Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Item - 2004-06-28 PM C City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission .Monday, June 28, 2004 6:00 p.m. i Work Session Members: Frank Groznik,vice cbaar City Hall Council Chamber Mary Belli Cody,Kenneth L.sandblast, 380 A Avenue Mark Stayer,Daniel Vinini and Alison Webster Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Council Liaison: lack Roflittan For Information: 503/635.0290 AGENDA This meeting is in a handicapped accessible location. For any special accommodations,please contact Iris Treinen, 503/697-659I,48 hours before the meeting. I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL ILL CITIZEN COMMENT—Regarding Issues Not On the Agenda(3 minute limit per i vid d) GENERAL PLANNING—WORK SESSION *I • P 0 -0002 Lake Grove Village Center Implementation Advisory Committee—Update Staff coordinator is Susan MiiThautser,Associate Planner. • P 02-0007 Lakefront Zoning Staff coordinator is 1 boralt Andreades,Associate Planner. • P 04»0007 Variances and Adjustments' Staff coordinator is Dennis Egner, Long Range Planning Manager. V. OTHER BUSINESS £ ,v Findings.Conclusions and Order LU 04-0002 Sloped Lots VI. ADJOURNMENT ill Agenda Book* - `"KE°Sw�0° Community Development • /14 Planning Division ___ /) Memorandum °REG°N To: Lake Oswego Planning Commission From: Susan Millhauser, Associate Planner 94 Dennis Egner, Long Range Planning Manager Date: June 24, 2004 Subject: Planning Commission Work Session—June 28, 2004 Lake Grove Village Center Advisory Committee Check In—Tasks 2, 3, and 4 The Lake Grove Village Center Plan Implementation Advisory Committee has met 14 times since the first Planning Commission check in on January 26, 2004. During this time, the Committee has been working with staff on Tasks 2 and 3. Work on Task 4 still needs to be 0 completed. Each task is described below: Task 2. Review existing zoning standards and determine appropriateness for achieving LGTC Plan objectives and Guiding Principles. Task 3. Define work on zoning and design standards based on issues identified in LGTC Plan report. Task 4. Identify and prioritize implementation projects, including projects proposed in the LGTC Plan report; identify potential funding sources; and develop an overall timeframe for implementation. Coordinate with Lake Oswego Redevelopment Agency(LORA) staff. Although it was envisioned that Task 2 and Task 3 would be accomplished separately, in actuality the Committee has approached these two tasks simultaneously. In February, the Committee identified"hot topics" as a way to organize topics for discussion for work under Task 2 and 3. These "hot topics" (Attachment A) were compiled from the Village Center desired characteristics included in the vision statement. Through a series of working sessions, Committee members have considered various options related to land use, site development, urban design and transportation. These work sessions have fed into review and Committee approval of related topics included in the consensus summary working draft (Attachment B) and draft zoning map (Attachment C). Additionally, a sub-committee was formed to look more closely at architectural design standards and streetscape elements that reflect the village character iodefined in the vision statement. This sub-committee will bring its findings to the Advisory Committee for their review and approval. The sub-committee's work will be on-going through the summer, with reviews by the advisory committee to be scheduled for August. Lake Grove Village Center Plan(P 01-0002)— Page 1 of 2 Tasks 2,3&4 Check In—Planning Commission Public Meeting June 28,2004 The Committee has not yet started work on Task 4, project identification. A preliminary short list of projects from the 2003 Lake Grove Town Center report is included as Attachment D. • The Committee's work is on-going, with an additional meeting scheduled for June 30, and meetings to be held in August. A committee work plan is included as Attachment E. A joint Planning Commission,Development Review and Transportation Advisory Board work session will be scheduled for September or October to present and get feedback on refined Task 4 work and draft Task 5 products (draft Community Development Code, Comprehensive Plan, and Transportation System Plan amendments). Meeting notes from Committee meetings held through May 5 are included as Attachment F. Written citizen correspondence received since the first Planning Commission check in is included as Attachment G. Attachments: A. Hot Topics,February 19, 2004 B. Consensus Summary, draft June 24, 2004 C. Zoning Map, draft June 24, 2004 D. Project List,June 2003 E. Work Plan,June 16, 2004 F. Meetings Notes—January 14, 2004; January 21, 2004; February 4, 2004; February 18, 2004; March 17, 2004; April 7, 2004; April 21, 2004; May 5, 2004 1111 Written Citizen Comment: G1. Petition submitted by Brenda Falson, May 25, 2004 G2. Letter from Joyce and Jay Hyde, May 27, 2004, and associated correspondence. L:\Case Files\Planning Project Files\2001\P 01-0002 Lake Grove Town Center\Planning Commission\PC work session 06-28- 04\PC Memo LGTC check in 06-28-04 P 01-0002.doc • Lake Grove Village Center Plan(P 01-0002)— Page 2 of 2 Tasks 2,3&4 Check In—Planning Commission Public Meeting June 28,2004 Lake Grove Town Center Implementation Advisory Committee "Hot Topics" February 19, 2004 • Village Character • Scale and type of development • Architectural design • Types of uses (Business Corridor/BF vs. Cross Streets) • Gateways and Village Commons • Streetscape theme o Signage, street trees, lighting, etc. • Natural resource protection and enhancement & stormwater management Mixed Use • Proximity of uses • Connectivity between uses • Housing o Preservation of existing number of housing units on parcels zoned R-0 • Edges Connectivity/Transition to Neighborhoods •• • Building orientation and scale on cross streets• Sidewalks on cross streets o Transition of sidewalks from urban to rural • Off-streets pedestrian and bike connections Parking • Alley access • Connections between parking lots (vehicular and pedestrian) • On-street parking • Parking lot connections • Impacts on private property • Public parking Boones Ferry Road/Safety • Mid-block crossing • Continuous sidewalks • Drive way consolidation • Vehicular access o Center turn lane (BFCP recommendations) o Access spacing (BFCP recommendations) • Bike lanes • Transit ATTACHMENT A Others? 1 ali r Implem Lake Groveentation VillageAdvisory CenterCom mittee rk' Consensus Summary June 24, 2004 Additions shown with underline. Topic Direction Consensus? Village Character: 1.Scale and type of a. Development more intense along Boones Ferry,with a. yes development decreasing intensity as it transitions to neighborhoods b. No vehicle parking areas located between building and b. yes street. (This does not preclude on-street parking where it is feasible.) c. Continuous sidewalks or pathways c. yes d. Three stories okay if stepped back from street d. more discussion e. Building scale—require minimum height along Boones Ferry e. ,r�es to create enclosure and enhance pedestrian space f. Vary building height along Boones Ferry—tie maximum f. more height to lot area or the provision of mixed use discussion 2.Types of uses(Business a. Limit use by size: a. yes Corridor/BF vs.Cross -Site larger scale uses on Boones Ferry and smaller scale Streets) uses on side streets; - Prohibit big box retail(single retail use larger than 35,000 sq.ft.) • b. Develop a community facility(recreation center,satellite b. yes III library,swim club)-identify public-private partnership opportunities on 1 of 5 parcels identified c. Allow some auto-oriented uses on Boones Ferry and don't c. more allow on side streets discussion 3.Architectural design a. Develop architectural design standards to promote village a. yes concept. Like the idea of design standards,but not sure West Lake Grove Design District standards are appropriate for entire Village Center—may be too restrictive for small, odd-shaped parcels but appropriate for larger parcels b. Sub-committee to work on architectural design standards, b. yes including scale and character of development 4.Gateways,Village a. Incorporate streetscape theme into gateway project at a. yes Commons, Public Spaces Boones Ferry at Kruse and Boones Ferry at RR tracks (trolley access) b. more b. Village commons-at the school? discussion 5.Streetscape-signage, a. Like idea of common identity a. yes street trees,lighting,etc. b. Need to more fully develop theme using Darcey's sketches b. yes (fir tree theme)as a starting point. Involve community in development-for example,hold a design contest. c. Sub-committee to integrate with work on architectural c. yes design standards 6.Natural resource protection a. Protect large firs,native trees a. yes and enhancement& b. Enhance natural water features—explore possible project in b. yes • stormwater management Mercantile to daylight creek and create lake c. Encourage use of sustainable site development practices c. yes and green streets techniques • Lake Grove Village Center Plan ATTACHMENT B Page 1 3 WORKING DRAFT—Consensus Summary—June 24,2004 Topic Direction Consensus? Mixed Use: 7. Proximity of uses a. Encourage a variety of uses in close proximity to each other a. yes • 8.Connectivity between uses a. Provide safe and convenient pedestrian connections within a. yes the village center,including across parking lots 9. Housing a. Require housing in areas currently zoned R-0 to ensure a. yes preservation of existing number of housing units. b. Use incentives to encourage housing in mixed use areas. b. yes c. Housing above or behind ground floor retail/office uses c. yes (except allow ground floor residential at edge of village center boundary closest to neighborhood) d. Encourage housing to create a good transition of use d. yes between development on Boones Ferry and neighborhoods (e.g.Wizer's site,other large parcels) 10. District Edges/ a. Include the following additional parcels in Village Center Boundaries boundary: a.i. more i. Lake Grove Fire District building on Bryant, discussion ii. Parcel on south side of Boones Ferry at south end of a.ii. more village center discussion iii. Three parcels at NW corner of Kruse Wy&Boones a.iii.yes Ferry Rd. iv. Parcels across Boones Ferry to the east. a.iv.more b. Include the following areas with stipulations: discussion. i Safeco parcel on Kruse Way, b.i. yes ii. 11 parcels west of bus barns and east of Quarry—if b.ii. yes* kept as R7.5 zoning and use is either residential or *Waluga NA:no park/OS, change to use • iii. 4 parcels at NW corner of Quarry&Oakridge—to b.iii.yes* remain low density residential(R-5). themm uga*W NA:designatted designated as as c. Remove parcels south of Kruse Way and north of Galewood park land and west of the Keg(4250 Galewood)or Arneson Bldg c. more (4350 Galewood) discussion Connectivity/Transition to Neighborhoods: 11. Building orientation and a. Orient buildings to street. scale on cross streets b. Buildings up to the sidewalk and larger in scale at Boones Ferry with a stepping back in bulk,height,and front yard approaching village center edge/boundary 12.Sidewalks on cross a. 10'sidewalks on side streets wrapping corner from Boones streets-transition of Ferry sidewalks from urban to rural b. Transition sidewalks on side streets from"urban"(curb and gutter sidewalk)to pathways in neighborhoods c. Encourage use of greenstreets techniques to create transition 13.Off-streets pedestrian and a. Provide pedestrian and bicycle connections from adjacent bike connections residential neighborhoods to village center where streets connections are not possible b. Identify bicycle route around village center(e.g.signage, bike route map) Boones Ferry Road/Safety: 14.Crossings a. Like signalized mid-block crossing(s)of Boones Ferry • between Reese and Bryant(also to serve as vehicle Lake Grove Village Center Plan Page 2 4 WORKING DRAFT—Consensus Summary—June 24,2004 • Topic Direction Consensus? access)with consolidation of driveways over time(exact • location(s)TBD) b. Realign Lanewood at Lake Grove Elem.and signalize intersection 15.Continuous sidewalks a. Wide sidewalks(10'),when possible,when properties redevelop 16. Drive way consolidation a. Require driveway consolidation as properties redevelop 17. Center median— a. Install a landscaped median and allow u-turns at a. yes-pendinq landscaped median intersections to provide business access feasibility tests 18.Vehicular access-access a. Boones Ferry Corridor Plan recommends 300 ft.access spacing spacing. In constricted areas(e.g.between Reese and Bryant),allow for closer access spacing, maximum 150 feet. 19. Bike lanes a. Bike lanes on Boones Ferry—on sidewalk or in the street a. more discussion_ 20.Transit a. Work with TriMet to increase transit service b. Provide shelters at stops Parking: 21.Alley access a. Do not connect the alley all the way through to Reese. Instead,provide vehicular access to rear parking lots and shared access drives through a series of parking lot connections from end of alley. 22. Parking lot connections a. Encourage vehicular connections between parking lot,e.g. through shared access agreements,to provide access to shared driveways 23.Shared parking a. Encourage sharing of parking lots through shared parking agreements 24.Connections between a. Provide safe and convenient pedestrian routes through parking lots(pedestrian) parking lots(e.g. raised walkways,contrasting paving material ,bollards) 25.On-street parking a. Allow on-street parking on cross streets,where feasible 26. Public parking a. Identify two general areas for location of public parking lot or parking structure: i. North side of Boones Ferry? ii. South side of Boones Ferry? b. Site and develop public parking facilities as opportunities for site acquisition arise 27. Impacts on private a. Allow"counting"of off-site parking spaces(on street or in property public parking facility)within specified distance of business b. Allow off-site employee parking within a specified distance of business. c. Provide process for considering reduction in site development standards. d. Use incentives to encourage use of sustainable • development practices,such as pervious paving material for parking lots. Lake Grove Village Center Plan Page 3 5 WORKING DRAFT—Consensus Summary—June 24,2004 I oQi ( Fy}} i � .r 3 *Note:Need to revisit. Per meeting;nOtes,keep j— ! d f -, # current zoning if community facility U. Ho ever, i-.t- ;‹-, i, a closer took at the code shows that recreation I 1--fac ilityr/indoor or outdoor pool,athletic fields_are '`- ' n- NOT PERMI t,l tD. :- . OCJR-3* i 1 / ' 41111IN;l1H-- 1-r;;11;1';1':;1 ''Ei!,':,:.-Th-';`',:.--'''' ,' ' S'----- / la {° t/ ,feto fly+ •.I' ui " 1T„a a a N ♦ ' . „i_ _r�N + t r " �;J 7r'loan. ... t j i Jf ` 1 `_ �--...� FlaJiVEY WAY }- tad° r� 3f; ' .... ,. -i '"-Ti ..- m. , t i I tj _ _ j i I 1 ' j 11 i i �, O ++ j ccuxswnv 1' . ..__ __.... 1 ! li ! 1 (i i ;Y�`� .. .„..e; __ . RED CEOAS WAY _ 1 t I _ � i '2)R752 3 S ,, 1.h.___.-f I J,tLgFAybY I h; .I._ _ LANEW: --S - _., i; '- - a °P f - i ! 1 R-5 - i I $ . t E ! t t .. 1 ter— ,,,.5'^^_ 1 i V. ...AAIiAt04E ss _- _..._�..-,..m.�...--•.' »,�. �, "'' ... A +A.K.,r I t 1 ; ...Jt..'zj d M i �: ! �1.. a' • a .% 5' M.:1"r - —. ..lAhECRQVEIIYE `_ r t i a y/a ! `,{ d I a t ATTACHMENT C ao 4 t w �, 1wVo "' . Lake Grove Village Center "°^ � � Draft Zoning (Working Map) +'i � ° VMU-Village Mixed Use al R-0-Residential High Density* -� 4 ® <* ,'1 VMU/R-0•Village Mixed Use1 'l f� y j Residential High Density" R-3-Residential-3,375 sq.ft.area/unit 1 ', , .^„' GC-General Commercial R-5-Residential-5 000 sq.ft.area/unit r !• " , .. ter' OC-Office Campus R-7 5-Residential-7,500 sq,ft.area/unit 40, t ,,, 1 ` v r OC/R-0-Office Campus/ IIIIIINI Residential High Density. PP-Public Functions i OC/R-3-Office Campus/ j . - ' Village Center Boundary(includes some Residential-3,375 sq.ft.area/unit . ... .. areas proposed/requiring more discussion) *R-0-Minimum area per unit determined by FAR 0 350 700 1050 1400 1750 Feet .4na N,nat SCtYgtyd{,6403.'.W ' Lake Grove Town Center Plan Potential Projects Cost Estimates and Prioritization Potential Priority" Funding rolect Estimated Cost'(Ranger)In$ Source High Med. Low X Comments Beets and Alleys S.Boones Ferry Corridor Improvements(Kruse to Madrona)-including signal at Lanewood($220,000-250,000), pedestrian amenities,bike lanes and intersection improvements.' 5,000,000- 10,000,000 Pubic 1013 1/1 0/5 0/0 -Lanewood intersection -Reese-Oakridge intersection -Bryant-Fhwood intersection •Mercantile intersection 2.Mid-Block Crossing between Reese and Bryant&S 220,0130- 250,000• Public 8/5 1/5 1/0 1/0 'Lanewood realignment/Hallmark extension 3.Lanewood Realignment 200 lineal feet(@$400-600A.ft.) 80,000- 120,000 Pubic 7/9' 2/1' 2/0• 0/0' combined 4.Hallmark Extension 200 lineal feet(@$400-600A.ft.) 80,000- 120,000 Pubic 5 1 2 5 See nob above. 5.N/S Alley-Oakridge to Douglas° 800 lineal bet(@$100-15011.ft) 80,000- 120,000 Private 0 0 0 1/4 6.NlS Alley-Lake Grove to Lanewood 600 lineal feet(@$100-150/1ft) 60,000- 90,000 Private 0 0 0 3/2 Details for commercial development.Traffic on 7.ENV Ailey-Bryant to Bowles Ferry 750 meal feet(@$100.1508.ft) 75,000- 112,500 Private 0 0 0 8/1 Sunset TOTAL: 5,595,000- 10,812,500 Pedestrian trnarovements to Existing Roadways' A.Douglas Way 1,850 ineat feet(@$50-96A.ft) 92,500- 177,600 Pubic 13/8" 02" 0 0/9'" "Only on adpollsouth side.•"13oth sides B.Quarry Road 550 lineal feet(4550-964.ft) 27,500- 52,800 Pubic 4/0 9/1 1/6 02 Stop at Oekridge.Maybe should be private. C.Oaluidge Road 800 meal feet(@$50-96/1.ft) 40,000- 76,800 Pubic 9/0 2/1 0 019 D.Reese Road 300 lineal feel(@5011.ft) 15,000 15,000 Pubic 5/0 2/1 3/0 0/8 E.Galewood/Quany 500 anal feet(@$50-96A.ft) 25,000- 48,000 Private 0 0 0 1 F.Hallmark Drive 200 lineal feet(@$50-96A.ft) 10,000- 19,200 Private 0 0 0 1 G.Mercantile Drive 1,650 local feet(@$50-96A.ft) 82,500- 158,400 Private 0 0 0 1 H.Beasley Way 160 bleat feet(@$50-96A.ft) 8,000- 15,360 Private 0 0 0 1 I. Bryant Road 600 lineal feet(@$50-96A.5) 30,000- 57,600 Private 0 0 0 1 J.Waluga at Boones Ferry 175 Meal feet(@$50-96/4.ft) 8,750- 16,800 Private 0 0 0 1 K.Lake Grove Avenue 330 beat feet(@$50-9611.ft) 16,500- 31,680 Private 0 0 0 1 L.Lanewood Street 150 lineal feet(@$50-96A.8) 7,500- 14,400 Private 0 0 0 1 TOTAL: 363,250- 683,640 New Pedestrian and Bike Facilities' Traic diverter at Reese-neighborhood traffic • miming. M.Bike Lanes on Quarry 3,200 Meal feet(@$30fi0/1.ft)10 96,000- 192,000 Pubic 2/0 2/0 1/0 9/8 N.Bike Lanes on Bryant 1,600 lineal feet(@$30fi0111)1° 48,000- 96,000 Pubic 6/0 2/1 2/0 6/8 0.Harvey to Mercantile 100 lineal feet(@$50-9611.ft) 5,000- 9,600 Pubic 4/0 0/0 0/1 617 ' P.North side Lake Grove Stem. 800 lineal feet(@$50-96A.ft) 40,000- 76,800 Pubic 9/6 214 0/0 0/0 Sough side Lake Grove Elem. 180 anal feet(@$50-96A.ft) 9,000-. 17,280 Pubic 6/0 1/2 1/0 3/9 .Boons Ferry to Bridle Trail' 270 lineal feet(@$50-96IL.ft) 13,500- 25,920 Public 8/0 1/2 1/2till &idle Trail` 1,420 lineal feet(@$50-96111) 71,000- 136,320 Public 8/0 1/0 1/4 0/7 T.Sunset to Alley(behind Eire Station) 220 anal feet(@$50-96A1) 11,000- 21,120 Pubic 2/0 5/1 2/6 2/5 U.Kruse to Galewood 17D lineal feet(@$50-96A.ft) 8,500 16,320 Private /0 /1 /0 /9 V.Collins to Hallmark 200 lineal feet(@$50-9611.ft) 10,000- 19,200 Private /8 /2 /0 11 W.Lake Gmve to Boons Ferry 430 rn eal feet(@$50-9611.ft) 21,500- 41,280 Private /0 /1 /1 /7 X.Oakridge to Boone'Ferry 380 lineal feet(@$50-96A.8) 19,000- 36,480 Private 9/0 0/0 0/0 2/9 Y.Sunset to Bridle Trail 350 Wheal feet(@$50-9611.ft) 17,500- 33,600 Private 0/0 0/0 0/1 2/10 TOTAL: 370,000- 721,920 • Other Proiects A.Public parking lot-south of Booms Ferry between Reese and Bryant' 20-60 spaces'(@$3,000space) 60,000- 120,000 Pubic 1/3 114 2/2 9/2 B.Pubic parking lot-north of Boones Ferry between Reese and Bryant' 20-60 spaces'(@$3,000 space) 60,000• 120,000 Pubic 5/3 2/1 1/2 1/3 C.Bus stop shelters-5 new stops on BF $13,000 per shelter 65,000 65,000 Pubic D.Lake Grove Conmcns 1,000,000- 2,000,000 Pubic 6/8 72 9/0 0/0 E.Gateway feature at Kruse and Booms Ferry 20,000 20,000 Pubic 92 3/2 1/5 0/2 F.Feature at Boone'Ferry and Bryant 20,000 20,000 Pubic 6/2 0/2 1/5 0/2 UppelMadron . TOTAL: 1,225,000 2,345,000 GRAND TOTAL: 7,553,250 14,583,080 TOTAL PUBLIC: 7,073,500- 13,732,240 TOTAL PRIVATE: 479,750- 830,820 Notes: 1.Esti aka are for improvement mats one and do not include right-of-way and acquisition mats. 2.Cast range baacon type of materials and amenities.Basic pedestrian amenities include sidewalks,Prdaa4nale Selene,street trees and other landscaping.additional amenities may include messed lighting,hangingbaskehaaaers,sheen furniture. 3. Dons net include corder rightcf-way acquisition and a9owg lehcetsd a i3.000.000). 4. Connected maws wily driveway comMidalms.pmbk prlag lot and paling lot comet°e on and.ede. 5. Connected projects with driveway cpwldatioe,pubic parking lot and paling lot connections on cant side.. 6. Retrofitting mushy facilities is more costly. 7. Pedestrian ways assume an 8'wile path. 8. Dependent upon school redevelopment. 9. Assume 325 m1.1.per space(including dime ante,tendsapey.etc).Cost per space goes down to 52.000Ispem for 100 or more space. 10.Rye ton bike limes-rough emanates,de no include right-0way.Corns we vary depending on site factors. 11.Talyof mmnmlry*eV et 5114103 entostrD.Prtay nsuss ralW vale a We*twee graaA Le.'nigh-103 mere lira group had l0 trgh Wes robila sand had 3 High Boas.ewes whew eon we net shamed.7C"wens propel aleud not b crweer red. • Lake Grove Town Center Plan ATTACHMENT D June 30,2003 9 Lake Grove Village Center Advisory Committee Work Plan • Updated June 16,2004 When Item/Task Who 6/16/04 1. Work plan check-in AC&staff 2. Complete sub-area analysis(Tasks 2&3) ▪ Uses—All Areas • Intensity—Areas 1 —4 • Zoning Concepts 3. Complete consensus summary(Tasks 2&3): • Revisit&finalize 1.d.;2.c.;4.b; 10.a,b,c • Review&finalize Connectivity/Transitions to Neighborhoods(11-13); Boones Ferry Road/Safety(14-20); Parking(21-27) 4. Prepare for 6/28/04 PC meeting(Tasks 2&3) 6/23/04 1. Work plan check-in AC&staff 2. Architectural sub-committee check-in(Task 3) 3. Review&discuss list of projects from Town Center Plan report;finalize short list and map for 6/28/04 PC meeting(Task 4) 6/30/04 1. Work plan check-in AC&staff 2. 6/28/04 PC meeting recap 3. Continue work on projects(Task 4) • July—August 1. Draft/compile Plan products(project list and map-Task 4;code and plan Staff language,updated maps&diagrams-Task 5) TBD-August AC review and comment on Task 4 and Task 5 products,including architectural AC&staff design standards/guidelines August Refine final Plan products Staff TBD—late AC review and comment on final Plan products AC&staff August TBD— Joint Planning Commission/Development Review Commission/Transportation AC&staff September/ Advisory Board work session October Fall 2004 Planning Commission and City Council public hearings—Write Planning Staff Commission and City Council staff reports Outstanding items not shown in the above table include: 1. Finalized vision statement, with a clear definition of mixed use (Task 1) L:\Case Files\Planning Project Files\2001\P 01-0002 Lake Grove Town Center\Advisory Committee\AC work plan ATTACHMENT E 04.doc Lake Grove Village Center Plan Implementation—Advisory Committee Work Plan Page 1 11 June 16,2004 Update Lake Grove Village Center Plan Implementation Advisory Committee • Meeting Notes January 14,2004, 4 to 6 p.m. Lake Grove Elementary School, 15777 Boones Ferry Road Members In Attendance: Ken Sandblast,Chair,Lang Bates,Darcey Eaton,Julia Glisson,Donna Jordan, Carolyn Krebs,Jack Lundeen,Chuck O'Leary,George Psihogios,Cheryl Uchida Alternates In Attendance: Barbara Zeller Staff In Attendance: Dennis Egner, Susan Millhauser Guests In Attendance: Elaine Johnson,Michael Buck I. Welcome/Public Comment Ken Sandblast called the meeting to order and welcomed everyone. There was no public comment. II. Approve Meeting Notes The committee approved the November 19 and December 3,2003 meeting notes. There were no changes from the draftS. 0 III. Process Overview Ken noted that in preparation for the January 26th Planning Commission meeting check-in, staff will compile work from this meeting,and next meeting if we decide to add a meeting to make up for the January 7 meeting that was snowed out. Denny Egner added that the committee should be thinking about how they want to present the draft vision statement. Perhaps some committee members can help with the presentation. Ken added that we would probably finalize the vision statement after the Planning Commission meeting. Carolyn observed that the vision statement is a lot more detailed than she thought it would be. She wondered if we could make updates as we go through the process. Ken replied that he would like to finalize it within a few meetings after the Planning Commission to guide the committee's work. He agreed,though,that there may be small changes after that. He added that the committee needs to remember that the vision is also based on the work of the public in the first phase of the town center project, with the committee focusing on clarifying mixed use and character. IV. Task 1 —20 Year Vision for Lake Grove Town Center Current Zoning Standards and Mixed Use Denny noted that he wanted to briefly review current zoning standards in relation to mixed use. Elaine Johnson noted that it would make sense to get an overall vision for the village out first and then look at existing standards and make recommendations. Donna Jordan and Ken Sandblast agreed. Denny quickly summarized that the town center is mostly zoned General Commercial (GC),the most permissive commercial zone in the City. He added that we will implement the vision through a mix if regulations, incentives, and public/private partnerships. Zoning and design standards are tools to get to the vision. He added that currently the GC zone allows buildings up to 65 feet, approximately three stories, in certain 4110 areas, which is more than one to two stories. For example,the Avery Building on Boones Ferry and the Mercantile Medical building,from some sides,are three stories. ATTACHMENT F 13 Feedback on December 8,2003 Draft Vision Statement and Others Submitted Elaine gave an overview of the vision statement submitted by Wilma McNulty who was unable to be in attendance, and read her draft aloud. She noted that Wilma had taken the draft vision statement and • elaborated on areas she thought the group had expressed to be more explicit,and tied them to the guiding principles. She added that Wilma wanted to emphasize preservation of the village feel, open spaces, natural areas, and waterways in the village center. Elaine asked for comments. Committee members went around the room and shared feedback on Wilma's draft and the December 8 draft vision statements, summarized briefly as follows. Julia Glisson noted that Wilma's vision statement had a interesting and dreamy feel and flavor,but added that we need to be careful about being too limiting. Julia added, that as a long-time Lake Grove resident, she remembers past development of tacky buildings surrounded by unpaved parking lots. On the December 8 draft vision statement,Julia had gotten general feedback from members of the Lake Grove Neighborhood Association (LGNA). She briefly summarized the responses she had gotten to questions she had sent to neighbors about the vision. In general,tree preservation was a priority for her neighbors who responded. Most who responded felt that residential should not be required in mixed use development, and that we should let the market take care of it. In terms of uses,they did not want to see any"adult"uses. Most did not object to three story buildings. Most did not like the idea of a neighborhood parking pass program, and did not want to have a pedestrian access from Sunset to the alley as they see the alley as a buffer. Many were concerned about high speeds on Boones Ferry Road and safety. Cheryl Uchida observed that it was not clear what was meant by a variety of housing opportunities(line 6). Jack Lundeen noted that business owners he polled do not want residential to be required as a part of mixed use. Chuck O'Leary added that there is a feeling in the business community that in the West Lake Grove Design District there is an unstated City policy that if no housing is shown as part of a new development and staff thinks there should be housing,the project won't go through. Denny said that an interesting question about mixed use is vertical versus horizontal mixed use. He continued,in downtown the code says if you add housing it must be above the ground floor use. Julia observed that along Lanewood she can't see how you could have housing above and at the back of the lot. Cheryl provided some suggestions regarding parking and bus shelters(page 3)and traffic volumes on neighborhood streets (page 4). Jack said he felt we were going back in time,that the business community was feeling a little hemmed in. Ken expressed that this language may be too specific for a vision statement. Carolyn said that she liked Wilma's vision statement,and agreed there needed to be a greater emphasis on natural resources in Lake Grove. She has heard from her constituents that they want to see protection of natural resources. Carolyn thought it would be helpful as well to have a map that shows the town center and the surrounding east end neighborhoods it serves. Susan agreed to prepare a map to go along with the vision statement,for the committee's review. Donna wondered if we could roll the characteristics (bullet points)into the narrative language of the vision statement. Jack shared the compilation of a survey developed by Sid Smither and completed by the business community(business and property owners)and noted that generally they want the status quo. He added that some responses are still coming in and Sid will bring the completed summary to the committee. Jack noted that Sid's survey captures in more detail what he has heard from business owners—leave us alone, we are doing okay as we are. Chuck O'Leary observed that while Wilma's vision has everyone enchanted and romanced,there are several things we can't do. For example,three lanes on Boones Ferry and a farmer's market on the Kruse Farm property. Regarding the December 8 draft vision,he would like to see the word eclectic put back ' in. He added that, under parking(page 3),we should encourage maximization of current parking areas. 14 Lake Grove Village Center Plan Page 2 Advisory Committee Meeting Notes—January 14,2004 Donna noted that she likes Wilma's 40's—50's feel, with low profile buildings. Lang noted that 40's and 50's development in small towns often included three-and four-story buildings. He added that there are good examples throughout Oregon,including downtown McMinnville. 0 Darcey shared that her focus is on Lake Grove school and the area around it. She added that the vision does a good job with the big picture. She added she liked how Wilma captured the village feel. However, she wanted to clarify,in regard to Wilma's vision,that it is not a good idea to mix public and civic uses with an elementary school. Also, she observed that 15 mph speeds on Boones Ferry,as described in Wilma's vision,do not take in to account that it is a major transportation corridor. Chuck , responded that he likes the idea of creating an open public space on the Boones Ferry side of the school only if the bus barn goes away and a secure play area for students can be relocated behind the school. He added that it would need to work for the school. Ken observed that the vision needs to be more clear and concise. Jack opined that he liked the general paragraphs followed by more specific bullet points. Ken said he has heard there needs to be more emphasis on natural resources,connectivity,diverse architecture, and a mix of small businesses. Donna suggested that the bullet points be incorporated into the narrative. Denny observed that the character needs to be better described. Susan agreed that some of the language was kind of generic and a starting point,and was hoping for this type of feedback from the committee. Denny thought language about preservation and enhancement of natural resources could be moved up in the first paragraph. Lang asked, what is this place? He added, that the language needs to be more specific. Darcey wondered if the narrative could be more descriptive like Wilma's,but more concise with specifics. Donna volunteered to incorporate some of Wilma's descriptive language with the December 8 draft vision,pulling additional points from the bullets in to the narrative. She added she would email to the committee. Susan thanked Donna for taking this on and agreed to update the December 8 draft based on today's meeting and forward to Donna for her use. • IV. Other Business/Committee Member Reports None. V. Next Meeting The committee agreed to add a meeting on January 21S`. At the next meeting, we will spend some time discussing the presentation before the Planning Commission. VI. Public Comment None. VII. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at approximately 6:15 p.m. L:\Case Files\Planning Project Files\2001\P 01-0002 Lake Grove Town Center\Advisory Committee\Advisory Committee Meeting Notes\AC meeting notes 01-14-04 Final.doc • 15 Lake Grove Village Center Plan Page 3 Advisory Committee Meeting Notes—January 14,2004 Lake Grove Village Center Plan Implementation Advisory Committee • Meeting Notes January 21,2004, 4 to 6 p.m. Lake Grove Elementary School, 15777 Boones Ferry Road Members In Attendance: Ken Sandblast, Chair,Lang Bates,Darcey Eaton,Julia Glisson,Donna Jordan, Vic Keeler, Carolyn Krebs,Jack Lundeen, Chuck O'Leary,Wilma McNulty, Sid Smither,Cheryl Uchida Alternates In Attendance: Adelle Jenike Staff In Attendance: Dennis Egner, Susan Milihauser Guests In Attendance: Liz Hartman,Michael Buck I. Welcome Ken Sandblast called the meeting to order and welcomed everyone. He noted that we would spend the first hour of the meeting on the draft vision statement,then preparation for the January 26th Planning Commission(PC)meeting. Then we would move on to discuss existing zoning issues, if time allowed. II. Public Comment Mike Buck wondered what it is that would make people walk to the town center. He added that if we did all of the things in the vision statement,what would be left of the commercial properties. He suggested 0 that the vision statement may be too bucolic,and there should be more emphasis on economics. He also thought that the vision should have encouraging rather directive language,providing more flexibility. He also added there should be more emphasis on bringing the neighborhood and town center together. III. Task 1 —20 Year Vision for Lake Grove Town Center Review of and Feedback on Draft Vision Statement Ken shared that at the last meeting we reviewed the draft vision statement and heard Elaine Johnson's presentation on Wilma's vision. He added that Wilma's vision added more specific,descriptive language to the more generic vision based on town center concepts. Donna Jordan had agreed to combine the two into the latest draft distributed to the committee. Ken reiterated that the vision provides the basis to guide future detailed work. Committee members shared their comments around the table, as follows. Darcey Eaton wondered what coordinated fashion means in terms of public uses. She also wondered where mixed use went. Carolyn added that the PC is expecting the committee to clearly define mixed use and would like them to allow use to postpone presentation of the vision. She added that she is okay with the vision statement but would not feel comfortable trying to define mixed use. Denny Egner replied that he thought the vision almost gets there. Ken suggested that Carolyn had made a point that we need to identify for the PC—that we still need to define mixed use. Jack observed that the vision statement seems to have forgotten that businesses run down the center of the 0 town center. He suggested that language be added to emphasize there is a lively community of local businesses surrounded by neighbors who use those businesses. Lang Bates agreed that economic viability also needed to be addressed. Jack suggested language such as,each decision made has considered the economic impact on local businesses. 17 Sid Smither shared the some results from the business community survey. He noted that business of the business owners who responded to the survey are against bike lanes on Boones Ferry. They don't see how they will increase business and don't see people using them. However,they do like the center turn lanes. Carolyn wondered if a center turn lane on Boones Ferry will add to safety. She thought to committee should discuss this topic as she was unsure of increased safety due to sheer number of driveways. Sid said a center turn lane would reduce rear end collisions on Boones Ferry. Ken noted that during the first phase of the town center project,there was consensus to improve pedestrian safety across Boones Ferry Road. Sid observed that Lake Grove town center is a commercial area,not a village. Jack said we are also considering the residential neighbors. Julia Glisson observed that term"village"fits the area better than town. Denny noted that the town center effort is connecting the town center and residential areas,but that we are not including low density neighborhoods so as not to encroach on residential areas. Jack continued that the vision is intended to catch the uniqueness of the area—that it is not a cookie cutter town center. Ken noted that town center is a regulatory term and that the word village captures the area and the connection between the commercial and residential areas. Julia suggested we should call it the Lake Grove Village Center. Ken agreed that we could call it whatever we want,and could define in the ordinance that village center equals town center. Sid shared that business and commercial property owners had concerns about shared parking and access agreements,particularlyin terms of liability. Carolynreplied that she feels like she has to move her car to �' Y go to various businesses. Chuck O'Leary opined that is two adjacent parcels are being developed, it makes sense to share parking and access,leading to more and better parking. Ken agreed,and noted that we still need to work out the details. Chuck noted that there is a perception among commercial property owners that the rear alley access from Reese does not work so well, that it is hard to get out on to Reese Road. Julia agreed. She added that there is not enough space to do everything we want to do in the town center. Denny noted that the • concept was to use the alley in conjunction with consolidated driveways and a signal at a mid-block crossing. Sid asked what a neighborhood bike loop is? Wilma clarified the she developed a map and concept last year showing a good bike route around the town center. She added that she would like to see this route signed. The statement was clarified. Susan Millhauser observed that the committees recommendations would need to coordinate with the Transportation System Plan and City policies regarding bike routes and signage. Sid said he liked the idea of signs. Chuck suggested that listing limits on new development be taken out(2' paragraph). He suggested adding library as one of the examples under public uses(2nd paragraph). He suggested including language about incentives in relation to sustainability,and asked for more emphasis on public art. Cheryl Uchida asked how business owners measure economic viability and vibrancy? What about constant turn over? Some responses suggested vacancy rate,rental rates,reinvestment into the business, and number of people that use the business as measures of viability and vibrancy. Someone asked why we would want to discourage drive-thrus. Julia said they are not so good for pedestrians. Lang added that drive-thrus tend to attract more of the same kind of business. Denny noted that building design with a drive-through becomes more complex and makes it harder for the building to related to the street,plus they add more asphalt. He added that there is a difference with a video or library drop box. Staff will check if drive-thrus and adult businesses are currently allowed in the GC zone. Julia noted that the Lake Grove NA plan recommended no more drive-thrus. Cheryl noted that the strip mall is not defined. Vic asked if the location of the alley ways had been put on • paper. Denny replied that during the first phase, several locations were identified. He showed the land use concept map and explained the reasoning. Vic added that Tualatin has done a good job developing 18 Lake Grove Village Center Plan Page 2 Advisory Committee Meeting Notes—January 21,2004 parking close to their city center, and asked if the city was considering buying any houses that came up for sale. Denny replied that the plan calls for two public parking lots in the plan. 1111 Wilma wondered if we need to address solar access. Ken noted that it is already covered under the current code. Wilma suggested that we should be talking to Equity Office about preserving the parcel at the northwest corner of Kruse Way and Carman Drive. She shared a newspaper article about granny flats and wondered if we should be addressing them Susan noted that they are already allowed in the City in single-family residential zones, and would not be particularly relevant in the town center. Carolyn stated she likes the vision overall,but was not sure about bus shelters. Lang repeated his concern that economic viability be addressed more specifically. Confusing and redundant language were identified for clarification and clean up. Preparation for January 26 Planning Commission Meeting Ken summarized that we need to point out to the PC that the committee still needs to clarify mixed use. He added that we should explain why we are changing the name to village center—that the committee feels the term better captures the overall area and the connections between the commercial core and surrounding neighborhoods. He also added that we may want to discuss boundary expansion. Denny asked how the committee wanted to present the vision to the PC. Several committee members agreed to get together and coordinate a presentation of the draft vision statement,representing various stakeholder groups. IV. Other Business/Committee Member Reports None. 4111) V. Next Meeting None. VI. Public Comment Adelle Jenike noted that the we may want to take out reference to strip malls as limiting them may discourage business from locating in the area. She asked what was village style. Carolyn replied that the committee had agreed that strip mall development should be discouraged. Ken suggested it be left for now,but that he was sensitive to Adelle's comment. John Huriburt inquired if we cant to include the Lake Grove Fire District building on Reese Road in the village center? Ken replied that we need to further discuss the boundary. VII. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at approximately 6:15 p.m. L:\Case Files\Planning Project Files\2001\P 01-0002 Lake Grove Town Center\Advisory Committee\Advisory Committee Meeting Notes\AC meeting notes 01-21-04 Final.doc • 19 Lake Grove Village Center Plan Page 3 Advisory Committee Meeting Notes—January 21,2004 Lake Grove Village Center Plan Implementation Advisory Committee III Meeting Notes February 4, 2004, 4 to 6 p.m. Lake Grove Elementary School, 15777 Boones Ferry Road Members In Attendance: Ken Sandblast,Chair,Lang Bates, Darcey Eaton,Julia Glisson,Donna Jordan, Vic Keeler, Carolyn Krebs,Jack Lundeen,Chuck O'Leary,Wilma McNulty, Sid Smither, Cheryl Uchida Alternates In Attendance:Barbara Zeller,Adelle Jenike Staff In Attendance: Dennis Egner, Susan Millhauser Guests In Attendance:Michael Buck I. Welcome Ken Sandblast called the meeting to order and welcomed everyone. II. Public Comment There was no public comment. III. Task 1 —20 Year Vision for Lake Grove Town Center 0 Planning Commission Feedback from January 26th Meeting Ken thanked those committee members who made the presentation as well as those who attended the meeting. Wilma McNulty observed that is should be easy to rectify in the vision Dan Vizzini's comment that the village center serves more that just the surrounding neighborhoods and that the town center contains mixed uses and housing. She added that she liked Frank Groznik's comment that committee members are identifying and working toward common goals. Dennis Egner opined that he doesn't think we are outside Metro town center parameters. Jack Lundeen noted that the question as to what Metro expects from a town center hasn't been answered. Jack reminded that the committee had come to consensus that we will let the market make decisions on mixed use. Denny observed that is we use urban renewal,we can use incentives and a renewal-driven program to encourage mixed use projects. Jack added that individual property owners could make decisions and negotiate. Denny added that we have housing and employment targets for town centers. Susan distributed a handout that broke down estimated capacity for additional housing units and employment in the town center. Denny added that staff would do some research to further clarify Metro mandates. He added that there is an overall target density of 40 persons per acre for town centers. Wilma asked for a refresher on the Boones Ferry Corridor Plan recommendation. Could the committee make additional recommendations regarding three versus five lanes? Denny reiterated that last year staff checked in with the City Council on the topic of the Corridor Plan recommendation and that Council essentially said the recommendation for a five-lane corridor stands. Wilma asked if Metro liked it. Denny said that in terms of receiving funding,no, the plan did not rank well. Carolyn asked if the Council check-in happened prior to getting negative feedback from Metro. Denny stated yes,but emphasized that the issues and assumptions on Boones Ferry haven't changed,such as projected increases 0 in traffic, safety issues and the need for a center turn lane,keeping traffic out of the neighborhoods,etc. Julia Glisson shared that she believes not expanding Boones Ferry will funnel traffic into the surrounding neighborhoods. Donna Jordan said she saw the need for five lanes in places,but didn't necessarily see the need for one long turn-lane down the middle of Boones Ferry. Perhaps there were other possibilities such as a two-lane traffic circle at Albertson's. Denny noted that a recommendation for two more crossings of 21 Boones Ferry came out of the town center plan. Carolyn added that she has concerns about pedestrians crossing so many driveways. IV. Task 2—Review Existing Zoning Standards and Determine Appropriateness • Overview of Community Development Code Denny and Susan gave an overview of the regulatory framework and land use decision process we are working within. Two handouts were given out,one a diagram of the regulatory framework and the other of the land use review and decision making process. Susan noted that the handouts and Power Point presentation would be posted on the project web site. "Hop Topics" Another handout was distributed. Susan explained that this handout tried to identify particular points of interest for committee discussion. Ken added that we will cover one hot topic in detail at subsequent meetings as we look at current regulations in relation to the vision. Ken asked that the committee review the hot topics sheet and identify topics we may have missed. Wilma pointed out natural resource enhancement and protection. Carolyn wondered if the committee would have more time to digest this. Ken noted that packets would be available that highlighted code requirements in summary form. Jack noted that committee members needed time for constituent feedback. Carolyn asked if key City staff could attend meetings on specific topics, such as Tom Tushner and Boones Ferry Road. Regarding edges and boundaries,Denny summarized the Planning Commission discussion about the town center boundaries and additional sites at the edges that might be appropriate to bring into the town center. For example,they had discussed the properties at the northwest corner of Boones Ferry and Kruse Way., which is currently zoned Office Campus (OC)and has an overall limit on the amount of retail. Carolyn asked if the property owners are interested and Denny confirmed that they are and that they had approached the Planning Commission. Sid asked if it would be included in an urban renewal area and • Denny confirmed that it would. Jack noted that it makes sense to have all commercial development happen under the same plan. Mike noted that he had heard that the property owners do not want mixed use. He added that development there would impact Boones Ferry and the signal at Kruse Way which would need further study. Chuck suggested that the site could be included in the town center but keep the current limitations. IV. Other Business/Committee Member Reports None. V. Next Meeting Ken noted that at the next meeting we would review/revisit the hot topics,get a briefing on Metro requirements, and start discussing village character. He asked committee members to review the handouts of code sections for the West Lake Grove and Downtown Design Districts. VI. Public Comment None. VII. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at approximately 6:10 p.m. • L:\Case Files\Planning Project Files\2001\P 01-0002 Lake Grove Town Center\Advisory Committee\Advisory Committee Meeting Notes\AC meeting notes 02-04-04 Final.doc 22 Lake Grove Village Center Plan Page 2 Advisory Committee Meeting Notes February 4,2004 Lake Grove Village Center Plan Implementation Advisory Committee • Meeting Notes February 18, 2004, 4 to 6 p.m. Lake Grove Elementary School, 15777 Boones Ferry Road Members In Attendance: Ken Sandblast,Chair,Lang Bates,Darcey Eaton,Julia Glisson,Donna Jordan, Vic Keeler, Carolyn Krebs,Jack Lundeen,Chuck O'Leary,Wilma McNulty, Sid Smither,Cheryl Uchida Alternates In Attendance:Barbara Zeller,Adelle Jenike,John Hurlburt Staff In Attendance: Dennis Egner,Susan Millhauser Guests In Attendance:Michael Buck, Cathy Shroyer I. Welcome Ken Sandblast called the meeting to order and welcomed everyone. II. Public Comment Barbara Zeller observed that with infill development there can be issues with surface water and standing water. Carolyn Krebs opined this issue would fit under natural resource protection and enhancement. iMike Buck raised a methodology question,that is we need to look at the hot topics cumulatively to see costs, values, and impacts to property. Kathy Shroyer,Lake Grove Neighborhood Association chair,commented that Lake Forest neighbors are concerned about scale,they do not want to see three-story buildings on Boones Ferry. III. Task 2—Review Existing Zoning Standards and Determine Appropriateness "Hop Topics" Committee members made suggestions for the hot topics list, including adding of storm water management and architectural design. Donna Jordan asked what about tree protection and limiting big box retail. Denny Egner added that the committee could identify special areas with trees for additional protection. Denny shared information about the City's various tree protection programs, including the sensitive lands overlay,tree code, and heritage tree program. Regarding signage,Wilma McNulty wondered if that include private signs. She shared what she had heard about pole signs having to be taken down. Jack Lundeen replied that the pole sign removal is due to changes to the sign code several years ago. Metro Requirements and Expectations Denny gave a briefing on Metro targets. Susan Millhauser passed out a sheet that summarizes targets for jobs and housing units. Denny explained that the numbers shown came from the City's reporting to Metro for the period from 1994 to 2017 for compliance with the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan. The City did an analysis of capacity for future development based on vacant and redevelopable properties. He noted that the capacity shown is for both town centers, and an assumption was made that 0 20 to 35% of new housing would occur in Lake Grove town center with the rest occurring in the downtown town center. Denny added that Metro has a general recommendation that town centers can accommodate 40 persons per acre,but does not specify a split between jobs and housing. Someone asked what the density in the town center is currently. Susan will bring information about this to the next 23 meeting. Denny added that these number were targets that we had to show we have the capacity to reach, and that we needed to be in "substantial compliance". Village Character • Susan passed out a matrix that listed various code sections. The committee discussed Chapter 50.45 Building Design, of the Community Development Code. Denny also noted there are the other code sections that could helpful in this process which were distributed before the meeting included the West Lake Grove Design District(WLGDD)and Downtown Design Districts. He also noted that a Comprehensive Plan policy limits retail development in town centers to 35,000 square feet or less. Regarding 50.45.010,Donna observed that design should reflect village character, Wilma added that we need to be taking picture of things we like. Julia Glisson added that we could develop a handbook to show examples of the type of desired development. Carolyn wondered how we come up with standards but not be too restrictive. Lang noted that the WLGDD standards are very prescriptive. Kathy Shroyer opined that developers will pick the path of least resistance and will develop the same type of building. Lang noted that if you focus on the past,you won't get anything innovative and that the future is about sustainability. Carolyn suggested that we could learn from the WLGDD, and inquired if we could form a sub-committee to bring design ideas back to the larger committee? Denny then brought up the topic of scale. He asked if there are uses that the committee wants to limit, such as auto-oriented uses. Donna wondered if we focus on improvements so people can drive to the village center,park their cards,and then do their thing. Jack observed that we could group uses as consumptives versus services. Chuck O'Leary added that we need to be careful of wanting certain types of placed to go away,such as gas stations. Carolyn wondered if we could make certain uses conditional uses. Denny replied yes,that there is a middle ground. Julie added that we need to maintain a convenience oriented mix of businesses to keep people in the district. It was agreed that staff would provide the list of uses and the committee would review. Denny asked to folks keep in mind uses on Boones Ferry versus uses on the cross streets. Discussion about gateways followed. Donna asked if the potential inclusion of the property at the northwest corner of Boones Ferry and Kruse Way changed where a gateway might go. Wilma suggested that we do not use the word district,and that signs should show a unique Lake Grove Village Center symbol. It was agreed that a gateway would be appropriate at Boones Ferry and Kruse Way. At the south end,it feels like you are entering the village center as you cross the railroad tracks and head up the hill. This area would be good for a gateway as well. Signs that say"welcome to Lake Grove Village Center" would be nice. How a theme fit in with a Lake Grove village streetscape standard was discussed. IV. Other Business/Committee Member Reports Susan passed out an article from Planning Commission magazine about controlling strip development. V. Next Meeting No discussion. VI. Public Comment Mike Buck stated that he prefers the existing general commercial standards over the WLGDD standards. Kathy Shroyer commented that the Lake Forest NA board is concerned about scale and that they are against any new development that is three stories or taller. VII. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at approximately 6:10 p.m. • L:\Case Files\Planning Project Files\2001\P 01-0002 Lake Grove Town Center\Advisory Committee\Advisory Committee Meeting Notes\AC meeting notes 02-18-04 Final.doc 24 Lake Grove Village Center Plan Page 2 Advisory Committee Meeting Notes—February 18,2004 Lake Grove Village Center Plan Implementation Advisory Committee 4111 Meeting Notes March 17,2004, 4 to 6 p.m. Lake Grove Elementary School, 15777 Boones Ferry Road Members In Attendance: Ken Sandblast, Chair,Lang Bates,Darcey Eaton,Julia Glisson,Jack Lundeen, Vic Keeler Carolyn Krebs,Wilma McNulty,Chuck O'Leary, Sid Smither,Cheryl Uchida Alternates In Attendance: Jeff Novak,Barbara Zeller Staff In Attendance: Dennis Egner, Susan Millhauser Guests In Attendance: Frank Groznik,Michael Buck,Matt Finnigan,Mich Conklin,Tom Tushner,City of Lake Oswego I. Welcome/Public Comment Dennis Egner called the meeting to order and welcomed everyone. There was no public comment. II. Meeting Notes There were no comments on the March 10, 2004 meeting notes. Ah III. Task 2—Review ExistingZoning ong Standards and Determine Appropriateness a Boones Fern/Road/Safety Denny introduced Tom Tushner,Lake Oswego Assistant City Engineer,who was the project manager on the Boones Ferry Road Corridor Study. Tom gave some background on the Corridor Plan and described the purpose. He then introduced three members of the Corridor Plan Project Advisory Committee(PAC) who were in attendance: Matt Finnigan,Mike Buck, and Jeff Novak. He added that the PAC had 10 members who guided the eight-month long study. The goal of the PAC was to balance current and future transportation needs with those of businesses on Boones Ferry Road. Tom noted that the City's Transportation System Plan(TSP)shows Boones Ferry Road as a five-lane facility classified as a major arterial. He added that the City has applied for funding from Metro for engineering and right-of-way acquisition,but that currently there is no funding allocated for the Corridor Plan. However, the City recently applied for funding through Congresswoman Darlene Hooley's office. Matt Finnigan noted that the PAC did not know about Metro's boulevard funding criteria when they started their work and that the PAC focus also included consideration of economic impacts on and viability of Boones Ferry businesses. Tom then gave a brief overview of the plan elements. The plan focused on the portion of Boones Ferry Road located between the curbs, with the understanding that the town center planning process would look behind the curbs. The plan recommended a five-lane cross section,with a center turn lane in some places, medians in others,and on-street stripped bike lanes. Additionally,the plan made recommendations on: intersection treatments,realignment of Lanewood Ave., signal synchronization for 25 mph speeds, undergrounding of utilities, street light standards, sidewalk widths,and transit service, as well as doing some conceptual site specific studies related to access and parking. 0 Tom then opened it up to questions from committee members. The following is a brief summary of the questions and responses: Q. Any idea how the Bridgeport Village development might affect the Boones Ferry corridor? (Wilma) 25 A. During the Corridor study,the consultant assumed a similar density of development on that site for the transportation modeling, so it was accounted for. Additionally,the City hired an independent consultant to review the results of the transportation study done for the Bridgeport development. (Tom) Q. What was the process to arrive at five lanes?(Denny) A. The PAC examined several alternatives,including a no build option which is the current configuration(four lanes with dedicated left-turn lane at signalized intersections),three lanes with on- street parking,and the five lane section. They found that the three-lane section would not be able to accommodate projected traffic volumes. Currently,the volume is more than 20,000 ADT(average daily traffic), with 30,000+ADT projected for the year 2020. Tom added that a telling example to think about is what happens on Boones Ferry when a lane is closed for utility repairs as that would be the scenario with three lanes. (Tom) Q. Did the study look at alternate routes [for traffic projected for Boones Ferry Road]?(Frank) A. No, as it was beyond the scope of the study. To do so would have required opening up the Transportation System Plan(TSP)to look at neighborhood streets such as Quarry and Upper. (Tom) Q. What are the traffic counts on A Avenue? A. On A Avenue at 5th, the count is 20,000-22,000 ADT. State Street has some sections that are higher,up to 30,000 ADT. Current traffic counts are on the City web site. A Ave. is comparable to Boones Ferry. (Tom) Q. However,A Avenue has full medians and on-street parking and does not have bike lanes. (Lang) A. Yes,and it also has a wider right-of-way(82')with a grid system so there are more options for left turns. Plus there are turn pockets every other block or so and people generally avoid left turns where there is not a turn pocket. The State Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) says that bicycle • ways are required along arterials and major collectors. A Avenue is shown on the City's TSP as needing bike facilities. (Tom) Q. Is it true that an alternative bike route is acceptable?(Carolyn) A. I believe that since Boones Ferry is designated as a regional bike route,it is preferred that the bike way be on the arterial. (Tom) The PAC did look at off-facility options and was unable to find a reasonable alternative. (Matt) Some issues were logical termini,narrow neighborhood streets,and site distance issues. Also,it didn't make sense to pull cyclists off the most direct route when a parallel route was not available. (Tom) In downtown,A Avenue has parallel routes. (Mike) Also, regional bike routes are intended to connect town centers and regional centers to each other, providing access to town center businesses. (Tom) Matt noted that the Corridor is the worst in the city in terms of accidents. Mike added that the PAC also had concerns about bike lanes,driveways,and access points. Tom noted that the sidewalk width recommended in the Corridor Plan recognized that the town center process would likely recommend wider sidewalks. Q. Was there PAC discussion of the posted 30 mph speed limit?(Julia) A. The City went to the state speed control board and they said no change. (Tom) Q. How do you get people to slow down?(Jack) A. One tool is to synchronize the traffic signals. Downtown Portland is a good example. (Tom) Q. Are signals pedestrian actuated?(Frank) A. Yes, all of the signals in the City are,though some need to be updated. The timing could also be set to have a regular pedestrian cycle. (Tom) 26 Lake Grove Village Center Plan Page 2 Advisory Committee Meeting Notes-March 17,2004 Jack observed that we need to make sure that everything fits-bike lanes, sidewalks, street trees,etc. • Q. Did the PAC look at medians as well as a dedicated left turn lane?(Carolyn) A. Currently there are turn lanes at the intersections. Consolidated access (the Corridor Plan recommends 300-foot access spacing) would allow for more landscaped medians rather than a continuous left-turn lane. (Tom) Q. Could we propose a raised median with four lanes in particular places in the corridor?(Carolyn) A. Yes,however it is a challenge with the existing spacing of signalized intersections and the need to provide room to taper the lane into a left turn lane at the intersections. (Tom) The PAC did look at how they could keep the road to two lanes each way,and there were a few areas but it didn't buy a lot of space. Plus, one needs to look at storage for cars waiting to turn left. (Jeff) Lang noted that you can't have a freeway running through a town center. A grid system is needed to relieve pressure from Boones Ferry. Denny replied that an earlier town center transportation concept map showed additional street connections between Lanewood and Reese,but that an additional signal was too tight with existing signals in terms of spacing. Also,Denny noted that such a street fronting a commons/public park would be very expensive to build with no private development to pay for it. Plus, there were other streets proposed,intended to create a stronger street density. Frank added that pedestrian connections from the neighborhoods were also shown,and neighbors circulated a petition saying they did not want such a connection to their neighborhood. Carolyn asked about the alley at the rear of properties fronting Boones Ferry between Reese and Bryant. Denny replied that an alley was looked at and there were concerns that a straight alley all the way through would encourage cut-through traffic, as well as opposition from adjacent neighbors. Jack noted that showing connections between parking lots east of McDonalds was a good compromise. • Q. Do we know the percentage of local versus through traffic on Boones Ferry?(Wilma) Wilma • added that she is in favor of on-street parking on Boones Ferry. A. It is hard to define cut-through traffic. (Tom) A study was done and it showed that about half of the traffic originated or ended in the corridor. (Jeff) This is a high number of local trips for an arterial —50% of the trips either starting or stopping there. (Tom) Q. I recently saw narrow bike lanes on Scholls Ferry Road. (Sid) A. Five feet is the standard width. (Tom) Q. How will the Corridor Plan be implemented? Is$2.5 million [applied for in the last MTIP round] the total amount needed? If not,how will the remainder be funded?(Julia) A. $2.5 million is not the total. The estimate is $8 million,including right-of-way acquisition, undergrounding of utilities,engineering,and construction. However, we won't really know the total figure until the engineering is done. (Tom) Tom added that the Lanewood intersection realignment and signal would be a good first project to pursue funding for as it would provide improved access to the school and a signalized pedestrian crossing. Currently that intersection operates a level of service(LOS)F. Denny added that improvements along the Wizer's frontage might be a good project as well. Q. Could a property owner retain control over the sidewalk and have that area count towards lot size requirements?(Ken) A. The City would request an easement. (Tom) The corridor plan recommended 5-foot sidewalks, with 3-foot tree wells/planter strip. Wider sidewalks of at least 8 to 10 feet are preferred. (Denny) • The right-of-way could end at the curb but an easement would still be needed for public signs, utilities,etc. (Tom) On 122°a Avenue in Clackamas County they have created sidewalk easements rather than requiring the dedication of right-of-way. (Lang) 27 Lake Grove Village Center Plan Page 3 Advisory Committee Meeting Notes—March 17,2004 Ken noted that the Boones Ferry corridor has to move traffic. He added that the Committee's challenge is to draw together the pieces,with opportunities such as shared access and reduced rear yard setbacks to reduce impacts on adjacent properties. Ken continued, the Committee has a chance to solve problems with the town center plan. • Q. Did the corridor plan look at traffic circles?(Lang) A. Roundabouts are challenging with multiple access points and they have to be wider at intersections. Though they do allow for four lanes at the approach. (Tom) They can be intimidating for pedestrians. (Julia) They are very efficient at low traffic volumes,though work less well with uneven traffic flows. (Tom) Q. Could a roundabout work at the"alley"and Bryant Road? Do you have any other ideas? (Carolyn) A. No,the alley intersection is too close to the intersection of Bryant Road with Boones Ferry Road. Limiting left turns with raised medians would eliminate the need for a center turn lane. (Tom) Current Densities in the Town Center Susan shared that the business license research showed there to be 1,736 employees in the village center. She noted that the numbers may be a bit low as several employers, such as Lake Grove elementary,the post office,and others did not come up with employees. She shared that,based on the land use inventory conducted in the fall of 2002,there are 163 dwelling units in the village center. She added that using an average of 2.4 persons per dwelling unit plus the employment figure,the current total is approximately 24 people per acre. Susan continued that based on the City's development assumptions included in the Metro Functional Compliance report and assumptions about how much development would occur downtown versus in Lake Grove and in the West Lake Grove Design District,we could reach approximately 38 people per acre. Susan will summarize this information in a memo for the Committee. " Chuck noted that there are at least 40 more employees that he knows of as insurance industry businesses • are exempt from having to get a business license. Jack added that he could work with high school students to conduct a survey of village center businesses to get a better count of employees. Julia added that they could add questions to learn about employee patterns,the market in the area, etc. Jack added that some monetary compensation for the students would be appropriate. Denny agreed to inquire where the funding might come from. Mixed Use and Connectivity/Transitions to Neighborhoods Committee members gathered around a map of the village center to discuss potential boundary expansions. At the south end,two parcels are being considered for inclusion in the village center the old Lake Grove fire hall and the parcel southwest of the southern edge of the current boundary. Julia noted that she has heard concerns about a road connection through the parcel south of Wizer's. Denny noted that inclusion of the southern parcel closed the gap between the village center and the West Lake Grove Design District. He added that this connection was envisioned as an alley to provide street frontage for new residential development at the rear of the Wizer's parcel. At the north end, Committee members generally like the idea of including the parcel at the northwest corner of Boones Ferry and Kruse Way. What about the Safeco property? Seems like there is a lot of redevelopment potential. Is the road between Safeco and the Equity building a pubic or private street? Susan replied that it looked to be a private street as no right-of-way was shown on the tax lot base on the map. She added that she would double-check this. The property at the corner of Kruse Way and Carman Drive was discussed. Denny noted that there are issues with access to this property. Properties to the west of Lake Grove School were discussed next. Jeff noted that the Waluga neighborhood is concerned about the town center creeping in and taking over the neighborhood. They do not want to lose single-family residential development. Chuck explained that at the last meeting,this area was discussed for inclusion as park or open space land in order to provide more flexibility for relocating the school's playing fields to the rear of the building, providing space for a commons at the Boones Ferry side of the building. Jeff thought it might be okay with the neighborhood to use this area as open space. Denny added that the density could be fixed at 28 Lake Grove Village Center Plan Page 4 Advisory Committee Meeting Notes—March 17,2004 single-family(current zoning). The inclusion of the residentially zoned property at the northwest corner of Quarry and Oakridge was discussed next. Including this parcel would allow the proposed residential 0 development units to be counted and for a consistent street treatment to extend on the north side of Oakridge(south side of Oakridge is in the village center). It was noted that if an urban renewal district was formed and in place prior to this site being developed, the tax increment could help fund village center projects. Jeff added that the Waluga N.A. would like some kind of reassurance that if it agrees to expand the village center boundary,it won't expand more in the future. IV. Other Business/Committee Member Reports None. V. Next Meeting The next meeting will be on April 7,2004,with the topic of parking and continued map work. VI. Public Comment None. VII. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at approximately 6:15 p.m. • L:\Case Files\Planning Project Files\2001\P 01-0002 Lake Grove Town Center\Advisory Committee\Advisory Committee Meeting Notes\AC meeting notes 03-17-04 Final.doc • 29 Lake Grove Village Center Plan Page 5 Advisory Committee Meeting Notes—March 17,2004 Lake Grove Village Center Plan Implementation Advisory Committee • Meeting Notes April 7, 2004,4 to 6 p.m. Lake Grove Elementary School, 15777 Boones Ferry Road Members In Attendance: Ken Sandblast, Chair,Darcey Eaton,Julia Glisson,Donna Jordan, Vic Keeler Carolyn Krebs,Wilma McNulty, Chuck O'Leary, Sid Smither, Cheryl Uchida Alternates In Attendance: Jeff Novak,Barbara Zeller Staff In Attendance: Dennis Egner, Susan Millhauser Guests In Attendance: Frank Groznik,Michael Buck,Bob Stagburg,Brenda Falson,Dienne Irwin-Green, Scot Siegel,Jay Clark I. Welcome/Public Comment Dennis Egner called the meeting to order and welcomed everyone, followed by public comment. Dienne Green, Sunset Dr., stated that she and many of her neighbors on Sunset Dr. do not want the old fire station on Bryant Rd.turned into a commercial use. They don't want this property included in the plan area. She added the they are working on having the fire house recognized as a historical resource. She continued that she and her neighbors are worried about parking and noise,and believe the current use for meetings is good. She also noted that she is concerned about the old growth trees being taken down if the site is commercialized. IIII. Meeting Notes Meeting notes were not available,to be reviewed at the next meeting. III. Process/Next Meetings Ken Sandblast provided an update on upcoming meetings, and noted that we need to be working on products in preparation for the Planning Commission check-in. He added, at our next meeting,we would continue to work with village center maps to talk about zoning and related topics,and today would draw to a close the discussions on mixed use and village character. Carolyn Krebs requested that the June 9 advisory committee meeting be moved the June 2 instead. It was agreed to change the meeting date. IV. Task 2—Review Existing Zoning Standards and Determine Appropriateness Summary of Committee Consensus A working draft consensus summary document(dated April 6, 2004)was passed out. Ken noted that this working draft was staffs attempt to capture potential areas of consensus, based on past meeting discussions,for review and discussion by the committee. Carolyn noted that she would like to postpone this discussion until after the committee has a chance to review this information. She added that the inclusion of 3-story buildings jumped out at her. Ken replied that as we don't have the luxury of time,her would prefer to go over the consensus summary for about 15 minutes to introduce it and answer fpquestions. Carolyn added that she didn't think we had discussed sidewalk widths,Boones Ferry Road,or natural resource protection. Ken agreed and noted that the hope was to spur discussions. Wilma McNulty opined that we can reserve the right to come back to them. Susan Millhauser added that the 31 topics column in the consensus summary came from the hot topics list that the committee had reviewed and discussed several times. Donna Jordan said she saw some items where there seems to be agreement. On another topic,Donna asked if staff was aware of any other proposals for clear cutting like what just • happened at Boones Ferry and Madrona. Denny replied that that property is in the county. He added that a proposal may be submitted for the northwest corner of Quarry and Oakridge. The City's tree code does offer protection,especially in setbacks,open space and landscaping areas. Wilma asked it the are any tree groves in Lake Grove? Denny didn't think so. Susan added that she would check. Julia Glisson inquired if there are steps the committee can take beyond the existing sensitive lands overlay and tree code. Denny responded that the committee could identify and call out significant trees in the village center. He added that tree preservation needs to be balanced with private property rights. Julia added that the trees at the fire hall may need additional protection if there is a new use, such as community center,that would require more parking. Denny replied that the existing level of tree protection covers a portion of the site. Members of the committee would need to follow up and document these types of trees,marking up an aerial photo. Review and discussion of the consensus summary sheet followed, summarized below. Village Character, 1. Scale and Type of Development l.a. -Development more intense along Boones Ferry,with decreasing intensity as it transitions to the neighborhoods. Committee consensus was yes. 1.b. -Bring buildings up to the street. After discussion,this was combined with 1.c. and changed to: No vehicle parking areas located between building and street. Committee consensus was yes. l.c.—Parking in the rear or at side was combined with 1.b. 1.d. —Wide sidewalks(8 to 10'), when possible. Mike Buck noted that he had concerns about requiring • wide sidewalks and impact of this on private property. He wondered if these sidewalks were making connections to the neighborhoods. Susan noted that regarding connections to neighborhoods,the map on page 29 of the town center report shows where there are existing and proposed sidewalks. Julia and Carolyn added that we need to differentiate between sidewalks on Boones Ferry and on the cross streets, how they wrap the corned and transition to the neighborhoods. Sid Smither added that he would hate to see buildings chopped that are close to the sidewalk. Denny clarified that wider sidewalks would be required with redevelopment,otherwise it would be the Boones Ferry Corridor Plan recommendation(5- foot sidewalk with 3-foot wide tree wells.). 1.d. was renumbered 1.c. and rewritten as: Continuous sidewalks or pathways. Committee consensus was yes. 1.e.—Three stories okay if stepped back from street. Sid noted that he would like to see a four-story building at the Pacific Lumber site. It was decided that more discussion was needed on this topic. It was renumbered 1.d. Village Character,2. Types of Uses (Business Corridor vs. Cross Streets) 2.a.—Allow some auto-oriented uses on Boones Ferry and don't allow on side streets. It was noted that auto-oriented uses needed to be defined. Ideas included gas stations,car washes and auto mechanics. It was agreed that more discussion was needed on this topic. Donna noted that this item should be moved to the bottom of the list, so was renumbered 1.c. 2.b. —Limit size by use: site larger scale uses on Boones Ferry and smaller scale uses on side streets; and prohibit big box retail(single retail use larger than 35,000 sq.ft.). This topic was renumbered 2.a. Committee consensus was yes. 2.c. Develop a community facility and identify public/private partnership opportunities on one of five • parcels identified. This topic was renumbered 2.b. Committee consensus was yes. 32 Lake Grove Village Center Plan Page 2 Advisory Committee Meeting Notes—April 7,2004 Village Character, 3. Architectural Design 3.a.—Develop architectural design standards to promote village concept. Carolyn gave a brief update on 0 the work of the architectural design sub-committee. She noted they were working on a palette of architectural styles. Ken asked if the palette would distinguish between more intense development versus less intense development on cross streets. Carolyn added they were okay with taking on streetscape. Ken added he would like to have something to bring to the Planning Commission on May 10. Carolyn agreed and added that they had discussed going beyond the committee,perhaps a neighborhood charrette,and were hoping for some guidance from the Planning Commission. Ken clarified that the would need to be very defined in a request to the Planning Commission and should be careful about expectations. Carolyn added that their approach was to guide rather than regulate design. Susan suggested that the sub- committee share its work with the advisory committee on May 5. Chuck inquired if there were any development proposals in the area? Denny was not aware of any. Mike added that he likes the idea of green roofs and patios,too. Julia noted that the sub-committee has been focusing on architectural features. She asked if they should expand to cover scale and style? Ken said yes, and added he couldn't imagine how you could look at one without the other. Lang Bates added that he has been helping the sub- committee keep costs in mind. Committee consensus was yes. 3.b. —Sub-committee to work on architectural design standards. The phrase, including scale and character of development was added. Committee consensus was yes. Village Character,4. Gateways,Village Commons,Public Spaces 4.a.—Incorporate streetscape theme into gateway project at Boones Ferry at Kruse Way and Boones Ferry at the RR tracks. Committee consensus was yes. 4.b.—Village commons—at the school. More discussion required. 0 Wilma would like us to talk to Safeco about what plans they may have to redevelop their site on Kruse Way. Susan suggested that the committee should first decide if they are recommending the property to be included in the village center. Consensus Work Session Committee members gathered around a working map of the village center to discuss crossings and access along Boones Ferry Road,and parking. The working map showed the signalized mid-block crossing area on Boones Ferry identified in the Town Center Plan,in the area between Reese and Bryant,and the recommended 300-foot access spacing. Denny explained how a mid-block crossing would require the consolidation of driveways along Boones Ferry and rear access to the parcels on the south side of Boones Ferry Road. He also noted that a need for public parking lots was identified for this area,both north and south of Boones Ferry. Denny added that Town Center Plan and Boones Ferry Road Corridor Plan also recommended an additional signalized crossing at Lanewood,also shown on the working map. Carolyn noted that the Town Center Plan said the peak parking problem is on the south side of Boones Ferry between Reese and Bryant. Someone asked about the new development at State Ave. and A Street (Lakeview Village),how much retail and how much parking? Donna added that we need to be looking at alternative modes of transportation. For example,TriMet routes don't necessarily get employees directly to work. Carolyn asked if parking is related to use. Mike confirmed it is. Carolyn suggested we might want to look at parking standards in relation to use. Susan noted that the City's current standards look at use and generally square footage to determine the amount of required parking. She agreed to summarize the City's parking standards for the committee. Darcey observed that we should also look at areas where parking is underutilized, like Wizer's. Chuck 110 expressed that he was uncomfortable picking potential locations for public parking lots. He wondered if we could specify that a parking lot be within a certain distance of a mid-block crossing. Denny responded that we could generally indicate areas where public lots would be needed,and facilitate their development as a project through urban renewal. He added that the City general looks for opportunity purchases when 33 Lake Grove Village Center Plan Page 3 Advisory Committee Meeting Notes—April 7,2004 a site becomes available in a specified area. Mike inquired how wide the driveway at a mid-block crossing would need to be. Ken replied about 30 to 36 feet wide,perhaps with a left turn lane. Mike observed that could take out half of someone's lot. Ken agreed and added that two properties could share the driveway, with shared access agreements. Perhaps there would be an opportunity to purchase a parcel. Ken observed that he sees distinct areas of the village center—Wizer's shopping center,between Reese and Bryant around a mid-block crossing, at Lanewood, and at Mercantile Village. Donna wondered if we could do a property swap with the post office. The rear alley providing additional access to rear parking lots was discussed. Carolyn wondered if Mike and his neighbors could get together and bring forward and idea for the area. Julia wondered if an egress at La Provence would make sense. Mike observed that the location of parking lots would be critical as people won't walk in the rain from the cars. Sid suggested that under building parking could be required for new development. Wilma requested a small map with an aerial photo showing the alley,current parking lots,and buildings. Ken agreed that this would be helpful for everyone. Susan agreed to email maps with aerial photos for the four distinct areas of the village center. Ken asked the committee how they might plan the block if there were no existing development. Several people suggested they would like to have the alley,but not have it go all the way through to Reese Road. The possibility of signalized two access points/crossings in this stretch was discussed,lessening the need to go all the way through to Reese Road. The committee liked the idea of exploring two crossings of Boones Ferry. Susan mentioned that one issue may be stacking distance for the left turn lanes at Reese and Bryant. IV. Other Business/Committee Member Reports None. • VI. Public Comment • None. VII. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at approximately 6:10 p.m. L:\Case Files\Planning Project Files\2001\P 01-0002 Lake Grove Town Center\Advisory Committee\Advisory Committee Meeting Notes\AC meeting notes 04-07-04 Final.doc • 34 Lake Grove Village Center Plan Page 4 Advisory Committee Meeting Notes—April 7,2004 Lake Grove Village Center Plan Implementation Advisory Committee • Meeting Notes April 21, 2004, 4 to 6 p.m. Lake Grove Elementary School, 15777 Boones Ferry Road Members In Attendance: Ken Sandblast,Chair,Lang Bates,Darcey Eaton,Julia Glisson,Vic Keeler, Carolyn Krebs,Jack Lundeen,Chuck O'Leary,George Psihogios, Sid Smither Alternates In Attendance:Michael Buck,John Hurlburt Adelle Jenike,Jeff Novak,Barbara Zeller Staff In Attendance: Dennis Egner, Susan Millhauser Guests In Attendance: Jay Clark,Brenda Falson,Frank Groznik,Elaine Johnson,Milt Mittelstedt,Bob Stageburg I. Welcome/Public Comment Ken Sandblast called the meeting to order and welcomed everyone. Public comment followed. Milt Mittelstedt, owner of Hollyfield,housing for low-income,elderly people, expressed his strenuous objection to the siting of a pathway on the Hollyfield property. Milt added that he could not see how a pathway connecting Sunset Drive to the rear of the commercial properties along Boones Ferry Road could benefit either Hollyfield or Lake Grove Presbyterian Church. Bob Stageburg,a Sunset Drive resident, spoke in support of Milt, saying he also is not in favor of a pathway. He added he has history with the 0 alley and is concerned that a pathway behind Nola Court[bridlepath] poses security,lighting,trash issues, and that neighbors don't want a path along their backyard. II. Meeting Notes Meeting notes were not available. III. Process—Next Meetings The architectural design committee will share its findings with the committee at the next meeting. IV. Task 2—Review Existing Zoning Standards and Determine Appropriateness Jack Lundeen shared a concern from the business and commercial property owners regarding joint access points on Boones Ferry Road. He passed out a written statement from the Lake Grove Business Association,dated April 21,2004. He noted that business owners agree with the concept of joint access drives and driveway consolidation,but do not want specific locations identified or shown on the map. He continued, they would rather general areas be shown, with the specific location of access points determined with overall redevelopment of several lots. He added that there is concern that showing a joint access way on a specific lot could negatively affect property value. Ken noted that consolidation of access might never happen if it not shown in the plan. He passed around an appendix from the West Lake Grove Design District that showed access,as an example. Denny noted that the draft town center plan from last year showed a general area,rather than specific locations,for consolidating access. He added 0 that one option could be the purchase of one property through urban renewal to focus access. Another option is to address consolidation of access as redevelopment occurs by showing a general area where consolidation is needed, with the first property to redevelop triggering access consolidation. Jack suggested that it would be helpful to summarize this information and bring it to concerned property owners on a parallel track to show them how property doesn't get condemned. Ken noted that the Boones 35 Ferry Road Corridor Plan recommended 300 foot access spacing. Mike Buck noted that the Corridor Plan advisory committee didn't address access spacing as it was such a tough issue. Susan noted the City's Transportation System Plan recommends 1,000 foot spacing for new access/new development. Chuck • O'Leary noted that showing specific locations for consolidated access could hamper redevelopment—no one wanting to go first. He added that the West Lake Grove Design District access map shows an access way that isn't being built by a new development. Ken replied that shows there is flexibility during development review,that the drive is not in that specific location. Julia Glisson observed that this topic needs more time and buy in from commercial property owners. She suggested that it would be helpful to see various alternatives and what the impacts are to property owners, such as extending a rear alley. Denny noted that staff,Ken and Frank Groznik, and others would be meeting with Mike Buck tomorrow to look at his parcel,but is not sure we can do this for every parcel. Jack opined that redevelopment thus far has happened in areas where everyone would agree it is needed. He added that we will get buy if the plan can be implemented without adversely affecting business owners economically. Frank Groznik added that he would like to see the City use incentives to create win-win situations,falling somewhere in the middle between strict regulation and the market place. Ken reminded the committee that a plan does not become reality unless a property owner takes action upon deciding it is economically viable for them. Vic Keeler wondered what property owners would be tied in to. Jack noted that the process needs to be outlined, specifying that property will not be taken to consolidate driveways without monetary compensation. Ken agreed that was a good idea, and went on to reiterate that the plan needs to be a binding document. Frank added,that it must be binding,but allow flexibility. Julia observed that we need to take into account other factors such as parking,density and demand. Denny noted that the assumption is that current development meets existing parking requirements. Ken suggested that the committee focus on five areas to look at various development scenarios-lot area, lot coverage,building area,different heights, uses and needed parking. Denny noted we could determine if there is a carrying capacity that is constrained by parking requirements. Adelle Jenike added that we also 41) need to consider natural resources. Ken added that such an analysis could help everyone feel more comfortable and help us know if we're close to target capacity for employment and housing. Denny noted that looking at distinct areas could also help define projects. Someone mentioned there is also money from the Bridgeport development that could be used for a project brought forward to the City. Regarding projects,Denny shared that staff has been working to identify a portion of the Boones Ferry Corridor Plan that might be funded, and are currently focusing on the Lanewood intersection improvement for submittal for the next round of Metro/MTIP funding. Committee members identified five sub-areas for further analysis, and separately identifying areas being considered for inclusion in the village center. Ken suggested we could look at maximum development potential versus 25% lot coverage. Carolyn Krebs suggested each group could decide for a particular sub- area. Ken thought 25% was a good starting point and that he hasn't heard that folks want 100% lot coverage. Julia noted it would be helpful to use one baseline to compare all areas. It was agreed that a base case would be brought to the next meeting. Ken noted it would also be helpful too look at the draft town center plan's proposed land use to see where that gets us. Denny added that everyone should be thinking about density and intensity of use—can we get there with two or three story buildings? Carolyn suggested that we start the next meeting with review of the consensus summary, starting with boundaries. Ken took a quick straw poll on boundaries and most committee members agreed it made sense to include additional areas. Jeff Novak expressed that the Waluga neighborhood would like the parcels at the northwest corner of Boones Ferry and Kruse Way and the Safeco site remain office/campus (OC). They are happy to with that type of office development. V. Other Business/Committee Member Reports 1111 Susan passed out a memo summarizing current City parking standards. 36 Lake Grove Village Center Plan Page 2 Advisory Committee Meeting Notes—April21,2004 VI. Public Comment Susan passed out copies of a letter from Bill Barbat addressed to the committee and the Planning Commission,received April 16,2004. Mr. Barbat's letter addressed his concerns about the safety of bicycles using lanes located in the road with cars. He described a model used in Europe, where bicycles share a wide sidewalk with pedestrians,using a specially marked lane, and suggested this would be preferable in the village center along Boones Ferry Road. VII. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at approximately 6:10 p.m. L:\Case Files\Planning Project Files\2001\P 01-0002 Lake Grove Town Center\Advisory Committee\Advisory Committee Meeting Notes\AC meeting notes 04-21-04 Final.doc • • Lake Grove Village Center Plan Page 3 37 Advisory Committee Meeting Notes-April 21,2004 Lake Grove Village Center Plan Implementation Advisory Committee ill Meeting Notes May 5, 2004, 4 to 6 p.m. Lake Grove Elementary School, 15777 Boones Ferry Road Members In Attendance: Ken Sandblast,Chair,Lang Bates,Darcey Eaton,Julia Glisson,Vic Keeler, Carolyn Krebs,Wilma McNulty Alternates In Attendance: Michael Buck,John Hurlburt,Karen Jacobson,Jeff Novak,Barbara Zeller Staff In Attendance: Dennis Egner, Susan Millhauser Guests In Attendance: Paige Douglas, Scot Siegel I. Welcome/Public Comment Ken Sandblast called the meeting to order and welcomed everyone. Public comment followed. Mike Buck thanked Frank Groznik,Ken Sandblast,Dennis Egner,and Susan Millhauser for organizing a meeting with an architect from Frank's firm and Bob Galante,Lake Oswego Redevelopment Director,to look at his properties in terms of parking and alley access. Mike added that he is not convinced a 26-foot- wide alley would help his situation. He also noted that in terms of access spacing recommendations, 300 feet may be a goal to work toward,but he wished this topic had been brought up earlier in the process as it is very complex. He added that such spacing could work with a long-term plan that has a lot of III flexibility. Darcey Eaton asked Mike for clarification regarding his comments on the rear alley. Mike replied that during the meeting it became clear that if the rear access alley was to continue,it would have to come out somewhere—likely back out to Boones Ferry. Darcey wondered if the alley could come out onto Reese Road. Julia Glisson noted that the Lake Grove Neighborhood Association does not want the alley to come out on Reese. Ken clarified that the meeting with Mike was to look at what the village center plan might mean on the ground. Denny added that how an access lane system and new buildings might work on the site were discusses. At the end of the meeting,it was concluded that connected driveways and parking lots are a better solution than extending the alley,but there were no conclusions on how a series of connected driveways and parking lots might work. Denny also noted that it became apparent that 300-foot driveway spacing was perhaps too wide in that area, with 150-foot spacing potentially being more realistic. John Hurlburt shared that the Lake Grove Fire District board will be meeting tomorrow night to discuss their building on Bryant Road and what to do with it. Julia replied that feedback she has gotten from Lake Grove Neighborhood Association members is that the building should be retained as a meeting place,and the trees on the site should be protected. She added that these desires speak strongly to including this parcel in the plan area. A guest noted that the building is thought to have some historical/ architectural merit. Scot Siegel,owner of the Kumon Math and Reading Center located in the Jenike building, shared that he would like the committee to identify short-term improvements for Boones Ferry Road, such as pedestrian crossings and connected sidewalks. He continued, he observes parents who drop children off at Kumon and then get back in their cars to make short trips in the area that could be done on foot if such pedestrian improvements were in place. Ken noted that we will be coming out of this effort with a list of projects, O. including short-term and long-term projects. He continued,staff also told the committee at the last meeting that the City is working on application for submittal of a portion of the Boones Ferry Corridor Plan—the Lanewood intersection—to Metro for funding through MTIP(Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program). Carolyn Krebs inquired if the committee has the latitude to discuss other options 39 for funding through MTIP. Ken replied that is outside the purview of the committee,though we could spend a few minutes discussing. Denny noted that the City Council makes the final decision whether to submit the application, and the item is scheduled for the June 6 City Council meeting. He added he could talk with other City staff working on the proposal to share the committee's input as the proposal is still in draft form,or committee members could contact Tom Tushner directly. II. Meeting Notes Susan passed out draft meeting notes from March 17, 2004, and asked committee members to review for the next meeting. Additionally, Susan agreed to provide meeting minutes for all meetings through April to the committee prior to the May 12th meeting. III. Task 2—Review Existing Zoning Standards and Determine Appropriateness Summary of Committee Consensus Committee members reviewed,discussed and made changes to the Consensus Summary document dated April 8, 2004, as summarized below. Village Character, 1. Scale and Type of Development 1.b.—No vehicle parking areas located between building and street. Carolyn suggested we add language to clarify that on-street parking is allowed where feasible. The committee agreed the language should be clarified,and had already agreed that consensus was yes. 1.d.—Three stories okay if stepped back from street. Barbara Zeller wondered if we would want to allow three story buildings that weren't stepped back? Denny replied that initially the idea was to encourage taller buildings at the corners on Boones Ferry, and added that the committee had not yet come to consensus on this topic. He suggested the sub-area analysis should help provide some direction. Village Character, 5. Streetscape-signage, street trees, lighting,etc. 5.a. —Like idea of common identity. Wilma McNulty wondered if this meant all the street trees would be the same. Carolyn and Susan replied that was not the intent,and Carolyn agreed that she does not want to see an"orchard"of the same species of trees along Boones Ferry. Committee consensus was yes. 5.b.—Need to more fully develop theme using Darcey's sketches as a starting point. Denny asked what Darcey's ideas were as he had not been at the meeting when she shared them. She explained she had done some sketches of a logo and sign ideas featuring fir trees. Ken suggested we could build on existing City signs—using the same kinds of materials with a unique Lake Grove emblem. Julia suggested we could involve the larger community through a design contest. Committee consensus was yes. 5.c.—Sub-committee to integrate with work on architectural design standards. Committee consensus was yes. Village Character, 6.Natural resource protection and enhancement&stormwater management 6.a.—Protect large firs,native trees. Wilma noted that neighborhoods need to be working on tree preservation in Lake Grove. Carolyn replied that they have been. Denny noted that the City's sensitive lands overlay protects tree groves,wetlands and streams, where as the tree code protects individual trees on a site, allowing for a building envelope and driveway,with trees protected in setbacks, open space areas, etc. He added that it might be helpful to form a sub-committee to identify significant trees or clusters of trees in the village center. Carolyn replied it would be helpful to have an inventory. Denny noted that the City's inventory captures larger trees groves, with the tree code protecting trees on an individual basis. Barbara wondered if we are hurting trees by bringing buildings up to the front of lots. • Denny agreed that could impact trees at the front of lots,but that development could be configured to protect identified trees. Committee consensus was yes. 40 Lake Grove Village Center Plan Page 2 Advisory Committee Meeting Notes—May 5,2004 6.b.—Enhance natural water features—explore possible project in Mercantile to daylight creek and create lake. Committee consensus was yes. 6.c.—Encourage use of sustainable site development and green streets for cross-streets. Carolyn noted • that there could be green streets tools that could be used on Boones Ferry Road as well. The phrase"for cross-streets"was stricken. Committee consensus was yes. Mixed Use, 8. Proximity of Uses. [Note: This and following sections were subsequently renumbered as 7 was inadvertently skipped.] 8.a.—Encourage a variety of uses in close proximity to each other. Committee consensus was yes. Mixed Use,9. Connectivity between uses 9.a.—Provide safe and convenient pedestrian connections between uses, including across parking lots. Carolyn said the word"uses"is confusing; "between uses"was replaced with"within the village center". Julia asked if we agree to 9.a. does that preclude taking a pedestrian path off the map at a later date? Susan noted that off-street pedestrian connections from the neighborhoods are specifically addressed under Connectivity/Transition to Neighborhoods,item 14. Susan and others shared examples of areas around town where pedestrian connections are highlighted by the use of different or raised paving materials or paint to delineate a pedestrian area,including the path to the east of the Bank of America building on 4th and A Ave,the path from Evergreen up to A Ave. near Tucci's,and the path connecting the two parts of Waluga Park. Committee consensus was yes. Consensus Work Session Ken passed explained the Base Case spreadsheet and the sub-areas map, which had been emailed to committee members. The spreadsheet includes assumptions for the sub-areas based on land area,building envelope, landscaping and parking. The committee reviewed and discussed the spreadsheet. Julia 0 observed that existing development in the village center is economically underutilized, as shown by very low lot coverages. Scot Siegel inquired if the spreadsheet assumes no new housing. Ken replied it does not. Scot remarked that by including housing it may lower the number of required parking spaces. Denny also observed that the spreadsheet assumes fairly low FAR(floor area ratio)and lot coverage. Someone asked if the land area includes roads. Susan replied that it does. For the next meeting, Susan will calculate tax lot totals for each area to provide a net area figure. Carolyn confirmed that we are just looking at a very simplified base case. Ken agreed,but noted that it does show trends. Denny modified different variables, such as type of use and building height,to illustrate the corresponding effect on parking(using an electronic version of the spreadsheet). For example,the more restaurants,the greater the required number of parking spaces. Also, as buildings go up in height,the number of required parking spaces increases. The exercise showed that required parking could be a constraint for some types of future development. Ken wondered how the scenario would look with the land uses recommended in the draft Town Center Plan. Lang noted that we need to make up for a deficit in parking. He added that it would be interesting to see what happens when building heights vary by sub- area. For example, we could model four to five story buildings in area 5, with lower buildings in other areas. Denny and Ken agreed to bring make updates to the spreadsheet and email to the committee prior to the next meeting. Ken then asked if the committee still wanted to break up into small groups to look at specific sub-areas? There was no consensus on this topic. Julie asked, what questions do we want the small groups to answer? Lang thought it would be more helpful to do a broad stroke review as a large group,then break into small groups to further discuss sub-areas. Denny stated that he wants to committee to keep in mind last year's work, where the concept was to locate general commercial, auto-oriented type uses on Boones Ferry, with more of a mix of smaller scale uses on the side streets,with some housing. He added that issues for the committee to think about are uses: commercial,mixed use, office and 0 residential; and intensity: building height. He added that staff will also provide a spreadsheet with assumptions about uses and intensity based on the draft Town Center Plan via email. 41 Lake Grove Village Center Plan Page 3 Advisory Committee Meeting Notes—May 5,2004 IV. Other Business/Committee Member Reports Susan provided hard copies of the updated meeting schedule that had been emailed to committee members. VI. Public Comment None. VII. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at approximately 6:00 p.m. L:\Case Files\Planning Project Files\2001\P 01-0002 Lake Grove Town Center\Advisory Committee\Advisory Committee Meeting Notes\AC meeting notes 05-05-04 Final.doc • • 42 Lake Grove Village Center Plan Page 4 Advisory Committee Meeting Notes-May 5,2004 RECEIVED JUN 0 2OOt May 25, 2004 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO Dept.et Kenning&Dev.Mpmwat City of Lake Oswego: Lake Grove Village Center Plan, Implementation Advisory Committee Kenneth L. Sandblast, Chair 380 A Avenue P.O. Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Mr. Sandblast and Committee members: This letter is to inform you that a majority of residents living in the Sunset Drive neighborhoods, Lake Oswego, Oregon oppose any new circulation route(s) (i.e. walkway, pathway, etc.) proposed by the Implementation Advisory Committee (IAC) to provide"connectivity"from the commercial properties located along Boones Ferry Road into the residential areas bounded by Bryant Road, Sunset Drive, and Reese Road. The attached petition underscores the number of residents who feel strongly that additional circulation routes would adversely affect the quality of life in these neighborhoods, and as such, would negate any benefits realized through more direct access to the commercial sector. The primary reasons for our position are: 1. Limited benefit for pathway use to "non-collector"Sunset Drive as opposed to improvements to circulation routes (i.e. sidewalks) on "major collector" Bryant Road or"neighborhood collector" Reese Road. 2. Increase of safety and security issues, especially for children and the elderly. 3. Minimization of backyard privacy, green space, and potential loss of trees. 4. Loss of property value with proximity of public walkway. 5. Maintenance concerns for pathways, lights, and gates/fencing. 6. Litter and other cleanliness issues. 7. Noise level increase associated with the influx of pedestrian traffic. In summary, the undersigned residents of Lake Grove oppose the IAC proposed pathway(s) from Boones Ferry to Sunset Drive, but support any and all enhanced pedestrian facilities along Bryant Road and Reese Road. With these arguments ATTACHMENT G-1 43 and signatures, it is our sincere hope that the IAC will expeditiously remove the aforementioned circulation routes from the Lake Grove Village Center Plan. i Thank you in advance for your community support. Respectfully, Brenda Faison Lake Grove Resident Cc: James Johnson, Chair, City of Lake Oswego Planningec mission Jack Mishler, Chair, Lake Grove Neighborhood Association • 44 • PETITION With regard to the Lake Grove Village Center Advisory Committee's proposal to introduce "connectivity"from the commercial properties located along Boones Ferry Road into the residential area bounded by Bryant Road, Sunset Drive, and Reese Road in Lake Oswego, Oregon: We strongly believe any change of this nature will adversely affect the quality of life in our neighborhood, and as such, would negate any benefits realized through more direct access to the commercial sector. We,the undersigned residents and property owners oppose any new circulation route (i.e. pathway,walkway,trail etc.)which encroaches upon the aforementioned residential zone. 1 2 - i ► 7V ) itt Lt &LA&OstAkep o I 121 I V fit, omit Lk, ,�u^ Q q 7 035 - 4 ,..f' /J v i' / �;�. CV /Gc li r f., ZAl e a,,t c; ` ,,5` 5 c7144/14:_.- C 161 (25- (\o CT IIII , 0 , g7035 6 t� \ \1'""'c (/, //Pi (,5 Alec/ Cl, ( .U. 77o3s 7 t ... Ca2,-„Cl.___ 16 ,1 ( mac c--,7 t-.b. a 1°2-S, 8 to ' ' r -or" orl-(I SI SUA Cyr, C q-v35 o ..„ -,i0, ) Iv- ------- L/45-1 sbitif_ei- h c- ?7015- I 2 ao. 1,ceir)(104,..L A il-A- 4 4'44 1 - a g5 13 14 l22iy i / i I its/ l6l`Jg N4-r4- 7"o ` 7c)rr C-' 15 / ___,./c- d • 16 Ate/ �'I .i /e/.J Y 4111`- .((-/_'0 7C"� 5 j �` i r i J' ‘ 6113 rv47l 0 45 PETITION 0 With regard to the Lake Grove Village Center Advisory Committee'sproposal g s ry p oposa!to introduce "connectivity"from the commercial properties located along Boones Ferry Road into the residential area bounded by Bryant Road, Sunset Drive, and Reese Road in Lake Oswego, Oregon: We strongly believe any change of this nature will adversely affect the quality of life in our neighborhood, and as such, would negate any benefits realized through more direct access to the commercial sector. We,the undersigned residents and property owners oppose any new circulation route (i.e. pathway, walkway, trail etc.)which encroaches upon the aforementioned residential zone. 18 (d, mc Li_.-2,-3 ) <21,t,Kpi (-7'(_ 20 --4)% --1 -7/---i,), 4)6P. \ S k L-E), 1-,C.Cict-N R 21 23 ^. ,, ,, — 7si ///tek: c„,-,/, . d 2., i p_.7 / --) 7 L 'T5_,z---7.t.7.2..de•e-4,' L 0 24 4 A ? 6 5 u.in.e L e f chl,tiz, 11)Akt.' A9 (Op( . 25 7[ 266/4 1f 3 27 _ A A.....41 SU StYli-Cel- a 28 r --- ,, 9' )6D , 5e_e-frt.e_x_.77 gi/L ' .''/ '5 29 i- r ys/ goo t'f fre `- t 30 ita ‘ 4/,‘,V6& . 1-.-::-->" 31 r ,�(/(17Prir y3 / 7 fif;` � 32 ^ c r 33 r � 34All ''t-- -;:\) ii 3 L90 utret Or G' ' O G - ?)s 11 ---Pr Liel,c4f44 -a;--k 435-0 ofeeL. -bc-, • ....v... „ 46 S PETITION With regard to the Lake Grove Village Center Advisory Committee's proposal to introduce "connectivity"from the commercial properties located along Boones Ferry Road into the residential area bounded by Bryant Road, Sunset Drive, and Reese Road in Lake Oswego, Oregon: We strongly believe any change of this nature will adversely affect the quality of life in our neighborhood, and as such, would negate any benefits realized through more direct access to the commercial sector. We,the undersigned residents and property owners oppose any new circulation route (i.e. pathway,walkway, trail etc.)which encroaches upon the aforementioned residential zone. 36 1. 37 38 ; ,,,46 1,14W 39 4/ii , ' C /2.710 41,�/ j 1`3y`3 @S(k'r)LeT 40 41 • 42 (61 10 Na c o( 0,-/-f�LG, i- � 7rz!3s 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 47 • Gum c=7 *ve-z, ATTACHMENT G-2 49 (-. uE iwRE asw �-+'_frc /l l 0 I NO I I I I I. OREGON COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT June 1, 2004 Joyce and Jay Hyde 14655 SW Uplands Dr. Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Re: Lake Grove Village Center Dear Mr. and Mrs.Hyde, Thank you for your written comments sharing your concerns about the May 26, 2004 Lake Grove Village Center Advisory Committee meeting. I will provide the Committee members and members of the Lake Oswego Planning Commission with a copy of your letter. The Planning Commission is the body that will review and make recommendations on the work of the Committee. The Planning Commission will be holding a work session to hear a report of the Committee at its June 28, 0 2004 meeting. You will be receiving a meeting notice postcard. Additionally,the Planning Commission will be holding public hearings on the Village Center plan in the fall of 2004, and will make recommendations to the City Council. The City Council will then hold public hearings later in the fall and will make final decisions regarding the Village Center. These are all opportunities where you could express your concerns. As a commercial property owner in the Village Center,I would recommend that you also voice your concerns directly to the commercial property owner and business owner representatives that serve on the Advisory Committee, if you haven't already done so. I've included their contact information below: Sid Smither Vic Keeler, 503-636-7896 Jack Lundeen, 503-635-9393 PO Box 1337 Vic's Auto Center 4040 Douglas Way. Lake Oswego, OR 97035 15880 Boones Ferry Rd. Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Thank you, ciL4C324--\ ikAA-0-4 Susan Millhauser, Associate Planner 410. 411 CC: Ken Sandblast,Lake Oswego Planning Commission&Advisory Committee Chair Dennis Egner,Long Range Planning Manager moor s cic,' %Ma vi. 380 A Avenue•P.O. Box 369•Lake Oswego,OR 97034.503-635-0290•Fax 503-635-0269•www.ci.oswego.or.us ,-D, u- a5wr t- (-41, f�.NCE oyw • �y N � COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT June 14,2004 Joyce and Jay Hyde 14655 SW Uplands Dr. Lake Oswego,OR 97034 Re: Lake Grove Village Center Dear Mr. and Mrs. Hyde, At the June 2,2004 meeting of the Lake Grove Village Center advisory committee I shared copies of your May 27, 2004 letter regarding your concerns about the advisory committee meeting that you attended on May 26. Carolyn Krebs,the Lake Forest Neighborhood Association representative on the committee, has asked that I pass on the enclosed letter that she has written in response. Copies of this correspondence will also be furnished to the Planning Commission in preparation for their June 28 work session. 0 Thank you, % DI/C. C.Q.,tn i Olit—i'VX Susan Millhauser, Associate Planner 4 CC: Ken Sandblast,Lake Oswego Planning Commission&Advisory Committee Chair Dennis Egner,Long Range Planning Manager Carolyn Krebs 4 ..... ,,,,,,,,mszrca 380 A Avenue•P.O.Box 369•Lake Oswego,OR 97034.503-635-0290•Fax 503-635-0269•www.ci.oswego.or.us (, cn1, June 12, 2004 • Dear Susan, This letter is a response to a handwritten letter you distributed from Jay and Joyce Hyde dated May 27, 2004. I have thought about this letter and feel a response is appropriate. Since the letter was addressed to you, I am hoping that you can see that my letter gets to the Hydes and becomes an official response of record. First, I want the Hydes to know that the concerns of business are very important to all on the advisory committee. Unfortunately, they would need to be present at each meeting to know this and to be able to place all of the committee dialog into context. Our committee works to bring all interests together—and that includes residents as well as business. The Lake Forest neighborhood has asked me to represent their interests on this committee and that includes creating a more pedestrian-friendly environment in Lake Grove. I am aware, as I know the Hydes are, that many Lake Grove businesses service the residents in Lake r v G o e. As customers, the safetyand convenience ofthese residents are important to business. In an earlier meeting, a business owner in Lake Grove provided comments to our committee about his concern for the safety of his clients walking (and I think he mentioned pushing strollers) around the area of his business. Out of fairness, this comment too needs to be taken into account by our committee. The availability of parking is a paramount concern for the committee. Somehow, all discussions seem to lead back to this-so it has been a practical consideration of any land use proposal we have addressed. Addressing increasing scale or density for 110 businesses leads to consideration of allowable parking space and adequate access, allowing space for increasing auto traffic as well as other transportation modes means that the space needs to be created—this too affects parking. We will need to determine if current parking lot designs actually address the parking needs of the future. This is a growing pain that we need to address—but just like my 12-year-old son's growing pains —it needs to be placed into context. The emphasis should not be on the pain but on the growth! We will address parking so that workers and tenants also have safe and convenient access to business as well address the increased scale, density, and mix of uses that are implications of developing a Metro-designated Town Center. The last paragraph of the Hyde's letter offers the common ground that I think we are all seeking. We want a beautiful area. I would like to believe that given a collective common sense we can create a beautiful area in Lake Grove without restrictions. However, I have seen actions of property owners that do not reflect the vision of Lake Grove that our committee has worked long and hard to create—the clear cut property on the corner of Madrona and Boones Ferry comes to mind. It is clear to me that restrictions are necessary for our community to remain economically competitive, livable and beautiful. I believe that our committee will do what is necessary and appropriate to ensure that the Lake Grove Village Center area remains successful and vibrant now and into the future. Sincerely, • Carolyn Krebs 53 • • o AKE OS Community Development -, ► Department • Memorandum OAEGO$ TO: Planning Commission FROM: Debra Andreades,AICP,Associate Planner DATE: June 24, 2004 SUBJECT: Lakefront Zoning(P 02-0007) Work Session—June 28,2004 Introduction On June 28,2004,the Planning Commission will meet to discuss Lakefront Zoning. The purpose of the meeting is to provide the Commission with an update and to define a public involvement process for code revisions. To aid the Commission in their discussion,this memo includes the following sections: Background,Report Summary,Issues and Code Concepts,Zoning Approach,and Planning Process/Public Involvement. II/ Background Unique circumstances exist with regard to development on lake front properties. Market demand has caused many property owners to maximize their investment by building large,high value homes that fill out the building envelope on the lot,resulting in a "boxy"appearance and imposing structures. In addition,the desire to maximize the square a ^ footage of these homes has prompted owners to seek variances that reduce setbacks and increase lot coverage. These concerns have brought the Lake Oswego Corporation and the City of Lake Oswego together to jointly study the pattern of development around the lake and to seek ways to " E encourage compatible development while reducing the number of variances. In 2002-03,the Lake Oswego Corporation and the City jointly funded a study by the Center for Housing Innovation at the University of Oregon. University of Oregon Architecture Professor Ronald Kellett led the study. Mr.Kellett presented the results of the study to the City Council on February 10, 2004. The work included an assessment of existing patterns of lakefront development by lot type and zoning. The objective was to categorize properties according to the type of variance requested,in order to begin to identify alternative regulations and design • standards that could address both zoning and compatibility issues,reducing the need for variances. PC Work Session 1 P 02-0007 June 28,2004 Data indicates that side yard setbacks, and to a lesser degree,front yard setbacks, are the most requested variances. These types of variances may produce a visual effect of mass,not just from • the Lake,and the adjacent neighbor but from the street as well,resulting in competing compatibility issues. At the conclusion of the February10, 2004 stud session the Council discussed some of the difficult issues that would inevitably arise during a process to amend zoning regulations for those properties abutting the Lake. The Council directed staff to begin a public process to explore amendments to the Community Development Code that would result in greater compatibility and less requests for variances. Following is a summary of the facts that were gathered by Mr. Kellett's University of Oregon consultant team. Report Summary Facts were generated from Metro's Regional Land Information System(RLIS)data derived from tax assessments and field visits by the consultant team. The scope of work included a delineation of the study area, an analysis of variances, and a lot level analysis. The study area was defined as all lots that front directly on the lake and those above them,up to approximately two blocks into the surrounding neighbor hoods. Table 1 Estimated Lots in Study Area By Zone Designation Number of Lots R-1 S 231 R-10 348 R-7.5 1,444 31 WR 2,054 Total Aside from the zone in which a property is located, several factors influence development patterns along the • lake: • Topography; • Lot size; • Lot configuration; • House placement; • The perception of lake as"front yard"and street as"back yard". z ,$:gyp �. - ., Zi 4 A ,i40,i N . ..r.ft.'4."'* ?..' its . ,, 4 :-.,;.1.#*--1.'4, -.,.‘''' 4,j,,,,,clopoo.: • ., Topography can cause structures to be A new home on a narrow lot towers over located closer to the lake. the neighboring house at the entrance to III Blue Heron Canal. PC Work Session 2 P 02-0007 June 28,2004 Table 2,below, summarizes the request for variance by zone and variance type. The majority of variance requests originate in the R-7.5 zone. • Table 2 Summary of Variances in Study Area 1994-2002* Variance Type Zone R-7.5 R-10 Total Coverage 19 2 21 Height 3 0 3 Side yard 49 10 59 Front yard 23 3 26 Rear yard 11 2 13 Lakefront 11 0 11 Total of all variance types 118 17 135 *Only examines R-7.5 and R-10. Note that multiple variances may exist on a single lot. In addition,among all the zones around the lake,the Consultant team found that the R-7.5 zone contained the highest number of lots with less than the minimum lot area required by the zone(351 or 24%). By contrast,the R-10 zone has 54 or 15%, substandard lots. Issues and Code Concepts The consultant team's research focused on two core issues: the number of variance requests around the lake and the design of lakefront development. These tie directly to the objectives of the City and the Lake S Oswego Corporation. City officials hope to find ways to reduce the number of variances by changing development standards to bring them more in line with recent development trends. Lake Oswego Corporation representatives want to assure that the design of new development is compatible with surrounding development and fits the context of the site. To address these core issues,the University of Oregon consulting team examined the site attributes and regulatory requirements that contribute to design problems. Following the analysis,the team categorized potential solutions under the following conceptual framework: relationship to the lake,relationship to the street, and relationship to adjacent neighbors. The summary discussion,below,presents key issues and ties those issues to code concepts and the conceptual framework. Topography Slope/setbacks: Slopes greater than 20%have the effect of forcing development close to the street. Current front yard setbacks require structures to be setback 25 feet from the property line. Code Concept: Reduce front yard setbacks on local streets. Require/encourage side loading garages and car courts. Framework: Relationship to street. Slope/elevations: Steep slopes can result in tall building elevations down-slope,viewed from either the lake or the street,depending on the direction of view. To the observer on the lake, larger scaled development can fit the scale of the lake and the surrounding landscape. To the observer on the street,large scaled development can dominate the streetscape. PC Work Session 3 P 02-0007 June 28,2004 Code Concept: Allow taller buildings on the lake-view side of steeply sloped lakefront properties. Enforce front setback planes along the street. Adjust the setback plane requirement for sloped lots(proposed infill amendments do this). Develop rear wall plane standards for steeply sloped lots that have a rear wall • facing the street. Framework: Relationship to lake;relationship to street. Site Constraints: Floodplain,trees,rocks, and other site features may constrain building footprints, creating irregular building shapes and configurations. This often dictates a flattened form against the unconstrained setback. Code Concept: Provide flexibility for yard setbacks when working around site constraints. Ensure side yard plane requirements break up wall planes(if setbacks are reduced, increase wall plane variation). Framework: Relationship to neighbors. Lot Size/Shape Lot Dimensions: Many lots around the lake do not meet minimum lot depth or width requirements for the underlying zone. Non-conforming lots with less than the required depth often generate more rectangular dwellings closer to the street or lake. Irregularly shaped lots with less than the minimum frontage can result in houses closer together. Code Concept: Reduce lot depth and lot width requirements for pre-existing lots around the lake. Framework: Relationship to neighbors;relationship to street;relationship to lake. 411 Minimum Lot Size: Many lakefront lots do not meet current minimum lot size requirements. These smaller,substandard lots trigger most of the variance requests. One way to reduce the number of variances is to reduce the minimum lot size and corresponding dimensional requirements for lakefront properties. This would allow new development on the lots that are presently substandard to meet new lot standards that better fit their size and shape. If minimum lot area requirements are reduced, it will be important to determine whether the reduced lot size will provide an opportunity for new land divisions. For example, a 12,000 sq. ft.lot in an R-7.5 zone cannot currently be divided. If a new lakefront zone with a 6,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size were applied to this property,the site would become eligible for a lot division. To avoid the creation of additional lots,the new minimum lot size could be applied only to existing lots. Code Concept: Reduce minimum lot size for existing substandard properties around the lake. Framework: Relationship to neighbors. Lot Coverage: Many lots around the lake are deep and narrow. This configuration results in homes that tend to spread out on lot and fill the site from setback to setback. Code Concept: Reduce permissible lot coverage so that homes are more compact and forced up in height rather than spread out on the site. Allow taller homes around the lake. Framework: House size;relationship to neighbors. Floor Area Ratio: The floor area ratios(FAR)adopted in 2003 base the allowed floor area of the house to the area of the lot. Based on research,the ratios appear to fit within the prevailing development pattern. Consideration should be given to recalibrating the FAR scale to reflect the denser development pattern on smaller lots around the lake. PC Work Session 4 P 02-0007 June 28,2004 Code Concept: Increase FAR for small lakefront lots. • Framework: House size;relationship to neighbors. Lakefront Issues Building Height/Elevations: The effect of taller buildings is not as pronounced on the lake, as opposed to at the street,because elevations are measured against larger landscape elements. Code Concept: Allow taller buildings on lakefront lots. Framework: Relationship to lake. Building Form: Many lakefront homes maximize development within the building envelope which tends to result in"boxy"homes when viewed from the lake. Code Concept: Develop incentives to encourage design variations by allowing portions of the wall plane to project into the rear setback line or portions of the roof to exceed the height limit. Framework: Relationship to lake. Lake Setback: Property lines in relation to the lake water line vary,allowing some structures to be placed closer to the lake edge and others to be set back at a greater distance. Current setbacks require development to be setback 25 feet from the property line abutting the lake resulting in an unused area in the rear of some lots. Code Concept: Base the"lake setback"on the water line or 100-year flood line,not on the property line, and/or provide exceptions to rear yard setback when Lake Oswego IIICorporation property is between the property line and the water line. Framework: Relationship to the street;relationship to the lake. .,: ` :j''''' "-"'" *,,,,,,„415i5.5,4", f- 41114 luta ' ' ;.:..., v.,'4,011$16t,;A.baiffat-: ...,,,,e,.-4......-,,,..- & . Property line located farther back. Rear property line is located in the lake. .. Street ( t ,.: Al,s,, *-, ,(L,"4,*, 'i'—7e.' „ Unused property within lake setback(25' from property line). PC Work Session 5 P 02-0007 June 28,2004 Lake Views/Side Yards: Many lakefront lots are narrow and homes maximize building area extending from setback to setback. This development pattern tends to greatly limit the informal views of the lake between buildings. These views add value to properties across the street from lakefront properties. In addition, when variances allow encroachments into side yard setbacks,these informal views are obscured further. • `r Code Concept: Modify one or more side yard t' setbacks to create a"view cone"to the lake. The view cone results by requiring the side yard setbacks to be •A • llf x : angled to increase the perceived 'gap' between buildings. Limit the height and density of vegetation _- within the side yard. Framework: Relationship to neighbors;relationship y 'IV ' to the lake. Five-foot setbacks permitted in R-7.5 zone. Three different 'view cones' resulting from three different placements of the same house plan: • ` r4 111110 14 P Streetscape Issues Street as `Backyard': To many lakefront property owners,the lakeside of their property is considered the "front"yard and the street side is considered the"back"yard. This can result in the street façade being ignored and garage doors dominating the streetscape. yr, t Code Concept: Require car courts or side-loaded garages. ''. Framework: Relationship to the street. • PC Work Session 6 P 02-0007 June 28,2004 • Scale/Character: Some local streets around the lake are intimately scaled with narrow widths and buildings close to the roadway. These streetscapes generally include human scale details such as porches • and entries that enhance the pedestrian environment. Code Concept: Allow reduced setbacks in exchange for detailed human scale design features. Framework: Relationship to the street. Zoning Approach Because there are different site conditions and characteristics within the study area, solutions may be framed on several different levels: 1. Plan District: Create a new Oswego Lake Plan District and zone, abandoning existing zones. Plan districts address concerns unique to a particular area-a means to modify zoning regulations for specific areas defined in a study such as this. The plan district can create a new zone or modify a portion of the regulations of the base zone and add additional requirements. • 2. Overlay: Create a new Zoning overlay or sub zone over current zoning or within new Lake Zone (i.e. "lakefront overlay zone"and "lake transition zone", "Lakewood Bay overlay" "Canal overlay'). Based on the current zone and coinciding with existing conditions of the neighborhood and physical attributes of the site. 3. Specific Standards: Develop standards for site attributes as outlined above (categorize properties and regulate accordingly). When a hardship exists due to topographic constraints, such as irregularly-shaped lot or sloped lot, or placement of existing house. This creates impacts on nearby properties or on the environment that may require mitigation on the lot to which this applies. 4. Modifications: Modem the variance process. Create exceptions for development requests meeting specific criteria regarding lot width, depth, size, or slope. Planning Process/Public Involvement The next step in the lakefront zoning process is to develop the concepts to a point where testing can occur. Testing will involve examining how concepts work on various test sites around the lake and holding a public forum to review the results. Following the testing, staff will draft actual code language. To guide the concept,testing, and code development steps, staff proposes creation of a Lakefront Zoning Advisory Committee(LZAC). LZAC Membership The following members are proposed: • One Planning Commissioner(chair) ■ One member of the Lake Oswego Corporation Board • One member representing each neighborhood association abutting the lake - Evergreen - Lakewood - Palisades - Blue Heron McVey/South Shore - Country Club/North Shore - Bryant • Two members representing easement holders PC Work Session 7 P 02-0007 June 28,2004 Charge Statement The LZAC shall be charged with the following tasks: •• Verify issues and concepts. • Test concepts. • Review code language and make recommendations to the Planning Commission. • Check-in periodically with the Planning Commission to assure that LZAC work is consistent with Commission expectations. Questions to be addressed by the LZAC • Do the code concepts address the identified problems in an adequate manner? • Should concepts be applied equally to all lakefront properties? Should the same standards apply to Lakewood neighborhood properties that apply to Lakeview Boulevard properties? • If different standards apply in different areas,how should the standards differ? How should we define characteristics of each different area? Conclusion This memo is intended to give the Planning Commission a basis for discussing lakefront zoning issues and the public involvement process. The memo describes background, issues, concepts,and a suggested public involvement approach. Based on this information,the key questions to be addressed by the Planning Commission at the June 28 work session include: • Are community values reflected in the code concepts? • Does the proposed Lakefront Zoning Advisory Committee provide the appropriate approach to public involvement for this project? If we don't form a committee,what approach should be used? • Have the right issues been identified? What should be added?Deleted? • Should any of the code concepts be changed or eliminated? • PC Work Session 8 P 02-0007 June 28,2004 • City of Lake Oswego LAKEFRONT ZONING STUDY Lake Waw xza. __ East take . � F West take- June 28, 2004 Produced by the neighborhoodsL48 Center for Housing Innovation University of Oregon, 111 Eugene, Oregon 97403 • The Lakefront Zoning Study assists the City of Lake Oswego in consideration of amendments to the City Development Code as it relates to new residential development in areas immediately adjacent to Oswego Lake, a private lake managed by the Lake Corporation This report summarizes results of a study by the University of Oregon Center for Housing Innovation. The study involved two tasks—Task 1 Assessment and Task 2 Regulatory Concepts. The Assessment task reviews existing patterns of lakefront development to characterize lot types, zoning issues and study priorities. The Regulatory Concepts task identifies alternative regulatory concepts and design standards that address zoning and compatibility issues identified in the Assessment task. • Produced by the neighborhoodsLAB Center for Housing Innovation University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon 97403 Project Lead: Ronald Kellett, Professor of Architecture 111111 Lakefront Zoning Study 2 • CONTENTS Introduction 3 Study area 5 Study area attributes Influencing development 6 Topography, natural features Lot size and configuration House size and configuration Lake as boundary Lake as `front yard' Streets as 'back yard' Views to the lake Focus areas 20 East Lake Lakeview West Lake Potential zoning priorities 33 House size Relationship to lake Relationship to street Relationship to neighbors Potential zoning Issues/instruments summary 36 Lakefront Zoning Study 3 • INTRODUCTION Properties fronting and adjacent to Oswego Lake are experiencing substantial redevelopment pressure and often, property owner objectives, zoning regulations and neighborhood expectations are in conflict. New houses and additions to older houses, for example, tend to be, taller, wider and enclose more floor area than their older neighbors. Some residents of established lakefront homes, for example, have expressed concern that some new development has negatively impacted the scale and character of the lakefront and, to lesser extent, that of streets and neighborhoods adjacent to the lake These and related circumstances and conditions that shape development along and near the lake are increasingly in conflict with the assumptions and standards assumed by the regulatory zones that guide development. The majority of lake area properties, for example, are regulated by three different zoning designations (R7.5, R.10, R-15.) Of these, R-7.5 lots make up the majority. A smaller number are regulated by three other designations: (R-0, WR, EC). In addition, the neighborhoods and landscapes within which a particular zoning designation applies can also be very different in size, shape, slope and character from others that share the same designation. Estimated lots in study area 2054 By zone designation R-15 231 R-10 348 R-7.5 1444 Table 1 ► vR 31 Source:City of Lake Oswego Center for Housing Innovation The number of variances sought and received for development among the 2000+ tax lots in the lake study area (described below) reveals the potential scope and magnitude of these conflicts. The preponderance of variances originate in the R-7.5 zone. Most have sought relaxation of front, or side setbacks. A smaller number have sought relaxation of rear or lakefront setbacks lot coverage or height standards (Table 2). 111 Lakefront Zoning Study 4 Summary of variances R-7.5 R-10 • 1994-2002 On R-7.5 and R-10 lots in All variances 118 17 135 study area Coverage 19 2 21 Height 3 0 3 Side yard 49 10 59 Front yard 23 3 26 Rear yard 11 2 13 Table 2 Lakefront 11 0 11 Source: City of Lake Oswego, Center for Housing Innovation Some subject properties have multiple variances Demand for variances are likely to continue, and likely escalate, in the future. The lake area remains a very attractive real estate investment and the value of lots have been increasing at a faster rate than the value of the buildings situated on them. As a result, many more lots, particularly those 'underbuilt'relative to the maximums allowed by current zoning are becoming candidates for tear down or substantial renovations that tend to approach and frequently push the maximum allowable in the zone. • 411 In addition, new infill development standards recently adopted by the City of Lake Oswego will begin to regulate Floor Area Ratios in residential zones. Although sufficiently detailed and precise floor area data in the study area is not available, a review of Metro RLIS data derived from tax assessments indicates that a small number of houses on R- 10 lots and a larger number on R-7.5 lots would exceed the maximum allowable FAR. Lakefront Zoning Study 5 STUDY AREA Ultimately, it will be crucial to identify those lots on or near • the lake that could or should fall within a lake area zoning overlay. Given community values, topography and the locations of lake-oriented house designs, this area extends beyond those lots that front directly onto the lake to include lots that share street frontage with lakefront lots or lots at a higher elevation than lakefront lots, with views of the lake. Although it is early in the process to define a focus area, for the purposes of this study, the study area has been defined as all lots touching the lake and those above them up to approximately two blocks back into the surrounding neighborhoods. Within this nominal area but eliminated from consideration are the commercial and cabana zoned lots at the east end of the lake near State Street. (Figure 1) 4 x e.'P z S i • 'µ. ��y' 'v $ �6 k e'er a .. fi j Source:City of Lake Oswego, Center for Housing Innovation Figure 1 Oswego Lake with Lakefront zoning study area highlighted 11110 Lakefront Zoning Study 6 STUDY AREA ATTRIBUTES INFLUENCING ZONING Within this study area a number of significant attributes unique to the lake area influence how existing zoning • regulations shape the size and character of development. These include: TOPOGRAPHY, NATURAL FEATURES • Slopes greater than 20%. • Generate tall elevations on the downslope face (street or lake). • Push garages to the street when lot grade is level with street grade; or back from the street, deep into the lot if lot grade below street grade. mow ,. 0 Vwranwea ,,., Source:City of Lake Oswego, Center for Housing Innovation Figure 2 Study area topography Red lots issued variances Between 1994 and 2002 • Rock outcrops and mature trees force houses into taller volumes with smaller footprints on flatter, more buildable portions of lot • Generate complex plan and volumetric configurations which tend `flatten'against one or more setbacks. • Lakefront Zoning Study 7 • y. �'4 •-' . n q SSf tiler . �;r s- , ,+ �"," £ r.1lE,.; , !, .:� # 2 �,rc� rx +ate"- g i�iM1 * , 0 3 Yz $Z e F" Figure 3 Topography And natural features LOT SIZE AND CONFIGURATION • Lots below minimum area or dimensions required by zone (Figure 4 and table below). • Some lots fail to meet this minimum area because they are below minimum frontage which tends to push houses closer together, crowding or exceeding side yard setbacks and creating a `wall to lake' (Figure 6 and discussion of views to lake below). • Some lots fail to meet this minimum area because they are below minimum depth which tends to push houses into more rectangular volumes, closer to the street (Figure 5). • • A small number of lots fail to meet this minimum area because they fall below both minimum depth and minimum frontage (Figures 5 and 6). Lakefront Zoning Study 8 Lots smaller than minimum R-7.5 R-10 required by zone Below minimum area 351 54 405 • Less than minimum width 270 20 290 Less than minimum depth 285 13 298 Table 3 Less than minimum width 166 9 175 and depth Source:City of Lake Oswego, Center for Housing Innovation ,K x 7 l a ��°»+« {:Qt'ffi 3NUtLLEtt TN�Y"k�gtI111Ed 6Y ZONE 3' F 3 LBQind .� �. Yawnw Fmz<RB # 6.25 C5 Source:City of Lake Oswego, Center for Housing Innovation Figure 4 Lots 0 smaller than minimum area required by zone 9: 2 T � 0 LOTS LESS THAN MIN.DEPTH Y ZONE .0 Source: Gity of Lake Oswego, Center for Housing Innovation Figure 5 Lots less than minimum depth required by zone 411 (highlighted) Lakefront Zoning Study 9 • 0 LOTS LESS THAN MIN,FRONTAGE BY ZONE R14 4 NM #13 A , Source:Cityof Lake Oswego,g Center for Housin g Innovation Figure 6 Lots less than minimum frontage required by zone (highlighted) HOUSE SIZE AND CONFIGURATION • For the most part, lake area houses are large but not significantly larger than elsewhere in Lake Oswego (based on RLIS floor area data) • The average house on an R-10 lot in the study area is approximately 2,960 s.f. • An R-10 lot at the minimum area required by zone would • accommodate a Floor Area Ratio of approximately 4,000 s.f. A very small number of existing houses on R-10 lots (approximately 6) would have exceeded that standard (Figure 7). • The average house on an R-7.5 lot in the study area is approximately 2,610 s.f • An R-7.5 lot at the minimum area required by zone would accommodate a Floor Area Ratio of approximately 3,300 s.f. Approximately 39 existing houses on R-7.5 lots would have exceeded that standard(Figure 8). • Most would fall within new Floor Area Ratio standards adopted in 2003. • Houses at or above maximum allowable FAR tend to fill the buildable area up to setbacks and height limits. The effect is amplified when lots are smaller than the minimum area (Figures 7 and 8). • Lakefront Zoning Study 10 R.10 Estimated FAR by LOT AREA in Study Area 0 INCNNIMNSCHNIIIIIII -- -- 4 7 immumumminommommomeim INIIMINNIMMEMINIMMISMINNV inniCOMMENIMUniMni 40 /Rim=a0aara11111111111111111M1llt 1. ;46 to 43 iwiiiiireememememermeme MIK.11111111111111HISMONIIMMINIVININIC �z is 42 'VIIIIIJKVIIIIIIII k. 044444144.4 111M41111.11.11111111111111111.6.411111111.11414111111111AlIRG.. 001001111111111101100010011101000110011011111111 0 0 00000 20000 30000 40009 ;50000 00000 LW area in square feet Source:RLIS data(Metro), Center for Housing Innovation Figure 7 Estimated FAR of existing buildings in R-10 zone R-T 5 Estimated FAR by LOT AREA in Study Area 0 as OS •O °+ 1 - ; • t 0.2 i '4W #y ♦ i f • ; t t a 1 wi i� �► ` . • 4 . t 0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 Lot amain Swage feet Figure 8 Source:RLIS data(Metro), Center for Housing Innovation Estimated FAR of existing buildings in R-7.5 zone 411111 Lakefront Zoning Study 11 S • In some areas, the confiu floor area can be the more significantand compatibility issue. guration Figure 9 Rectangular filling buildablevolumes frontage • 111 Lakefront Zoning Study 12 LAKE AS `BOUNDARY' 1110 Building location or height are influenced by three different definitions of`lake': Lake as water line : the physical location of the waters edge, where docks and boat houses and other elements of water- oriented development are situated. Lake as property line : the legal location of the lake as defined by legal ownership by the Lake Corporation (Figure 10) Lake as floodplain : the estimated location of the water line under design flood conditions is elevation 101'. Finished floors of new construction must be set no less than 12" above this elevation (Figure 12). , . ,..*,,,,::;;.?/pet,— '''' 110 ,,,::::,;,/, ,,,,- ,,,,0,,,, ,, 90-f')>°:;$.:4:),,,,.°,11;;;?;",;3;14 ;,'"'l 21 P d ije LAKE CORP PROPERTIES i , ,rod. '— ii : Source:City of Lake Oswego, Center for Housing Innovation Figure 10 Relationship of Private property to Lake Corp. property(hatched) and to water The relationship of this property line to the water line varies around the lake. Current regulations require that buildings (other than boat houses) on lake front lots be setback from this property line. Because this line may be 'near the water' or not, the spatial effect of this setback can vary significantly around the lake. Where Lake Corp property is back from water line, houses are compressed into relatively small footprint well back from Lake In the following example III (Figure 11), a house crowds the relatively small developable portion (after setbacks and variances) of what otherwise appears to be a generously sized lot. Lakefront Zoning Study 13 1 -,-f,-,,,-,.:/•,, ',. 0 .Silent ' I I tCF 1 fl L Y .buL...._wr ..Y Figure 11 Source: Center for Housing Innovation Private property line In relationship to water line ( , _ Vie rrm Orr ,---,-e , l'ot: ;', --' I Flood Root ,i ..,,'/' -, — ,, 0 Source:City of Lake Oswego, Center for Housing Innovation Figure 12 Oswego Lake floodplain y ' w " � ► g j, Figure 13 Property lines near or coincident with water line • Lakefront Zoning Study 14 t. I n.r Figure 14 Property lines farther back from water line LAKE AS `FRONT YARD' • The lake side elevations of lake fronting houses are seen from far away and `measured'against other elements (such as larger stands of mature trees or a `ridgeline', for example) much larger than those other neighborhoods • Houses could be quite tall, with larger scaled elements and still appear to 'fit' on the lake side • j Figure 15 Perceived building height From or across lake STREET AS 'BACK YARD' • Streets serve both `public'and `service'roles • With the notable exception of Lakeview, which is high traffic volume street, lake area local streets are `urban' yet intimate and pedestrian-oriented in character despite few sidewalks or trees in the public right of way. • Lakefront Zoning Study 15 rl/( -h Figure 16 Intimately scaled Local streets • In part because of lot area, dimensional limitations and variances, some houses and many garages are located very close to the street. More compatible examples are careful to reduce the perceived scale of the house as it approaches these intimately scaled streets. or' :, p - - t ire. '' i. 4 # -a..*. 4 -e ii ,,,, ,,, ,,. ,,,,,. , , ,. „s __,.., ,-„,-, , — , ----,, ,, , --: , iti in 4,- ' Figure 17 Reduced scale along local streets i . , •• i .. . / ..74, ‘1,,,, ..:',“, ,,,i NI,04.441j...1._ , -,,, . M ...qlilt 10, s f .x ' ` F ��„ " .«'a � 'f, . . #' h`M' ".. Figure 18 Combining scales Smaller`street scale'(left) Larger'lake scale'(right) • Lakefront Zoning Study 16 • While the public living spaces of lake-fronting lots aree drawn toward lake, the public living spaces of lots on layer back from the lake are drawn to the street, specifically to upper floors that look `over'lakefront lots •:4::1 • *4: !V -7.70,441414"*.":-- ammo am. #' Figure 19 Backyards and tall rear elevations along street • Many backyard/service functions now front directly onto public streets. • ' Siy,. �z . � ? r.4%, ✓- s �`k4+�foe. 2�"�F 'S .x$ 4 s � � _........ Figure 20 Service spaces fu directedand to street • These local streets are sufficiently low volume and intimately scaled that an integration of public street and private service spaces can be successful. Small scaled, car and service courts toward the street are one example. Lakefront Zoning Study 17 P s rio„„, „ „. • aS ,<z t Figure 21 Service spaces and functions Gathered in courts VIEWS TO THE LAKE • Decreasing this space between houses and, between houses and the street reduces opportunity for glimpses of 4110 the lake that are important to neighborhood character. • As topography, lot size and other siting constraints restrict the area of lot, houses are pushed closer to one another, up against (and past) side setbacks and closer to the street up against (and past) front yard setbacks leaving little opportunity for views of the lake between houses. • In some circumstances these have been the same lots that have received side yard variances that narrow the gap between houses even further. This effect is more acute when the wall against the side yard setback is long and tall. • In some circumstances these have been the same lots that have received front yard variances that create a 'wall effect' against the street. • Lakefront Zoning Study 18 • .i.!..,„,..4--.1., fr.r,--:: , -f-, , i - ' ,,,,- ;41 . ,g., € a Figure 22 Glimpsed lake view between houses . .: . 14. ES x. ' va`Nw .. ....y. 10 .., . ,....,..,,,,„..i„:4,..,40-t-_,„ ,,. .. , ,. ,.... . ...„,iisio.„ ;,,,, . ‘ ?„. , , , ,,,,,,;,,, ....„„ .i„. , .,...., :TD * # . 1 X Figure 23 Lost lake view potential between houses • In addition, where sufficient space between houses might permit glimpsed views of the lake, trees and other tall planted vegetation can further reduce or obscure that opportunity. • Lakefront Zoning Study 19 • £ j R SJI. 2 .e • _. ... - `'.=.rt".rt t -fig 'ls ' 1-—.77'—'''''-ci ' ..,71% — '.. ‘'',' ::.'''''', '41-, ,'-' Figure 24 Glimpsed view potential obscured by vegetation III III Lakefront Zoning Study 20 • 0 FOCUS AREAS In order to better understand how the foregoing attributes influence development, recently developed lots in three areas— East Lake, Lakeview and West Lake —w were selected for more detailed study. These areas, while a relatively small portion of the entire study area represent areas of significant recent development and illustrate issues shaping development around the lake area as a whole. (figure 25). 1 � s -- �,riy�c . rig ; s , 3: ,� ,. - • a q ' 1::C!:1.: :or*. ,,. :,,,.):;,e./t:E;ts;Z'::kl*:**'H'"*"t::.;N''-'':'r*.'f:!*;'::t?:r:;!:;:4:41-#"1:;:* mot" ` Rm • ., Vt.f.::-....,,,..." h: {.rt`i qq BN L f. , Source:City of Lake Oswego, Center for Housing Innovation Figure 25 Focus areas East Lake 1, Lakeview 2, and West Lake 3 Within each focus area, several specific lots are highlighted and numbered. Each highlighted lot represents a lot that was received a variance between 1994 and 2003. See Tables 4, 5 and 6. A small number of lots in each focus area are illustrated in greater detail as instructive examples of the specific circumstances and built results. See illustrative site studies. • Lakefront Zoning Study 21 0 e "" r ems' eb a ,'4, 61T . - ° A x Figure 26 Source: Center for Housing Innovation East Lake-numbers refer to sites with variances(see Table 4) East Lake • Lots in this area of the lake are zoned R-7.5. Attributes influencing development in this area include: TOPOGRAPHY AND NATURAL FEATURES • Slopes greater than 20% along and above Lakefront. • Large rocks and mature trees constrain building siting and footprint options. LOT SIZE AND CONFIGURATION • Approximately 50% of lots are smaller than minimum required by zone generating front yard, side yard, rear yard and lakefront variances. LAKE AS BOUNDARY • Relationship of water line to property lines varies and some lots are set well back from lake as a result. LAKE AS `FRONT YARD'/STREET AS 'BACK YARD' • Significant slopes accentuate height and character differences between lake and street— especially along shallow lots of Lakefront. VIEWS TO LAKE • Obscured by building location, topography and vegetation. • Lakefront Zoning Study 22 { • East Lake variances Approximately 10 variances have been granted between 1994 and 2002 in the East Lake focus area. The preponderance have been to side yard(see Table 4) w a -a c Lot number t la a) e Summary of variances (see map figure) �j = ef3 CO XI 0 In East Lake area 1994-2002 19 1 20 21 1 1 22 1 23 1 1 1 30 1 31 1 32 1 33 1 1 1 34 2 2 Table 4 Source: City of Lake Oswego, Center for Housing Innovation 11) Illustrative lots From the above, a recently developed lot is illustrated in greater detail on the site study on the following page: • 1617 Lakefront No variances • Lakefront Zoning Study 23 Insert 11 x 17 study 1617 Lakefront • Lakefront Zoning Study 24 i 10 9 x� • .; * #,t`�a , L Source:Center for Housing Innovation Figure 27 Lakeview-numbers refer to sites with variances(see Table 5) Lakeview This portion of the lake is zoned R-7.5. Some of the study 1111 area attributes influencing development in the Lakeview area include: TOPOGRAPHY AND NATURAL FEATURES • Slopes greater than 20/ along most of Lakeview. LOT SIZE AND CONFIGURATION • Approximately 50% of lots are smaller than minimum required by zone. • Many setback variances. HOUSE SIZE AND CONFIGURATION • Several larger new houses have been developed in this portion of the study area. LAKE AS BOUNDARY • Lots toward the west end of this area are further back from water. LAKE AS `FRONT YARD'/STREET AS 'BACK YARD' • Lake view is the busiest street in study area and many buildings are situated very close to it. • VIEWS TO LAKE • Several examples of taller houses filling lot frontage. Lakefront Zoning Study 25 Lakeview variances Approximately 11 variances have been granted in the Lakeview focus area. The preponderance have been to side • yard and lot coverage (see Table 5). a a) a .° _ s w �° Lot number m ) m e . m Summary of variances (see map figure) �j . J Lakeview area 1994-2002 2 2 3 1 1 4 1 1 5 1 2 1 1 1 6 1 1 7 1 8 1 1 9 1 1 10 1 1 Table 5 11 1 1 *=illustrated lot Source:City of Lake Oswego, Center for Housing Innovation Illustrative lots Of these, two recently developed lots have been illustrated • in greater detail on the site studies on the following pages. These are: • 2910 Lakeview (#11) Variances were granted for front yard and side yard • 3796 Lakeview (#2) Variances were granted for side yards • Lakefront Zoning Study 26 Insert 11 x 17 study 2910 Lakeview 5 ," N Lakefront Zoning Study 27 Insert 11 x 17 study 3796 Lakeview Lakefront Zoning Study 28 • E444 .:,� _ & • 1. Source:Center for Housing Innovation Figure 28 West Lake-numbers refer to sites with variances(See Table 6) • West Lake This portion of the lake is zoned R-7.5. Some of the study area attributes influencing development in the West Lake area include: TOPOGRAPHY AURATR • Relatively flatN portionT L of FEA studyUES area. LOT SIZE AND CONFIGURATION • Approximately 50% of lots below minimum required by zone, most are below minimum frontage. LAKE UDA • AS PrivateBON propRYerty line and water line more or less coincident in most of this area. LAKE AS `FRONT YARD STREET AS `BCK YARD' • Low traffic, intimatel'/ y scaled streets.A • Relatively flat topography diminishes scale difference between `lake'and `street'. VIEWS TO LAKE • Narrow lots and reduced setbacks diminish • opportunity for glimpses of lake. Lakefront Zoning Study 29 West Lake variances Approximately 8 variances have been granted in the West 0 Lake focus area. The preponderance have been to side yard and front yard(see Table 6) ls as es es o a.Lot number as c a w Summary of variances (see map figure) �j t h (t J In West Lake area 1994-2002 48 1 1 49 2 51 2 1 52 53 1 Table 6 54 *=illustrated lot Source:City of Lake Oswego, Center for Housing Innovation Illustrative lots From the above, a recently developed lot is illustrated in greater detail on the site study on the following page: • 4289 West Bay(#53) Variances were granted for front yard • Lakefront Zoning Study 30 Insert 11 x 17 study 4289 West Bay • Lakefront Zoning Study 31 • POTENTIAL ZONING PRIORITIES4111 Many existing structures do not meet current standards. Therefore, solutions must be crafted within a framework that can capture and remedy the most problematic characteristics of existing development. This section presents the potential zoning code amendments that address the problems and issues identified in this report. • Define extent of'lake'influenced zoning. This area should include lake-fronting residential lots plus an additional ring of lots within a specified distance (e.g. one lot back from lake) that impact or are impacted by lakefront development. The extent of this additional area could vary with topography and development pattern. • Wthin the Lakefront zoning study area, lots zoned R- 7.5 at less than minimum area, depth or frontage required by zone, present the most difficult site planning and design challenges and trigger the most variances. • • It will be important to pre-empt the creation of 40 additional R-7.5 lots at less than minimum area, depth or frontage. There are, for example, many above minimum R-10 lots that may be candidates for subdivision in the future. Zoning is best able to regulate: • house size • relationship to lake • relationship to street • relationship to neighbors Given these categories, consider creating a lake area zone that regulates attributes summarized on the pages 34-35. See also the summary in Table 7. • Lakefront Zoning Study 32 0 HOUSE SIZE Floor area ratio • With the exception of a few undersized lots, new FAR standards adopted in 2003 appear to support prevailing development pattern. No other change contemplated. Coverage • Consider limiting coverage so that houses grow up in compact, taller forms rather than spread out and fill up lots. Height • Consider permitting greater height 'downslope'toward lake with downslope elevation standards or design controls. See also 'lakefront height'below. RELATIONSHIP TO LAKE Lake setback • Assuming floodplain and/or water line can reasonably be located for this purpose, consider setting a new 'lakefront' setback based on water line or floodplain. Lakefront`height' • Since scale of lakefront is much larger than that of the streets and backyards of other zones, consider increasing height limit of'on-lake'houses to be greater than that permitted`off-lake', if in turn designed with regard to views to and from other areas of the lake. RELATIONSHIP TO STREET Front yard setback • Consider permitting secondary structures (side loading garages for example) that reduce the perceived scale and improve privacy, within the front yard setback. • Consider an upslope (steep) variation of recently adopted front setback plane standard. Garages and garage openings • Consider requiring car courts and/or side loaded garages. Lakefront Zoning Study 33 RELATIONSHIP TO NEIGHBORS fb Side yard setback • Consider modifying one or more side yard setbacks to create a 'view cone'to lake. The examples illustrated in figure 29 below demonstrate the view cones that result with the same house plan is flipped from side to side to change the geometry of the gap between. s f --L f Y —s L_ A e i ‘ / f-` y f .� �T t .s..J ilpr j a 111 Source:Center for Housing Innovation Figure 29 View cone effect of Building placement and Configuration Three different view cones resulting from three different placements of the same house plan Vegetation within side yards • Consider limits on height and density of vegetation within side yard setbacks. • Lakefront Zoning Study 34 40 POTENTIAL ZONING INSTRUMENTS LOT SIZE: Subdivision Review standards and guidelines affecting future subdivision of R-10 lots. HOUSE SIZE: Floor area ratio Consider recalibrating allowable FAR scale to reflect denser development pattern on smaller lots around lake Coverage Consider recalibrating coverage scale to encourage more compact development on smaller lots Height Consider rear elevation standards for street facing walls on through lots located on steep slopes RELATIONSHIP TO LAKE: Lake setback Consider a new definition of`lake' for setback purposes. Lakefront height Consider increasing height limit for lake facing elevations on steep slopes RELATIONSHIP TO STREET: Front setback Consider relaxation of front yard setback for accessory structures and incentives for side loading garages. Garage and garage Consider requiring car courts on openings side-loading garages. RELATIONSHIP TO NEIGHBORS Side setbacks Consider `angling'side yard setbacks on at least one side to increase perceived 'gap'between buildings. Vegetation in side yards Consider limits on vegetation height and density within side yards. • Table 7 Lakefront Zoning Study 35 LAKE°\ Community Develop Planning Divisioloollw 0ment � 4 Memorandum OREGO To: Lake Oswego Planning Commission From: Dennis Egner, Long Range Planning Manager Date: June 22, 2004 Subject: Planning Commission Work Session—June 28, 2004 P 04-0007 Variances and Adjustments Staff is proposing a new type of variance that is intended to allow variations to certain code requirements when there is no harm to the surrounding neighborhood. The process would allow • certain variances to go forward without an applicant meeting the current hardship test required for Class II variances. This new variance would allow greater code flexibility than what is illio currently allowed under the Class I administrative variance process. The process is envisioned to be similar to the Residential Infill Design Review process. No materials were prepared in advance of the mailing date for June 28 meeting. We plan to facilitate a discussion of key issues at the meeting. a