 i%,, 1 't I ; � iI '!' t� 1 -- fi,,, ., \,1c,•31.„:.:<.,:;.•, //�� co Y , f: . r / < ., Cal. ice. M „M. '...<.:,...4',)N.•:...� Y ll' tle MI _rirlic . litiijit: 4.%,,, ...•?::. .."."..44 %NV- ' ‘Ot---- 11* , -'-'1i-.41. `1‘., '[...': 'L..‘.-/-'1 L. c r A. a'� , _ ti;1MM s !'t l3.- ck,l l"► .,, ,y��,.?' {1 • }+ a'i1 T�t~y'r t �' �qJ XT C� 11+'-r j! :C-. Ir I `14 .h `+; I;.7-' c• c ' � .,.;! 1' . `�A..' '�i aha • '.�-pu W • ,•.t"J f f f.Ili ,'-"i' • I , 'i4 1l' } ',...tu}f t y r�iwi 1 L i. _ 0) 73 -„ I1 i 1. . 4 - ! i li _" d / �. 1-F Si. 9'1 - .n co ^• � 1 J �1�L � � 1 r y ;f til � 11 '..',.*-1.''' °. tr i q r ii �4�il.c+L-J�1` 14 1/` T r.� i y{ +t. ,�'IJ�C/', � 11+ ' �_ Q. I c.% ' _+.!a t��1_ I. /`/ t-''''''",..-& �_`I-, -117 ml _ ' 0.a'i wr. t -I"` :�L .4,1 1 1f 1. S�r�t v j1 �lJI-,l 1[1!7 ,, - C- . < .!C < / �'7 4`• `x_7 /„---' �.ll_�F l t vv, �- ` -' _ .1 .•‘:.„i '� - (•. 41' , �4� c•t . 13 U +i, , -'-_ -- --_-_-;:;•:1"):;4''''''. y _ , ,. ~ l4r ��v r , R' r I r I` - i I s' O r, YYY f --f----• :y .w•ww' •'� 1, �I \w • 1 i - 4J. II' , -\ 1 X Q O +e ti 1 • F�f t 1 '1 i 5'`' - ` '-f7, IIt r. ''" 7i, ' ' -., `!Apar1 7.E:��.Tl3=IG�1U.'"74..i! o LL "f% l..k t ,4',l F'A. b „ _ J 1 . _. t I' qbro ti a:.'4-=... l .o • ..WV,. ppp 'i 2`� 0 �, -..,T+l`{ n.4. d...,:-.1. •Fr�, Fill , Iw.a- -- Cl. YJr�+1 .i 4• - �� •t y, rLYw'MIMgM...taw C•) V]I 4 aro•u.vallnau..vr �. .,-.17-,..,s, �. O I - .',/~1 .• ••w.y tlryMl•. 41 I+4 .— WJ t. �- i �.� �C �1 i i: tl �. / cr�! 1` g 7i..rt..t.1MPo ...® �0 I �.- �' I ,1 �'�: V;�C`'d.7! i - •• ? ..l rr ,•Ata tiwwrl«+.wv•.� m . a c O �IL�...�/'�-4 d �et f'.�.1 +.- t x.`01_- m t �* ' ,,.. +_ ,. art �V, ,r�i••••••-••• ,sw•awr-rw O y (V / < wlir«.ul..ww1 MEI �.. / .,-i....11 I �' K-. "T , 1` 1 {��y+ r4i+r...w,wY.r1NIa....l.ww wI 'n -' •. �t�'l,,.%_ '■ a II. )S _r ` _I'^? _ ` .,. I 'yB i •.�/ a Vy ��` fj�.r r f� rf 1�1. ,1.,--.- lilt 1 4!,....+'1.11 •• 4 ,. `.1 --y-R1,, M. .M•Mwl.wrA//w,I /0 > - O a 1 r Face of 4 Issue Date: December 30,2009 Effective Date:May 14.2010 Case No.: 09-10-0738P I LOMR-APF paF1',y `\= Federal Emergency Management Agency „ Washington, D.C. 20472 LETTER OF MAP REVISION DETERMINATION DOCUMENT COMMUNITY AND REVISION INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION BASIS OF REQUEST City of Lake Oswego NO PROJECT HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS Clackamas County HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS Oregon NEW TOPOGRAPHIC DATA COMMUNITY COMMUNITY NO.: 410018 IDENTIFIER Upper Springbrook Creek FIS APPROXIMATE LATITUDE&LONGITUDE: 45.414,-122.710 SOURCE: Precision Mapping Streets DATUM: NAD F 1 ANNOTATED MAPPING ENCLOSURES ANNOTATED STUDY ENCLOSURES TYPE: FIRM' 41CJ5C0312 C DATE June 17.2008 DATE OF EFFECTIVE FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY: June 1T 2^08 PROFILE(S): 131P-132P SUMMARY OP DISCHARGES TABLE: 3 Enclosures reflect caanges to flooding sources affected by this revision. •FIRM•Flood Insurance Rate Map:"FBFM-Flood Boundary and Floodway Map:•"FHBhi-Flood Hazard Eoundar Map FLOODING SOURCEIS)&REVISED REACH(ES) Springbrook Creek-from approximately 70 feet upstream of Twin Fir Road to approximately 140 feet upstream of Spring:.ane SUMMARY OF REVISIONS Flooding Source Effective Flooding Revised Flooding increase: Decreases Spingbrock Creek Zone AE Zone AE YES YES E37EC BFEs YES YES •EFEs-Base Flood Elevations DETERMINATION This document provides the determination from the Department of Homeland Security's Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA)regarding a request for a Letter of Map Revision(LOMR)for the area described above. Using the information submitted,we have determined that a revision to the flood hazards depicted in the Flood Insurance Study(FRS)repor.and/or National Flood Insurance Prooram(NFIP)map is warranted. This document revises the effective NFIP map.as indicated in the attached documentation. Please use the enclosed annotated map panels revised by this LOMR for floodpain management purposes and for all flood insurance policies and renewals in your community. This determination is based on the flood data presently available. The enclosed documents provide additional information regarding this determinalicii if you have any questions about this document,please contact the FEMA Map Assistance Center toll tree at 1-877-336-2627(1-877-FEMA MAP)or by letter addressed to the LOMC Clearinghouse.E730 Santa Barbara Court.Eskridge.MD 21075. Act/tonal Information about the N-IP is available on our website at http'/iwww.fema.govfnfw Page 1 of 8 Siamak.Esrardiary,Ph.D.,P.E.,CGU.Procrarr Specialist EXHIBIT F-2 Engineering Management Branch -- ^Q7�Q Mitigation CTrecorate 11255LU.3..00n(�tDQ0 -+-A-C Page 2 c'a Issue Date: December 30,2009 Effective Date: May/4,201C I Case No.: 09-10.073EP _0M -APF Federal Emergency Management Agency + Washington, D.C. 20472 LETTER OF MAP REVISION DETERMINATION DOCUMENT (CONTINUED) COMMUNITY INFORMATION APPLICABLE NFIP REGL'L.AT1ONS.'COMML:NITY OBLIGATION We have,made this determination pursuant to Section 206 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act or 1973(P.L.93-234)and in accordance with the National Flood lnsuranee Act of 1968,as amended(Title XIII or the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968, P.1.. 9(;-448),42 U.S.C.4001-4128,and 44 CFR Part 65. Pursuant to Section 1361 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968,as amended. communities participating in the NFIP aro required to adopt and enforce floodplain management regulations that meet or exceed NFIP criteria. These criteria, including adoption of the FIS report and FIRtvt, and the modifications made by:his LO\•1 R.are the minimum requirements for continued NFIP participation and do not supersede more stringent State/Commonwealth or local requirements to which the regulations apply. COMMUNITY REMINDERS We based this determination on the I-percent-annual-chance discharges computed in the submitted hydrologic analysis. Future development of projects upstream could caul.increased discharges.which could cause increased flood hazards. A comprehensive restudy of your community's flood hazards would consider the cumulative effects of development on discharges and could,therefore, indicate thzt greater flood hazards exist in this area. Your community must regulate all proposed floodplain development and ensure that permits required by Federal and or State/Commonwealth law have been ohtained. State'Commonwcalth or community officials,based on knowledge of local conditions and in the interest of safety, mn set higher standards for construction or may limit development in floodplain areas. If your State/Commonwealth or community has adopted more restrictive or comprehensive floodplain management criteria,those criteria take precedence over the minimum NFIP requirements. We will nit print and distribute this LOMB to primary users,such as local insurance agents or mortgage lenders; instead,the community will serve as a repository for the new data. We encourage you to disseminate the information in this LOMR by preparing a news release for publication in your community's newspaper that describes the revision and explains how your community will provide the data and help interpret the NFIP maps. Ir that way. interested persons, such as property owners, insurance agents,and mortgage lenders,can benefit from the information. Ttas determination is cased on the flood data presently ava laoie The encased documents provide additional information regarding this determination if you have any questions about this document.please contact the FEMA Map Assistance Center toll free at 1.877-336-2627(1-877-FEMA MAP)or by letter addressed to the LCMC Clearinghouse,6733 Santa Barbara Court.Ehridge MD 21075 Additional Information about the NFIP is available on our website at http://ww,w.fem.a.gevinfip. Page 2 of 8 Siamak Esfandiary,Pn.D.,P.E.,CFM,Program See-jails! EXHIBIT F-2 Engineering Management Branch A/��1�tA�n^ Mitigation Directorate 112�U0.10410032-m-A Page 3 of 4 Issue Date: December 30, 2005 Effective Date: May 14,2010 Case No.: 09-10-0738P _OMR-AP ,:cat,• o - Federal Emergency Management Agency Washington, D.C. 20472 'Ni, LETTER OF MAP REVISION DETERMINATION DOCUMENT (CONTINUED) We have designated a Consultation Coordination Officer(CCO)to assist your community. The CCO will be the primary liaison between your community and FEMA. For information regarding your CCO,please contact: Mr. Mark Carey Director,Mitigation Division Federal Emergency Management Agency,Region X Federal Regional Center 130 228th Street, Southwest Bothell, WA 98021-862' (.425)487-4682 STATUS OF THE COMMUNITY INFIP MAPS We will not physically revise and republish the FIRM and FIS report for your community to reflect the modifications made by this LOMR at this time. When changes to the previously cited FIRM panel(s)and FIS report warrant physical revision and republicati:m in the future, we will incorporate the modifications made by this LOMR at that time. This deternmation is basee or.t'O flood data presently available. The encoseo documents provide additional infornatio'-regarding this determination. If you have any questions abour this document,please contact the FERIA Map Assistance Center toll free at 1.577.336-2627(1-877-FEMA MAP)or by letter aodressec to the LOMC Clearinghouse.573C Santa Barbara Court,Elkridge,MD 21C75 Additional Information about the r4FIP is available on our website at httpliwww.ferna gov/nap. Page 3 of 8 Siamak Esfandiary,Ph.D..P.E.,CFM Program Specialist EXHIBIT F-2 Engineering Management Erancn n� /� Mitigation Directorate it251,U-316a'f000a-rA•C r Page 4 of 4 Issue Date: December 30,2009 Effective Date:May 14,2010 Case No.: 09-10.0738P LOMR-APP tet A t• 21=41Federal Emergency Management Agency Washington, D.C. 20472 LETTER OF MAP REVISION DETERMINATION DOCUMENT (CONTINUED) PUBLIC NOTIFICATION OF REVISION PUBLIC NOTIFICATION BEE(FEET NAVD 88) L PANE AP FLOODING SOURCE LOCATION OF REFERENCED ELEVATION MAIPANE EFFECTIVE REVISED Sorirgbrook Creek Approximates 703 feet upstream of Twin Fir Roac 4 179 41005C0012 D Approximately 130 feet upstream of Spring Lane None 223 4100500012 0 Within 90 days of the second pulliiLdtion in tit. iuuu( nr\\vaper,a citizen may request that we reconsider this determination. Any request for reconsideration must be based on scientific or technical data. Therefore,this letter will be effective only after the 90-day appeal period has elapsed and we have resolved any appeals that we receive during this appeal period. Until this LOMR is effective,the revised BFEs presented it this LDMR may be changed. A notice of changes will be published in the Federal Register. A short notice also will be published in your local newspaper on or about the dates listed below. Please refer to FFMA's website at https:,/www.floodmaps.fema.govrfhm/Scripts'bfe_main.asp for a more detailed description of proposed BFT changes,which will be posted approximately within a week of the date of this letter. LOCAL NEWSPAPER Name: Lake Oswego Review Dates: 0 l/07.2010 and 0 I i 14/20 l 0 This determination is based on the flood data presently availaolc. The endosed documents provide additional information regarding this determination If you nave any questions about this dreument,pease contact the FEMA Map Assistance Center toil free at 1-877-336-2627(1-877-FEMA PAP)or by letter addressed to the LOt✓,C Clear,ngnouse,5733 Santa Barbara Court,Elkridgge.MD 21075. Additional Information about the NFIP is available on our website at http://www.fema.govinfip. �,.. Page 4 of 8 SiamakEsfartdiary,Ph.D.,P.E.,CFM,Program Spedalst EXHIBIT F-2 Engmeeriro Management Branch ASA Mitigation Directorate 112111.1101QGOV '-A-C - r 'Table 3-Summary of Discharges (1Q Peak Discharge(cfs) tD Drainage Area 10-Percent- 2-Percent- 1-Percent- 0,2-Pement- N Floodinu Source and Location (Square Miles) Annual-Chance Annual-Chance Annual-Chance Animal-Chance 0 W iI lante tte River CO At Milwaukie 11,130 251,000 329,000 375,000 495,000 At Willamette Lacks Upper Gage 10,100 219,000 295,000 341,000 469,000 At Fish Eddy 9.300 209,200 284,200 328,000 457,000 At downstream of Wilsonville corporate limits 8,400 178,000 250,000 287.000 420,000 Zigzag River At mouth 60.0 7,800 11,500 13,100 17,400 Upstream of confluence with Still Creek 30.0 4,300 6,300 9,800 10,400 Sprringbrook Creek IAt Twin Fir Road 1.7 323 460 490 645 I At mouth 2.0 190 280 330 460 Revised Data REVISED TO REFLECT LOMR EFFECTIVE:May 14, 2010 '— RI CK -& _ 9 i o — o .n I Data not available W N 2 Data not computed 27 E000-o l ni 10-g a ELEVATION (FEET NAVD a8) i i S i o g a ' .Illi ._._. . _ k _ F. .. __ _ .__ :: I., ' I --------'' ;VI ---- ---— I _ rt I T __...._ _._ Y I , Ir t' F g � '1 1 �, _ __ I . -- tlf ® ,, , I x ..�� k;1 ,\ 4 _ t . :. : : rt� __,I__ �_ ._.1 0 w 1+ ---I --A-h' - i _- I I g � .. _.r _.}.. ___� !: L ; _ ; . { 1;. - _ -_ . t 1 1i. - - ,- - --, H f - -I --- $ A A a I — } l 1 1 1 I Wi■•■O - .._ .__. $ o a S . o a a 1 REVISED TO REFLECT LOMR •-. FEDERAL EIiERCENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY FLOOD PROFILESFFFECTrvE:May 14,2010 W CLACKAMAS COUNTY, OR °T1 AND INCORPORATED ARRAS SPRINGBROOK CREEK H £000-o 1. n-1 Z- 11191HX3 $}o-L___a8ed ELEVATION (FEET NAVD 88) m ry p o a O O O O O O G • .----Ft-- I I '.. .. --_ __..._ -—._--- ' i9 I.,'' 1. _ iii Id' :. �_,._. :: L' '. -I I^ I • I .tiles rI} � . { — I1 I. i II l f . `.. r-i 1 I .• woo 1 _._.. ill- .__._.-.._._.__-.........._...__-I \ T:tT_ g1 1 1 11 ___ i • •-3 I.. -._.._.._ .. _ v ...__ Al, : V2 f.. - '.L.} ...._ . . ... 1,14.1 l,ti -- - 1 . , 1 . ! i _ a _ a m ■ Ce minim yV C r i iv, . . _ 1 . _..i__,_{.k t t.ii __.,i .1: I. .., I" 1 __. . .. . . . ._________... nu 2,1..1.'...,1 I i • • :I .. — \-------In ■■■ r--1-- .. �1 t } i-'1 4........... _ 7R I..F.J..r ■N■■ r ' ■ J-. - Li,ill. . . la f L+I t _ TH ;-i- 1} - \ a. -nasxnraeoo 1 �J I I,,rI �. .,, I .F.. I r _--. n A 1p.1 11 1.1 + -== - i. S a o o r REVISED TO REFLECT LOMR ,.._. REDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY FLOOD PROFILES FFECTIVE:May 14.2010 cz CLACKAMAS COUNTY, OR `: AND INCORPORATED AREAS SPRINGBROOK CREEK - DEFECTS IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT • Legend ` �- ,9, ¢• t r.. mif , _ --1Z. 1/n annual chance Er smy r y Pdtt�r �. (100 Year)Floodplain ' , c c� ,�,s I,� P Y `_ r�4• w. . atio 1%annual chance L 4,, - s°" ,.,.• a .• �, �ti w.` CI 1_.:-:_..,..„:1 (100-Year)Floodway '- tom`' . -'1':I. _* H zE CO 0.2%annual chance � r s';M " " ' o `s`r w .�� ,�� e,�,r � M � oma, .,i I,YLuy o� 0 (500-Year) Floodplain ` �' ouRT _ ...-,. MAP SCALE 1"=500' ' ' ' 0" + ,_ #, 250 0 500 " < FEET -y* c,l,�iL,l 1 \kh: p,. .•n ,I irsci ,N r, t ,: • METERS °� �''Maul ... DClAIL! s © tr 150 0 150 . "4t DY t r'` y r s _' w T 3 ;�• O ci ' p �SY .�E ` {inRIDGE RU:SD_ R ��G r PANEL 0012D w ;,. ', 'w_ _� Cei RT s i Q -, .- r R c 3 liL \ iiir#ANNUAL 'a � h ' Rail?VK �fCHANCE FL000: ""�--.;� �-•oGFLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP -' o1SCHARGE N{OT .(u�'Y`,t AREA SHoWN1b a j C oNiAINED ; HIS NEL ISII OCATED�WITHIN s N CULVE -r . , • OW SHI,10_UTH.RR�NGE �, ' f CII,A( KAMASCOUN'1'Y _ fir' + 223tl-p 1.,E/1S AND11T9 N fHIP'2 C1 T I OREGON � : -. �k g RANGE,1 T' '' rLM AND INCORPORATED AREAS 4 Z13' '_. ,E r` �: - ". �' REVISfED irk �r• w %1'%tt � PANEL12OF1175 �„ AREA r•o .F., 5 ,hist[ i[ W f, (SEE MAP INDEX FOR FIRM PANEL.LAYOUT) a` s $ CONTAINS: .X - �(.� 1. �" . . ' 1 f,1 3 cam; l r VL' ' COMMUNITY NUMEFR eeto %Iv 'Aeb g. � : I r 11` �� ' gwCxnw�S couarr "s. m° o 5Q OQDrn 1' • # `20],w _ .' I MI(c>,cmno•orr O. 1.001. MI/ Ir 29 N r � 't �+ Ca) REVISED TO 204 '! ,p I... . ° , we .., C X© REFLECT LOMR r t .2....U4:—_-,77.- 202 , sf tx 1(93 '`'1 "rj" [r ! E ru r 3 v� o A F 7 Fxthn[1c7 Y ¢'1- _<<A- l EFF( CTIVEMay 14. 2010 ; , Nnik..,lhM: is.WON be!.hw.rr WOW o,tl b. •.I ;l C .r A; �.; O „Ili,. 7iIrr' K O WI (,��' I m.e vrwnamzeaeManoe«.muNtyNune.irow a .,R r' 1 �s 'PROFI E (1 u l O J I Awe.shoal be may on.n•.f0 co wraSVK or w.r"'" a O •, O a' i n* rrr MAP NUMBER a `� r 004.... — _;„:1-., . ,1 O '1 s 41005C00120 „` r. as< A s .. T ',5 LN.f-_,,,,,..„U S1I,E,,, .. W IN© its,' EFFECTIVE DATE ' +� ,o' Y#a>i►....„4.*kr „,„se”' JUNE.17,2008 r . " q ,. .., . o li �",; I .� R `t',� a� y_ tri .Y _ ... Feder al Hnlrr�cnry MMII Igrnirnl Agency r: ,� • ;4, ..,,,,, ,,,,D4:4. al s y ^ �'`,,, l'1,:'-- -i',134..:--::...s &t _ _ ,i. . w _ .. . . I. CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO LAKE OSWEGO Centennial 1910-2010 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 COUNCIL REPORT503-675-3984 www.ci.oswego.or.us TO: Jack Hoffman, Mayor Members of the City Council Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager FROM: Andy Gulizia, Associate Planner SUBJECT: CR&D Zone Code Amendment (LU 09-0034/Ordinance 2552) DATE: April 27, 2010 ACTION Hold a public hearing and tentatively approve LU 09-0034 and Ordinance 2552, an amendment to the Community Development Code to limit the sizes of delicatessens, bakeries, and restaurants in the Campus Research and Development (CR&D) Zone to 20,000 square feet. INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND Ordinance 2552 is intended to bring the Community Development Code into compliance with Title 4 (Industrial and Other Employment Areas) of Metro's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan. As discussed in the Planning Commission's February 10, 2010, staff report (Exhibit D-1), Title 4 currently designates much of the CR&D Zone as Employment Land, which is intended to promote employee-intensive, regionally significant concentrations of office development. Title 4 requires that Employment Land be zoned to limit retail uses to 60,000 square feet or less in area and "those appropriate in type and size to serve the needs of businesses, employees and residents of the Employment Areas" [Title 4, Metro Code 3.07.440(A) and (B)]. Currently, delicatessens, bakeries, and restaurants, which are considered retail uses under Title 4, are permitted in the CR&D Zone without any limitation on size. Staff recommends a 20,000 square- foot limitation for delicatessens, bakeries, and restaurants for Title 4 compliance and for consistency with the existing 20,000 square-foot limit on retail stores in the CR&D Zone [LOC 50.11.010(3)]. The proposed CR&D code amendment also provides the opportunity for an administrative amendment to the Title 4 map to address an inconsistency between the Metro map and the City's zoning map. A portion of the CR&D Zone along Meadows Road is currently designated Industrial Land under Title 4. City staff has asked Metro to amend the Title 4 map to apply the Employment Land designation to those properties, so that non-industrial office-commercial development can continue to be permitted on the properties. Metro staff has indicated support for the proposed map amendment. Page 2 DISCUSSION Staff identified three Comprehensive Plan policies applicable to this proposal: Goal 2 (Land Use Planning): Section 1, Policy 23 "Coordinate the development and amendment of City plans and actions related to land use with other county, state, Metro, federal agency, and special district plans." Goal 9 (Economic Development): Policy 20 "Allow commercial and residential uses within the Centerpointe and Kruse Way Business District at densities which support mass transit and which take advantage of the regional transportation system. These activities may include: a. Employee-intensive businesses such as major regional office complexes, high density housing, and associated services and retail commercial uses; and, b. Commercial activities which meet the needs of the traveling public and other highway oriented retail uses which require access to a large market area." Goal 9 (Economic Development): Policy 21 "Do not allow regional or larger shopping centers within the Centerpointe and Kruse Way Business District." As detailed in the February 10, 2010, staff report, staff finds that the proposed code amendment is consistent with each of these policies. As discussed above and in the February 10, 2010 staff report, the proposal also affects the City's compliance with Title 4 of Metro's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan. A letter of support from Metro staff for the proposed code amendment is attached to this report. In its February 22, 2010, public hearing, the Planning Commission concluded the proposal is in compliance with all applicable criteria. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council tentatively approve LU 09-0034 and Ordinance 2552 and direct staff to return with findings, conclusions and a final ordinance for adoption on June 15, 2010. EXHIBITS A. Draft Ordinances A-1 Ordinance 2552, dated February 10, 2010 B. Findings, Conclusions and Order B-1 Approved Findings, dated March 8, 2010 Page 3 C. Minutes C-1 Minutes, dated February 22, 2010 D. Staff Reports/Memorandums D-1 Staff Report, dated February 10, 2010 E. Graphics/Plans E-1 City of Lake Oswego CR&D Zone Map E-2 Metro Title 4 Industrial and Employment Land Map E-3 Metro Title 4 Industrial and Employment Land Map —Areas Currently Designated Industrial Land E-4 Metro Title 4 Industrial and Employment Land Map — Proposed Amendment Area F. Written Materials F-1 Urban Growth Management Functional Plan, Title 4 F-2 Title 4 Map Amendment Area — Building/Land Value Summary F-3 Neighborhood Meeting Minutes, dated December 3, 2009 F-4 Letter from Miranda Bateschell, dated February 22, 2010 G. Letters None Reviewed by: _IT_Ii,e,Itel//it/151462—c- Department Direct `r fela4 city Attorney 4 Alex D. MclntyrW City Manager r DRAFT 02/10/10 DRAFT ORDINANCE NO.2552 AN ORDINANCE OF THE LAKE OSWEGO CITY COUNCIL AMENDING LOC CHAPTER 50 (COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE),SECTION 50.11.010 TO LIMIT THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF DELICATESSENS,BAKERIES,AND RESTAURANTS IN THE CAMPUS RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT(CR&D)ZONE,AND ADOPTING FINDINGS(LU 09- 0034). Whereas, the City of Lake Oswego is required by Metro to demonstrate compliance with Title 4 (Industrial and Other Employment Areas)of the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan;and Whereas, Title 4 requires the City to impose limits on the square footage of retail uses in designated areas; and Whereas, the Community Development Code does not currently limit the square footage of certain retail uses in areas regulated by Title 4; The City of Lake Oswego ordains as follows: Section 1. Subsections (2)(C) and (2)(E) of Section 50.11.010 of the Lake Oswego Code are hereby amended by adding the text shown in bold, underlined tvae.as follows: 2. Retail Sales-Food: C. Delicatessen,no table service. Uses: I P I Special District Limitations for Permitted Use NC,GC, HC,OC, EC,CR&D and MC (Not to exceed 20,000 sq.ft. floor area in CR&D zone) * * * E. Bakery -where baked foods manufactured elsewhere are sold on the premises. Uses: P ! Special District Limitations for Permitted Use NC,GC, HC, OC, EC,CR&D and MC I (Not to exceed 20.000 sq.ft.floor area in CR&D zone) // // // Ordinance No.2552 Page ! of 2 EXHIBIT A-1 LU 09-0034 DRAFT 02/10/10 Section 2. Section 50.11.010(4)(A) of the Lake Oswego Code is hereby amended by adding the text shown in bold,underlined type.as follows: 4. Retail Sales-Restaurants.Drinking Places: A. Restaurants,with or without associated lounge. I Uses: I P I Sneciial District Limifatiions for Permitte ..t1se '' I NC,GC, HC,OC, EC,CR&D and MC (Not to exceed 20,000 so.ft.floor area in CR&D zone) l Section 3.The City Council hereby adopts the Findings and Conclusions(LU-09-0034- ) attached as Exhibit 1. 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: EXCUSED: Jack D.Hoffman,Mayor Dated: ATTEST: Robyn Christie, City Recorder APPROVED AS TO FORM: David D. Powell City Attorney Ordinance No. 2552 Page 2 of 2 1 BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION 2 OF THEAPPROVED 3 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 4 5 6 A REQUEST FOR A ZONING CODE TEXT ) LU 09-0034 - 1722 7 AMENDMENT TO THE CAMPUS RESEARCH & ) (CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO) 8 DEVELOPMENT (CR&D) ZONE ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & ORDER 9 10 11 NATURE OF APPLICATION 12 13 A Zoning Code Text amendment to the Campus Research & Development (CR&D) Zone to bring this 14 zone into compliance with Metro Title 4. The proposal will amend LOC 50.11 to limit the following uses in 15 the CR&D zone to 20,000 square feet or less: 16 17 1) Delicatessen —with no table service, 18 2) Bakery-where baked foods manufactured elsewhere are sold on the premises, and 19 3) Restaurants -with or without associated lounges. 20 21 HEARINGS 22 23 The Planning Commission held a public hearing and considered this application at its meeting of 24 February 22, 2010. 25 26 CRITERIA AND STANDARDS 27 28 A. City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan 29 30 Goal 2: Land Use Planning 31 Section 1 Land Use Policies and Regulations, Policy 23 32 33 Goal 9: Economic Development 34 Policies 20 and 21 35 36 B. Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan 37 38 Title 4: Industrial and Other Employment Areas, Sections 3.07.410-3.07.450 39 40 C. City of Lake Oswego Community Development Code 41 42 LOC 50.75.005 Legislative Decisions Defined 43 LOC 50.75.015 Required Notice to DLCD 44 LOC 50.76.020 Jurisdiction of Hearing Body 45 LOC 50.77 Application Requirements 46 LOC 50.79.030 Major Development Classification 47 LOC 50.83 Hearings Before a Hearing Body 48 49 CONCLUSION 50 51 The Planning Commission concludes that LU 09-0034 is in compliance with all applicable criteria. 52 53 54 EXHIBIT B-1 LU 09-0034 LU 09-0034 PAGE 1 • 1 FINDINGS AND REASONS 3 The Planning Commission incorporates the staff report, dated February 10, 2010, on LU 09-0034 (with all 4 exhibits attached thereto) as support for its decision, supplemented by the further findings and 5 conclusions set forth herein. In the event of any inconsistency between the supplementary matter herein 6 and the staff report, the matter herein controls. To the extent they are consistent with the approval 7 granted herein, the Commission adopts by reference its oral deliberations on this matter. 8 9 Following are the supplementary findings and conclusions of this Commission: 10 11 1. The proposed text amendment is intended to bring the CR&D zone into compliance with the 12 Employment Land requirements of Metro's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan, Title 4 (Industrial 13 and Other Employment Areas). Part of the CR&D zone that is currently developed with and planned for 14 commercial office development is designated as Industrial Land on Metro's Title 4 Map. The City has 15 submitted a request to Metro to redesignate that area to Employment Land. The reason for the map 16 change request is because the area has the characteristics of Employment Land, and the change will 17 allow the City to continue to permit commercial office land uses which are currently very limited under the 18 Industrial Land designation. 19 20 21 ORDER 22 23 IT IS ORDERED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION of the City of Lake Oswego that: 24 25 1. The Planning Commission recommends that LU 09-0034 be approved by the City Council. 26 27 I CERTIFY THAT THIS ORDER was presented to and APPROVED by the Planning Commission of the 28 City of Lake Oswego. 29 30 31 DATED this 8th day of March 2010. 32 + 33 34 35 Philip Stewart /s/ 36 Philip Stewart, Chair 37 Planning Commission 38 39 40 41 Iris McCaleb /s/ 42 Iris McCaleb 43 Administrative Support 44 45 46 ATTEST: 47 48 PRELIMINARY DECISION - February 22, 2010 49 50 AYES: Brockman, Glisson, Gustafson, Johnson, Jones, Stewart 51 NOES: None 52 ABSTAIN: None 53 RECUSE: None 54 EXCUSED: Paretchan 55 ABSENT: None 56 57 LU 09-0034 PAGE 2 r 1 ADOPTION OF FINDINGS AND ORDER - March 8, 2010 2 3 AYES: Brockman, Glisson, Gustafson, Johnson, Jones, Paretchan, Stewart 4 NOES: None 5 ABSTAIN: None 6 RECUSE: None 7 EXCUSED: None 8 ABSENT: None LU 09-0034 PAGE 3 6 LAKE OSWEGO Centennia11470-2010City of Lake Oswego 1111 Plannin Commission Minutes 10Ie Planningmi903040 February 22, 2010 CALL TO ORDER Chair Philip Stewart ca Iled the Planning Commission me eting February 22, 201 0, to order at 6:35 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 38 0 "A" Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon. II. ROLL CALL Members present were Chair Ste wart, Vice Chair Julia Glisson and Commissioners Adrianne Brockman, Jon Gustafson, Jim Johnson and Russell Jone s. Commissioner Lynne Paretchan was e xcused. Council L iaison Bill T ierney and City Manager, Alex McIntyre also attended the meeting. Staff present were Denise Frisbee, Director, Planning and Buildings Services; Dennis Egner, Assistant Planning Director; Hamid Pish vaie, Assistant Planning Director; Debra Andreades, Senior Planner; Andy Gulizia, Associate Planner; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney and Iris McCaleb, Administrative Support. III. CITIZEN COMMENT None. IV. COUNCIL UPDATE Councilor Tierney reported that the City Council, act ing as the Lake Oswego Redevelopment Agency (LORA), was consid ering a nort h anchor pr oject at 1st reet and B Aven ue and whether it should include a library. A handicapped r. . was to be installed in Millennium Park; the City was participating in a T • n Creek habitat restoration project; completion of the new Waterfront Park w. _ . ave to wait until the end of the year due to t he Lake Oswego Interceptor S= .-r (LOIS) project; the Council received a r eport on Va ncouver, B.C.; and CIa • - as County had asked the Cit y to participate in a strateg is investment zon- City Manag er Alex McIntyre highlighted proposed planning-related City Cou goa Is the Council was about to vote on that the Planning Commission would .= • volved in. V. GENERAL ORG A ► ATION /SCHEDULE REVIEW Ms. ' -• ea des distribu ted copies of the Deputy City Attorney's legal analysis and r- ponse to the question of who establishes the Planning Commission agenda. EXHIBIT C-1 LU 09-0034 City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of February 22, 2010 Page 1 of 6 VI. MINUTES Commissioner Brockman moved to adopt the Minutes of December 14, 205'. Commissioner Jones seconded the motion and it passed 5:0. Commissioner nson abstained. Commissioner Brockman moved to adopt the Minutes of Janu 5, 2010 . Vice Chair Glisson seconded the motion and it passed 6:0. The vo - on the Min utes of January 11, 2010 was postponed until the draft was available. VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS LU 08-0059— Expansion of We ake Grove Des ign District. A reque st for Comprehensive Plan map ars oning text and map amendments from Randy Ree yes and Ken Sandblast, FL• ng Resources. Continued from November 30, 2009. Ken Sandbl. onfirmed that the applicant had requested that the hearing be continued. Commi ner Brockman moved to continue LU 08-0059 t o May 24, 2010. Vice Chair GI n seconded the motion and it passed by unanimous voice vote. LU 09-0034 (Ordina nce 2552) —Campus Research & Development Zone Amendments. A request from the City of Lake Oswego proposing a Commu nity Development Code text amendme nt to the Campus Research & Development (CR&D) zone to bring this zone into complia nce with Metro Title 4. The proposal would am end LOC 50.11 to limit the following uses in the CR&D zone to 20,000 square feet or less: 1) Delicatessen —with no table service 2) Bakery—where baked food manufactured elsewhere are sold on the premises, and 3) Restaurants—with or without associated lounges Chair Stewa rt opened the public h earing and explained the applicable procedure. He asked the Commissioners to decla re any conflict of intere st, bias or ex parte contact. None were declared. Staff Report Andy Guliz ia, Associate Planner , presented the staff report. He explained the proposed amendments would help bring the City into comp) iance with Title 4 of Metro's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan. He pointed to the Title 4 map and reported that the Cit y had aske d Metro to re-designate an Industrial Area as an Emplo yment Area. He e xplained the proposed amendment s would apply size limits to restau rant, bakery and delicatessen uses in the CR&D zone that would be consiste nt with both the CR&D zone's limit on r etail stores and the Ti tle 4 limit on retail uses in employment areas. He indicated tha t the proposed change would comp ly with Co mprehensive Plan policies that required the City to coordinate with the plans of higher jurisdictions and that did not a How large sh opping cent ers in Cent erpointe an d the Kruse Way business district. He conclude d the prop osed chang e met applicable appro val criteria. He reported that Metro wou Id agree to support the designation change from Industrial to Employment as lo ng as the City made it clear it was inte nded to allow the City to City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of February 22, 2010 Page 2 of 6 continue to permit non-industrial use there and it was not a correction of a mapping error (see Exhibit F-4). Deliberations/Motion There was no public testimony. Chair St ewart close d the public hearing. The Commissioners observed making land availabl e as employment area was economically important, and there had been no objection to the change at the community meeting. Commissioner Brockman moved to recommen d that the City Council adopt Ordinance 2552 of LU 09-0034. Vice Chair Glisson seconded the motion and it passed 6:0. The Planning Commission took a five-minute break and then reconvened. LU 08-0052 (Ordinan ce 2525) — Community Devel opment Code—Ge ner. Housekeeping and Mi nor Policy Amendments. Amend ments (Cha pter 50) for e purpose of clarifying, correcting, fo rmatting, updating sections and discussing or policy changes. Continued from February 8, 2010. Chair Stewart opened the legislat five hearing and explained the applicabl- •roce dure and criteria. He asked the Commissioners to declare any conflict of inte -st. None were declared. Public Testimony Diane Schweisauth, 462 5th Street, asked the Planning Com - ssion to add a section to Article 50.11, Commercial Zones, to address mixed-us e development withi n a commercial zone. It was needed because "livability" iss -s related to noise, parking and protecting residents' views needed to be addressed. P ring the questioning period, Ms. Schweisguth was asked to discu ss the specific pro• ems. Her experie nce was that the Noise Code seemed to favor the b usiness u se he opined that mixed-use building design should place limitations on height so t . walls don't block residence's views. It might also be accomplished throu gh setba► s and landscaping sta ndards. Another issue was parking, the development she li -d in had 16 units with 16 parking spaces. At night patrons of a nearby bar took u p s many parking spaces guests of residents had no place to park. Jim Rabe, 16823 Wigh t Lane, s.id he support ed changes related to storage units on residential property. He repo •d a storage container had been sitting in a front yard on Washington Court for a bou -fight months. Th e Commissioners advised him to c heck to see if that property was a• ually in the county and not in the City. Jeff Kleinman, 1207 ' 6 th, Portland, Oreqo n 97204 , had proposed changes t o the definition of Natur Area; code language regarding how it was to be maintained; and a code change to low it to be priva tely enforced (Exhibit G-1). During the questio ping period, Mr. KI nman confirmed the changes he proposed would ensure that open space that flowed rough subdivision lots and had been required in the original conditions of approval ould not b e eventually conver ted to private use by a change in the Coven ts, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs). In some older appro vals the CC&Rs coul be modified after 25 years. H e said he could agree to allowing the wildlife fences pr scribed by the Sen sitive Lands Ordinance if they were not sight-o bscuring fences. taff explained the City now typically required any conditions of approval related to open City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of February 22, 2010 Page 3 of 6 STAFF REPORT CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT APPLICANT FILE NO. City of Lake Oswego LU 09-0034 LOCATION STAFF Meadows Road area Andy Gulizia COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION DATE OF REPORT Campus Research & Development February 10, 2010 ZONING DESIGNATION DATE OF HEARING Campus Research & Development February 22, 2010 NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION Lake Forest, Waluga APPLICANT'S REQUEST The City of Lake Oswego is proposing a Community Development Code (CDC) text amendment limiting the sizes of restaurants, bakeries, and delicatessens in the Campus Research and Development (CR&D) zone to 20,000 square feet (Exhibit A-1). II. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS A. City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan Goal 2: Land Use Planning Section 1 Land Use Policies and Regulations, Policy 23 Goal 9: Economic Development Policies 20 and 21 EXHIBIT D-1 LU 09-0034 Planning Commission Public Hearing 1 LU 09-0034 February 22, 2010 B. Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan Title 4: Industrial and Other Employment Areas, Sections 3.07.410-3.07.450 C. City of Lake Oswego Community Development Code LOC 50.75.005 Legislative Decisions Defined LOC 50.75.015 Required Notice to DLCD LOC 50.76.020 Jurisdiction of Hearing Body LOC 50.77 Application Requirements LOC 50.79.030 Major Development Classification LOC 50.83 Hearings Before a Hearing Body III. INTRODUCTION / BACKGROUND INFORMATION In 2008, the City received a letter from Metro inquiring about the City's compliance with Title 4 (Industrial and Other Employment Areas) of Metro's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan (Exhibit F-1). The purpose of Title 4 is to: "[P]rovide and protect a supply of sites for employment by limiting the types and scale of non-industrial uses in Regionally Significant Industrial Areas (RSIAs), Industrial and Employment Areas. ...Title 4 further seeks to ...encourage the location of other types of employment in Centers, Employment Areas, Corridors, Main Streets and Station Communities." ...[Title 4: 3.07.410, Exhibit F-1] The current Title 4 map for Lake Oswego (Exhibit E-2) designates most of the Kruse Way/ Meadows Road area as Employment Land. This designation is intended to promote employee-intensive, regionally significant concentrations of office development. As one of the region's premiere concentrations of Class A office space, staff finds the Kruse Way/ Meadows Road area satisfies the intent of this designation. However, in reviewing the Title 4 map, staff also noted that several parcels along the east end of Meadows Road, all located within the CR&D zone, are designated on the Title 4 map as Industrial Land rather than Employment Land (Exhibit E-3). As this area has no history of industrial use, staff believes the Industrial Land designation is a mapping error stemming from the Campus Industrial (CI) zoning which Clackamas County applied to this area prior to annexation to the City of Lake Oswego. (Clackamas County's CI zone permitted both industrial and office use.) Staff has requested that Metro amend the Title 4 map to remove the Industrial Land designation from this area and designate the area shown in Exhibit E-4 as Employment Land.' Based on the existing and planned uses in the area and the specific information ' It is unknown why Tax Lot 107 was omitted from the Industrial designation on the current Title 4 map, but staff is requesting that Metro include Tax Lot 107 in the Employment designation, as its history and development is similar to surrounding parcels. Furthermore, the current Title 4 map appears to only designate the southern portions of Tax Lots 100, 109, and 110 as Industrial. Staff believes this to be a mapping error where the"transportation corridor" overlay that is applied to the full length of Kruse Way was applied over the Industrial designation, making it appear as though only the southern portions of these parcels were designated for Industrial. For consistency, staff is requesting that Metro include the entire area of Tax Lots 100, 109, and 110 in the Employment designation. Planning Commission Public Hearing 2 LU 09-0034 February 22, 2010 presented on pages 6-7 of this report, Metro staff have indicated their support for the proposed Title 4 map amendment and have stated that they will administratively adjust the map concurrent with review of this proposed text amendment. After the Title 4 map amendment is finalized, staff will be required to submit a Title 4 compliance report to Metro. After discovering the Title 4 mapping error and consulting with Metro staff about the map amendment to fix it, staff reviewed the Community Development Code (CDC) for compliance with Title 4 requirements for Employment Land. Staff found only one item which must be addressed in order for the CDC to fully conform to Title 4 requirements: the lack of a square footage limitation on restaurants, bakeries, and delicatessens in the CR&D zone. Title 4 requires that Employment Land be zoned to limit retail uses (such as stores and restaurants) to 60,000 square feet in area and "those appropriate in type and size to serve the needs of businesses, employees and residents of the Employment Areas" [Title 4, Metro Code 3.07.440(A) and (B), Exhibit F-1]. Retail stores in the CR&D zone are already limited to 20,000 square feet in size [LOC 50.11.010(3)], which would meet the "less than 60,000 square feet" requirement for"Employment Land" under Title 4. However, restaurants, bakeries, and delicatessens are also listed as permitted uses in the CR&D zone [LOC 50.11.010(2)(c), 2(e), and 4(a)] but with no limitations on size. Since restaurants, bakeries, and delicatessens are considered retail uses under Title 4, a size limitation on these uses in the CR&D zone is required to fully comply with the Employment Land requirements of Title 4. The proposed CDC text amendment to limit these uses to 20,000 square feet in the CR&D zone would bring the CDC into full compliance with the Employment Land requirements of Title 4, as the 20,000 square-foot limit is less than the 60,000 square-foot maximum allowed by 3.07.440(B) and is intended to serve the needs of businesses, employees, and residents of the Employment Area, as required by 3.07.440(A). The proposed limit is also consistent with the 20,000 square-foot limitation already in place for retail stores in the CR&D zone. Staff notes there are currently no restaurants, bakeries, or delicatessens in the CR&D zone or the surrounding area which approach 20,000 square feet in size. For reference, Meadows Deli, located in a commercial office building at 5300 Meadows Road (within the CR&D zone) occupies approximately 1,200 square feet. Flying Elephants Deli, located in a commercial office building at 5885 Meadows Road (within the Mixed Commerce zone), occupies approximately 3,000 square feet. Starbucks, located in a commercial office building at 5800 Meadows Road (also within the Mixed Commerce zone) occupies approximately 1,575 square feet. Oswego Grill Restaurant at 7 Centerpointe Drive (in the Highway Commercial zone) occupies approximately 7,300 square feet. IV. PUBLIC NOTICE OF APPLICATION As the proposed text amendment would apply to a fairly small number of identified properties (those within the CR&D zone), the application is classified as quasi-judicial rather than legislative [LOC 50.75.005(1)]. A quasi-judicial text amendment is processed as a major development pursuant to LOC 50.75.005(2). Pursuant to LOC 50.76.020(1)(b), the Planning Commission reviews applications for quasi-judicial text amendments. Planning Commission Public Hearing 3 LU 09-0034 February 22, 2010 A. Neighborhood Meeting Because the application is being processed as a major development, a neighborhood meeting is required by LOC 50.77.025. In compliance with this requirement, staff held a neighborhood meeting on December 3, 2009 (Exhibit F- 3). After discussing the proposal, the neighborhood meeting attendees did not indicate any objection to the proposed text amendment. B. Public Notice to Surrounding Area The City has provided adequate public notice and opportunity to comment on this application, as required by LOC 50.81.010. As of the date of this report, no written comments were received. C. Required Notice to DLCD Pursuant to LOC 50.75.015, staff has provided notice of the proposed CDC text amendment to the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD). V. COMPLIANCE WITH APPROVAL CRITERIA A. City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan Staff finds three Comprehensive Plan Policies applicable to this proposal: Goal 2: Land Use Planning, Section 1 Land Use Policies and Regulation Compliance with Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan, Goal 2 Land Use Planning, Section 1: Land Use Policies and Regulation, Policy 23. Policy 23: Coordinate the development and amendment of City plans and actions related to land use with other county, state, Metro, federal agency, and special district plans. Findings: The purpose and effect of this proposal is to meet the requirements of Metro's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan. Staff has coordinated directly with Metro staff throughout this process, and will continue to do so. Staff has also provided notice of the proposal to the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD). Conclusion: The proposal is consistent with this policy. Planning Commission Public Hearing 4 LU 09-0034 February 22, 2010 Goal 9: Economic Development Compliance with Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan, Goal 9 Economic Development, Policy 20. Policy 20: Allow commercial and residential uses within the Centerpointe and Kruse Way Business District at densities which support mass transit and which take advantage of the regional transportation system. These activities may include: a. Employee-intensive businesses such as major regional office complexes, high density housing, and associated services and retail commercial uses; and, b. Commercial activities which meet the needs of the traveling public and other highway oriented retail uses which require access to a large market area. Findings: All parcels in the CR&D zone except for one (4580 Carman Drive, 21E 8BB 5500) are located within the Centerpointe and Kruse Way Business District designated in Goal 9 (Figure 7, page 9-3). The existing provisions of the CR&D zone allow for high-density office commercial and residential use (LOC 50.11.010), and most of the area has been developed with employee-intensive, multi-story office buildings. A limited set of retail uses, including restaurants, bakeries, and delicatessens, are also permitted in the CR&D zone. The proposed text amendment would restrict the sizes of restaurants, bakeries, and delicatessens to 20,000 square feet in order to comply with Metro's Title 4 rules for Employment Land and to be consistent with the 20,000 square-foot limitation on retail stores already in effect in the CR&D zone. Conclusion: The proposal is consistent with this policy. The proposed CDC text amendment and this policy are also consistent with the intent of Title 4, which is intended to restrict large-scale retail uses in Employment Land districts in order to prioritize more employee-intensive commercial uses, such as high-density office use. Planning Commission Public Hearing 5 LU 09-0034 February 22, 2010 r Goal 9: Economic Development Compliance with Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan, Goal 9 Economic Development, Policy 21. Policy 21: Do not allow regional2 or larger shopping centers'within the Centerpointe and Kruse Way Business District." Findings: As stated above, all parcels in the CR&D zone except for one are located within the Centerpointe and Kruse Way Business District. The existing, 20,000 square-foot limitation on retail stores in the CR&D zone supports this policy by prohibiting large-scale anchor stores typically found in regional or larger shopping centers. The proposed text amendment limiting the sizes of other retail uses which often locate in shopping centers (restaurants, bakeries, and delicatessens) to match the existing limitation on retail stores is consistent with this policy. Conclusion: The proposal is consistent with this policy. B. Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan The proposed 20,000 square-foot limitation on the sizes of restaurants, bakeries, and delicatessens in the CR&D zone is intended to comply with the Title 4 requirement that retail uses in Employment Land districts be limited to 60,000 square feet or "those appropriate in type and size to serve the needs of businesses, employees and residents of the Employment Areas" [Title 4: 3.07.440(B), Exhibit F-1]. As discussed on pages 2-3, Metro's Title 4 Industrial and Employment Land Map currently designates part of the CR&D zone as Industrial Land (Exhibit E-3). The City believes this to be a mapping error and that the Employment Land designation should be applied to accurately reflect existing conditions. Pursuant to the requirements and process described in the Metro Code, the City has requested a map amendment to Metro's Title 4 map to remove the Industrial Land designation from this area and to designate 26 additional acres as Employment Land (Exhibit E-4). 2 "Regional Draw Businesses" are defined in the Comprehensive Plan as follows: "These are businesses which draw customers from not only the Lake Oswego market area, but also from throughout the Portland Metropolitan Area. For purposes of the Comprehensive Plan a regional draw business shall be any single tenant commercial establishment with a floor area of greater than 35,000 square feet. 3"Shopping Centers" are defined in the Comprehensive Plan as follows: "For the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan, Shopping Centers are a group of commercial establishments, planned, constructed, and managed as a total entity, with customer parking provided on-site, provision for goods delivery, separated from customer access, aesthetic considerations and protection from the elements, and landscaping and signage in accordance with an approved plan." Planning Commission Public Hearing 6 LU 09-0034 February 22, 2010 • Section 3.07.450(D) of Title 4 states: A city or county may also amend its comprehensive plan or zoning regulations to change its designation of land on the Employment and Industrial Areas Map in order to allow uses not allowed by Title 4 upon a demonstration that: 1. The entire property is not buildable due to environmental constraints, or 2. The property borders land that is not designated on the map as Industrial Area or Regionally Significant Industrial Area; and 3. The assessed value of a building or buildings on the property, built prior to March 5, 2004, and historically occupied by uses not allowed by Title 4, exceeds the assessed value of the land by a ratio of 1.5 to 1. Findings: Staff will submit a request to Metro that demonstrates that the criteria of D(2) and D(3) above are met, and therefore, the Industrial and Employment Land Map should be amended to redesignate the area shown in Exhibit E-4 as "Employment Land." The first criterion, 3.07.450(D)(1), is not applicable. The second criterion, 3.07.450(D)(2), is met because the subject parcels do not border land that is designated on the Industrial and Employment Land Map as "Industrial Area" or "Regionally Significant Industrial Area." The third criterion, 3.07.450(D)(3), is also met. All of the buildings in this tract were constructed prior to 2004 and are occupied by uses not allowed under the "Industrial Areas" provisions of Title 4. As shown in Exhibit F-2, the combined building values for the subject parcels were assessed at $94,205,800 in 2009 (the most recent Clackamas County tax assessor's records available), while the combined land values were assessed at $26,495,551. The ratio of assessed building values to assessed land values was approximately 3.6 to 1. Conclusion: The proposal is consistent with Title 4 of the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan. VI. CONCLUSION / RECOMMENDATION Based on the information presented in this report, staff recommends that the Commission support the proposed CDC text amendment to limit the sizes of restaurants, bakeries, and delicatessens in the CR&D zone to 20,000 square feet. This limitation would be consistent with the 20,000 square-foot size limit already in place for retail stores in the CR&D zone and would bring the CDC into full compliance with the Employment Land requirements in Title 4 of the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan. Planning Commission Public Hearing 7 LU 09-0034 February 22, 2010 r EXHIBITS A. Draft Ordinances A-1. Ordinance 2552 B. [No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use] C. [No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use] D. [No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use] E. Graphics/Plans E-1. City of Lake Oswego CR&D Zone Map E-2. Metro Title 4 Industrial and Employment Land Map E-3. Metro Title 4 Industrial and Employment Land Map—Areas Currently Designated Industrial Land E-4. Metro Title 4 Industrial and Employment Land Map— Proposed Amendment Area F. Written Materials F-1. Urban Growth Management Functional Plan, Title 4 F-2. Title 4 Map Amendment Area — Building/Land Value Summary F-3. Neighborhood Meeting Minutes, dated December 3, 2009 G. Letters None Planning Commission Public Hearing 8 LU 09-0034 February 22, 2010 DEFECTS IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT WESTLAKE /11.07, MEADOWS APARTMENTS LAKE CHURCH R.5WSE WAY COMMONS LATTER DAY SAINTS LAKE GROVE WARD STAKE HOUSE - D R-3 KRUSE . WOODS RRLISt WFIVE ONFC R&DPNA, . . r. FOUR eADOWS WOO 1 I _. i- - ► " 9E WAY OREGON STATE 'S • 1 lit BAR 11.94... „_..-... ....�- 11, 1 ,` ,/ I1L �. • l fi R-7.5 I . ______.......___ 1 LO �EOgW � �,, c71 ___.. J� WALUGA ___ R 7 • ,- JRESERVOIR • EXHIBIT E•1 LU 09-0034 • I • o 7A`it..Oas '54 ��kO ¢ *1 1IIIMII =MI x a Q Title 4 Industrial and tu Z �- >r� z Employment Land `° C % ,) S` a 4. - I. e MONRC =,� ,, co "' '11�< Milwaukee ..pc-.Y 19•.Yax ImT.'al M1'.a Q STEPHENSEN RD � !ko = -- C� <44- G' q Proposed area R R�eb _ -4 KER,Q _GO is()P 4- RO y Z. for maament: O AC CESSR v 0� rKNAUS HU = O q� FOSBERG F'P Tigard Li,4 r XR COU Y CLUB BLVD Lake Oswego o ,,., 4 O COURTNEY O,Q A AVE RD •ONALD ST KRUS�•-�y• it 49 TN ,O HILL RI co OAK GROVE �N 'P.°a Q BLVD m �p. f- cr z a.\ V��•� ORE 0) 'a, O • PO •sj; joi N q ti ,., ' yd` BLVD r NG°9 ; C RD = SOUP. J O-, c0x4 6 ...+.0 4I GRENTREE RD ti 0° ‘••\-1- S.--' O �, O `sy<� 0 `.JEAN RD OJE.�°°4- R � IfO�BE GIS ��F•�„```` �cZ Durham i° <z % I,_, O - o- ` City of.ake Oswego 1RD Map Altered 6r23/09 CHILDS `,, KRUS�. �-�7,�7 Rivergrov, Ro - 'W/ U"�' latin a - — .q Y Ss 0 ......,......4.;:.4tthz.i"._ ........... SAGERT RD BORLAND ,�?' ; / RD y �.r Uo ° kc- 0 - A Z • rQ' Way. 12- . - ... a — .�... EXHIBIT E-2 — ... ___...Y- I.0 09-0034 ■ I III III I I i ni • KRUSE /7j I "71.1111.21 i, L� _J I r 21 E07AA001091 a � /g10100." ,, / 21 E07AA00110 , - d ,,,, , , o , 21 E07AA00108 r , . , irf ���` i ----, ,....„ ,, jos L.� 21 E07AA00107 � % ; L--'IRCII- -:--' r r�� ' �iJc ° \> CK', \ /-'�� 21 E07M00200 -------_________- n< ./;p ,----,, _____, , 1.- 0 \'' U / 0 „ Os'\/ (-‘ BONITA Roil. ` �� c�..~\ I 7 / ,a /• 7\ r EXHIBIT E•3 V Area Shown as Industrial �^ LU 09-0034 o n w ioo ,so zoo °'P ! _ _ Tref 1 . ,...._ ,. ,„,..... ...„ ...„,..., .• . . : / .., ....,.. ..„. -,.. ,--•-i „ . . ..„, „-- , 1 • I -IF - ' - lif/ .” .. - . . ,----) ! I — , • • ‘' . /// : A roik.;;;0'.; '''''' -, _ ? •, _ 1 ,,/ , .,:. - P 1-\ 03 /fr'• ,, •--„, ..7,1 , , Ao, 1 i - to,'" ..• , . •..."..., aor \ , .., ••,, . (j'41 t -.1 • .40' 2 1 E 07AA00 1 08: ' :.0 .-., er fl' 40.** • I.--- i a (....,t /0 , / / _ , r, ; ,.. i --I ' -. - 7 10 A /II tit ill 01 1,. .00. ie , 1 21E07,AA001‘07 ' , / ...0 / ''' 9eftti% L-I_1el , ,_ , • , , ,., , e / 'c/ 4 '' - 21 E07AA00102 .I OALEWOOD ST [----) ; 47 / 4t\------ , * • )'. > ,,, ... L, 07AA00200 / /7<3 ri ..:1 \.• C z/,/' '- '1.5--i ,, , (-\/> SOWTA R ( //<> S 1:—___? DO 17:: = rt;) „y---k-r- \/'> N EXHIBIT E-4 rM: Subject Area for Amendment LU 09-0034 0 25 50 '00 150 200 i 4, J IIMOMplim Feet 1$ . •2,1 e.rf,-;. TITLE 4: INDUSTRIAL AND OTHER EMPLOYMENT AREAS 3 .07 . 410 Purpose and Intent The Regional Framework Plan calls for a strong economic climate. To improve the region' s economic climate, Title 4 seeks to provide and protect a supply of sites for employment by limiting the types and scale of non-industrial uses in Regionally Significant Industrial Areas (RSIAs) , Industrial and Employment Areas. Title 4 also seeks to provide the benefits of "clustering" to those industries that operate more productively and efficiently in proximity to one another than in dispersed locations . Title 4 further seeks to protect the capacity and efficiency of the region' s transportation system for the movement of goods and services and to encourage the location of other types of employment in Centers, Employment Areas, Corridors, Main Streets and Station Communities. The Metro Council will evaluate the effectiveness of Title 4 in achieving these purposes as part of its periodic analysis of the capacity of the urban growth boundary. (Ordinance No. 97-715B, Sec. 1. Amended by Ordinance 02-969B, Sec. 5; Ordinance No. 04-1040B, Sec. 2. ) 3. 07 .420 Protection of Regionally Significant Industrial Areas A. Regionally Significant Industrial Areas (RSIAs) are those areas near the region' s most significant transportation facilities for the movement of freight and other areas most suitable for movement and storage of goods. Each city and county with land use planning authority over RSIAs shown on the Employment and Industrial Areas Map shall derive specific plan designation and zoning district boundaries of RSIAs within its jurisdiction from the Map, taking into account the location of existing uses that would not conform to the limitations on non-industrial uses in this section and the need to achieve a mix of employment uses. B. Cities and counties shall review their land use regulations and revise them, if necessary, to include measures to limit the size and location of new buildings for retail commercial uses - such as stores and restaurants - and retail and professional services that cater to daily customers - such as financial, insurance, real estate, legal, medical and dental offices - to ensure that they serve primarily the needs of workers in the area. One such measure shall be that new buildings for stores, branches, agencies or other outlets for these retail uses and services shall not occupy more than 3, 000 square feet of sales or service area in a single outlet, or multiple outlets that occupy more than (Effective 4/25/07) 3. 07 - 29 EXHIBITF-1 LU 09-0034 CII oases) 1 r 20, 000 square feet of sales or service area in a single building or in multiple buildings that are part of the same development project, with the following exceptions: 1. Within the boundaries of a public use airport subject to a facilities master plan, customary airport uses, uses that are accessory to the travel-related and freight movement activities of airports, hospitality uses, and retail uses appropriate to serve the needs of the traveling public; and 2 . Training facilities whose primary purpose is to provide training to meet industrial needs. C. Cities and counties shall review their land use regulations and revise them, if necessary, to include measures to limit the siting and location of new buildings for the uses described in subsection B and for non-industrial uses that do not cater to daily customers—such as banks or insurance processing centers—to ensure that such uses do not reduce off-peak performance on Main Roadway Routes and Roadway Connectors shown on Metro' s Freight Network Map, November, 2003, below standards set in the 2004 Regional Transportation Plan or require added road capacity to prevent falling below the standards. D. No city or county shall amend its land use regulations that apply to lands shown as RSIA on the Employment and Industrial Areas Map to authorize uses described in subsection B that were not authorized prior to July 1, 2004. E. Cities and counties may allow division of lots or parcels into smaller lots or parcels as follows: 1 . Lots or parcels smaller than 50 acres may be divided into any number of smaller lots or parcels. 2 . Lots or parcels larger than 50 acres may be divided into smaller lots and parcels pursuant to a master plan approved by the city or county so long as the resulting division yields at least one lot or parcel of at least 50 acres in size. 3. Lots or parcels 50 acres or larger, including those created pursuant to paragraph 2 of this subsection, may be divided into any number of smaller lots or parcels pursuant to a master plan approved by the city or county so long as at least 40 percent of the area of the lot or parcel has been developed with industrial uses or uses accessory to industrial use, and no (Effective 4/25/07) 3. 07 - 30 portion has been developed, or is proposed to be developed, with uses described in subsection B of this section. 4 . Notwithstanding paragraphs 2 and 3 of this subsection, any lot or parcel may be divided into smaller lots or parcels or made subject to rights-of-way for the following purposes: a. To provide public facilities and services; b. To separate a portion of a lot or parcel in order to protect a natural resource, to provide a public amenity, or to implement a remediation plan for a site identified by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality pursuant to ORS 465. 225; c. To separate a portion of a lot or parcel containing a nonconforming use from the remainder of the lot or parcel in order to render the remainder more practical for a permitted use; or d. To allow the creation of a lot for financing purposes when the created lot is part of a master planned development. F. Notwithstanding subsection B of this section, a city or county may allow the lawful use of any building, structure or land at the time of enactment of an ordinance adopted pursuant to this section to continue and to expand to add up to 20 percent more floor area and 10 percent more land area. Notwithstanding subsection E of this section, a city or county may allow division of lots or parcels pursuant to a master plan approved by the city or county prior to July 1, 2004 . (Ordinance No. 97-715B, Sec. 1 . Amended by Ordinance No. 02-969B, Sec. 5; Ordinance No. 04-1040B, Sec. 2 . ) 3. 07 . 430 Protection of Industrial Areas A. Cities and counties shall review their land use regulations and revise them, if necessary, to include measures to limit new buildings for retail commercial uses—such as stores and restaurants—and retail and professional services that cater to daily customers—such as financial, insurance, real estate, legal, medical and dental offices—in order to ensure that they serve primarily the needs of workers in the area. One such measure shall be that new buildings for stores, branches, agencies or other outlets for these retail uses (Effective 4/25/07) 3. 07 - 31 r and services shall not occupy more than 5, 000 square feet of sales or service area in a single outlet, or multiple outlets that occupy more than 20, 000 square feet of sales or service area in a single building or in multiple buildings that are part of the same development project, with the following exceptions: 1. Within the boundaries of a public use airport subject to a facilities master plan, customary airport uses, uses that are accessory to the travel-related and freight movement activities of airports, hospitality uses, and retail uses appropriate to serve the needs of the traveling public; and 2 . Training facilities whose primary purpose is to provide training to meet industrial needs . B. Cities and counties shall review their land use regulations and revise them, if necessary, to include measures to limit new buildings for the uses described in subsection A to ensure that they do not interfere with the efficient movement of freight along Main Roadway Routes and Roadway Connectors shown on Metro' s Freight Network Map, November, 2003 . Such measures may include, but are not limited to, restrictions on access to freight routes and connectors, siting limitations and traffic thresholds. This subsection does not require cities and counties to include such measures to limit new other buildings or uses. C. No city or county shall amend its land use regulations that apply to lands shown as Industrial Area on the Employment and Industrial Areas Map to authorize uses described in subsection A of this section that were not authorized prior to July 1, 2004 . D. Cities and counties may allow division of lots or parcels into smaller lots or parcels as follows: 1 . Lots or parcels smaller than 50 acres may be divided into any number of smaller lots or parcels. 2 . Lots or parcels larger than 50 acres may be divided into smaller lots and parcels pursuant to a master plan approved by the city or county so long as the resulting division yields at least one lot or parcel of at least 50 acres in size. 3 . Lots or parcels 50 acres or larger, including those created pursuant to paragraph (2) of this subsection, may be divided into any number of smaller lots or (Effective 4/25/07) 3 .07 - 32 parcels pursuant to a master plan approved by the city or county so long as at least 40 percent of the area of the lot or parcel has been developed with industrial uses or uses accessory to industrial use, and no portion has been developed, or is proposed to be developed with uses described in subsection A of this section. 4 . Notwithstanding paragraphs 2 and 3 of this subsection, any lot or parcel may be divided into smaller lots or parcels or made subject to rights-of-way for the following purposes: a. To provide public facilities and services; b. To separate a portion of a lot or parcel in order to protect a natural resource, to provide a public amenity, or to implement a remediation plan for a site identified by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality pursuant to ORS 465. 225; c. To separate a portion of a lot or parcel containing a nonconforming use from the remainder of the lot or parcel in order to render the remainder more practical for a permitted use; or d. To allow the creation of a lot for financing purposes when the created lot is part of a master planned development. E. Notwithstanding subsection B of this section, a city or county may allow the lawful use of any building, structure or land at the time of enactment of an ordinance adopted pursuant to this section to continue and to expand to add up to 20 percent more floorspace and 10 percent more land area. (Ordinance No. 97-715B, Sec. 1. Amended by Ordinance No. 02-969B, Sec. 5; Ordinance No. 04-1040B, Sec. 2. ) 3. 07 . 440 Protection of Employment Areas A. Except as provided in subsections C, D and E, in Employment Areas mapped pursuant to Metro Code Section 3.07 .130, cities and counties shall limit new and expanded commercial retail uses to those appropriate in type and size to serve the needs of businesses, employees and residents of the Employment Areas. B. Except as provided in subsections C, D and E, a city or county shall not approve a commercial retail use in an (Effective 4/25/07) 3. 07 - 33 Employment Area with more than 60, 000 square feet of gross leasable area in a single building, or commercial retail uses with a total of more than 60, 000 square feet of retail sales area on a single lot or parcel, or on contiguous lots or parcels, including those separated only by transportation right-of-way. C. A city or county whose zoning ordinance applies to an Employment Area and is listed on Table 3.07-4 may continue to authorize commercial retail uses with more than 60, 000 square feet of gross leasable area in that zone if the ordinance authorized those uses on January 1, 2003. D. A city or county whose zoning ordinance applies to an Employment Area and is not listed on Table 3.07-4 may continue to authorize commercial retail uses with more than 60, 000 square feet of gross leasable area in that zone if: 1 . The ordinance authorized those uses on January 1, 2003; 2. Transportation facilities adequate to serve the commercial retail uses will be in place at the time the uses begin operation; and 3. The comprehensive plan provides for transportation facilities adequate to serve other uses planned for the Employment Area over the planning period. E. A city or county may authorize new commercial retail uses with more than 60, 000 square feet of gross leasable area in Employment Areas if the uses: 1 . Generate no more than a 25 percent increase in site- generated vehicle trips above permitted non-industrial uses; and 2 . Meet the Maximum Permitted Parking - Zone A requirements set forth in Table 3. 07-2 of Title 2 of the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan. (Ordinance No. 97-715B, Sec. 1 . Amended by Ordinance No. 02-969B, Sec. 5; Ordinance No. 04-1040B, Sec. 2 . ) 3. 07 . 450 Employment and Industrial Areas Map A. The Employment and Industrial Areas Map is the official depiction of the boundaries of Regionally Significant Industrial Areas, Industrial Areas and Employment Areas. (Effective 4/25/07) 3 . 07 - 34 B. If the Metro Council adds territory to the UGB and designates all or part of the territory Regionally Significant Industrial Area, Industrial Area or Employment Area, after completion of Title 11 planning by the responsible city or county, the Chief Operating Officer shall issue an order to conform the map to the boundaries established by the responsible city or county. The order shall also make necessary amendments to the Habitat Conservation Areas Map, described in Section 3. 07. 1320 of Title 13 of this chapter, to ensure implementation of Title 13. C. A city or county may amend its comprehensive plan or zoning regulations to change its designation of land on the Employment and Industrial Areas Map in order to allow uses not allowed by Title 4 upon a demonstration that: 1 . The property is not surrounded by land designated on the map as Industrial Area, Regionally Significant Industrial Area or a combination of the two; 2 . The amendment will not reduce the jobs capacity of the city or county below the number shown on Table 3.07-1 of Title 1 of the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan, or the amount of the reduction is replaced by separate and concurrent action by the city or county; 3 . If the map designates the property as Regionally Significant Industrial Area, the subject property does not have access to specialized services, such as redundant electrical power or industrial gases, and is not proximate to freight loading and unloading facilities, such as trans-shipment facilities; 4 . The amendment would not allow uses that would reduce off-peak performance on Major Roadway Routes and Roadway Connectors shown on Metro' s 2004 Regional Freight System Map below standards in the Regional Transportation Plan ("RTP") , or exceed volume-to- capacity ratios on Table 7 of the 1999 Oregon Highway Plan for state highways, unless mitigating action is taken that will restore performance to RTP and OHP standards within two years after approval of uses; 5. The amendment would not diminish the intended function of the Central City or Regional or Town Centers as the principal locations of retail, cultural and civic services in their market areas; and (Effective 4/25/07) 3. 07 - 35 r 6. If the map designates the property as Regionally Significant Industrial Area, the property subject to the amendment is ten acres or less; if designated Industrial Area, the property subject to the amendment is 20 acres or less; if designated Employment Area, the property subject to the amendment is 40 acres or less. D. A city or county may also amend its comprehensive plan or zoning regulations to change its designation of land on the Employment and Industrial Areas Map in order to allow uses not allowed by Title 4 upon a demonstration that: 1. The entire property is not buildable due to environmental constraints; or 2. The property borders land that is not designated on the map as Industrial Area or Regionally Significant Industrial Area; and 3. The assessed value of a building or buildings on the property, built prior to March 5, 2004, and historically occupied by uses not allowed by Title 4, exceeds the assessed value of the land by a ratio of 1 .5 to 1 . E. The Chief Operating Officer shall revise the Employment and Industrial Areas Map by order to conform to an amendment made by a city or county pursuant to subsection C of this section within 30 days after notification by the city or county that no appeal of the amendment was filed pursuant to ORS 197. 825 or, if an appeal was filed, that the amendment was upheld in the final appeal process. F. After consultation with Metropolitan Policy Advisory Committee, the Council may issue an order suspending operation of subsection C in any calendar year in which the cumulative amount of land for which the Employment and Industrial Areas Map is changed during that year from Regionally Significant Industrial Area or Industrial Area to Employment Area or other 2040 Growth Concept design type designation exceeds the industrial land surplus. The industrial land surplus is the amount by which the current supply of vacant land designated Regionally Significant Industrial Area and Industrial Area exceeds the 20-year need for industrial land, as determined by the most recent "Urban Growth Report: An Employment Land Need Analysis", reduced by an equal annual increment for the number of years since the report. (Effective 4/25/07) 3. 07 - 36 r G. The Metro Council may amend the Employment and Industrial Areas Map by ordinance at any time to make corrections in order to better achieve the policies of the Regional Framework Plan. H. Upon request from a city or a county, the Metro Council may amend the Employment and Industrial Areas Map by ordinance to consider proposed amendments that exceed the size standards of paragraph 6 of subsection C of the section. To approve an amendment, the Council must conclude that the amendment: 1 . Would not reduce the jobs capacity of the city or county below the number shown on Table 3. 07-1 of Title 1 of the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan; 2 . Would not allow uses that would reduce off-peak performance on Major Roadway Routes and Roadway Connectors shown on Metro' s 2004 Regional Freight System Map below standards in the Regional Transportation Plan ("RTP") , or exceed volume-to- capacity ratios on Table 7 of the 1999 Oregon Highway Plan ("OHP") for state highways, unless mitigating action is taken that will restore performance to RTP and OHP standards within two years after approval of uses; 3. Would not diminish the intended function of the Central City or Regional or Town Centers as the principal locations of retail, cultural and civic services in their market areas; 4 . Would not reduce the integrity or viability of a traded sector cluster of industries; 5. Would not create or worsen a significant imbalance between jobs and housing in a regional market area; and 6. If the subject property is designated Regionally Significant Industrial Area, would not remove from that designation land that is especially suitable for industrial use due to the availability of specialized services, such as redundant electrical power or industrial gases, or due to proximity to freight transport facilities, such as trans-shipment facilities. I. Amendments to the Employment and Industrial Areas Map made in compliance with the process and criteria in this section shall be deemed to comply with the Regional Framework Plan. (Effective 4/25/07) 3. 07 - 37 r J. The Council may establish conditions upon approval of an amendment to the Employment and Industrial Areas Map under subsection F to ensure that the amendment complies with the Regional Framework Plan and state land use planning laws. K. By January 31 of each year, the Chief Operating Officer (COO) shall submit a written report to the Council and the Metropolitan Policy Advisory Committee on the cumulative effects on employment land in the region of the amendments to the Employment and Industrial Areas Map made pursuant to this section during the preceding year. The report shall include any recommendations the COO deems appropriate on measures the Council might take to address the effects. (Ordinance No. 07-1137A, Sec. 2. ) (Effective 4/25/07) 3. 07 - 38 r Table 3.07-4 (Section 3.07.420(B) ) Clackamas County unincorporated Commercial Commercial Industrial Lake w a e Os e o g General Commercial Highway Commercial Troutdale General Commercial Hillsboro General Commercial Sherwood General Commercial Tigard General Commercial Commercial Professional Tualatin Commercial General Wilsonville Planned Development Commercial (Ordinance No. 97-715B, Sec. 1. Amended by Ordinance No. 02-969B, Sec. 5. ) (Effective 4/25/07) 3.07 - 39 r 1 City of Lake Oswego Metro Title 4-Map Amendment Building/Land Value Ratio Total Land Area 2009 Assessed Values Leasable Office Building/Land Site Address Map&Lot Year Built Space(SF) Acres SF Building Land Value Ratio 1) 5005 Meadows Rd 21E07AA 100 1997 190,644 3.07 133,529 $21,322,580 $2,817,741 7-6:1 2) 4800 Meadows Rd 21E07AA 102 1999 174,426 3.83 166,728 $16,902,640 $4,302,201 3.9:1 3) 4900 Meadows Rd 21E07AA 107 1988 158,413 2.89 124,146 $9,421,110 $2,862,015 3 3:1 4) 5000 Meadows Rd 21E07AA 108 1990 186.431 4.15 180,899 $16,100,150 $4,790,292 3.4:1 5) 4949 Meadows 21E07AA 109 1997 1124,871 4.98 217,039 $30,456,600 $5,806,104 5.2:1 6) 4585&4591 Carman Dr 21E07AA 110 unknown 1n/a 5.15 224,206 $2,720 $5,909,510 0:1 7) No Situs 21E07AA 200 n/a 1n/a 0.16 7,009 $0 $7,688 n/a 8) Meadows Rd right-of-way n/a n/a In/a 2.05 89,387 n/a n/a n/a Grand Total 1434,785 26.28 1,142,943 $94,205,800 $26,495,551 3.6:1 r m c X c — W O q 0 w m N LU 09-0034 neighborhood meeting minutes: The meeting was held at the West End Building at 4101 Kruse Way on December 3, 2009. In attendance were Andy Gulizia(presenter), Ron Anderson, and Cheryl Uchida. The meeting opened at 6:00 pm. Andy Gulizia explained the proposed code amendment and the Metro Title 4 requirements which may make the amendment necessary. Cheryl Uchida asked about the history of the parcels subject to the potential code amendment. Andy Gulizia explained that they were zoned Industrial in Clackamas County but were annexed to the City of Lake Oswego and rezoned CR&D as the parcels were developed with office buildings. Ron Anderson asked if a bakery manufacturing operation could locate in the CR&D zone. Andy Gulizia explained that only bakeries with an on-site retail component were allowed. Cheryl Uchida asked about the site development standards(height, etc.) and whether they would change. Andy Gulizia said the site development standards of the CR&D zone would not change as part of this application. Ron Anderson and Cheryl Uchida asked how parking requirements were calculated for restaurants which may have different operating hours than offices. Andy Gulizia explained that parking requirements for each use sharing a parking lot are simply added together, unless the property owner provides a parking study which demonstrates that different peak hours or other factors make a lower number of parking spaces feasible. Ron Anderson asked about the Foothills industrial area. Andy Gulizia said the Metro Title 4 map did not place an Industrial designation over that area. Therefore,non- industrial redevelopment of that area would not require a Title 4 map change request. Cheryl Uchida asked if there was any benefit from the proposal to the community. Andy Gulizia said he thought the proposal was neutral and was mostly a housekeeping item, since large restaurants,bakeries, or delis were not likely to locate in the CR&D zone anyway. The meeting adjourned at 6:20pm. EXHIBIT F-3 LU 09-0034 d 600 NE Grand Ave. www.oregonmetro.gov Portland, OR 97232-2736 503-797-1700 503-797-1804 TDD 503-797-1797 fax 4). Metro People places. Open spaces. February 22, 2010 Dennis Egner Planning Director City of Lake Oswego 380 A Avenue Lake Oswego, OR 97034 RE: File No. LU-09-0034, Campus Research & Development Zone Amendments Dear Mr. Egner: Please enter this letter into the Planning Commission hearing record for File LU-09- 0034. Metro staff reviewed the Proposed Amendments to City of Lake Oswego Community Development Code (CDC), Section 50.11.010, Project File LU-09-0034, for Metro Title 4 Compliance, and the Staff Report dated February 10, 2010 that the City of Lake Oswego submitted to document compliance with Title 4 of the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan. Metro staff understands the City of Lake Oswego's regulations are largely in compliance with Title 4, but one issue remains related to the Protection of Title 4 Industrial Areas (3.07.430), impacting the Kruse Way Industrial Area in the City of Lake Oswego as shown on the Title 4 Employment and Industrial Areas Map. After review, and subsequent discussion with City of Lake Oswego staff, Metro staff anticipates that upon adoption of the proposed amendments in File LU-09-0034, and the subsequent change to the Employment and Industrial Areas Map, the City of Lake Oswego will come into compliance with the requirements of Title 4 and the revised Title 4 code changes of June 24, 2004. However, at this time, Metro Staff conditions this support upon further documentation that the city is proposing these zone amendments and requesting an Employment and Industrial Areas Map amendment based on the desire to allow uses currently not allowed in the Kruse Way Industrial Area through Metro Code 3.07.450(D) and not as a Title 4 map error which requires an amendment through Metro Code 3.07.450(G). The City of Lake Oswego Staff Report for File LU-09-0034, dated February 10, 2010, explained its proposed amendments and request for a Title 4 map change on a Title 4 mapping error. Amendments to the Employment and Industrial Areas Map based on map errors are corrected through Metro Code 3.07.450(G) and require Metro Council action. Thus, if the map error approach is pursued, then the proposed Lake Oswego CDC amendments will not satisfy Metro requirements to change the designation of this area on the Employment and Industrial Areas Map and the City of Lake Oswego will not yet be in compliance with Title 4 of the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan. Page 1 of 3 EXHIBIT F-4 LU Q9-0034 ! urlrJ urr rr<yrlyd-rnnlrnl pdpr,. r Upon further discussion, City of Lake Oswego staff clarified the reference to mean that the city believes it would be an error to maintain the Industrial Area designation for this area. In the process of analyzing the city's comprehensive plan and zoning code for compliance with Title 4 of the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan, city staff determined it did not want to bring the Kruse Way Title 4 Industrial Area, and thus, the local zoning code, into compliance with Title 4 Industrial Areas as outlined in Metro Code 3.07.430. Metro Code 3.07.430, Protection of Industrial Areas, limits new buildings for professional services that cater to daily customers including financial, insurance, real estate, and legal offices. Per discussions with City of Lake Oswego staff, the city wants to continue to approve development in this area with Class A office space and buildings with the type of professional service uses limited by Title 4 Industrial Areas. Thus, the City of Lake Oswego staff is requesting a change to the Employment and Industrial Areas Map in order to remove the Industrial Area designation for the six parcels' in the Kruse Way Title 4 Industrial Area. The City of Lake Oswego has designated this area for employee-intensive, regionally significant concentrations of office development. In addition, the surrounding Kruse Way/Meadows Road area is designated as Employment Area on the Employment and Industrial Areas Map. Thus, the City of Lake Oswego is requesting a change to the Employment and Industrial Areas Map in order to apply the Employment Area designation for the six parcels in the Kruse Way Title 4 Industrial Area. As a result, the City of Lake Oswego is proposing amendments to the City of Lake Oswego CDC, Section 50.11.010 as outlined in File LU-09-0034. Metro Code 3.07.450 outlines the different criteria under which an amendment will be made to the Employment and Industrial Areas Map. The City of Lake Oswego Staff Report provides information showing this area meets the criteria outlined in 3.07.450(0) and requests a change in designation on the Map. Metro Code 3.07.450(D) outlines: A city or county may also amend its comprehensive plan or zoning regulations to change its designation of land on the Employment and Industrial Areas Map in order to allow uses not allowed by Title 4 upon a demonstration that: 1. The entire property is not buildable due to environmental constraints; or 2. The property borders land that is not designated on the map as Industrial Area or Regionally Significant Industrial Area;and 3. The assessed value of a building or buildings on the property, built prior to March 5, 2004, and historically occupied by uses not allowed by Title 4, exceeds the assessed value of the land by a ratio of 1.5 to 1. As outlined in the City of Lake Oswego Staff Report for File LU-09-0034, dated February 10, 2010, Metro staff concurs that Lake Oswego staff adequately demonstrated the six parcels in the Kruse Way Industrial Area meet the criteria as outlined in 3.07.450(D)2 and 3.07.450(D)3. In addition, the proposed amendments to the City of Lake Oswego CDC, as outlined in File LU-09-0034, and summarized in the Staff Report, will comply with Metro Code 3.07.440 Protection of Employment Areas. Based on discussion with City of Lake Oswego staff, Metro staff anticipates the Planning Commission meeting record, for February 22, 2010 will reflect the information outlined in this letter. Metro staff also anticipates the City of Lake Oswego Staff Report for the City Council meeting hearing File LU-09-0034 will clarify the city is requesting an As depicted on I.xhibit I •4 to the City of Lake Oswego Staff Report for LU 09-0034, February 10,2010. Page 2 of 3 EXHIBIT F-4 LU 09-0034 Employment and Industrial Areas Map amendment based on Metro Code 3.07.450(D) and not as a Title 4 map error through Metro Code 3.07.450(G). Assuming this clarification is made (as anticipated per staff discussion with Lake Oswego staff on February 22, 2010), Metro staff anticipates we will write a letter of support for the proposed City of Lake Oswego CDC amendments of File LU-09-0034, and the resulting Employment and Industrial Areas Map amendment, that can be submitted at the City of Lake Oswego City Council meeting hearing this issue. Metro staff believes the City of Lake Oswego will help the region further meet its employment needs consistent with the intent of Title 4 of the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan and the amendments by the Metro Council in June 2004. The purpose of the code change was to protect the supply of employment sites by limiting the types and scale of non-industrial uses in areas designated as Industrial and Regionally Significant Industrial. The change also sought to provide the benefits of'clustering' to industries that operate more productively and efficiently in proximity to one another, and to protect the capacity and efficiency of the region's transportation system for the movement of goods and services. Please contact me at (503) 797-1817 with any questions. Sincerely, (;) Miranda Bateschell Associate Regional Planner cc: Carlotta Collette, Metro Councilor Andy Gulizia, Associate Planner, City of Lake Oswego Chris Deffebach, Metro Page 3 of 3 EXHIBIT F-4 LU 09-0034 600 NE Grand Ave. www.oregonmetro.gov Portland, OR 97232-2736 503-797-1700 503-797-1804 TDD 503-797-1797 fax Metro People places. Open spaces. May 5, 2010 Denny Egner Planning Director City of Lake Oswego PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 RE: Ordinance 2552, File No. LU-09-0034, Campus Research &Development Zone Amendments Dear Mr. Egner: Please enter this letter into the City Council hearing record for File LU-09-0034. Metro staff reviewed the Proposed Amendments to City of Lake Oswego Community Development Code(CDC), Section 50.1 1.010, Project File LU-09-0034, for Metro Title 4 Compliance. Aller review and subsequent discussion with City of Lake Oswego staff, Metro staff anticipates that upon adoption of the proposed amendments in File LI.J-09- 0031,and the subsequent change to the Employment and Industrial Areas Map, the City of Lake Oswego will come into compliance with the requirements of Title 4 and the revised Title 4 code changes of June 24, 2001. Metro staff understands the City of Lake Oswego's regulations are largely in compliance with Title 4, hut one issue remains related to the Protection of title 4. Industrial Areas (3.07.'1311), imparting the Kruse Way Industrial Area in the City of Lake Oswego (as shown on the Title 4 Employment and Industrial Areas Map). Thus,City of Lake Oswego staff intends to request a change to the Title 4 Employment and Industrial Areas Map in order to amend the Industrial Area designation to an Employment Area designation for the six parcels' in the Kruse Way Industrial Area. A memo from City staff dated March 1 5, 2010 outlines the city's intent to request an Employment and Industrial Areas Map amendment through Metro Code :3.07.450(D). As outlined in the City of Lake Oswego Staff Report for File 1,11-09-00'34 dated February 10, 2010, Metro staff concurs that the six parcels in the Kruse Way Industrial Area meet the criteria as outlined in 3.07.450(l:))2 and 3.07.450(I))3. In addition, the surrounding Kruse Way/Meadows Road area is designated as Employment Area on tilt' Employment and Industrial Areas Map. Thus, Metro staff supports the proposed Employment and Industrial Areas Map amendment. After review, Metro staff also supports the proposed amendments to the City of Lake Oswego CDC as outlined in File LU- 09-0034,and summarized in the Staff Report, finding they comply with Metro Code 3.07.440 Protection of Employment Areas. After adoption of the proposed amendments to the City of Lake Oswego CDC in File LU-09-0034,with no appeal or being upheld after appeals, Lake Oswego staff will need to request Metro to revise the Title 4 Employment and Industrial Areas Map. Metro staff will review and change the designation for the Kruse Way Title 4 Industrial Area to a Title 4 Employment Area within thirty days of receiving that notification. Paget EXHIBIT F-5 As depicted on Exhibit E-4 to the City of Lake Oswego Staff Report for LU 09-0034, February 10,2010. LU 09-0034 yowl:«., r, �,1,i1-.,.i7ir•:' ... • • CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO TITLE 4 May 5, 2010 Page 2 Based on our review and the conditions outlined in this letter being met,Metro staff will provide the City of Lake Oswego with a letter acknowledging its status of compliance with Title 4 of the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan. Upon adoption of these changes, Metro staff believes the City of Lake Oswego will help the region further meet its employment needs consistent with the intent of Title 4 of the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan and the amendments by the Metro Council in June 2004. The purpose of the code change was to protect the supply of employment sites by limiting the types and scale of non-industrial uses in areas designated as Industrial and Regionally Significant Industrial.The change also sought to provide the benefits of'clustering' to industries that operate more productively and efficiently in proximity to one another,and to protect the capacity and efficiency of the region's transportation system for the movement of goods and services. Do not hesitate to contact me at 503-797-1817 if you have any questions or comments. Sincerely, are Warr' Mil n( < esclaell Senior Land Use Planner c: Councilor Carlotta Collette, District No. 2 Andy Gulizia,Associate Planner, City of Lake Oswego Chris I)effehac'h, Metro Page 2 of 2 EXHIBIT F-5 LU 09-0034 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO LAKE OSWEGO Centennial 1910-2010 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 COUNCIL REPORT www.ci.os ego.orrus TO: Jack Hoffman, Mayor Members of the City Council Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager FROM: Debra Andreades, AICP Senior Planner, Planning and Building Services SUBJECT: Definition Amendment - "Congregate Housing" DATE: May 10, 2010 ACTION Following the Northwest Housing Alternatives (NWA) approval, the City Council requested that staff return for a discussion to clarify the definition of congregate housing, specifically, the "due to" clause in the definition, with the intent that the Planning Commission would conduct further hearings and making recommendation(s) to the Council for amendment(s) to the Community Development Code. This discussion will, of necessity, include the range of options to address classification of the use of similar projects in the future. Information is being provided to the Council to facilitate this discussion. INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND Northwest Housing Alternative's Proiect and "Congregate Housing" In 2007, Northwest Housing Alternatives (NWA) applied for a Development Review permit for a 45-unit project (LU 07-0031). NWA had obtained a federal grant for the project, which it described in its narrative as: "45-unit apartment building that provides an affordable home to independent seniors living on fixed incomes." "Individuals or two-person households in which at least one member is 62 years or older will be allowed to live at Oakridge Park. In addition, residents must have incomes not exceeding 50% of the median income. Rents will vary according to residents' income. Residents will pay 30% of their monthly income as rent." Following discussions with City staff, NWA applied for use as "congregate housing", defined in LOC Page 2 50.02.005 as: "Multi-unit housing with self-contained apartments that contain cooking facilities which support independent lifestyles for those that have life-function disabilities due to age, medical, or mental condition, which do not require residential care or skilled nursing services. Congregate housing provides varying levels of support services, such as meals, laundry, housekeeping, transportation, and social, recreation, cultural and education activities. The full range of services normally associated with a residential care facility, are not provided in association with congregate housing." The principal issues were (1) whether the project met the definition of"congregate housing," and (2) whether the project proposed sufficient parking under both the Parking Standard and Conditional Use criteria. The project was approved by the Development Review Commission and appealed to the City Council, which approved the proposal with revised conditions of approval. The City Council approval was subsequently appealed to LUBA by the Waluga Neighborhood Association. LUBA upheld the City's findings that sufficient parking was provided for, but remanded back to the City Council on one assignment of error- the issue of whether or not the project met the definition of"congregate housing." Following remand, the Development Review Commission denied the application (finding that there was no evidence of causation of disability due to age), but on appeal the Council disagreed, finding that there was substantial evidence to show a correlation between age and disability, and approved the project. A LUBA Notice of Intent to Appeal was filed on behalf of the Waluga Neighborhood Association, but LUBA dismissed the appeal, finding the Notice of Intent to Appeal was not properly filed. 2002 Code Amendment Defining "Congregate Housing" Prior to 2002, LOC Article 48 (Zoning Code) authorized "Nursing or Convalescent Homes" and "special use housing." "Special Use Housing" was defined as: "Housing occupied by 7 or more persons who are 1) 60 years of age, or 2) socially, physically or mentally handicapped, or 3) persons needing personal care services[,} or any combination thereof." New uses and definitions were added in 2002 relating to a range of housing and services for persons with disabilities and medical needs: • Congregate Housing • Continuing Care Retirement Community • Residential Care Housing • Skilled Nursing Facility Ord. 2243 (LU 99-0070) The reasons for repeal of"special use housing" and adoption of new definitions, uses, and siting criteria are addressed in the record of LU 99-0070. Page 3 "The city's current regulations relating to long term care housing are in need of revision in order to better match current development trends, to update designations relating to the various types of long term care housing, to revise provisions which may be inconsistent with state and federal fair housing regulations and to provide design and location standards that will help ensure high quality developments that are compatible with existing neighborhood character." The Planning Commission has recommended that new definitions for long term care housing be adopted, including Congregate Housing (multi-unit housing with self-contained apartments and varying levels of support services), Continuing Care Retirement Community..., Residential Care Housing...and Skilled Nursing Facility...The City Council finds that these designations better match the types of long-term care housing resulting from recent development trends than the designations under the current code." Council Findings and Conclusions, LU 99-0070, page 2 Ord. 2243 (adopted April 2, 2002). A review of the legislative history during the NWA application review process indicated that congregate housing was intended to be multi-family housing with the addition of varying levels of support services that warrants the separate category, intended to facilitate the provision of housing for people with "life-function disabilities." DISCUSSION: A discussion of the clarification of the definition of congregate housing requires consideration of the following questions: Question:Should age-restricted housing be a permitted use distinct from "congregate housing"? The pre-2002 code allowed "Special Use Housing" - housing for persons age 60 or above with no requirement to show that either the occupants met additional criteria or that the housing was designed or functioned differently than non-age-restricted housing. The Federal Fair Housing Act, as amended by the Housing for Older Persons Act (HOPA), permits age- restricted housing: "HOPA retains the [Fair Housing Act] requirement that senior housing must have one person who is 55 years of age or older living in at least 80 percent of its occupied units. It also still requires that senior housing publish and follow policies and procedures that demonstrate an intent to be housing for persons 55 and older." http://www.hud.gov/offices/fheo/FHLaws/yourrights.cfm In addressing the question as to whether age-restricted housing should be a permitted use, consideration should be given to impacts upon the surrounding neighborhood (as contrasted with similar housing types that are not age-restricted), including identification of appropriate zones and whether special siting criteria should apply, (if there are any that may be different from the criteria for congregate housing). In addition, Page 4 the challenge of enforcement of age-restrictive requirements should be addressed. (One of the concerns the City previously had regarding "special use housing" was the difficulty of ensuring on-going compliance with the age-restricted housing requirement after a facility was approved.) Question: What is a "life function disability"? If"congregate housing" is to provide housing for persons with disabilities, should the definition be revised to expressly define or include disabilities under the Federal Fair Housing Act/Americans with Disabilities Act (FHA/ADA) as qualifying disabilities for "congregate housing"? LUBA remanded the Council's initial approval of the NWA project due to inadequate evidence and findings showing that the proposed housing was for "those that have life-function disabilities due to age, medical, or mental condition...." The initial question on remand was the scope of"life-function disabilities" because the term is not defined in the Code. The Council found that when the provisions related to congregate housing were considered for inclusion in the Code, the reference to "life-function disabilities" was linked to the provisions of the FHA/ADA. These federal acts defined disability as a "mental or physical impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of the individual..." The Council found that "life-function disabilities," as used in the definition of congregate housing includes at least any condition that would be included in the FHA/ADA definition. Question: Must the disability be "due to"age? The Council first interpreted "due to age" as meaning that 'age' by itself is a qualifying criterion separate from 'medical or mental condition,' so that the category of Congregate Housing could allow age-limited housing, without a showing that each resident has a specific disability. LUBA disagreed and held that the "due to age" provision required that a causative relationship between age and life-function disability be shown. On remand, the City Council referred the issue to the Development Review Commission (DRC). The applicant submitted information showing the statistical prevalence of disabilities occurring in persons of the age of the expected tenant population but the DRC found that "Congregate Housing" required the operator of the facility to demonstrate that the occupants of the project individually had disabilities. It followed that because NWA had indicated that it was prohibited by federal law from asking each occupant to identify the tenant's specific disability, the applicant could not demonstrate whether tenants had the requisite disabilities. The DRC denied the application. DRC Findings, Conclusion, and Order, p. 3, Feb. 2, 2009. On appeal, the City Council disagreed with the DRC, finding there was substantial evidence in the record to show a correlation between persons of"age" and life-function disabilities: "The City Council interprets the "due to age" language in the definition of congregate housing as allowing a showing of a statistical correlation between age and disability that demonstrates that a facility limited to persons at or above a certain age will be substantially occupied by people with life-function disabilities. r Page 5 "The expert testimony and statistical evidence presented by the applicant demonstrates the relationship between age and life-function disability (as inclusive of disabilities as defined by the ADA) in a manner sufficient to satisfy the "due to age" language in the Code definition. There is substantial evidence that the likelihood of life-function disabilities increases with age, and is more prevalent in seniors with lower income." City Council Findings, Conclusions and Order, p. 8;April21, 2009 Northwest Housing Alternatives, This background frames the question: Should the definition of "congregate housing" be revised to eliminate "due to age" with regard to "life-function disabilities"? Question: Should the definition of"congregate housing"be amended to allow design of the building and the nature of the services provided to determine a structure's "congregate housing"status? This would mean that conformance with the congregate housing definition would be "design focused"and/or "service- based"rather than occupancy-based. If"design focused"and/or "service-based,"should minimum requirements be stated? Note that when the definition of congregate housing was adopted in 2002, the discussion at that time indicated that varying levels of support services would be provided in congregate housing but not at the level provided in an assisted living facility. As stated above, the Council found that "due to" could be shown by statistical evidence. The Council also found that the design of the facility and the nature of the services qualified the facility as "congregate housing": the design of the proposed building and services offered would support independent lifestyles for people with life-function disabilities whether the disabilities were due to age, medical or mental condition. A review of congregate housing definitions in other jurisdictions reveals that the "designed to" clause is a common element. Question: Should appropriate zones be identified and should specific siting criteria apply? Congregate Housing is allowed in the NC (Neighborhood Commercial), GC (General Commercial) and EC (Downtown Commercial) zones as a Conditional Use. In these zones non-congregate housing units (multiple dwellings) are allowed outright but only above the ground floor; commercial uses are required on the ground floor. Congregate housing is not "multiple dwellings" and therefore the requirement for ground floor commercial use was not applicable to NWA's congregate housing project. (Due to grant or operational requirements or limitations, there may be difficulties for some congregate housing operators to provide ground level commercial uses in a congregate housing facility.) Congregate housing is also allowed as a Conditional Use in low density residential zones and as a permitted use in high density residential zones; it is not allowed in Old Town or First Addition. The site for Congregate Housing must be at least 1/2 acre in size and is limited to 40% lot coverage. In residential zones Congregate Housing must abut a major or minor arterial or major collector or neighborhood collector street. Should congregate housing, or age-restricted housing if that is considered, be subject to the same restrictions as multiple dwellings? Does the absence of some or all of the multiple dwelling restrictions provide sufficient incentive to encourage congregate housing or age-restricted housing, considering the additional requirements for congregate housing? r Page 6 In balancing the incentives for congregate housing/ age-restricted housing, are there additional neighborhood impacts that should be considered? RECOMMENDATION Consider the discussion outlined above and forward a recommendation to the Planning Commission regarding the issues to be addressed in considering amendment to the definition of"congregate housing" and whether age-restricted housing should be permitted. Reviewed by: Department D. -,tor/ City Attorney / \.AW Alex D. McIntyre City Manager • r— CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO LAKE OSWEGO Centennial 1910-2010 380 A Avenue 11111 PO Box 369 Lake Oswego,OR 97034 COUNCIL REPORT 503-675-3984 www.ci.oswego.or.us TO: Jack Hoffman, Mayor Members of the City Council Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager FROM: Joel B. Komarek, P.E., Project Director Public Works - LOIS SUBJECT: Amendment to a Public Improvement Contract— Lake Full Phase of LOIS DATE: May 11, 2010 ACTION Approve an amendment to a public improvement contract with Advanced American Diving (AAC) in the amount of$520,000 for the Lake Full phase of the LOIS project and authorize the City Manager to execute the related change order to the contract. INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND On December 11, 2009, the Lake Full Contractor, Advanced American Construction, (AAC) submitted a Request for Equitable Adjustment (REA) to the City relating to installation of piles for the Lake Full phase of LOIS. This initial REA, hereinafter "REA#1", was in essence a claim from AAC requesting a change in contract price for piles installed between August 1, 2009 and November 15, 2009. It was implied in their request that additional REA's would be forthcoming for piles installed after November 15. The basis asserted by AAC for the claim is that the geologic conditions they have encountered during pile installation are not adequately described in the contract documents and that AAC has incurred extraordinary costs over and above their costs that can be recovered through the use of the unit prices they bid for such work. In addition to the alleged direct costs impact, AAC specifically notes in REA#1 that it is reserving its rights to seek compensation beyond direct cost impacts for schedule related costs and impacts. On January 25, a meeting of the LOIS subcommittee was convened to discuss this pile claim issue. During that meeting Jon Holland (BC Project Manager) and geotechnical sub-consultant Gary Peterson of Shannon and Wilson, explained the approach taken to the subsurface reconnaissance effort conducted during the design phase. The extent and resolution of this effort was considered to be commensurate with the complexity of the project and typical for projects involving use of ground anchors and pile foundations. Consideration was also given to balancing the substantial added costs to increase the geologic investigation effort with the potential risks of contractor claims of differing site conditions. For Page 2 example, costs associated with the geotechnical reconnaissance of the lake to support the design phase totaled slightly more than $1.5M dollars. The scope of the effort included investigative drilling at spacing's of 300 to 1,000 feet, resistivity surveys to define bedrock, literature research and laboratory analysis of materials recovered from the lake bed. Mr. Peterson noted that the costs to increase the number of investigations (i.e., reduce the spacing of drill holes to say 150 to 500 feet)would have cost an additional $1.5M dollars, if not more due to the extended duration of time the drilling equipment was on the lake, and costs associated with sampling,testing and analysis of data. Mr. Peterson also noted that even this increased effort, would not eliminate the potential for any differing site condition claims due to the fact that the design pile spacing is 25-feet on center. On February 18,AAC submitted REA#2. Since receipt of REA#1 and REA#2, the LOIS claim analysis team, comprising Brown and Caldwell's (BC) construction management experts and their sub-consultants, has focused on evaluating the merits of the REA's in order to render a decision on the claims and make a recommendation to the City as to whether or not the damages alleged by MC are compensable, and if compensable, in what amount. The claim analysis effort has been made difficult without understanding the full extent of the costs MC would make claim for and more importantly whether or not,AAC would tender additional claims alleging schedule delay and time impact. On Friday March 26, I met with the President of MC who presented REA#3, which when combined with the prior requests, represents a summary of all pile installation costs incurred through March 23 as a result of alleged differing site conditions. Through the March 23 date,the total claim AAC tendered is $921,497. As of March 23, approximately 70 piles remained to be installed. Based on the prior claim analysis effort of BC and analysis of the most recent REA#3, BC concludes that some portions of the total claim can be justified and would likely be awarded in an arbitration proceeding. Of the$921,497 claimed by MC through March 23, BC is suggesting$520,000 is compensable for work not covered by contract bid items relating to pile installation. DISCUSSION As noted above,AAC notified the City they may also tender claims for time and schedule impacts resulting from the reduced production rates for pile installation extending from these conditions. In an effort to assess the magnitude of a time and schedule impact claim, the BC claims analysis team compared the contractor's original base-line schedule with their most recent schedule for pile installation. This review noted a schedule duration increase of 50-days. Considering the contractor is working a 10-hour/day schedule,this equates to an additional 500 hours of work. Using the contractor's equipment rates, as approved by the City, the analysis indicates the magnitude of a schedule delay impact claim could range from $400,000 to$1,000,000. As a final step in assessing potential costs to the City to resolve this claim issue, a construction claims consultant was retained to identify the likely range of potential litigation costs if the City and MC cannot reach settlement and arbitration ensues. Based on the opinion of the claims consultant, City costs associated with an arbitration proceeding including attorney and arbitrator fees, expert witnesses, meetings, depositions, and the trial itself could range from $250,000 to over$500,000. r Page 3 On March 31, I met with representatives of AAC to discuss the findings of the City's review of AAC's claims. In the interest of avoiding costly litigation, I proposed the following terms and conditions of a possible settlement with MC subject to approval of Council: • The City would pay AAC $520,000 pursuant to a change order as full compensation for direct costs incurred in pile installation not otherwise compensable through the use of contract bid items; • As consideration for the City's payment of this claim, AAC would agree to: o Waive its rights to make any additional differing site conditions claims for piles installation after March 23, 2010 through completion; and o Waive its rights to tender claims for schedule delay or time impact relating to REA#1 through REA#3. At my request, and for purposes of documenting the resolution of this matter, MC presented a formal, final claim package on April 12, 2010. This package represents a consolidation of REA's#1 through #3. On April 22, 2010, BC presented a formal, final response to the consolidated claim of AAC(see Attachment#1). Concurrent with BC's review and analysis of AAC's consolidated claim, outside legal counsel was retained and asked to provide a legal analysis of the claim and provide advice to the City as to the financial risks of not settling this matter and proceeding to arbitration. The result of that analysis also contributes to the basis of the Project Director's recommendation as discussed below. ALTERNATIVES & FISCAL IMPACT The Construction Contract signed by the City and MC prescribes a stepwise process to resolve disputes involving contract price, time or both. This process has been followed by the parties to the construction contract leading up to proposed settlement offer that is the subject of this report. Pursuant to the terms of the construction contract, dispute resolution alternatives available to the Council at this time are as follows: 1) Approve a contract amendment with MC representing a negotiated, compromise settlement relating to AAC's request for equitable adjustment in contract price for installation of pipe piles in alleged differing site conditions; or 2) Not approve the amendment and direct staff to issue written notice to MC of the City's intent to demand the claim be settled through arbitration unless AAC would agree to submit the claim to an alternate dispute resolution process (typically Mediation). The LOIS project team exercised a prudent approach to exploration of geologic conditions within Oswego Lake. This approach balanced the certainty of incurring significant additional costs for an expanded geotechnical exploration effort against the potential of incurring costs associated with contractor claims for differing site conditions. The above background and discussion identifies the certainty of costs associated with settling this claim and the range of potential costs the City could incur if this claim is not settled through negotiation, but instead settled through an alternate dispute resolution process. Page 4 RECOMMENDATION Based on a review of the consolidated claim by BC's construction management and claims analysis experts and the legal analysis of the claim provided by outside legal counsel, it is the Project Director's recommendation that Council approve a contract amendment for the LOIS Lake Full phase in the amount of $520,000 and authorize the City Manager to execute the related change order to the contract. ATTACHMENTS 1. Brown and Caldwell letter dated April 22, 2010. Reviewed by: Dep rnent Director Financ Director\(. :41 cuty Attorney u V' Alex D. McIntyre City Manager 6500 SW Macadam Avcnuc Suitc 200 ?ortland,OR 97239 Tel:(503)2447005 Fu:(503)244-9095 April 22,2010 Brown Mr.Joel Komarek Caldwell Project Director City of Lake Oswego West End Building 4101 Kruse Way P.O. Box 369 Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 1053-136813 Subject: Lake Oswego Interceptor Sewer(LOIS) Lake Full Phase: Work Order No. 1141.020 Response to AAC's Pile Installation Request for Equitable Adjustment (REA) dated 4-12-2010; CCF#035 Dear Mr. Komarek: AAC has requested compensation for additional costs incurred during pile installation for this project due to differing site conditions. Three separate Requests for Equitable Adjustment (REA) have been received each covering a time period of pile installation. These are summarized in Table l below. Table 1. Pile Installation REA Summary REA Date Range Included Requested Amount 1 July 1,2009 through November 15,2009 I $538,271 2 November 16,2009 through February 17,2009 I $52,465 3 February 18,2009 through March 23,2009 I $131,761 Total I $921,497 Advanced American Construction (AAC) submitted a Draft REA for additional costs incurred installing steel pipe pile in accordance with Article 10.05.A of the General Conditions (GC) on December 11,2009. The draft REA included piling work performed between the start of pile installation operations on August 21 through November 15, 2009. The REA was submitted formally on April 12, 2010. This final version included piling work performed between the start of pile installation operations on July 1,2009 through March 23, 2010. The total amount requested is $921,497. The installation of all piles was completed on April 15,2010. The claim states that it is based on geologic conditions encountered during the pile installation that are not adequately described in the Contract Documents and that AAC has incurred additional costs outside of the unit price bid items. In addition to the direct cost request,AAC states that it is reserving its rights to seek additional compensation for schedule related impact and cost. After considering the pile installation record in its t r Mr.Joel Komarek April 22, 2010 Page 2 of 4 entirety and gathering additional information,we have revised our initial analysis dated February 26, 2010 and provide this letter as the Engineer's findings and conclusions in accordance with Article 4.03.B of the General Conditions. The project geological conditions were described in the Geotechnical Data Report. The report was based upon investigative drillings spaced from 300 to 1,000 feet throughout the lake. The scope of the design investigation was commensurate with the complexity of the project. Consideration was also given to balancing substantial added cost to increase the investigation effort against the cost of differing conditions which could be discovered during construction. For example, the cost of the geotechnical investigation could have doubled from $1.5 to $3 million dollars and the investigative drillings would be reduced from 1,000 feet apart down to 500 feet apart. Piles spaced at 25 feet on center would still have a high potential of encountering differing conditions between the investigative holes. Therefore it was not considered cost effective to take the geological investigation to this higher level of effort and cost. No reasonable amount of investigation can reveal all underground conditions and thus the standard "differing site conditions" clauses arc recognized in the industry and included in Article 4.03 of the General Conditions. Article 4.03 of the General Conditions states, "The Contract Price or the Contract Times, or both,will be equitably adjusted to the extent that the existence of such differing subsurface or physical condition causes an increase or decrease in Contractor's cost of,or time required for, performance of the Work." Contract Specifications,Section 02365- 3.03.A.1 states,"Engineer reserves the right to modify driving criteria depending on the equipment used, field conditions encountered and observations made during pile installation. Additional costs to the Contractor associated with these modifications will be paid by Change Order." It is our opinion that differing site conditions were encountered;that the driving criteria were modified for numerous piles and the work is compensable for those piles in accordance with the terms of the contract. AAC documented data for piles installed between August 21, 2009 and February 17, 2010. Pile driving was completed on April 15, 2010. We have reviewed the information provided by AAC and the field records maintained by the geotechnical engineer, Shannon and Wilson. Our analysis and recommendation has been adjusted to include impacts through completion of pile driving on April 15, 2010. During this review,we were able to reach agreement with AAC regarding some of the hours included in the claim that should be paid using the contract unit price for Obstruction. These hours are not included in our recommendation. Based on our review of AAC's claim documentation,our opinion is that a portion of AAC's total claim is valid and compensable. For convenience,we have divided our recommendations into groups of similar costs. We recommend AAC be compensated for the amounts shown in Table 2 for the following groups of costs: Engineer directed additional work to install the pile: This includes the time to perform additional work directed by the geotechnical engineer to insure the piling would perform as designed. Mr.Joel Komarek April 22,2010 Page 3 of 4 Pile installed in fractured basalt: These piles were installed to the approximate tip elevation expected. The Contractor was unable to maintain an open rock socket because of the highly fractured condition of the basalt. The Contractor expended additional time to continue drilling and driving the pile through the fractured material to install a functional rock socket. Engineer directed the Contractor to clean out the pile to determine if the embedment material was suitable after pile was driven to refusal: This group includes piles which were to have a rock socket installed in accordance with the pile table. The Contractor cleaned the spoils from the center of the pile preparing to install a rock socket. The Geotechnical Engineer determined that gravel embedment was adequate and it was not necessary to install a rock socket. Other Direct Costs: AAC has included other costs incurred in performing the additional work including disposal of spoils generated by the added work and use of other special equipment. We recommend the amount shown in Table 2 as full compensation to AAC for these types of costs. Table 2. Engineers Recommendation of Reimbursement for Additional Costs incurred by AAC Cost Hours Recommended Amount* Engineer directed additional work to install the pile I 120 I $235,800 Pile installed in fractured basalt,Additional drilling was 46 $90,390 required to install acceptable rock socket Engineer directed the Contractor to clean out the pile to 67 $131,655 determine if the material was suitable after pile was driven to refusal Other Direct Costs I I $62,155 Total $520,000 *An hourly rate for AACs floating equipment of$1,965/hour has been used in calculat- ing these amounts. It was calculated by dividing the total y :r ._ t operating cost by the total hours for the two pile driving equipment spreads included in AAC's claim. The rates for individual equipment and crews have been reviewed and agreed to by Brown and Caldwell and the City. AAC has excluded time and impact related costs from these claims but we understand the City and AAC have recently reached agreement that no claims for time related costs or schedule impact will be tendered by AAC in exchange for the payment stated in Table 2 above. r Mr.Joel Komarek April 22,2010 Page 4 of 4 Based on our claim review and noting the City's recent agreement with AAC relating to potential time/schedule impact costs for this issue,we recommend the City execute a contract amendment with AAC in the amount of$520,000. Very truly yours, BROWN AND CALDWELL Jerome Duletzke Construction Manager JED/TRL:em Attachment: AAC claim letter 031 dated April 12,2010 I �c • Advanced American Construction, Inc. 7 I A `C Post Office Box 83599 • Portland, Oregon 97283 Phone: (503) 445-9000 • Fox: (503) 546-3031 frUctt01Website:www.colloac.com • CCB# 167886 April 12, 2010 AAC Serial Letter No. L-031 Brown and Caldwell 6500 SW Macadam Avenue, Suite 200 Portland, Oregon 97239 Attn: Jerome Duletzke, Construction Manager Email: jduletzkegBrwCald.com RE: Lake Oswego Intercentor Sewer—Lake Full Project Subject: Pile Driving Request for Equitable Adiustment Dear Mr. Duletzke, Advanced American Construction presents the following proposal as a formal Request for Equitable Adjustment for pile driving work performed on the Lake Oswego Interceptor Sewer Replacement Project— Lake Full. This proposal is complete for all pile driving work performed between Project startup and March 23, 2010. In this narrative, AAC. will outline the differences we interpret between the base bid and change order field work. Base Bid Driving Piles The Technical Specifications describe pile driving as the continuous driving, or advancing, of piles by vibratory hammer or downhole hammer until refusal. From refusal, piles will either be accepted as"driven piles" or will require "rock sockets." Refusal is defined as zero inches of movement in a period of 5 minutes. Piles which receive rock sockets will be driven to refusal and, in a second operation, cleaned&drilled using a downhole hammer. Obstructions in the form of boulders or boulder layer may create a situation where a refusal condition is realized above the estimated pile tip. In these cases, the boulder or boulder layer may be moved, broken, or the pile may be advanced thru using an under reamer. Clearing or passing an obstruction results in a condition where normal pile driving can resume. The Technical Specification also contains provisions for pile splicing, sloped bedrock, and water inundation of the drill hole. \-31 APR 122016 0 Serial Letter- 031j� Page 1 Base Bid Subsurface Conditions The Contract Drawing Pile Schedule forms the sole bid basis for subsurface and pile driving conditions. Between the Contract Drawing and the Technical Specification, only six subsurface soiUrock types are anticipated. These six types are; competent basalt, weather basalt, residual soil,dense gravel, gravel facies, and boulder/boulder layer. No other materials were anticipated at the time of bid. A geotechnical report was available to Bidders at the time of the Bid, but this report was classified as"technical data,"not as a Contract Document, and as such the Contractor was at risk for any interpretation gained from this data(sec Instruction to Bidder, Article 4). Pile Driving in the Field From the onset of field work, the Engineer has modified driving criteria to suit the driving conditions. The first deviation from the conditions anticipated by the Bid Documents was the frailty of the 18"diameter by 1/�" wall pipe piling. In many cases the piles sustained damage to their tips, and their cross sections, well in advance of the zero movement in five minute threshold for refusal. To protect the pile, the Engineer redefined refusal at a much lower energy, thereby increasing the total number of steps that would be required to bring the pile to estimated tip. The second deviation from the conditions anticipated by the Bid Documents was the introduction of various cohesive soil types. These soils increased the amount of total energy required to drive the piles. Some piles drove so hard that the vibratory hammer jaws ripped the pile tops off. In many cases the pile was evacuated to reduce the skin friction on the pile. The downhole hammer was used to clean out the inside of the pile and the vibratory hammer was used to re-drive the piles. These additional steps added to the overall effort required to bring the pile to estimated tip. The Right to Reauest Compensation Technical Specification 02365-3.03.A.l.p reads, "Engineer reserves the right to modify driving criteria depending on the equipment used, field conditions encountered and observations made during pile installation. Additional costs to the Contractor associated with these modifications will be paid by Change Order." AAC believes that modifications to the driving criteria,due to field conditions and observations, have resulted in pile installation efforts over and above those anticipated at the time of bid. AAC is requesting compensation for all efforts required to drive, or advance,piling after first refusal and before drilling of the rock socket, save refusal where boulders are encountered. Existing Bid Items AAC has developed a spreadsheet to isolate all time and equipment used during change order work. AAC's method preserves all existing bid items. This preservation of the bid items include Bid Item 22—Obstruction, where boulders and boulder layers were encountered. Serial Letter- 031 Page 2 AAC is requesting$921,500.00 for change order pile driving work thru March 23, 2010. To simplify and speed the negotiation process, AAC has chosen to table the issue of time related costs and schedule impacts until a later date. Schedule related costs and impacts may or may not be realized depending on how other portions of the work progress. I-Iowever, AAC would like to preserve its right to seek such compensation in the event that time related costs are realized as a result of this change order work. AAC is requesting immediate and direct negotiations with the City of Lake Oswego for the resolution of these matters. Sincerely, � 1 Sam Barchus Project Sponsor Advanced American Construction, Inc. cc: File Serial Letter- 031 Page 3 1 8AF9iti5gP>; ``49:82 n R ZilggRi'81k 31 RFRO 8 _ = o 1e kR N d f ^83 0;171 X1 R 2.9CR 2. 888 n y dk it ^&pR U UU 4 m Ir Ci a N M C ggB NV. :1 N N i S42ZA (4'6; 44;14A 8 P22c88884:88kRn88884A 888 88 4. 884 m „R FigRgRR9il inikg i amaagt y»a9»a_a�»gaEa gal N» klag1 c p» s » » � ii N i xssx um gum — BSRW2.,9 8486e ^$8888lig4283R8R'g2.^,gXf88r 8fi 88 52884 aaaagl»g» a'i»ras 3aa»a»itlgilsahs »Rwl 88 #s RE » aaaa 44 »24_ 449444444 4664® 61,—Moaao15151561542aa4aaaa 44 44 6446% cceccacc licca ntln, zzxxxxzs�C xxzsxK d „���M���kf�M�KXK��KKnf� 1, nt� ppn 8 E R?^ 0ono y- ,:84844 ^IRR:^_ n nili,F ii, ^p7;;; n MiniZIVICAIC19pAXAAENii; R•? ___ Z v° 0 moo a 2 »$ SS ..V4'..$ �nno oo� 5 'q-R ggherVil§f e �KSx{ p■p g pp1 pr a Pi Y RA L`�3 iii ai . IJ„A c g v o ,00°J°2 • 11113a z i3O 04A4 -11"6 ! d �' r etei Aw.TP B gg 2 lut4t,IIIT Imp 4 vy'� ul3t lgtia mEt; 'div v03 vg' ; p V N Pile Installation Work Hour Summar End 8/31/091 9/30/091 10/31/091 11/30/091 12/31/091 1/31/101 2/28/101 3/31/101 4/301101 5/31/101 Sum CO Rev 1 CO Rev 2 CO Rev 3 Total Start8/1/091 9/1/091 10/1/091 11/1/091 12/1/091 1/1/101 2/1/101 3/1/101 4/1/101 5/1/101 To Dale Total Rlo Hours DB 4000 66.6 176.8 182.4 143.2 222.0 38.1 55.7 59.5 0.0 0.0 884.8 530.0 328.4 81.9 940.3 DB American 58.5 201.1 182.3 170.3 204.2 198.2 175.7 182.9 0.0 0.0 1188.2 580.7 559.2 233.7 1353.6 D8 4000 Normal Driving 66.6 145.3 174.7 139.6 221.7 27.8 51.7 57.9 0.0 0.0 827.3 487.2 316.4 77.6 881.1 Obstruction 0.0 1.8 0.0 2.9 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.0 0.0 0 0 6.9 4.7 0.7 1.6 6.9 TAM QQ a9,9 7,9 Q/ 41 14.51 III 1_6 00 o 3. 50.6 Ili 11.3 2_7 52.2 66.6 176.8 182.4 143.2 222.0 38.1 55.7 59.5 0.0 0.0 884.8 530.0 328.4 81.9 940.3 1 pe American Normal Driving 58.5 84.5 112.6 107.4 187.3 121.8 119.7 137.8 0.0 C.0 769.7 291.5 439.1 162.4 893.0 Obstruction 0.0 2.3 3.3 5.1 0.0 0.0 2.8 7.1 0.0 C.0 13.5 10.8 2.2 7.7 20.6 TIM IQ 11,4 1 MI 57 Q III ill 112 38.0 0 G Q_Q 494.9 $56 4 1 fl AQ 439.9 56.5 201.1 182.3 170.3 204.2 198.2 175.7 182.9 0.0 0.0 1188.2 560.7 559.2 233.7 1353.6 a CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING * MINUTES May 18, 2010 Mayor Jack Hoffman called the regular city Council meeting to order at 6:38 p.m. on May 18, 2010, in the City Council Chambers, 380 A Avenue. Present: Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Johnson, Hennagin, Olson, Moncrieff, and Tierney. Councilor Jordan was excused. Staff Present: Alex McIntyre, City Manager; David Powell, City Attorney; Robyn Christie, City Recorder; Police Chief Dan Duncan; Paul Espe, Associate Planner; Laura Weigel, Neighborhood Planner; Andy Gulizia, Associate Planner; Debra Andreades, Senior Planner; Joel Komarek, LOIS Project Director 3. PRESENTATIONS 3.1 Distinguished Service Award, Police Chief Dan Duncan Mayor Hoffman stated that Chief Dan Duncan has the Council's and the City's utmost respect and trust. He reviewed Chief Duncan's employment history, noting that he rose through the ranks at the Lake Oswego Police Department from a police officer in 1985 to Chief of Police in August 2003. He observed that being a police officer was a challenging profession, as it required individuals to make the ultimate sacrifice at a moment's notice for the safety of the community. He pointed out that the quality of the Lake Oswego Police Department was no accident. He stated that the dedication to public service and the trust and respect of the community began at the top and went down to the police officers. He mentioned that Lake Oswego's good fortune in not facing the political and other issues challenging other police departments was due to the City Manager and the Police Chief. He indicated that Chief Duncan had the respect of the community and the police officers serving under him and the trust and confidence of the City Manager, the community, and the City Council. He expressed his appreciation for the reservoir of trust that Chief Duncan has built up in Lake Oswego, trust by the community that a police officer will respond when called. He commented that he trusted Chief Duncan to treat him, as mayor, the same as any other citizen, and give him a ticket if he deserved one. On behalf of the City Council, Mayor Hoffman read the Distinguished Service Award plaque and presented it to Chief Dan Duncan, thanking him for his service to the community. Chief Duncan thanked the Police Department, the City, and the Council. He mentioned that one of the things that he has most enjoyed about his tenure at the City has been the support from the community. He agreed that they had a solid foundation of trust, which would continue into the future. 3.2 Landmark Designation Plaque and Historic Merit Award Presentation for National Historic Preservation Month Mr. Espe gave a PowerPoint presentation. He indicated that the theme for Historic Preservation Month 2010 was "Old is the new green." He cited the dismantling and storage of the Griffith residence (designed by Pietra Belushi) by the Friends, and its restoration two years later as the Belushi Pavilion at Marylhurst University, as an example of not throwing away older buildings but rather finding new uses for them. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 14 May 18, 2010 He gave the background information on the recipients of the Historic Merit Awards— Judie Hammerstad (pp.1-2) and Jerry Knippel (p.2)—and of the Landmark Designation Plaque — Ken and Cheri Cooley-Hick (pp. 2-3). Jeannie McGuire, Historic Resources Advisory Board Chair, presented a Historic Merit Award to Judie Hammerstad, former Lake Oswego mayor, for her contribution in raising public awareness of Lake Oswego's heritage and historic treasures. She mentioned Ms. Hammerstad's finding a creative way to fund the restoration of the iron furnace and thanked her for preserving this historic artifact. Ms. Hammerstad thanked the Board for the award, and mentioned the upcoming dedication of the furnace and the adjacent Gerber Garden as part of the Centennial Cele`i-ation events. Ms. Hammerstad commented that she joined the Marylhurst Board of Trustees partly to find a home for the Belushi house, as Marylhurst had a place to site this architecturally significant historic house. She observed that the City has come a long way in recognizing its future potential and in honoring its past as part of what made Lake Oswego what it was. Chair McGuire presented a Historic Merit Award to Jerry Knippel for his creativity and hard work on important historic projects. She mentioned his work on the iron furnace and his postponing his retirement in order to finish the furnace restoration. Mr. Knippel thanked the Board for the award. He commented that the furnace restoration had been a labor of love but pointed out that he had been a paid employee, as others involved were not. Mr. Espe indicated that the Hicks were called out of town unexpectedly. He said that he would accept the Landmark Designation Plaque for the Joseph Bickner Building on their behalf. Mayor Hoffman read the proclamation, declaring May 2010 as National Historic Preservation Month in Lake Oswego (p.8). He acknowledged the Historic Resources Advisory Board members present: Chair Jeannie McGuire, Marylou Colver, Corinna Campbell-Sack, and Suzanne Kuo. Chair McGuire thanked the Board members, the Furnace Task Force members, and other volunteers for their tremendous support. Mayor Hoffman thanked the Board and volunteers for helping to preserve the historic aspects of Lake Oswego. 3.3 Lake Oswego School District Water Quality Curriculum Mayor Hoffman welcomed Dr. Bill Korach, Lake Oswego School Superintendent. He mentioned taking two high school administrators from China on a tour of Lake Oswego High School. He indicated that the administrators had been very impressed with the staff and the facilities. Dr. Korach thanked the Council for its membership in the partnership of the District, the City, and the Lake Corporation. He recalled that the partnership grew out of the FUSION discussions on the lake water quality and the issues surrounding the lake and the watersheds. He thanked the City for its financial support. He introduced Steve Mauritz, Hallinan Elementary School Principal. Mr. Mauritz mentioned that the District has had water quality as part of its curriculum for a number of years. He described their process to take advantage of the water resources available in Lake Oswego, beginning with Dave Gilbey talking to the schools about a year and a half ago about the big pipe and issues that the City was facing. He spoke of the extraordinary opportunity that dropped into their laps when the District funded a science lab at Hallinan School, and their desire to leverage using the lab across the entire district to connect the students with the water resources in their own backyard. He explained that, following discussions with the Lake Corporation, the District developed a water quality curriculum that began with the elementary principles of water quality, talked about the issues faced by property owners, and included chemistry-related water quality issues. He said that the District brought all the sixth graders in the District to the Hallinan lab to participate in this new curriculum. He mentioned the third piece of the program, in which all the students visited the watersheds at three different locations in Lake Oswego proper to see how the water moved. He City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 14 May 18, 2010 stated that this program (in its first year) has been a tremendous success by any measure. He mentioned their desire to expand the program. He introduced the three student presenters, Frances, Riley, and Garrett. The students gave a PowerPoint presentation on the Hallinan Sixth Grade Green Team and the lessons learned by the students participating in the water quality curriculum. Frances mentioned the algae blooms, invasive species, and waterfront property owner issues that they learned about in the classroom. Riley reviewed the lessons learned in the Hallinan lab, including water quality testing, pH testing and monitoring, and the history of the lake. Garrett discussed fhe watershed field trips taken by every fifth and sixth grader in the District to three sites in the Like Oswego watershed at Waluga Park, the Hunt Club, and George Rogers Park (the Lake Oswego dam). Riley indicated to Councilor Hennagin that macro invertebrates were very small animals without spines that lived in the water, which were invisible to the naked eye. Mr. Mauritz mentioned that the watershed field trips came about through Stephanie Wagner's work. Ms. Wagner indicated that she was the Education Director for the Friends of Tryon Creek State Park. She explained that she obtained funding through the Gray Family Fund of the Oregon Community Foundation to develop a program to take schoolchildren outside for real world experiences. She gave a presentation based on their field journal of the field trips. She told the story of the field trips, which began at the wetlands in East Waluga Park (the headwaters of Springbrook Creek), moved on to the Campbell Native Garden at the Hunt Club, and ended at the confluence of the Willamette River, looking at Oswego Creek and the Lake Oswego dam. She reviewed the water quality lessons taught at each site. She mentioned that this was a labor of love for the Friends, involving five staff members and 440 hours donated by 15 volunteers supporting 38 field trips in all types of weather. She pointed out the huge investment made by the community in providing this program with contributions from the Gray Family Fund, the City, and the District making it happen. Mr. Mauritz indicated that close to 1,000 students participated in the field trips. He said that the District was looking forward to partnering with the City and the Lake Corporation next year. He mentioned that the District has committed to a second science lab at Oak Creek, which allowed an exponential increase of this program. Todd VanRysselberg, Lake Corporation President, commended the City and the District on this environmental studies program, which he describes as a great idea with great implementation, and serving as a great example of community leadership. He compared the spirit behind this project to the spirit behind the Bottle Bill. He mentioned the good fortune of the community in having a District constantly looking for ways to add value to their programs and a City willing to make these things happen. He observed that the students who participated in this program were becoming environmentally conscious citizens. On behalf of the Lake Corporation, he thanked the Council for its support. Councilor Moncrieff mentioned that she participated in one of the field trips. She spoke of how impressed she was with the depth of knowledge and understanding of the watershed that the students already had before the field trip. She thanked Ms. Wagner and the Friends for their hours of dedication and volunteerism in putting on this program. She commented that she could not think of a better way to educate the community on the importance of good watershed health. She indicated to the students that she was counting on them telling their families, neighbors, and friends about what they learned. She thanked the District and the Friends for their work. Mayor Hoffman mentioned attending the Lake Corporation shareholder meeting last night and listening to the concerns discussed about the lake water quality, especially the Springbrook Creek runoff and delta. He suggested that the Council and the Corporation Board take a field trip during the lake down phase to look at the outfalls into the lake. Ms. Wagner spoke of the City sponsoring one of the Friends field trip programs as a Parks & Rec program to look at the delta. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 14 May 18, 2010 � r 3.4 LOIS Update Mr. Komarek indicated to Councilor Hennagin that staff rescheduled the LOIS update for the first meeting in June. At that time, staff would also present the first update on the Water project. 4. CONSENT AGENDA Councilor Johnson moved the consent agenda. Councilor Hennagin seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken, and the motion passed with Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Johnson, Hennagin, Olson, Moncrieff, and Tierney voting "aye." (6-0) 4.1 REPORTS 4.1.1 Resignation of Ann Pritchard from the Library Advisory Board Action: Accept resignation: 4.2 RESOLUTIONS 4.2.1 Resolution 10-26, authorizing certain officials to conduct bank transactions on behalf of the City Action: Adopt Resolution 10-26: 4.32 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 4.3.1 February 2, 2010, regular meeting 4.3.2 February 9, 2010, special meeting 4.2.3 February 16, 2010, special meeting 4.2.4 February 16, 2010, regular meeting 4.2.5 March 2, 2010, special meeting 4.2.6 April 27, 2010, special meeting Action: Approve minutes as written END CONSENT AGENDA 5. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA 6. CITIZEN COMMENT 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS 7.1 Ordinance 2549, an ordinance of the City of Lake Oswego amending LOC Article 50.44 (Flood Management Area) regarding applicability, map amendments, and the flood management area for a portion of Springbrook Creek (LU 10 - 0003) Mr. Powell reviewed the standard legislative hearing procedures and testimony time limits. He asked if the Council members had any conflict of interest to declare. There were none. STAFF REPORT Mr. Espe gave a PowerPoint presentation on the proposed revisions to the flood management area map and amendments to the flood management code section that came out of the latest FEMA-approved flood plain study for Upper Springbrook Creek. He noted that the map in Exhibit 1-E (p.139) showed the flood plain area of Springbrook Creek proposed for reconfiguration, which lay between Boones Way and a point upstream of Spring Lane. He pointed out that the narrowed portion of the flood plain removed eleven properties from the flood plain, and the widened area brought in two properties. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 14 May 18, 2010 He explained that the original 1986 flood insurance study did not evaluate the stream above Boones Way, but designated all properties in the recognized flood plain as an A zone (highest risk); they paid the highest flood insurance rates. He mentioned that the City's stream restoration project along this reach of the stream also contributed to the reconfiguration of the flood plain. He indicated that the code amendments moved the flood-related definitions from the Definitions section (LOC 50.02) to the Flood Management section (LOC 50.44). He mentioned staffs addition of language to allow the City to do FEMA's administration map amendment processes administratively. He noted that the staff report addressed the relevant criteria and that staff procc; sed the application to maintain consistency with the applicable local, regi nal, and state laws. He mentioned that staff made these changes in response to the specific changes requested by FEMA staff in order to assure that the City Code complied with the National Flood Insurance program, which was necessary to keep properties in the city eligible for flood insurance. QUESTIONS OF STAFF Councilor Hennagin asked why staff contracted the flood plain area along Springbrook Creek, as opposed to expanding it. Mr. Espe explained that the original study determined the Springbrook Creek flood plain based on best practices at the time (aerial photos, spot-field checks) and the pre- restoration stream conditions. The more detailed recent study found that the flood plain boundaries were much larger than needed in that reach along the creek. Therefore, staff modified the boundaries to match the real world conditions of that particular stream channel. Councilor Tierney asked if staff did any cost analysis to compare the cost of the City's stream restoration work to the benefit and savings to homeowners on flood insurance. Mr. Espe indicated that staff did this analysis to facilitate the FEMA letter of map amendment, and did not include any economic studies. Councilor Tierney commented that it would be interesting to see that comparison as part of identifying whether the City's continued efforts regarding the watershed could mean real savings for the citizens. Mr. Espe indicated to Councilor Tierney that the City was late, according to the deadline dates given in the FEMA letter(p.130). He reported that he checked with FEMA staff, who told him that as long as the City had the amendment in process and the Council adopted it this evening, they would not worry about that. Mr. Espe confirmed to Mayor Hoffman that the flood plain regulations were in LOC 50.44. He confirmed to Councilor Olson that the code amendments were consistent with FEMA and Metro requirements (p.116). Mayor Hoffman asked if the flood plain restrictions were more restrictive than the Sensitive Lands Ordinance. Mr. Powell clarified that the flood plain regulations were not part of Metro Title 3 addressing water quality or habitat concerns, but rather part of FEMA and flood concerns. He indicated that comparing the two was like comparing apples to oranges, as the flood plain regulations did not restrict building based on how close one could be to a resource for habitat purposes. Mr. Espe indicated to Mayor Hoffman that those attending the public outreach meetings were interested in the amendments passing. Staff heard no objections to the amendments. Mr. Powell commented that the City having regulations consistent with the FEMA regulations was necessary for eligibility under the FEMA Flood Insurance program. He described the amendments as beneficial to the City, although restrictive. Mayor Hoffman commented that this was not a voluntary program. Mr. Powell observed that if the City did not have these regulations on the books, then property owners would not qualify for flood insurance. PUBLIC TESTIMONY City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 14 May 18, 2010 ■ r Mayor Hoffman opened the public hearing to public testimony. Hearing none, he closed the hearing. COUNCIL DISCUSSION Councilor Hennagin moved adoption of Ordinance 2549. Councilor Johnson seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken, and the motion passed with Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Johnson, Hennagin, Olson, Moncrieff, and Tierney voting "aye." (6-0) Mayor Hoffman moved to tentatively approve LU - 0003 and Ordinance No.2549 and direct staff to return with findings, conclusions, and a final ordinance for adoption on June 15, 2010. Councilor Johnson seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken, and the motion Passed with Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Johnson, Hennagin, Olson, Moncrieff, and Tierney voting "aye." (6-0) At Mayor Hoffman's request, Ms. Weigel described the route of the bike ride scheduled for this Saturday at 9:30 a.m. to honor the City's Centennial and Sustainability Action Month. She mentioned that 60 people have signed up, including Mayor Hoffman, Councilor Tierney, and County Commission Chair Lynn Petersen. She noted that Councilor Tierney would ride the demonstration electric bike. Mayor Hoffman commented that the route went through almost all the Lake Oswego neighborhoods. 7.2 Ordinance 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 (LU 09-0043) Mr. Powell reviewed the standard legislative hearing procedures and testimony time limits. He asked if the Council members had any conflict of interest to declare. There were none. There were no challenges. STAFF REPORT Ms. Weigel noted that Liz Hartman, Johanna McCormick, and Cynthia Pearson were present, representing the many diligent people who worked hard for several years to finish this project. She thanked them for their hard work. She reviewed the background of the Glenmorrie Neighborhood Plan (pp.59-60), noting the Council's adoption of the plan in 2000, the neighborhood's formation of an implementation committee in 2008 and development of an R-15 overlay district, and the public outreach efforts. She explained that the purpose of this overlay zone was to insure that new residential development occurred in a way that was compatible with the unique character of this R-15 residential neighborhood, did not adversely impact the privacy of adjacent neighbors, and preserved the country character. She discussed the two proposed standards for new development and remodels: planting and buffering requirements (pp.60-61), and a hardscape maximum requirement (pp.61-62). She presented the minor change proposed by staff to the planting and buffering requirements as illustrated in the drawing on p. 101. The change would shift the line running across the structure to run parallel to the existing structure. She indicated that staff felt that this change to require planting from the front of the new structure all the way back to the end of the existing structure on the other side better implemented the neighborhood's intent. Mr. Powell noted that the proposed change included adding the phrase "plus the abutting plane of the abutting structure on the neighboring property" at the end of the sentence in subsection (1) in the box at the top of p.100. He explained that staff understood that the neighborhood's intent was to screen the abutting building and the length of the proposed building. Ms. Weigel mentioned the existing definition of hardscape as "structures, patios, manmade pools, walkways, masonry, woodwork, etc." She indicated that Glenmorrie proposed that retaining walls, City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 14 May 18, 2010 gravel and rocked areas, and pervious decks not be counted as part of hardscape. She said that staff developed a new definition of hardscape with an exception for Glenmorrie. She stated that the proposal complied with all applicable criteria. She presented the staff recommendation that the Council tentatively approve this proposal and ordinance and direct staff to return with findings, conclusions, and the final ordinance for adoption at the June 15, 2010, meeting with the minor changes outlined by staff. QUESTIONS OF STAFF • Councilor Hennagin commented that it seemed counter-intuitive to count retaining walls as part of hardscape, given the difficulty in measuring them. Mr. Powell directed the Councilor to p. 97 in the staff report, which presented the general definition of hardscape that staff developed for the entire Community Development Code (CDC) [LOC 50.02.005]. Ms. Weigel explained that staff developed this new definition of hardscape for the City Code in response to provisions in both the Glenmorrie and Lake Grove Neighborhood plans. Mr. Powell referenced the separate section on hardscape that pertained solely to Glenmorrie (p.99). He explained that Glenmorrie wanted to modify the general citywide definition of hardscape to exclude retaining walls, graveled or rocked areas, and pervious decks. However, the citywide definition included those elements. He clarified to Councilor Hennagin that this was not an exception to the Code, as this language was not in LO 50.02.005. He explained that the separate section for Glenmorrie applied only to the Glenmorrie provision limiting the amount of hardscape coverage to no more than 50% of the lot. Councilor Hennagin questioned whether an overlay could have a provision that was an exception to the citywide code. Mr. Powell stated that both provisions were code, in which the more specific prevailed over the more general. He pointed out that the Glenmorrie provision was more restrictive, and defined the limitations on what a property owner could cover 50% of his/her lot with. Mr. Powell indicated to Councilor Olson that the current Code had no definition of hardscape. Ms. Weigel reiterated that staff developed this new code in response to concerns in the Glenmorrie and Lake Grove Neighborhood plans. She observed that Lake Grove's provision was more restrictive than Glenmorrie's. Therefore, staff decided to develop a citywide definition and tweak it with exceptions for the two neighborhoods that reflected what each neighborhood thought should be included in the definition. Councilor Olson asked why the City did not have each neighborhood adopt its own definition of hardscape as part of its overlay. Mr. Powell explained that staff thought that it would be beneficial to have a citywide definition of hardscape, which staff could tweak in certain particulars for each neighborhood, rather than have each neighborhood defining hardscape in a new way. Ms. Weigel confirmed to Councilor Olson that the Council would be adopting new code language with this new citywide definition of hardscape. She pointed out that right now it would only apply to Glenmorrie because it was the only neighborhood plan using hardscape in its overlay. She noted that it would also apply to Lake Grove if the Council adopted that plan. Councilor Hennagin asked if it would not be simpler to make the citywide definition less inclusive and allow the neighborhoods to make their overlays more inclusive. Mr. Powell indicated that each neighborhood could define hardscape in total only for the purpose of that neighborhood, or the neighborhoods could start with a citywide definition and tweak it for their purposes. He said that staff elected to recommend the later course, as they thought it less confusing than having several different definitions of hardscape in the Code. Mr. Powell clarified that Glenmorrie was not redefining hardscape as something different from the proposed citywide definition. It was simply not including certain hardscape elements in its calculations for its hardscape maximum. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 14 May 18, 2010 Councilor Johnson agreed with Mr. Powell that the staff recommendation was a less complex way to accomplish the purpose. Councilor Hennagin commented that he did not see it as less complex. PUBLIC TESTIMONY Mayor Hoffman opened the hearing to public testimony. • Liz Hartman, Glenmorrie Neighborhood Association Chair She testified that the Neighborhood Association Board endorsed the o 'c rlay unanimously at its April meeting as the best way to preserve the neighborhood character without taking away a number of property rights from Glenmorrie property owners. Councilor Tierney expressed his appreciation for the work that the neighborhood has done on this overlay, which seemed to make sense for the neighborhood. He asked how the overlay would work with alternate housing types (cottages, secondary dwelling units). Ms. Weigel commented that, since the majority of lots in Glenmorrie did not come close to reaching the 50% hardscape maximum, she did not think that the overlay would be a hindrance to building secondary dwelling units on the R-15 lots the majority of the time. Ms. Weigel indicated to Councilor Tierney that there was no discussion at the meetings regarding the potential for secondary dwelling units. She indicated to Mayor Hoffman that she did not think that the overlay would have as much of an impact on cluster or courtyard housing as other code changes would. Mayor Hoffman closed the hearing. COUNCIL DISCUSSION Councilor Tierney moved to tentatively approve LU 09-0043 and Ordinance No. 2546 with the staff adjustments as described and direct staff to return with findings, conclusions, and a final ordinance for adoption on June 15, 2010. Councilor Johnson seconded the motion. Mr. Powell indicated to Councilor Hennagin that, in adopting Ordinance 2546, the Council was adopting the changes to LOC 50.02 (adding Section .005) (p.97) and adding LOC 50.08(b) (Glenmorrie overlay). Councilor Olson asked why the new structure was responsible for extending the screening of the existing structure, per the diagram on p. 101. Ms. Weigel explained that the intent was to mitigate the impact of a new bigger house looking down on the outdoor space of the existing structure. She indicated that the requirement addressed both a privacy and a screening concern. Ms. Hartman noted that the privacy concern related to the neighborhood character, which she described as private and wooded. She explained that they preferred using plants for screening, as opposed to fences. Ms. Weigel mentioned that this requirement also provided guidance to developers who usually planted buffer screens anyway. Councilor Hennagin stated that he still had problems with LOC 50.02.005. He questioned how they could measure large irregularly shaped rocks used in planting areas. Ms. Weigel explained that staff included that in the definition because the Lake Grove neighbors wanted it included, as they were trying to avoid fake rock formations and fake fountains in their neighborhood. She indicated that the provision was in Lake Grove's overlay. Councilor Hennagin asked why graveled walkways counted as hardscape when they were pervious surfaces. Ms. Weigel discussed the aesthetic considerations included in the definition of hardscape. She indicated that, while Glenmorrie did not mind the grayness of the paved and graveled areas, Lake Grove wanted to mitigate that. She explained that Lake Grove's definition of hardscape included many more elements than Glenmorrie's did. Therefore, staff crafted a single all-encompassing definition with two different exceptions. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 14 May 18, 2010 Councilor Tierney suggested that the Council adopt the ordinance and instruct staff to return with a new definition of hardscape that addressed the issues raised. He argued that the ordinance was almost to the finish line, and the Council could fix the concerns in the future. Councilor Hennagin questioned allowing the color of the rock to determine whether something was hardscape. Ms. Weigel commented that staff could try to redefine hardscape, but it was difficult to do so because different neighborhoods defined hardscape differently. Councilor Hennagin suggested not having a citywide definition but letting each overlay define it for itself. Councilor Tierney reiterated his suggestion that staff redefine the citywide definition. Ms. Weigel commented that they could then make the c;sfinition more inclusive or less inclusive in the overlay zones. Mayor Hoffman asked what the problem was that they were trying to solve. Ms. Weigel explained that what triggered this issue was Glenmorrie's desire to stop the paving of entire front yards in the neighborhood. However, the Glenmorrie lots were so large that a 50% hardscape maximum would not impact that problem. Therefore, Glenmorrie wanted to educate people regarding the different alternative treatments to paving that were available, which were more pervious and looked green rather than gray. Ms. Weigel confirmed to Mayor Hoffman that the 50% maximum regulated the use of private property, and could prohibit putting in a tennis court or a swimming pool. She cited a recent example where the lot was so large that the owner could put in a tennis court and still not hit the 50% maximum. She described how the requirement could set up a trade off between a paved front yard and a swimming pool. Councilor Johnson concurred with changing the hardscape definition. She held that the definition should focus on pervious versus impervious. She argued that they would see greater conflict between pervious and impervious uses in the future with denser and affordable housing. She commented that, living in First Addition, she would take issue with including gravel as hardscape. Johanna McCormick pointed out that anything the overlay did could be theoretically restrictive to someone. She mentioned her understanding that the committee had been working off a plan that the Glenmorrie citizens had blessed in 2000. She commented that one of the themes that came through from the local residents was the need for buffering and for keeping the `greenness' of Glenmorrie. She referenced the question about what difference color made in stating that color did matter because greenness was an important characteristic of the Glenrnorrie neighborhood. Mr. Powell suggested that, if the Council did not want a general definition of hardscape, then a neighborhood could address the issues of permeability and greenness on an individual basis by listing in its overlay the things that it considered hardscape. Ms. Weigel mentioned that the Code did have a definition of impervious surfaces, which applied in First Addition and Old Town. However, Glenmorrie and Lake Grove wanted a hardscape definition because their concerns included both perviousness and greenness. Councilor Hennagin asked for a friendly amendment to exclude from the motion the proposed change of Section 50.02.005 and to send that back to staff. Councilor Tierney indicated that he would accept that. He pointed out the need to amend Section 50.08B.020 also. Mr. Powell clarified to Mayor Hoffman that he understood the motion as directing staff to return with an ordinance that amended 50.08B.020 to list all the things formerly included in the general definition of hardscape with the exception of graveled and rock areas and pervious decks. He described this as accomplishing Glenmorrie's objective of a 50% maximum hardscape limitation, while not making a general definition of hardscape. Councilor Johnson accepted the friendly amendment. Councilor Olson explained that, while she admired the work that the Glenmorrie neighbors put into their plan over the years, she was struggling with the conflict of an overlay that effectively limited a property owner's property rights, which was an issue in the City right now. She indicated City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 14 May 18, 2010 that she would vote no because of that, even though she supported neighborhood planning and understood what Glenmorrie was trying to accomplish. Councilor Moncrieff indicated that she would vote yes because she appreciated the work that went into the plan. She spoke to focusing on sustainability issues as they moved forward, such as the environmental effects of hardscape in relation to pervious materials and using lighter colors to reflect heat and sunlight, as opposed to focusing on the aesthetic qualities. A roll call vote was taken, and the motion passed with Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Johnson, Hennagin, Moncrieff, and Tierney voting"aye." Councilor Olson voted 'no.' (5-1) Mayor Hoffman recessed the meeting for a 10-minute break. He reconvened the meeting. 7.3 Ordinance 2552, an ordinance of the Lake Oswego City Council amending LOC Chapter 50 (Community Development Code), Section 50.11.010 to limit the square footage of delicatessens, bakeries, and restaurants in the Campus Research And Development (CR&D) zone, and adopting findings (LU 09 - 0034) Mr. Powell reviewed the standard quasi-judicial hearing procedures and testimony time limits. He explained that this zoning code amendment was better processed as a quasi-judicial matter because it applied so narrowly. He asked the Council to declare any ex parte contacts, bias, or conflicts of interest. There were none. There were no challenges. STAFF REPORT Mr. Gulizia gave a PowerPoint presentation on this proposed code amendment to limit the sizes of restaurants, bakeries, or delicatessens in the Campus Research and Development (CR&D) zone. He explained that the City Code did not comply with Title 4 of the Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan. The Code allowed unlimited square footage in the CR&D zone for the retail uses of restaurants, bakeries, and delicatessens. However, Title 4 restricted retail square footage to 60,000 square feet in areas with an employment land designation, such as the Kruse Way commercial corridor(which had CR&D zoning in it). He indicated that amending the City Code to limit these three retail uses to 20,000 square feet would bring the Code into compliance with Title 4 and make these uses consistent with the existing 20,000 square foot limitation on retail stores in the CR&D zone (p.157). He mentioned staffs request to Metro to re-designate the land area near Carman Drive and Kruse Way currently designated as industrial to an employment land designation in order tc match the surrounding parcels to the west (p.180). He reported that Metro staff has agreed to support the request. He noted the Metro letter confirming that the proposal complied with Title 4 (Exhibit F-5). He referenced the staff findings that the proposed code amendment was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan policies (Exhibit D-1). QUESTIONS OF STAFF Councilor Hennagin asked for a size comparison to illustrate 20,000 square feet. Mr. Gulizia indicated that the Oswego Grill at Kruse Way and I-5 was 7,300 square feet. He observed that the size of these three uses would likely bump into the parking restriction before it bumped into the square footage restriction. He said that he did not think that any of the restaurants and delis in the CR&D zone now were larger than 2,000 square feet. Councilor Hennagin commented that he had a hard time justifying any limitation. Mr. Gulizia confirmed that Metro's intent was to encourage office uses with the employment land designation, which were more employee-intensive than retail uses. Mayor Hoffman mentioned that he had sat on MPAC (Metropolitan Policy Advisory Committee) when Title 4 passed. He explained that the intent behind Title 4's restriction on retail was to prevent using the industrial and employment land inside the UGB for big box retail instead of for City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 14 May 18, 2010 i r industrial and employment enclaves. He indicated that in-the past some jurisdictions had granted developers' requests to change the usefrom industrial or employment to retail, which had resulted in big box retail with its fewer employees per square foot than industrial or employment uses. Mr. Gulizia indicated to Councilor Olson that this amendment did not restrict the number of these uses in the zone. It only limited the size of individual uses. PUBLIC TESTIMONY Mr. Powell reviewed the testimony time limits. Mayor Hoffman opened the hearing to public testimony. Hearing none, he closed the public hearing. COUNCIL DISCUSSION Councilor Olson moved to tentatively approve LU 09-0034 and Ordinance No. 2552 and direct staff to return with findings, conclusions, and a final ordinance for adoption on June 15, 2010. Councilor Hennagin seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken, and the motion passed with Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Johnson, Hennagin, Olson, Moncrieff, and Tierney voting "aye." (6-0) 8. REPORTS 8.1 Definition Amendment - "Congregate Housing" Ms. Andreades referenced her memo (pp.203-208). She recalled that the Council wanted to clarify the definition of congregate housing in response to the issues that came up during the Northwest Alternatives appeal last year. She read a portion of the definition of congregate housing (p.204): "multi-unit housing...that supported independent lifestyles for those with life function disabilities due to age..." She framed the question as whether the congregate housing definition should eliminate the 'due to age' clause. She indicated that the term 'life function disabilities due to age' referred to users and their disabilities. She recalled that Northwest Alternatives had had to show a causative relationship between age and life function disabilities. She pointed out that looking at it in terms of designs and services, then it referred to use. She raised four points for discussion, beginning with the question of whether there should be age- restricted housing distinct from congregate housing (pp.205-206). She explained that if the answer was yes, then the City could strike the 'due to age' phrase out of the definition of congregate housing and remove the requirement to show a correlation between age and disability. If the answer was no, then the City needed to define 'life function disability' because the Code currently did not define the term (p.206). She discussed the issue of design and service-based housing versus occupancy-based housing (p.207). She raised the question of what different specific services the City would require for the different types of housing, such as multi-function, congregate, and age-restricted. She pointed out that if the City wanted to provide incentives for these types of housing, then the questions came up about whether to set specific siting criteria or parking requirements or to require a conditional use permit (p.207). QUESTIONS OF STAFF Mr. Powell indicated to Councilor Hennagin that, while he was not certain whether a development had to qualify as congregate housing in order to qualify for federal funding, he thought it depended on the kind of funding. He mentioned that federal funding was often tied to low income, senior, or disability housing. He confirmed that he was not aware of any federal definition of congregate housing that developers had to meet. He recalled that Northwest City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 14 May 18, 2010 Alternatives had qualified for low income/senior housing funding. Whether a local jurisdiction called that congregate housing had not been relevant to its grant. He indicated to Councilor Hennagin that the Council could define congregate housing however it wished. However, defining it as low income or senior housing only would severely limit what was available now in Lake Oswego. He pointed out that the Stafford on Overlook was congregate housing but not low-income. Mayor Hoffman asked staff to bring this back as a study session item because of the policy issues embedded in the concept. He he;c that the Council needed to refresh itself as a group on what congregate care was. He identifiel the policy issues as housing choices, aging in place, and neighborhood compatibility. He argued that everything would flow from making those policy decisions, after which staff could draft the code language. Councilor Hennagin asked whether the Council should remove the 'due to' clause tonight in case the City ran into the Northwest Alternatives problem with a new developer while the Council was waiting on the study session. Mayor Hoffman commented that he did not think that anything would happen in the next three months. Ms. Andreades indicated that she was not aware of any developer contact with the City regarding such a project. Mr. Powell pointed out that any change to the code had to go through the Planning Commission, but the Council could give direction tonight. He explained that the Council's interpretation, as embodied in its findings on the Northwest Housing appeal, stood; staff would process any application based on that interpretation. Councilor Olson concurred with Councilor Hennagin about sending this to the Planning Commission to remove the 'due to' clause. She commented that last fall the Development Review Commission interpreted the 'due to' clause one way and the Council another way, which caused the problem. Ms. Andreades pointed out that, whether the Council took out the 'due to' clause or not, it still had to deal with the same issues she discussed in her presentation. Mr. Powell described two quick fixes based on what the Council what wanted to do. If the Council wanted to leave in age but not have to show disabilities due to age, then the language would be "persons of a certain age or who have life function disabilities due to a medical or mental condition." If the Council did not want to include age, then the language would be "persons who have life function disabilities." He commented that, while directing the Planning Commission to fix the code to make congregate housing apply to seniors as well as to people with disabilities would be a quick fix, he did not necessarily recommend doing so because of the policy questions involved. Councilor Tierney spoke in favor of the quick fix in light of the number of significant issues facing the Council in the next few months. He indicated to the Mayor that he would defer to Mr. Powell to craft the language, which he thought should include age and a medical or mental condition as a qualifier for congregate housing. Mr. Powell indicated that, if that was the Council's decision, then he would not craft language. He would advise the Council to send that direction to the Planning Commission, which would then discuss the age-related federal law issues involved. Councilor Moncrieff indicated that, while she would like a quick fix, she agreed that there were larger policy implications. She cited the potential parking and traffic issues, the conditions of use, and the zones allowing the use as elements in a discussion of congregate housing as affordable housing for people 55+ with disabilities. She questioned whether there was a quick fix in light of the many facets of this issue. Councilor Olson concurred that the Council needed to address the policy issues mentioned by Mayor Hoffman and Councilor Moncrieff. She commented that she saw the Comprehensive Plan process addressing many of those concerns through the housing component. She indicated that City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 14 May 18, 2010 she still did not think that age (being over 55) was a life function disability, and she would like a quick fix to untangle those two ideas. Councilor Tierney suggested that having both an age/income restriction related to federal regulations and the 'due to medical/mental condition' clause would capture the Council's intent. He indicated to Councilor Moncrieff that it would address the parking issue because of the correlation between the residents' economic status and vehicles. He acknowledged that the conditional use designation might leave some barriers for staff and the DRC to address with regard to parking. Councilor Hennagin recalled that the Council had not wanted to impose a low-income housing restriction on Northwest Alternatives. He cited Councilor Tierney's point about the Council's upcoming workload in supporting the quick fix to allow a condition of age and/or a medical/mental condition. He commented that perhaps the Comprehensive Plan housing component would address Councilor Moncneff's concerns. Mr. Powell indicated to Councilor Moncrieff that the Council could set income parameters as a qualifier for congregate care. He commented that the challenge would be to correlate those parameters to the federal granting opportunities, which staff would explore if the Council sent this to the Planning Commission. He pointed out that the congregate care definition would not then apply to the Stafford or similar housing. Councilor Hennagin pointed out to Councilor Moncrieff that the need for federal funding to build congregate care effectively restricted this housing to low income. He mentioned that he did not want to exclude the Stafford from the definition of congregate care. The Council directed the Planning Commission and staff to explore how to accomplish including the age condition in the congregate care definition but separating it from life function disabilities. Mayor Hoffman confirmed to Mr. Powell that the Council wanted the definition to comply with federal law regarding age. 8.2 Amendment to a public improvement contract for Lake Full phase of LOIS Mr. Komarek confirmed to Mayor Hoffman that the Council has discussed this amendment before. He explained that the contractor submitted a claim for differing site conditions. He stated that staff has been evaluating the merits of the claim over the last several months to insure that it met the claim standards outlined in the contract document. He directed the Council to the staff report (p.209-212) discussing the staff findings that the claim had merit and the contractor entitled to a settlement. He indicated that he made his settlement offer of$520,000 in exchange for the contractor waiving their rights to claim impact and schedule delay and waiving any further differing site condition claims. He asked the Council to approve this contract amendment to settle this matter and to direct the City Manager to execute the necessary documents to effect the change. He indicated to Councilor Olson that nothing has changed respecting this issue since the Council discussed it originally. Councilor Tierney commented that, in light of the concurrence in previous discussions by the Council that this underwater site did change (as explained by Mr. Komarek), and that Brown & Caldwell reviewed the claim, and that the contractor waived any future rights, he supported the settlement recommendation. Councilor Tierney moved to accept the report and to instruct the City Manager to act accordingly. Councilor Johnson seconded the motion. Councilors Hennagin, Olson, and Mayor Hoffman concurred that this was a good result for the City. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 13 of 14 May 18, 2010 A voice vote was taken, and the motion passed with Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Johnson, Hennagin, Olson, Moncrieff, and Tierney voting "aye." (6-0) 9. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND ORDER 9.1 Ordinance 2524, an ordinance of the Lake Oswego City Council amending portions of the Lake Oswego Code, Chapter 50 (Community Development Code) to promote compatibility of new residential development with the character of existing development (LU 08 - 0053 - 1729) Mr. Powell confirmed to Mayor Hoffman that the staff ran into some technical issues when re- formatting the information from the Council presentation format to the ordinance format. Staff would have the ordinance ready for adoption next week. Councilor Hennagin move to continue Ordinance 2524 to June 1, 2010. Councilor Johnson seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken, and the motion passed with Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Johnson, Hennagin, Olson, Moncrieff, and Tierney voting "aye." (6-0) 10. INFORMATION FROM THE COUNCIL 10.1 Councilor Information 10.2 Reports of Council Committees, Organizational Committees, and Intergovernmental Committees 11. REPORTS OF OFFICERS 11.1 City Manager 11.1.1 Review of Council Schedule Mr. McIntyre reminded the Council about the going away party for Chief Duncan in the Council Chambers at 2 p.m. this Friday. He invited the Council to the ice cream social at the Maintenance Yard this Thursday at 2:30 p.m., hosted by the City in recognition of Public Works Week. 11.2 City Attorney 12. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Hoffman adjourned the meeting at 9:18 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Robyn Christie City Recorder APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: Of� Segternber 21 , 201 JacK, . Hoffman,' 1. r U City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 14 of 14 May 18, 2010 ■ r