HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - 2010-11-30 SpecialLAS oswEco
AGENDA CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
Centennial 1910-2010 CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING 380AAvenue
PO Box 369
bkbd Tuesday, November 30, 2010 Lake Oswego, OR 97034
6:30 p.m. 503-675-3984
Council Chambers, 380 AAvenue 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
the City Recorder's Office at 503-635-0236, 48 hours before the meeting.
Page #
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. STUDY SESSION
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
4.
Lake Grove R-7.5/ R-10 Overlay District Study Session - Ordinance 2558
(LU 10-0040)
Proposed Economic Hardship Extension for 2007-2009 Land Use Approvals
(LU 10-0048)
Recommendations for Sensitive Lands Map Corrections Process
Update to Water Cost of Service Analysis
Update to Master Fees and Charges
ADJOURNMENT
CABLE VIEWERS: This meeting will be televised on Channel 28. The meeting will be
rebroadcast at the following times on Channel 28:
Wednesday 2:30 a.m. Saturday 3:00 p.m.
Friday 7:00 p.m. Sunday 7:00 p.m.
Also available on live streaming video at mms://www.ci.oswego.or.us/live.
Jack Hoffman, Mayor ■ Roger Hennagin, Councilor ■ Donna Jordan, Councilor
Dan Vizzini, Councilor ■ Sally Moncrieff, Councilor ■ Mary Olson, Councilor ■ Bill Tierney, Councilor
CITY COUNCIL / LORA TENTATIVE SCHEDULE
Items known as of 11/23/10
DATE
MEETING
Monday,
Special
Meeting, 6:30 p.m. Council Chambers
November 29
•
Executive Session: Charter Officer Evaluations
Tuesday,
Special
Meeting, 6:30 p.m. Council Chambers
November 30
•
Lake Grove Neighborhood Overlay (30 minutes)
•
Proposed ordinance to extend development permit completion deadlines (LU
10-0048) (30 minutes)
•
Status Update on Natural Resources Map Correction Process and Isolated Tree
Groves(30 minutes)
•
Update to Water Cost of Service Analysis (30 minutes)
•
Update to Master Fees and Charges (30 minutes)
Tuesday,
Regular Meeting, 6:30 p.m. Council Chambers
December 7
•
LOIS Update
•
Water Partnership Update
•
Unsung Hero Awards
•
Award Professional Services Contract for Stormwater Code Rewrite
•
Multiple site landscape contract
•
Lake Oswego -Tigard Water Supply Partnership: Approval of Supply Facilities
Capital Improvement Plan
•
Support of statewide plastic bag ban (Res. 10-65)
•
5 -Year Financial Forecast
•
Utility billing liability limitations ordinance
•
Declaration of the Vote
•
LOIS Change Order
Public Hearings
•
Comprehensive Plan text amendment to definition of congregate housing
(LU 10-0041)
•
Lake setbacks (LU 08-0052A)
•
Supplemental Budget
Wednesday,
Special
Meeting, 6:30 p.m. Council Chambers
December 8
•
Introduction to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Lake
Oswego to Portland Transit Study
Redevelopment Agency Meeting, 7:30 p.m. Council Chambers
•
Theater Agreement
Monday,
Special
Meeting, 6:30 p.m. Council Chambers
December 13
Public Hearings
•
Sensitive Lands Amendments to Definitions and Exempt Development
(LU 10-0043)
•
Adoption of revised list of invasive tree species
BOLD ITEMS — New issues added to schedule
CITY COUNCIL/ LORA TENTATIVE SCHEDULE
Items known as of 11/23/10
DATE
MEETING
Tuesday,
Regular Meeting, 6:30 p.m. Council Chambers
December 14
• Recognition of Councilors Hennagin and Vizzini
• Award Construction Contract for Chow Corner Pedestrian Improvements
• Northwest Natural Franchise Renewal (Ord. 2565)
• PRAB Recommendation for naming lakefront park (Res. 10-71)
• Adoption of Emergency Operations Plan
• Review of 2010 Goals
• Audit Committee Report
• Appointment of Code Audit Steering Committee
Public Hearings
• Lake Grove Neighborhood Plan Implementation —Amendments to create new
overlay zone (LU 10-0040)
• Adoption of Update to Master Fees and Charges (Res. 10-69)
• Proposed ordinance to extend development permit completion deadlines
(LU 10-0048)
Tuesday,
No Meeting
December 21
Tuesday,
No meeting
December 28
Tuesday,
Regular Meeting, 6:30 p.m. Council Chambers
January 4
• Oath of Office for Councilors Kehoe, Gudman and Jordan —reception following
Tuesday,
Redevelopment Agency Meeting, 6:30 p.m. Council Chambers
January 11
• North Anchor Project
• Discussion of future LORA Projects
• Debt Financing
Tuesday,
Regular Meeting, 6:30 p.m. Council Chambers
January 18
•
Tuesday,
Special Meeting, 6:30 p.m. Council Chambers
January 25
•
To Be Scheduled
• Lake Oswego to Portland Transit Locally Preferred Alternative Process (December/January)
• Review draft Wastewater Master Plan (January 2011)
• Context statement relating to Lake Oswego's Iron Industry and Mid -Century periods
• ACC National Accreditation
• Vancouver, WA fieldtrip
• Foothills Update
• Industrial Park Zone Amendment (LU 10-0042)
• Media in Executive Session Policy
• Municipal Finance Presentation
• Summary of Rail—Volution Foothills Charette
• Arts Council Smart Phone Gallery Without Walls Tour App (February 1)
BOLD ITEMS — New issues added to schedule
LAKE OSWEGO
Centennial 1910-2010
y�
COUNCIL REPORT
TO: Jack Hoffman, Mayor
Members of the City Council
Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager
FROM: Laura Weigel, Associate Planner
Planning and Building Department
3,(
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
380 A Avenue
PO Box 369
Lake Oswego, OR 97034
503-675-3984
www.ci.oswego.or.us
SUBJECT: Lake Grove R-7.5/ R-10 Overlay District Study Session - Ordinance 2558 (LU 10-0040)
DATE: November 22, 2010
ACTION
No Council action is proposed for the November 30, 2010 study session.
INTRODUCTION
On December 14, 2010, the City Council is scheduled to hold a public hearing on the Lake Grove R -7.5/R-10
Overlay District. On November 30, the Council is scheduled to hold a study session regarding the overlay.
Members of the Lake Grove Neighborhood Association will present and explain the provisions included in
the draft overlay. This report provides an overview of the background leading up to the December 14th
hearing.
BACKGROUND
1998 Lake Grove Neighborhood Plan adopted by the City Council.
2000-2005 Numerous plan items are implemented City-wide and the neighborhood continues work on
plan implementation.
2005-2006 Neighborhood association identifies neighborhood specific plan policies that still need
implementation strategies.
2007-2008 Neighborhood association, along with an implementation committee, and City staff work to
develop an overlay zone for the R-7.5 and R-10 zoned areas within the neighborhood to
preserve the neighborhood character identified in the plan.
Oct. 2008 14 overlay zone provisions are presented to the neighborhood association for feedback. The
meeting was advertised through LO Review, direct mail and email. 35 people attended (848
Page 2
mailers sent). Also, Planning Commission receives an update from the committee on the
status of plan implementation.
Feb. 2009 Survey sent to all Lake Grove residents asking for feedback on all concepts. Survey also
posted on-line. There was a 13 % response rate (approx 110 responses).
Jan. 2009 Based on the survey results, the committee and LGNA board drop six provisions from
consideration.
March 2010 2nd open house held to present survey results, revisions to provisions, and to vote on
remaining eight provisions. 35 citizens voted.
April 2010 Based on the neighborhood vote the Lake Grove neighborhood association board decided to
include all the provisions listed above in the proposed Lake Grove overlay.
May 2010 The Planning Commission held a work session and based on feedback to the neighborhood
association a few of the provisions were removed or altered.
Sept. 2010 The Planning Commission held a public hearing and recommended adoption of the two of
the seven code provisions proposed by the neighborhood association. The findings are
included as (Exhibit B-1).
DISCUSSION
This section discusses the character of the Lake Grove neighborhood and the overlay provisions that are
recommended by the Planning Commission and the neighborhood association to help maintain the
character.
Lake Grove Neighborhood Character
All of the code concepts were generated from the neighborhood character statement, which follows:
Dense vegetation and large trees define the scale and character of this neighborhood, separate one lot from
its neighbor, and most buildings from the street. Houses are set within this landscape, instead of defining it.
Many appear secluded and private from other buildings. Houses of many different sizes, heights, and shapes
fit this neighborhood because the vegetation diminishes the visibility and scale of the buildings.
Additionally, the code provisions seek to implement many of the goals and policies identified in the
neighborhood plan, including:
Goal 10, Policy 6: Ensure all new residential development, including secondary dwellings and
homes being substantially remodeled, contributes to the positive design character and qualities of
Lake Grove's existing residential neighborhood. This shall be accomplished through the application
of design compatibility standards, which include:
• Size of paved areas
• Appropriate setbacks, buffering and screening
• Preservation of mature canopy and other landscape features
Page 3
Recommended by the Planning Commission and the Neighborhood Association:
1. Side yard setback in R-7.5
Current Code: Requires that portions of structures less than 18 feet in height must have a 5 foot minimum
side yard setback and a total combined width of 15 feet. Structures greater than 18 feet require 10 feet
minimum on each side.
Proposed Change — Requires that portions of structures less than 18 feet in height must have a 10 feet
minimum side yard setback.
Neighborhood Reason: Increased set backs increase the distance between homes and increase privacy
between neighbors. Additionally, larger front yard setbacks allow the vegetation to define the streetscape,
not the houses.
Planning Commission recommendation: The Commission recommends adopting the requirement for the
10 -foot side yard setback requirement in the R-7.5 portion of the Lake Grove Overlay District because the
Commission finds that increasing the side yard setback will help maintain the neighborhood character of
Lake Grove as described in the Lake Grove Neighborhood Plan.
Recommended by the Planning Commission, but no longer supported by the Neighborhood Association:
2. Driveway Turnarounds:
Current Code: Driveway turnaround materials are not specified.
Proposed Change: Driveway turnarounds shall be constructed out of pervious materials such pervious
pavers, and grass paving.
Planning Commission recommendation: The Commission recommends adopting the requirement for
"green" driveway turnarounds because there are no city-wide standards addressing driveway turnarounds
and the Commission finds that this requirement will help maintain the neighborhood character of Lake
Grove as described in the Lake Grove Neighborhood Plan.
Neighborhood Rational for dropping this provision: If the City Council adopts the proposed hardscape
definition below, the driveway turnaround provision is no longer necessary.
Recommended by the Neighborhood Association, but not recommended by the Planning Commission.
3. Hardscape Maximum of 50%
Current Code: No maximum percentage of hardscape is defined.
Proposed Change: No more than 50% of the lot can be hardscaped. Hardscape includes structures, patios,
retaining walls, paving, walks and artificially placed rock or gravel. Sandset pavers and similar ground
Page 4
covering are also included the calculation.
Planning Commission recommendation: The Commission recommends that the City consider whether
hardscape limitations should be city-wide, and thus uniformly applied. Lake Grove's definition is different
than Glenmorrie's recently adopted definition (see below). A uniform definition could be
developed/addressed in connection with the Comprehensive Plan Update.
Also, the Commission recommends that a proposed restriction should have widespread neighborhood
support to justify additional restrictions on development through a restriction within a neighborhood
overlay district. Based on the public testimony, the Commission finds that the proposed hardscape
provision does not have sufficient neighborhood support.
Neighborhood rational for keeping this provision: The neighborhood would still like to see the hardscape
limitation included in the overlay. They believe it will be helpful in decreasing the amount of gray
infrastructure in the neighborhood and to increasing storm water filtration and protect neighborhood
character. The neighborhood association does propose a less rigid definition of hardscape based on
feedback from the Planning Commission at the public hearing. The Planning Commission and City Council
adopted a similar code provision for the Glenmorrie Overlay.
Proposed Change to Definition after Planning Commission public hearing.
No more than 50% of a lot shall be covered with any of the following elements: structures (excluding decks
that allow water to drop through the joints)*, patios, paving, impervious walks, gravel, sandset pavers and
similar ground coverings. Natural -appearing constructed ponds shall not be included within this limitation.
Where a paved area contained mixed non -plant and plant elements, only the non -plant portions of the area
shall be included within this limitation.
Glenmorrie's Definition (for reference)
No more than 50% of a lot shall be covered with any of the following elements: structures, patios, paving
or impervious walks. However, pervious decks and natural -appearing constructed ponds shall not be
included within this limitation. Where a paved area contains mixed non -plant and plant elements, only the
non -plant portions of the area shall be included within this limitation. (See LOC Appendix 50.08B.020 -A for
illustrations of natural -appearing constructed ponds and paved areas with mixed non -plant and plant
elements.)
*Bold italics highlight differences between Lake Grove's definition and Glenmorrie-s.
ALTERNATIVES & FISCAL IMPACT
1) Adopt the Planning Commission recommendation:
a. R-7.5 side yard setback increased to 10 minimum on both sides.
b. Driveway turnarounds shall be constructed out of pervious materials such pervious pavers,
and grass paving.
2) Adopt the Neighborhood Association recommendation:
a. R-7.5 side yard setback increased to 10 minimum on both sides.
b. Limit to hardscape to 50%
3) No code provisions are adopted and there is no Lake Grove neighborhood overlay district.
Page 5
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.
Reviewed by:
Depa irector
Alex D\ - n -tyre
City Manager
EXHIBITS
A. Draft Ordinances
A-1 Draft Ordinance 2558, dated August, 24, 2010 (not included, superseded by A-1.1)
A-1.1 Draft Ordinance 2558, dated October 19, 2010
A-2 Neighborhood Association Proposed Ordinance
B. Findings and Conclusions
B-1 Approved Planning Commission Findings, Conclusions & Order, September, 2010
C. Minutes
C-1 Planning Commission Minutes, May 12, 2008
C-2 Planning Commission Minutes, May 24, 2010
C-3 Planning Commission Minutes, September 13, 2010
D. Staff Memoranda/Reports
D-1 Work Session on May 12, 2008 (staff memo dated May 5, 2008)
D-2 Work Session on May 24, 2010 (staff memo dated May 13, 2010)
D-3 Planning Commission Public Hearing (Staff Report dated August 20, 2010)
E. Graphics
E-1 Map of Lake Grove R-7.5/11-10 Overlay District Boundaries
F. Written Materials
F-1 Lake Grove Neighborhood Survey, March 2009
G. Letters
G-1 Letter from Barry and Leslie Hasson, dated September 1, 2010
G-2 Letter from Allard and Tanna Conger, dated September 1, 2010
Page 6
G-3 Letter from Lisa and Dwight Schwab, received September 3, 2010
G-4 Letter from Bert Guarrasi, dated September 4, 2010
G-5 Letter from Phillip and Lonni Arakelian, dated September 9, 2010
G-6 Letter from Vahe and Susan Arakelian, dated September 9, 2010
G-7 Letter from Ed Buchman, dated September 8, 2010
G-8 letter from Bill and Kimberley Lee, dated September 8, 2010
G-9 Letter from Bill and Kimberley Lee, dated September 8, 2010
G-10 Letter from Bill and Kimberley Lee, dated September 8, 2010
G-11 Letter from Bill and Kimberley Lee, dated September 8, 2010
G-12 Letter from Bill and Kimberley Lee, dated September 8, 2010
G-13 Letter from Brent and Kimm Wall, dated September 8, 2010
G-14 Letter from Duane Hollinger, dated September 8, 2010
G-15 Letter from Mitchell Ellison, dated September 8, 2010
G-16 Letter from Mark Franken, dated September 8, 2010
G-17 Letter from Greg Creitz, dated September 9, 2010
G-18 Letter from Jerry Jones, dated September 8, 2010
G-19 Letter from Jessica Lee, dated September 9, 2010
G-20 Letter from Howell and Leta Lee, dated September 9, 2010
G-21 Letter from John and Buffy Mercep, dated September 10, 2010
DRAFT 10/19/10
DRAFT
ORDINANCE No. 2558
[PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION]
AN ORDINANCE OF THE LAKE OSWEGO CITY COUNCIL AMENDING CHAPTER 50 OF
THE LAKE OSWEGO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE TO ADD NEW ARTICLE
50.08C LAKE GROVE R-7.5 / R-10 OVERLAY DISTRICT, AND ADOPTING FINDINGS LU 10-
0040.
The City of Lake Oswego ordains as follows:
Section 1 Section 50.05.005 of the Lake Oswego Code is hereby amended by adding new text shown in
bold and underlined type as follows:
Section 50.05.005 Zoning Districts
The City is divided into the following zoning designations:
Residential
Map Designation
Residential — Low Density
R-15
Residential — Low Density
R-10
Residential — Low Density
R-7.5
Residential — Medium Density (FAN)
R-6
Residential — Medium Density
R-5
Residential — High Density
R-3
Residential — High Density WLG
R-2.5
Residential — High Density
R-2
Residential — High Density
R-0
Waterfront Cabanas
WR
Design District (Old Town)
DD
Mixed Residential/Commercial
Map Designation
Residential — High Density (WLG)
R -2.5/W
WLG Office Commercial/Town/ Home
Residential
OC/R-2.5
WLG Office Commercial / Neighborhood
Commercial
OC/NC
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
Ordinance No. 2558
Page 1 of 4
EXHIBIT A-1.1
LU 10-0040
DRAFT 10/19/10
Industrial
Map Designation
Industrial
I
Industrial Park
IP
Public Use
Map Designation
Public Function
PF
Overlays
Map Designation
Planned Development
PD
Resource Conservation
RC
Resource Protection
RP
Willamette River Greenway
GM
Neighborhood Overlays
Glenmorrie R-15 Overlay District
GO
Lake Grove R-7.5/11-10 Overlay District
LGO
Section 2. A new Article 50.08C is hereby added to the Lake Oswego Community Development Code,
Chapter 50 to read as follows:
Article 50.08C Lake Grove R -7.5/R-10 Overlay District
50.08C.005 Purpose.
The purpose of the overlay is to ensure that development in the Overlay District promotes the unique
character of the Lake Grove Neighborhood.
50.08C.010 Applicability.
This article applies to lands zoned R-7.5 or R-10 within the Lake Grove Overlay District, as shown on
LOC Appendix 50.08C.0I O -A.
50.08C.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.
//
/%
//
Ordinance No. 2558
Page 2 of 4
DEFECTS IN
ORIGINAL
DOCUMENT
DRAFT 10/19/10
50.08C.020 Yard Setbacks.
1. The yard setbacks within the Lake Grove Overlay District shall be as follows:
Lake Grove Overlay District Yard Setbacks.
Primary and
Accessory
Structures
Primary Structures
Accessory Structures
Side
Yard
Adjacent
Front
to a
Rear
Zone
Yard
Street
Other Side Yards
Yard
Side and Rear Yards
Portions
of
Portions of
Structures
Structures>
Structures>
< 18 feet
18 feet in
Structures < 18
18 feet in
in height
height
30 feet
feet in height
height
20 feet
on
arterial
and
collector,
R-
25
15 feet
5 feet, side
10 feet, side
7.5
feet
on local
10 feet"
loft
30 feet
10 feet, rear
15 feet, rear
20 feet
on
arterial
and
collector,
R -
25
15 feet
10 feet, side
10
feet*
on local
10 feet
15 feet
30 feet
15 feet, rear
15 feet
*Different than 50.08.030
All other provisions of LOC 50.08.030 are applicable.
Section 50.08C.025 Driveway Turnarounds
Driveway turnarounds shall be constructed out of pervious materials such as pervious pavers and grass
paving. (See LOC Appendix 50.08C.030 -A for illustration of driveways turnarounds and of mixed
hardscape and greenscape).
Section 3. The Lake Oswego Community Development Code Chapter 50 Appendix is hereby amended
by adding the Lake Grove Overlay District map as shown on attached Exhibit A (LOC Appendix
50.00.010-A).
Section 4. The Lake Oswego Community Development Code Chapter 50 Appendix is hereby amended
by adding photographs of driveways with mixed hardscape and greenscape as LOC Appendix
50.08C.030 -A, as follows:
Ordinance No. 2558
Page 3 of 4
DRAFT 10/19/10
LOC Appendix 50.08C.030 -A
Illustration of driveway turnarounds and of mixed hardscape and greenscape).
�rww,
Sm
/�xR►
ti:.� vi
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 52010.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor
Dated:
ATTEST:
Robyn Christie, City Recorder
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
David D. Powell
City Attorney
Ordinance No. 2558
Page 4 of 4
- - ■ ..:.: at ! as s ■ !! ! 9\ iZQ ., � ---
`°" •a 11 1 •I`I• `sE 1 iE a e E � ii ''19� i _ a
it �}}}��. .,. r- er/ — — — '► r �' _ !e
( l c r� <4''--� �I' � ,•� ate, ( — — # e� +. ♦ p r
_ I � � a., �;S �� 'bs 11 � � �i s _ ' �I�1 1 1��1 E �,� �I — ��s � •• _ E '� r
77.
t IIS � <,t."• ,� `„`. �• � d,'' � ° ;,. �,� "' g r;
F. �: �' .n• ,� a "'" — ;� G -
r M� � cxa� �r �•N ,, ''443 `� .�� � 6
x
� ♦ � I� ,F � �s'.. �„ �` _� €s, C ill .,, ! _ �i
�mS'Ye'r�c �f� W ,:, � p •� r ...., y � . � ... i.c� a�' Y -„SIF?Il ii'`� .�
`V
.,. n ',�l ly,�s -eat 5 ♦ O
r
X
M
X
OD
M
m
ZX
~
v'�2
X
JJou
'-1
O
O
D
S
M
a
v
T�
N
DRAFT 11/19/10
DRAFT
ORDINANCE No. 2558
[NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION RECOMMENDATION]
AN ORDINANCE OF THE LAKE OSWEGO CITY COUNCIL AMENDING CHAPTER 50 OF
THE LAKE OSWEGO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE TO ADD NEW ARTICLE
50.08C LAKE GROVE R-7.5 / R-10 OVERLAY DISTRICT, AND ADOPTING FINDINGS LU 10-
0040.
The City of Lake Oswego ordains as follows:
Section 1. Section 50.05.005 of the Lake Oswego Code is herby amended to add the new text shown in
bold, underlined type as follows:
Section 50.05.005 Zoning Districts
The City is divided into the following zoning designations:
Residential
Map Designation
Residential — Low Density
R-15
Residential — Low Density
R-10
Residential — Low Density
R-7.5
Residential — Medium Density (FAN)
R-6
Residential — Medium Density
R-5
Residential — High Density
R-3
Residential — High Density (WLG)
R-2.5
Residential — High Density
R-2
Residential — High Density
R-0
Waterfront Cabanas
WR
Design District Old Town)
DD
Mixed Residential/Commercial
Map Designation
Residential — High Density (WLG)
R -2.5/W
WLG Office Commercial/Town/ Home
Residential
OC/R-2.5
WLG Office Commercial / Neighborhood
Commercial
OC/NC
Commercial
Map Designation
Neighborhood Commercial
NC
General Commercial
GC
Highway Commercial
HC
Office Campus
OC
East End General Commercial
EC
Campus Institutional
Cl
Campus Research & Development
CR&D
Mixed Commerce
MC
Ordinance No. 2558 EXHIBIT A-2
Page 1 of 4 LU 10-0040
DRAFT 11/19/10
Industrial
Map Designation
Industrial
I
Industrial Park
IP
Public Use
Map Designation
Public Function
PF
Overlays
Map Desi nation
Planned Development
PD
Resource Conservation
RC
Resource Protection
RP
Willamette River Greenway
GM
Neighborhood Overlays
Glenmorrie R-15 Overlay District
GO
Lake Grove R-7.5/11-10 Overlay District
LGO
Section 2. A new Article 50.08C is hereby added to the Lake Oswego Community Development Code,
Chapter 50 to read as follows:
Article 50.08C Lake Grove R -7.5/R-10 Overlay District
50.08C.005 Purpose.
The purpose of the overlay is to ensure that development in the Overlay District promotes the unique
character of the Lake Grove Neighborhood.
50.08C.010 Applicability.
This article applies to lands zoned R-7.5 or R-10 within the Lake Grove Overlay District, as shown on
LOC Appendix 50.08C.0IO-A.
50.08C.015 Relationship to Other Standards.
To the extent that any requirement of this Article imposes a regulation relating to the same matter as a
regulation in LOC Article 50.08, this Article shall prevail.
//
Ordinance No. 2558
Page 2 of 4
DEFECTS IN
ORIGINAL
DOCUMENT
DRAFT 11/19/10
50.08C.020 Yard Setbacks.
The yard setbacks within the Lake Grove Overlay District shall be as follows:
Lake Grove Overlay District Yard Setbacks.
Primary and
Accessory
Structures
Primary Structures
Accessory Structures
Side
Yard
Adjacent
I
Front
to a
Rear
Zone
Yard
Street
Other Side Yards
Yard
Side and Rear Yards
Portions
of
Portions of
Structures
Structures>
Structures>
< 18 feet
18 feet in
Structures < 18
18 feet in
in height
height
30 feet
feet in height
height j
20 feet
on
arterial
and
collector,
R-
25
15 feet
5 feet, side
10 feet, side
7.5
feet
on local
10 feet*
loft
30 feet
10 feet, rear
15 feet, rear
20 feet
on
arterial
and
collector,
R -
25
15 feet
10 feet, side
10
feet
on local
10 feet 1
15 feet 1
30 feet 1
15 feet, rear
15 feet
*Different than 50.08.030
All other provisions of LOC 50.08.030 are applicable.
Section 50.08C.025 Limitation on Certain Elements
1. No more than 50% of a lot shall be covered with any of the following elements: structures (excluding
decks that allow water to drop through the joints), patios, paving, impervious walks, gravel, sandset
pavers and similar ground coverings. Natural -appearing constructed ponds shall not be included within
this limitation. Where a paved area contained mixed non -plant and plant elements, only the non -plant
portions of the area shall be included within this limitation. See LOC Appendix 50.08C.05 -A for
examples.
Section 3. The Lake Oswego Community Development Code Chapter 50 Appendix is hereby amended
by adding the Lake Grove Overlay District map as shown on attached Exhibit E.1 (LOC Appendix
50.00.010-A).
Section 4. The Lake Oswego Community Development Code Chapter 50 Appendix is hereby amended
by adding the Lake Grove Hardscape Appendix, shown below as LOC Appendix 50.08C.005 -A:
Ordinance No. 2558
Page 3 of 4
DRAFT 11/19/10
Illustrations of Examples of combinations of hardscape and greenscape
(Use of Interlocking_ pavers) Combination of hardscane and_greenscape
Section 5. The provisions of this ordinance are severable. If any portion of this ordinance is for any
reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this
ordinance.
Enacted at the meeting of the Lake Oswego City Council of the City of Lake Oswego held on the
day of , 2010.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN
Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor
Dated:
ATTEST:
Robyn Christie, City Recorder
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
David D. Powell
City Attorney
Ordinance No. 2558
Page 4 of 4
,�. w , r •
Ale
�� y .•• - t� s, -- � � 13 i s � dd
01
Xwo
-
dO
o 01
dO
,
m
ra
MY�iiiiir� i11
s�
y fi E
` �q. �;`� ..,.1E a 1•E i � a e ! I N "� � ` _ �.' �
s _ °� `�' s I ♦ ♦i _ rt
0
s i
s.'' "a .a d 'i► d. s
- � � .:, '®,d d r1 1♦ /iii -Jill
T � E i m •� 1 1 ,,,
° ° - e / • _
I BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION �O
2 OF THE
3 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
4
5
6 A REQUEST FOR A LEGISLATIVE TEXT ) LU 10-0040 - 1743
7 AMENDMENT TO THE COMMUNITY ) (CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO &
8 DEVELOPMENT CODE TO INCLUDE ) Lake Grove Neighborhood)
9 LAKE GROVE OVERLAY DISTRICT. ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & ORDER
10
11
12 NATURE OF APPLICATION
13
14 A legislative text amendment to the Lake Oswego Community Development Code (Code) to
15 include a new section to the Community Development Code, Article 50.08C, the Lake Grove R-
16 7.5/R-10 Overlay District, and to amend LOC 50.17.015. The amendment is proposed by the
17 City of Lake Oswego, at the request of the Lake Grove Neighborhood Association. The Lake
18 Grove Neighborhood Association worked with City of Lake Oswego staff to propose the text
19 amendments.
20
21 HEARINGS
22
23 The Commission held a public hearing and considered this application at its meeting of:
24 September 13, 2010.
25
26 CRITERIA AND STANDARDS
27
28 A. City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan
29 Goal 2: Land Use Planning
30 Section 1 Land Use Policies and Regulations, Policy 4b and 24
31 Section 2 Community Design and Aesthetics, Policy 1
32
33 Special District Plans
34 Lake Grove Neighborhood Plan
35 Goal 2: Land Use Planning: Residential Goal and Policy 3
36 Goal 10: Housing: Goal and Policy 1, 3
37
38 B. Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan
39 Title 1: Accommodation of Growth
40
41 C. Oregon Statewide Planning Goals
42 Goal 1: Citizen Involvement
43 Goal 2: Land Use Planning
44
45 D. Lake Oswego Development Code Procedural Requirements
46 LOC 50.01.010 Purpose
47 LOC 50.75 Legislative Decisions
48 LOC 50.75.005 Legislative Decisions Defined
49 LOC 50.75.010 Criteria for a Legislative Decision
50 LOC 50.75.015 Required Notice to DLCD EXHIBIT B-1
LU 10-0040
LU 10-0040 PAGE 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
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
CONCLUSION
The Commission recommends that the City Council adopt two of the seven proposed provisions
in LU 10-0040, for the Lake Grove Overlay District:
1. Requirement for "green" driveway turnarounds; and
2. A 10 -foot side yard setback in the R-7.5 zone portion of the Lake Grove Overlay District.
The Commission concludes that its recommendation to adopt the above two provisions
proposed in LU 10-0040 are in compliance with all applicable criteria.
The Commission does not recommend:
A. Adoption of the following provisions in Lake Grove Overlay District:
i. A 30 -foot front yard setback in the R-10 zone (currently 25 -foot).
ii. Lot coverage limitations (which reflect the lot coverage limitations prior to the
recent Community Development Code Infill Amendment, Ord. No. 2524).
iii. No more than 50% of the lot can be covered in hardscape (no current limits).
iv. Submittal of a non-binding planting and buffering plan for review by the City
required for new development (no current requirements).
B. A text amendment to the Planned Development section (LOC 50.17.015) to
prevent exceptions to the yard setback requirements on the perimeter of planned
development lots abutting R-10 and R-7.5 zones.
FINDINGS AND REASONS
The Commission incorporates the staff report, dated August 20, 2010, on LU 10-0040 (with all
exhibits attached thereto) as support for its decision, supplemented by the further findings and
conclusions set forth herein. In the event of any inconsistency between the supplementary
matter herein and the staff report, the matter herein controls. To the extent they are consistent
with the approval granted herein, the Commission adopts by reference its oral deliberations on
this matter.
Following are the supplementary findings and conclusions of this Commission:
1. The Commission does not recommend adopting the 30 -foot front yard setback for the R-
10 zone portion of the Lake Grove Neighborhood, or the lot coverage limitations (which reflect
the lot coverage limitations prior to the recent Community Development Code Infill
Amendments) because:
A. There is a lack of evidence that the standards in the recently adopted Infill
Amendments and additional code changes since 1998 regarding front yard setback and
streetscape standards does not accomplish the goal of the protecting neighborhood character;
and
LU 10-0040 PAGE 2
B. These provisions would not make enough of an impact to warrant adding another
layer of complexity to the Code.
4 2. The Commission does not recommend adopting the proposed hardscape maximum
5 provision because:
6
7 A. The Commission recommends that the City should consider whether hardscape
8 limitations should be city-wide, and thus uniformly applied, particularly in light of the update to
9 the Comprehensive Plan as part of periodic review that is currently underway before adopting a
10 different definition of "hardscape" from that recently adopted as part of the Glenmorrie Overlay
11 District (LOC Article 50.08B), and
12
13 B. The Commission recommends that a proposed restriction should have
14 widespread neighborhood support to justify additional restrictions on development through a
15 restriction within a neighborhood overlay district. Based on the public testimony, the
16 Commission finds that the proposed hardscape provision does not have sufficient neighborhood
17 support.
18 3. The Commission does not recommend adopting the proposed planting and buffering
19 plan submittal requirement because the proposal neither includes any standards or
20 requirements as to what that the planting and buffering plan should include, nor are plants
21 proposed in the planting and buffering plan actually required to be planted (nothing but plan
22 submittal is required). The Commission does not recommend adopting Code provisions that
23 have no regulatory impact.
24
25 4. The Commission does not recommend adopting the proposed prohibition of an
26 exception to the yard setback requirement on the perimeter of Planned Development lots
27 abutting R-10 and R-7.5 zones because the proposal is in conflict with the purpose of the
28 Planned Development regulations.
29
30 5. The Commission recommends adopting the requirement for "green" driveway
31 turnarounds (no current requirements) because there are no city-wide standards addressing
32 driveway turnarounds and the Commission finds that this requirement will help maintain the
33 neighborhood character of Lake Grove as described in the Lake Grove Neighborhood Plan.
34
35 6. The Commission recommends adopting the requirement for the 10 -foot side yard
36 setback requirement in the R-7.5 portion of the Lake Grove Overlay District (currently the R-7.5
37 zone requires a "combined total' of 15 -foot side yard setback) because the Commission finds
38 that increasing the side yard setback will help maintain the neighborhood character of Lake
39 Grove as described in the Lake Grove Neighborhood Plan.
40
41 ORDER
42
43 IT IS RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION of the City of Lake Oswego that the
44 Lake Oswego Community Development Code be amended to add a new section, Article
45 50.08C, Lake Grove R -7.5/R-10 Overlay District, as set forth on Exhibit A, attached.
46
47 1 CERTIFY THAT THIS ORDER was presented to and APPROVED by the Planning
48 Commission of the City of Lake Oswego.
49
50
51
LU 10-0040 PAGE 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
DATED this 25th day of October 2010.
ATTEST:
Jon Gustafson /s/
Jon Gustafson, Chair
Planning Commission
Iris McCaleb /s/
Iris McCaleb
Administrative Support
PRELIMINARY DECISION - September 13, 2010
AYES:
Glisson, Johnson, Jones
NOES:
Gustafson, Paretchan
ABSTAIN:
None
RECUSE:
None
EXCUSED:
None
ABSENT:
None
ADOPTION OF FINDINGS AND ORDER - October 25, 2010
AYES:
Glisson, Gustafson, Jones, Paretchan
NOES:
None
ABSTAIN:
None
RECUSE:
None
EXCUSED:
Johnson
ABSENT:
None
LU 10-0040
PAGE 4
CALL TO ORDER
City of Lake Oswego
Planning Commission Minutes
May 12, 2008
ApplI
Vice Chair Julia Glisson called the Planning Commission meeting of Monday, May 12,
2008 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 Vice Chair Julia Glisson and Commissioners Adrianne Brockman,
Mary Olson, Philip Stewart and Alison Webster. Commissioner Scot Siegel was
excused.
Staff present were Dennis Egner, Long Range Planning Manager; Laura Weigel,
Neighborhood Planner, Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney and Iris Treinen,
Administrative Support.
III. CITIZEN COMMENT
None.
IV. MINUTES
Commissioner Bro n moved to approve the Minutes of March 24, 2008.
Commiss' ebster seconded the motion and it passed 4:0. Commissioner Olson
V. PLANNING COMMISSION — WORK SESSION
Lake Grove Neighborhood Plan Implementation (PP 07-0018) — Check -In
Laura Weigel, Neighborhood Planner, and Ted Jeffries, Chair of the Lake Grove
Implementation Committee, reported to the Planning Commission. Other Committee
members present were Bill Ward and Barbara Zeller. Mr. Jeffries reported that the
Committee was discussing types of potential regulations they would fashion into overlay
code language to implement the Lake Grove Neighborhood Plan. The list included R-7.5
setbacks, Floor Area Ratio (FAR); height, landscaping and buffering, tree protection,
limiting Planned Developments (which allowed smaller lots); buffering the neighborhood
against commercial encroachment; a neighborhood design review process; increased tear
down fees; how to encourage remodeling; and how to organize and schedule
EXHIBIT C-1
City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission LU 10-0040
Minutes of May 12, 2008 Page I of 6
developer/neighborhood meetings. Mr. Jeffries said he hoped the Committee would be
able to present the neighborhood with proposed code that addressed the loss of privacy
the area was experiencing as new development resulted in smaller lots with larger homes
and loss of the neighborhood's green buffer. He said he hoped they could draft the
overlay code by fall.
Ms. Weigel asked the Commissioners for ideas and guidance. During the ensuing
discussion, Mr. Jeffries stressed that the Committee wanted to maintain the "secluded
character" of the neighborhood because they saw their large parcels being partitioned into
smaller lots; FAR was increasing; and they were losing greenscape. Commissioner
Brockman said they should be aware that the City was considering a Community
Development Code (CDC) update that would eliminate the lot depth requirement when
lots were created. Mr. Jeffries anticipated that the Committee would make the overlay
code consistent with the City's decision to allow or not allow garage area to be included
in the FAR calculation. Ms. Weigel clarified that the negative and positive labels written
on infill depictions in the Community Development Department Memorandum dated
May 5, 2008 were staff notations and did not reflect the Committee's opinion. She
confirmed that they had the consultant's analysis of examples of infill done in 2001 to
refer to. Vice Chair Glisson wanted to know if all stakeholder interests were represented.
Mr. Jeffries reported that the neighborhood association had invited local builders to serve
on the Committee, and the diversity of membership had resulted in lively debate. Ms.
Weigel reported that she and Mr. Egner had toured the neighborhood with current
planning staff and solicited their ideas. Mr. Egner advised the Committee to limit
proposed regulations in the overlay code to those that addressed unique aspects of the
neighborhood and offer any recommendations regarding citywide changes separately.
Ms. Weigel said the "next steps" were to further refine the list of concepts that might be
regulated and "check in" again with the Planning Commission before they presented the
overlay concepts to the larger neighborhood for feedback.
Community Development Code Amendments (PP 08-0002)
Update on proposed text amendments to the Lake Oswego Code (LOC), pter 50
(Community Development Code), clarifying, correcting and updating sec (L;
s.
The Commissioners continued their examination of the it 4, 2008 Community
Development Department Staff Report: CDC Update, et 2. They wanted to better
understand what development would be allowed i vironmental zones. Staff explained
that a Resource Protection (RP) District ected a water resource and a Resource
Conservation (RC) District protected upland tree grove. They said the proposed
changes would ensure the RC Dis with the tree grove that typically followed a stream
corridor was not disconne from the related RP District. They clarified that the
presence of a resource ' trict overlay served as a "red flag" that there were resources in
the area. Howev , a scientist would later examine the district more closely to determine
if there act y was a resource to be protected and delineate its boundaries so it could be
prote from the development on that parcel. Staff said the water resource boundary
Id be further protected by a buffer and 50% of the tree grove had to be protected from
City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission
Minutes of May 12, 2008 Page 2 of 6
LAKEOSWEG10
ea
Centennial 7970-2010 City g O0�
of Lake Oswego � �
Planning Commission Minutes
May 24, 2010
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Philip Stewart called the Planning Commission meeting of May 24, 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 Julie Glisson (arrived at 7:40
p.m.) and Commissioners Adrianne Brockman, Jon Gustafson, Russell Jones and Lynne
Paretchan. Commissioner Jim Johnson was excused.
Mayor Jack Hoffman, Council Liaison Bill Tierney and Councilor Sally Moncrieff
participated in part of the meeting. Guests included Jonathan Snell and Paul Lyons.
Staff present were Debra Andreades, Senior Planner: Sidaro Sin, Senior Planner; Laura
Weigel, Neighborhood Planner; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney and Iris McCaleb,
Administrative Support.
III. CITIZEN COMMENT
None.
IV. COUNCIL UPDATE
Councilors Tierney and Moncrieff reported that the Bud Committee had just
recommended a budget that would fund the Comprehen e Plan update process. It
allocated 1.5 full time employees (FTE) neighborhood Hers to that process.
V. MINUTES
The vote on the Minutes of April 12, 20
VI. PRESENTATIONS
Housing
postponed until the next meeting.
Paul Lyons wasp of a group of interested citizens that had been examining housing
choices. He g a slide presentation and discussed demographics, market trends, and
types of h ing projects that filled the need for smaller homes on smaller lots. He
advise at good design could make small spaces work in walkable "eco -districts.'' The
Cit ould look to other jurisdictions to find the appropriate planning tools for the larger
ort, but in the short run it could simplify the code related to secondary dwelling units.
City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission EXHIBIT C-2
Minutes of May 24, 2010 LU 10-0040 Page 1 of 6
VII. WORK SESSION
PP 07-0018 — Lake Grove Neighborhood Plan Implementation. An update and
discussion on the proposed provisions in the overlay zone.
Jonathan Snell, Chair of the Lake Grove Neighborhood Association, introduced the
overlay concepts. He advised that the character of Lake Grove was due to its vegetation
and trees. Lots were being partitioned and small houses were being replaced by large
houses. The neighborhood had adopted its neighborhood plan in 1998. A
neighborhood committee had been fashioning the implementation overlay. As part of
that process they had surveyed the entire neighborhood and held open houses. The
survey response rate was 12%. Thirty-five people had been present to vote on the
overlay concepts at an association meeting in March 2010. At that meeting a motion
had been made from the floor to require a more detailed landscaping plan than the
board's version required. Mr. Snell referred to it as the "Landscaping Grouping
Proposal." He clarified it was not endorsed by the board.
Mr. Snell summarized the key concepts. The overlay increased the front yard setback
requirement in R-10 and the side yard setback in R-7.5. The neighborhood did not
accept the increased lot coverage the Infill amendments allowed and would keep the
previous lot coverage requirement. The overlay requires Planned Developments to
meet the setbacks required in the overlay. The overlay required a developer to submit a
landscaping plan, but it did not specify what had to be in the plan or make the developer
actually install it. He explained that the neighborhood just wanted to be able to talk to
the developer about landscaping and offer suggestions and help. They knew they could
not enforce the plan. The overlay set a hardscape limit of 50% of the lot, but the
definition, "hardscape," still had to be worked out. It would not be exactly the same as
the definition Glenmorrie used. The neighborhood wanted developers to use pervious
surface in the City -required driveway turnarounds. Mr. Snell acknowledged that the
overlay would not change the trend of replacing small older houses with larger ones, but
he believed it might affect that trend a bit. He thanked the neighborhood residents who
had helped fashion the overlay.
Planning Commission Feedback
During the ensuing discussion, Mr. Snell confirmed that the overlay did not contain
requirements for landscaping and the association was aware they could not enforce the
landscape plan they required the developer to submit. He anticipated the association
would continue to discuss that issue. He explained that the Implementation Committee
had decided to increase front setbacks by five feet after they looked at houses in the
neighborhood and observed that even large houses fit better when they were set back
from the street a little bit more. The Commissioners cautioned that might address how
the house looked from the street, but it could have unintended adverse affects of
pushing the house too close to the neighbors; forcing the first floor back so the structure
would be taller and intrude on the neighbors' privacy; and decrease the flexibility to shift
an addition a bit to save a tree. They advised against relying on the variance process to
save trees. The Commissioners then discussed the hardscape limit. They noted that
side -loading garages created the need for more hardscape. The Planning Commission
might consider whether to address side -loading garages citywide at some point in the
future. Commissioner Paretchan related that she had found it was hard to find pervious
pavers. She suggested the term should be better defined and products that fit the
definition should be identified. Commissioner Gustafson suggested it would be better for
City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission
Minutes of May 24, 2010 Page 3 of 6
the community if Glenmorrie and Lake Grove and the other neighborhoods had a similar
hardscape provision. Commissioner Paretchan suggested that the Planning
Commission consider adopting a citywide hardscape definition instead of customizing it
for each neighborhood. She suggested the neighborhood consider a requirement to put
plants in front of a driveway turnaround if they were concerned about the visual impact.
Vice Chair Glisson recalled a church in Waluga that put in pervious paving that looked
like asphalt. Ms. Weigel recalled the committee had considered requiring green
pervious pavers. She clarified they were concerned about both drainage and aesthetics.
The Commissioners advised the neighborhood that the purpose of a Planned
Development (PD) was to offer the flexibility to protect resources and allow good design
that fit the neighborhood. By forcing a PD to have the same size setbacks as the
underlying zone would not do that. Ms. Weigel recalled the neighborhood had initially
talked about not allowing any PDs at all, then compromised on the setback provision.
Commissioner Brockman supported the overlay because the neighborhood had gone
forward with it in good faith. Commissioner Gustafson encouraged the neighborhood to
come up with landscaping requirements rather than just require a plan that could not be
enforced.
The Planning Commission took a short break and then reconvened the meeting for
public comments.
Public Comments
Joy Prideaux, 15500 Twin Fir Road, distributed, "Lake Grove Neighborhood Poll
Response, Tree Canopy & Landscape," a summary of five neighborhood polls. On the
back of the document she had printed her "Landscape Grouping Alternative" proposal.
She pointed out poll results showed that the majority of respondents supported
preserving the tree canopy and landscaping, but the Implementation Committee was not
recommending that kind of regulation. She held it was needed because developers, not
property owners, were building most of the new houses. Vice Chair Glisson had noticed
that developers were landscaping the homes they were marketing. Ms. Prideaux
explained she wanted to encourage them to save mature trees and native plants.
Commissioner Jones suggested limiting the percentage of trees that could be cut on a
lot to 50%.
Bill Ward, 4301 Upper Drive, a member of the association board, the Implementation
Committee, and the Native Plant Society of Oregon, indicated he did not believe
government should require a property owner to plant a certain set of plants.
Michael Buck, 3155 Edgemont Road, an Association board member, reported the
Implementation Committee had considered numerous proposals for landscaping
requirements. He indicated he could support stronger landscaping requirements if the
level of support in the neighborhood was greater, but only 35 people had participated, so
he did not want to impose them. He advised the neighborhood could save a lot of trees
by removing invasives and restoring riparian areas.
Chair Stewart asked the neighborhood to try to achieve consensus. Commissioner
Gustafson wanted the neighborhood to be more unified about their vision. Ms. Weigel
reported the difference of opinion in the neighborhood about landscaping and buffering
requirements had challenged the process for many months. She hoped that the board
and committee would talk about what they heard from the Planning Commission and
resolve the issue. If they could not do that, she hoped they would move forward with the
City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission
Minutes of May 24, 2010 Page 4 of 6
overlay without addressing landscaping and buffering. She clarified for Commissioner
Paretchan that the survey response rate had been 12.5% and all 850 households and
businesses in the neighborhood had been surveyed and invited to the meetings, but
there had not been a high turnout at the meetings. The committee had talked about
going door to door, but decided that was not feasible. Thirty-five members had attended
the meeting when the vote was conducted. The result of the vote on the Landscaping
Grouping Alternative was 30:3:2.
VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS /WORK SESSION
LU 08-0059 — Expansion of West Lake Grove Design District. A request/or
Comprehensive Plan map and Zoning text and map amendments from Randy R ves
and Ken Sandblast, Planning Resources. Continued from February 22, 2010.
Staff recommended removing the case from the agenda, but keeping it o n until the
applicant was ready and asked for a hearing date. After the applicant bmitted their
information staff would continue to work with them, schedule a he g and send out
another notice of hearing.
LU 08-0052 (Ordinance 2525) — Community Devel(
Housekeeping and Minor Policy Amendments. Amend
purpose of clarifying, correcting, formatting, updating se
policy changes. Continued review of Ordinance 2525 — t<
2008). Continued from May 10, 2010.
Pn-Ltfnt Code — General
nts (Chapter 50) for the
ons and discussing minor
chment B (dated August 8,
Chair Stewart opened the hearing. Ms. Andre es, distributed the staff report (see
Planning and Building Services Department pplemental Report #4 dated May 14,
2010). The Commissioners examined E bit F-4 titled, "Fire Dept. Access and
Alternate Methods." The Commissioners nerally accepted changing LOC 50.58,015
On -Site Circulation — Driveways and Fi Access Roads, Standards for Approval, (3)
Driveway Grades to say that if the gr e exceeded 15% the Fire Marshal may require
alternate methods for fire suppres on. They discussed Commissioner Paretchan's
concern that Section 50.47.005 andscaping, Screening and Buffering, Applicability,
went too far. She suggested emoving the part of the bulleted list after "industrial
development." She and Vic hair Glisson observed there were areas of the City with
no curbs or planting strip w ere it would be out of character to require a specific spacing
of street trees along th ight-of-way. Commissioner Brockman suggested applying it
when there were no tr s in the front yard. Mr. Boone advised a tree was considered a
street tree" even if ' was not in the right-of-way if its canopy was over the right-of-way.
He clarified that staff had been interpreting the code as saying the street tree
requirement ap ied even if a partition that created an additional lot did not create a
street. That as why they added the bullet, "land divisions." He clarified that under the
current co an institutional or commercial use in an existing building could expand its
parking without any requirement to plant street trees, so staff had added a bullet to
addre that. The Commissioners agreed to take more time to think this through and
con It with the staff.
Commissioner Brockman moved to continue LU 08-0052 (Ordinance 2525) to June 14
2010. Commissioner Gustafson seconded the motion and it passed 6:0.
City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission
Minutes of May 24, 2010 Page 5 of 6
LkKE City of Lake Oswego
Cenwnnial 19 t Q 2010
, Planning Commission Minutes
September 13, 2010
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Jon Gustafson called the Planning Commission meeting of September 13, 2010,
to order at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall at 360 "A" Avenue, Lake
Oswego, Oregon.
2. ROLL CALL
Members present were Chair Jon Gustafson, Vice Chair Lynne Paretchan, and
Commissioners Julia Glisson, Jim Johnson and Russell Jones.
Staff present were Debra Andreades, Senior Planner; Denise Frisbee, Director, Planning
and Building Services Department; Jonna Papaefthimiou, Natural Resources Planner;
Sidaro Sin, Senior Planner; Laura Weigel, Associate Planner: Evan Boone, Deputy City
Attorney and Janice Reynolds, Administrative Support.
3. COUNCIL UPDATE
Denise Frisbee reported that the Council was about to approve the Boones Ferry d
Phase 2 consulting contract and was considering appointing an advisory comm e.
She said they would also study a report about Lake Oswego demographics.
4. CITIZEN COMMENT
None.
5. MINUTES
5.1 Commissioner Johnson moved to adopt the Minutes of Juiy 12. 2010. Commissioner
Jones seconded the motion and it passed 5:0.
6. WORK SESSIONS (1 of 2)
6.1 LU 10-0043 — Amendments to Sensitive Lands Overlay Zoning Rules. A request from
the City of Lake Oswego to make text amendments to the Sensitive Lands chapter of the
Community Development Code to allow some additional uses in resource areas under
specific circumst9ndes, and to define terms.
Staff Report
Jonnp Papaefthimiou, Natural Resources Planner, presented the September 2, 2010,
Sje# Memorandum. She explained that the Council had recently accepted the Second
.*-,cook Task Force recommendations and directed staff to propose changes that would
make the sensitive lands code easier to understand and more flexible for property
owners (see Resolution 10-51A). The set of changes staff was currently proposing were
City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission
Minutes of September 13, 2010 Page 1 of 8
Page 1 of 8 EXHIBIT C-3
LU 10-0040
the easiest, "fixes." It clarified some terms and described what kinds of developments
were exempt from being reviewed under the sensitive lands code because they had de
minimus impacts. The proposed amendments made it clearer what kinds of
development were already exempt and added more exempt /wished
cluding a 500 sq.
addition to an existing structure; 200 sq. ft. of new developmeing; and utility es.
Staff proposed to use the Department of State Lands (DSL) dn, "Ditch." T s
would permit the City to ask the DSL to help determine if a wnnel wa "non -
jurisdictional ditch" that would not be regulated by the sensitivcode he
proposed changes clarified that the "Resource Protection (RPct' s composed
of both a stream or wetland and its associated buffer. and thatruction setback"
was a different type of setback that the owner could landscapy wished afterconstruction. A prohibition on herbicide and pesticide use hadeleted because
that was not a land use matter.
During the questioning period, Ms. Papaefthimiou clarifi .that the 500 sq. ft. limit on
additions was also the limit in the Metro model code ' etro considered that de minimis
impact). She clarified that it limited the size of the otprint, not the size of the structure
above the footprint. She clarified that the prop d standards were more stringent than
the model code when they specified that an dition up to 500 sq, ft, was only allowed
on the orimare structure. However, they re more generous than the model code
because they allowed a larger amount p to 200 sq. ft.) of new development. The
rationale for that was that 200 sq. ft. ould allow a more functional development.
Commissioner Jones asked the C missioners to consider increasing the limit on
additions so owners would hav ore use of their property. He also questioned whether
the proposed fencing stand that required a 2 sq. ft. opening for wildlife passage every
100 feet was practical. C missioner Johnson recalled that kind of requirement was not
uncommon in other jur' ictions. Ms. Papaefthimiou confirmed that there were
unprotected riparia reas in the City; she explained where the "Top of Bank" was and
she clarified that e stream buffer was 25 to 30 feet on either side of a stream. She
agreed with C missioner Paretchan that the vegetation provision related to utility lines
needed to clarified.
Com sioner Jones asked why one of the two versions of the City Council resolution
he Pdd read left out a statement that said the City was committed to the principles of
Kindness with respect to private property. Staff planned to review the Council minutes to
out.
7. PUBLIC HEARING
7.1 LU 10-0040 (Ordinance 2558) — Lake Grove Neighborhood Plan Implementation: A
request by the City of Lake Oswego for creation of a new overlay zone for the R-7.5 and
R-10 zoned areas within the boundaries of the Lake Grove Neighborhood Association,
and a text amendment to the Planned Development section (50.17.015).
Chair Gustafson opened the public hearing and outlined the applicable criteria and
procedure. When asked, none of the Commissioners declared a conflict of interest.
Staff Report
Laura Weigel, Associate Planner, presented the staff report, dated August 20, 2010.
She explained that the neighborhood association proposed the overlay zone in order to
protect its unique neighborhood character. The overlay would only apply to its two
lowest density residential zones and it required a minor change to the Planned
Development (PD) section. She said that a neighborhood steering committee helped
fashion the overlay. She explained that they had started with fifteen ideas and then
City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission
Minutes of September 13, 2010 Page 2 of 8
Page 2 of 8 EXHIBIT C-3
LU 10-0040
narrowed the list to the six proposed concepts and the PD code amendment based on
the results of a survey, two open houses, and an association vote. She pointed out that
the overlay increased required side yard setbacks in order to make more room for
vegetation between houses and that it decreased lot coverage slightly in order to keep
the limit at what it was before the City adopted the Infill code. Ms. Weigel indicated that
the amendments limited hardscape to no more than 50% of a lot and specified what
elements were considered hardscape. She explained that because the neighborhood
was concerned about aesthetics as well as the amount of pervious surface, gravel was
considered hardscape and driveway turnarounds had to be made of a green pervious
surface. The overlay required a developer of a single-family house to submit a planting
and buffering plan with the building permit application. The requested PD code change
would mean that PD yard setbacks could not be reduced when abutting R-7.5 or R-10.
Staff recommended approval of all the proposed changes except the planting and
buffering plan requirement and the PD text amendment. The planting and buffering plan
requirement was unenforceable. It required the applicant to submit a plan, but offered
no guidance on how much or what to plant and did not require actual planting. Staff did
not recommend the PD amendment because it was not consistent with the purpose of a
PD which is to allow greater flexibility of development. Staff pointed out that unless two
properties were combined to create a larger piece of property, the Hunt Club was the
only parcel in the neighborhood that was large enough to be developed as a PD, but
development there would be constrained by protected resources.
In response to a question from the Commissioners during the ensuing discussion, Mr.
Boone advised that a building permit was required to build a structure over 200 sq. ft. or
any smaller one that required electrical service or plumbing. Ms. Weigel confirmed that
the proposal would return the lot coverage standard to what it was before the Infill code
was adopted. She explained that most neighborhood lots did not have 50% or more
hardscape, but some could get close if they installed a pool or paved a large portion of
the front driveway. She indicated that Glenmorrie's planting provisions were enforceable
because their overlay provided guidelines about what and how much to plant, however
Lake Grove had not been able to agree on how stringent the planting and buffering
requirement should be.
Public Comments
Bill Lee, 4050 Upper Drive, explained that he was both a resident and a
builder/developer. He opposed the overlay. He said that it did not make sense to
increase setbacks, that it would "take" more property. He owned a lot on Twin Fir where
there was a 25 -foot setback and he would have to place the structure 40 feet back after
the City widened the right-of-way there another 15 feet. That was like losing 15 feet of
his property. He said the hardscape limit did not make sense either, especially on a
larger lot. He had a lot of hardscape in his backyard where people driving by could not
see it. He advised that a lot of hardscape was required in order to set a two- or three -car
garage further back on a lot. He advised that requiring turnarounds to be pervious
surface was not practical. It was expensive to install and many residents would likely not
maintain it adequately so it would look messy. He said that the 8% survey response was
not adequate representation.
Michael Buck, 3155 Edgemont Road, served on the Lake Grove Neighborhood
Association board. He explained that the neighborhood recognized that the character of
the neighborhood was due to its groundcover and shrubs as well as its tree canopy, but
they could not reach a community consensus about how to quantify and codify
landscaping and buffering requirements. He opined that it would be better if a citywide
code addressed this issue. He explained the proposed requirement to submit a planting
City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission
Minutes of September 13, 2010 Page 3 of 8
Page 3 of 8 EXHIBIT C-3
LU 10-0040
and buffering plan simply created a point of contact between an owner/developer and
the neighborhood so they could talk about it. When asked if the neighborhood would be
able to maintain its character under the current code Mr. Buck explained the current
trend was to make the house the dominant part of a parcel. He said the small changes
the neighborhood wanted would help bring the house and lot into better balance.
Daniel Work, 2855 Brookside Road, a member of the neighborhood planning committee
and a member of the association board, explained that the overlay was the result of
healthy debates, compromises and trying to involve the rest of the neighborhood using
the survey and soliciting public comments. He clarified the goal of the overlay was not to
change the neighborhood, but to change the City code so it reflected the reality of the
existing neighborhood. He pointed out that few homes in the neighborhood were as
close as ten feet apart, but the current City code allowed that, the overlay increased
setbacks to reflect reality. Mr. Work explained that under the current code owners could
potentially cover the entire lot with gravel or asphalt. He said the overlay set a 50% limit
that more accurately reflected the existing neighborhood.
John Dengel, 3505 Upper Drive, objected to the overlay. He agreed with Bill Lee's
testimony. He indicated the neighborhood should not move forward with an overlay,
especially after there had been such a low response to the survey. He anticipated it
would reduce the value of his property. He and his wife owned two buildable lots and
planned to build their dream home.
Michael Kaplan, 3711 Lake Grove Avenue, questioned whether the committee had fully
considered the implications of the provision, "The Planting and Buffer Plan shall be
received and reviewed by the City Manager." He indicated that some people might
consider a grass and stone walkway aesthetically attractive, but some seniors could not
safely walk on that kind of walkway. He advised that more calculations needed to be
done to ensure that the result of applying the 50% hardscape limit on a 7,500 sq. ft. lot
with a house and modest patio, deck, driveway and sidewalk was realistic. He reasoned
that since the hardscape limit did not differentiate between a one-story house and a
taller house it created an incentive to build bigger houses. He asked the Planning
Commission to carefully consider applicability, would the new regulations only apply to
new construction or would they apply when an owner did things like rewire a house?
Vahe Arakelian, 3000 Brookside Road, spoke on behalf of himself and his brother. They
owned three properties in the neighborhood. They liked what had been happening
there, including the new houses that had been built there. He assured those who might
support the overlay just to protect the parcel the Hunt Club was on, that the Hunt Club
was doing well and would not go away. He submitted an "enough is enough" letter
signed by all 22 neighbors he had talked to. He contrasted that response rate with the
8% Association survey response. He estimated that more people were against the
overlay than were for it. He had received approval to partition one of his properties into
three lots. He wanted them to be "grandfathered in" so the overlay did not apply. He
suggested that someone who wanted the overlay code could just put a similar restriction
on his/her own deed instead. He asked the Planning Commission not to change the
current code.
Janet Buck, 3155 Edgemont Road, had served on the neighborhood association board
and on its planning committee. She testified that the committee had done its work while
keeping two goals in the Lake Grove Neighborhood Plan in mind that called for involving
citizens and preserving the livability and aesthetic character of the neighborhood. They
had considered the repercussions on both existing and new residents. They had vetted
the overlay concepts with the neighborhood association and narrowed them accordingly.
City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission
Minutes of September 13, 2010 Page 4 of 8
Page 4 of 8 EXHIBIT C-3
LU 10-0040
They used increased setbacks and decreased hardscape to preserve the character of
the neighborhood and buffer existing homes from new homes. They wanted to leave
more room for planting and (hopefully) native growth. Committee members had diverse
points of view but worked things out. She regretted if any disappointed neighbors had
not come forward sooner to provide input at board, committee or neighborhood
meetings.
J. B. Mercep, 3705 Upper Drive, recalled that the City had taken a portion of his property
just before the Supreme Court ruled that was not allowed in Dolan v. City of Tigard. He
asked if the hardscape limit would apply to church property. He equated the 8% survey
response rate to a response by one out of eight Planning Commissioners.
Ed Gehrig, 4850 Upper Drive, was opposed to rezoning property at Boones Ferry
Road/Upper Drive for commercial use. Chair Gustafson explained that was not within
the scope of the hearing or proposed in the overlay.
Deliberations
Chair Gustafson closed the public hearing. He announced a five-minute break and
thereafter reconvened the meeting for deliberations. Commissioner Johnson observed
that Lake Grove Neighborhood Plan policies had been in the Comprehensive Plan since
1998 so the policy debate had already occurred. Now the Planning Commission had the
responsibility to recommend the proposed code that implemented the Plan if they found
it was consistent with the Plan. He believed that what the neighborhood proposed was
the minimum necessary to do that. He supported the staff recommendation.
Commissioner Glisson observed that neighborhood efforts to codify the plan had been
going on for years so there had been many opportunities for input. Commissioner Jones
agreed the proposed changes were minimal. He supported ten -foot side yard setbacks
because he believed five-foot setbacks were too small.
Vice Chair Paretchan recalled the number of people who had testified they did not
support the proposal and questioned whether it was what the greater neighborhood
wanted. She recalled the Commissioners had spent a lot of time working on lot
coverage and height standards in the Infill code before City Council adopted it. She was
reluctant to allow a neighborhood to revert back to the previous standards without an
assessment of what difference that would make. She recalled that the rationale for the
hardscape provisions was related to aesthetics, but the provisions did not consider
whether or not it would be visible well back on a fenced lot. She agreed with testimony
that called for calculating what the results of the 50% hardscape limit could look like.
Vice Chair Paretchan also indicated that the City should consider adopting a citywide
definition of and limit on hardscape (gravel did not count) rather than allowing each
neighborhood to use a different definition and limit. She did not favor prescribing "green"
driveway turnarounds because mixed media driving areas posed maintenance and
drainage issues and were actually more expensive to build and maintain than other
types. She said the Planning Commission had not yet addressed the issue of side -
loading garages, which tended to require more pavement.
Chair Gustafson reasoned that if Lake Grove wanted different standards than those that
had been adopted for the entire City, there should be overwhelming or near unanimous
support in the neighborhood. He was troubled by the proposed definition, 'hardscape."
He agreed with staff that the Planning Commission should not recommend the planting
and buffering plan requirement or the PD change. He questioned whether the overlay
would have the desired results. He recalled that Lake Grove liked their one-story
houses, but during Infill discussions the Commissioners had observed that increasing
City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission
Minutes of September 13, 2010 Page 5 of 8
Page 5 of 8 EXHIBIT C-3
LU 10-0040
setbacks pushed houses higher. Commissioner Glisson recalled they had also
examined lot coverage during Infill discussions.
The Commissioners considered recommending the overlay with adjustments. The
majority of Commissioners either favored or could accept keeping the front setback at 25
feet instead of increasing it to 30 feet in the R-10. To increase it would impact
backyards. The neighborhood wanted to preserve the current feel of the neighborhood
and current zoning was 25 feet. Staff confirmed the setback change would not affect
flag lots because they were subject to special flag lot standards.
Commissioner Glisson indicated she could agree to increase the side yard setback in
the R-7.5 zone another two and a half feet because that reflected the character of the
neighborhood. Commissioner Johnson agreed. Chair Gustafson was concerned that it
would result in more skinny houses on 50 -foot wide lots.
The Commissioners recalled they had worked with Dennis Egner on lot coverage during
Infill discussions. They pointed out that many of the examples they had studied were
Lake Grove lots and that the Infill code had changed since the Lake Grove
Neighborhood Plan was adopted and current Infill regulations might help the
neighborhood achieve its plan policies.
Commissioner Glisson agreed with testimony that the hardscape limit might not be
appropriate in some circumstances. She believed there might be other ways to hide the
view of hardscape and she anticipated the City would consider a citywide approach to
hardscape during the Comprehensive Plan update process as a sustainability measure.
She indicated that Glenmorrie might have already looked at how their 50% hardscape
limit affected their large lots, but it was a complex issue that involved how it would apply
to different sizes of lots and how it affected drainage. Vice Chair Paretchan was
concemed there were no findings to support the 50% limit. Ms. Weigel recalled that
Glenmorrie had created its own definition of hardscape because the City Council had not
been ready to create one for the City. Chair Gustafson observed that the proposed
definition was a strange one, because it categorized rock and gravel as hardscape. The
meaning of "hardscape" needed to be clarified in order to determine what percentage
was appropriate.
Ms. Weigel clarified that the "driveway turnaround" requirement required the turnaround
stub off the driveway to be "green." The requirement was intended to improve both
aesthetics and perviousness. Commissioner Johnson cautioned that driveway
turnarounds consumed yard area. Commissioner Jones was concerned that a "green"
turnaround that was composed of just pervious pavers would still look like a concrete
area. Vice Chair Paretchan recalled testimony that questioned whether this requirement
actually achieved the goals of the neighborhood plan. She suggested the Infill code
might achieve it. Commissioner Glisson questioned whether the proposed hardscape
limit and having a "green" driveway turnaround of pavers with grass in between achieved
the goals of the Plan.
Commissioner Johnson moved to recommend that the City Council not approve LU 10-
0040 because there was no evidence that current code requirements were not achieving
the policies of the Lake Grove Neighborhood Plan. Vice Chair Paretchan seconded the
motion and discussion followed. Commissioner Johnson suggested that proponents
who really believed the Infill code was not achieving Plan policies could make their case
to the City Council. He was inclined to believe it was. When Commissioner Glisson
observed the Infill code did not give the neighborhood the 10 -foot side yard setbacks
they wanted, Chair Gustafson observed the consensus was to agree to the larger
City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission
Minutes of September 13, 2010 Page 6 of 8
Page 6 of 8 EXHIBIT C-3
LU 10-0040
setbacks. Commissioner Jones held that the Planning Commission would be doing a
disservice to the neighborhood if it turned down the entire proposal. He advocated
recommending the requirements for increased front and side yard setbacks, the lot
coverage limit the neighborhood asked for, and perhaps the "green" driveway turnaround
requirement in order to help the neighborhood maintain its character. He suggested the
hardscape issue should be a citywide discussion. He agreed the Infill code should
control lot coverage. Commissioner Johnson withdrew his motion and Vice Chair
Paretchan withdrew her second.
Ms. Weigel and Mr. Boone advised that the code could not name specific products to be
used for pervious driveway turnarounds, but it could define the functions a product had
to accomplish to meet that standard. Staff would keep a list of materials that they
thought would qualify as "pervious pavers." Vice Chair Paretchan wanted a better
definition. Ms. Weigel confirmed that gravel was typically considered to be pervious but
not green."
Commissioner Jones moved to recommend that the City Council adopt LU 10-0040
(Ordinance 2558) with the following new regulations:
The R-7.5 side yard setback was to increase to 10 feet.
Driveway turnarounds were to be "green."
He clarified that the R-10 front yard setback was to remain 25 feet as established in the
current code and lot coverage was to remain as established in the currently adopted Infill
code. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion and discussion followed.
Commissioner Glisson asked staff to convey the Commissioners' recommendation to
consider a citywide approach to "hardscape" sooner rather than later in the staff report to
the Council. Chair Gustafson was concerned that an overlay zone composed of only
two requirements was not a meaningful enough overlay zone. Commissioner Johnson
saw it as a place to begin and he indicated that it was better to send it forward than to
keep sending the proposal back to the neighborhood. Commissioner Glisson indicated
she believed that that the two new requirements, plus the Infill regulations could help the
neighborhood achieve its plan. Vice Chair Paretchan also had confidence in the Infill
code. She clarified she did not support the requirement for "green" driveways.
Vice Chair Paretchan moved to amend the motion by eliminating the requirement for
"green" driveway turnarounds. Commissioner Glisson seconded. The vote on the
amendment was conducted and it failed 3:2. Commissioners Glisson, Jones and
Johnson voted against; Vice Chair Paretchan and Chair Gustafson voted in favor.
The vote was then conducted on the original motion and it passed 3:2.
Commissioners Glisson, Johnson and Jones voted in favor; Vice Chair Paretchan and
Chair Gustafson voted against. Chair Gustafson announced the final vote would be
conducted on October 11, 2010.
8. WORK SESSION (2 of 2)
8.1 PP 10-0007 – Comprehensive Plan (Periodic Review).
planning workshops. —.00160
of October
Sidaro Sin, Senior Planne&. r aaaura Weigel, Associate Planner, presented Planning
;Rtin6ags,
d Building SS epartment Memorandum dated September 1, 2010. The
m
listed the proposed action areas, proposed a format for the community
and contained the project timeline and schedule. One goal of the program
City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission
Minutes of September 13, 2010
Page 7 of 8
Page 7 of 8
EXHIBIT C-3
LU 10-0040
Community Development
Department
Memorandum
TO: Lake Oswego Planning Commission
FROM: Laura Weigel, Neighborhood Planner
DATE: May 5, 2008
SUBJECT: Lake Grove Neighborhood Plan Implementation Committee
Background
On May 12th, the Planning Commission is scheduled for a check-in from the Lake Grove
Neighborhood Association Plan Implementation Committee about the strategies they are
developing to implement their neighborhood plan. The plan was adopted by the City in 1998.
Over the course of 18 meetings, the implementation committee (with a slightly different make-
up) and former City staff completed a full analysis of the adopted plan. When current staff
started meeting with the committee in November of 2007, they had already decided to develop
an overlay zone to implement outstanding policies and recommended action measures in the
plan. Staff has met with the committee nine times to date. During the first seven meetings the
committee worked to narrow the concepts they wanted to consider for inclusion in the overlay
zone. Now, the committee is in the process of refining those ideas to determine the range of
potential code changes to discuss with the neighborhood.
In addition to the meetings, several members of long range and current planning staff went on a
tour of the Lake Grove neighborhood with the committee to understand how the neighborhood is
developing and how the overlay zone could be more effective in maintaining Lake Grove's
unique characteristics.
The Planning Commission requested that neighborhoods developing implementation strategies
check-in with the Commission for feedback and guidance on potential ideas throughout the
process. Lake Grove is the first neighborhood to check-in with the Planning Commission
because they are the furthest along in the process.
This memo briefly outlines the overlay concepts currently under discussion by the committee.
The committee will continue to meet and refine the ideas until they are ready to present them to
the general neighborhood for feedback.
EXHIBIT D-1
LU 10-0040
Planning Commission
Lake Grove Neighborhood Plan Implementation
Neighborhood Character Concepts
The ideas currently under discussion are intended to protect neighborhood character. Lake
Grove neighborhood character was defined in a background document created for the initial infill
development work in 2001 (See Attachment A.) The neighborhood character assessment
includes the following statement about the landscape of the neighborhood:
Dense vegetation and large trees define the scale and character of (Lake Grove),
separate one lot from its neighbor, and separate most buildings from the street. Houses
are set within the landscape, instead of defining it. Many appear secluded and private
from other buildings. Houses of many different sizes, heights, and shapes fit this
neighborhood because the vegetation diminishes the visibility and scale of the buildings.
The committee is considering an overlay zone which would be applicable in the R-7.5 and R-10
zones. Code concepts being discussed include:
1. Increase setbacks to protect privacy and maintain secluded character.
2. Lower floor area ratios (FAR) to decrease house size. Larger houses require more lot
coverage, which can decrease the amount of vegetation between houses and encroach
on neighbor's privacy.
3. Revise the building height limitations to increase privacy. Taller houses often have
windows that look down into smaller house's windows and yards.
4. Require landscaping and buffering between properties and the street to protect privacy.
5. Develop more rigid tree protection to increase privacy and because trees are large part
of Lake Grove's character.
6. Prohibit planned developments in the neighborhood. Planned developments can
decrease lot size without reducing the house size, therefore development appears more
intense.
7. Establish more rigid zone change criteria that further limit the encroachment of
commercial development in residential zones to maintain the residential character of the
neighborhood.
8. Establish residential design review for all new development to ensure compatibility.
9. Increase the fees for tear downs in the neighborhood. Generally, the houses being torn
down are small and surrounded by vegetation. The new houses that replace them are
much bigger and vegetation is removed. Some committee members feel that higher tear -
down fees create a disincentive to tear downs.
10. Encourage re -models as a means to discourage tear downs.
11. Changes to notification process
a. Require neighborhood meetings to occur after pre -application meetings
(requirement in CDC update is currently underway).
b. Neighborhood meeting dates should be proposed on three different des at least
three days apart and not held 10 days prior to a City recognized holiday (the
three day separation proposal is under consideration in CDC update).
Question:
Does the Planning Commission have any ideas, concerns or general feedback for the
implementation committee as they continue discussing these concepts?
Attachments:
A. neigh borhoodsLAB, The University of Oregon, June 13, 2001
Planning Commission
Lake Grove Neighborhood Plan Implementation
DEFECTS IN
ORIGINAL
DOCUMENT
Prepared by:
nelghborhoodsLAB
The University of Oregon
(541) 346 - 3647
RF F
77
Appendix I
L zk yn, FE _�jIN ?^
L
Character
Top: 3510 Lake Grove, Middle: 4685 Upper Drive,
Lower : 3660 Lake Grove
Landscape
Dense vegetation and targe trees
define the scale and character
of this neighborhood, separate
one lot from its neighbor, and
most buildings from the street.
Houses are set within this land.
scape, instead of defining it.
Many appear secluded and
private from other buildings.
Houses of many different sizes,
heights, and shapes fit this
neighborhood because of the
vegetation diminishes the
visibility and scale of the
buildings.
/i F � 0' Fr== I -M H Bo)
r D ntr�D
Character
Top: Upper Drive, Middle: Lake Grove Avenue.
Streets
Most street right-of-ways are
between 30 and 35 feet.
Paved widths are between 18 and
24 feet.
Large streets tend to follow the
contours of the land, white
smaller streets tend to run across
the contours.
Narrow, planted shoulders and
the absence of curbs define the
character of the streets.
There are no alleys in Lake Grove,
so parking must be accessed
from the street.
i
Ff 00) V E M r=: � a m. Z) m U 0"'-�� r
Residential Lots
There are four different lot types in the Lake Grove study area:
The majority are Rectangular Lots found on smaller through streets and
cul-de-sacs. These are usually less than 80' wide and 100-200' deep (115
113 acre).
There are about 50 Large Rectangular Lots. These lots are typically 100-200'
wide and 200-300' deep (about 112 - 1 acre).
■ Some of larger lots have been divided into Flag Lots, which vary widely in size,
but tend to be about one-third to one-half acres. These lots are very common
between Upper Drive and Lakeview Blvd., but most blocks throughout the
neighborhood have at least one or two flag lots.
There are also a small number of Large Irregular Lots, typically an acre or more
in size. They are usually the result of a curve in the road or other natural anomaly.
The examoies of good infill occurred on all types of lots. The negative
examples we analyzed all occurred w 4rfl, rectangular lots.
4r
c
L zr2,\, [� FF a R 1 o v, Fr- � E 1� 6 H R)� (OD IR, H 0 0 0
Infill Housing Examples
Douglas Circle
Upper Drive
5 LaKe Grove Avenue
(0j, V� E NI E � a H B cc, I R H co" 1 0 D
Twin Fir Drive
`
Toz. Twin Fir, view from scree: Middle:
Twin Fir, view from north
Address:
Architect:
Zoning:
Lot size:
Floor Area
Footprint:
FAR:
Coverage:
Height:
J
Twin Fir
Mascord
R-10
11,860 sq. ft
2,890 sq. ft
2,060 sq. ft
0.24
0.17
31' Peak
25' Average
1,
SRODVE IMIENSIKI-BD 00, R H -00 00 DD
�.... i`v^2'.v....v
Floor Area
Floor Area:
Lot Size:
FAR:
Coverage:
Setbacks
Main mass is setback 30' from
road. Side setbacks are 20' and 7'.
Twin Fir - Site Planning
No significant trees in front of
house.
117
L zia K 1E, GC tip)'Y E 6wu��R M�D�>D
Openings
Two -car garage is approximately
half of the street elevation
Twin Fir - Architecture
-7
...s
One large mass with two small gable
dormers. Garage is part of primary
mass.
North side wall is a tall, mostly blank
plane.
L zia E [cD-,3, OL-) R H
Lake Grove avenue
Top: Lake Grove, view iron street, Middle:
Lake Grove. view iron corner
Building Facts
Address: Lake Grove
Architect: Barclay 8 Assoc.
Developer: Ed Buchman
Date Built: 1993
Zoning: R - 10
Lot size:
13,280 sq. ft.
Floor Area:
1, 980 sq. ft.
Footprint:
2,230 sq. ft.
FAR:
0.15
Coverage:
0.17
Height:
21' Peak
14' Average
LAAXE aROME HIL==U6H3ORHVOB
Lake Grove -
Floor Area Standi
Floor Area: 1,'
Lot Size: 13,;
FAR:
Coverage:
Setbacks
Garage is set back about 40', while
the house is setback about 50'.
Side setbacks are 25' and 35'.
Site Planning
L-cIiascaping
Two large coniferous trees in front
of the house, one on each side.
a
S
L A K F a R0V IF M, - ,, 6 HER o R [q Oo 9 a
Openin
Garage opening
the side street,
street elevation
openings.
Lake Grove - Architecture
is oriented towards The house is organized into two masses,
leaving the principal theprimary living space and the garage,
free of large with a narrow connection between the
two.
Because this house is single story, there
are no tall, unbroken planar surfaces.
n,En a n H. ol , al DD
Douglas Circle
Top Douglas Circle, view from street,
Middl• Douglas Circle, view from eas.
Address:
Douglas Circle
Architect:
Olson Group Architects
Developer:
Blazer Development, Inc.
Date Built:
Under construction
Coverage:
0.20
Height:
30' Peak
25' Average
x
D L''-tas C:.rcfe
Top Douglas Circle, view from street,
Middl• Douglas Circle, view from eas.
Address:
Douglas Circle
Architect:
Olson Group Architects
Developer:
Blazer Development, Inc.
Date Built:
Under construction
Zoning: R - 10
Lot size:
16,310 sq. ft.
Floor Area:
4,330 sq. ft.
Footprint:
3,230 sq. ft.
FAR:
0.27
Coverage:
0.20
Height:
30' Peak
25' Average
LAAXE,;
_ Douglas Circle - Site Planning
Floor Arec
Floor Area:
Lot Size:
FAR:
Coverage:
Setbacks
25' front setback.
15' on each sides.
iia l l YJ a,.QFP 11 is
One small deciduous tree in front of
house.
J i � I`J
1.23
Openings
Two car garage is about half of the
first floor street elevation, equal in width
to the porch and entry.
GC w ;, a o --�OD
\j � M r! � a [K DD cD �� m,, �o, L)
Douglas Circle -,Architecture
.afi d.7. 1 Is
Front of house broken into two masses, a
one-story parch -entry and a garage. The
east side wall is a single long plane, though
there is significant fenestration.
L C �. nv,)I'e HrE-o�j[ D onHa000�
Upper Drive
Toe Upper Drive, Middir Upper Drive
Building Facts
Address:
_ Upper Drive
Lot Type:
Flag
Architect:
Grgory Miller
Developer:
Ally Construction
Date Built:
June, 1992
Zoning:
R - 7.5
Lot size:
18,700 sq. ft.
Floor Area:
2,240 sq. ft.'
Footprint:
1,470 sq. ft."
FAR:
Lot Coverage
Height:
0.12
0.08
28' Peak
19' Average
"Main house and addition only
Cow
� ?<,Cow7 KEoaxz? �H 0n
Upper Drive -
Floor Area Standa
Floor Area: 2,2
Lot Size: 18,7
FAR:
Coverage:
Setbacks
The house is setback 84' from the
lot. Side setbacks are 11'.
Site Planning
front There are several large,
in front of the house.
mature trees
- - Upper Drive - Architecture
Openings
Detached garage not visible from
street. Largest opening visible
from street is the sliding glass doors
of the studio office.
House organized into three masses, two
for the primary living spaces, and another
for the attached office/studio.
.r 2
r
L , ks, Y,, ri: =% gi ) OD
Floor Area Ratios
m
-- 5,000
w
G 4,000
`` 2,000
1,000
Floor Area:: Lot Size Plot
Douglas Douglas
s Douglas
E
Twin Fir
Upper
Lake Grove
Lake Grove
5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000
Lot Size (sq. ft.)
-128
L
• Positive Examples
E Negative Examples
1:5 FAR
'Must comply with underlying zoning codes.
l��
Indicator Summary for Lake
Grove, Lake Oswego
R - 7.5
R -10
Flag Lots'
Landscaping
unregulated
unregulated
FAR/Lot Coverage
r.'
- minimum lot area
7,500 sq. ft.
10,000 sq. ft.
Q_ _r
-coverage (new constr;
25'/°
25%
- coverage (renovations
35-40%
300%
- FAR
unregulated
unregulated
Setbacks
.77711
front
25'
25'
Provide maximum seperation of
:+
- side (street)
10 - 20'
15 - 20'
buildings.
- side (other)
10'
15'
- side (renovations)
5'
10'
- rear
30'
30'
Height
- flat lot
28'
30'
Shail not exceed the average height
- sloped lot
35'
35'
of all dwellings on tots abutting. Use
- renovation
35'
35'
16' for vacant tots.
Massing
unregulated
unregulated
-
minimum 6:12
minimum 6:12
Roof Forms
slope
slope
Projections
unregulated
unregulated
Openings
unregulated
unregulated
Garage will be side loading when
possible (24' clearance from property
iine). No more than 4056 visible from
street. Use more than one plane or
at least 10% glazed.
'Must comply with underlying zoning codes.
l��
DEFECTS IN
ORIGINAL
DOCUMENT
!7 r=
L� LJ L! ij
Site Planning Issue Summary
Landscaping
The character of Lake Grove is defined by Large
trees and dense vegetation with houses nestled
within the Landscape.
Less successful infill dominates or eliminates the
surrounding Landscape, placing a greater emphasis
on the buildings.
A tree ordinance may help reduce the amount of
vegetation being removed.
Setbacks
Positive examples of infill construction
have generous front and side setbacks.
All negative examples are at or near
existing zoning limits.
Setbacks should be regulated based on lot
type and dimensions.
Setback
Lmnts
Lett: -ake Grove, Right:
FLI
, ; L
Lr-- --; " — �=. . , ' V; U. ; FL
Site Planning Issue Summary
Floor Area Standards
Lot sizes and building sizes are quite vaned,
however, lot sizes are not correlated with current
zoning.
Currently, lot coverage is the only method of
regulating building size in Lake Grove, but this
may not be sufficient.
Lowenng coverage requirements wilt lead to
massing problems (e.g taller buildings or. smaller
lots). FAR may be a better regulatory measure.
Based on the positive and negative infill examples.
desirable FAR : s in Lake Grove are below 0.2.
Coverage
Limits
M MM:
7
Both Lake Grove (above ieft) and r�-'.;RLas cird.? (aDove
right), have coverapp r-Atios near 0.2, but LaKe Grove is very
Ununposins, white Douglas Circle -,s = prominent in the
streetscme. FAR is a better measure has a FAR of 0.'7,
while nzs a FAR of 0.27.
17
FE;
J L LD)
Architecture Issue Summary
Openings
Garages that are oriented to the street tend to
dominate the facade and the streetscape.
Suggestions:
o Regulation orienting the garage entrance
to the side of the lot.
o Reducing the amount of principal facade
given to garage opening.
o Reduce the prominence of the garage
opening(s) along the principal facade.
Massing
Some houses seem too large in relation
to their neighbors.
Facades that are not broken down into
discreet elements are Less compatible.
Long expanses of elevations should be
punctuated by projections or openings
to reduce the mass or bulk of the
building.
Top i Twin Fir as built.
Above: Twin Fir with bq--rtcr massing.
.01 f 0
1 0
Above: Douglas Circle.
Tools for increasing Compatibility
Regulatory
- issues that can be quantified or clearly defined in words and numbers, such as
setbacks, floor area standards and height.
- Often incorporated into current zoning regulations as amendments oras zoning
overlays to specific areas.
Benefrts- Clear, unambiguous, relatively easy to enforce
Liabilities- Difficult to quantify many features that contribute to compatibility, requires
legislation to implement
Design Review
- Issues that require judgment to assess the compatibility of the proposed permit, such
as massing, projections, roof form and openings.
- Requires the creation of a Review Board that creates a set of guidelines that establish
standards and review applications.
Benefits - An enforceable but flexible means in which to assess case-by-case
compatibility.
Liabilities - Creates another level of administration (staff, support, Boards, etc.) and
process for both City and permit applicants, cost of creating guidelines.
Advisory Guidelines
- Similar to a Design Review approach except that standards are voluntary.
- Advisory guidelines are typically broad in nature and not very prescriptive, may
include a review board, but the board's decisions are not enforceable.
Benefits - Establishes guidelines for owners and developers, no additional adminisMtion
required
Liabiliries- Not enforceable, cost of creating guidelines
Regulating Compatibility in Lake Grove Compatibility
The matrix below illustrates which regulatory tool that could be applied to compatibility
issues. Those features that are grayed are not issues that appear to require regulation in
Lake Grove.
0 Indicates the preferred regulatory method.
O Indicates a less preferred but satisfactory regulatory method.
A blank cell indicates the least desirable regulatory method
-- Openings O a
^i
.L J
DEFECTS IN
ORIGINAL
DOCUMENT
• C
I '
Q�►�Q700 K
Neighborhood Character
X11 �' '�l . � � -� ia' �• = � ♦ ,�' MO!! � a..'. �.
:7 ,e. _ �;L •. iii; 1:
k.y, •:.+�.yKB�--T 44 •r.1 +j*F �!' �' ► '' .L , •-^�' "��L'tr'r"
I „: 1��,• ,�q.i 4 r�I' �'+�,ji�`?`r .,, - i.y� y,� .-'��s�+V.��Z.�, ' `'�.�! �.d�� at'rc• � "�'.~' .
S , wrc�'T'gn��F9 J � C z, •w ,�'�tk�, ?s
Ift
Halli Rte« �:•.�- ao*: ° ' a'
Z'i`IwAI J�"� � eT � .� �: ..-.1.�,.. t e d. � y.�a I, �•�.� ♦�y_ �Yi.
Blocks
There an about 35 blocks in the First Addition study area.
Most are 280' x 400' and are divided into 14-16 lots.
Most full blocks have alleys running the length of the block.
While setbacks vary from block to block, they tend to be con-
sistent within each block.
el
165
Above: Air photo of srudy arra, Righ. Block bounoed by urn and 7th Scrccts, b
and E Avenues
o,o
oo0
Neighborhood Character
les: 7In Stme: and C Avenue Middle: a Fin: Addition
Sutet Lower.' Alley in between C and D Sutets, 61h and 7th
Avmm
Streets
Narrow streets, no curbs
Most right-of-ways are 60 feet, with curbless roadways less
Ulan 20 feet wide.
Alieys
20' Right-of-way, typically unpaved alleyways provide
access to rear yard parking.
Mature trees shade streets, veil houses
Because this is an older neighborhood, there are significant
trees on most lots, but not a repetitive pattern or single
species. -
Low, wooden fences and thick shrubbery create
a sense of privacy
Chain link fence is uncommon, and when it is present, it is
often used to support flowering vines and otner greener.
.f R ti
1 0
RKS7 ZAODDD=NOK HFQC3KDOoRHo oD
Neighborhood Character
Small-scale houses on narrow, deep lots
Most residential lots are 50'x 120'(6,000 sq. ft.). Addi-
tions to these homes stretch back into lot. From the street
the house stil', reads as a small house
Simple gables or hip roots
The axis of the roof is typically oriented across the lot.
Single story houses
Most older houses are a single story or a stow and a half.
Incremental changes
Older homes have years of additions and modifications
layered on them. Porches have been converted to mud
rooms, carports to family rooms, and dormers added to
attic spaces for bedrooms. This has led to unique and
complex massing of parrs and projections.
Top: 7th Street and G Avenue, Middle. G Avenue. Between 7tn and
8th. Lowrr Righi: FAN house with a carporr or garage that has been
converted into living space.
MRS -r QDD��i �01� (�C��G� o OG°3a00D
Current Zoning R-6, R-7.5 -Site Planning
Floor Area Standards
In R-6, the maximum FAR ratio for First Addition
is O.S. Building coverage is limited to
35% of the lot.
In R-7.5 areas, the maximum tot coverage is
25% for new construction, and 35 - 40% for
renovations.
Minimum front setback is currently 20' from
the right-of-way, but porches can extend
six feet into this setback.
The minimum side setback is five feet for
single -story structures, and a cumulative
15' for multi -story structures.
----r ... 5
in R-6, two trees are required for every 50'
of street frontage.
FRS7 Z IDIDBMOK KlEaMBORMOODD
Current Zoning R-6, R-7.5 Architecture
Openings
When possible, garages must be
accessed from the alleys behind the
vhouse.
Roof Forms
Flat roofs are not permitted in R-6 areas.
The minimum roof slope visible from the
street is currently 6:12. A similar
requirement is proposed for R-7.5.
Height
The building height limit is 28'. For gable roof
structures, the average roof height is used.
This means that a for 40' wide house with a
6:12 gable roof, the peak of the gable can
extend up to 33'. For the same house with a
12:12 gable roof, the peak of the gable can
extend up to 38'.
Projections
Front porches are required on all new
houses. They must be at least half the
length of the front facade.
�vJ
DEFECTS IN
ORIGINAL
DOCUMENT
Recent Infill Development
_ 8th Street
Atherton Woods, F Avenue between
7*k.....I a&�
C•ompar-Qtors
Site Planningr
"--71.
• Floor Area Standards
}
' Setbacks
F Avenue
• Landscaping
Example B
Architecture.
• Height
• Roof Forms
• Openings,
°p
• Projections
_,.
Example .A
14:0
Example q
MC:
'
roc 8th Street, Middle: 8th Street,
Lower. Aerial phot;, 8th Street
Address: 8th Street
Architect J.P. Krause
Developer: Simms Fine Homes
Date Built: 1999
Zoning: R - 6
Lot size: 6,000 sq. ft.
Floor Area: 2,939 sq. ft.
Footprint: 1,350 sq. ft.
1,834 wl garage
FAR: 0.5
Lot Coverage 0.31
Height: 35' Peak
27' Average
141
MR57 ADDMOM ��o�a ooaaoo�
Example A - Site Planning
Floor Area Standards
Floor Area: 2,939 sq. ft.
Lot Size: 6,000 sq. ft.
The front of the porch is 20' from the Ldnu5capingg
Landscaping in front of the house is simple.
property line, while the neighboring houses Because the face of the house is 20' from the
are set back 30' - 40'. front of the property line, there is Limited room
for large tree canopies to develop.
4
Farr OT HEPSHBORK001
Example A - Architecture
Projections `
Porch extends up to setback, but
not into it.
Massing
Because the front of the house is
entirely within one plane, it reads as
a single geometric shape and seems
Larger than a facade composed of
several smaller elements,
Roof Forms
The ridge of the roof is oriented to the
street, putting the tallest point of the
house at the front of the lot.
Height
The house is considerably tatter than
the neighboring houses.
DEFECTS IN
ORIGINAL
DOCUMENT
F lr� r t ` 'r � ' • - .•• �t� �"-,g c%�.'��- ' - .+„•� ,•r�},'.,y,a � .r
i .. •ra �•�-�.•d�S.�r, r< 'Z;•��*, _ •- .� i�tret,u, , 3 ts..':
07
lu
pt
LY -
'iS•^ t`r .�Y.,�yai.c�rn, .r � •� i•r J� s ! j
,� o C; rl gat •:�5 $'. y,�::
t - '
_. r _!.. t- - .. ..- . - fir. tS'•u' .
"'
t(`'ir6`.l'-�ffei EtS[".".•s.'s?S�.wiS: v' ..a�.'.yx...�•,-
gz.'
.h�}�a��i4`�?}"''�.--.'_T•.i'r•r"•_ _. I .fir.
MR57 QDDMOH HVaHBORH(30[D
Example B -Site Planning
Front setbacks are fairly consistent across the Setbacks are minimum, leaving little room
development, around 15'. for large treees, but front yards are heavily
landscaped.
Floor Area Standards
Floor Area:
3,100 sq. ft.
Lot Size
14,400 sq. ft.
FAR:
0.22
Building Coverage:
0.15
IL45
[�OQ�� QDD���Oa M GOGC� o OG°3�lOO OD ,
Example B -Architecture
Openings --i
Garage openings face the street,
but are set back from the front of
the house.
Roof Forms
The ridge of the roof is oriented parallel
to the street. This makes the house seem
Less tall, and breaks the front plane of
the house into two pieces.
Massing
The street elevation reads as a collectio
of smaller elements rather than one single
mass. The upper story and roof step back
from the street, so the scale of the house
closest to the street is one story.
Projections
On each house,. porches project about 5'
into the 20' setback.
Height
Houses on this side of the block are all
about the same height.
3 �'
LAKE OSWEGO Planning and Building
Centennial 1910-2010
f1 I Services Department
Memorandum
TO: Lake Oswego Planning Commission
FROM: Laura Weigel, Neighborhood Planner
DATE: May 13, 2010
SUBJECT: Work Session — Proposed Lake Grove Neighborhood Overlay Zone
(PP 07-0018)
At the work session scheduled for May 24th the Lake Grove Neighborhood Plan
Implementation Committee will present a proposed overlay zone for the neighborhood.
The overlay zone is intended to help maintain the unique character of the neighborhood
and further implement the neighborhood plan. The committee would like to discuss the
proposed provisions in the overlay zone and answer any specific questions or concerns
from the Commission in preparation for the public hearing.
Background
1998 Lake Grove Neighborhood Plan adopted by City Council.
2000-2005 Numerous plan items are implemented City-wide and the neighborhood
continues work on plan implementation.
2005-2006 Neighborhood association identifies neighborhood specific plan policies
that still need implementation strategies.
2007-2008 Neighborhood association, along with an implementation committee, and
City staff work to develop an overlay zone for the R-7.5 and R-10 in the
neighborhood to preserve the neighborhood character identified in the
plan.
Oct. 2008 14 overlay zone provisions are presented to the neighborhood association
for feedback. Meeting advertised through LO Review, direct mail and
email. 35 attendees (888 parcels in the neighborhood, including
businesses). Also, Planning Commission receives an update from the
committee on the status of plan implementation.
Planning Commission Work Session 05/24/10 EXHIBIT D-2 1
Lake Grove Neighborhood Plan Implementation (PP 07-0018) LU 10-0040
Feb. 2009 Survey sent (Exhibit F-1) to all Lake Grove residents asking for feedback
on all concepts. Survey also posted on-line. 32.5 % response rate.
Jan. 2009 Based on survey results, committee and LGNA board drop six provisions
from consideration.
March 2010 2nd open house held to present survey results, revisions to provisions,
and to vote on remaining eight provisions. 35 citizens voted.
Key Provisions and Responses
• Require 10 feet minimum side yard setbacks in the R-7.5.
Agree 27, Disagree 5, Neutral 3
• Require 30 feet minimum front yard setbacks in the R-10.
Agree 24, Disagree 5, Neutral 6
• Do not allow the front yard setback exception that allows a reduction in
setback if the abutting homes have a reduced setback.
Agree 20, Disagree 8, Neutral 7
• City Council recently approved increasing lot coverage as a result of
the Infill Task Force recommendation. The Lake Grove proposal is to
keep the current city-wide lot coverage standard: Lot Coverage cannot
exceed 35% for a primary structure <22 feet in height or 25% for a
primary structure > than 22 feet in height for the neighborhood rather
than increase it.
Agree 31, Disagree 3, Neutral 1
• Parcels that are developed as a "planned development" should be
required to meet the Lake Grove Neighborhood Overlay setbacks.
Agree 30, Disagree 3, Neutral 2
■ Establish a hardscape maximum of 50%.
Agree 28, Disagree 6, Neutral 1
■ Driveway turnarounds shall be constructed out of pervious materials
such as pervious pavers, and grass paving.
Agree 22, Disagree 11, Neutral 2
• Require a Planting and Buffering Plan when a building permit is
required for any structure on the site.
Agree 25, Disagree 5, Neutral 4
April 2010 Based on the neighborhood vote the Lake Grove neighborhood
association board decided to include all the provisions listed above in the
proposed Lake Grove overlay.
Planning Commission Work Session 05/24/10
Lake Grove Neighborhood Plan Implementation (PP 07-0018)
Discussion
All of the code concepts were generated from the neighborhood character statement:
Dense vegetation and large trees define the scale and character of this
neighborhood, separate one lot from its neighbor, and most buildings from the
street. Houses are set within this landscape, instead of defining it. Many appear
secluded and private from other buildings. Houses of many different sizes,
heights, and shapes fit this neighborhood because the vegetation diminishes the
visibility and scale of the buildings.
Additionally, the code provisions seek to implement many of the goals and policies
identified in the neighborhood plan, including:
Goal 10, Policy 6: Ensure all new residential development, including secondary
dwellings and homes being substantially remodeled, contributes to the positive
design character and qualities of Lake Grove's existing residential neighborhood.
This shall be accomplished through the application of design compatibility
standards, which include:
• Height, bulk and lot coverage standards
• Size of paved areas
• Appropriate setbacks, buffering and screening
• Preservation of mature canopy and other landscape features
PROPOSED OVERLAY CONCEPTS FOR R-7.5 & R-10 IN THE LAKE GROVE
NEIGHBORHOOD
SETBACKS
Side yard setback in R-7.5
Current Code: —Requires that portions of structures less than 18 feet in height must
have a 5 foot minimum side yard setback and a total combined width of 15 feet.
Structures greater than 18 feet require 10 feet minimum on each side.
Proposed Change — Requires that portions of structures less than 18 feet in height must
have a 10 feet minimum side yard setback.
Front yard setback in the R-10
Current Code: Requires a minimum 25 feet front yard setback in the R-10.
Proposed Change: Requires a minimum 30 feet front yard setback.
Exception to the front yard setback
Current Code: 50.22.010 allows the following exception: If there are lawful dwellings or
detached garages (including dwellings or garages deemed lawful non -conforming or
through a variance approval), on both abutting lots with front yards of less than the
required depth for the zone, the front yard for the lot need not exceed the average front
yard of the abutting dwellings and/or detached garages.
Proposed Change: Do no allow the use of this exception.
Neighborhood Reason: Increased set backs increase the distance between homes and
increase privacy between neighbors. Additionally, larger front yard setbacks allow the
vegetation to define the streetscape, not the houses.
Planning Commission Work Session 05/24/10
Lake Grove Neighborhood Plan Implementation (PP 07-0018)
Staff comments: Staff is concerned about having to administer the exception to the front
yard setback. It is an exception that is not frequently used in the neighborhood and is so
minor that it could be overlooked. Additionally, the exception was developed to increase
compatibility and maintain the existing character, therefore removing the exception may
cause a house to look out of character in between the abutting houses that have
decreased front yard setbacks.
Lot Coverage
Current Code: Lot Coverage cannot exceed 35% for a primary structure <22 feet in
height or 25% for a primary structure > than 22 feet in height for the neighborhood.
Infill Recommendation: City Council recently gave preliminary approval to a change in
the city wide lot coverage standards, which are slightly greater than the current code for
structures greater than 23-26 feet in height. The reason for the slight increase is to
provide greater flexibility for lot coverage (especially for sloped lots) and to create a
sliding scale based on height.
Proposed Code: Lake Grove wants the lot coverage to stay at current city code
standards and not increase. Additionally, if lot coverage were to decrease city-wide
below the current code stated above, Lake Grove would like decreased lot coverage
standards to override the Lake Grove overlay standards.
Neighborhood Reason: Current standards allow an appropriate amount of lot coverage -
increasing coverage decreases vegetation and tree canopy.
Planned Developments
Current Code: The Planned Development Overlay code (50.17) allows for flexibility in
land development standards to encourage variety in land development patterns. The
Planned Development Overlay standards can only be used when:
a) The property is greater than 75,000 square feet in size;
b) An RC District or RP District or its associated buffer is located on the property;
c) A tree grove greater than 15,000 square feet in size exists on the property; or
d) The property includes resources identified as Class I or II Riparian
Corridors/Wildlife Habitat or Class A or B Upland Wildlife Habitat as mapped on
Metro's Title 13 Regionally Significant Fish and Wildlife Habitat Inventory Map.
Side yard setbacks can be reduced if certain requirements are met, including when the
proposed lot sizes are less than the minimum size required by the underlying zone, or
lesser setbacks are necessary to provide additional tree preservation or protection of
abutting natural areas.
Proposed Change: Require parcels that are developed as a planned development to
meet the Lake Grove Neighborhood Overlay setbacks or the underlying zoning,
whichever is more stringent.
Neighborhood Reason: Currently there are no parcels in the Lake Grove boundaries
that could be developed as a planned development except the Hunt Club property. The
neighborhood is concerned that if redevelopment of the Hunt Club were to occur in the
future that it would be developed as a planned development which could result in
smaller lots with large houses that that would be out of character with the neighborhood
Planning Commission Work Session 05/24/10 4
Lake Grove Neighborhood Plan Implementation (PP 07-0018)
character. Reduced setbacks decrease vegetation and homes begin to define the space
instead of vegetation.
Staff comments: Long range planning staff would like to note that if the Hunt Club site
were developed it would be very constrained due to historic resources and sensitive
lands and the planned development overlay would be the likely tool used to creatively
develop the property, including allowing reduced setbacks to protect the wetlands and
the tree grove. Therefore, staff does not agree with this provision.
50% Hardscape Maximum
Current Code: No maximum percentage of hardscape is defined.
Proposed Change: No more than 50% of the lot can be hardscaped. Hardscape
includes structures, patios, retaining walls, paving, walks and artificially placed rock or
gravel. Sandset pavers and similar ground covering are also included the calculation.
Neighborhood Reason: To decrease the amount of gray infrastructure in the
neighborhood and to increase storm water filtration.
Driveway Turnarounds:
Current Code: Driveway turnaround materials are specified.
Proposed Change: Driveway turnarounds shall be constructed out of pervious materials
such pervious pavers, and grass paving.
Neighborhood Reason: Larger houses with large driveways are being built on smaller
lots, which decreases the dense vegetation and tree canopy. Decreasing the visual
impact of the built environment will help maintain neighborhood character.
Planting and Buffering Plan
Current Code: There is no planting and buffering requirement.
Proposed Change: Require a Planting and Buffering Plan when a building permit is
required for any structure on the site.
Neighborhood Reason: Planting and buffering will enhance privacy and mitigate the
visual impact of new development as well as help control erosion.
Staff comments: The details of the planting and buffering plan concept were discussed
at length by both the implementation committee and the board over a number of
months. Different members had different views of what should be included and it was
difficult for the groups to come to a consensus on how to proceed. Ultimately, the board
decided to put forth the concept stated above, which only requires a plan, but does not
require any specific planting. Nor does it require that the plan actually be installed,
therefore it is not an impactful regulation. The board views the regulation as a
"teachable" moment to encourage applicants to install plantings and buffering, but the
regulation does not require any planting or buffering.
A number of the committee members were not pleased with the final proposed concept,
nor was one of the Lake Grove neighbors who worked on the plan over the years. As a
result, that citizen unexpectedly proposed a new concept during the second open house
where these all of these concepts were voted on. The Lake Grove resident asked the
Planning Commission Work Session 05/24/10
Lake Grove Neighborhood Plan Implementation (PP 07-0018)
audience to vote on a different provision which states, in part, that "New houses in Lake
Grove will have (a minimum of) one contiguous landscape grouping consisting of: 1
native tree, 1 medium height native shrub and 1 native low plant or ground cover." 21
were in favor, 3 were not.
The proposal and the results were discussed at the next board meeting. The board
decided to present the proposal to the Planning Commission and ask for direction as to
how to proceed. Should the neighborhood include the citizen proposal in the overlay
zone or should the concept remain as originally presented?
Staff recommended to the board and committee that they should agree to a concept
prior to presenting to Planning Commission, however they are at an impasse and would
like the Planning Commission to provide guidance. Staff also agrees that the provision
as originally stated is not really regulatory or impactful because no plantings or buffering
is actually required.
Conclusion
The Lake Grove Neighborhood Plan Implementation Committee would like respond to
any questions the Commission may have in preparation for the public hearing and get
direction on how to proceed with the planting and buffering provision.
Exhibits
A. Notice of Appeal
[No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use]
B. Findings, Conclusions and Order
[No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use]
C. Minutes
[No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use]
D. Staff Reports/Memorandums
[No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use]
E. Graphics
[No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use]
F. Written Materials
F-1 Lake Grove Neighborhood Survey
G. Letters
[No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use]
Planning Commission Work Session 05/24/10 g
Lake Grove Neighborhood Plan Implementation (PP 07-0018)
STAFF REPORT
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
PLANNING & BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
/A\»■rw_�id
City of Lake Oswego for the
Lake Grove Neighborhood Association
PROPERTY OWNERS:
N/A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
N/A
LOCATION:
R-7.5 & R-10 zone within the Lake Grove
Neighborhood Association boundaries: See
map, Exhibit E-1.
COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION:
N/A
NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION:
Lake Grove Neighborhood Association
APPLICANT'S REQUEST
FILE NO.-
LU
O:
LU 10-0040
STAFF:
Laura Weigel, Associate Planner
DATE OF REPORT:
August 20, 2010
DATE OF HEARING:
September 13, 2010
ZONING DESIGNATION:
R-7.5 & R-10
REQUEST:
Amendment to the City of Lake
Oswego Community Development
Code to include a new Lake Grove
R -7.5/R-10 Overlay District.
The City of Lake Oswego is making this application for the Lake Grove Neighborhood Association to
amend the text of the Lake Oswego Community Development Code (LOC) to include the Lake Grove
R -7.5/R-10 Overlay District [Exhibit A-1].
II. APPLICABLE CRITERIA
A. Citv of Lake Osweao 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
Lake Grove Neighborhood Plan
Goal 2: Land Use Planning: Residential Goal and Policy 3
Goal 10: Housing: Goal and Policy 1,3 EXHIBIT D-3
LU 10-0040
Planning Commission Public Hearing 1 LU 10-0040
August 20, 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 Requirements
LOC 50.01.010 Purpose
LOC 50.75 Legislative Decisions
LOC 50.75.005 Legislative Decisions Defined
LOC 50.75. 010 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 report addresses the creation of a new Lake Grove Overlay District (New Article LOC 50.08-C) to
implement the 1998 Lake Grove Neighborhood Plan. The concepts addressed in the Overlay District
were developed by a committee made up of Lake Grove neighborhood residents. The final version has
been reviewed and approved by the Lake Grove Neighborhood Association board. Staff proposes that
the Planning Commission recommend most (but not all) of these Community Development Code
amendments for adoption by the City Council.
The Lake Grove Neighborhood Association proposes the following amendments:
• An overlay district that would add or modify six parts of the underlying R -7.5/R-10 base zone
within the Lake Grove Neighborhood Association boundaries (Exhibit E-1). The district would
be implemented through a new article in the Community Development Code; and
• A text amendment to the Planned Development section (50.17.015). The amendment would
prohibit exceptions to the yard setback requirements on the perimeter of planned development
lots abutting the R-10 and R-7.5 zoning.
The purpose of the overlay is to ensure that new residential development promotes the unique
character of the Lake Grove Neighborhood.
The Lake Grove Neighborhood Association discussed overlay concepts with the Planning Commission
on May 12, 2008 (Exhibit D-1) and May 24, 2010 (Exhibit D-2).
The new regulations include: (See Ordinance, Exhibit A-1)
1. A 30 -foot front yard setback in the R-10 (currently 25 -foot).
2. A 10 -foot side yard setbacks in the R-7.5 (currently combined total of 15 -foot).
3. Lot coverage limitations (which reflect the lot coverage limitations prior to the recent Community
Development Code infill amendments).
4. Requirements that no more than 50% of the lot can be covered in hardscape (no current limits).
5. Requirements for "green" driveway turnarounds (no current requirements).
6. Required planting and buffering plan submittal on new development (no current requirements).
Planning Commission Public Hearing 2 LU 10-0040
August 20, 2010
7. There is also a text amendment to the Planned Development section (50.17.015) that does not
permit exceptions to the yard setback requirements on the perimeter of planned development
lots abutting the R-10 and R-7.5 zoning.
It is proposed that the Planning Commission recommend 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 in Community Development
Code amendments for adoption by the City Council.
Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission reject amendments 6 and 7. The 6th amendment
to submit a planting and buffering plan, does not include any language as to what that plan should
include nor does it actually require the landscaping plan to be planted; therefore the regulation has no
impact (nothing but plan submittal is required). Additionally, the regulation will require extra staff time to
administer without providing any benefit to the neighborhood.
The 7th amendment to prohibit exceptions to the yard setbacks is in conflict with the purpose of the
planned development regulations which are stated as follows (50.17.005):
The purpose of the Planned Development Overlay is to provide, for parcels of sufficient size,
greater flexibility in development of land as compared to a standard subdivision, encourage
variety in the development pattem of the community, encourage developers to use a creative
approach in land development, conserve natural land features, facilitate a desirable aesthetic
and efficient use of open space, create public and private common open spaces, and provide
for flexibility and variety in the location of improvements on lots. If these public purposes are
accomplished, exceptions to certain zoning standards may be granted as provided by LOC
50.17.015.
Additionally, it is important to consider the applicability of these standards:
Use of the Planned Development Overlay (PD) is allowed in any zone for subdivision proposals,
except when the property is located in the R-7.5, R-10, or R-15 zone, at least one of the
following circumstances must exist:
a. The property is greater than 75,000 square feet in size;
b. An RC District or RP District or its associated buffer is located on the property;
c. A tree grove greater than 15,000 square feet in size exists on the property; or
d. The property includes resources identified as Class I or II Riparian Corridors/Wildlife
Habitat or Class A or B Upland Wildlife Habitat as mapped on Metro's Title 13
Regionally Significant Fish and Wildlife Habitat Inventory Map (adopted by Metro on
September 29, 2005 and amended on December 8, 2005), see LOC Appendix
50.46.010.
Currently there aren't any parcels in the neighborhood larger than 75,000 square feet with the
exception of the Hunt Club, therefore creating one special provision in the planned development code
for one neighborhood and one property in that neighborhood seems unnecessary and could be easily
overlooked. It also makes the code more complex.
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 3 LU 10-0040
August 20, 2010
POLICIES
4. Require land use regulations to:
b. Promote compatibility between development and existing and desired neighborhood
character;
C. Provide for the implementation of neighborhood plans.
24. Comprehensively evaluate proposed land use actions to determine the full range of potential
negative impacts and require applicants to provide appropriate solutions prior to approval.
Findings: The Lake Grove R -7.5/R-10 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 Lake Grove Neighborhood.
Implements the goal, policies and action step of the Lake Grove Neighborhood Plan.
Conclusion: The Lake Grove 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 1 a and b, and 4.
POLICIES
Enact and maintain regulations and standards which require:
a. New development to enhance the existing built environment in terms of size, scale, bulk,
color, material and architectural design.
b. Landscaping.
4. Ensure that both public and private development enhance the aesthetic quality of the
community.
Findings: The Lake Grove R -7.5/R-10 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 Lake Grove
neighborhood.
Enacts standards that require new development to be consistent with the scale and style
of existing development and the desired character of the Lake Grove neighborhood.
Conclusion: The Lake Grove R -7.5/R-10 Overlay District code conforms to Lake Oswego
Comprehensive Plan, Goal 2, Section 2: Community Design and Aesthetics, Policies 1 a and b, and 4.
Planning Commission Public Hearing 4 LU 10-0040
August 20, 2010
SPECIAL DISTRICT PLANS
LAKE GROVENEIGHBORHOOD PLAN
Lake Grove Land Use: Residential Goal
Compliance with Lake Grove Neighborhood Plan, Land Use: Residential Goal, Policy 1
GOAL
Maintain and enhance the appearance and character of the residential areas of the Lake Grove
neighborhood.
POLICIES
Work to ensure that development occurs in a way that is compatible with the unique character of
the Lake Grove neighborhood.
Findings: The Lake Grove R -7.5/R-10 Overlay District code is consistent with and implements the
Lake Grove Neighborhood Plan Land Use: Residential Goal because its regulations seek to ensure
that new development is in scale with and supports the unique character of the Lake Grove
Neighborhood.
Conclusion: The Lake Grove R -7.5/R-10 Overlay District code conforms to Lake Grove 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 Lake Grove R -7.5/R-10 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 5 LU 10-0040
August 20, 2010
Title 5 — Neighbor Cities and Rural Reserves defines Metro's policy regarding areas outside of the
Urban Growth Boundary. These codes would apply within the Urban Growth Boundary; therefore, this
title does not apply.
Title 6 — Regional Accessibility. This title recognizes the link between mode split, levels of congestion,
street design and connectivity in creating a transportation system that works and supports the desired
land use concept. This title does not apply.
Title 7 — Affordable 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 Lake Grove R -7.5/R-10 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."
Findings/Conclusion: OAR 660-12-060(1) and (2) is not applicable because the Lake Grove R -7.5/R-
10 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 Lake Grove R -7.5/R-10 Overlay District complies with the above relevant Oregon Statewide
Planning Goals as follows:
Planning Commission Public Hearing 6 LU 10-0040
August 20, 2010
Goal 1: Citizen Involvement
The Lake Grove R -7.5/R-10 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 Lake Grove R -7.5/R-10 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 Lake Grove R -7.5/R-10 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 10-0040, the Lake Grove R -7.5/R-10 Overlay District conforms to all applicable
decision-making criteria.
Staff endorses five of the seven amendments proposed by the Lake Grove R -7.5/R-10 Overlay District
and recommends the Planning Commission forward the following Community Development Code
amendments to the City Council for approval.
1. 30 -foot front yard setback in the R-10 (currently 25 -foot)
2. 10 -foot side yard setbacks in the R-7.5 (currently combined total of 15 -foot)
3. Lot coverage limitations (which reflect the lot coverage limitations prior to the recent Community
Development Code infill amendments)
4. No more than 50% of the lot can be covered in hardscape (no current limits)
5. Requirements for "green" driveway turnarounds (no current requirements)
Staff does not endorse the other two amendments and does not recommend forwarding them to City
Council for approval.
6. Required planting and buffering plan submittal on new development (no current requirements)
7. There is also a text amendment to the Planned Development section (50.17.015) that does not
permit exceptions to the yard setback requirements on the perimeter of planned development
lots abutting the R-10 and R-7.5 zoning.
Planning Commission Public Hearing 7 LU 10-0040
August 20, 2010
EXHIBITS
A. Draft Ordinances
A-1 Draft Ordinance 2558, dated August, 24, 2010
B. Findings and Conclusions [No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use]
C. Minutes
C-1 May 12, 2008
C-2 May 24, 2010
D. Staff Memoranda/Reports
D-1 Work Session on May 12, 2008 (staff memo dated May 5, 2008)
D-2 Work Session on May 24, 2010 (staff memo dated May 13, 2010)
E. Graphics
E-1 Map of Lake Grove R -7.5/R-10 Overlay District Boundaries
F. Written Materials [No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use]
F-1 Lake Grove Neighborhood Survey
G. Letters [No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use]
Planning Commission Public Hearing 8 LU 10-0040
August 20, 2010
r
c
oW
o-
o�
oM
DEFECTS IN
ORIGINAL
DOCUMENT
Lake Grove,.
Neighborhood Ass"ociatio .
Hello Lake Grove Neighbors!
Whether you've lived in the neighborhood for 30 years or 3o days
you are aware of the features that make the Lake Grove neighbor-
hood such a great place to live: the amazing tree canopy and abun
dant vegetation, the trails through Iron Mountain, the diversity
of houses, and our close proximity to the local bus,ness district
among others. In fact, you probably chose to live in Lake Grove
for some or all of these reasons. What you may no* know is that
the Lake Grove Neighborhood Association (LGNA ) is dedicated
to preserving and
enhancing the quality
of life in our neigh-
borhood and works
hard to maintain
the character of the
neighborhood.
LGNA has been an
official neighborhood
association of the
City of Lake Oswego
since 1976. Over the
years the association
has accomplished a
number of goals, We
host the Lake Grove
Village Days, commu-
nity clean-up days,
and the Summer Fun
Fest. We also sponsor
the hanging basket program, advocate for good development,
get pathways built, and participated in the development of the
Lake Grove Village Center Plan which was adopted in April of
2008.
viewed online on the City's website or at the library. Itis modeled
on the City's Comprehensive Plan and includes goals, policies and
recommended action measures related to:
•Citizen Involvement
90pen Spaces, Scenic and Historic Resources,
and Natural Resources
*Economic Development/Commercial Lands
*Ho using/Residentic l Lands
*Public Facilities and Services
*Transportation Goals
Lake Grove Neighborhood Association Boundary
Neighborhood Plan
One of our most important accomplishments was developing a
neighborhood plan that was adopted by the City of Lake Oswego
City Council in 1998. The Lake Grove Neighborhood Plan identi-
fies ways to preserve and enhance the neighborhood for the
future, The plan was developed over several years by the neigh-
borhood with the assistance of City staff and the full plan can be
r
LL
m
W
Neighbors Work Diligently Over the Years
on Plan Implementation
There have been at least three different committees working on
plan implementation since the plan was adopted. Then in 2oo5-
2oo6 neighbors worked together to review the plan in detail to
determine which aspects of the plan still need to be implemented.
Although a majority of the policies were identified as implement-
ed, ongoing or addressed in the Lake Grove Village Center Plan
and development code recommendations, the review did result
in a list of items of requiring further action. This is what we'd like
your help with today.
2007 - Neighbors Discuss Creating New Community
Development Code Specifically for the
Neighborhood as a Means to Implement the Plan
In early 2007 the neighborhood association decided that one way to implement
some of the outstanding policies identified in the adopted plan would be to create
new development regulations in the form of an neighborhood overlay zone. The
overlay zone would protect the character of the neighborhood as identified in the
plan and reconfirmed in University of Oregon Character study.
An overlay zone is a set of development regulations that are required in addition
to the underlying zoning requirements. An overlay could contain a new regulation
not addressed in the underlying base zone or could make a change to an existing
regulation. The overlay concepts currently under consideration would be applica-
ble to new single family housing in the R 7.5 (lots zoned to be a minimum of 7,500
square feet) and R io zones (Zo,000 square feet) within the Lake Grove Neighbor-
hood boundaries.
In late 2007 neighbors formed a Neighborhood Plan Implementation Commit-
tee to discuss potential development regulations to include in the overlay zone.
Neighbors worked diligently to keep the overlay concepts true to the original
policy intent stated in the adopted plan. The final 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 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 Com-
munity Development Code that are currently under discussion by the Planning
Commission. Together staff and the committee also toured the neighborhood.
The committee analyzed the built environment to identify the best regulations
that could protect the character of the neighborhood. They studied existing house
heights, floor -area -ratios (lot size in relationship to building square footage), set-
backs, lot size, lot coverage, driveway widths, and hardscape (impervious surfaces
such as the house, garage, walls driveways, patios, etc.).
The committee consists of seven members who are all are residents of Lake Grove;
Janet Buck, Ann Janzen, Ted Jeffries, Sara Perry, Bill Ward, Dan Work, and Barbara
Zeller. Two own businesses in Lake Grove and one builds houses in the neighbor-
hood. One grew up in the neighborhood and is now raising a family of four children
there. One has lived there for over 30 years. The committee is diverse and repre-
sents many perspectives.
Live!Imelu 'r o
Pro. le,
w
_ r
• • • - • • 1995-1998
Lake Grove develops neighborh
In ate Octo er 2oo8 the neighborhood association board held
an open house for all Lake Grove neighbors to hear, comment on
and provide feedback on the overlay concepts they developed to
implement the adopted plan. Approximately 3o people attended.
But the board needs to hear from as many people as possible and
wants to hear about how you feel about the ideas. That's why you
are receiving this flyer and survey. Your feedback is very important!
Your neighbors need to hear your thoughts in order to refine the
ideas based on everyone's viewpoint before moving forward.
If you would like to receive a home visit from one of your neigh-
bors to ask questions and share ideas, please contact Laura
Weigel, the Neighborhood Planner from the City of Lake Oswego
assigned to assist the neighborhood implement the adopted plan.
You can contact Laura at IweiqeI@ci.osweqo,or.us or 503.675.3730
and she'll arrange for a Lake Grove neighbor to stop by.
What Happens Next?
After the survey results are compiled, the concepts will be further
refined by the Lake Grove Neighborhood Association board and
committee. Some of the ideas may evolve, some new ideas may
emerge and/or some ideas might be dropped from consideration.
It will depend on YOU!
After the ideas are further refined there will be another open
house for the entire neighborhood to hear the ideas and provide
feedback again. If there is more feedback and the neighborhood
wants the ideas further refined the committee and board will
continue to work until the concepts presented can be approved
by vote by the neighborhood at a general neighborhood associa-
tion meeting. If the neighborhood votes to approve the overlay,
the neighborhood association will present the overlay to the City
of Lake Oswego Planning Commission and City Council who may
also have ideas and recommendations before the final overlay is
adopted and enacted in the City's community development code.
NOW is the time to GET Involved.
We need to hear from you.
Start by completing our survey!
Become eligible to win a PRIZE!
(one of three gift certificates
for local Lake Grove restaurants).
1998
City Council adopts neighborhood plan.
LA
S
�D
O
C
S
O
C
LOS
r+
FM -)MI
CL
C
0
tD
CL
oft
4
n
�-
O
CD
r
='
G1
—h
O
t0
on
O
z
m
C.
LD.
(D
(D
U3
lQ'
<=r(D
o
Cr
O
o'
o
�
-t
�-
3
o
m
o
O
l3:.
O
r•
>
0
C
e
O
O
r
N r
101,
p N
0 r?p
0
0 ?; a
J ro o_
Cl
d d d n
°
m N < I
c O O
n
G
c S
fool
3
P 0
C
3
rD
C 0-
�a;l
O y 3
m�
m
o
d
o
Cy�
ol. C d
d m D
J
J
d d
S d y
m S o
m a a I
m
m
C N N
r?o
ro
_.
-�
Dz
0 O J
ry m
-
d o
�
w
Lb o
Z °I
x
a
m
o
810 n
d
A
�
C £ o
S
@Ln
S
=
o
oalC N
a
3
Q.3
I
m »
m o
N
co
ort
0 e
m <
O
o °
J
w
A c
c I
J
�
lu
a 7
O O'
m
m
A
0 3
rt m
n
N N
m m
a —
o
3 cr
~ A
z
Irt
a O
z
�
S
S
S
A
�JI
a
d
a_ o
m m
m
g 0
s
0 0
d J
m
afD I
m
o t0
3
3
a I o_
m �
2
I�
3
3
0
m
O
0
O
A o 7 O
N r
m
p N
0 r?p
vFdi
ry
S a C
d
d d d n
°
F
_.
G
c S
n
P 0
C
O = O
C 0-
d
m�
m
o
m
0
Cy�
J
J
S d y
m S o
�
m
m
C N N
r?o
ro
_.
O
0 O J
ry m
-
d o
a
w
Lb o
so
`o A
a
m
o
»
d
A
�
S
@Ln
S
=
o
� J
a
3
3
m »
m »
oT
N
co
ort
o o
m •Z
m <
O
o °
J
w
O
O °
J
3
3
0
m
O
0
O
A o 7 O
N r
r
p N
0 r?p
vFdi
a d
_.
G
c S
0
<0 m
J S
C
3 3
O
d
m�
m
o
m
0
Cy�
J
J
S d y
m S o
�
m
m
C N N
r?o
ro
_.
°
A
o
A
a
a
N ? D
W
Qo m
o
0
� J
a
v
0
N J
N
O
N
co
Ro m
w
m m
d J
J
�
°
m
m
A
0 3
D 3
n
N N
!D
O
z
z
z
�
S
S
S
m
o
a
d
a
m m
m
g 0
0 0
0 0
d J
3
3
3
0
O O
rL-3-1
J
10 �
m a
m?
d 3
°
m•<
lC J
ao
m<
O
O
O
O °
J
O °
J
O °
m°3
-
p N
0 r?p
vFdi
a d
_.
G
c S
0
<0 m
J S
C
3 3
O
d
m�
m
o
m
0
�
d g
�
N
�
N ? D
W
Qo m
-
� J
v
0
0
Ro m
0< m
0-
_ d
m m
d J
r
3
A o
m
m
A
3 °o
m
J
N N
O
me,m
�
m
o
m m
m
d J
3
N
0
O O
rL-3-1
J
C%
m
D
m
to
H
m
DEFECTS IN
ORIGINAL
DOCUMENT
DESIGN STANDARDS Continued
Concept: The association is proposing to prohibit Planned Developments (PD's) within the neighborhood boundaries because PD's can result in
smaller lot sizes and reduced setbacks while accommodating the same sized homes that are allowed on larger lots and therefore, may be out
of character with the neighborhood. Planned Developments are a type of developmentthat allows flexibility in the development standards as a
means to encourage a variety in development patterns, protect resources, and provide open space. In orderto use the PD standards, the prop-
erty must be larger than 75,000 square feet or have a protected resource or its buffer on the site.
Please circle the response that most closely reflects your opinion.
Planned Developments
New regulation governing the maximum Strongly
Prohibit Planned Developments within the
Strongly
Somewhat
Strongly
Somewhat
Strongly
No
neighborhood boundaries.
Ag ree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Disagree
I opinion
PRIVACY, INCLUDING BUFFERING AND SCREENING
Neighborhood Plan Statement: Provide buffering and adequate separation of new buildings from existing residences (Goal 10, P0143).
Concept: Increase setbacks to increasethe distance between houses and increase privacy.
Setbacks
New regulation governing the maximum Strongly
Increase side yard setback from (5/lofeet) toio
Strongly
Somewhat
Strongly
Somewhat
Strongly
No
on each side in the R 7.5 zone.
Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Disagree
opinion
Increase front yard setback from 25 feet to 30
Strongly
Somewhat
Somewhat
Strongly
No
feet in the R to zone.
Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Disagree
opinion
Do not allow the front yard exception code that
Lot coverage can not exceed 35%fora
Strongly
allows a decrease in the front yard setback if
Strongly
Somewhat
Strongly
Somewhat
Strongly
No
abutting structures setback are less than
Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Disagree
opinion
standard.
height).
NATURAL RESOURCES
Neighborhood Plan Statement: Preserve Lake Grove's natural resources and wooded character (Goal 5).
Concept: Current code does not set a standard governing the maximum area of a lot that can be covered in hardscape, but the association
is proposing a new standard regulating the amount of hardscape allowed on a lot as a meansto maintain the dense vegetation and reduce
stormwater run-off. The proposed maximum amount allowed is 5o%, which would include all impervious surfaces such the house, garage,
walls, driveways, patios, decks, walkways, fences, trellises, landscaping boulders, etc., and water features.
Hardscape Maximum
New regulation governing the maximum Strongly
Somewhat
Somewhat
Somewhat
Strongly
No
amount of a parcel that can be hardscaped. The
Neutral
Strongly
Somewhat
Neutral
Agree
maximum under consideration is o9�.
Agree
No
Disagree
Disagree
opinion
Concept: Currently landscaping and buffering (linear bands of permanent vegetation, preferably consisting of native and locally adapted spe-
cies) is not required for new single family housing. The association is proposing to enact a landscaping and buffering code for the neighbor-
hood in order to maintain the wooded character of the neighborhood and increase privacy. If the neighborhood believes the concept is good,
there will be further discussions as to what the requirement would be.
Landscaping & Bufferin
Somewhat
Enact a landscaping and
Somewhat
Strongly
No
pervious materials that look mostly green. Agree
I Agree
buffering requirement for new
Strongly
Somewhat
Neutral
Somewhat
Strongly
No
single familhousin
Agree
Agree
Disagree
Disagree
opinion
Concept: If a driveway egresses to a street where vision clearance is a concern, the engineering
department may require a "driveway turnaround," which requires more paving and the removal of
vegetation. Therefore, Lake Grove proposes "turnaround's" be green.
(Require driveway "turnarounds" be made of I Strongly
Somewhat
Neutral
Somewhat
Strongly
No
pervious materials that look mostly green. Agree
I Agree
I Disagree
I Disagree
I opini�
Lot Coverage
Maintain current City lot coverage
standards instead of increases currently
under consideration. Current City code:
Lot coverage can not exceed 35%fora
Strongly
Somewhat
Neutral
Somewhat
Strongly
No
primary structure «: ft in height or x546
Agree
Agree
Disagree
Disagree
opinion
for a primary structure > than 22 ft in
height).
Eliminate the 200 square feet lot coverage
Strongly
Somewhat
Somewhat
Strongly
No
bonusforsideloadin aro es.
Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Disagree
opinion
n y
o'
Driveway Turnaround's
iy'►
COMMERCIAL ENCROACHMENT INTO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE
Neighborhood Plan Statement: Do not expand the eastern/southeastern boundary ofthe Lake Grove Commercial District as shown...see map
(Goal g, Policy ii). Concept: The current code separates residential from commercial zones where the black line is drawn below. The neighbor-
hood wants to ensure that in the future
the line of demarcation stays the same,
to ensure that residential areas do not get
rezoned to commercial areas.
Commercial Encroachment
Do not allow commercial zoning to expand
beyond its existing boundary.
Strongly I Somewhat Neutral "—t.rt I Strongly No
Agree Agne Disagree Dsagree opinion
THANK YOU FOR COMPLETING
THE SURVEY!
MAIL IT IN TODAYTO
BECOME ELIGIBLE
FOR A PRIZE!
ATI'N: Iris McCaleb and Lake Oswego City Council
Lake Oswego Planning Commission
380 A Avenue
PO Box 369
Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034
Subject: Lake Oswego Proposed Land Use Regulation No. 2558, File LU 10-0040
Dear Iris McCaleb and Those It Concerns
Please accept this letter as a submittal of written request for notice.
Property and home owners in the Lake Grove/Oswego area are deeply concerned
about the new proposed property restriction ordinance on development.
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH; I purchased our property based on the existing; building
codes. It is unfair to chane them. Lake Oswe&o has done well with existing codes
not in spite of them. The focal minority are trying to implement change by taking
away private rights. The majority are not pro active since there is absolutelyno need
for a change of codes. A chane in "permissible use of property" I feel willdirect]
affect property value because it restricts private party's rights to remodel or buVif
these new codes are allowed. If this proposal passes I will recommend to all
neighbors to appeal to the tax assessor on their land value and to petition lower tax
assessment value due to lower property value due to these proposed restrictions. I feel
confident that the majority of people in Lake Grovel Oswego feel that it is the
individual home owners right to do as they please with their private land as allowed
by current codes and regulations. It is important to realise the existing buildin codes
were in place when the partials were purchased and to penalize home and lanTowners
who relied on these existincodes is a travesty. If an owner was not satisfied with the
existing codes they should ave not purchased in the first place.
Those who want the code change can simply call their title company and put a deed
restriction on their property's to comply with the proposed new ordinance or any
other building restriction they want. At the very most the city council could arrange a
ballot to allow the affected citizcns to vote as to whether or not to pass the new
ordinance.
These proposed code changes are clearly a case of too much Government
interference with existing private property rights
Concerned • ' nt,
Sign: _ Date: 1 (to
Print Name:
Address: ��"15 C-19-1 , Lake Oswego, Oregon
Sign: `�-'��-� Date
9 - I - � D
Print Name: (' +�g5SCr,
Address: 3\\t> -D0 q� 1 R S C' -QA- ? , Lake Oswego, Oregon
13
EXHIBIT G-1
LU 10-0040
AT TN: Iris McCaleb and Lake Oswego City Council
Lake Oswego Planning Commission
380 A Avenue
PO Box 369
Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034
Subject: Lake Oswego Proposed Land Use Regulation No. 2558, File LU 10-0040
Dear Iris McCaleb and Those It Concerns
Please accept this letter as a submittal of written request for notice.
Property and home owners in the Lake Grove/Oswego area are deeply concerned
about the new proposed property restriction ordinance on development.
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH, I purchased our property based on the existing buildin
codes. It is unfair to change them. Lake Osw•e&o has done well with existing co es
not in spite of them. The local minority are trying to implement change by taking
away pttvate rights. The majority are not pro actwe since there is absolutely no need
for a change of codes. A chane in "penntssible use of property" I feel will directly
affect properly value because �t restricts private party's
rights to remodel or build if
these new codes are allowed. [f this proposal passes I will recommend to all
neighbors to appeal to the tax assessor on their land value and to petition lower tax
assessment value due to lower property value due to these proposed restrictions. 1 feel
confident that the majority of people in Lake Grove/ Oswego feel that it is the
individual home owners right to do as they please with their private land as allowed
by current codes and regulations. It is important to realize the existing buildin T codes
were in place when the partials were purchased and to penalize home and Ian owners
who relied on these existin codes is a travesty. If an owner was not satisfied with the
existing codes they should Piave not purchased in the first place.
Those who want the code change can simply call their title company and put a deed
restriction on their property's to comply with the proposed new ordinance orany
other building restriction they want. At the very most the city council could arrange a
ballot to allow the affected citizens to vote as to whether or not to pass the new
ordinance.
These proposed code changes are clearly a case of too much Government
interference with existing private property rights
Conce d esidcnt,
t �r
Sign: _ CU C. ,�1V`c � _-------_ _ _- Date:
Print Name: t LA -(U)
Address: ��� I0JV�o�v Lake Oswego, Oregon
024
Sign: _ J Date:
Print Nanie: ! OVIA
Address: CJI �o Lake Oswego, Oregon
EXHIBIT G-2
(LU 10-0040)
ATTN: Iris McCaleb and Lake Oswego City Council '"tCE elD
Lake Oswego Planning Commission
380 A Avenue
PO Box 369 Clf
Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 COMMU 4V �e ee OBy��ga
menr Dept
Subject: Lake Oswego Proposed Land Use Regulation No. 2558, File LI.1 10-0040
Dear Iris McCaleb and Those It Concerns
Please accept this letter as a submittal of written request for notice.
Property and home owners in the Lake Grove/Oswego area are deeply concerned
about the new proposed property restriction ordinance on development.
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH: I purchased our property based on the existing buildin T
codes. It is unfair to change them. Lake Oswego has done. well with existing cotes
not in spite of them. The Focal minority are trying to implement change by taking
away private rights. The majority are not pro active since there is absolutely no need
for a change of codes. A change in "permissible use of property" I feel will direct]
affect property value because it restricts private party's rights to remodel or buildyif
these new codes are allowed. If this proposal passes 1 will recommend to all
neighbors to appeal to the tax assessor on their land value and to petition lower tax
assessment value due to lower property value due to these proposed restrictions. I feel
confident that the majority of people in Lake Grove/ Oswego feel that it is the
individual home owners right to do as they please with their private land as allowed
by current codes and regulations. It is important to realize the existing building codes
were in place when the partials were purchased and to penalize home and land owners
who relied on these existing codes is a travesty. If an owner was not satisfied with the
existing codes they should have not purchased in the first place.
Those who want the code change can simply call their title company and put a deed
restriction on their property's to comply with the proposed new ordinance or any
other building restriction they want. At the very most the city council could arrange a
ballot to allow the affected citizens to vote as to whether or not to pass the new
ordinance.
These proposed code changes are clearly a case of too much Government
interference with existing private property rights
Concerned re ident,
Sign: _ Date:
Print Name: SCAi/.4i1�
Address: .3� .3 3 Y, Lake Oswego. Oregon
Sign: V' Date: Z �'
Print Name: �( C
Address: �J �� 7�) ' , , Lake Oswego, Oregon
EXHIBIT G-3
LU 10-0040
September 4, 2010.RECEIVED
AT -IN: Iris McCaleb and Lake Oswego City Council
Lake Oswego Planning Commission City of Lake 0:"°J6 C1
380 A Avenuecommunity Develapr lent Dept.
PO Box 369
Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034
Subject: Lake Oswego Proposed Land Use Regulation No. 2558, File LU 10-0040
Dear Ms. McCaleb and Staff/City Council:
Please accept this letter as a submittal of written request for notice.
Property and home owners in the Lake Grove/Oswego area are deeply concerned about the
new proposed property restriction ordinance on development.
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH: I purchased our property based on the existing building codes. It is
unfair to change them. Lake Oswego has done well with existing codes not in spite of them.
`Fhe local minority are trying to implement change by taking away private rights. The
majority are not pro active since there is absolutely no need fora change of codes. A change
in `'permissible use of property" I feel will directly affect property value because it restricts
private party's rights to remodel or build if these new codes are allowed. If this proposal
passes I will recommend to all neighbors to appeal to the tax assessor on their land value and
to petition lower tax assessment value due to lower property value due to these proposed
restrictions. I feel confident that the majority of people in Lake Grove/ Oswego feel that it is
the individual home owners right to do as they please with their private land as allowed by
current codes and regulations. It is important to realize: the existing building codes were in
place when the parcels were purchased and to penalize borne dnd land owners who relied on
ihcsc cxistuig codes is a travesty. if an owner was not s tisfieli w'vIth the existing codes they
should have not Purchased iii the first place.
Those who want the code change car. simply ca -!l their title rnd run 'a deed
rcStrit iii) i on their frriiptiii`�'i to CC:eiijl1r., vvith the ! is:C•.Yw v .:adire.Lic:.:
1?ulluinr; rc'str eti=+i� Lhe� -,want. it the vert piost Hip �- .` �•.•:i", __'!� �l�l 1?r'el i;t a bd]1 yt it-
allmN' the ii1 t C.eel cii37CnS TC�) `:4Di :3S to as'relher t:r nC;l it, j')iit• L i;C Ille' " tir(11111 lA(I :.
-i hese nrorx)sed code cnani'es are ciLmriy a c1L%C Of 100 ir: lc l .ovcrnment ince rference with
r'Y t`IillU i'lrl �"Slip' ai1171r"i"i :' :i:7}lll
l -.once
`a
E''iint :hit'iii7i:: _ rC.+ " C '"�?✓ f�.Z'.�?l\cy
aaaaa. ♦..w.. _71 l/� 'C 5 .Wan a_ . i:, ... :.,.. ... a, r.,an�
EXHIBIT G-4
LU 10-0040
ATTN: Iris McCaleb and Lake Oswego City Council RECEIVED
Lake Oswego Planning Commission
380 A Avenue
PO Box 369
Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 CitY Of Lake 0,,,,g,,
Commurrty C�evelapment Dept.
Subject: Lake Oswego Proposed Land Use Regulation No. 2558, File Ll1 10-0040
Dear Iris McCaleb and Those It Concerns
Please accept this letter as a submittal of written request for notice.
Myy name is Phillip Arakelian our family's own properties at 2855 Upper Dr, 3000 Brookside
Rd, and 15780 Twin Fir Rd. We have lived here since early 1960. Our family and many
property and home owners in the Lake Grove/Oswego area are deeply concerned abouf the
new proposed property restriction ordinance on development.
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH; I purchased ourproperty based on the existing building codes. It is
unfair to change them. Lake Oswego has done well with existing codes not in spite of them.
The local minority are tryin& to implement change by taking away private rights. The
majority are not pro active since there is absolutely no need for a change of codes. A change
in `permissible use of property" I feel will directly affect property value because it restricts
private party's rights to remodel or build if these new codes are allowed. If this proposal
passes I will recommend to all neighbors to appeal to the tax assessor on their land value and
to petition lower tax assessment value due to lower property value due to these proposed
restrictions. 1 feel confident that the majority of people to Lake Grove/ Oswego feel that it is
the individual home owners right to do as they please with their private land as allowed by
current codes and regulations. It is important to realize the existing building codes were in
place when the partials were purchased and to penalize home and land owners who relied on
these existing codes is a travesty. If an owner was not satisfied with the existing codes they
should have not purchased in the first place.
Those who want the code change can simply call their title company and put a deed
restriction on their property's to comply with the proposed new ordinance or any other
building restriction they want. At the very most the city council could arrange a ballot to
allow the affected citizens to vote as to whether or not to pass the new ordinance.
These proposed code changes are clearly a case of too much Government interference with
existing private property rights
Concerned resident,
Sign: - Date:
Print Name:
Address: �,—�.� _ ti� • , Lake Oswego, Oregon
Sign: Date: f� 1
Print Name: ,
Address: 1 — �v, Lake Oswego, OregonT-V EXHIBIT G-5
LU 10-0040
ATTN: Iris McCaleb and Lake Oswego City Council RECEIVED
Lake Oswego Planning Commission
380 A Avenue
PO Box 369 City of Lake Oswego
Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 Community Cevelooment Dept.
Subject: Lake Oswego Proposed Land Use Regulation No. 2558, File LU 10-0040
Dear Iris McCaleb and Those It Concerns
Please accept this letter as a submittal of written request for notice.
My name is Vahe Arakelian our family's own properties at 2855 Upper Dr, 3000 Brookside
Rd, and 15780 Twin Fir Rd. We have lived here since early 1960. Our family and many
property and home owners in the Lake Grove/Oswego area are deeply concerned abouf the
new proposed property restriction ordinance on development.
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH; I purchased our property based on the existing building codes. It is
unfair to change them. Lake Oswego has done well with existing codes not in spite of them.
The local minority are trying to implement change by taking awayprivate rights. The
majority are not pro active since there is absolutely no need fir a change of codes. A change
in "permissible use of property" I feel will directly afTect property value because it restricts
private,
s rights to remodel or build if these new codes are allowed. If this proposal
passes I will recommend to all neighbors to appeal to the tax assessor on their land value and
to petition lower tax assessment value due to lower property value due to these proposed
restrictions. I feel confident that the majority of people in Lake Grove/ Oswego feel that it is
the individual home owners right to do as they please with their private land as allowed by
current codes and regulations. It is important to realize the existing building codes were in
place when the partials were purchased and to penalize home and land owners who relied on
these existing codes is a travesty. If an owner was not satisfied with the existing codes they
should have not purchased in the first place.
Those who want the code change can simply call their title company and put a deed
restriction on their property's to comply with the proposed new ordinance or any other
building restriction they want. At the very most the city council could arrange a ballot to
allow the affected citizens to vote as to whether or not to pass the new ordinance.
These proposed code changes are clearly a case of too much Government interference with
existing private property rights
Concerned resident,
Sign: _ Date: `� q f I U
Print Name: ilAH I; AR"kl
Address: '3ow Quo l� s,� is i� �� , Lake Oswego. Oregon
Sign', �ti' �ii:a�-�1G2�� Date:
Print Nama--,�17'l,,if1j�
Address:,,. ��, l } � �E��� , Lake Oswe�„o. Oregon EXHIBIT G-6
LU 10-0040
ATTN: Iris McCaleb and Lake Oswego City Council
Lake Oswego Planning Commission City of Lake Oswego
380 A Avenue =,ammuMy Development Dept,
PO Box 369
Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034
Subject: Lake Oswego Proposed Land Use Regulation No. 2558, File LL's 10-0040
Dear Iris McCaleb and Those It Concerns
Please acn-ep: this letter as a submittal of wATitten request for notice.
Property and home owners in the Lake Grove/Oswego area are deeply concerned about the
new proposed property restriction ordinance on development.
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH; I purchased our property based on the existing building codes. It is
unfair to change them. Lake Oswego has done well with existing codes not in spite of them_
The local minority are trying to implement change by taking away private rights. The
majority are not pro active since there is absolutely no need for a change of codes. A change
in "permissible use of property" I feel will directly affectproperty value because it restricts
private party's rights to remodel or build if these new codes are allowed. If this proposal
passes f will recommend to all neighbors to appeal to the tax assessor on their land value and
to petition lower tax assessment value due to lower property value due to these proposed
restrictions. I feel confident that the majority of people in Lake Grove/ Oswego feel that it is
the individual home owners right to do as they please with their private land as allowed by
current codes and regulations. It is important to realize the existing building codes were in
place when the partials were purchased and to penalize home and land owners who relied on
these, existing codes is a travesty. If an owner was not satisfied with the existing codes they
should have rot purchased in the first place.
Those who want the code change can simply call their title company and put a deed
restriction on their property's to comply urith the proposed new ordinance or any other
building restriction they want. At the very most the city council could arrange a ballot to
allow the affected citizens to vote as to whether or not to pass the new ordinance.
These proposed code changes are clearly a case of too much (Tovemment interference with
existing pr.'vat,-- property rights
Con -.;erne e
SDate:
rrintNa.~re: c f, L4 2—�, L rt�.c�•.c,,i 4�.�
Address: 1 `7? C rt W, 4, �� ►' _, Lake Oswego, Oregon
Sign:
Print Name:
Address:
Date:
Lake Oswego, Oregon
EXHIBIT G-7
LU 10-0040
RECEIVED
ATTN: Iris McCaleb and Lake Oswego City Council
Lake Oswego Planning Commission
PO Box venue City of Lake Oswego
Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 Community Development Dept.
Subject: Lake Oswego Proposed Land Use Regulation No. 2558, File LU 10-0040
Dear Iris McCaleb and Those It Concerns
Please accept this letter as a submittal of written request for notice.
Property and home owners in the Lake Grove/Oswego area are deeply concerned about the
new proposed property restriction ordinance on development.
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH; I purchased ourproperty based on the existing building codes. It is
unfair to change them. Lake Oswego has done well with existing codes not in spite of them.
The local minority are trying to implement change by taking away private rights. The
majority are not pro active since there is absolutely no need for a change of codes. A change
in "permissible use of property" I feel will directly affect property value because it restricts
private party's rights to remodel or build if these new codes are allowed. If this proposal
passes I will recommend to all neighbors to appeal to the tax assessor on their land value and
to petition lower tax assessment value due to lower property value due to these proposed
restrictions. I feel confident that the majority of people in Lake Grove/ Oswego feel that it is
the individual home owners right to do as they please with their private land as allowed by
current codes and regulations. It is important to realize the existing building codes were in
place when the partials were purchased and to penalize home and land owners who relied on
these existing codes is a travesty. If an owner was not satisfied with the existing codes they
should have not purchased in the first place.
Those who want the code change can simply call their title company and put a deed
restriction on their property's to comply with the proposed new ordinance or any other
building restriction they want. At the very most the city council could arrange a ballot to
allow the affected citizens to vote as to whether or not to pass the new ordinance.
These proposed code changes are clearly a case of too much Government interference with
existing private property rights
Concerned r ent,
Sigh` Date:
Print Name: , Y� 12,42 -
Address:
,42 -.Address: _ ?3� � - , Lake Oswe�,o. Oregon
Sign:
Print Name:
Date: q Q
Address: _�3-7 �w � I e vyY t -, , Lake Oswego, Oregon
EXHIBIT G-8
LU 10-0040
ATI -N: Iris McCaleb and Lake Oswego City Council RECEIVED
Lake Oswego Planning Commission
380 A Avenue
PO Box 369 City of Lake Oswego
Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 community Development Dept.
Subject: Lake Oswego Proposed Land Use Regulation No. 2558, File LU 10-0040
Dear Iris McCaleb and Those It Concerns
Please accept this letter as a submittal of written request for notice.
Property and home owners in the Lake Grove/Oswego area are deeply concerned about the
new proposed property restriction ordinance on development.
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH; I purchased our property based on the existing building codes. It is
unfair to change them. hake Oswego has done well with existing codes not in spite of them.
The local minority are trying to implement change by taking away private rights. The
majority are not pro active since there is absolutely no need for a change of codes. A change
in "permissible use of property" I feel will directly affect property value because it restricts
private party's rights to remodel or build if these new codes are allowed. If this proposal
passes I will recommend to all neighbors to appeal to the tax assessor on their land value and
to petition lower tax assessment value due to lower property value due to these proposed
restrictions. I feel confident that the majority of people in Lake Grove/ Oswego feel that it is
the individual home owners right to do as they please with their private land as allowed by
current codes and regulations. It is important to realize the existin7 building codes were in
place when the partials were purchased and to penalize home andland owners who relied on
these existing codes is a travesty. If an owner was not satisfied with the existing codes they
should have not purchased in the first place.
Those who want the code change can simply call their title company and put a deed
restriction on their property's to comply with theproposed new ordinance or any other
building restriction they want. At the very most the city council could arrange a ballot to
allow the affected citizens to vote as to whether or not to pass the new ordinance.
These proposed code changes are clearly a case of too much Government interference with
existing private property rights
Concerned resident, 7
S Date: S' G
Print Name: i
Address: I �D 112— k e e Se c , Lake Oswego, Oregon
Sign:
Print Name:
Address
�-V�, l-�
Date: C _L�-t10
Lake Oswego, Oregon
EXHIBIT G-9
LU 10-0040
'RECEIVED
ATTN: Iris McCaleb and Lake Oswego City Council
Lake Oswego Planning Commission
380 A Avenue City of Lake
PO Box 369 CommunitY Oswego
Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 Development Dept
Subject: Lake Oswego Proposed Land Use Regulation No. 2558, File LU 10-0040
Dear Iris McCaleb and Those It Concerns
Please accept this letter as a submittal of written request for notice.
Property and home owners in the Lake Grove/Oswego area are deeply concerned about the
new proposed property restriction ordinance on development_
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH; I purchased ourproperty based on the existing building codes. It is
unfair to change them. Lake Oswego has done well with existing codes not in spite of them.
The local minority are tryin& to implement change by taking away private rights. The
majority are not pro active since there is absolutely no need for a change of codes. A change
m "permissible use of property" I feel will directly affect properly value because it restricts
private party's rights to remodel or build if these new codes are allowed. If this proposal
passes I will recommend to all neighbors to appeal to the tax assessor on their land value and
to petition lower tax assessment value due to lower property value due to these proposed
restrictions. I feel confident that the majority of people to Lake Grove/ Oswego feel that it is
the individual home owners right to do as they please with their private land as allowed by
current codes and regulations. It is important to realize the existing building codes were in
place when the partials were purchased and to penalize home and land owners who relied on
these existing codes is a travesty. If an owner was not satisfied with the existing codes they
should have not purchased in the first place.
Those who want the code change can simply call their title company and put a deed
restriction on their property's to comply with the proposed new ordinance or any other
building restriction they want. At the very most the city council could arrange a ballot to
allow the affected citizens to vote as to whether or not to pass the new ordinance.
These proposed code changes are clearly a case of too much Government interference with
existing private property rights
Concerned rte' crit, ��
Sign: — - Date: L
Print Name: U0 Lk -e -
Address: I (,o( c+D gee SC- 12- 0 , Lake Oswego, Oregon
Sign: Date:
Print Name: '"- �A , Le -e_
Address: ) (0, �� ��{' ;2C( . Lake Oswego, Oregon
10
--I
EXHIBIT G-10
LU 10-0040
ATTN: Iris McCaleb and Lake Oswego City Council aECEIVED
Lake Oswego Planning Commission
380 A Avenue
PO Box 359
Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 City of Lake Oswego
Jommunit-v Deve)ooment Dept.
Subject: Lake Oswego Proposed Land Use Regulation No. 2558, File LU 10-0040
Dear Iris McCaleb and Those It Concerns
Please accept this letter as a submittal of written request for notice.
Property and home owners in the Lake Grove/Oswego area are deeply concerned about the
new proposed property restriction ordinance on development.
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH; I purchased our property based on the existing building codes. It is
unfair to change them. Lake Oswego has done well with existing codes not in spite of them.
The local minority are trying to implement change by taking awayprivate rights. The
I majority are not pro active since there is absolutely no need or a change of codes. A change
m `permissible use of property" I feel will directly affect property value because it restricts
private party's rights to remodel or build if these new codes are allowed. If this proposal
passes 1 will recommend to all neighbors to appeal to the tax assessor on their land value and
to petition lower tax assessment value due to lower property value due to these proposed
restrictions. I feel confident that the majority of people in Lake Grove/ Oswego feel that it is
the individual home owners right to do as they please with their private land as allowed by
current codes and regulations. It is important to realize the existing building codes were in
place when the partials were purchased and to penalize home and land owners who relied on
these existing codes is a travesty. If an owner was not satisfied with the existing codes they
should have not purchased in the first place.
Those who want the code change can simply call their title company and put a deed
restriction on their property's to comply with the proposed new ordinance or any other
building restriction they want. At the very most the city council could arrange a ballot to
allow the affected citizens to vote as to whether or not to pass the new ordinance.
These proposed code changes are clearly a case of too much Government interference with
existing private property rights
Concerned resident,
f
Si L Date:
Print Name: F L Lc (. ,
9-6- LC)
Address: 4-2:j O '51.CL Q P+'i iIZ D (2--., Lake Oswego, Oregon
Date: 4 —
:c Oswego_ Oregon
—7 EXHIBIT G-11
LU 10-0040
ATTN: his McCaleb and Lake Oswego City Council RECEIVel)
Lake Oswego Planning Commission
380 A Avenue
PO Box 369
Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 city of Lake Oswego
ommunity Devefoprnent Dept
Subject: Lake Oswego Proposed Land Use Regulation No. 2558, File LU 10-0040
Dear his McCaleb and Those It Concerns
Please accept this letter as a submittal of written request for notice.
Property and home owners in the Lake Grove/Oswego area are deeply concerned about the
new proposed property restriction ordinance on development.
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH; I purchased our property based on the existing building codes. It is
unfair to change them. Lake Oswego has done well with existing codes not in spite of them.
The local minority are trying to implement change by taking away private rights. The
majority are not pro active since there is absolutely no need fora change of codes. A change
in "permissible use of property" I feel will directly affect property value because it restricts
private party's rights to remodel or build if these new codes are allowed. If this proposal
passes r v�nl] recommend to all neighbors to appeal to the tax assessor on their land value and
to petition lower tax assessment value due to lower property value due to these proposed
restrictions. I feel confident that the majority of people in Lake Grove/ Oswego feel that it is
the individual home owners right to do as they please with their private land as allowed by
current codes and regulations. It is important to realize the existing building codes were in
place when the partials were purchased and to penalize home and land owners who relied on
these existing codes is a travesty. If an owner was not satisfied with the existing codes they
should have not purchased in the first place.
Those who want the code change can simply call their title company and put a deed
restriction on their property's to comply with the proposed new ordinance or any other
building restriction they want. At the very most the city council could arrange a ballot to
allow the affected citizens to vote as to whether or not to pass the new ordinance.
These proposed code changes are clearly a case of too much Government interference with
existing private property rights
Concerned resident,
Sign: Date:
Print Name: V'V 11 t (L V V\ -�
Address: 10M 41 LU Up p k_.►` W • , Lake Oswego, Oregon
it
Sign:
Print Name:'
Address: Lake Oswego, Oregon -
EXHIBIT G-12
LU 10-0040
ATTN: his McCaleb and Lake Oswego City Council
Lake Oswego Planning Commission
3 80 A Avenue
PO Box 369
Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034
Subject: Lake Oswego Proposed Land Use Regulation No
Dear Iris McCaleb and Those It Concerns
�cervec,
pity of Lake Q
S We
'goOmmunity Dev6100ment Dc-,,
2558, File LU 10-0040
Please accept this Ietter as a submittal of written request for notice.
Property and home owners in the Lake Grove/Oswego area are deeply concerned about the
new proposed property restriction ordinance on development.
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH; I purchased our property based on the existing building codes. It is
unfair to change them. Lake Oswego has done well with existing codes not in spite of them.
The local minority are tryin& to implement change by taking away private rights. The
majority are not pro active since there is absolutely no need fora change of codes. A change
in `permissible use of property" I feel will directly affect property value because it restricts
private party's rights to remodel or build if these new codes are allowed. If this proposal
passes I will recommend to all neighbors to appeal to the tax assessor on their land value and
to petition lower tax assessment value due to lower property value due to these proposed
restrictions. I feel confident that the majority of people in Lake Grove/ Oswego feel that it is
the individual home owners right to do as they please with their private land as allowed by
current codes and regulations_ It is important to realize the existing building codes were in
place when the partials were purchased and to penalize home and land owners who relied on
these existing codes is a travesty. If an owner was not satisfied with the existing codes they
should have not purchased in the first place.
Those who want the code change can simply call their title company and put a deed
restriction on their property's to comply with the proposed new ordinance or any other
building restriction they want. At the very most the city council could arrange a ballot to
allow the affected citizens to vote as to whether or not to pass the new ordinance.
These proposed code changes are clearly a case of too much Government interference with
existing private property rights
Concerned resident,
Sign: S, -Leu C-7 �� 4�,K Date:
Print Name: � -" c, r , C, , W, e. t
Address: 3 i Z �� �i C-3, , Lake Oswego, Oregon
Sign Date: -7ZO 1)
Print Name: ( M M W 4 L I_.
Address: , j 7 sA R N 6 t"' 1- , Lake Oswego. Oregon
EXHIBIT G-13
LU 10-0040
LtC,EiVEC.
ATTN: Iris McCaleb and Lake Oswego City Council
Lake Oswego Planning Commission o f
80 A Avenue Lake
PO Box 369 L-0 nmUnit D SSW@gU
Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 y `�eve'°Omenf Dec,,
Subject: Lake Oswego Proposed Land Use Regulation No. 2558, File LU 10-0040
Dear Iris McCaleb and Those It Concerns
Please accept this letter as a submittal of written request for notice.
Property and home owners in the Lake Grove/Oswego area are deeply concerned about the
new proposed property restriction ordinance on development.
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH; I purchased our property based on the existing building codes. It is
unfair to change them. Lake Oswego has done well with existing codes not in spite of them.
The local minority are tryin& to implement change by taking away private rights. The
majority are not pro active since there is absolutely no need for a change of codes. A change
in "permissible use of property" I feel will directly affect property value because it restricts
private party's rights to remodel or build if these new codes are allowed. If this proposal
passes I will recommend to all neighbors to appeal to the tax assessor on their land value and
to petition lower tax assessment value due to lower property value due to these proposed
restrictions. 1 feel confident that the majority of people in Lake Grove/ Oswego feel that it is
the individual home owners right to do as they please with their private land as allowed by
current codes and regulations. It is important to realize the existin_7 building codes were in
place when the partials were purchased and to penalize home andfand owners who relied on
these existing codes is a travesty. If an owner was not satisfied with the existing codes they
should have not purchased in the first place.
Those who want the code change can simply call their title company and put a deed
restriction on their property's to comply with the proposed new ordinance or any other
building restriction they want. At the vcr , most the city council could arrange a ballot to
allow the affected citizens to vote as to whether or not to pass the new ordinance.
These proposed code changes are clearly a case of too much Government interference with
existing private property rights
III
Sign: �_
Print Name: f
Address: ) C
Sign:
Print Name:
Address:
J
Date: T /��
Lake Oswego, Oregon
Date:
Lake Oswego, Oregon
EXHIBIT G-14
LU 10-0040
rcL f
AT`TN: Iris McCaleb and Lake Oswego City Council
Lake Oswego Planning Commission
380 A Avenue °
PO Box Avenue
U/ty Of Lake Os
Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 �om�unity develo�meD
Subject: Lake Oswego Proposed Land Use Regulation No. 3558, File LL 10-0040
Dear Iris McCaleb and Those It Concerns
Please accept this letter as a submittal of written request for notice.
Property and home owners in the Lake Grove/Oswego area are deeply concerned about the
new proposed property restriction ordinance on development.
ENOt7GH IS ENOUGH; 1 purchased our property based on the existing building codes. It is
unfair to change them. Lake Oswego has done well with existing codes not in spite of them.
The local minority are trying to implement change by taking awayprivate rights. The
majority are not pro active since there is absolutely no need for a change of codes. A change
in "permissible use of property" I feel will directly affect property value because it restricts
private party's rights to remodel or build if these new codes are allowed. If this proposal
passes I will recommend to all neighbors to appeal to the tax assessor on their land value and
to petition lower tax assessment value due to lower property value due to these proposed
restrictions. I feel confident that the majority of people to Lake Cnove/ Oswego feel that it is
the individual home owners right to do as they please with their private land as allowed by
current codes and regulations. It is important to realize the existin7 building codes were in
place when the partials were purchased and to penalize home and Und owners who relied on
these existing codes is a travesty. if an owner was not satisfied with the existing codes they
should have not purchased in the first place.
Those who want the code change can simply call their title company and put a deed
restriction on their property's to comply with the proposed new ordinance or any other
building restriction they want. At the very most the city council could arrange a ballot to
allow the affected citizens to vote as to whether or not to pass the new ordinance.
These proposed code changes are clearly a case of too much Government interference with
existing private property rights
Concerned resident,
Sign:,'/Gy✓�\ �,T/�ty� Date:
Print Name: /�11 to ke Dili 5 o ki
Address: 3 6 q 5� �,W Lx- , et( ;, c,CJ . -Y,, Lake Oswego, Oregon
Sign:
Print Name:
Address:
Date:
Lake Oswego, Oregon
EXHIBIT G-15
LU 10-0040
ECEI VEb
ATTN: his McCaleb and Lake Oswego City Council
Lake Oswego Planning Commission IN
380 A Avenue ._14Y Of Lake ..�
PO Box 369 `ammunity tJeve�o�SW@y P
Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 Gm nt De
Subject: Lake Oswego Proposed Land Use Regulation No. 2558, File LU 10-0040
Dear Iris McCaleb and Those It Concerns
Please accept this letter as a submittal of written request for notice.
Property and home owners in the Lake Grove/Oswego area are deeply concerned about the
new proposed property restriction ordinance on development.
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH; I purchased our property based on the existing building codes. It is
unfair to change them. Lake Oswego has done well with existing codes not in spite of them.
The local minority are tryiri� to implement change by taking away private rights. The
majority are not pro active since there is absolutely no need for a change of codes. A change
in "permissible use of property" I feel will directly affect property value because it restricts
private party's rights to remodel or build if these new codes are allowed. if this proposal
passes I will recommend to all neighbors to appeal to the tax assessor on their land value and
to petition lower tax assessment value due to lower property value due to these proposed
restrictions. I feel confident that the majority of people in Lake Grove/ Oswego feel that it is
the individual home owners right to do as they please with their private land as allowed by
current codes and regulations. It is important to realize the existing building codes were in
place when the partials were purchased and to penalize home and land owners who relied on
these existing codes is a travesty. If an owner was not satisfied with the existing codes they
should have not purchased in the first place.
"Those who want the code change can simply call their title company and put a deed
restriction on their property's to comply with the proposed new ordinance or any other
building restriction they want. At the ver} most the city council could arrange a ballot to
allow the affected citizens to vote as to whether or not to pass the new ordinance.
these proposed code changes are clearly a case of too much Government interference with
existing private property rights
Concerned resident,
Sign: Date:
Print Name: v r�C J=r.�n�CtiA
Address: /S 7 0 t A;--2C0-,,t , Lake Oswego, Oregon
Sign:
Print Name:
Address:
Date:
Lake Oswego, Oregon
EXHIBIT G-16
LU 10-0040
ALECEI'VE'C)
ATTN: his McCaleb and Lake Oswego City Council
Lake Oswego Planning Commission
380 A Avenue Crty Of Lake Oswe
PO Box 369 �uni ommp
Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 tY o
Develgopment Dept
Subject: Lake Oswego Proposed Land Use Regulation No. 2558, File LU 10-0040
Dear Iris McCaleb and Those It Concerns
Please accept this letter as a submittal of written request for notice.
Property and home owners in the Lake Grove/Oswego area are deeply concerned about the
new proposed property restriction ordinance on development.
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH; I purchased our property based on the existing building codes. It is
unfair to change them. Lake Oswego has done well with existing codes not in spite of them.
The local minority are trying to implement change by taking away private rights. The
majority are not pro active since there is absolutely no need for a change of codes. A change
in "permissible use of property" I feel will directly affect property, value because it restricts
private party's rights to remodel or build if these new codes are allowed. If this proposal
passes I will recommend to all neighbors to appeal to the tax assessor on their Iand value and
to petition lower tax assessment value due to lower property value due to these proposed
restrictions. I feel confident that themajority of people in Lake Grove/ Oswego feel that it is
the individual home owners right to do as they please with their private land as allowed by
current codes and regul, tiort,s_It is important to realize the existing building codes were in
place when thq-partiaisat �ikhased and to penalize home and land owners who relied on
these existing codes is a travesty. If an owner was not satisfied with the existing codes they
should have not purchased in the first place.
Those who want the code change can simply call their title company and put a deed
restriction on their property's to comply with the proposed new ordinance or any other
building restriction they want. At the very most the city council could arrange a ballot to
allow the affected citizens to vote as to whether or not to pass the new ordinance.
These proposed code changes are clearly a case of too much (government interference with
existing private property rights
Concf
Sign:
Print ]
Addre
am
Print Name:
Address:
Date:
e Oswego, Oregon
Date:
Lake Oswego, Oregon
EXHIBIT G-17
LU 10-0040
RECEIVEE,
ATTN: his McCaleb and Lake Oswego City Council
Lake Oswego Planning Commission C'tY of LaKe
380 A Avenueomm�ni �Sw�;gU
PO Box 369 tv oeve C)PrOent Dei,,
Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034
Subject: Lake Oswego Proposed Land Use Regulation No. 2.558, File LU 10-0040
Dear Iris McCaleb and Those It Concerns
Please accept this letter as a submittal of written request for notice.
Property and home owners in the Lake Grove/Oswego area are deeply concerned about the
new proposed property restriction ordinance on development.
ENOiJGII IS ENOUGH; I purchased ourproperty based on the existing building codes. It is
unfair to change them. Lake Oswego has done well with existing codes not in spite of them.
The local minority are tryin& to implement change by taking away private rights. The
majority, are not pro active since there is absolutely no need for a change of codes. A change
in "permissible use of property" I feel will directly affect property value because it restricts
private party's rights to remodel or build if these new codes are allowed. If this proposal
passes I will recommend to all neighbors to appeal to the tax assessor on their land value and
to petition lower tax assessment value due to lower property value due to these proposed
restrictions. I feel confident that the majority of people in Lake Grove/ Oswego feel that it is
the individual home owners right to do as they please with their private land as allowed by
current codes and regulations. It is important to realize the existing building codes were in
place when the partials were purchased and to penalize home and land owners who relied on
these existing codes is a travesty. If an owner was not satisfied with the existing codes they
should have not purchased in the first place.
Those who want the code change can simply call their title company, and put a deed
restriction on their property's to comply with the proposed new ordinance or any other
building restriction they want. At the very most the city council could arrange a ballot to
allow the affected citizens to vote as to whether or not to pass the new ordinance.
These proposed\code changes are clearly a case of too much Government interference with
existing pnvat property rights
Concerned t
Sign:�1
Print Name;
Address -
Sign:
Print Name:
Address:
Date:
tL . - J► {2. , Lake Oswego, Oregon
Date:
Lake Oswego, Oregon
EXHIBIT G-18
LU 10-0040
ATTN, : Iris McCaleb and Lake Oswego City Council
Lakd Oswego Planning Commission
380 A Avenue
PO Box 369
Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 t,jty Of La
'0mr%nity D.
Subject: Lake Oswego Proposed Land Use Regulation No. 2558, File
Dear Iris McCaleb and Those It Concerns
Please accept this letter as a submittal of written request for notice.
Property and home owners in the Lake Grove/Oswego area are deeply concerned about the
new proposed property restriction ordinance on development.
ENOUGH. IS ENOUGH; I purchased our property based on the existing building codes. It is
unfair to change them. Lake Oswego has done well with existing codes not in spite of them.
The local minority are tryin& to implement change by taking away private rights. The
majority are not pro active since there is absolutely, no need for a change of codes. A change
in "permissible use of property" I feel will directly affect property value because it restricts
private part<,'s rights to remodel or build if these new codes are allowed. If this proposal
passes 1 will recommend to all neighbors to appeal to the tax assessor on their land value and
to petition lower tax assessment value due to lower property value due to these proposed
restrictions. I feel confident that the majority of people in Lake Grove/ Oswego feel that it is
the individual home owners right to do as they please with their private land as allowed by
current codes and regulations. It is important to realize the existing building codes were in
place when the partials were purchased and to penalize home and land owners who relied on
these existing codes is a travesty. If an owner was not satisfied with the existing codes they
should have not purchased in the first plac,-.
Those wbo want the code change can simply call their title companv and put a deed
restriction on their property's to comply with the pproposed new ordinance or any other
building restriction they want. At the very most she city council could arrange a ballot to
allow the affected citizens to vote as to whether or not to pass the new ordinance.
These proposed cede changes are clearly a case of too much Government interference with
existing private property rights
Concem_ed resident,
Si' _ Datek. - I (� 1711)
P Name _
Address:�5 TWI Q:F-'1 � ,> Lake Oswego, Oregon
Sign:
Print Nairne:
Address:
Date:
Lake Oswego, Oregon
EXHIBIT G-19
LU 10-0040
ATTN: Iris McCaleb and Lake Oswego City Council f VEL
Lake Oswego Planning Commission
380 A Avenue
PO Box 369 �Ify p f Lake
Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 �%mmunity Deye10 mP� D
nt
Subject- Lake Oswego Proposed Land Use Regulation No. 2558, File LU 10-0044
Dear Iris McCaleb and Those It Concerns
Please accept this letter as a submittal of written request for notice.
Property and home owners in the Lake Grove/Oswego area are deeply concerned about the
new proposed property restriction ordinance on development.
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH; I purchased our property based on the existing building codes. It is
unfair to change them. Lake Oswego has done well with existing codes not in spite of them.
The local minority are tryin& to implement change by taking awayprivate rights. The
majority are not pro active since there is absolutely no need for a change of codes. A change
in "permissible use of property" I feel will directly affect property value because it restricts
private party's rights to remodel or build if these new codes are allowed. If this proposal
passes I will recommend to all neighbors toappeal to the tax assessor on their land value and
to petition lower tax assessment value due to lower property value due to these proposed
restrictions. I feel confident that the majority of people in Lake Grove/ Oswego feel that it is
the individual home owners right to do as they please with their private land as allowed by
current codes and regulations_ It is important to realize the existin7 building codes were in
place when the partials were purchased and to penalize home andland owners who relied on
these existing codes is a travesty. If an owner was not satisfied with the existing codes they
should have not purchased in the first place.
Those who want the code change can simply call their title company and put a deed
restriction on their property's to comply with theproposed new ordinance or any other
building restriction they want. At the very most the city council could arrange a ballot to
allow the affected citizens to vote as to whether or not to pass the new ordinance.
These proposed code changes are clearly a case of too much Government interference with
existing private property rights
Concerned reside
Sign: /�. c'r�-z-cDate:
Print Name:p�
Address: / y �-��= �= �_ ���;? , Lake Oswego, Oregon
Sign:
Date: �— l'— IL)
Print Name:. = -f
Address: /'?1,2-q Jt ;5; =4� , Lake Oswego, Oregon
1
EXHIBIT G-20
LU 10-0040 _J
ATTN: Iris McCaleb and Lake Oswego City Council RECEIVED
Lake Oswego Planning Commission
380 A Avenue
PO Box 369 cIfj/ pl Lake
Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 '-ommuniry peVE10i �0
Dept
Subject: Lake Oswego Proposed Land Use Regulation No. 2558, File LU 10-0040
Dear his McCaleb and Those It Concerns
Please accept this letter as a submittal of written request for notice.
Property and home owners in the Lake Grove/Oswego area are deeply concerned about the
new proposed property restriction ordinance on development.
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH; I purchased our property based on the existing building codes. It is
unfair to change them. Lake Oswego has done well with existing codes not in spite of them.
The local minority are trying to implement change by taking away private rights. The
majority are not pro active since there is absolutely no need for a change of codes. A change
in permissible use of property" I feel will directly affect property value because it restricts
private party's rights to remodel or build if these new codes are allowed. If this proposal
passes I will recommend to all neighbors to appeal to the tax assessor on their land value and
to petition lower tax assessment value due to lower property value due to these proposed
restrictions. I feel confident that the majority of people in Lake Grove/ Oswego feel that it is
the individual home owners right to do as they please with their private land as allowed by
current codes and regulations. It is important to realize the existing building codes were in
place when the partials were purchased and to penalize home and land owners who relied on
these existing codes is a travesty. If an owner was not satisfied with the existing codes they
should have not purchased in the first place.
Those who want the code change can simply call their title company and put a deed
restriction on their property's to comply with the proposed new ordinance or any other
building restriction they want. At the very most the city council could arrange a ballot to
allow the affected citizens to vote as to whether or not to pass the new ordinance.
These proposed code changes are clearly a case of too much Government interference with
existing private property rights
Concerned resident,
Sign: �_ ' '� Date:
Print Name: b, rJ f) - {
J
Address: ��< % _j , i ~ ' } , Lake Oswego, Oregon
Sign:
Date:
Print Name:% 4� i
Address: ' �' `/�''� jpl — . , Lake Oswego, Oregon
EXHIBIT G-21
LU 10.0040
DEFECTS IN
ORIGINAL
DOCUMENT
Ll, E, L I C
�.1
17 Line
C, u " c
10
4-
z�
WALK%AIAY DR E
Ll, E, L I C
�.1
I
CT
43
IT"E
7D Line,
r.2352 0 '
7 C 0\1 C ,
4
Cc N c k L- T E
R 1 V E WAY
PAP K I N& AJ -
7F ol
TR F ET L t �-" L I
'A"A'-,'
C� t"l E-
o u
H 77 Ica
T
L OT
435 a
CT
43
IT"E
7D Line,
r.2352 0 '
7 C 0\1 C ,
4
Cc N c k L- T E
R 1 V E WAY
PAP K I N& AJ -
7F ol
TR F ET L t �-" L I
'A"A'-,'
al;
5564 LP H A R r, PF
--A
70 CF L - , L
T
C F PAT 10
C,US E-
L,-, ff,7
FND Line
WA K. 1 < p7 -
,7k E E.
F_
V9
m
zRl
vc�
` .
pp
y 7�
VVV
Eli
E
�? y
c6
0
=
f4
Q
N
Q
rC
U 9
O
>
N >
(6
f.
OO
_
N
eZ
C
Q
O
N
U
O_
9
o
to
Q
U
ami
2
L
Q
N
N
D
Q
v
U
i
O
m
p
m
C
O
a
a
V
N
0O
N
O
(6
�
ca
N
—
C
IL
>
w
Cu
m
a
o
o
w
a�
w
a
a
O
a
V9
m
zRl
vc�
` .
pp
y 7�
VVV
Eli
E
�? y
LAKE OSWEGO
Centennial 1910-2010
COUNCIL REPORT
TO: Jack Hoffman, Mayor
Members of the City Council
Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager
FROM: Jessica Numanoglu, Associate Planner
Planning & Building Services Department
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
380 A Avenue
PO Box 369
Lake Oswego, OR 97034
503-675-3984
www.ci.oswego.or.us
SUBJECT: Study Session on Proposed Economic Hardship Extension for 2007-2009 Land Use Approvals
(LU 10-0048)
DATE: November 22, 2010
ACTION
No action is requested for this study session.
INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND
The Planning Division has been approached by several applicants as well as the Oregon Home Builders
Association about the possibility of extending completion deadlines for land use applications filed during
the economic downturn (2007-2009). The purpose of the extension is to provide relief to property owners
and developers that received approval of their projects during the severe economic downturn and
tightening of the credit markets and have been unable to obtain financing or to otherwise commence or
finalize their projects in a timely manner.
Several jurisdictions in Oregon and in other states have adopted ordinances to extend the completion
deadlines for land use approvals affected by the economic crisis. Staff proposes a similar ordinance to
provide reasonable and temporary relief to help mitigate the impacts of the economic downturn.
A public hearing on the proposed economic hardship completion deadline extension was held before the
Planning Commission on November 8, 2010. This report summarizes the main issues outlined in the staff
report to the Commission, the findings and recommendation of the Commission, and the draft Ordinance
as background for the discussion at the Council Study Session. A public hearing on the proposed extension
is scheduled before the City Council on December 14, 2010.
Page 2
DISCUSSION
Planning Commission Staff Report
The October 29, 2010, staff report contains a discussion of the City's current development completion
deadlines and extension procedures for land use applications, a summary of the 52 land use cases
potentially eligible for the extension, research of other jurisdictions that have passed similar ordinances
allowing economic hardship extensions of completion deadlines, and a summary of issues and options for
the Commission's consideration. The main issues outlined and discussed in the staff report are as follows:
• What time period should the completion deadline extension be applied to and should applications
within that time period that have already expired be eligible for the extension?
• How long should the extension be?
• Should a blanket extension be enacted for all cases in the eligible time period or should the ordinance
permit extensions if they are reviewed on case-by-case basis?
• If reviewed on a case-by-case basis, should applicants be required to comply with any new codes and
standards adopted since their development permit was originally approved?
Planning Commission Findings, Conclusion, and Order
The Commission received public testimony and deliberated on the extension proposal at the November Stn
public hearing. With regard to the main issues outlined in the staff report, the Commission made the
following findings:
• The Commission found that the extension should be available to approved development permits where
the application for the development permit was filed between January 1, 2007, and December 31,
2009, whether or not the development permit has already expired.
• The Commission found that the extension should be for a 2 -year period.
• The Commission found that the extension should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis and that the
burden should be on the applicant to demonstrate that the project authorized by the approved
development permit is delayed as a result of adverse market conditions or inability to secure financing.
• The Commission found that the applicant should not be required to comply with new codes and
standards that have been adopted since the application for the development permit was originally filed.
The Commission concluded and recommended to the City Council that a one-time, 2 -year extension to
completion deadlines imposed or included as a condition of approval should be available to approved land
use applications that were filed between January 1, 2007, and December 31, 2009, if they meet the criteria
and procedures below:
The City Manager may, upon application, grant up to a two-year extension to the completion deadline
for an approved land use application that complies with all of the following criteria; however, in no case
shall the completion deadline be extended beyond December 31, 2012:
1. The applicant filed a written extension application with applicable fee no later than March 1,
2012;
Page 3
2. The applicant demonstrates that the work authorized by the land use approval is delayed as a
result of adverse market conditions or inability to secure financing;
3. The extension request is for an issued land use approval (whether expired or not) where the land
use application was filed between January 1, 2007, and December 31, 2009; and,
4. If the application for extension is for a land division or lot line adjustment approval, the applicant
had previously filed a timely request for the automatic 1 -year extension allowed per LOC
50.87.010(1).
Review of the application shall be in the manner prescribed for minor developments by LOC Articles
50.81 — 50.84. (An extension pursuant to this ordinance is not a modification of a permit and therefore
LOC 50.86.025 is not applicable to the application.)
Draft Ordinance 2563
A draft ordinance incorporating the Planning Commission's recommendation is provided for the Council's
review.
ALTERNATIVES AND FISCAL IMPACT
No alternatives are being recommended at this time as no decision is being made.
The extension recommended by the Commission would require staff time to process each application. As
provided for in the Master Fee Schedule, a new fee will be proposed and communicated to the Council in
writing to allow opportunity to comment if the Council approves an ordinance permitting the completion
deadlines for development permits to be extended on a case-by-case basis.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff supports the Planning Commission's recommendation. The purpose of the study session is to provide
background information to the Council and to engage in a preliminary discussion on the proposed
ordinance for extension of completion deadlines for development permits prior to the public hearing
scheduled for December 14, 2010.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Planning Commission Staff Report for LU 10-0048, dated October 29, 2010 (including exhibits G-1, G-
2, and G-3, submitted at the November Bch hearing)
2. Planning Commission Findings, Conclusion, and Order for LU 10-0048
3. Draft Ordinance 2563
Page 4
Reviewed by:
City Manager
STAFF REPORT
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
PLANNING &BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
APPLICANT:
City of Lake Oswego
PROPERTY OWNERS:
N/A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
N/A
City-wide
COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION:
N/A
NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION:
All
I. APPLICANT'S REQUEST
FILE NO:
LU 10-0048
STAFF:
Jessica Numanoglu, Associate Planner
DATE OF REPORT:
October 29, 2010
DATE OF HEARING:
November 8, 2010
ZONING DESIGNATION:
N/A
RE UEST
Extend development completion deadlines imposed as
a condition of approval for issued land use decisions
filed between January 1, 2007 and December 31, 2009,
due to the economic downturn.
The City of Lake Oswego seeks a one time, two year economic hardship extension to development
completion deadlines imposed as a condition of approval for issued land use decisions filed between
January 1, 2007 and December 31, 2009. The extension would provide temporary relief to property
owners and developers that received approval of their projects during the severe economic downturn
and tightening of the credit markets and who have been unable to obtain financing or to otherwise
commence or finalize their projects in a timely manner.
II. APPLICABLE CRITERIA
A. City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan:
Goal 1
Goal 2
Citizen Involvement, Policies 1 and 5
Land Use Planning, Section 1, Land Use Policies and Regulations, Policies 3
and 23
Planning Commission Public Hearing 1 LU 10-0048
November 8, 2010
B. City of Lake Oswego Community Development Code:
LOC 50.75.005 Legislative Decision Defined.
LOC 50.75.010 Criteria for Legislative Decision
LOC 50.75.015 Required Notice to DLCD
LOC 50.75.020 Planning Commission Recommendation Required
LOC 50.75.025 City Council Review and Decision
LOC 50.75.030 Effective Date of Legislative Decision
C. Statewide Planning Goal or Administrative Rule adopted pursuant to ORS Chapter 197
Goal 1 Citizen Involvement
Goal 2 Land Use Planning
Ill. SUMMARY
Land use approvals for design review and variance applications typically contain a condition of approval
that provides that the approval will expire three years after the decision date; land use approvals for
land divisions and lot line adjustments expire one year after the decision date, as provided by LOC
50.87.010. The Planning Division has been approached by several applicants as well as the Homebuilders
Association about the possibility of extending completion deadlines for land use applications filed during
the economic downtown (approximately 2007-2009). Many applicants that received land use approvals
during that time period have suffered serious economic hardship due to the crash in the housing market
and/or are unable to obtain financing to commence or finalize their projects before the expiration date
of their approval. Since a considerable amount of resources, including time and money is invested in a
project before ground is even broken (depending on the project, this could include preparation of
architectural drawings, technical reports such as drainage and soils reports, site design, planning
consultant, etc.), applicants could suffer significant losses if their projects expire.
Several jurisdictions in Oregon and in other states have adopted ordinances to extend the deadlines for
completion of land use approvals affected by the economic crisis. Staff proposes a similar ordinance to
provide reasonable and temporary relief to help mitigate the impacts of the economic downturn.
Following is a discussion of the City's current development completion deadlines and extension
procedures for land use applications, a summary of affected land use cases, research of other
jurisdictions that have passed similar ordinances allowing economic hardship extensions, and a
summary of issues and options for the Commission's consideration.
a. Expiration and Extension of Land Use Applications
Land use approvals typically expire three years after the decision date for design review, variance,
and RID applications [conditions of approval, per LOC 50.79.040(2)(a)] and one year after the
decision date for land divisions and lot line adjustments [LOC 50.87.010]. If the project is not
constructed or the plat is not submitted within these time frames, the applicant must apply for an
extension or the approval is void. Table 1, below, summarizes the completion deadlines and
extensions currently allowed by Code.
Planning Commission Public Hearing 2 LU 10-0048
November 8, 2010
Table 1: Summary of Expiration and Extensions by Application Type
Application Type
Typical
Expiration Time
Period
Extension Allowed?
Cost for First
Extension
Additional
Extensions
Allowed?
Cost for
Additional
Extensions
Yes;
$0
reviewed by
(ministerial)
the
$4,447
approving
(major
One year from
Yes; automatic 1 -yr
authority for
modification)
Land
date of final
extension if
conformance
$1,492
Divisions/Lot
approval
requested in writing
with current
(minor
Line Adjustments
(LOC 50.87.010)
(LOC 50.87.010)
None
standards
modification)
Three years
$4,447
from date of
(major
final approval
$4,447 (major
Yes; by filing
modification)
(Condition of
Yes; by filing a
modification)
another
$1,492
Design Review
approval, per
modification
$1,492 (minor
modification
(minor
/RID/Variance
50.79.040(2)(a)).
application
modification)
application
modification)
Extensions for design review and variance approvals are only available by requesting a
Modification to an Approved Development Permit. The criteria in LOC 50.86.025, below,
determine whether the request is a "minor" or "major" modification:
The City Manager may approve minor changes in any development permit, provided that such
change:
1. Does not increase the intensity of any, use, or the density of residential use; and,
2. Meets all requirements of the development standards and other legal requirements, and,
3. Does not significantly affect other property or uses, will not cause any deterioration or loss of
any natural feature, process or open space, nor significantly affect any public facility, and
4. Does not affect any condition specifically placed on the development by action of a hearing
body or City Council.
Any proposed change that does not meet one or more of the criteria, above, is considered a major
modification and is reviewed as a new application. Because the timeframe in which the land use
approval expires is almost always included as a condition of approval for land use applications, any
extension request for an application that was approved by a hearing body would automatically be
processed as a major modification because criterion 4, above, would not be met.
For land divisions and lot line adjustments, a one-year extension may be granted automatically to
the applicant if requested in writing within one year of the application approval date. Any
additional extension requests beyond the first year are reviewed by the original approving
authority [LOC 50.87.010(1)]. If new codes or standards were adopted after the application was
approved and they affect the project's compliance with the current standards, the additional
extension request must be processed as a Modification to an Approved Development Permit (see
discussion, above).
Both minor and major modifications are processed as a minor development, which is the same or
similar process, timeline, and in some cases, cost, as the original application. Flowcharts
illustrating the process timeline for modification applications reviewed administratively and by a
hearing body are included in Exhibit F-3. Generally, modifications take about 3-4 months to
Planning Commission Public Hearing 3 LU 10-0048
November 8, 2010
process if no appeal is filed. (Currently the application fee for a major modification is $4,447 and is
$1,492 for a minor modification.)
The time, money, and effort required to request an extension through the modification process is
a barrier to many applicants that have already experienced economic hardship as a result of the
recession.
Completion deadlines for land use applications are imposed to ensure that development is
completed or constructed within a reasonable time period after it is approved. It gives both the
applicant and the public a clear expectation of the time -frame for completion. A typical land use
development proposal may take 6-12 months to complete from the initial planning phase to
application approval and applicants are given up to three years after receiving approval to
complete or construct their projects. As a result, the actual development may not be constructed
for 3-4 years from the initial inception. Additionally, if new codes or standards are adopted in the
time period after the land use application is submitted to the City and the completion deadline,
the new code standards are not applicable to the project.
Historically, the completion deadlines for land use approvals have given applicants sufficient time
to complete their projects and it has been relatively unusual for an applicant to apply for a
modification in order to get an extension. However, the recession has brought development to a
near stand still and many projects approved since the economic downturn occurred have expired
or will expire before the economy recovers. The proposed extension would increase the
completion deadline for eligible applications by two additional years. The Commission must
consider whether the barriers for applicants impacted by the economic downturn outweigh the
public's interest in the timely completion of approved development and whether the eligible
applications should comply with new codes and standards that have been adopted since their
original submittal date. These issues are discussed in more detail under subsection d, below.
b. Affected Land Use Approvals (2007-2009)
Table 2, below, summarizes the status of land use cases filed between 2007-2009. A total of 21
cases approved during those years have already expired and a total of 31 cases are still active.
Table 2: Summary of Land Use Case Data 2007-2009
Year
Total number of approved LU
cases with expiration dates
Total number
of LU cases
completed
Number of LU
cases that have
Expired (as of 10-
5-10)
Number of LU cases
Set to Expire
2007
85
61(71%)
12
12
2008
52
37(71%)
7
8
2009
37
24(65%)
2
11
Total of all yrs.
174
122(70%)
21(12%)
31(18%)
Planning Commission Public Hearing 4 LU 10-0048
November 8, 2010
A full list of all the 2007-2009 cases that have expired or are set to expire is included in Exhibit F-1.
A total of 17 cases will expire over the next year. They consist of 11 out of the 12 unexpired cases
from 2007 and five of the eight unexpired cases from 2008. For 2009, 10 of the 11 unexpired cases
will expire mid -2012 or later.
Because this proposal is being brought to the Commission late in the year (most of the other
jurisdiction that were studied passed their ordinances late in 2009 or mid -2010), 21 applications
approved between 2007-2009 have already expired. The Commission should consider whether
any economic hardship extension should be provided to these expired applications as well.
C. Research of Other Jurisdictions
Staff researched ordinances from seven jurisdictions in Oregon and Washington that have granted
extensions for land use cases approved during the economic downturn. A variety of approaches
were taken by each jurisdiction, which is summarized in Exhibit F-2.
Some jurisdictions, including the City of Portland and Washington County, granted blanket
extensions for all land use cases that were approved or are set to expire within a specified time
period. Other jurisdictions require applicants to apply for the special extension on a case-by-case
basis and to meet certain criteria. The advantage of the former approach is that it requires no
effort by applicants and avoids the potential for an influx of extension requests that could strain
staff's ability to process the applications in a timely manner. The latter approach limits the
applications eligible for the extension to applicants that apply for the extension and meet specific
criteria.
Among the jurisdictions that were reviewed, the land use cases eligible for the economic hardship
extension ranged from any approvals that had not yet expired as of the effective date of the
ordinance allowing the extension (this could include projects approved pre -2007) through to the
end of 2009. Most commonly, jurisdictions allowed extensions for applications approved between
2007-2009.
d. Issues for Consideration
1. What time period should the extension be applied to and should applications within that
time period that have already expired be eligible for the extension?
Jurisdictions that were reviewed by staff most commonly allowed extensions for applications
approved between 2007-2009 and specified that the extension only applied to those
applications that had not already expired as of the effective date of the ordinance. Since most
of the land use applications approved by the City in 2006 would have expired by the end of
2009, and the economic recession was officially declared to have begun in December 2007
and entered into a slow recovery in June 20091, staff recommends the time period between
January 1, 2007 and December 31, 2009, as the filing dates eligible for the proposed
extension.
Most of the jurisdictions reviewed by staff passed their extension ordinances in late 2009 or
by mid -2010. Since this proposal is being presented to the Commission late in 2010, a total of
Business Cycle Dating Committee, National Bureau of Economic Research, http://www.nber.org/cycles/sept2010.htmi
(September 20, 2010).
Planning Commission Public Hearing S LU 10-0048
November 8, 2010
21 land use applications in the proposed eligibility period have already expired. Because the
purpose of the extension is to provide temporary relief to applicants hit the hardest by the
economic recession, staff recommends those applications that have already expired to be
included as well, with the exception of certain expired land division and lot line adjustment
applications.
Land division and lot line adjustment applications have one "automatic" extension that allows
the applicant an additional year simply by requesting the extension in writing [LOC
50.87.010(1)]. If an applicant never made this extension request and allowed the application
to expire, it implies that they never intended to follow through with the application since this
extension requires very little effort at no cost to the applicant. Only those land division and lot
line adjustment applications that received the first extension should be eligible for the
proposed extension.
Staff Recommendation: The proposed extension should apply to land use applications filed
between January 1, 2007 and December 31, 2009. Applications approved during this time
period that have already expired should be eligible for the extension, except for land division
and lot line adjustment applications that did not receive the one-year extension allowed
pursuant to LOC 50.87.010(1).
2. How long should the extension be?
Most jurisdictions that were reviewed granted either a one or two year extension to the
original completion deadline or to the modified deadline if an extension was previously
granted.
Given that the economy has been very slow to rebound from the recession, staff is
recommending a two year extension. Staff finds that the burden faced by applicants that
received approval during the economic downturn outweighs the public's expectation that
projects be completed within the approved completion deadlines. Adding two years to the
eligible completion deadlines would not have a significant impact since there is already a
spread of 3-4 years between the inception and completion of a project and modifying that
time -frame to 5-6 years for a limited number of applications is not a significant change.
Staff Recommendation: The length of the proposed extension should be two years from the
original completion deadline or to the modified deadline if an extension was previously
granted.
3. Blanket extension or case by case review?
Most of the jurisdictions that were reviewed required applicants to submit an application or
request for the additional extension and to meet certain criteria. The main issue in these
jurisdictions was whether any code amendments had been adopted since the application was
originally approved and whether the approval complied with or could comply with the new
code regulations.
Both the City of Portland and Washington County approved blanket extensions that did not
require any additional process, application, or fee.
The main issue for Lake Oswego is that the "infill" standards that were adopted in July 2010
(Ordinance 2524) modified or added new regulations to the Community Development Code
Planning Commission Public Hearing 6 LU 10-0048
November 8, 2010
(Chapter 50), including flag lot requirements, residential zone site development and design
standards, and the classification of variances. These amendments potentially affect a number
of the applications that would be eligible for the extension.
If a blanket extension were granted, eligible applicants would be permitted to construct the
development per the original approval regardless of whether it complied with the new
standards. This is the simplest approach for both the applicant and the City since no additional
processing or review would be necessary.
If extensions were granted on a case-by-case basis, applicants would be required to either file
a written request or an application for the extension, which would be reviewed for
compliance with certain criteria. This approach would require more effort for the applicant
and the City to process, but it would allow a higher level of discretion in granting extensions.
Below is a compilation of various criteria the studied jurisdictions applied to extension
requests:
The original approving authority may, upon written request (or application) by the
applicant, grant a single two year extension to the completion deadlines for approved
land use applications that comply with all of the following criteria:
1. The applicant files a written extension request with applicable fee no later than
March 1, 2012,
2. The extension request includes a sworn declaration that the work authorized by the
land use approval will be delayed as a result of adverse market conditions or inability
to secure financing,
3. The code requirements applicable to the development have not changed since the
original approval. If requirements have changed, an extension may be granted,
provided:
a. The applicant agrees to comply with any new requirements, as a condition
of the extension; and,
b. Any changes made in order to comply with the new requirements do not
result in a greater adverse impact to surrounding properties than the
original approval, as determined by the applicable criteria of the original
approval.
4. The extension request is for an issued land use approval approved between January
1, 2007 and December 31, 2009.
Staff recommends granting a blanket extension because the code amendments passed earlier
in 2010 may significantly complicate the review process and severely restrict which
applications qualify for the extension. The purpose of granting the extension is to provide
temporary and reasonable relief to applicants who received approval or were in the process of
receiving approval when the severe economic downturn occurred. Because the Infill
Ordinance enacted a number of changes that affect site development, dwelling design, and
orientation and access for flag lots, it is likely that a number of applicants will not be able to
comply with the new standards without impacting the approved design and/or conditions of
approval. For example, in the case of RID and variance applications, the new standards may
cause expensive design changes or loss of functionality to approved development that was
already found to be otherwise compatible and/or not materially injurious to the surrounding
neighborhood. In weighing the impact of re -designing projects to meet the new standards,
Planning Commission Public Hearing 7 LU 10-0048
November 8, 2010
staff finds that the overall neighborhood impact would not be significant, compared to the
financial effect upon the applicant to make changes to the design or lotting pattern.
If the Commission prefers the case-by-case approach, staff recommends that the application is
processed as a minor development subject to public notice and appeal and subject to the
same or similar criteria, listed above.
Staff Recommendation: A blanket two year extension for land use applications approved
between January 1, 2007 and December 31, 2009.
Because there are a number of issues for the Commission to consider regarding the proposed economic
hardship extension, staff has outlined various decision options, below. Staff will draft an ordinance
based on the Commission's deliberation and preliminary decision.
Option 1: Allow a blanket, onetime, two year economic hardship extension to issued land use
decisions filed between January 1, 2007 and December 31, 2009. No additional process,
application, or fee is required for this extension.
Option 2: Allow a one time, two year economic hardship extension to issued land use decisions filed
between January 1, 2007 and December 31, 2009, subject to the follow procedures and
criteria:
The original approving authority may, upon written application by the applicant, grant a
single two year extension to the completion deadlines, including any extensions
previously granted, for approved land use applications that comply with all of the
criteria, listed below. The application shall be processed as a Minor Development.
1. The applicant files a written extension request with applicable fee no later than
March 1, 2012;
2. The extension request includes a sworn declaration that the work authorized by the
land use approval will be delayed as a result of adverse market conditions or inability
to secure financing,
3. The code requirements applicable to the development have not changed since the
original approval. If requirements have changed, an extension may be granted,
provided:
a. The applicant agrees to comply with any new requirements, as a condition
of the extension; and,
b. Any changes made in order to comply with the new requirements do not
result in a greater adverse impact to surrounding properties than the
original approval, as determined by the applicable criteria of the original
approval.
4. The extension request is for an issued land use decision filed between January 1,
2007 and December 31, 2009.
Option 3: Decline to adopt the proposed economic hardship extension for issued land use decisions
filed between January 1, 2007 and December 31, 2009. For applications that have not
expired yet, the applicants may use the current extension process as provided for by the
Community Development Code.
Option 4: Other options, as determined by the Commission.
Planning Commission Public Hearing 8 LU 10-0048
November 8, 2010
IV. APPLICABLE APPROVAL CRITERIA
LAKE OSWEGO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Goal 1, Citizen Involvement
1. Provide opportunities for citizen participation in preparing and revising local land use plans and
ordinances.
5. Seek citizen input through service organizations, interest groups, and individuals, as well as through
neighborhood associations.
Findings: Pursuant to the requirements of a legislative process, announcements for the proposed
economic hardship extension have been provided to all neighborhood associations and affected
agencies. Additionally, notices were mailed to all applicants that filed land use applications between
2007-2009. Public hearings will be held before the Planning Commission and City Council. Citizens,
interest groups, and neighborhood associations will have an opportunity to participate in the review of
the proposed extension during the City's public hearing processes. Notice has been provided consistent
with City requirements. Adequate opportunities have been made available for citizen involvement with
regard to this application.
Conclusion: The application complies with Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan Goal 1.
Goal 2, Land Use Planning
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: Policy 23 was addressed under Goal 1, Citizen Involvement Policies 1 and 5, above.
Conclusion: Proposed changes conform to Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan Goal 2.
LAKE OSWEGO DEVELOPMENT CODE PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS
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
The City has conformed to all procedural requirements, evidence of which is contained in the record.
OREGON STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS
Statewide Planning Goal 1, Citizen Involvement
Statewide Planning Goal 1 requires jurisdictions to develop a citizen involvement program that allows
residents to be involved in all phases of the planning process. The City's acknowledged Comprehensive
Plan and Community Development Code contain the necessary requirements for a citizen involvement
program. The Code defines public notification requirements, and all of the required notification
measures were met for this application. This application is in compliance with Statewide Planning Goal
1.
Planning Commission Public Hearing 9 LU 10-0048
November 8, 2010
Statewide Planning Goal 2, Land Use Planning
This Goal requires jurisdictions to develop a land use planning process and policy framework as a basis
for all decisions and actions related to the use of the land and to assure an adequate factual basis for
such decisions and actions. This application provides the required information and responses to the
applicable approval standards for the proposal and therefore is consistent with Statewide Planning Goal
2.
V. CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION
Staff finds that LU 10-0048, a one-time, two year extension of development completion deadlines for
issued land use decisions filed between January 1, 2007 and December 31, 2009, conforms to all
applicable decision-making criteria.
Staff recommends the Commission adopt Option 1 to allow a blanket, one time, two year economic
hardship extension to issued land use decisions filed between January 1, 2007 and December 31, 2009.
No additional process, application, or fee would be required for this extension.
EXHIBITS
A. Draft Ordinances [No current exhibits; reserved for future use]
B. Findings and Conclusions [No current exhibits; reserved for future use]
C. Minutes [No current exhibits; reserved for future use]
D. Staff Memoranda/Reports [No current exhibits; reserved for future use]
E. Graphics [No current exhibits; reserved for future use]
F. Written Materials
F-1 Table of 2007-2009 Cases Expired or Set to Expire by Year
F-2 Table of Economic Hardship Extensions Approved by other Jurisdictions
F-3 Flow Charts of the Modification to and Approved Development Permit Process
G. Letters
None
Planning Commission Public Hearing 10 LU 10-0048
November 8, 2010
List of 2007-2009 LU Cases Expired or Set to Expire by Year
2007
Application Type
Expiration Date
LU 07-0041
Partition and DR
Expires 4-7-11
LU 07-0058
LLA
Extended to 9-6-11
LU 07-0090
Subdivision/delineation
Extended to 2-2-11
LU 07-0068
PD
Extended to 10-15-10
LU 07-0074
RID
Expires 12-7-10
LU 07-0064
RID
Expires 2-29-11
LU 07-0031
DR
Expires 4-21-12
LU 07-0011
Partition and Variance
Extended to 4-30-11
LU 07-0087
Partition
Extended to 4-17-11
LU 07-0044
DR
Expires 11-5-10
LU 07-0077
DR
Expires 3-17-11
LU 07-0084
PD
Extended to 11-3-10
LU 07-0023
Class 1 Variance
Expired 10-2-10
LU 07-0024
Class 1 Variance
Expired 10-2-10
LU 07-0036
Class 1 Variance
Expired 9-27-10
LU 07-0050
Partition & Delineation
Expired 2-11-10
LU 07-0063
Partition
Ex ired 9-13-08
LU 07-0095
Partition
Expired 2-25-09
LU 07-0002
Class 1 Variance
Expired 3-22-10
LU 07-0018
Class 1 Variance
Expired 6-8-10
LU 07-0032
LLA
Ex ired 8-15-08
LU 07-0001
DR
Expired 6-18-10
LU 07-0037
PD
Expired 10-5-08
LU 07-0045
1 DR
Expired 8-7-10
PD =Planned Development
DR = Design Review
LLA= Lot Line Adjustment
RID= Residential Infill Design Review
EXHIBIT F-1
Page 1 of 3 LU 10-0048
u
2008
Application Type
Expiration Date
LU 08-0011
Partition
Extended to 12-30-10
LU 08-0014
DR
Expires 7-21-11
LU 08-0050
Class 1 Variance
Expires 1-29-12
LU 08-0057
PD & Delineation
Expires 1-4-11
LU 08-0066
Partition
Extended to 6-10-11
LU 08-0072
DR
Expires 5-8-12
LU 08-0074
Partition
Extended to 3-4-11
LU 08-0076
Class 1 Variance
Expires 3-3-12
LU 08-0021
Partition
Extended to 10-3-10
LU 08-0022
Partition
Expired 9-16-10
LU 08-0003
Partition
Expired 4-25-10
LU 08-0004
PD & Delineation
Expired 6-2-09
LU 08-0027
LLA
Expired 8-19-10
LU 08-0032
Partition
Expired 1-11-10
LU 08-0048
Partition
Ex ired 10-29-09
2009
Application Type*
Expiration Date
LU 09-0006
Variance/RP reductions
Expires 1-15-13
LU 09-0005
Class 1 Variance
Expires 1-8-13
LU 09-0011
Class 2 Variance
Expires 7-7-12
LU 09-0002
Class 2 Variance
Expires 5-18-12
LU 09-0016
DR
Expires 5-21-12
LU 09-0042
Class 1 Variance
Expires 2-5-13
LU 09-0041
LLA
Expires 12-28-10
LU 09-0013
Class 1 Variance
Expires 5-26-12
LU 09-0035
DR
Expires 4-5-14
LU 09-0021
LLA/Delineation
LLA Plan submitted
LU 09-0039
DR
Still p nding approval
LU 09-0024
LLA
Expired 9-8-10
LU 09-0030
Resource Enhancement
Expired 9-30-10
PD = Planned Development
DR = Design Review
LLA= Lot Line Adjustment
RID= Residential Infill Design Review
Page 2 of 3
Summary Data for 2007-2009 LU Cases Expired or Set to Expire
Year
Number of
Number of cases that have
Number of
Number of
cases set to
already expired
DR/VAR
Land
expire
cases set to
division/LLA
expire
cases set to
expire
2007
12
12 (7 DR/VAR)
6
6
2008
8
7 (ail land divisions/LLA)
3
5
2009
11
2 LLA, Resource Enhance
9
2
Total of all
years
31
21
18
13
Page 3 of 3
Table 3: Economic Hardship Extensions Approved by other Jurisdictions
EXHIBIT F-2
LU 10-0048
Type of extension
Years of cases
Length of extension and
(blanket or case by
Jurisdiction
affected
terms
case)
Fee
Case by case;
City of Bellingham,
Approvals set to
applicant must
WA
expire between
submit a written
1/1/10 and
request and meet
12/31/11
one-time, 2 -yr extension
certain criteria
$107
Case by case;
City of Sherwood,
Deadline to begin
applicant must
OR
Approvals between
construction or record
submit an application
1/1/07 through
the final plat extended to
and meet certain
12/31/09
12-31-13
criteria
$150.00
Land use approvals
None per
that have not
ordinance
City of Kirkland,
already expired as
Applicant must
(normally
WA
of the effective
1 -year extension for DR-
submit an extension
$414.00 for
date of the
type cases and a 2 -year
application and meet
DR
ordinance
extension to record plat
certain criteria
extensions)
Case by case;
applicant must
City of West Linn,
submit an application
50% of
OR
Approvals between
and is subject to
deposit fee
7/1/06 and
public notice and
for the
12/31/09
one-time, 2 -yr extension
appeal
original app
Case by case;
Whatcom County,
Land use approvals
applicant must
WA
that expire
submit a written
between 1/1/09
request and meet
and 3/1/12
one-time, 2 -yr extension
certain criteria
$100
Approvals set to
expire between
Washington
the effective date
County, OR
of ord. and one
Blanket extension of
year from that
all approvals in the
date
one year extension
specified time period
None
City of Portland,
A City permit must be
Approvals effective
issued or the approved
Blanket extension of
OR
between 5/27/06
activity must have been
all approvals in the
and 12/31/08
commenced by 6/30/12
specified time period
None
Case by case;
18 month extension; an
applicant must
City of Ashland, OR
Unexpired land use
additional 1 -yr extension
submit an extension
permits approved
may be granted by a
and meet certain
prior to 7/1/09
separate request
criteria
$304
EXHIBIT F-2
LU 10-0048
MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
PROCESS (ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW)
Pre -Application Conference
2 weeks
Application Preparation and Submittal
Varies
Completeness Review
30 days
Public Comment Period
2 weeks
Staff Report/Initial Decision
2-4 weeks
DRC Findings
2 weeks
Appeal Period
15 days
City Council Hearing (if appealed)
4 weeks
City Council Findings
2 weeks
Appeal Period (to LUBA)
3 weeks
If not complete, prepare revisions
Up to 180 days
If no appeal is filed, the
decision becomes final
If no appeal is filed, the
decision becomes final
EXHIBIT F-3
LU 10-0048
Pagel of 2 Z g
Appeal Period
15 days
DRC Hearing (if appealed)
Qo ¢
4 weeks
DRC Findings
2 weeks
Appeal Period
15 days
City Council Hearing (if appealed)
4 weeks
City Council Findings
2 weeks
Appeal Period (to LUBA)
3 weeks
If not complete, prepare revisions
Up to 180 days
If no appeal is filed, the
decision becomes final
If no appeal is filed, the
decision becomes final
EXHIBIT F-3
LU 10-0048
Pagel of 2 Z g
MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
PROCESS (PUBLIC HEARING)
Pre -Application Conference
2 weeks
Neighborhood Meeting (if required)
3 weeks
Application Preparation and Submittal
Varies
Completeness Review
30 days
Notice of Public Hearing
20 days
DRC Hearing
DRC Findings
¢� 2 weeks
o
N Appeal Period
15 days
City Council Hearing (if appealed)
4 weeks
City Council Findings
2 weeks
Appeal Period (to LUBA)
3 weeks
Page 2 of 2
If not complete, prepare revisions
Up to 180 days
If no appeal is filed, the
decision becomes final
If no appeal is filed, the
decision becomes final
PRUM992
Fin
Home Builders Association
of Metropolitan Portland RECEIVED
140V 0 8 2010
November 8, 2010 City of Lake Oswego
Community Development Dept.
Planning Commission
City of Lake Oswego
380"A" Avenue
Lake Oswego, OR 97034
RE: File No. LU 10-0048
Development application extensions
Dear Commissioners:
On behalf of the 1000+ members of the Home Builders Association of Metro Portland, I
wish to whole heartedly support option 1 of the staff recommendation with regard to this
agenda item.
Staff has done an excellent job of characterizing the background for this situation, and the
option 1 alternative will provide the most effective and equitable resolution to the
situation, with the least possibility for unintended consequences for applicants who might
not otherwise make a timely application for an extension.
We urge you to direct staff to proceed with the preparation of an appropriate ordinance to
effect this policy.
Sincere);
Ernie Plat 1
rn
Director of Local Government Affairs
EXHIBIT G-1
LU 10-0048
15555 SW Bangy Road ♦ Suite 301 ♦ Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035
Phone: 503.684.1880 ♦ Fax: 503.684.0588 ♦ www.homebuildersportiand.org
Striving for Affordability, Balance and Choice
Corrected
Erin O' Rourke-Meadors
5261 Coventry Court
Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035
8 November 2010
John Gustafson, Chair, and Commissioners
Planning Commission
City of Lake Oswego
380 "A" Avenue
Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034
Regarding: LU 10-0048
Dear Gentlepersons:
Received by
City of Lake Oswego
11/08/10
As a former Chair of the Lake Oswego Budget Committee, and resident of our fair city
for more than twenty years, I express significant reservation regarding the Staff proposal
before you this evening. I regret any awareness of this proposed action until this past
weekend which has not allowed me the degree of review and appropriate research and
analysis which I normally seek before offering comment. As my current schedule does
not allow me to be in attendance at tonight's meeting, I offer the following written
testimony.
Following review of the Staff Report, including Exhibits F-1 through F-3, I am baffled as
to the concluding Staff recommendation. As one example, only two of the eight
jurisdictional examples, grant a "blanket exception"; and, yet such is proposed by Staff.
I respectfully suggest:
1. A more detailed report allowing appropriate review and analysis of the
specific projects/land use decisions effected through any extension;
2. Extensive review of the "Economic Hardship Extensions" given by
Oregon jurisdictions -including "conditions" such as public notice, the
opportunity for appeal, and other criteria;
3. And, careful determination as to what best fulfills the intent of our
Comprehensive Plan in regard to years affected, length of
extension/terms, and, type of extension, as well as, appropriate fee; and,
4. Possible continuance of this matter to allow greater public participation.
One trusts that your careful and balanced review and consideration will bring forth a
proposal more reflective and appropriate for our community than that which Staff has
proposed.
Sincerely,
Erin O'Rourke-Meadors
EXHIBIT G-2
LU 10-0048
DEFECTS IN
ORIGINAL
DOCUMENT
c
0
0
°c
1
cczW
CD3
�W�
Om
00
3W
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
ov
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 4ppr,
ONE TIME EXTENSION OF COMPLETION ) LU10-0048-1748
DEADLINES FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS) CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
FILED BETWEEN 2007 AND 2009. ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & ORDER
NATURE OF APPLICATION
The City of Lake Oswego seeks a one time, two year economic hardship extension to
development completion deadlines imposed as a condition of approval for issued land use
decisions filed between January 1, 2007 and December 31, 2009. The extension would provide
temporary relief to property owners and developers that received approval of their projects
during the severe economic downturn and tightening of the credit markets and who have been
unable to obtain financing or to otherwise commence or finalize their projects in a timely manner.
HEARINGS
The Planning Commission held a public hearing and considered this application at its meeting of
November 8, 2010.
The following exhibits were submitted at the hearing:
Exhibit G-1 Letter from Ernie Platt of the Home Builders Association, dated November 8, 2010
Exhibit G-2 Letter from Erin O'Rourke-Meadors, dated November 8, 2010
Exhibit G-3 Photographs of unfinished project on 5th Street, submitted by Diana Boom on
November 8, 2010
CRITERIA AND STANDARDS
A. City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan:
Goal 1 Citizen Involvement, Policies 1 and 5
Goal 2 Land Use Planning, Section 1, Land Use Policies and Regulations,
Policies 3 and 23
B. City of Lake Oswego Community Development Code:
LOC 50.75.005
Legislative Decision Defined.
LOC 50,75. 010
Criteria for Legislative Decision
LOC 50.75.015
Required Notice to DLCD
LOC 50.75.020
Planning Commission Recommendation Required
LOC 50.75.025
City Council Review and Decision
LOC 50.75.030
Effective Date of Legislative Decision
C. Statewide Planning Goal or Administrative Rule adopted pursuant to ORS Chapter 197
Goal 1 Citizen Involvement
Goal 2 Land Use Planning
CONCLUSION
The Planning Commission concludes that LU 10-0048 is in compliance with all applicable
criteria.
LU 10-0048-1748
Page 1 of 5
I FINDINGS AND REASONS
2
3 The Planning Commission incorporates the staff report, dated October 29, 2010, (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
6 matter herein and the staff report, the matter herein controls. To the extent they are consistent
7 with the approval granted herein, the Commission adopts by reference its oral deliberations on
8 this matter.
10 Following are the supplementary findings and conclusions of this Commission
12 1. The Commission received testimony from residents that not all applicants within the
13 eligible time period may actually need an extension; therefore, they preferred that if the
14 Commission recommended the proposed extension, that the recommendation be that the
15 extension is reviewed on a case-by-case basis rather than a blanket extension being
16 enacted.
17
18 The Commission finds that the extension should only apply to those applicants that have
19 had to delay their project due to a legitimate economic hardship and that a blanket
20 extension would be too broad. The burden should be on the applicant to demonstrate
21 that their approved project has been delayed due to the downturn in the economy and
22 tightening of the credit markets.
23
24 The Commission concludes that extensions should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis
25 and that the applicant must demonstrate that the work authorized by the land use
26 approval is delayed as a result of adverse market conditions or inability to secure
27 financing.
28
29 2. The Commission received testimony from a resident that some neighborhoods have
30 unfinished projects that have become eyesores and they are concerned that granting an
31 extension will further delay the completion of those projects. Additionally, there was
32 concern that some projects that would be eligible for the proposed extension may have
33 been controversial in the neighborhood when they were approved.
34
35 Delay of Unfinished Protects
36 The Trillium Woods Planned Development project in the Waluga Neighborhood was
37 discussed as an example of an unfinished project. The public improvements and some
38 landscaping for this project were installed within the last few years, but to date, none of
39 the lots have been built on and the landscaping has been neglected. The subdivision
40 plat was recorded prior to the project completion deadline, so although the project is
41 perceived to be unfinished, it is in compliance with the required completion deadline and
42 is still valid. Because the completion deadline for this project has been met, the
43 proposed extension would not apply. The Commission finds that in many cases, if a
44 project has started construction, they have already complied with the completion deadline
45 for platting and for construction of the public improvements and would not need an
46 extension.
47
48 The Commission concludes that the proposed extension will not impact the ultimate build
49 out of projects that have only been partially constructed, but have otherwise complied
50 with the completion deadline imposed as a condition of approval.
51
52 Controversial Applications
53 The Commission finds that regardless of whether a project was controversial in a
54 particular neighborhood, it was only approved if it was found to comply with all applicable
LU 10-0048-1748
Page 2 of 5
I criteria. Once the project is approved and the time for appeal has expired, the approval
2 is final. The Commission concludes that approved applications in the eligible time period,
3 whether controversial or not, should be eligible for the proposed extension because they
4 were reviewed and found to comply with the applicable criteria.
5
6 3. The Commission received testimony from another resident asking for
8 • More review and analysis of what specific land use applications would be eligible for
9 the proposed extension;
10 • A more extensive review of similar extensions approved by other jurisdictions in
11 Oregon, including the type of public notice required, whether there was opportunity to
12 appeal, and what criteria were used;
13 • A careful determination as to what type and length of extension, fee, and terms best
14 meet the intent of the Comprehensive Plan; and,
15 • Possible continuance of the request to allow greater public participation.
16
17 More research of applications eligible for the extension
18 Exhibit F-1 lists the file number and type of land use request for all of the 52 approved
19 applications that would be eligible for the proposed extension. This concern is addressed
20 by the requirement for case-by-case applications for a completion extension.
21
22 The purpose of the proposed extension is to provide temporary relief to applicants that
23 are unable to complete an approved project before the completion deadline due to
24 adverse market conditions or inability to secure financing as a result of the economic
25 recession. The purpose is not to reopen and judge anew each eligible application. Each
26 of the eligible applications underwent an extensive review and public process, was found
27 to comply with the applicable criteria, and the time to challenge the decision has passed.
28
29 Because the Commission recommends that the proposed extension should be available
30 only to those applicants that submit an application for the extension and demonstrate the
31 cause for delay was due to the downturn in the economy and tightening of the credit
32 markets, the extensions would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. As a result, only a
33 portion of the 52 eligible applications will actually receive the extension.
34
35 More research of extensions approved by other Oregon jurisdictions
36 The Commission recommends that the proposed extension should be reviewed on a
37 case-by-case basis subject to the Minor Development procedures in LOC 50.81.005-
38 50.81.020, which requires a 14 -day public notice period and a 15 -day appeal period.
39 More detailed information about the procedures that the other studied jurisdictions
40 adopted for their extensions were available for public review in the file.
41
42 A compilation of the various criteria that the studied jurisdictions applied to extension
43 requests is listed on page 7 of the October 29, 2010, staff report.
44
45 Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan
46 The Commission finds that the staff report adequately addresses the Comprehensive
47 Plan policies that are applicable to the proposal. The Commission concludes that the
48 applicable Comprehensive policies are met.
49
50 Continuance to allow greater public participation
51 The Commission finds that the City has provided the required public notices for a
52 legislative decision and opportunity to comment. The Commission concludes that the
53 application complies with the noticing requirements for a legislative decision, Statewide
LU 10-0048-1748
Page 3 of 5
I Planning Goal 1 Citizen Involvement, and Goal 1, Policies 1 and 5 of the City's
2 Comprehensive Plan.
3
4 4. The Commission considered whether applicants for the proposed extension should be
5 required to comply with new codes and standards that have been adopted since the
6 application was originally approved (most notably, the Infill Ordinance passed in 2010).
7 The Commission finds that while new standards were added and several others were
8 modified, the overall intent of the Infill Ordinance approved in 2010 has not changed
9 significantly from the infill standards in effect 2007-2009. The code changes enacted by
10 the 2010 Ordinance are not so extensive as to cause projects approved between 2007-
11 2009 to now become incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood; however, some
12 new standards, such as the side yard setback plane, could require changes to the
13 approved design that are relatively minor to the exterior, but could have larger impacts on
14 the interior functionality of the design (e.g., ceiling height, floor plans, etc.). The
15 Commission finds that the burden of requiring applicants to make changes to approved
16 designs in order to comply with the 2010 Infill Ordinance outweighs the potential impacts
17 to the surrounding neighborhood.
18
19 The Commission concludes that compliance with new codes and standards adopted
20 since original application approval date should not be a criterion for review of an
21 extension application.
22
23 5. The Commission noted that 3-4 applications that were approved later in the eligible time
24 period had completion deadlines in 2013 or 2014 and a 2 -year extension would extend
25 the deadlines to 2015 or 2016. The Commission finds that applications that have
26 completion deadlines beyond 2012 have sufficient time to complete their projects and
27 should not receive the proposed 2 -year extension. If necessary, these applicants may
28 still apply for an extension through the process currently prescribed by the Code.
29
30 The Commission concludes that up to a 2 -year extension should be granted to
31 applications within the eligible time period, but in no case should the extension go beyond
32 December 31, 2012.
33
34 6. The Commission concludes and recommends to the City Council that a one-time, 2 -year
35 extension to completion deadlines imposed or included as a condition of approval should
36 be available to approved land use applications that were filed between January 1, 2007
37 and December 31, 2009, if they meet the criteria and procedures below:
38
39 The City Manager may, upon application, grant up to a two year extension to the
40 completion deadline for an approved land use development permit that complies
41 with all of the following criteria; however, in no case shall the completion deadline
42 be extended beyond December 31, 2012:
43
44 1. The applicant filed a written extension application with applicable fee no later
45 than March 1, 2012;
46 2. The applicant demonstrates that the work authorized by the land use approval
47 is delayed as a result of adverse market conditions or inability to secure
48 financing,-
49
inancing,49 3. The extension request is for an issued land use approval (whether expired or
50 not) where the land use application was filed between January 1, 2007 and
51 December 31, 2009; and,
52 4. If the application for extension is for a land division or lot line adjustment
53 approval, the applicant had previously filed a timely request for the automatic 1-
54 year extension allowed per LOC 50.87.010(1).
LU 10-0048-1748
Page 4 of 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Review of the application shall be in the manner prescribed for minor developments
by LOC Articles 50.81 — 50.84. (An extension pursuant to this ordinance is not a
modification of a permit and therefore LOC 50.86.025 is not applicable to the
application.)
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION of the City of Lake Oswego that:
1. The Planning Commission recommends that LU 10-0048 be approved by the City
Council.
I CERTIFY THAT THIS ORDER was presented to and APPROVED by the Planning Commission
of the City of Lake Oswego.
DATED this 22nd day of November, 2010.
Jon Gustafson/s/
Jon Gustafson, Chair
Planning Commission
Iris McCaleb /s/
Iris McCaleb
Administrative Support
ATTEST:
PRELIMINARY DECISION — November 8, 2010
AYES:
Bhutani, Glisson, Gustafson, Johnson, Paretchan, Prager
NOES:
None
ABSTAIN:
None
RECUSE:
None
EXCUSED:
Jones
ABSENT:
None
ADOPTION OF FINDINGS AND ORDER — November 22, 2010
AYES:
Bhutani, Glisson, Gustafson, Paretchan, Prager
NOES:
None
ABSTAIN:
None
RECUSE:
None
EXCUSED:
Johnson
ABSENT:
None
LU 10-0048-1748
Page 5 of 5
DRAFT 11/22/10
ORDINANCE No. 2563
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO RELATING TO EXTENSION OF COMPLETION
DEADLINES FOR APPROVED LAND USE PERMITS.
WHEREAS, the State and Lake Oswego have suffered a severe economic downturn which has
created economic hardships and tightening of credit markets; and
WHEREAS, the economic hardships and tightening of credit markets results in a situation where
developers and property owners are unable to commence or finalize approved land use
developments and projects in a timely manner; and
WHEREAS, the economic hardships and tightening of credit markets were beyond the
expectation of the property owners and developers at the time of land use approval; and
WHEREAS, the City of Lake Oswego can reduce and alleviate the consequences of the economic
downturn and credit market conditions for projects that received approval but have not been
completed within the existing time limitations by extending completion deadlines when the
property owner or developer's economic hardship or inability to obtain financing is
demonstrated;
AILS,, ; N
XNI
NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
The City Manager may, upon application, grant up to a two-year extension to the completion
deadline for an approved land use application that complies with all of the following criteria;
however, in no case shall the completion deadline be extended beyond December 31, 2012:
1. The applicant filed a written extension application with applicable fee no later than March
1, 2012;
2. The applicant demonstrates that the work authorized by the land use approval is delayed
as a result of adverse market conditions or inability to secure financing;
3. The extension request is for an issued land use approval (whether expired or not) where
the land use application was filed between January 1, 2007 and December 31, 2009; and
4. If the application for extension is for a land division or lot line adjustment approval, the
applicant had previously filed a timely request for the automatic one-year extension
allowed per LOC 50.87.010(1).
Ordinance 2563
Page 1 of 2
DRAFT 11/22/10
Review of the application shall be in the manner prescribed for minor developments by LOC
Articles 50.81 — 50.84. (Extension pursuant to this ordinance is not a modification of a permit
and therefore LOC 50.86.025 is not applicable to the application.)
Read by title and enacted at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego
held on day of 12010.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
EXCUSED:
ATTEST:
APPROVED AS TO
David Powell, City Attorney
Ordinance 2563
Page 2 of 2
Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor
`^^�"ti'
Dated.
LAKE OSWEGO
Centennial 1910-2010
COUNCIL REPORT
TO: Jack Hoffman, Mayor
Members of the City Council
Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager
FROM: Denise Frisbee, Director
Jonna Papaefthimiou, Natural Resources Planner
Planning and Building Services Department
SUBJECT: Recommendations for Sensitive Lands Map Corrections Process
DATE: November 18, 2010
ACTION
�.3
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
380 A Avenue
PO Box 369
Lake Oswego, OR 97034
503-675-3984
www.ci.oswego.or.us
This item is for information only; no formal action is requested at this time. Council is asked to provide
direction to staff regarding next steps in the Sensitive Lands map update process.
INTRODUCTION
This July, the Council adopted Resolution 10-51A, which directed staff to implement improvements to the
City's environmental programs. The resolution included a number of recommendations from the Second
Look Task Force, including:
Implement the regulatory changes identified in Staff Report Section B within the next year, including
the following steps:
1. Develop and initiate a free map correction process
2. Consider removing small, isolated tree groves from the overlay zone on private property, not
including private dedicated open space
(Resolution 10-51A, Section B)
A third item requested by Council was:
Implement regulatory changes identified by the City Council as follows:
3. Direct staff to return to the City Council with recommendations for an appeal process and
options, with an emphasis on fairness and equity, including a discussion and timeline for 113
properties, by the end of the year.
(Resolution 10-51A, Section E)
Page 2
This staff report responds to these Council directions. It provides background on the current maps and the
standards and legal requirements for changing them; identifies reasons to initiate map changes; outlines
how proposed changes might be grouped together and reviewed; and presents a conceptual program for
moving forward. Staff recommends that the City pursue a geographically -based review of the entire
Sensitive Lands map as the most efficient (and therefore less costly) approach, addressing both already -
mapped resources sites and proposed future (1-13) sites, and that map updates be linked with other
environmental outreach efforts.
BACKGROUND
Current Sensitive Lands Map
The City's current Sensitive Lands map was adopted in 1998. It was created to implement the City's
Comprehensive Plan and comply with State Land Use Goals 5 and 6. It anticipated Metro's Title 3, which
addresses protection of riparian resources; it was adopted a few months before Title 3.
The map was produced through a collaboration between Fishman Environmental Associates (now SWCA)
and Salix Associates. In 1993 and 1994, Fishman identified potentially significant natural resource areas
using the City's existing Distinctive Natural Areas Map (1978), aerial photographs, and published
topographic maps. They performed site visits and used the Wildlife Habitat Assessment Score (HAS)
method to rate areas. Resources that scored at least 35 (the average score) were considered "significant."
Salix then analyzed all significant sites with an ESEE (Energy, Social, Environment, and Economy) report,
which is required by OAR 660-023 to implement State Land Use Goal 5. The Planning Commission reviewed
recommendations based on the HAS scores and ESEE report, and recommended adoption of a Sensitive
Lands Map based on that data. The Council accepted the Planning Commission's recommendation.
The Sensitive Lands Article says that additional resource areas can be added to the Map following the same
HAS / ESEE process. However, no resources have been added to the map since 1998, except for a few
contested sites that were resolved, and properties that were annexed after 1998. Similarly, only a very few
sites have been removed from the map, by individual landowners demonstrating that the resource area did
not exist on their property.
Possible Map Changes
1-B Sites
The name "1-13" refers to the Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) section which requires cities to inventory
their Goal 5 resources. The OAR classifies resource sites about which the City is unable to obtain
information as "1-13" The 1998 Sensitive Lands atlas contains about 40 1-13 sites: these were resources
nominated late in the process, or where the City was unable to obtain access. Salix suggested that the
Planning Commission return to the issue to review these sites after the Sensitive Lands Article had been in
place for six months, which has not happened.
In 2003, the City hired SWCA (formerly Fishman, same staff) to update the information for the 1-13 sites and
other sites nominated by staff or shown on Metro maps as potentially significant. SWCA conducted field
work and developed a draft updated map and supporting HAS worksheets. The City chose not to move
forward with adoption at the time. This decision was made partially because the inventory remained
incomplete (due to limited budget resources), and partially because the City was in the middle of a process
to develop an annexation plan for the unincorporated area within the UGB. The City did not want to create
the impression that the annexation and inventory work were somehow related (they were not). Following
Page 3
extensive community discussions, the proposed annexation plan was abandoned, but the inventory work
was not resumed at that time.
In 2007, the City once again hired SWCA, to review their 2003 recommendations and complete the
inventory mapping, including new areas mapped under Title 13. SWCA conducted site visits in the summer
of 2007 and developed a new draft map, which was published on the City website in early 2008. Shortly
after this, the mapping project was put on hold because of broader public concerns about the Sensitive
Lands program.
The properties shown on the 2008 SWCA draft map are technically no longer "1-13" sites; that is, the City
does now have enough information to determine that they are likely significant. The term 1-13 is used here
merely as a shorthand reference for these proposed changes. The next step in the review of these 1-I3
resources is to complete an ESEE analysis to determine whether the sites should be recommended for
designation as Sensitive Lands. Designation would be recommended unless the City made findings that
social, economic, or energy factors precluded their protection, or the City received new evidence that a site
had been degraded and was no longer significant.
There are approximately as many as 247 new tax lots in the city limits that could be designated as Sensitive
Lands with the map update. This includes about 6 acres of Resource Protection (RP -water resource) and 49
acres of Resource Conservation (RC -tree grove). Twenty-eight of these tax lots have RP, 207 have RC, and
12 have both RP and RC. For comparison, about 1033 tax lots are currently designated Sensitive Lands.
This includes about 462 acres of RC and 501 acres of RP, for a total of 963 acres.
Upland Tree Groves
Council has directed staff to "consider removing small, isolated tree groves from the overlay zone on
private property, not including private dedicated open space." Staff has investigated this possibility by
reviewing existing tree grove designations and identifying those that are on private lands, not connected to
water, and not already permanently protected in subdivision/PD open space tracts. Application of those
criteria led to the identification of three currently -designated tree groves that might be eliminated. Of the
proposed 1-13 sites, staff estimates there are an additional 12-20 sites that upon review would fall within
the criteria for removal. The City's approach to this policy question needs to be resolved before 1-13 tree
groves are added to the map.
In order to exclude isolated tree groves from RC protection, the City will need to either amend the Sensitive
Lands Article to adopt that criteria, or alternatively, could repeat the HAS process for isolated upland tree
groves to determine if any existing or proposed tree groves should be eliminated on the basis that they
have been degraded and no longer achieve a qualifying score. If the "re -HAS -review" approach is taken,
staff anticipates that at least one of the three existing isolated tree groves would be removed from the RC
District because it is degraded; however, since the 1-I3 sites were evaluated more recently, likely none of
these would be removed.
Under either approach, additional site investigations would be needed to determine the ecological status of
the tree groves in question. The proposed City Forester / arborist position would be an appropriate person
to evaluate these areas and make recommendations. Staff would like to return to Council with additional
information and options this spring.
Page 4
Staff anticipates that the removal of a small number of tree groves would not jeopardize Metro approval of
the City's Title 3 and 13 compliance package.
Homeowner Corrections/ Contested Sites
Some properties mapped as Sensitive Lands have simple map errors; the boundary of a wetland or the tree
canopy was estimated inaccurately, or the resource changed through natural processes such that the old
map is no longer correct. When homeowners identify map inaccuracies to staff, these are added to the list
of 1-13 sites to be corrected. Corrections for all documented errors are already included in the proposed 1-13
map changes. However, requests for map corrections have come in sporadically. Staff has not contacted
every Sensitive Lands property owner to solicit suggestions for changes. If the City were to solicit map
corrections from all current Sensitive Lands owners, it could add those map refinements to the list of
proposed map changes
The City can anticipate that requests for map corrections will come from property owners who have
correctly identified mapping errors--i.e., fairly routine correction efforts that can be processed with staff
support and agreement, and also from those property owners who object to being mapped under any
circumstances. This poses a challenge for establishing a workable process. For those homeowners that
contest mapping, a "contested site" process needs to be established. The "contested case" process, similar
to minor development applications today, will likely necessitate a site visit, staff level decision, and on
appeal, review of the issue before a decision -maker, and possibly an appeal body. The process outlined
here provides that opportunity.
Legal Requirements for Map Changes
1-13 sites, upland tree groves, map errors, and contested sites all propose map changes that must meet
minimum requirements under Lake Oswego Development Code and the Oregon Administrative Rules.
According to current Code, the City must do the following to add a new resource site to the map:
• Demonstrate the resource is significant, using the HAS system, AND
• Complete an ESEE analysis showing the resource should be protected or partly protected, AND
• Hold Planning Commission and Council hearings with attendant notice and opportunity for
testimony.
To remove a resource from the map, the City must either:
• Demonstrate the resource is no longer significant, OR
• Demonstrate the resource is not located on the subject property, OR
• Complete an ESEE analysis showing new factors that lead the City to remove protections, AND
• Hold Planning Commission and Council hearings (as for adding new resources).
The City may process map changes (essentially re -zonings of an overlay district) that affect one or a "small
number" of tax lots as quasi-judicial amendments. Changes that affect "a group of properties" must be
processed legislatively.
As the background discussion suggests, there are numerous sources of potential map changes. Each
Page 5
change must include consideration of an expert environmental assessment (HAS) and impact analysis
(ESEE). The number of new and potentially contested sites also makes the project logistically complex.
For this reason, it is important to identify at the outset a process that provides clear procedures and criteria
for decision-making, and that will be open to all landowners, without requiring a prohibitive commitment
of time or resources. Similarly, the process needs to be one the City can complete within a reasonable
amount of time, relying on existing resources.
Elements of a Successful Program
To develop recommendations for the map update process, the City consulted staff at the Department of
Land Conservation and Development, Metro, the City of Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability,
and members of the consultant community. Based on their input and the considerations outlined above,
staff recommends the process include the following elements:
Initial contacts with sensitive lands property owners regarding map updates should be coordinated with
outreach on other natural resources topics. Resources allocated to education efforts should also
support the map update, and when contacting property owners the City should inform them of
programs and resources available to them.
The map update process should provide opportunities for individual meetings with staff. Landowners
and the City benefit when residents can ask questions and get information about their property in
particular; one-on-one problem -solving is the easiest way to resolve many map errors and questions.
Updates should be processed in 4-6 geographically -based groups, rather than one large land use case.
Inviting all property owners to contact the City at once would make it difficult to provide timely
responses. Breaking the project up also allows for adaptation and process improvement after the first
group is processed.
Sites where both property owners and City staff agree on proposed changes (additions or deletions)
should be processed together. This is the approach the City took with the original maps. Changes
where landowners and City staff agree will move through the legislative process relatively quickly, and
will result in a significant improvement to the maps.
Contested sites should be reviewed by a professional hearings officer. Where the owner and city staff
do not agree on the proposed addition or deletion, staff should refer the matter directly to a hearings
officer for a public hearing and recommendation to the Planning Commission (and possible appeal to
the City Council). The Planning Commission does not have the capacity to spend dozens of meetings
reviewing individual map challenges.
A Proposed Approach for Updating Maps
A process for updating the Sensitive Lands Atlas that would include the elements described above would
resemble the following:
1. Contact all current Sensitive Lands property owners and inform them that the City is updating its
Sensitive Lands maps, and that they will have the opportunity to request changes as a part of that
process. Describe the procedure for making map changes. Connect the map review with other
regulatory improvements and environmental programs the City is initiating.
Page 6
2. Complete the ESEE analysis for proposed new resource areas (simultaneous with 1).
3. Develop a user-friendly mapping website where property owners can review information associated
with their property, including original ESEE reports and HAS worksheets (simultaneous with 1).
4. Divide the City into four to six geographic planning areas with approximately the same amount of
resources in each. These groups should generally keep neighborhoods and watersheds together.
5. Send a notice to all current and proposed future Sensitive Lands owners in a single geographic
planning area, notifying them of draft map recommendations. Notices clearly state:
a. Whether City staff is proposing to remove, delete, or leave unchanged the resource mapped
on their property;
b. How to obtain copies of all relevant data, maps, and the ESEE analysis (which should be on
the website, with a hard copy by request);
c. How to request a site visit to review their property, if they believe the boundary is in error;
d. How to schedule a meeting with staff to obtain additional information; and
e. How to contest their designation in writing.
6. Meet one-on-one with property owners concerned about proposed changes, or who want to be
"un -mapped". At the meeting:
a. Review how the Sensitive Lands overlay might affect the use of their property;
b. Explain how to challenge the mapping on their property, give them a form to complete and
sign, and tell them what kind of information will be useful at the hearing;
c. Provide details of the map update process, including required information and timeline to
review their case.
7. Finalize recommended map changes, making additional corrections as necessary following the site
visits and one-on-one meetings.
8. Move all uncontested map changes directly to the PC to be heard as a legislative matter.
9. Present contested changes to a hearings officer to be heard quasi -judicially, one by one or in small
groups of related properties.
10. Move contested changes to the PC together with the hearings officer recommendations.
11. Move to the next geographic planning area.
This proposed process would meet the objectives outlined at the outset, in that it:
• Breaks the project into manageable units
• Provides opportunity for one-on-one problem -solving with property owners
• Allows sites where the City and homeowners agree on map changes to move forward right away
• Manages Planning Commission workload
• Creates an opportunity for everyone who wishes to contest the Sensitive Lands designation to make
their case to a neutral third party, and provides structure and guidelines for that process.
This process could begin in Spring 2011, when the City initiates the environmental outreach and education
efforts recently discussed by Council. The Planning Division has the resources to complete the ESEE
analysis and manage the map update in-house up to the legislative public hearing for the first group of
owner/staff-agreed map changes. In the next fiscal year, new funds would be requested to pay for a
hearings officer to review the contested sites. Depending on the percentage of contested sites in the first
unit of map revisions, the Division may also identify other resources needed to complete subsequent
groups of map changes in a timely way.
Page 7
Variation – Group Map Changes by Source
Staff looked at the option of grouping map changes according to criteria other than geographic, e.g.
processing challenges to currently -designated sites first, then removing isolated tree groves, then adding
new sites. This approach would also serve to parse the project into more manageable pieces, and it is
appealing in that it would allow people who dispute the adopted map to have the first chance at
corrections. However, this approach presents significant difficulties.
To provide a fair and consistent resource protection program, the City needs to treat resource areas the
same way on all the tax lots on which they exist. A process that reviews the resource maps geographically
allows decision -makers to examine each resource area as a unit and treat it consistently; a process that
does not group properties together by location may well lead to inconsistencies. Geographic grouping also
creates an opportunity for neighbors to advocate together for protection or removal of a resource area—or
at least allows neighbors with differing views to each make a case at the same time. For example: an
existing tree grove is proposed to be expanded. One landowner may challenge the existing tree grove on
the basis that it is degraded. Another may challenge it on the basis that the overlay is an economic
burden. Several others could support the designation on their own property because it adds resource
protection on neighboring properties as well as their own. The testimony from all these residents should
be considered together, leading to a decision based on all the evidence to either delete or preserve the
entire tree grove.
In addition, a particular problem with taking contested cases first is that it would bring the most time-
consuming cases to the front of the line, and require landowners who support proposed map changes and
landowners whose property is on the draft map to wait much longer to see their cases resolved. It is for
this reason that the proposed process takes all consensual map changes first. This approach is expected to
yield the most consistent results, benefit the greatest number of residents, and result in the most rapid
improvement to the maps.
Variation — Hearings Officer Recommendations Directly to City Council
In Oregon, it is not unusual for quasi-judicial land -use matters to be reviewed by a hearings officer rather
than by a Planning Commission. However, Lake Oswego's code requires that both quasi-judicial and
legislative changes to the Comprehensive Plan, Maps, or Development Code be reviewed by the Planning
Commission. Therefore, the process outlined here has a hearing officer review cases and make
recommendations to the Planning Commission. The Commission would still review the Hearing Officer's
recommendations at the end: the new procedure could provide either that the Planning Commission would
be able to take new testimony or would review them on the record before the Hearings Officer alone.
It would be possible for the code to allow a hearings officer to make recommendations directly to the City
Council (or even for the Council to delegate its own decision-making authority in this matter to a Hearings
Officer, so that the hearing officer's decision is the final decision of the City). Moving contested cases
directly from a Hearings Officer to the City Council could reduce the burden on the Planning Commission,
and reduce the amount of time it takes to reach a decision, which benefits property owners. However,
Council or Planning Commission may find this change unappealing because it eliminates the issue -
clarification and public discussion that occurs during the appeal review process.
Page S
Variation — Staff -Level Decisions
The process presented here assumes that all residents who own land that is mapped on the existing
Sensitive Lands map and want the designation removed should have their "day in court," and that this
process should be free. This is not how most cities approach owner -initiated map amendments to remove
protected resources; it is more usual that residents who disagree with existing designations are responsible
for completing a land -use application and paying a fee. If the City were interested in using this approach,
then staff could solicit and review landowner requests for changes to existing maps and make decisions in
cases where a site visit and a review of the adopted HAS score and ESEE indicate that the property was
designated consistent with existing criteria. If the property owner disagreed with the staff
recommendation, then they would be responsible for applying to change it through the normal land -use
application process. This would reduce the burden on the Planning Commission and reduce the number of
cases (and cost) for a Hearings Officer. (In this case, the hearings Officer would only hear contested 1-B
sites.) If the Council is interested in using a staff -level decision process, staff can present additional details
on how such a process could be structured to maintain transparency and consistency.
RECOMMENDATION
This report is for information only; no action is recommended at this time. Council is invited to provide
direction or comments on the proposed map update process. Staff can then return at a later time with
more project details, a timeline, and sample outreach materials.
ATTACHMENTS
None
LAKE OSWEGO
Centennial 1910-2010
COUNCIL REPORT
TO: Jack Hoffman, Mayor
Members of the City Council
Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager
FROM: Joel B. Komarek, P.E., Project Director
SUBJECT: Water Cost of Service Update
DATE: November 22, 2010
ACTION
3.(4
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
380 A Avenue
PO Box 369
Lake Oswego, OR 97034
503-675-3984
www.ci.oswego.or.us
This Study Session provides an opportunity for Staff to share with Council preliminary findings from the
conduct of a Cost of Service analysis (COS) of the City's water enterprise fund ("Utility"). At the close of the
Study Session, Staff will seek feedback from the Council on matters relating to assumptions used in the COS
analysis and implementation timing of future rate increases determined to be necessary by the analysis
findings.
INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND
On December 2, 2008, the City Council adopted Resolution 08-92 authorizing adjustments to water rates
and establishing a tiered pricing structure for the Utility's single family class of water customer. Water rates
were adjusted for all Utility customers based upon a COS analysis of the Utility's revenue requirements for
all capital and operating costs. The capital cost component of the revenue requirement included estimated
costs to fund the City's share of costs to implement the Lake Oswego -Tigard water supply expansion
project. Those costs were then estimated to be $82.5M.
Resolution 08-92 authorized a series of adjustments to water rates over an initial three-year period as
follows:
Effective Date
7/1/2009
7/1/2010
7/1/2011
Water Rate Increase
15.5%
15.25%
15.25%
Council approved Resolution 08-92 but modified the rate proposal to only authorize the first two years of
rate increases. Council further directed that Staff should update the COS prior to implementation of
further rate adjustments for FY 11/12.
Page 2
DISCUSSION
FCS Group was retained to update its prior 2008 COS analysis using current Utility customer statistics as
provided by the Finance Department and current estimates of the City's share of costs to fund an
expansion of the City's water system in partnership with Tigard. Staff desires to engage the Council in a
discussion of the findings of the COS update and the underlying financial assumptions, upon which
proposed new customer Utility rates are derived. These financial assumptions include:
• Growth in customer base — assumed at 0.5% per annum
• Operating reserves — assumed at 37 days of O&M expense
• Capital reserves — assumed at 2% of plant -in-service
• SDC's — available funds used for LO -Tigard project
• Investment interest — assumed at 0.55% increasing to 1% in FY 13/14
• General cost inflation — 3.0%
• Construction cost inflation — 3.5%
• Capital replacement funding — 0%
• Personnel Benefits costs — assumed to increase 8% in FY 11/12; 4% in FY 12/13 and 6% in FY 13/14
• Transfers to General Fund — Increasing at 3% annually
• LO -Tigard CIP Scenario — 38 mgd with ozone
• Debt Service Coverage — minimum 1.25
Staff appreciates that Council also would like to know what effect if any, the prior adopted tiered pricing
structure has had on reducing water waste. At the Study Session, Staff will review what the customer
billing statistics reveal in terms of water use by tier and among customer classes. In general, water
revenues are down approximately 3.4% relative to budget. Weather, and perhaps to a lesser degree, the
City's conservation efforts are believed to be the cause of reduced demand and diminished revenues.
Going forward these reduced revenues must be considered in the context of proposed future rate
adjustments and discussions of strategies to ameliorate these impacts either through larger rate
adjustments or earlier implementation of smaller adjustments.
LAKE OSWEGO
Centennial 1910-2010
COUNCIL REPORT
TO: Jack Hoffman, Mayor
Members of the City Council
Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager
FROM: Ursula Euler, Finance Director
3�
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
380 A Avenue
PO Box 369
Lake Oswego, OR 97034
SUBJECT: Study Session — Update of Master Fees & Charges for Fiscal Year 2011-12
DATE: November 19, 2010
ACTION
503-675-3984
www.ci.oswego.or.us
Review and discuss changes to Master Fees & Charges (MF&C) so that staff can present a final report to
Council on December 14, 2010 for adoption.
INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND
City staff proposes changes to fees and charges annually. They are summarized in the MF&C booklet as
attached. Revisions to utility fees generally go into effect as of July 1, 2011, except where otherwise noted.
All other changes to charges for non-utility services go into effect as of January 1, 2011.
DISCUSSION
Utilities - Water
At the time this memo is written, discussions on the Lake Oswego -Tigard Water Partnership cost impact
and the resulting revenue requirement for the Water utility have not been finalized. The attached draft of
the MF&C includes the assumption of an average increase of 25.25%. How much of this increase will affect
the fixed portion versus the three blocks will be computed after discussions have been concluded. It may
be assumed that the combination of fixed and variable charges to a typical customer will increase by
25.25% and the chart in Section 1, A) of the booklet shows that.
As an option, staff proposes to make the change effective as of March 1, 2011 to begin to raise the
necessary revenues as early as possible and to avoid an otherwise larger average increase as of July 1,
2011. The increases in the following two years would also occur as of March 1St, but only for Water. All
other changes of utility rates will continue to go into effect as of July 1St
Page 2
Utilities - Wastewater
The wastewater utility (sewer) was slated for a third 30% average customer rate increase, the third of
three, to be followed by another two annual 14% increases, and general inflationary increases thereafter,
driven by the Lake Oswego Interceptor System project. In September of this year an updated cost analysis
revealed that a 17.25% increase as of July 1, 2011 and 2012 (and general inflationary increases thereafter)
should provide the necessary revenues to meet all obligations for operations and capital projects,. These
increases are lower than originally anticipated due to lower construction costs and lower debt service
expenditures, than previously assumed. The increases are applied to the fixed portion of the fee only,
which makes up about 73% of an average customer's wastewater fee, with emphasis on 'average'
Depending on usage, each customer can experience a higher or lower than 17.25% increase.
When staff presented Master Fees & Charges in November 2009 it presented new non-residential fixed
charges using a document it believed to be an authoritative source document. While staff worked on the
September 2010 update of the customer rate analysis, it became clear that this document was not a source
document and inadvertently included some unintended information. The table below show what
happened and what should have happened.
Wastewater - Non -Residential Monthly Fixed Charges
Meter Size Implemented Intended for Proposed for
on 7/1/2010 7/1/2010 7/1/2011
5/8" -3/4" 32.97 32.97 40.62
1" 32.97 41.73 51.41
1 %Z" 41.73 49.63 61.14
2" 49.63 75.09 92.50
3" 75.09 84.31 103.86
4" 84.31 109.76 135.21
6" 109.76 135.03 166.34
8" 143.91 160.52 197.74
10" 166.74 185.98 229.11
12" 235.01 262.13 322.92
Staff estimates that about 285 customers are affected. In essence, these customers have enjoyed a
temporary rate that was lower than intended. Staff would like to bring the fixed rates for meter sizes of 1
inch and larger to the intended rate amount as shown above and as of March 1, 2011 and then proceed
with the 17.25% average increase as of July 1, 2011. Staff estimates the revenue loss to the utility to be
around $50,000 for FY2010-11.
Page 3
Utilities - Stormwater
In November 2009, Council adopted the City's Clean Streams Plan and approved a funding option that calls
for an annual 7.01% increase through FY2017-18. The attached MF&C booklet reflects this.
Utilities - Street Maintenance
Resolution 10-19, adopted in March 2010, specifies monthly street maintenance fees by use -classifications
(residential, non-residential) to be effective as of July 1, 2010. Resolution 10-20 established annual
indexing of the Street Maintenance Fee according to a collared 20 -City Average Engineering News Record
Construction Cost (ENRCC) index, where the minimum index is 2% and the maximum index is 7%. The new
Street Maintenance fees included in the draft MF&C booklet have been computed accordingly.
Page 5 of the MF&C booklet shows the resulting bi-monthly utility bill for a typical residential customer as
of July 1, 2011, and compares it with previous years. A comparison with neighboring cities is shown on
page 6.
Other
Passport fees are prescribed by the US Department of State and were increased (see page 17) accordingly.
Library fees were not changed, neither were fees in several other areas, such as Municipal Court, Tennis,
Golf, Athletic Field Use, Adult Community Center, Swim Park, Recreational Classes, Water Sports Center,
Skate Park, and other miscellaneous Parks & Recreation uses. Record retention and archiving fees in
Building and Planning were reviewed and increased to reflect current costs of archiving requirements; they
will generate funding for the new record retention employee approved through the most recent budget
process.
Proposed Water and Wastewater Connection charges were increased by the 20 -City average ENRCC index
(3.8%), as were System Development Charges. Special Wastewater Connection Charges were increased by
the Seattle ENRCC index (0.7%); all prescribed by prior ordinances.
FISCAL IMPACT & ALTERNATIVES
The increase to a typical residential customer in dollars and cents, rather than percentages, is shown in
Section 1, A) on page 4.
Revenues generated from City fees are shown on the attached 10 -year history. Council could reconsider
some fee changes and ask for a delay in implementation.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that Council review the fee schedule and direct staff to return with final Master Fees &
Charges for a public hearing and adoption on December 14, 2010.
Page 4
ATTACHMENTS
1. 10 -Year history of Revenues Generated from City Fees
2. Draft of MF&C booklet, changes are tracked in color Red
Reviewed by:
Alex D. McIntyre
City Manager
David Powell
City Attorney
City of Lake Oswego
Summary of Revenue Generated by City Fees
For Fiscal Years Ending June 30th
DEPARTMENT/AREA
FV01
FY02
FY03
FY04
FY05
FY06
FY07
FY08
FY09
FY10
GENERAL:
61,975
68,040
69,944
128,542
121,399
123,075
128,349
126,165
120,623
109,270
Business licenses
S 175,589 S
179,340 S
180,961 S
174,092 $
214,241 $
208,554 S
204,019 S
198,331 $
226,017 $
156,740
Dog licenses
19,974
20,414
38,664
32,144
32,603
30,964
30,540
31,860
31,958
30,071
Comm Tower Lease
28,506
32,451
35,064
36,165
35,945
38,893
39,519
38,804
41,925
37,365
Hotel / Motel Tax
359,869
359,428
367,878
409,529
459,008
532,483
614,594
733,297
678,052
457,428
Passports
-
-
-
-
-
52,700
180,345
127,142
86,528
79,930
Lien fees
102,748
139,085
236,885
136,457
112,370
97,845
99,449
77,735
69,902
69,075
Resident member donations
686,686
730,718
859,452
788,387
854,167
961,439
1,168,466
1,207,169
1,134,382
830,609
LIBRARY:
Library fines
61,975
68,040
69,944
128,542
121,399
123,075
128,349
126,165
120,623
109,270
Library rentals
3,829
4,451
2,186
6,476
4,509
4,732
3,650
2,511
2,834
796
Plumbing permits
65,804
72,491
72,130
135,018
125,908
127,807
131,999
128,676
123,457
110,066
MUNICIPAL COURT:
45,848
66,034
144,839
113,670
134,890
182,960
172,945
137,999
99,551
102,118
Fines & forfeitures
573,243
576,459
566,261
731,261
863,800
894,059
788,082
801,463
742,974
951,581
ACC:
112,100
112,821
192,295
185,212
202,057
234,608
225,695
184,774
124,938
128,922
Non-resident member fees
8,335
7,894
7,360
7,575
7,402
7,905
6,572
6,979
6,381
6,003
Resident member donations
27,198
27,362
32,731
34,443
37,384
39,472
35,128
35,087
32,779
31,261
Respite client fees
3,737
5,746
5,983
4,690
6,800
-
630
-
-
22,993
Meals Network fees
-
4,375
-
-
-
78,578
73,907
90,196
104,497
103,800
Trips, class fees, & other
47,850
51,661
58,028
65,679
78,746
95,853
46,102
70,909
71,616
50,610
Records retention fee
87,120
92,663
104,102
112,387
130,332
221,808
162,339
203,171
215,273
214,667
FRANCHISE FEES
755,835
1,055,190
1,833,295
1,374,471
1,454,445
1,671,831
1,592,390
1,287,651
848,215
790,770
Portland General Electric
668,244
741,594
910,779
862,422
881,813
882,002
943,269
1,046,053
1,015,146
1,057,467
Qwest
188,217
140,622
197,037
179,176
128,048
149,875
143,771
103,762
136,839
85,523
Allied Waste & Keller Drop
133,593
129,504
149,775
154,991
257,097
252,371
285,924
300,986
341,176
307,700
Comcast
180,546
278,053
252,351
248,538
303,344
347,775
381,571
473,041
420,753
509,896
Verizon/ General Telephone
41,647
38,117
35,769
36,064
40,018
44,156
39,774
34,753
30,582
55,341
Northwest Natural
280,796
348,797
375,601
342,727
389,563
453,047
535,229
555,398
537,545
558,858
Electric Lightwave
12,148
8,436
11,095
21,139
26,357
35,495
34,198
42,667
46,764
26,847
NewPath
_
13,930
12,610
18,789
28,352
34,287
23,210
13,101
3,489
25,000
Admin approval fees
1,505,191
1,685,123
1,932,407
1,845,057
21026,240
2,164,721
2,363,736
2,556,660
2,528,805
2,626,632
BUILDING & PERMIT CENTER
Bldg plan check
178,277
324,523
528,413
376,911
395,162
384,756
338,635
277,869
172,900
167,945
Bldg permits & fees
246,204
319,542
579,511
403,793
379,285
453,738
417,675
372,136
226,580
196,511
Plumbing permits
97,395
136,198
205,749
173,196
218,215
261,105
265,667
172,267
110,751
97,812
Mechanical permits
45,848
66,034
144,839
113,670
134,890
182,960
172,945
137,999
99,551
102,118
Driveway permits
4,054
2,748
2,372
3,722
210
-
-
-
-
-
Electrical permits
112,100
112,821
192,295
185,212
202,057
234,608
225,695
184,774
124,938
128,922
State % surcharge
42,770
52,972
89,161
69,904
75,879
93,219
87,918
81,395
67,524
64,161
Plumbing plan check
10,277
5,000
21,245
5,959
10,856
9,781
11,142
4,190
75
-
Mechanical plan check
4,894
3,029
16,586
3,830
4,720
7,361
6,024
6,222
3,696
4,694
Electrical plan check
1,511
4,375
19,361
5,442
4,949
6,672
6,388
3,138
(821)
1,400
Investigation fees
12,505
25,375
23,330
23,498
18,865
24,516
45,407
32,816
31,468
16,401
Records retention fee
2,573
10,433
9,334
9,357
13,115
14,894
14,845
11,553
10,806
755,835
1,055,190
1,833,295
1,374,471
1,454,445
1,671,831
1,592,390
1,287,651
848,215
790,770
PUBLIC SAFETY
Impounds, Plan cks, dog fines
7,414
4,110
20,761
25,840
50,945
36,200
33,500
34,365
56,600
121,080
Police Contracts
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
791,843
Fire Contracts
1,627,280
1,701,309
1,735,420
1,817,221
2,010,949
1,953,756
2,072,828
2,141,808
2,299,965
1,642 702
1,634,694
1 705419
1756 181
1,943,061
2 061 894
1,989,956
2 106 328
2,176,173
2356565
2,555,625
PLANNING
Tree cutting permits
22,753
49,350
64,324
53,500
52,212
76,183
62,213
60,429
41,671
48,755
Dev code enforcement
14,536
13,930
12,610
18,789
28,352
34,287
23,210
13,101
3,489
10,454
Admin approval fees
37,824
69,498
57,987
119,683
74,834
109,356
72,970
172,533
133,379
116,863
Development review
74,248
68,686
74,610
88,957
191,984
268,654
342,574
198,660
40,700
114,603
Planning commission
10,786
447
1,781
4,590
228
9
-
-
9,247
5,910
Appeal fees
10,515
2,525
2,954
4,713
5,944
7,432
5,166
2,134
7,878
323
Misc planning fees
5,102
12,777
10,124
33,995
37,494
9,863
11,934
9,659
6,732
27725
175,764
217,213
224,390
324,227
391,048
505,784
518,067
456,515
243,096
324,633
PARKS & RECREATION
Access card use fees
1,320
2,199
1,755
4,561
3,750
3,192
3,846
42,892
89
4,534
Team field improv fee
5,390
33,761
43,102
17,232
26,159
17,092
23,003
-
69,565
-
Recreation fees
228,681
297,219
331,634
330,025
424,973
384,549
410,270
456,766
469,102
456,751
Lake run fees
2,459
-
4,312
-
-
-
-
-
Water sports fees
30,206
26,068
24,690
24,949
29,850
48,830
59,692
30,685
24,582
11,395
Field usage fees
14,017
6,916
8,504
32,745
50,544
65,615
46,810
34,854
52,789
91,078
Park usage fees
7,360
8,059
10,763
8,635
10,575
18,111
26,891
36,263
42,045
28,517
Organic Education Center
6,879
7,890
9,388
20,348
26,980
53,227
57,388
73,326
60,531
79,732
Special events
10,045
1,500
5,474
4,959
6,515
13,206
9,363
-
21,021
Building rental fees
16,902
15,539
21,683
22,277
22,775
21,395
20,265
17,992
22,010
17,657
323,259
399,151
461,305
465,731
602,121
625,217
657,528
692,778
740,713
710,685
file: Revenue_by_FY_Through_FY_2010.xlsx print date 11/22/2010 page: t of 2
For Fiscal Years Ending June 30th
DEPARTMENT/AREA
FY01
FY02
FY03
FY04
FY05
FY06
FY07
FY08
FY09
FY10
TOURISM
Hotel/Motel Tax
258,669
GOLF COURSE
Green fees
456,916
423,606
432,719
423,278
375,981
391,036
423,971
390,687
419,621
395,202
Driving range
179,764
170,391
131,824
118,567
95,697
86,939
87,729
99,159
95,467
90,568
Club/cart rental
18,220
15,290
13,347
13,588
12,666
15,534
16,631
14,908
22,018
18,572
Tournaments
12,395
8,322
6,441
6,338
8,029
6,268
7,976
13,237
11,691
11,482
Merchandise sales
75,634
94,445
103,166
88,433
84,981
80,008
72,753
77,595
71,391
65,607
Food sales
6,281
16,745
30,864
24,293
16,121
10,195
28,355
54,609
34,517
1,472
Vending Machine sales
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
303
454
Youth classes
12,282
10,525
10,378
9,949
14,178
22,871
22,681
23,751
28,686
35,532
Adult classes
9,424
6,525
35,188
39,157
23,590
29,778
38,544
51,921
46,200
38,796
770,916
745,849
763,927
723,603
631,243
642,629
698,640
725,867
729,894
657,685
TENNIS FACILITY
Youth classes
57,288
62,771
70,710
81,030
85,064
108,340
109,308
122,994
128,592
141,785
Adult classes
42,202
41,683
42,410
44,434
49,008
62,066
61,273
75,811
69,369
82,358
Special events
2,281
3,538
5,899
4,959
6,515
13,207
9,363
9,996
10,876
22,081
Daily court fees
32,069
35,411
34,809
29,745
29,339
25,009
27,458
35,860
26,567
42,994
Quarterly fees
92,487
92,661
92,235
102,848
98,811
55,294
94,592
103,284
97,943
89,154
226,327
236,064
246,063
263,016
268,737
263,916
301,994
347,945
333,347
378,372
UTILITY RATE REVENUE
Water
4,364,044
4,339,186
4,317,097
4,398,437
4,180,459
4,290,663
4,425,837
4,534,050
4,739,069
5,453,017
Wastewater
3,788,204
3,980,397
4,371,027
4,916,259
4,957,039
4,922,962
5,174,172
5,810,183
6,299,517
7,723,050
Surface Water
1,181,548
1,269,867
1,343,114
1,430,221
1,445,115
1,722,065
1,676,896
1,795,867
1,808,077
1,822,127
Street Maintenance Fee
959,112
1,122,309
1,135,632
1,142,198
1,131,851
1,254,307
9,333,796
9589450
10,031,238
10,744,917
11,541,725
12,057,999
12,412,537
13,282,298
13,978,514
16,252,501
SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGES:
SDCs- Street(Transportation)
516,005
522,985
716,123
317,776
312,443
746,019
590,360
156,415
287,242
170,232
SDCs- Parks & Recreation
244,248
168,468
141,507
203,483
240,744
492,038
408,287
103,317
229,623
210,924
SDCs- Water
186,242
193,830
237,782
189,195
277,462
390,622
298,666
228,709
75,198
61,935
SDCs- Wastewater
191,628
218,730
263,689
245,032
305,298
413,628
304,994
121,672
117,688
124,701
SDCs- Surface Water
12,108
11,894
17,694
10,108
20,004
27,355
11,373
11,244
8,102
3,727
1,150,231
1,115,907
1,376,795
965,594
1,155,951
2,069,662
1,613,680
621,357
717,853
571,519
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, Engineering
Engineering Fees
82,390
131,779
114,109
179,305
283,196
122,876
229,738
129,713
66,933
103,005
LIDS & work orders
622,575
595,178
598,867
617,347
550,195
802,478
711,441
483,519
309,854
355,575
Erosion control
3,435
18,900
33,630
42,480
57,525
67,655
56,867
43,600
27,750
21,275
Street opening permit
-
17,250
18,300
24,595
28,291
36,360
21,162
17,896
27,731
29,800
708,400-
763,107
764,906
863,727,
919,207
1,029,369
1,019,208
674,728
432,268
509,655
LO/TIGARD WATER SUPPLY
LIDS & work orders
474,570
Revenues Generated by City Fees &
Charges
17,997,266
18,984,804
20992 452
21,180,457
23,026,818
25,226,197
25,534,994
25,162,451
25,125,356
27 485 000
Percentage increase over prior year
0.81%
5.49%
10.58%
0.90%
8.72%
9.55%
1.22%
-1.46%
-0.15%
9.39%
file: Revenue_try_FY_Through FY_2010.xiax print dale: 11/22/2010
page: 2 of 2
City of Lake Oswego
Summary of Revenue Generated by City Fees
For Fiscal Years Ending June 30th
DEPARTMENT/AREA
FY01
FY02
FY03
FY04
FY05
FY06
FY07
FY08
FY09
FY10
GENERAL:
178,277
324,523
528,413
376,911
395,162
384,756
338,635
277,869
172,900
167,945
Business licenses
$ 175,589 S
179,340
$ 180,961
S 174,092
$ 214,241
$ 208,554 S
204.019 S
198,331 8
226,017 $
156,740
Dog licenses
19,974
20,414
38,664
32,144
32,603
30,964
30,540
31,860
31,958
30,071
Comm Tower Lease
28,506
32,451
35,064
36,165
35,945
38,893
39,519
38,804
41,925
37.365
Hotel/ Motel Tax
359,869
359,428
367,878
409,529
459,008
532,483
614,594
733,297
678.052
457.428
Passports
112,100
-
-
-
-
52,700
180,345
127,142
86,528
79,930
Lien fees
102,748
139,085
236,885
136,457
112,370
97,845
99,449
77,735
69,902
69,075
Plumbing plan check
686,686
730,718
859,452
788,387
854,167
961,439
1,168,466
1,207,169
1,134,382
830,609
LIBRARY:
4,894
3,029
16,586
3,830
4,720
7,361
6,024
6,222
3,696
4,694
Library fines
61,975
68,040
69,944
128,542
121,399
123,075
128,349
126,165
120,623
109,270
Library rentals
3,829
4,451
2,186
6,476
4,509
4,732
3,650
2,511
2,834
796
Records retention fee
65,804
72,491
72,130
135,018
125,908
127,807
131,999
128,676
123,457
110,066
MUNICIPAL COURT:
755,835
1,055,190
1,833,295
1,374,471
1,454,445
1,671,831
1,592,390
1,287,651
848,215
790,770
Fines & forfeitures
573,243
576,459
566,261
731,261
863,800
894,059
788,082
801,463
742,974
951,581
ACC:
7,414
4,110
20,761
25,840
50,945
36,200
33,500
34,365
56,600
121,080
Non-resident member fees
9,335
7,894
7,360
7,575
7,402
7,905
6.572
6,979
6,381
6,003
Resident member donations
27,198
27,362
32,731
34,443
37,384
39,472
35,128
35,087
32,779
31,261
Respite client fees
3,737
5,746
5,983
4,690
6,800
-
630
-
2,356,565
22,993
Meals Network fees
-
-
-
-
-
78,578
73,907
90,1%
104,497
103,800
Trips, class fees, & other
47,850
51,661
58,028
65,679
78,746
95,853
46,102
70,909
71,616
50,610
Dev code enforcement
87,120
92,663
104,102
112,387
130,332
221,808
162,339
203,171
215,273
214,667
FRANCHISE FEES
37,824
69,498
57,987
119,683
74,834
109,356
72,970
172,533
133,379
116,863
Portland General Electric
668,244
741,594
910,779
862,422
881,813
882,002
943,269
1,046,053
1,015,146
1,057,467
Qwest
188,217
140,622
197,037
179,176
128,048
149,875
143,771
103,762
136,839
85,523
Allied Waste & Keller Drop
133,593
129,504
149,775
154,991
257,097
252,371
285,924
300.986
341,176
307,700
Comcast
180.546
278,053
252,351
248,538
303,344
347,775
381,571
473,041
420,753
509,896
Verizon/ General Telephone
41,647
38,117
35,769
36,064
40,018
44,156
39,774
34,753
30,582
55,341
Northwest Natural
280,796
348,797
375,601
342,727
389,563
453,047
535,229
555,398
537,545
558,858
Electric Lightwave
12,148
8,436
11,095
21,139
26,357
35,495
34,198
42,667
46,764
26,847
NewPath
25,000
1,505,191
1,685,123
1,932,407
1,845,057
2,026,240
2,164,721
2,363,736
2,556,660
2,528,805
2,626,632
BUILDING & PERMIT CENTER
Bldg plan check
178,277
324,523
528,413
376,911
395,162
384,756
338,635
277,869
172,900
167,945
Bldg permits & fees
246,204
319,542
579,511
403,793
379,285
453,738
417,675
372,136
226,580
196,511
Plumbing permits
97,395
136,198
205,749
173,196
218,215
261,105
265,667
172,267
110.751
97,812
Mechanical permits
45,848
66,034
144,839
113,670
134,890
182,960
172,945
137,999
99,551
102,118
Driveway permits
4,054
2,748
2,372
3,722
210
48,830
-
-
-
11,395
Electricalpermits
112,100
112,821
192,295
185,212
202,057
234,608
225,695
184,774
124,938
128,922
State % surcharge
42,770
52,972
89,161
69,904
75,879
93,219
87,918
81,395
67,524
64,161
Plumbing plan check
10,277
5,000
21,245
5,959
10,856
9,781
11,142
4,190
75
79,732
Mechanical plan check
4,894
3,029
16,586
3,830
4,720
7,361
6,024
6,222
3,696
4,694
Electrical plan check
1,511
4,375
19,361
5,442
4,949
6,672
6,388
3,138
(821)
1,400
Investigation fees
12,505
25,375
23,330
23,498
18,865
24,516
45,407
32,816
31,468
16,401
Records retention fee
2,573
10,433
9,334
9,357
13,115
14,894
14,845
11,553
10,806
755,835
1,055,190
1,833,295
1,374,471
1,454,445
1,671,831
1,592,390
1,287,651
848,215
790,770
PUBLIC SAFETY
Impounds, Plan cks, dog fines
7,414
4,110
20,761
25,840
50,945
36,200
33,500
34,365
56,600
121,080
Police Contracts
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
791,843
Fire Contracts
1,627,280
1,701,309
1,735,420
1,817,221
2,010,949
1953 756
2,072,828
2 141808
2,299 965
1,642 702
1,634,694
1,705,419
1,756,181
1,843,061
2,061,894
1,989,956
2,106,328
2,176,173
2,356,565
2,555 625
PLANNING
Tree cutting permits
22,753
49,350
64,324
53,500
52,212
76,183
62,213
60,429
41,671
48,755
Dev code enforcement
14,536
13,930
12,610
18,789
28,352
34,287
23,210
13,101
3,489
10,454
Admin approval fees
37,824
69,498
57,987
119,683
74,834
109,356
72,970
172,533
133,379
116,863
Development review
74,248
68,686
74,610
88,957
191,984
268,654
342,574
198,660
40,700
114,603
Planning commission
10,786
447
1,781
4,590
228
9
9,247
5,910
Appeal fees
10,515
2,525
2,954
4,713
5,944
7,432
5,166
2,134
7,878
323
Misc planning fees
5,102
12,777
10,124
33,995
37,494
9,863
11,934
9,658
6,732
27,725
175,764
217,213
224,390
324,227
391,048
505,784
518,067
456,515
243,096
324,633
PARKS & RECREATION
Access card use fees
1,320
2,199
1,755
4,561
3,750
3,192
3,846
42,892
89
4,534
Team field improv fee
5,390
33,761
43,102
17,232
26,159
17,092
23,003
69,565
-
Recreation fees
228,681
297;219
331,634
330,025
424,973
384,549
410,270
456,766
469,102
456,751
Lake run fees
2,459
-
4,312
Water sports fees
30,206
26,068
24,690
24,949
29,850
48,830
59,692
30,685
24,582
11,395
Field usage fees
14,017
6,916
8,504
32,745
50,544
65,615
46,810
34,854
52,789
91,078
Park usage fees
7,360
8,059
10,763
8,635
10,575
18,111
26,891
36,263
42,045
28.517
Organic Education Center
6,879
7,890
9,388
20,348
26,980
53,227
57,388
73,326
60,531
79,732
Special events
10,045
1,500
5,474
4,959
6,515
13,206
9,363
-
21,021
Building rental fees
16,902
15,539
21,683
22,277
22,775
21,395
20,265
17,992
22,010
17,657
323,259
399,151
461,305
465,731
602,121
625,217
657,528
692,778
740,713
710,685
file: Revenue by_FY_Through_FY 2010.xlsx print date. 11/18/2010 page: 1 of 2
For Fiscal Years Ending June 30th
DEPARTMENT/AREA
FY01
FY02
FY03
FY04
FY05
FY06
FY07
FY08
FY09
FY10
TOURISM
Hotel/Motel Tax
258,669
GOLF COURSE
Green fees
456,916
423,606
432,719
423,278
375,981
391,036
423,971
390,687
419,621
395.202
Driving range
179,764
170,391
131,824
118,567
95,697
86,939
87,729
99,159
95,467
90,568
Club/cart rental
18,220
15,290
13,347
13,588
12,666
15,534
16,631
14,908
22,018
18,572
Tournaments
12,395
8,322
6,441
6,338
8,029
6,268
7,976
13,237
11,691
11,482
Merchandise sales
75,634
94,445
103,166
88,433
84,981
80,008
72,753
77,595
71,391
65,607
Food sales
6,281
16,745
30,864
24,293
16,121
10,195
28,355
54,609
34,517
1,472
Vending Machine sales
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
303
454
Youth classes
12,282
10.525
10,378
9,949
14,178
22,871
22,681
23,751
28,686
35,532
Adult classes
9,424
6,525
35,188
39,157
23,590
29,778
38,544
51,921
46,200
38,796
770,916
745,849
763,927
723,603
631,243
642,629
698,640
725,867
729,894
657,685
TENNIS FACILITY
Youth classes
57,288
62,771
70,710
81,030
85,064
108,340
109,308
122,994
128,592
141,785
Adult classes
42,202
41,683
42,410
44,434
49,008
62,066
61,273
75,811
69,369
82,358
Special events
2,291
3,538
5,899
4,959
6,515
13,207
9,363
9,996
10,876
22,081
Daily court fees
32,069
35,411
34,809
29,745
29,339
25,009
27,458
35,860
26,567
42,994
Quarterly fees
92,487
92,661
92,235
102,848
98,811
55,294
94,592
103,284
97,943
89,154
226,327
236,064
246,063
263,016
268,737
263,916
301,994
347,945
333,347
378,372
UTILITY RATE REVENUE
Water
4,364,044
4.339,186
4,317,097
4.398,437
4.180,459
4,290,663
4,425,837
4,534,050
4,739,069
5,453,017
Wastewater
3,788,204
3,980,397
4,371,027
4,916,259
4,957,039
4,922,962
5,174.172
5,810,183
6,299,517
7,723,050
Surface Water
1,181,548
1,269,867
1,343,114
1,430,221
1,445,115
1,722,065
1,676,896
1,795,867
1,808,077
1,822,127
Street Maintenance Fee
959,112
1,122,309
1,135,632
1,142,198
1,131,851
1,254,307
9,333,796
9,589,450
10,031,238
10,744,917
11,541,725
12,057,999
12,412,537
13,282,298
13,978,514
16,252,501
SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGES:
SDCs- Street(Transportation)
516,005
522,985
716,123
317,776
312,443
746,019
590,360
156,415
287,242
170,232
SDCs- Parks & Recreation
244,248
168,468
141,507
203,483
240,744
492,038
408,287
103,317
229,623
210,924
SDCs- Water
186,242
193,830
237,782
189,195
277,462
390,622
298,666
228,709
75,198
61,935
SDCs- Wastewater
191,628
218,730
263,689
245,032
305,298
413,628
304,994
121,672
117,688
124,701
SDCs- Surface Water
12,108
11,894
17,694
10,108
20,004
27,355
11,373
11,244
8,102
3,727
1,150,231
1,115,907
1,376,795
965,594
1,155,951
2,069,662
1,613,680
621,357
717,853
571,519
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, Engineering
Engineering Fees
82,390
131,779
114,109
179,305
283,196
122,876
229,738
129,713
66,933
103,005
LIDS & work orders
622,575
595,178
598,867
617,347
550,195
802,478
711,441
483,519
309,854
355,575
Erosion control
3,435
18,900
33,630
42,480
57,525
67,655
56,867
43,600
27,750
21,275
Street opening permit
17,250
18,300
24,595
28,291
36,360
21,162
17,896
27,731
29,800
708,400
763,107
764,906
863,727
919,207
1,029,369
1,019,208
674,728
432,268
509,655
LO/TIGARD WATER SUPPLY
LIDS & work orders
474,570
Revenues Generated by City Fees &
Charges
17,997,266
18,984,804
20,992,452
21,180,457
23,026,818
25,226 197
25,534,994
25 162,451
25,125,35627,485,000
Percentage increase over prior year
0.81%
5.49%
10.58%
0.900/
8.72%
9.55%
1.22%
-1.46%
-0.15%
9.39%
file. Revenue_by_FY_Through FY_2010x1sx pmrt date: 11/18/2010 page. 2 of 2
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING
MINUTES
NOVEMBER 30, 2010
Mayor Jack D Hoffman called the special City Council meeting to order at 6:40 p.m. on
November 30, 2010, in the City Council Chambers, 380 A Avenue.
Present: Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Hennagin, Olson, Moncrieff, Jordan, Tierney, and
Vizzini.
Staff Present: Alex McIntyre, City Manager; David Powell, City Attorney; Robyn Christie,
City Recorder; Laura Weigel, Associate Planner; Jessica Numanoglu, Associate Planner;
Denise Frisbee, Director of Planning; Jonna Papaefthimiou, Natural Resource Planner;
Morgan Holen, Assistant Natural Resources Planner; Joel Komarek, P.E., Project Director
Others: Janet Buck, Lake Grove Board; Bill Ward, Chair, Lake Grove Board; Daniel Work,
Overlay Committee, Lake Grove Board; Angie Sanchez Virnoche, Principle, FCS Group;
Sergay Tarasov, Project Consultant, FCS Group
STUDY SESSION
3.1 Lake Grove R -7.5/R-10 Overlay District Study Session — Ordinance 2558 (LU -10-0040)
Laura Weigel, Associate Planner, reviewed the Community and Development Code changes
needed for the neighborhood to implement their adopted 1998 Neighborhood Plan. The overlay
would apply in the R-7.5 and R-10 zones.
Janet Buck, Secretary, Lake Grove Neighborhood Association Board, stated the Lake Grove
Neighborhood Association was proposing a neighborhood zone to protect the character of the
neighborhood. The character was defined by dense vegetation and large trees with houses being
nestled within the landscape. Typically the vegetation has diminished the scale of the buildings.
She reviewed the background of the Lake Grove Neighborhood Plan, adopted by the City Council
in 1998. Ms. Buck became involved with the plan in October 2007 with the formation of a
committee to implement Goal 5, which was to preserve Lake Grove's neighborhood natural
resources and wooded character.
In 2008, two open houses were held and all property owners and renters were invited.
Approximately 35 people attended the first open house where the original 14 concepts were
presented and discussed between the residents, Lake Grove Board and committee members. A
survey was then developed, the responses to which were studied and eventually resulted in a
Board vote to remove seven of the original 14 concepts. The survey results yielded 110 responses,
a good percentage. In 2010, at the second open house, the remaining seven concepts were
presented to and voted on by the 36 neighbors in attendance, and these concepts were taken
forward to the Planning Commission.
Daniel Work, Lake Grove Board Overlay Committee, reviewed the challenging process of
choosing only two of the overlay concepts.
Ms. Buck stated that the Planning Commission voted to recommend two of the seven provisions,
side yard setbacks and driveway turnarounds. Based upon feedback from Staff, comments from
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 12
November 30, 2010
the Planning Commission and further discussion on the Lake Grove Neighborhood Board, the
overlay has been narrowed to two proposed Code provisions.
Bill Ward, Chair, Lake Grove Board, presented details of the two proposals, citing his own
experience with setback issues on his construction job sites. The first proposal requested a change
in the Development Code to require a 10 -foot minimum side yard setback in the R-7.5 Zone
regardless of house height. The second proposal requested a change in the Development Code
that would limit hardscape to a 50 percent maximum of the lot area; the more hardscape, the less
landscape. He used his own drawing to illustrate this idea. Maintaining space to retain existing
plant material and allow room for new landscaping 4s was desirable goal. Lake Grove had no storm
sewers, so ideally, runoff from city street surfaces, driveways and roofs would soak into the ground
and into the natural water table.
Mr. Work noted for the record that Ms. Weigel was outstanding to work with. He reiterated these
two concepts were important measures to insure that the neighborhood preserved its existing
green character.
Ms. Weigel responded to Councilor Moncrieff that one difference between the hardscape
proposal and the Glenmorrie Code was Lake Grove's inclusion of gravel in computing the
percentage of hardscaping. Mr. Work stated that after touring different neighborhoods, the
Committee agreed that large graveled areas did not fit the character of the Lake Grove
Neighborhood, which had a true "green natural feel." A huge graveled space did not fit the
neighborhood's character. Ms. Weigel added that the Planning Commission would like to see a
citywide hardscape definition adopted for every neighborhood in Lake Oswego. Since it might be
awhile before a citywide definition was adopted, the Board wanted to move forward with their
definition, but was open to reflecting Glenmorrie's definition if Council preferred.
Mr. Ward responded to Councilor Jordan's concerns about limiting property owners' rights by
explaining that based on his research and drawings, one would rarely reach the 50 percent
hardscape limit because the home took the majority of the lot. Ms. Weigel had looked at the
homes already built and calculated the majority had not hit the 50 percent hardscape limit. Other
driveway surface options would be explored if the limit were breached. Mr. Work clarified that
pervious decks were not counted as part of the hardscape. Mr. Ward stated they encouraged as
much greenscape as possible as it was an integral part of the character of the neighborhood and
not just because of water runoff, so subsurface storm water infiltration systems were not the only
solution necessary. Councilor Jordan asked if any maneuverability existed with the 10 -foot
setback, like to avoid removing a tree for example. David Powell, City Attorney explained that
flag driveways had to be 10 feet away from the lot line; he was not sure of the other dimensions.
Ms. Weigel responded to Councilor Hennagin that the maximum lot coverage for improvement in
an R-7.5 Zone was based on a sliding scale and probably up to 35 percent of the lot. A deck more
than 30 inches off the ground would count as lot coverage but not as hardscape if it was pervious.
Improvements that counted towards lot coverage were included in the 50 percent maximum. The
provision to include driveway turnarounds was no longer being proposed. The Planning
Commission recommended the side yard setbacks and driveway turnarounds because they did not
recommend the hardscape proposal. The Lake Grove Neighborhood Association preferred to see
the hardscape proposal implemented over the driveway turnaround because it had more impact.
Mr. Ward stated one could benefit from the use of a Turf Block type product to construct a
driveway turnaround in order to diminish the hardscape on a site. Councilor Hennagin expressed
concerns that the 110 survey responses would translate into 1,000 residences, imposing their will
on the whole neighborhood. Mr. Work replied that only those 110 chose to participate.
Ms. Weigel responded to Councilor Olson that R-10 already had a 10 -foot setback on both sides
depending on the height of the building. The sentence about larger front yard setbacks should
have been removed as they decided not to include it in the final proposal. There were a few
houses in the neighborhood that exceeded the 50 percent ratio by a maximum of 5 percent;
however, this was probably calculated when decks were included in the hardscape maximums.
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 12
November 30, 2010
Councilor Olson agreed with Councilor Hennagin that driveway turnaround should be defined
more clearly before the public hearing. She noted that Glenmorrie was R-15, and 50 percent of R-
15 was very different than 50 percent of R-7.5. Glenmorrie had widespread support, but she did
not sense that support here.
Mr. Ward responded to Councilor Vizzini that in new construction, on site water needed to be
handled on site in the form of a subsurface storm water infiltration system. The building or planning
division was allowing for rain gardens to be established in an area where it worked topographically
which was much less expensive than the subsurface systems and a good alternative solution.
There could be other alternatives to pervious pavement that would achieve the same end if the
concern was just surface water or storm water runoff management; however, there was also the
concern of greenscape and landscape space and the retention of plants and trees. Mr. Ward
stated that they had considered a tiered approach with different percentage standards for different
sized lots; however, they did not have the expertise and information to dissect it that far down, but
would support a fine tuning of the principles and goals. Ms. Weigel stated they had also discussed
the R-6 which had a 60 percent pervious limitation on their lots and concluded that 50 percent
would be doable in the R-7.5. Mr. Work stated the majority of people would be comfortable with
the middle ground they had come up with for the hardscape percentage. Ms. Weigel stated
artificial rocks had been removed from the original definition, and that the current proposal did not
include artificially placed rocks. Again, the hardscape definition basically mimicked Glenmorrie with
the exception of gravel.
Mr. Powell explained that the prior discussion regarded how the prescribed setbacks would be
affected by the flag lot driveway requirements. The side yard setback requirements were not
affected by the access ways for flag lots, but rather the front yard setbacks, which regarded the
house on the flag lot. A flag lot driveway should not be affected by this change in the setback. He
clarified that side yard setbacks are measured from the property line, not the flag driveway's edge.
Councilor Jordan clarified that her question was whether flexibility was available to reduce the
other side yard setback to better set a house on a lot bordered by a flag driveway on one side, or
would an expensive RID process be required to get that adjustment. Mr. Powell replied that was
not addressed in the flag lot ordinance. Ms. Weigel stated that Staff could return with information
about whether flexibility would be needed at the December 14 public hearing. Councilor Jordan
noted it was a city wide issue, especially as more infill occurred, resulting in more flag driveways.
Mr. Ward responded to Councilor Hennagin that no discussion had occurred about the possibility
of identifying any portions of the Lake Grove neighborhood that may be open to denser housing in
the future.
3.2 Proposed Economic Hardship Extension for the 2007-2009 Land Use Approvals (LU
10-0048)
Jessica Numanoglu, Associate Planner, presented an overview of the proposed ordinance to
extend completion deadlines for land use applications that were approved during the economic
recession and filed between 2007 and 2009. This is similar to what other jurisdictions have done
both in Oregon and other states throughout the country. The tightening of the credit market caused
many applicants to be unable to obtain financing to complete their projects by their completion
deadlines.
The Planning Commission held a hearing on the proposal on November 8, 2010. She briefly
reviewed their findings as background for the hearing on December 14, 2010; this has been a
significant effort. The Planning Commission recommendations included: the allowance of a one
time, two-year extension to completion deadlines for applications filed between January 1, 2007 to
December 31, 2009; the completion deadline should not extend beyond December 31; 2012; the
application needed to demonstrate that their project was delayed as a result of a legitimate
economic hardship due to the recession; the extension needed to be filed no later than March 1,
2012; it needed to be processed as a minor development, so it would be subject to public review
and comment. This would be a simpler application to put together for Staff to review; the fee to
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 12
November 30, 2010
cover the cost would be between $400 and $500 versus the present fee of $1,500. There were
potentially 52 cases that could be eligible for this relief; however, as this would be done a case-by-
case basis, not all 52 would receive the extension, as it needed to be applied for and approved.
The Planning Commission also concluded that applicants should not be required to comply with
new standards adopted since the original land use application was filed.
Ms. Numanoglu responded to Councilor Olson that although the recession officially began in
December 2007, the proposal goes back to January 1, 2007 because many applicants, not
anticipating the recession, put in a good faith application, making the investment and intending to
move forward with it, when the recession hit. There were different ways people could prove
economic hardship, such as a letter from the bank pulling their financing or losing their job. They
kept the definition loose as this was an appealable part of the process. Councilor Vizzini offered
one might need an extension for a lot line adjustment in the case of a development that may not be
moving forward due to financing, but the development is dependent upon the lot line adjustment,
so the lot line adjustment was a precondition for the project. Ms. Numanoglu knows of at least ten
applicants who had talked with her or other planners about an extension. Before the hearing, she
would put together a list with more information on the projects such as addresses, location, type
and if the applicants had expressed interest in extending.
Ms. Numanoglu responded to Councilor Hennagin that the application had to be filed before
December 31, 2009 because technically they said a slow recovery had begun in 2009. Councilor
Hennagin expressed reservations about the vague wording of the extension ordinance.
Councilor Jordan was concerned about the additional burden placed upon applicants by the fee
structure which was higher than in other places. If this was to be an extension for economic
reasons, a blanket extension makes sense with the only limitation being that the original applicant
had to continue with the project. If the applicant did change, there could be a case by case review
with a fee. A blanket extension with no additional work by Staff and no fee would make sense.
Ms. Numanoglu responded to Councilor Tierney that longer deadlines could be approved as was
the case with the school district where they asked for and were granted a longer time period.
Flexibility did exist, but not for lot line adjustments or land divisions. The Planning Commission
believed it was important that the extension only be granted to those who could demonstrate a true
economic hardship. They did not want to grant a blanket extension to everyone. The minutes of the
Planning Commission meeting would be provided.
Councilor Moncrieff concurred with Councilors Hennagin, Jordan and Tierney that it was in the
City's best interest to allow development to occur in as timely a manner as possible. Otherwise,
she was comfortable with the Planning Commission's recommendation and the draft ordinance.
Councilor Olson commented they were trying to give people an extension beyond the normal
deadline. She did not mind reducing the fee. Only two other districts applied blanket extensions.
She agreed with the Planning Commission that extensions should be approved on a case-by-case
basis and feared that otherwise it would become a bureaucratic mess.
3.3 Recommendations for Sensitive Lands Map Correction Process
Denise Frisbee, Director of Planning, stated tonight's objective was to address the Council's
request regarding Section B of the resolution, which asked that Staff return with an outline of a
map correction process and also a review of the possibility of removing small isolated tree groves
from the overlay zones. Section E of the resolution would also be discussed, which asked for a
Staff recommendation for an appeal process and asked Staff to share the timeline for addressing
the 1 B sites.
A Sensitive Lands Map adopted in 1998 had approximately 1,800 properties, 1,100 of which were
single-family residential properties. There have been no significant additions to the map since
1998. An additional 247 properties are queued up for inclusion on the maps, referred to as the 1 B
sites. Before being included on the map, these sites would have to be subjected to an Economic
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 12
November 30, 2010
Social Environmental and Energy (ESEE) analysis. Property owners would be given appropriate
notice and hearings opportunities.
The three categories of map updates included: corrections where property owners and the City
agreed that a boundary was incorrectly marked; challenges to existing mapping where the property
owner disagreed that their property should have been mapped in the first place; and finally,
challenges to prospective mapping, which involved the 1 B sites. Owners of 1 B sites were
automatically given the opportunity to challenge in a hearing before a review body.
Staff's recommendation for the optimal transparent approach was outlined in detail on pages 5 and
6 of the Staff report, pages 157 and 158 of the packet. The process accounted for the City's
challenge of not knowing how many tax lot owners would respond to the opportunity to challenge
that lot's inclusion on the map. Limited Staff resources and processing costs were also a
challenge. Staff proposed putting all three categories into a map update process that would divide
the City into geographic units based on watersheds and neighborhoods, somewhere between four
to six large units. The process would involve the City communicating in 2011 with all Sensitive
Lands property owners and owners of properties that were prospectively to be included on the
atlas to inform them about program changes, services offered and the map update process. The
ESEE analysis would need to be completed for the 247 1 B sites queued up to be included.
Communication resources needed to be better developed; the website would need to be improved
to make property -by -property information available. In each quadrant, property owners would be
informed about what action the City was planning to take with regard to the status of their property,
either including or removing it from the atlas; offer relevant information like the HAS scoring and
the option for re -review by Staff; identify the method of contesting, and before the free challenge
could be processed, requiring the property owner to fill out a standard form, meet with Staff for a
review of that property and allow a site visit. Staff proposed presenting the contested challenges to
a hearings officer for an independent, experienced review. Currently, the Code requires that
appeals to hearings officer decisions are to be forwarded to the Planning Commission as a
recommendation, then appealable to City Council. These steps would be repeated with each
additional quadrant.
Staff liked this approach because it grouped the reviews in manageable limits and cleared up
misconceptions along with a neutral, third party review. This allowed a more efficient, consolidated
approach that was less confusing for the public. Budget impacts would be the costs of consultant
review for re -review of HAS analysis for contested cases and the hearings officer review. Hearings
officer charges ranged from $90 to $130 per hour.
Ms. Frisbee explained to Mayor Hoffman that map error corrections where the property owner
and Staff agreed were not a significant Staff undertaking. The 1998 challenges of being on the
existing map were more difficult. A resource could cover more than one property with some
property owners wanting the designation removed and others wanting to keep the designation. A
natural resource expert would need to do a second evaluation to see if the resource still had the
value as originally evaluated and also to verify that the property was on the Metro map. There
would be a considerable amount of Staff review.
Ms. Frisbee explained to Councilor Tierney that Code provisions allowed for the removal of a
designation. Those criteria were outlined on page 156 of the Staff report and included completing
an ESEE analysis showing new factors that lead the City to remove protections, essentially
challenging the City's ESEE analysis. Any contested situation would battle HAS and ESEE
analyses, which was why resource experts would probably be needed.
Ms. Frisbee further explained to Mayor Hoffman that the charge for a zone change or map
amendment was currently $7,000 to $9,000. The City would not charge that fee for these
situations. The fees were intended to reflect Staff's time, but planning processes were subsidized
because they were prohibitively expensive for people to participate in. Not every zone change
would take $7,000 worth of Staff time, but many would take $15,000 worth of Staff time. She
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 12
November 30, 2010
agreed the three costs would involve outside consultants for the HAS or ESEE analysis, outside
hearings officers and the use of Staff time.
Ms. Frisbee responded to Councilor Jordan that if someone wanted to develop in a different
geographic zone than the one being addressed at that time, Staff could fold in the map correction
or challenge and the fee could be adjusted. It could be removed from the group and become a
quasi-judicial proceeding addressing just that one property.
Ms. Frisbee responded to Councilor Hennagin that the mapping in 1998 was subsequent to the
enactment of the Sensitive Lands Ordinance in 1997. The quadrants would be defined on a
watershed basis. Properties would be grouped on a resource basis.
Councilor Hennagin stated the Storm Water Plan, Clean Streams Plan and Sensitive Lands Plan
should all be coordinated as one seamless whole. Ms. Frisbee stated Staff was asked as part of
Resolution 10-51A to talk to the Council in February about a watershed based approach. She did
not know of any jurisdiction who had been able accomplish developing one single Code. It was too
difficult when different regulatory purposes were involved. They could be complementary and
administered in a coordinated fashion with more communication internally and better
communication externally to the citizens. Staff had been working on it quite a bit in the last few
months and would be back to discuss it. Ultimately, the result would be more streamlined
communication.
Ms. Frisbee clarified for Councilor Olson that the ESEEs were contracted out. She was not
aware of philosophically incorporating the impact of having a restraint placed on individual
properties, but the economic impact is part of the balancing act and something that could be
challenged. Jonna Papaefthimiou, Natural Resource Planner, explained that the analysis would
identify the economic impacts of the overlay, but it was up to the Council or the reviewing body to
make a recommendation. This was done generically and not at an individual property appraisal
level; it just noted the economic impact.
Ms. Frisbee explained to Councilor Olson that the analysis would be available to the property
owners. More of this information needed to get online and be accessible. In Resolution 10-51A,
Council asked for an outline of how the City would proceed with 1 Bs, and 40 1 B sites translated
into 247 tax lots. The Sensitive Lands data summary that Staff provided last spring included these
breakdowns. The Second Look Task Force looked at the Distinctive Natural Areas Map from 1978,
aerial photographs and published topo maps and worked with Metro, who was developing its
maps. Everything was vetted through a review process by the resource expert who went out and
did the HAS reviews of the properties. The goal was to line up with existing Metro maps.
Ms. Frisbee confirmed for Councilor Vizzini that in those circumstances where the City and
property owner agreed, notice and public process were still required to provide the community an
opportunity to hear the case. Some resource areas could also be double designated as an open
space tract and protected as such through a subdivision or planned development condition of
approval, which would not be removed by a map correction or the removal of a designation. She
agreed it was essential to create a process for those attempting to develop to skip the quadrant
schedule to have their properties reviewed; incorporating that review in their development review
would make a lot of sense. The ESEE process was in Oregon State Administrative Rule.
Councilor Vizzini stated when he joined the Planning Commission, every second or third meeting
was spent in hearings on the mapping done in 1998, and it went on for years. The only evidence in
the hearings were the ESEE reports or HAS scores. The more it was evidence based, the more it
begged to go to an administrative law judge or hearing officer as opposed to the Planning
Commission. He encouraged moving the process toward the direction of using hearing officers.
Individual property owners who want to lock their property up in a conservation easement should
be able to be removed from the inventory. This could be a cost saving measure.
Councilor Olson suggested having a process for people to voluntarily have Sensitive Lands
designations placed on their private property. Councilor Vizzini was concerned that if it was not
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 12
November 30, 2010
recorded as a permanent conservation easement, a future owner could question where the HAS or
ESEE was to provide the basis for that designation. He agreed with the idea of a shortcut for
people who wanted to preserve the resources.
Ms. Frisbee responded to Councilor Tierney that at some point there needed to be closure as to
Sensitive Lands designations, so time limits to appeals should be set. There was a process in the
Code to remove a designation which would always be available. A perpetual free amnesty
challenge option would be difficult. The appeal process was intended both for intended and
existing designations; it was not intended as a repeal of delineations, as those were recorded with
the County and permanent restrictions on the property. A hearings officer would be an effective
participant in the process.
Councilor Moncrieff agreed with Councilor Tierney that the hearings officer was a critical piece of
the process. She liked the quadrant approach, but was interested in seeing a budget and time
frame. Ms. Frisbee stated hiring the consultant to complete the ESEE analysis on the 40
resources which affected the 247 properties had been budgeted and would be done in the coming
spring. Before the next budget year, the City would try to let the quadrant property owners know
they could challenge the designations or prospective designations. They could not come up with a
finite budget item yet, because they did not know how many property owners would challenge the
designation. When 1,800 properties were added to the atlas in 1998, fewer than 50 people
requested the right to a contested case hearing on the designation. After meeting with a Staff
person and working through options, there were fewer than 15 that proceeded with an actual
contested case. There would likely be more at this time. Staff would try to get this into the next
budget cycle. There was no time frame yet as to creating the website.
Ms. Papaefthimiou responded to Mayor Hoffman that when Metro published Title 13, they also
published their own Title 13 maps and had to go through the ESEE process themselves. A
voluminous ESEE report was published for the entire Metro area including a long chapter on
methodology. It was part of the public record and available for review if they wanted to use it as a
model. Ms. Frisbee responded that the website would be done internally. There was a cost to
mailing out notices with postage and printing. The 2010-11 Budget was $45,000 for the 40 1 B
resources. The Wilsonville contract for their tree grove analysis and ESEE work was $65,000.
Mayor Hoffman noted that if it cost the City $5,000 for each appeal that would result in $500,000
over two, three or four years if 100 people appealed; overall this was very expensive. Ms. Frisbee
stated Staff planned to take the most difficult quadrants with the most resources first to see what
they were up against and move on accordingly. When the City and property owner agreed about a
mismapped property, the City would process it with no charge to the property owner. With respect
to reviews by the hearings officer, the options to appeal would be to City Council; to the Planning
Commission then the City Council; or a direct appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA).
Several of the options would require Code changes. Mayor Hoffman agreed there should be
closure so as properties turn over new owners cannot continually challenge the designation.
Theoretically, with a great website, any prospective buyer or realtor could pull up the properties.
Ms. Frisbee stated that level of website development would not occur, but it would be better than
what there is now. The City's goal was to communicate with Sensitive Land property owners every
year, reminding them of the services offered, and communicate with other groups, such as realtors.
Some builders have a checklist of items to consider when building in Lake Oswego, such as if the
property was on Sensitive Lands, had steep slopes, etc. Those checklists could be put up on the
website as well. Much could be done to improve e-government outreach.
Ms. Frisbee clarified for Councilor Jordan that removing an isolated resource, such as a tree
grove, from the Sensitive Lands designation did not provide any flexibility on open space
requirements for development, which needed to be addressed separately. While no longer
designated, the tree grove would stili be protected as part the subdivision contract agreement. Tree
groves, whether or not a Sensitive Lands tree grove, are often set aside in a planned development
or subdivision as part of a developer's open space requirements. The City works with developers
to set aside the tree grove so not to lose the development potential of the site.
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 12
November 30, 2010
Mr. Frisbee continued by addressing Council's request about the possibility of removing small
isolated tree groves from the overlay zones. Based on the initial analysis of the existing 400 or 600
RC isolated tree groves, not adjacent to or connected with riparian areas and not already
designated or set aside as open space, three resources ranging in size from .4 to 3 acres were
found that affected approximately 30 properties. An arborist would need to refine the analysis. If
the Sensitive Lands designation were removed, and those tree groves were not already protected
by an open space designation, the development restrictions could be lifted. Some other properties
were not reviewed because they were already restricted by the open space designation. Staff
agreed the loss of that protection was a challenge; no process had been developed to address the
issue.
Ms. Frisbee responded to Councilor Hennagin that when determining whether an isolated tree
grove was worthy of protection, Staff did not look at size but whether or not the grove was already
addressed by an open space or other set aside designation, and those were excluded. Most were
connected to riparian areas, and the initial review revealed three resources affected 30 properties.
Councilor Hennagin understood the two primary objectives of Title 3 and Title 13 was the
protection and purity of water resources and some protection of wildlife habitat. He had difficulty
seeing how small isolated tree groves had any relationship to those protections. The forester who
appeared before the Council two weeks ago stated that natural areas or parks had to be connected
to provide good wildlife habitat. Pocket parks, neighborhood parks and small little parks did not
really serve as wildlife habitat. He suggested looking at connecting the Sensitive Lands to the
extent possible if the City was really interested in protecting wildlife habitat. Ms. Frisbee replied
that when reviewed with the HAS approach, Sensitive Lands received additional points for being
connected and having a larger area that could support wildlife. For this reason, they were looking
at the isolated tree groves, those not linked to larger and/or riparian resources.
Councilor Jordan reiterated her concern was that if designations were removed from properties
delineated because of development, how could the City make the new developer delineate a
developed property with a large tree growth when the City removed it from an earlier subdivision
delineation. Ms. Frisbee explained that the approach regarded the quality of the resource. Staff
was suggesting amending the criteria for designating the resource so that small isolated tree
groves that did not provide connectivity or connect with riparian areas where no longer designated.
The problem would take care of itself except when a conflict arose with those that had been
delineated and recorded. Property owners would then have to take some kind of steps to undo that
which would be a legal contractual property transaction challenge that could not be fixed by an
ordinance amendment. She agreed with Councilor Vizzini that reviewing properties that were
open space set asides was too complicated.
Ms. Frisbee responded to Councilor Jordan that everyone would be given an opportunity to
challenge. If the designation criteria were amended, certain properties would fall off while others
would be retained.
Ms. Frisbee confirmed for Councilor Olson that open space set asides were not necessarily
Sensitive Lands. There was still an open space set aside as a condition of the development,
whether or not they were designated as Sensitive Lands.
Ms. Frisbee clarified for Councilor Jordan that they were changing the designation criteria that
could result in the removal of a designation, depending on the evaluation. Whether or not it had
been set aside as open space would not be addressed, as that was part of the development
process addressed when the property owner came in to subdivide or set up a planned
development. Many places where the Sensitive Lands resource was designated fell within
setbacks, were already designated open spaces, houses existed there or were already a prior
nonconforming use, so the huge level of impact people feared did not really exist.
Morgan Holen, Assistant Natural Resources Planner, described for Councilor Olson that the
map showed the currently mapped resource conservation areas and tree groves in green, the
currently mapped resource protection areas, streams and wetlands in blue; and the initial analysis
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 12
November 30, 2010
of potentially isolated tree groves in orange. Based on the preliminary analysis, three of the
potentially isolated tree groves shown in orange had the potential for meeting the new criteria and
possibly being removed. The others could possibly be removed after a site visit. Those shown in
red were the potentially isolated 1 B sites. Tables were created listing those clearly meeting the
criteria and those where a field visit was recommended. Other potential resource areas, all of the
other 1 B sites within the UGB, were also included.
Ms. Frisbee recommended that Council look at this as the roughest outline as much more work
and refinement were needed before a proposal could be drafted. She understood that using the
hearings officer and quadrant approach was the direction Council wanted to go. Staff would
continue to work with the discussed approach regarding the smaller tree groves. Councilor
Jordan added they also agreed with Councilor Vizzini's recommendation about incorporating
Substantial Lands reviews as part of the development review; if development was desired in a
quadrant scheduled down the road.
Mayor Hoffman suggested putting a disclaimer on the maps such as, "Not to be used or relied
upon" as Metro did.
Mayor Hoffman called for a break at 9:13 p.m. and the meeting resumed at 9:24 p.m. He
announced that the Update to the Master Fees and Charges would not be addressed at tonight's
meeting.
3.4 Update to Water Cost of Service Analysis
Joel Komarek, P.E., Project Director, stated that some objectives of the Cost of Service (COS)
analysis completed in 2008 were to ensure that enough revenue was generated to cover the
operating capital needs, achieve certain utility financial policies, to reflect the cost to serve, to
create a rate that reflected the value of the resource and that would send a message to consumers
that this undervalued resource could not be wasted. Council had directed Staff to return in two
years. There was new financial information and information on the tiered pricing structure's effect
on current customer behaviors. The COS process primarily analyzed the utility's revenue
requirement and reviewed the operating and maintenance (O&M) requirement, debt, capital
funding and fiscal policies. They also looked at the various customer classes and tried to identify
how and when customers used their water and how that affected their ability to serve economically.
In the rate design, they also made sure to collect the target revenue requirement through the water
rate either via the fixed portion, variable portion, or both. Key assumptions being used in the
current analysis were operating reserves equivalent to about 37 days of O&M expenses, capital
reserves of about 2 percent of plant -in-service, and a debt interest cost of 4.5 percent, a 25 -year
term bond and a 3 -year interest only structure. Annual escalation figures included 3 percent for
general and labor costs, as well as benefits and construction costs, and interest earnings and
growth of .5 percent.
Angie Sanchez Virnoche, Principle, FCS Group, stated more than 90 percent of revenue came
from retail sales. October, November and December 2009 and then January to September of 2010
were used as the basis for revenue. Because of the wet and cool summer, typical irrigation had
been down. Retail rate revenue was lower than budgeted by about $200,000. She confirmed that
the $200,000 retail rate revenue shortfall was mostly attributed to weather. In terms of expenses,
another key component of the COS process were O&M expenses for a ten year period at about
$4.9 to $6.4 million, which was a little lower than expected in the past analysis. She clarified for
Councilor Hennagin that the O&M expenses were a steady increase and not a fluctuation. The
capital funding costs in the same period were $115 million which included $106 million related to
the supply expansion for the partnership with Tigard, which was a 38 MGD Ozone system. There
were additional costs included for system maintenance, repair and replacement. With $115 million
in capital costs, $89 million were required in new debt proceeds over the ten year time period.
Remaining funding came from existing cash reserves and System Development Charges (SDCs).
She clarified for Councilor Jordan that the $9 million for maintenance, repair and replacement
was in addition to the $4.9 to $6.4 million in O&M expenses.
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 12
November 30, 2010
Mr. Komarek responded to Mayor Hoffman that they were only improving the backbone of the
system. There were 10 miles of pipe being replaced and 200 miles of pipe in the entire system; 15
reservoirs and 13 pump stations needed to be maintained and kept operating and functioning.
Ms. Sanchez Virnoche responded to Mayor Hoffman that the annual revenue from retail rates
was about $6 million. The $89 million required in new debt proceeds was over and above the $6
million. They wanted a bond fund for the $115 million in capital as a one time expense. The
ongoing expenses were $4.9 to $6.4 million. She confirmed for Councilor Olson that the
difference between the $115 million and $89 million was coming from the existing cash reserves
and SDCs.
Ms. Sanchez Virnoche continued that the third component being reviewed was $2.9 to $6.5
million in new debt service. The existing debt service currently in place was the 2007 revenue bond
of $957,000. With the two new anticipated debt issues, the debt service would be $7.5 million total.
Councilor Olson confirmed that the debt service number was Lake Oswego's share alone.
Ms. Sanchez Virnoche explained to Councilor Hennagin that the whole $115 million did not
need to be bonded because of existing reserves.
Ms. Sanchez Virnoche presented a comparison of revenues to expenses through 2020.
Sergey Tarasov, Project Consultant, FCS Group, clarified for Councilor Olson that there were
two different requirements, cash requirements and coverage requirements. If one was deficient on
the coverage side, the City would need to over collect the revenue above the cash needs by a
small proportion; so they were covering more revenue which could be attributed towards their
capital projects. On an annual basis, they were potentially generating a small amount of cash that
could be applied to help assist in capital projects. Councilor Vizzini noted the problem was that
the $26 million was the total figure through 2020 and not an annual figure.
Councilor Olson confirmed that the cash operating expenses listed for 2019-2020 were in 2019-
2020 dollars. Mr. Komarek stated that although the new facilities would be online in 2015-2016,
there was not a big jump in O&M because a big portion of the O&M costs were being shared by
Tigard. There would also be a relative savings in energy. Mr. Tarasov added that O&M costs
included not just treatment costs, but also administrative general and operating costs that increase
as well.
Ms. Sanchez Virnoche responded to Councilor Tierney that the graph showed the revenue as a
flat line because it depicted revenues at current rates and only reflected a .5 percent growth. The
graph reflected how things would play out if rates were not increased. There would be a resolution
for the rate increases.
Ms. Sanchez Virnoche presented the summary results, noting that because of the low $200,000
rate revenue, the 25.5 percent discussed previously would be 27.1 percent for 2011-2012 and
2012-2013 and decreasing to 11.85 percent for the next three years, and then at more inflationary
levels in 2016 and beyond. The numbers assumed a July 1 implementation. If the 25 percent figure
was retained, earlier implementation would be necessary, beginning March 1, and the percentages
would look slightly different in the following years.
Ms. Sanchez Virnoche responded to Councilor Tierney that no new revenue levels were
included. Over 90 percent of Lake Oswego's revenue was from retail rates. Wholesale revenue
was not shown. Mr. Komarek added that in the revenue projections, they considered what the
historic wholesale sales had been and escalated that in some degree to account for growth, but no
assumptions were made about a new market for water.
Councillor Olson stated that if revenue was down because consumption was down, the City
should consider selling the excess water to make up for the revenue instead of raising rates. If they
were conserving so much that revenue decreased, they should not punish customers for
conserving by raising their rates. The City raised rates to make people conserve which worked.
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 12
November 30, 2010
They should be looking to sell before the new plant came online. Mr. Komarek said that Council
could direct Staff to find new wholesale customers.
Mr. Tarasov indicated to Mr. McIntyre that statistics regarding how much of the $200,000 was
related to the weather versus the tiered rate structure would be addressed shortly.
Ms. Sanchez Virnoche responded to Mayor Hoffman that the two scenarios presented on p. 9 for
rate increases were the only choices unless new customers were available. They sought Council's
feedback on those scenarios because revenue was needed for 2011 and 2012.
Councilor Tierney commented that every revenue and cost assumption could be adjusted but
with risk. Mayor Hoffman suggested doing an analysis with lower construction costs, for example,
and a backup plan to raise rates later to accommodate actual costs, if needed. Mr. Komarek
stated the assumptions were one topic on which they wanted feedback from Council. They needed
to be aware that they were entering the bond market in 2013-2014. The rating agencies liked to
see that the City was not living on the ragged edge, particularly with regard to revenue
assumptions. The figures currently reflected a minimum debt service coverage of 1.25. The
consultants had considered scenarios should the rating agency want a 2.
Ms. Sanchez Virnoche reviewed the customer use statistics (p. 10), which were a very crucial part
of the analysis. Customers were the foundation for what was being done in terms of designing
rates and how much revenue was being generated. Improvements had been achieved in the billing
statistics from the last time as they learned what data adjustments were needed to provide the best
information and project revenues.
Mr. Tarasov responded to Councilor Tierney that lost water percentage related to the
reconciliation of water produced and water billed and trying to account for other sources of
authorized but non -billed water, such as fire hydrant flushing and fire fighting. Based upon the
latest period of analysis, they had gone from 9 percent to about 16 percent non -revenue water. A
water audit had begun to determine whether it was real or apparent loss and then if it was real
loss, where it was occurring in the system, and if apparent loss, where it was occurring in the
processes. They were mapping the processes and working very closely with the billing department
and consultant team. A meter replacement program replaced about 600 meters per year and with
approximately 13,000 meters, it was about a 20- to 25 -year cycle. A leak detection program had
been in place for years and leak detection tests had been completed on all the mains from the river
intake to the Bonita Road pump station. Though very small in comparison to total production, one
source of non -revenue water was from the chlorine station constructed at Marylhurst a few years
back. He clarified the term non -revenue water was used because they did not know if it was
authorized or unauthorized unmetered water. They expected that some of the non -revenue water
would produce revenue.
Mr. Komarek responded to Councilor Olson that the reservoirs and tanks were inspected for
leaks this past year and the few that appeared to have leaks were identified and sealed. Another
source of non -revenue water was inadvertent overflows. Sometimes pumps to reservoirs were
started and stopped based upon a level sensor in the tank, and when they get out of calibration,
too much water might be pumped, which overflows down into the storm drain.
Mayor Hoffman stated that in the interest of time, Staff and the consultants should return on
December 8. He asked Council about any information they wanted to be provided at the next
meeting.
Councilor Tierney requested having the numbers that supported the analysis as opposed to just
the charts. Councilor Vizzini noted that the schedules in the November 8 work session packet
were pretty extensive that provided the basis for the charts. It looked like they had been updated
since that last work session, but those schedules were perfectly serviceable. He asked that the
material be provided.
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 12
November 30, 2010
Councilor Olson asked to see what was available on water usage related to the tiered water
rates, adding new data would probably be needed since the November 8 material was provided for
the Lake Oswego Tigard Project.
Councilor Jordan asked that vacancy rates be provided and what impact empty homes and
offices may have had on water usage this last year. Mr. Komarek agreed the general economy
probably affected turning off lights and shortening showers.
Councilor Hennagin asked if having a different set of figures with different assumptions would be
useful, such as a 4 percent bond interest rate. Mr. Komarek responded that Chip Pierce had
advised using 4.5 percent. Councilor Hennagin suggesting using figures that were a bit less
conservative and then consider the possibility of future Councils having to reset rates annually.
Mr. McIntyre stated he would work with the water team to show the rate sensitivities to some of
the factors changing. He would also have them show the rates with and without the water project.
The information would be in the packet on Thursday. He asked that any questions that arose after
reviewing the information be brought to Staff early, so they could get a solid data response. Mayor
Hoffman requested that all the Councilors be copied with the information to speed things along.
Mr. Komarek verified that the meeting on December 8 was a study session, and the Council was
still planning on approving Master Fees and Charges on the December 14. Mr. McIntyre stated
that the Council would provide direction on what the rates needed to be. It would be a one-year
Master Fees and Charge rate structure, not a ten-year structure.
4. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Hoffman adjourned the meeting at 10:08 p.m.
Respectfully bmitted,
Robyn C ristie
City Recorder
APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
Hoffman,
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 12
November 30, 2010