Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - 2017-04-04 4111it ;r! lir iii It t I . 'ia..• I e \( Fi... .. . 4. - • a • _ 1• x .4 . ii s li111111k i lo qb ..„,,, Lake OswegCity Council Meeting API' Tuesday, April 4, 2017 CONSENT AGENDA For Full Council Approval 1111 dalha ■ The consent agenda allows the City Council to consider items that require no discussion. ■ An item may only be discussed if it is pulled from the consent agenda. ■ The Council makes one motion covering all items included in the consent agenda. 4.1 APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTESqls . . s 4.1.1 February 21, 2017, Regular Meeting .09 4.1.2 March 7, 2017, Regular Meeting Motion: Approve minutes as written 4.2 Arbor Week Proclamation CONSENT AGENDA For City Councilors' Approval • ftlie oft I, 5.1 Resolution 17-11, A Resolution of the City Councilors of the City of Lake Oswego Approving Appointments to the Transportation Advisory Board. Motion: Move to adopt Resolution 17-11. AGENDA o � CITY COUNCIL MEETING IV O April 4, 2017 6:30 p.m. °REGo ' Council Chambers, City Hall Contact: Anne-Marie Simpson, City Recorder Email: asimpson@lakeoswego.city Phone: 503-534-4225 Also published on the internet at: www.lakeoswego.city. The meeting location is accessible to persons with disabilities.To request accommodations, please contact the City Manager's Office at 503-534-4225 48 hours before the meeting. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 4. CONSENT AGENDA—Full Council Approval ♦ The consent agenda allows the City Council to consider items that require no discussion. ♦ An item may only be discussed if it is pulled from the consent agenda. ♦ The City Council makes one motion covering all items included in the consent agenda. Motion: Move to adopt the consent agenda. 4.1 Approval of Meeting Minutes 4.1.1 February 21, 2017, Regular Meeting Minutes 4.1.2 March 7, 2017, Regular Meeting Minutes 4.1.3 February 16, 2017, Special Meeting Minutes Motion: Move to approve minutes as written. 4.2 Arbor Week Proclamation 5. CONSENT AGENDA—Councilor Approval 5.1 Resolution 17-11,A Resolution of the City Councilors of the City of Lake Oswego Approving Appointments to the Transportation Advisory Board. Motion:Adopt Resolution 17-11. 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city Page 2 6. CITIZEN COMMENT(15 minutes) The purpose of citizen comment is to allow citizens to present information or raise an issue regarding items not on the agenda or regarding agenda items that do not include a public hearing. A time limit of three minutes per individual shall apply. 6.1 Prior Citizen Comment Follow-Up 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS 7.1 Ordinance 2734,An Ordinance of the City of Lake Oswego Adopting the Uplands Neighborhood Plan into the Neighborhood and Special District Plans Volume of the Comprehensive Plan; Amending the Transportation System Plan to Expand a Pathway Project;Amending the Community Development Code to Add the Uplands R-10 Overlay District (LOC 50.05.012); and Adopting Findings (LU17-0001) Motion: Move to approve LU 17-0001, and to enact Ordinance 2734. Public Hearing Process: 1. Review of hearing procedure by David Powell, City Attorney 2. Staff Report by Sarah Selden, Senior Planner 3. Testimony:the following time limits shall be observed, but may be changed by the Council: 10 minutes for representatives of recognized neighborhood associations, homeowner associations, government agencies, or other incorporated public interest organizations; 5 minutes per individual 4. Questions of Staff 7.2 Ordinance 2737, An Ordinance Annexing to the City of Lake Oswego Two Parcels Consisting of 1.06 Acres Located at 16287 and 16425 Bonaire Avenue, Together With the Adjacent Public Right of Way; Declaring City of Lake Oswego Zoning Pursuant to LOC 50.01.004.5(a- c); and Removing the Territory from Certain Districts (AN 17-0001 and AN 17-0002). 7.3 Ordinance 2739, An Ordinance Annexing To The City Of Lake Oswego One Parcel Consisting of 0.59 Acres at 13730 Cameo Court; Declaring City Of Lake Oswego Zoning Pursuant to LOC 50.01.004.5(a-c);And Removing The Territory From Certain Districts (AN-17-0003). Public Hearing Process: 1. Review of hearing procedure by David Powell, City Attorney 2. Staff Report by Paul Espe,Associate Planner 3. Testimony:the following time limits shall be observed, but may be changed by the Council: 10 minutes for representatives of recognized neighborhood associations, homeowner associations, government agencies, or other incorporated public interest organizations; 5 minutes per individual 4. Questions of Staff Motion: Move to enact Ordinance 2737. Motion: Move to enact Ordinance 2739. 503.635-0215 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city Page 3 8. COUNCIL BUSINESS 8.1 Resolution 17-12, Intent to form a Local Improvement District (LID)for public sewer improvements affecting 1507, 1523, and 1531 Cedar Street. Motion:Adopt Resolution 17-12. 8.2 Release of Roadway and Utility Easements at 13211 Knaus Rd. and 13209 Amber Place Motion: Move to authorize the City Manager to release the roadway and utility easements to 13211 Knaus Road and 13209 Amber Place. 9. INFORMATION FROM COUNCIL 10. REPORTS OF OFFICERS 11. ADJOURNMENT 503.635-0215 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city 4.1 0-itSass COUNCIL REPORT � � o tri �REGO� TO: Kent Studebaker, Mayor Members of the City Council FROM: Anne-Marie Simpson, City Recorder City Manager's Office SUBJECT: Approval of Meeting Minutes DATE: March 29, 2017 SUGGESTED MOTION Move to approve minutes as written. ATTACHMENTS 1. February 21, 2017, Regular Meeting 2. March 7, 2017, Regular Meeting 503.635-0215 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city ATTACHMENT 1 r �� CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING H MINUTES V �- O February 21, 2017 O ____ ) REGON 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Studebaker called the regular City Council meeting to order at 6:03 p.m. on February 21, 2017, in the City Council Chambers, 380 A Avenue. 2. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Studebaker and Councilors Kohlhoff, Buck, Manz, Gudman, and LaMotte Excused: Councilor O'Neill Staff Present: Scott Lazenby, City Manager; Anne-Marie Simpson, City Recorder; Erica Rooney, City Engineer; David Kudna, Project Manager; Scot Siegel, Planning and Building Services Director Lake Oswego School Board Members Present: Chair Sarah Howell and Directors Liz Hartman, John Wallin, and John Wendland Lake Oswego Planning Commission Members Present: Chair Robert Heape and Commissioners Randy Arthur and Skip Baker Others Present: Dr. Heather Beck, School District Superintendent, and Stuart Ketzler, School District Senior Executive Director Finance and Business Services 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Studebaker led the Council and School Board members in the Pledge of Allegiance. 4. WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS Mayor Studebaker welcomed School Board members in attendance. It was noted that Director Bob Barman was excused. 5. COUNCIL BUSINESS City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 9 February 21, 2017 5.1 Contract Award for Country Club Road Infrastructure Improvement Project — WO 246 Report and Attachment Ms. Rooney, accompanied by Mr. Kudna, expanded upon the background provided in the Council Report, pointing out the location of the project area as now identified, Country Club Road from 10th Street to the intersection known as Six Corners (Exhibit A). As illustrated with PowerPoint slides, she discussed the need to address the underlying infrastructure issues in conjunction with the needed re-paving so as to avoid multiple disruptions to this significant arterial road over the next 10 to 20 years. Prior to the re-paving, three other infrastructure elements would be dealt with: (1) water line, with an increase in size and addition of fire hydrants; (2) sewer line realignment in the street, replacing or rehabilitating broken pipes and improving future accessibility; and (3) storm systems, which may or may not entail replacement of existing lines, but will definitely require replacement of the current catch basins. The re-paving phase will complete the project; as the Pavement Condition Index is currently at 26, full reconstruction will be needed. She provided additional background and detail about options for addressing the storm drain system, water line replacement, and sewer line realignment components. Continuing with an overview of projected costs, she indicated that the total could be in the $4 to $4.5 million range, emphasizing that this would include improvements to all four utilities. Significant time and effort would be expended on identifying traffic impacts and developing strategies for minimizing these. The anticipated schedule called for completion of the design by fall 2017, advertising and bidding for construction in early 2018, with construction beginning in spring 2018 and finishing in fall 2018. In concluding, Staff requested that Council authorize the City Manager to award the contract to Murray, Smith &Associates, Inc. to begin the design phase, as recommended in the Council Report. Councilor Buck, recognizing that resolution of traffic problems at the Six Corners intersection was outside the scope of this project, asked about opportunities to improve pedestrian connectivity, possibly with striping. Ms. Rooney described impacts that would be involved with various changes to the traffic flow there, explaining that some small striping changes would be considered in the re-paving phase of this project; these could make the intersection more pedestrian/driver friendly. Outside of that, other components to improve the operational function of the intersection would not be addressed as part of this project. She emphasized that the outcome of the project would not preclude more significant changes that would be part of traffic- flow improvements at a later time. Councilor LaMotte inquired about the cost differential if the recommended solutions to traffic- flow problems were to be included in this project, since it is already in the $4-5 million range. Ms. Rooney indicated that the additional amount might be $1.5 to $2 million. She described her concerns about the extensive public involvement and testing of alternative approaches that would be required, as these would significantly delay the needed infrastructure improvements outlined in the project now before Council. Councilor LaMotte noted that it was important to keep the traffic improvements in mind over the long term. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 9 February 21, 2017 Councilor Manz expressed appreciation for Staff's mindfulness of the City's "dig-once" philosophy. Councilor Gudman moved to award a Personal Service Contract to Murray, Smith and Associates, Inc., Engineers/Planners in the amount of $385,698.00 for the Country Club Road Paving & Utility Improvement Project, Work Order 246. Councilor Manz seconded the motion. A voice vote was held, and the motion passed, with Mayor Studebaker and Councilors Kohlhoff, Buck, Manz, Gudman, and LaMotte voting `aye'. (6-0) 5.2 Ordinance No. 2732, An Ordinance of the Lake Oswego City Council Amending LOC Chapter 50 (Community Development Code) for the Purpose of Clarifying and Updating Various Provisions (2016), Including Pre-Application Conference Exemptions, Street Front and Side Yard Setback Plane Measuring Points, Courtyards in the Downtown Redevelopment Design District, and Height of Building Definition; and Adopting Findings (LU 16-0030). Report and Attachment Mr. Lazenby noted that the Ordinance would implement the direction of Council as set in their tentative approval at the February 7, 2017, public hearing regarding the proposed Code amendments. The Findings reflect the fact that, based on public comment, Council directed Staff to remove the section with recommended modifications to the Long Wall Plane standards in zero lot line dwellings. Mayor Studebaker moved to adopt Ordinance 2732. Councilor LaMotte seconded the motion. A voice vote was held, and the motion passed, with Mayor Studebaker and Councilors Kohlhoff, Buck, Manz, Gudman, and LaMotte voting `aye'. (6-0) 6. JOINT MEETING WITH THE LAKE OSWEGO SCHOOL BOARD 6.1 City Council Goals — Mayor Studebaker Mayor Studebaker reviewed the 2017 City Council Goals. 6.2 School Board Goals — Chair Howell Student Population Projections Report Chair Howell explained that various School Board members would be presenting information to keep the Council apprised of the School District's direction. She discussed the long and positive partnership shared by the District and the City and expressed appreciation for the opportunity to present information and ask questions of the Council. Her overview included the School Board's responsibilities, the District's mission, and funding of schools. She updated Council on the City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 9 February 21, 2017 demographic study that had been presented recently to the School Board (Student Population Projections Report). A key finding was that District-wide enrollment was expected to grow by 940 students by fall of 2023, leading to a renewed commitment to ensure that the District has a good long-range facilities plan and a successful bond cycle to support it. Director Wendland reported on the comprehensive facilities plan that had been developed over the past several years, leading to the bond strategy and the measure to be presented on the May 2017 ballot. With an accompanying PowerPoint presentation, he described various challenges that had contributed to the current poor condition of many School District facilities. The District is at a crossroads in that its excellent outcomes will soon be affected adversely by the facility conditions. Neighboring school districts have operated under a bond measure program for some time, and Lake Oswego is at a competitive disadvantage in terms of attracting new families and recruiting teachers who have an expectation of technological and other resources. In providing an overview of the District's school and central facilities, he described deteriorated systems and inadequate technology related to the age of many buildings. Safety and security issues, notably earthquake risk, present significant concerns. With completion of the facilities study, it was determined that eight of the ten schools are in poor condition and that Lakeridge Junior High School should be replaced; these conditions are limiting educational outcomes and they will worsen as delivery methods for education continue to change. He detailed some of the deficiencies, such as insufficient maker spaces and technology infrastructure, noting their adverse impact on learning programs. In order to move forward and deliver a 21st Century education, some of these issues must be corrected. Next he described the community involvement process that had contributed to the facilities plan. Among key survey findings were that most residents (1) are not aware of the critical condition of school buildings; (2) expect the District to prioritize completion of the most critical repairs; (3) support technology updates and enhanced curriculum; (4) are concerned about risk of earthquake; and (5) 80% believe that keeping Lake Oswego schools strong protects their home property value. This had led to the School Board's recommendation to address the District's most critical needs and to the $187 million bond proposal, which would fund repairs, construction, modernization, and improved safety and technology. From a comprehensive list of $540 million in improvements, the proposed $187 million consisted of the most critical needs. The Board shared the community's view that the measure should ensure citizen accountability, community oversight, and annual audits of bond projects and expenditures. Director Wendland noted that the proposed tax rate would be $1.25 per thousand dollars of assessed value. In discussion of anticipated effects on homeowners' property tax bills, Council members posed questions about the median home price assumptions and valuation method. Mr. Ketzler discussed the basis for the estimates as presented. Director Wendland described key outcomes of the bond proposal in terms of the project costs comprising the $187 million total. He noted that, although the pool had not originally been included, input from the community had convinced the Board that this was the time to address it. Therefore, $ 7 million of the $12 million anticipated for pool replacement had been included in the bond. He outlined current uses and challenges related to the pool, calling on Council members to discuss their views relative to serving the community's needs and strategies for funding. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 9 February 21, 2017 Councilor Gudman asked about potential locations and leasing of space for the bus barn. Chair Howell discussed the District's limitations related to owning versus leasing of property. Dr. Beck discussed requirements for this facility and provided background on the District's efforts to find a suitable site over the past couple of years. Their active search is continuing and Council's assistance would be most welcome, she indicated. Possible locations were suggested in ensuing discussion, including the Foothills District and the Southwest Employment Area. Councilor Kohlhoff requested clarification regarding the budgeted $7 million for the pool versus the $12 million total cost estimate. Director Wendland described varying needs of the school teams and other community users. The recommended two-pools approach would meet the needs of all groups at a projected cost of$12 million. Chair Howell affirmed that experts had provided the $12 million preliminary estimate as the midpoint cost of a facility that would serve not only students but the entire community. Councilor LaMotte expressed interest in making the various facility options available for Council to review. In further discussion, Chair Howell clarified that the Board was committed to a replacement pool facility in some form. However, based on input from the community that they would accept only a certain increase in rate, the Board took a conservative stance and focused this bond on critical needs, hence the lesser amount for this line item on the bond. Mayor Studebaker asked about annual pool maintenance costs. Chair Howell confirmed that these are currently in the $350,000-$400,000 range, but could be expected to be nearer to $200,000 in a new facility. A larger facility could also provide opportunities for additional revenue, Director Wendland noted. In response to Mayor Studebaker's inquiry about plans for one or more additional bond measures, Director Wendland reiterated the $540 million total that had been identified for facilities projects. He emphasized the community's request to have a complete list of needs. Based on the needs not being addressed by the May bond measure, the School Board would like to propose another bond in the next 4 to 5 years. Timing, however, could depend on a variety of factors. Councilor Manz asked about the extent of work for the high schools involved in this bond measure. Acknowledging that the high schools were in better shape than other schools, Director Wendland discussed the Board's strategy to bring three of the elementary schools up to standard and replace the junior high school, along with ongoing maintenance. Through this approach the proposed bond will benefit all 10 school buildings. The remaining four buildings would be addressed by future bonds within this three-bond cycle, he explained. Councilor Buck asked about needs that neighboring jurisdictions might have for pool facilities. In ensuing discussion of various approaches, it was determined that there was not a larger base of funding that could be tapped. He expressed interest in any studies that had been done to quantify the demand for a new full pool facility or the potential revenue that could be generated with the two-pool configuration. In discussion of next steps, Councilor LaMotte asked what support was needed from Council to assist with forward motion on the pool facility. Director Wendland observed that private funding sources, such as the Lake Oswego Swim Club, could be considered, in addition to City and other government money. Councilor Kohlhoff noted that, City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 9 February 21, 2017 if the City were to pick up the cost of ongoing annual maintenance, it would be necessary to identify the expected incremental revenue from additional events. Chair Howell updated Council on the two-year project to consider revised school start times. Subsequent to a recommendation two months earlier from a committee of stakeholders, the School Board had asked for a revised recommendation. This was expected to be brought to the Board's February 27 meeting, after which they expected to make a decision in March. Director Hartman described the heavy use of the high school and junior high athletic fields, including during evening hours. Potential changes to school hours, along with the City's ongoing activities for the over-40 community, will require the School District to work with the City on issues of field lighting throughout the District. These may include permit requests and code changes, depending on needs that are identified. Director Wallin discussed several safety issues related to the School District/City partnership. A specific item in the proposed bond addressed funding for immediate occupancy of most school gymnasiums in the event of post-earthquake need. He expressed gratitude for the participation of City first responders, together with School District staff, in FEMA training and for maintenance of safe streets during recent snow events. Safety concerns of School District constituents included poor road conditions on some school bus routes, he observed, and he was pleased to learn that the Council Goals included maintenance of streets and pathways. Brief discussion followed, with Councilor Gudman updating Board members on the recent Council approval of increased transportation system development charges. 7. DISCUSSION OF ITEMS AND ISSUES OF MUTUAL INTEREST Councilor LaMotte discussed the importance of conveying to all constituents the high quality of the School District's planning process. He expressed appreciation for this effort and asked how the Council might support the bond issue. Director Wendland requested a resolution of support for the bond measure and an endorsement in the voters' pamphlet. Councilor Gudman indicated that a resolution would come before Council in an upcoming meeting, with the outcome to be reflected in the voters' pamphlet and in the Lake Oswego Review. He affirmed the Council's long- term commitment to the City-School District partnership. 8. JOINT MEETING WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION Report and Attachments Chair Heape described the Planning Commission's process, based on the City Council's methodology, for recommending the Commission's 2017 goals for Council consideration. The Commission's current projects (Council Report, p 1-3) had been prioritized, with the top three identified as the review of standards for flag lots and private access lanes, completion of current neighborhood planning projects, and proposal of a Community Development Code amendment related to the Tryon Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant. Considering the limited resources available and high priority that Commissioners assigned to some new projects, they wished Council to consider deferring the Lake Grove Village Center Design Handbook to one year later. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 9 February 21, 2017 He reported that they had identified high-priority newer projects, but had subsequently discussed the need to prioritize the study of parking standards for Downtown or possibly for the city as a whole. In addition, he acknowledged the two potential new projects discussed in the Council Report (p 3): one related to increased flexibility of the architectural design standards of the Lake Oswego Style applicable to the Downtown Redevelopment Design District (DRDD) and the other to address any Code changes pertaining to the new issue of short-term rental housing. Mayor Studebaker asked for background on the issues related to city-wide parking standards. Council and Commission members described recent discussions and other input relating to the Lake Grove Parking Management Plan, flag lots/private access lanes and other new development, and Downtown. Councilor Buck, referencing a 2010 Downtown parking study that had determined the area had more than adequate parking, asked what this proposed goal was meant to address. In further discussion, Council members suggested considering recommendations in the 2010 study, as well as other approaches. Chair Heape noted that the Commission had moved away from a Downtown focus, suggesting that a more comprehensive approach to parking standards was needed to address specific problems in locations throughout the city. Planning Commissioners had proposed this review as a way of looking forward to effects of development, as opposed to solving a significant current problem. Mr. Siegel provided additional background on the 2010 study and subsequent discussions. He recalled that the most recent determination had been to wait for completion of the Wizer project and then assess how the current standards are performing. After extended discussion, Council consensus was that this was not a priority for the 2017 Commission goals. Mr. Lazenby discussed the first of the two potential new projects for the Commission, some potential relaxing of the architectural design standards of the DRDD. He clarified that the Council's interest related specifically to potential projects on B Avenue. Council members discussed various considerations, including the need for review of the entire Downtown district versus the B Avenue area and specific issues that require greater design flexibility. Mr. Siegel described the three styles currently allowed in the DRDD, noting that they had some elements in common, with resulting limitations in flexibility. He discussed possible approaches and related challenges and then asked Council to clarify the direction to the Planning Commission. Discussion of Council and Commission members ensued. Councilor LaMotte posed questions about scope and ways to provide flexibility in the standards. Commissioner Arthur asked if it was Council's desire that one or two additional types of styles be designated; further discussion of Council and Staff followed. Mr. Lazenby noted that Council hoped to find a way to provide greater flexibility for development that was both beneficial to the community and not constrained by the defined Style types. Councilor Manz indicated that she preferred some variety as opposed to the homogenous look she has seen with Downtown redevelopment. In response to Councilor Buck's concern about the need for specified design types, Mr. Siegel explained that this was not a necessity. He cited the example of the Lake Grove Village Center Plan,which called for a palate of architectural styles that would achieve an eclectic result. He indicated that adding several more styles to the Downtown standard would not likely achieve the desired flexibility. This could be attained, with resulting improvements in design, through a process that would be somewhat more discretionary and not without challenges. Following additional Council discussion, it was determined that the Commission would address this project in their 2017 goals. It would be taken up in lieu of the review of parking standards discussed earlier in the meeting. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 9 February 21, 2017 Mr. Siegel noted that the second potential new project for the Planning Commission, development of standards for short-term rentals, had been brought to the Commission by citizens asking the City to address it. Councilor Manz reported that she had talked with the City's Tourism Advisory Committee about the topic and described research she had done on Airbnb rentals in Lake Oswego. She indicated that there is potential for transient lodging tax revenue, as well as community impacts to consider, but she was not sure that this a matter of priority for the Commission. A brief discussion followed about the potential regulation of this type of housing and the extent to which a Planning Commission review was applicable. Mr. Lazenby indicated that the current prohibition of these rentals under the Zoning Code placed the matter within the province of the Commission, but that most of the regulations would fall outside the Development Code. Councilor Buck expressed concerns about allowing this use in terms of the overall housing challenges in the metropolitan area. Council's policy should support the need for affordable housing, which could include Airbnb-type rentals with supporting transient lodging tax, but with restrictions such as those imposed by the City of Portland. In related discussion, Councilor LaMotte discussed economic development opportunities. Councilor Kohlhoff noted that regulation would need to include premises liability as part of the City's responsibility for ensuring safe and adequate short-term rentals. Chair Heape expressed the Commission's willingness to take on the short-term rental project, as determined to be within the scope of their responsibility. He confirmed that this, along with the review of more flexible design standards, would take priority over the review of parking standards. This reflected the Council consensus, Mayor Studebaker indicated. Mr. Siegel advised that Staff had capacity to take on these two projects, along with the ongoing work of the Planning Commission. He outlined preliminary timelines for the projects. In taking on the two new projects, Chair Heape requested clarification that deferral of the Lake Grove Village Center Design Handbook was acceptable to Council. Councilor Buck indicated that he did not believe completion of the handbook was an urgent matter. He raised a concern of the Boones Ferry Road business community regarding signage that will be affected by the right- of-way purchase. Mr. Siegel explained that the matter was being discussed and described a few options that were under consideration. In further discussion Councilor LaMotte conveyed concerns from some business owners about signage visibility. Councilor Gudman asked if the Planning Commission was willing to consider a change from two meetings per month to a single monthly meeting. Chair Heape noted that the concern he had discussed with Mr. Siegel was about the length of the current meetings rather than the frequency. He indicated that the suggestion could be considered, but that focused meetings with clear timelines on the bi-monthly schedule would be most productive. Councilor Kohlhoff described concerns about the way the current Planning Commission project PP 16-0004, Local Street Connectivity, is being presented (Council Report, p 2 of 5). She expressed the opinion that approaching the problem with the standard of flexibility does not seem appropriate in terms of making an exception to a rule. This particular project struck her as being addressed for just one person or one development. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 9 February 21, 2017 9. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Studebaker adjourned the meeting at 8:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Anne-Marie Simpson, City Recorder APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: ON Kent Studebaker, Mayor City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 9 February 21, 2017 ATTACHMENT 2 Ce Eyoot a„ CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING H C MINUTES V 1L 0 March 7, 2017 GREG_. 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Studebaker called the regular City Council meeting to order at 6:33 p.m. on March 7, 2017, in the City Council Chambers, 380 A Avenue. 2. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Studebaker and Councilors LaMotte, Kohlhoff, Buck, O'Neill, Manz, and Gudman Staff Present: Scott Lazenby, City Manager; David Powell, City Attorney; Anne-Marie Simpson, City Recorder; Jessica Numanoglu, Planning Manager; Joel Komarek, Project Director, Lake Oswego-Tigard Water Partnership 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Studebaker led the Council in the Pledge of Allegiance. 4. CONSENT AGENDA 4.1 Approval of Meeting Minutes 4.1.1 January 24, 2017, Regular Meeting Minutes 4.1.2 February 7, 2017, Regular Meeting Minutes 4.1.3 February 16, 2017, Special Meeting Minutes Motion: Move to approve minutes as written. Report and Attachments END CONSENT AGENDA Councilor Gudman moved the adoption of the Consent Agenda. Councilor Manz seconded the motion. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 7 March 7, 2017 A voice vote was held, and the motion passed, with Mayor Studebaker and Councilors LaMotte, Kohlhoff, Buck, O'Neill, Manz, and Gudman voting 'aye'. (7-0) 5. CITIZEN COMMENT • Jerry Ghiglieri, PO Box 171, Lake Oswego Ms. Ghiglieri expressed concern about the recent prohibition on use of PGE poles for mounting banners on State Street. She discussed the banners' many positive effects in terms of communication with Lake Oswego residents and with others passing through the city. A proposed solution was for the City to install its own poles for street banners, and she urged Council to consider this important influence within the community. • David Elton, 16200 Pacific Highway, #2 Mr. Elton discussed the importance of recognizing achievements of the City's fire and police personnel. He highlighted a recent lifesaving effort of the Fire Department in the downtown Safeway store, as well as the outstanding performance of the Police Department in managing the March 4 Trump rally and anti-Trump protesters. He presented a Lakeridge High School varsity letter to Councilor O'Neill, recognizing him as father of 'Super Pacer' Kelly O'Neill. Finally, he described plans to honor his late father through a college scholarship program to be funded by his family's charitable trust, perhaps in partnership with the City and Lakeridge High School. Mayor Studebaker expressed Council's appreciation to the Lake Oswego Police Department and to assisting officers from nearby jurisdictions for their handling of the March 4 event in the downtown area. 5.1 Prior Citizen Comment Follow-Up No follow-up on prior Citizen Comment was presented. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS 6.1 Ordinance 2736, An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego Amending LOC Chapter 50 (Community Development Code) to Allow Bakeries in the IP Zone (LU 17-0002). Report and Exhibits Mr. Powell introduced the public hearing on Ordinance 2736 and read the Ordinance title. Noting that this was a legislative decision before the Council, he outlined related compliance requirements. He then reviewed the hearing process, including time limits for testimony as outlined in the agenda. Next he asked if any City Council member wished to make a declaration relating to conflict of interest. Hearing none, he asked if anyone in the audience wished to challenge a City Councilor's right to hear the application; no challenges were heard. Staff Report City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 7 March 7, 2017 Ms. Numanoglu provided brief background on the proposed amendment, which was initiated by the City Council in a public hearing in December. It addresses an unintended consequence of the Commercial Code Streamlining amendments that were adopted in fall 2016. Those amendments disallowed production-type bakeries in the Industrial Park (IP) zone even though other types of food-production facilities were allowed, as discussed in the Staff report (Council Report and Exhibits). There had been no specific finding or legislative intent to differentiate between bakery and other types of food production allowed in the IP Zone; the proposed amendment would correct this inadvertent error. Draft Ordinance 2736 had been recommended for approval by the Planning Commission at its February 13 hearing. After touching on the related amendments to the Commercial Use Table, she highlighted applicable limitations that would apply to ensure that the use was consistent with the intent of the IP Zone. Staff's recommendation was for approval of draft Ordinance 2736. Testimony Mayor Studebaker called for any testimony concerning the matter. No testimony being heard, he closed the public hearing. Councilor LaMotte moved to approve LU 17-0002 and Ordinance 2736. Councilor Gudman seconded the motion. A voice vote was held, and the motion passed, with Mayor Studebaker and Councilors LaMotte, Kohlhoff, Buck, O'Neill, Manz, and Gudman voting 'aye'. (7-0) 7. DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS 7.1 Assignment of the Engineering Contract for the Water Treatment Plant Expansion Project: Work Order 206 Report and Attachments Mr. Komarek reviewed Council's consideration one year earlier of another consent to assignment, as discussed in the Council Report. The two firms that had consolidated at that time, which were the construction contractor and engineer for the Water Treatment Plant expansion project, had now been acquired by Stantec Consulting Services. Therefore, Council was now asked to authorize the execution of a Consent to Assignment to the new firm for the engineering contract for the project. Staff's greatest concern with the changes, he related, was to ensure that (1) there would be no impacts to the project in terms of the management personnel involved;(2) the acquiring firm would provide the financial wherewithal to complete the project in accordance with the existing contract with the City; and (3) the new firm agreed to accept the obligations and liabilities inherent in the contracts. These requirements have been agreed to, as reflected in the signed Consent, he reported; only the signature of the City Manager was needed now. In response to questions from Mayor Studebaker, Mr. Komarek confirmed that the individuals now involved in both the engineering and construction aspects of the project would remain through the completion of the contract. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 7 March 7, 2017 Councilor Gudman moved to authorize the City Manager to execute the Consent to Assignment of the Engineering Contract for the Lake Oswego Water Treatment Plant to Stantec Consulting Services, Inc., WO 206. Councilor LaMotte seconded the motion. A voice vote was held, and the motion passed, with Mayor Studebaker and Councilors LaMotte, Kohlhoff, Buck, O'Neill, Manz, and Gudman voting 'aye'. (7-0) 8. STUDY SESSION 8.1 Stafford Urban Reserve Remand Report and Attachments Mr. Lazenby explained that the study session was intended to provide an update for Council on the status of the Stafford Basin urban reserve designation that had been remanded earlier. After a brief review of the background (Council Report and Attachments), he noted that with changes to the Clackamas County Board of Commissioners at the last election, the new Board had shown willingness to reopen the discussions with Metro about proceeding with approval of the designation. After reminding Council that even after an urban reserve designation, many steps would necessarily precede actual urbanization, he reviewed several key considerations. The designation would open the door for urbanization, he acknowledged; this has been a concern of neighboring cities, including Lake Oswego. The area is currently rural and outside the City's jurisdiction. However, the Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan does state that the areas of the Stafford Basin nearest to the city should retain a rural character. On behalf of Lake Oswego residents, Council can be legitimately concerned about potential "spillover" effects if Stafford were to urbanize. He discussed likely impacts on roads and other infrastructure, livability issues relating to the lack of a goal to address good urban form, and expectations of Lake Oswego residents located closest to the urban reserve boundary. An important point for Council was to identify the concerns that need to be part of the discussion with Clackamas County and Metro, Mr. Lazenby emphasized. Among available options for the City could be to appeal such an urban reserve designation, as had been done earlier by the cities of West Linn and Tualatin; another approach could be to have language included in the designation that would seek to protect the concerns and interests of Lake Oswego. While acknowledging the tight timeline for the hearings, he indicated that he perceived willingness to address the cities' concerns, particularly as conveyed by the recent memorandum issued jointly by Clackamas County Administrator Don Krupp and Metro Chief Operating Officer Martha Bennett (Council Report, Attachment 1). Mayor Studebaker called forward two representatives of the Stafford Hamlet who had requested to speak to the Council. Jay Minor, 18300 S Whitten Lane, West Linn 97068, identified himself as Stafford Hamlet chair. He described the background and role of the Hamlet, which existed essentially to solve the area's land use problems. A community vision plan had been created ten years earlier by the Hamlet board and endorsed by the residents. In simple terms, this proposed that the portion north of the river remain undesignated and rural in nature as it is currently; the area south of the river, referred to as the Borland area, would be designated as the urban reserve, potentially with development similar to Kruse Way office uses. He expressed the frustration of the Hamlet group with the recent expedited effort of the County and Metro to put their area into City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 7 March 7, 2017 the reserves. Among their concerns are the potential for 50,000 new residents and lack of transportation and other infrastructure to support them. Dave Adams, 19621 S Hazelhurst Lane, West Linn 97068, described his involvement over the past 25 years, including achievement of the community vision plan that addressed many concerns of both Hamlet residents and neighboring cities. He echoed Mr. Minor's frustration with the rapid pace being set by Metro and the County, which will foreclose the opportunity for further conversation about the vision for the northern portion. The group prefers development of an intergovernmental agreement (IGA), rather than a memorandum of understanding (MOU). He suggested that if the undesignated situation in the northern portion of the area cannot be addressed, the Council's consideration of special language could entail some sort of urban/agricultural overlay for that land. In response to a request from Councilor Gudman, Mr. Adams confirmed that the IGA would be preferred because it offered a stronger force than the MOU. Councilor Kohlhoff inquired about any consensus of the Hamlet about the desire to be incorporated as its own city. Mr. Adams indicated that the Hamlet does not want to be a city and wants to remain rural. Councilor LaMotte posed questions about the background of the Hamlet's community vision plan, including the availability of studies to support their proposal of the Borland area as a more suitable urban reserve. Brief discussion followed, with Mr. Adams citing conclusions of both a Clackamas Country urban reserves policy advisory committee and the County Planning Commission; both had determined that the Borland area met the criteria and the area in the north did not. 9. INFORMATION FROM COUNCIL 9.1 Resolution 17-10, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego Endorsing the Lake Oswego School District Bond Measure Resolution 17-10 Mayor Studebaker called for any changes or other discussion regarding the draft resolution in support of the School District's upcoming bond measure. Council consensus indicated support of the draft. Mayor Studebaker moved to pass Resolution 17-10. Councilor Manz seconded the motion. A voice vote was held, and the motion passed, with Mayor Studebaker and Councilors LaMotte, Kohlhoff, Buck, O'Neill, Manz, and Gudman voting 'aye'. (7-0) Councilor Gudman indicated that he would write a draft statement of endorsement for the voters' pamphlet and circulate it to the Council members. 10. REPORTS OF OFFICERS City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 7 March 7, 2017 Mr. Lazenby reported that Staff had been working with Councilor Buck to explore the possibility of a more accessible viewing location for 41h of July fireworks than the swim park at the west end of the lake. As it was a somewhat complex matter, he asked for Council direction as to whether to continue exploring this. Discussion followed, with Council members noting that the Police Chief had indicated the City had insufficient manpower to manage two such events on a single night. Councilor LaMotte discussed the possible relevance to a goal of more activity in the downtown. He suggested the need to first assess the efficiency of the current fireworks event and then to determine if it was feasible to present another event, either on the same or another night. Councilor Buck stated that he favored continuing to explore the possibility of another location. The public accessibility challenges of the current location have led to dangerous behavior by citizens, with resulting need for intervention by Police, he reported. The policy question for the City is: What level of resource commitment is appropriate for an event that offers quite limited public access? Mayor Studebaker indicated that he would support a small amount of additional research. He clarified that Staff was asked to (1) determine if two fireworks events on the same night could be handled by the City if efficiencies could be achieved; and (2) if fireworks displays on two separate nights would be feasible. 11. RECESS The City Council recessed at 7:19 p.m. Mayor Studebaker announced that the Lake Oswego Redevelopment Agency Board would convene during this recess, after which the City Council would reconvene. 16. RETURN FROM RECESS The Council reconvened at 7:32 p.m. 17. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Under authority of ORS 192.660 (2)(f) to consider records that are exempt by law from public inspection. Mr. Powell reviewed the statutory basis for entering executive session and outlined the parameters. The Council met in executive session beginning at 7:43 p.m. The Council reconvened in open session at 8:23 p.m. 18. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Studebaker adjourned the meeting at 8:23 p.m. Respectfully submitted, City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 7 March 7, 2017 Anne-Marie Simpson, City Recorder APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: ON Kent Studebaker, Mayor City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 7 March 7, 2017 .„ .,,,,,, ,,,,,,, t7ribie ; . ., ,, ;, ti ARBOR WEEK PROCLAMATION r :,c, '; t APRIL 2-8, 2 ^ 1 7 • y 1 t Whereas, in 1872, J. Sterling Morton proposed to the Nebraska Board of Agriculture thatir- 1 a special day be set aside for the planting of trees; and r ,, ' l• yJ Whereas, the holiday, called Arbor Day, was first observed with the planting of more than ,, ,•$ ' one million trees in Nebraska; andOIL ` ;. INk Whereas, Arbor Day is now observed throughout the nation and the world; and ` '" { ,,• Whereas, it was decreed by the Oregon State Legislature that the first full week in April i, , { , t shall be Oregon Arbor Week; and •} ; Whereas, trees can reduce topsoil erosion by wind and water, lower our heating and +^ I. s 1? cooling costs, moderate the temperature, clean the air, produce oxygen, and J*' provide habitat for wildlife; and • ;, r? 4 ; ' . ' 1 f Whereas, trees are a renewable resource giving us paper, wood for our homes, fuel for ►" ? our fires, and countless other wood products; and ' ,•' ' Whereas, trees in our City increase property values, enhance the economic vitality of , ti4071111 ` • business areas, and beautify our community; and .• . PIL _ ,� Whereas, trees, wherever they are planted, are a source of joy and spiritual renewal; and - .1 \. vi • . ,_ w Whereas, for the past 28 years the City of Lake Oswego has been recognized with TREE • CITY USA designation for having a viable urban and community forestry 14, t • �'f' ,fi ° , program that meets the standards established by The Arbor Day Foundation .- . , '' and the National Association of State Foresters. '-`-•- ij )},Ll'; NOW, THEREFORE, I, Kent Studebaker, Mayor of the City of Lake Oswego, do hereby proclaim , .. •, y ' the week of April 2-8, 2017 as Arbor Week in the City of Lake Oswego, and I urge all citizens to • x !�y celebrate Arbor Week, to support efforts to protect trees and woodlands, and to plant and care ` ' .; til . ' for trees, for the benefit of this and future generations. . : ei,,,I. „ (51coiliiii_ .. f ' '02 Kent Studebaker, Mayor Date y 4 p .! ti ‘‘-‘k . A4AL, pr I r / " N. li 111110W . . ,4. -11 1 0 R + .y 5.1 oticE s� COUNCIL REPORT IMAGREGo� TO: Kent Studebaker, Mayor Members of the City Council FROM: Corinne Strauser, Deputy City Recorder SUBJECT: Transportation Advisory Board Appointments DATE: March 13, 2017 ACTION Adopt Resolution 17-11, approving appointments to the Transportation Advisory Board. SUGGESTED MOTION Move to adopt Resolution 17-11. BACKGROUND The City Council Interview Committee consisting of Mayor Kent Studebaker and Councilors Skip O'Neill and Theresa Kohlhoff, met on March 1, 2017 and March 7, 2017 to interview candidates for the Transportation Advisory Board. It was the consensus of the Interview Committee to recommend that Rick Nys and Mike Peebles each be re-appointed to the Transportation Advisory Board for three-year terms ending on March 31, 2020 and Jennifer Joly be appointed as alternate to serve in the event there is a vacancy on TAB through February 28, 2018. Mayor Studebaker concurred with the recommendations of the Interview Committee and has made the appointments. RECOMMENDATION Adopt Resolution 17-11. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution 17-11 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION 17-11 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCILORS OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO APPROVING APPOINTMENTS TO THE TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY BOARD WHEREAS, a City Council Interview Committee consisting of Mayor Kent Studebaker and Councilors Skip O'Neill and Theresa Kohlhoff, met on Wednesday, March 1, 2017 and Tuesday, March 7, 2017, to interview candidates for the Transportation Advisory Board; and WHEREAS, it was the consensus of the Interview Committee to recommend that Rick Nys and Mike Peebles be re-appointed to the Transportation Advisory Board for a three- year term ending March 31, 2020 and that Jennifer Joly was selected as an alternate in the event there is a vacancy through February 28, 2018; WHEREAS, the Mayor has made the appointments recommended by the Interview Committee; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Councilors of the City of Lake Oswego approve the Mayor's re-appointment of Rick Nys and Mike Peebles to three-year terms on TAB expiring on March 31, 2020. The City Councilors also approve the Mayor's appointment of Jennifer Joly as an alternate to serve in the event there is a vacancy on TAB through February 28, 2018. This resolution shall take effect upon passage. Considered and enacted by the City Councilors of the City of Lake Oswego at a regular meeting held on the 4th day of April, 2017. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: EXCUSED: Kent Studebaker, Mayor ATTEST: Anne-Marie Simpson, City Recorder APPROVED AS TO FORM: David Powell, City Attorney it 1(,_ - ' ',{ DATE: It'14- ( 7 v,' it Ci 00 �� LAKE OSWEGO CITY COUNCIL r • t;\ REQUEST TO PROVIDE PUBLIC COMMENT Subject: Ln) kt? 1-7 ""- "�?,_. Agenda Item Number: Z I I Name: IY4t6„1A. Nkji.IS r' i 49-,C. OA '''--9(11/pkii7.-t- r , L 0 Address Number Street City Ok_ qii)*—s–q?-,33, _.5----01.076-6(zig- State Zip Telephone Are You Part of an Organized Presentation? ❑ No [i,Yes If Yes, List Seakers In Order of Presentation. i‘l Vi. kk—kp, -7;1\ 4)4 , _-:,--pAr,...- at ,/,,T1 , ,(, _...} SUBMIT To CITY RECORDER The Mayor will call you to the microphone at the appropriate time. II t+ • f Q )5 _~�hLS is � p r U.DATE: S [Aiil,(�{��, W � • 4� f U • LAKE OSWEGO CITY COUNCIL O- 4. r- j REQUEST TO PROVIDE PUBLIC COMMENT .0 O , t D fflNG P OR GO? C& ii� i 9 ' t-1 Subject: ter,'.'';' '. 1 ,� — *2......._ 4 Agenda Item Number: f Name: 9,_ .:,..;) L 1,'-ikr(-/ lick\k: \.:'s I \7_7---2,1 °Ay( (:.4.._, _ L. ,......,, 1 Address Number Street , City State Zip ' Telephone Are You Part of an Organized Presentation? ❑ No [dYes If Yes, List Speakers In Order of Presentation. li't.LV: . . e...;;I ..kr:, j t 1 ` _ . dec SUBMIT To CITY RECORDER The Mayor will call you to the microphone at the appropriate time. ( 1-} DATE: -1 1 O��p p�s "-i- LAKE OSWEGO CITY COUNCIL nREQUEST TO PROVIDE PUBLIC COMMENT U I/A O L1L FEA i_G"" OR E G o> C4-41 Z.P/rt\ (0 inAm,. i Subject: I Ln� I� -1-- ( "2_____. Agenda Item `J Number: • i Name: j� ry 0 r-V),( (1- (C14-P S. 40( C --5 0 B dto e4 SA - LC), Address Number Street City c. Lo gI — C c) 0 State Zip Telephone Are You Part of an Organized Presentation? Elio ❑Yes If Yes, List Speakers In Order of Presentation. SUBMIT To CITY RECORDER The Mayor will call you to the microphone at the appropriate time. 6. Gaz A,e nu'v -4- My name is Debbie Harris. I reside at 1523 Cedar St. in Lake Oswego. RE: Resolution 17-12 for LID, Cedar St. I moved to Lake Oswego in 1987. In April of 2007, when the City came and built the sewer main in Cedar St., I had NO IDEA that they were placing it so shallow ... only 4 feet deep in the street... to service ONE house (at NO charge to that resident). Nine months earlier, when the City came and scoped and mapped our sewer lines, I had NO IDEA that the City did it wrong, stating my gravity sewer line was connected through the back of my property to the main in McVey through a line they documented on a City-engineered map! I never knew it was actually on a shared line, running through my west-side neighbor's back yard. This form of sewer system is no longer to City Waste water Code. It was popular in the 40's, without easements, when our homes were built. When I bought my house in 1998, it was not part of a routine inspection to get a sewer scope. I immediately went to the City Engineer's desk and asked about my sewer line. They stated: "no worries", as long as you are connected to the City main. I learned later from the City that my gravity-fed sewer was connected, after a dye test the City had done. I was concerned later during my two City-permitted major remodels in 1999 and 2005, when I asked about my sewer line and why nothing was required to upgrade it or look at it...only my water service line both times was addressed. Again, I was told as long as I was connected to the City main in McVey, I was fine. I don't understand why my household and my east-side neighbor at 1507 have had to use a porta potty in my front yard for our sewer service since Feb. of 2015, because a sewer contractor, with a City plumbing permit dated Sept. of 2014, inadvertently blew us off of a sewer party line we were connected to (without our knowledge), in the backyard of 1531 Cedar St. We have tirelessly and at great expense to us, attempted to negotiate with the west-side neighbor, Donald Mattersdorff, and the City for almost two and a half years. I had NO IDEA what a ridiculous feat this would prove to be, trying to restore our 70-year-old gravity sewer services at 1507 & 1523 Cedar St.. Sewer connection fees and services were and have been paid on our properties for many years and now we are forced to resort to pay a lot of money again for sewer service! I have one auestion after 19 years of sewer concerns: Can I trust my City ? Tonight you will be considering an LID application to install our gravity-fed sewer lines to code. As seniors, attempting to "age in place", after investing most of our resources in building carefully to City-directed code, we should not have to live this way. Our Cedar St. neighbors signed a compelling letter last year to the owner of 1531 Cedar St. asking for him to help us get the porta potty removed from the neighborhood, but we heard nothing. This unfortunate situation could and should have been easily remedied within weeks back in early 2015, but no reasonable easement agreement or resolution plan could be reached. Please make this "right" and do what YOU can to get us legally "flushing" again as we did for so many years when we purchased our homes! No ONE owning in Lake Oswego, Oregon should ever have to live this way! Thank you for doing the RIGHT thing and helping us get our gravity sewers back! 7.1 D 6 COUNCIL REPORT TIO r o dR�dd� TO: Kent Studebaker, Mayor Members of the City Council FROM: Sarah Selden, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Public Hearing for Uplands Neighborhood Plan (Ordinance 2734, LU 17-0001) DATE: March 29, 2017 DATE OF MEETING: April 4, 2017 ACTION Conduct a public hearing on Ordinance 2734 to consider the Planning Commission's recommendation on adoption of the Uplands Neighborhood Plan, Uplands R-10 Overlay District, and Transportation System Plan (TSP) amendments. The amendments were requested by the Uplands Neighborhood Association to address neighborhood livability and development compatibility. SUGGESTED MOTION Move to approve LU 17-0001 and enact Ordinance 2734 including the findings and conclusions in Exhibit A-1.1. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION The Planning Commission held a public hearing on February 13, 2017, at which Uplands Neighborhood Association members provided testimony in support and there was no testimony in opposition. The Commission adopted their Findings, Conclusions and Order on February 27, 2017 (Exhibit B-1), recommending approval by the Council. The City Council held a study session on March 21. The full record was provided in advance of the study session and no additional information was requested by the Council for the public hearing. For background information and an explanation of the proposal, please refer to the staff report prepared for the Planning Commission hearing (Exhibit D-1). The recommended Plan, Code and TSP amendments can be found as attachments to Ordinance 2734 (Exhibit A-1.1) and minutes from the Commission's hearing can be found as Exhibit C-1. 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us Page 2 ALTERNATIVES & FISCAL IMPACT The Plan and TSP amendments do not make specific requests for funding, however projects are identified that will be proposed as part of future City budget proposals and Capital Improvement Plan updates, following additional study or scoping. Should the Council decide that any of the new projects identified in the Plan or TSP amendment do not warrant future scoping or study, the Council should consider removing those items from the ordinance. RECOMMENDATION Based on the information presented in this report, staff recommends that the Council approve LU 17-0001 and enact Ordinance 2734 (Exhibit A-1.1), which includes findings and conclusions. EXHIBITS This staff report and all exhibits referenced below are part of the record and can be found by visiting the land use webpage for case file LU 17-0001. A link is provided at the end of this report. A. Draft Ordinances A-1.1 Ordinance 2734 Attachment A—City Council Findings Attachment B— Proposed Neighborhood Plan, 02/01/17 Attachment C— Proposed TSP Amendments, 02/01/17 Attachment D— Proposed Uplands R-10 Overlay Code, 02/01/17 B. Findings, Conclusion and Order B-1 Planning Commission Findings, Conclusions and Order C. Minutes C-1 Excerpt of Planning Commission Minutes (LU 17-0001), 02/13/17 D. Staff Reports D-1 Planning Commission Staff Report, 02/01/17 E. Graphics/Plans E-1 Map of Dividable Lots F. Written Materials G. Letters G-1 Letter from Patty Schaffer, 02/13/17 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us Page 3 BACKGROUND MATERIAL AND REFERENCES Staff reports and public meeting materials that were prepared for these code amendments can be found by visiting the project web page for LU 17-0001. Use the link below to visit the City's "Project" page. In the "Search" box enter LU 17-0001 then press "Submit": http://www.ci.oswego.or.us/prolects 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us EXHIBIT A-1.1 LU 17-0001 ORDINANCE 2734 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO ADOPTING THE UPLANDS NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND SPECIAL DISTRICT PLANS VOLUME OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; AMENDING THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN TO EXPAND A PATHWAY PROJECT; AMENDING THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE TO ADD THE UPLANDS R-10 OVERLAY DISTRICT(LOC 50.05.012); AND ADOPTING FINDINGS (LU 17-0001). WHEREAS, notice of the public hearing for consideration of this Ordinance was duly given in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, a public hearing before the Planning Commission was held on February 13, 2017, at which the staff report, testimony, and evidence were received and considered; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has recommended that LU 17-0001 be approved by the City Council; and WHEREAS, a public hearing on LU 17-0001 was held before the Lake Oswego City Council on April 4, 2017, at which the staff report, testimony, and evidence were received and considered; and WHEREAS, the Council finds that the Uplands Neighborhood Plan (Plan) should be adopted to document the vision and objectives of Uplands' residents for the future their neighborhood, and to identify actions needed to achieve this vision over time; and WHEREAS, the Council finds that the Transportation System Plan should be amended to add a new bicycle and pedestrian pathway on Uplands Drive; and WHEREAS, the Council finds that the Community Development Code should be amended to adopt a new Uplands R-10 Overlay District to ensure that development in Uplands R-10 zone promotes the desired neighborhood character described in the Plan. The City of Lake Oswego ordains as follows: Section 1. The City Council adopts the Findings and Conclusions (LU 17-001), attached as Attachment A. Section 2. The Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan (Vol. II, Neighborhood Plans section) is amended by adding Attachment B, Uplands Neighborhood Plan as a neighborhood plan. Section 3. The Lake Oswego Transportation System Plan is amended as set forth in Attachment C. Section 4. The Lake Oswego Code is amended by adding the new text shown in double Ordinance 2734 PAGE 1 OF 2 underlined type and deleting text shown in strikcthrough type as shown in Attachment D. Section 5. Severability. The provisions of this ordinance are severable. If any portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. Section 6. Effective date. As provided by Section 35.C. of the Lake Oswego Charter,this ordinance shall take effect on the 30th day following enactment. Enacted at the meeting of the Lake Oswego City Council of the City of Lake Oswego held on the 4th day of April, 2017. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: EXCUSED: Kent Studebaker, Mayor Dated: ATTEST: Anne-Marie Simpson, City Recorder APPROVED AS TO FORM: David Powell City Attorney Ordinance 2734 PAGE 2 OF 2 ATTACHMENT A (Ordinance 2734) LU 17-0001 1 BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL 2 OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 3 A REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT TO THE LU 17-0001 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO ADD THE UPLANDS CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 4 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, AN AMENDMENT TO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN AND FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS 5 AMENDMENT TO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE TO ADD UPLANDS R-10 6 OVERLAY. 7 8 NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS g This matter came before the Lake Oswego City Council on the recommendation of the 10 Planning Commission for legislative amendments to: 11 • the Comprehensive Plan to adopt the Uplands Neighborhood Plan into the 12 Neighborhood and Special District Plans volume; 13 • the Transportation System Plan to extend a pathway project along Uplands 14 Drive; and 15 • the Community Development Code (LOC 50), to add the Uplands R-10 Overlay 16 District, LOC 50.05.012. 17 This code amendment was requested by the Uplands Neighborhood Association and is 18 intended to help address neighborhood livability and development compatibility. 19 HEARINGS 20 21 The Planning Commission held a public hearing and considered this application on 22 February 13, 2017. The Commission adopted its Findings, Conclusions and Order 23 recommending approval of LU 17-0001 on February 27, 2017. 24 The City Council held a public hearing and considered the Planning Commission's 25 recommendation on April 4, 2017. 26 Page 1— FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS (LU 17-0001) DAVID D.POWELL LAKE OSWEGO CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE PO BOX 369/380 A AVENUE LAKE OSWEGO,OREGON 97034 503.635.0225/503.699.7453(F) 1 CRITERIA AND STANDARDS 2 3 A. Any Applicable State Law Oregon Revised Statute 197.307: Approval Standards for Certain Housing in 4 Urban Growth Areas 5 B. City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan 6 Land Use Planning Goal: 7 Development (Community Development Code) 8 Policy A-1.b Policy A-1.d 9 Design Standards and Guidelines 10 Policy C-1 11 Policy C-5 12 Land Use Administration Policy D-1 13 Policy D-3 14 Policy D-4 15 Inspiring Spaces and Places Goal: 16 Goal 1 Policy 1 17 Policy 3 Policy 7 18 19 Complete Neighborhoods and Housing Goal: 20 Housing Choice and Affordability Policy B-1 21 22 Complete Neighborhoods Policy C-3 23 Policy C-5 Policy C-7 24 25 Connected Community Goal: Safety 26 Policy A-1 Page 2— FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS (LU 17-0001) DAVID D.POWELL LAKE OSWEGO CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE PO BOX 369/380 A AVENUE LAKE OSWEGO,OREGON 97034 503.635.0225/503.699.7453(F) 1 Community Health and Public Safety Goal: Public Facilities and Services: Surface Water Management 2 Policy 1 3 Policy 3 Policy 5 4 Policy 8 5 Community Culture Goal: 6 Civic Engagement Policy 1 7 Policy 9 8 C. City of Lake Oswego Community Development Code 9 10 LOC 50.07.003.3.c. Published Notice for Legislative Hearing 11 LOC 50.07.003.16a Legislative Decisions Defined 12 LOC 50.07.003.16b Criteria for Legislative Decision 13 LOC 50.07.003.16c Required Notice to DLCD 14 15 LOC 50.07.003.16.d.iii Planning Commission Recommendation Required 16 LOC 50.07.003.16.e City Council Review and Decision 17 18 FINDINGS AND REASONS 19 The City Council incorporates the staff report dated February 1, 2017, and the Council 20 Report dated March 29, 2017, with all exhibits, together with the Findings, Conclusions & Order 21 of the Planning Commission, as support for its decision. 22 23 CONCLUSION 24 The City Council concludes that LU 17-0001, as recommended by the Planning 25 Commission, complies with all applicable criteria and should be approved. The Council also 26 concludes that proposed Ordinance 2734, which implements LU 17-0001, should be enacted. Page 3— FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS (LU 17-0001) DAVID D.POWELL LAKE OSWEGO CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE PO BOX 369/380 A AVENUE LAKE OSWEGO,OREGON 97034 503.635.0225/503.699.7453(F) J ands Neig 1 oriood an Planning Commission Public Hearing Draft February 1 , 2017 A COOPERATIVE EFFORT BETWEEN THE UPLANDS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION 7)115111 'mo AND CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Lake Oswego Uplands Neighborhood City Council Association Board Kent Studebaker, Mayor Tom Bland Joe Buck Bruce Brown Jeff Gudman Keith Dickerson Theresa Kohlhoff Don Eggleston John LaMotte Bob Ervin Jackie Manz Jenna Fallon Skip O'Neill Frank Gray Z Susie Greer ED Lake Oswego Martin Jacobs Brad Lyons Cr) PlanningCommission Paul Lyons Adrianne Brockman Audrey Mattison zRandy Arthur Daniel McCulloch m � Skip Baker Tom O'Connor 0Ed Brockman Patty Schaffer Bill Gaar Chris Thompson Robert Heape Brian Williams John LaMotte Kristine Williams O Bill Ward 70 Uplands Neighborhood I City Staff Planning Committee 0 Rob Amsberry Bruce Brown OLeslie Hamilton Bob Ervin Anne MacDonald Brad Lyons 4 Erica Rooney Paul Lyons Sarah Selden Audrey Mattison r Scot Siegel Tom O'Connor Patty Schaffer Z Brian Williams CONTENTS Neighborhood History and Character 5 Land Use and Neighborhood Character 9 Transportation 13 Natural Systems 21 Open Space and Recreation 27 Neighborhood Involvement 31 Economic Development 33 DEDICATION The Uplands Neighborhood Plan has been a journey traversed by numerous dedicated Uplands residents and City of Lake Oswego staff members. To prepare this plan has taken perseverance, passion, imagination and a tremendous sense of duty to see the journey through. We offer our deep gratitude to everyone who participated in any way and helped to make this plan a reality. Z Ci) Z rn 0 I 0 70 I 0 0 D Z UPLANDS NEIGHBORHOOD VISION The physical character of Uplands is that of the idealized Arcadian suburb where city dwellers live in a quiet pastoral setting. Our homes are seen as rural sanctuaries from the hectic urban metropolis. The hallmarks of our natural setting are Springbrook Park, at the very heart of the neighborhood and Iron Mountain Natural Area Park which graces our southern flank. Homes of diverse size and style rest on large lots which in turn front an organic network of narrow streets. Generally, cars and pedestrians share the road with the exception of Wembley Park Road and Twin Fir where there are informal sepa- rated pedestrian paths. The neighborhood is marked by an abundance of trees,both evergreen and deciduous, along with lush yards and rights-of-way. Houses tend to be set well back from the street but are separated from their neighbors by varying distances, some small, others broad. Uplands is also a hilly neighborhood with few flat streets or lots. Most lots are above or below their neighbors which gives the Uplands a hill-town feel. (!) ' ' + • • p 70 e3 • ,aT� � �4 X15�•• ti - i. . s ' 4 y.F • .. 4- 0 _ R^ @. T -*•••_20111.1.1.1111°.' 711.6- 1 UPLANDS NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT FEBRUARY 1, 2017 C > Z 0 C') Z rn_ G) CO 0 70 0 0 D Z 2 UPLANDS NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT FEBRUARY 1, 2017 PLAN ORGANIZATION AND PROCESS The Uplands Neighborhood Plan has Relationship to Other Plans and Policies been created by Uplands residents. It Neighborhood plans are adopted into details the characteristics that define the Neighborhood and Special Districts and shape the Uplands Neighborhood, Volume of the City's Comprehensive and recommends specific actions to Plan. The Uplands Neighborhood accomplish Uplands residents' unique Plan provides a policy framework for vision for the future. neighborhood development regulations, the Uplands R-10 Overlay Zone, which The Uplands plan contains the following serves as the regulatory component of the chapters: neighborhood plan, to be adopted into the • Neighborhood History and Community Development Code (CDC). Character New infrastructure and transportation • Land Use projects identified in the Plan are z • Transportation proposed to be added to the City's • Natural Systems Transportation System Plan (TSP) and (!) • Open Space and Recreation Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). • Neighborhood Involvement z • Economic Development Planning Process rn The desire to develop a neighborhood Each chapter includes an Inventory and plan was identified many years ago by Analysis, and a set of Neighborhood the Uplands Neighborhood Association, Objectives and Action Steps. and in 2014, the Planning Commission CO selected the neighborhood to receive O Neighborhood Objectives are strategic City staff assistance in developing a statements based on desires that plan. The effort was led by a group of 70 members identified during the Plan residents, the Uplands Neighborhood = development process. Objectives provide Planning Committee, in cooperation O broad direction for the future of the with the association board. The process 0 neighborhood, and are supported by began with a neighborhood survey in specific Action Steps. winter 2015 to develop the neighborhood vision and identify planning priorities. Action Steps are recommended Following the development of a draft programs, projects, development Plan, a second survey was conducted r standards, or other courses of action for to guage support of the objectives and the City and Uplands Neighborhood action steps. Based on the land use action z Association. The completion of these steps, the Uplands R-10 Overlay code was items will depend on a number of factors drafted and a third survey conducted on such as citizen priorities, finances, the overlay standards. Throughout the and staff availability.Action Steps process, committee sought feedback at guide future City decision-makers and monthly board meetings, and the board Neighborhood Association leaders has presented information and sought on ways to implement the vision and feedback at four general membership objectives of the Neighborhood Plan. meetings. 3 UPLANDS NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT FEBRUARY 1, 2017 C > Z 0 C') Z rn_ G) CO 0 70 0 0 0 D Z 4 UPLANDS NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT FEBRUARY 1, 2017 NEIGHBORHOOD HISTORY AND CHARACTER Context Within the City While most cities have either a north- What makes Uplands the neighborhood south or east-west division, Lake Oswego that it is, is largely the result of where it is. has both. North and south is created by the lake, and east and east by our The Uplands Neighborhood can claim commercial hubs. On a map, Uplands to be at the heart of Lake Oswego, at represents the quintessential "north of least geographically. Located midway the lake" neighborhood. We are nearly between Downtown on the east end, and dead-center along the east-west axis of Lake Grove on the west end, Uplands Oswego Lake so traveling to the south is centrally located for easy access, at side of town means taking the "long-way- z least by car, to both commercial hubs, round" regardless of which direction you I-5 and Highway 43. Uplands also abuts go. Uplands residents are within easy the nexus of two of the city's major walking distance of both Lake Oswego Ci) arterials, Boones Ferry Road and Country High School and Junior High School, z Club Road. Having direct access to which serve the north half of the city. these thoroughfares has its benefits and The north-south divide has been more rn shortcomings. While these arterials offer defined in recent years by the service access, they more often than not create districts of the various schools than actual V J a barrier. Our southern boundary is geography. Without this school based generally defined by Iron Mountain Park, perception, Uplands would be hard- CO with a sharp topographic drop down pressed to identify itself as east, west, 0 to the Hunt Club and Iron Mountain north or south. /70 Boulevard. On the east we are bordered = by the broad expanse of the Oswego Lake O Country Club. Paradoxically, our central location, when coupled with surrounding O natural and man-made barriers, produces a significant level of isolation On the plus side, our isolated location is 0I— what r what provides much of our neighborhood character. We are a heavily wooded, z organically developed, low-traffic, residential neighborhood which allows an intimate relationship with nature. While our commercial-free environment provides peace and quiet and more pastoral living environment, we also lack some of the convenience afforded other neighborhoods, like First Addition or Evergreen, who are nearer commercial development. 5 UPLANDS NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN III PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT FEBRUARY 1, 2017 Neighborhood History code development, already successfully practiced in Portland. This process The Uplands Neighborhood is located protected residential areas from intrusion in the northwest corner of what was by non-residential development by early Oswego's New Town, which restricting use, ownership, building included Mile High and Iron Mountain costs and architectural style. Given farms in the 1860's. During the 1860's the emphasis on natural beauty and - 1890's, investors and residents were recreational opportunities, Paul Murphy unsuccessful in their repeated efforts to ushered in the theme of "Live Where make Oswego into the "Pittsburgh of the You Play", complete with an image of West". However today's legacy of the a sailboat on Oswego Lake, an iteration Oregon Iron and Steel Company era are of which is now the City's logo. Market the existing mines where iron ore was Road was renamed Country Club Road. extracted from the several adits located on r- the south east side of Iron Mountain. A The core of the CCD was the tournament- narrow gage railway cut into the hillside quality golf course designed by H. Z transported the ore to South Town's Chandler Egan, designer of Pebble Beach u 4 smelter located on the Willamette River in Golf Course, which consisted of 18 present day George Rogers Park in Lake long holes and exceptional views along 41 Oswego. Some of Portland's greatest the ridge of the present day Uplands architectural heritage proudly displays neighborhood. Lots were sold above rn'4 the magnificent cast iron details with ore the newly constructed Oswego Hunt from Uplands mines and finest timber for Equestrian Center, Polo Field and around O the smelter. Obsidian-like slag from the the new Oswego Lake Country Club _ 4 smelter was returned to the hilltop and (OLCC),both completed in 1924. Added deposited in what are now portions of the incentive for Uplands and country club 0 ridge above Prestwick and Crest Roads. lot sales included a lakefront lot for$100, Oto encourage interest in the stump-filled Oswego languished for 30 years man-made pond that many still thought = following the end of the iron industry of as Sucker Lake. and its population dropped from 540 to ' approximately 300. Oregon Iron and Steel The first homes were architecturally OCompany transferred the abandoned designed residences sited on present mining operation and land to the William day Ridgecrest, Prestwick, Glen Eagles, S. Ladd development company. Uplands and Twin Fir, typically English cottage, Tudor, and Colonial style Ir In 1912, Paul C. Murphy, real estate homes. Roads were named with a nod D developer attracted by Oswego's to British golfing and equestrian themes. potential as a resort area with wooded Current homeowners still occasionally hills, invested in 3,000 acres of Oregon encounter original golf balls from those Iron and Steel Company around Sucker early years. Many of the originally platted Lake (later renamed Oswego Lake. Oregon Iron and Steel Company lots In 1923, the Ladd Estate Company include deeded easements in some cases started building the Country Club including access to five of Oswego Lake's District (CCD), which departed from swim and boat parks. the First Addition neighborhood's grid development, and supported planning by 6 UPLANDS NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT FEBRUARY 1, 2017 The original homes still standing: Circa,Address and Architect (where known) • 1925 - 1400 Ridgecrest Road: Van Evera Bailey • 1928 -2240 Prestwick: Ernest Tucker • 1929 - 2671 Glen Eagles Road • 1930 - 14870 Twin Fir Road • 1930 - 1950 Egan Way • 1930 - 14255 Uplands Drive • 1935 - 1500 Ridgecrest Road • 1938 - 1700 Ridgecrest Road:Van Evera Bailey In the 1930s, a major fire swept through the P p g z trees and brush above the Hunt Club, the current Iron Mountain Park, and up to the 0 ridge, which was suppressed by several (P) surrounding volunteer fire departments. In the 1940s, long-time residents volunteered z to serve in the airplane lookout shelter rn that once stood at the highest point on Prestwick Road. In the 1980s, a Boy Scout J Eagle Scout Project created a walking trail over the abandoned narrow gage railway CO whose iron rails had long since been O removed during the 1940s to aid in the 70 war's effort. In the 1940s, a handful of homes joined 0 the original few in what was then broadly O described as Forest Hills, with the majority of building and development taking place 0 in the 1950s following the release of more land and the selloff of OLCC fairways. From the 1960s to 1990s, Fir Ridge, E Uplands, Wembley Place and land-locked z Rainbow Terrace, Sherbrook, Sundeleaf, Dolph and Bridge subdivisions were developed. An analysis of year built for Uplands homes found that 73% of homes were constructed before 1980, with the period between 1940 to 1950 making up the largest era at 40%. III 7 UPLANDS NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT FEBRUARY 1, 2017 Neighborhood Character But once again young families are moving Statement into Uplands and individual homes are making a generational transition.As a The physical character of Uplands is result our age demographic is broadening. that of the idealized Arcadian suburb There is also a broad range of singles, where city dwellers live in a quiet couples, families, incomes, ethnicities and pastoral setting. Our homes are seen as backgrounds. From 2013-2016, 100 new rural sanctuaries from the hectic urban families have moved to Uplands. Five metropolis. The hallmarks of our natural households are empty nesters, and 95 setting are Springbrook Park, at the very households have children, including five heart of the neighborhood and Iron college, 15 high school, 70 primary and Mountain Park which graces our southern secondary students, five toddlers and five flank. Homes of diverse size and style rest babies. on large lots which in turn front an organic --.... _ r network of narrow streets. Generally, f { Dcars and pedestrians share the road with { 4' ,i. .--, Z the exception of Wembley Park Road T ;' u 4 and Twin Fir where there are informal . ' ` (7) separated pedestrian paths. - . i, The neighborhood is marked by an rn 41 abundance of trees, both evergreen and deciduous, along with lush yards and 0 rights-of-way. Houses tend to be set well _ .4 back from the street but are separated from their neighbors by varying distances, Op O some small, others broad. Uplands is also a hilly neighborhood with few flat streets DC7 -11 or lots. Most lots are above or below their = neighbors which gives the Uplands a hill- _ 41 town feel. OLast, but certainly not least, Uplands is a school oriented neighborhood where our children, until recently, have been able to walk to kindergarten through grade > I— D12. This is unique among Lake Oswego ' _ ME neighborhoods. I, ,,g- . .„,m . . ,,,. tr:__ < JO .-.A it - i 1 4 !, . .-. The residents of Uplands are diverse and w- . F44 + . - • in flux. Young families that moved into - ' r .�� ..k ,, the neighborhood decades ago have aged and as children have grown and flown the nest the parents have remained making a stable but maturing resident base. 8 UPLANDS NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT FEBRUARY 1, 2017 LAND USE & NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER Purpose Statement There are just under 400 single-family The xisting land uses and development dwellings in the neighborhood, which range regulations generally support the in size from 1,200 square feet up to several neighborhood's existing and desired character. thousand square feet. However, some aspects of the Community 73 percent of these homes were built prior Development Code allow a development to 1980, and the remaining 27 percent from pattern that the neighborhood feels is not 1980 to present. The development pattern on compatible with the overall residential individual lots helps to create the pastoral character of Uplands Neighborhood. setting described in the Neighborhood Therefore the purpose of the Uplands Neighborhood Plan Land Use Chapter to is Character Statement. The large majority to outline the unique development patterns of lots (89 percent) have no more than 30 in Uplands, and to identify actions needed to percent lot coverage,with 55 percent of lots not exceeding 20 percent, leaving much preserve this essential neighborhood character. area for open space and landscaping. The Inventory and Analysis building mass in relation to the lot size also The Uplands Neighborhood is 301 acres in contributes to the sense of open space in the neighborhood, with almost all development size: falling well below the maximum buildable rn • Residential: 172 acres floor area. V J • Public Right of Way: 40 acres • School Property: 30 acres The architectural styles in the neighborhood • Open Space and Parks: 59 acres CO are rather eclectic. While mid-century ranch Uplands is approximately 6,000 feet long by tends to dominate the earlier development O 3,300 feet wide and is slightly football shaped. of the Uplands with a few remnants of the in 70 Country Club development period in the 20's w There is approximately 265 feet of elevation and 30's, newer home styles reflect craftsman, O change from the high point to the low point of the neighborhood. English cottage,American bungalow,NW modernist and non-descript amalgams of O As shown on the zoning map on the multiple styles. following page, the neighborhood is zoned While the Community Development Code predominantly for low-density residential permits one Secondary Dwelling Unit per housing on lots at least 10,000 square feet in size (R-10 zone). There is a small pocket detached single family dwelling, there are of R-5 zoning (5,000 square feet lot area very few Secondary Dwelling Units in per dwelling) at the northwest corner of the the neighborhood and they appear to be neighborhood, along Sherbrook Place, which apartments within existing homes. was primarily platted as a subdivision in the There are approximately 50 taxlots in the 1980s and includes two zero lot line dwellings. neighborhood which exceed 20,000 square Early build-out of the neighborhood was based feet, the minimum size to be divided in the on an R-15 designation, and approximately R-10 zone. The large majority of these lots are half of the R-10-zoned lots exceed 15,000 too narrow to be fully divided side-by-side, and would require the creation of one or more square feet in size. 9 UPLANDS NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT FEBRUARY 1, 2017 flag lots to place one house behind another. There are two public school facilities, Lake In addition, many topographic and natural Oswego Junior High and Uplands Elementary resource constraints exist in the Uplands (currently shuttered and used for school neighborhood that limit the development district programs). There is also one private potential on these lots. school, International Leadership Academy located in Hope Church. There is some very small scale urban farming in the neighborhood. Several homes keep The two public schools include outdoor chickens or ducks, there is a small vineyard, recreational facilities available to the public. and there are many private vegetable gardens Springbrook Park is a 52-acre public nature of varying sizes. There is no community park in the center of the neighborhood. garden in the neighborhood. The Lake Oswego Tennis Center is located C at the western edge of Springbrook Park There are two churches, Hope Church and and is accessed from the Rainbow Terrace r River West Church, which are conditional subdivision of the neighborhood. It is a public Duses in the R-10 zone. Hope Church is also a amenity for all Lake Oswego residents. Z designated a Tri-Met Park and Ride site. Additionally, there is Iron Mountain Natural U Area flanking Uplands on the south, and three small unimproved City-owned open spaces along Boones Ferry Road. z I-T1 - R-} _ ... _ _ 0 -igegi_ ‘ _ 1 . rEIIII - [ V , N 3 Y •. I '' alDVMPIO a none 1 — •��it l i I,I, i l— v®, 1IIiiDUf ! R-7.S Iii W •,.. 5* ,ov] a �,R_l� ® PF V t r'1 It 9 If*1IlEdFt•`"' 1 ill i 1 ,= 3 III Ru,a °vo`�ani ► �j�© , .--.-- �d �q Avow - 113 ©I TA�pm 0 I : R75 ,' tea' :: =,: ems= -e©� - Illiora.c 1� ® - PHAAlt �. ©pe_ _, 0� �� IMF PNA•..... f — .glegQe . �� �� � .. IIS ._ :,- ��p0 II , l AL= o is 1�1 p� D -7/7- 96:,:1,1,1,,.i' 11 =rim& 1 I t t +e� sia• `► PNA I'.),,..A1 i 1 1 1 :'�� • z _ ■1 ow A ©©0Q p. I, I - :�-aoiev �� oe© e© T1;i • IOW citer© t '112QQSIaag_°°© X� Uplands Neighborhood Zoning Map N llb ..c, RESIDENTIAL Pa&C USE I IMWMIS 1 au { 2 K ZR-15 .swop n...p•r w FF cuw r...amt rw pxw PNA Meq n.ei.+fm R-7.51 R6 s.ow.cl we..u� i rJPi; . e` v so-v t,avo l,ao-o-e a - ti c a t Feet Flu _ ...._._._• .,,r.,, L 10 UPLANDS NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT FEBRUARY 1, 2017 Land Use Objectives d. Front Yard Setbacks The minimum front yard setback shall 1. Ensure that new residential development be the average of abutting building in the R-10 zone is compatible with the setbacks along the same block face. existing pattern of development and The minimum requirement shall be not neighborhood character as described in the be less than 25 ft. or greater than 40 ft. plan's Neighborhood Character Statement. e. Building Height 2. Re-establish Uplands Elementary School Limit the height of primary dwellings as the Uplands neighborhood public to 30 feet, regardless of the lot's slope. elementary school. Prohibit additional allowed building 3. Retain the Indoor Tennis Center land as height for roof forms and architectural part of Springbrook Park. features, allowed pursuant to LOC 4. Create a framework which provides the 50.04.001.1.g. —10 Uplands Neighborhood Association with f. Building Design meaningful input into land-use related Revise the interior side yard setback issues within the neighborhood. plane by lowering the roof pitch to z 6:12. 0 Land Use Action Steps g. Driveways C1) Only one driveway shall be permitted Community Development Code along each lot frontage. z City and Neighborhood Responsibility rn Neighborhood Programs/Projects V J 1. Develop and propose for City adoption an overlay district for the Uplands R-10 2. Provide easy-to-understand reference for zone, to modify the following Community neighborhood zoning requirements that CO Development Code standards: includes: O a. Flag Lots • Minimum Lot Size Flag lots within the Uplands Overlay 70 • Maximum Lot Coverage • Setbacks District shall be limited to one flag lot • 0 behind the non-flag lot. Development Height on the flag lot shall meet all of the • Neighborhood Overlay Code O dimensional standards for the R-10 zone relative to setbacks, maximum 3. Create a standing Land Use Review Q area, maximum lot coverage, and Committee of the neighborhood height. The minimum lot area(10,000 association board to review all land use sq. ft.) must be contiguous. applications within the neighborhood. b. Access Lanes Three members nominated by and No new access lanes shall be allowed approved by the neighborhood association to extend from one street to the next at the Fall Bi-annual general meeting when by connecting to abutting developable officers and board members are elected. property. The term of service shall be three years c. Impervious Area with the initial members having staggered Total impervious shall not exceed 50% terms of one, two and three years to allow of a lot area, including structures and for opportunity for a new member to join paved areas. Total impervious area in the committee every year. the front yard shall not exceed 30% of lot area. 11 UPLANDS NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN Z PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT FEBRUARY 1, 2017 C > Z 0 C') Z rn_ G) CO 0 70 0 0 0 D Z 12 UPLANDS NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT FEBRUARY 1, 2017 TRANSPORTATION Purpose Roads through the neighborhood's interior meander in an organic pattern This chapter outlines the existing with more curves than straight lines and transportation and infrastructure must be carefully navigated by passing conditions within the neighborhood, and cars and pedestrians that share a narrow recommend ways to improve rights-of- space. While the public right-of-way for way and support transportation choices these local streets generally ranges from within the neighborhood. Particular approximately 50 to 60 feet in width, the importance is placed on creating safe paved travel lanes are much narrower, pedestrian and bicycle routes within the typically 20 to 25 feet wide. neighborhood, and to schools,bus stops and nearby commercial areas. I z Inventoryand Analysis l y 0 Roads .*. a, 4' The transportation system within the ' +1- ` • ' z Uplands Neighborhood consists mainly NE rn of local roads but also includes two _ ^ neighborhood collectors: Wembley Park Road and Twin Fir Road. The neighborhood is bordered on the north CO and west by two major arterials: Country Curbs are a rarity in the neighborhood, O Club Road and Boones Ferry Road. There located only in the Rainbow Terrace, 7J has been discussion that Uplands Drive should be reclassified from a local street Sherbrook, Dolph Court, Bridge Court = to a neighborhood collector. and Wembley Place subdivisions. The O curbless shoulders, and narrow and O «�. meandering streets contribute to the quiet „. • country character of the neighborhood. The unpaved right-of-way edge on the predominantly curbless neighborhood r . ., roads, currently serves diverse purposes, ”' ' from roadside drainage ditches and ? .t :,,, --- _. 4 shoulder walking areas, to extensions of t',,iiiiii, -� private front yard landscaping, to on- - street parking. The lack of a consistent pattern, however, results in an interrupted pedestrian network and stormwater drainage system, which are intended to function in 13 UPLANDS NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT FEBRUARY 1, 2017 connected ways. The absence of specific Access design guidelines for the unpaved right- The three busiest entrances/exits to the of-way edge, along with lack of property neighborhood are Wembley Park Road, owner knowledge of allowed right-of- Twin Fir Road, and Uplands Drive. While way uses, also results in an inconsistent all neighborhood street intersections streetscape character that could be along Boones Ferry Road and Country improved over time. Club road have left turn refuge lanes, , x. none have traffic signals. These r:- r, , intersections present daily challenges for x. `„` :" drivers. Pedestrians are also challenged by crossing the major arterials to get to and from TriMet stops located at several planes alongon the west side of Boones f"1 � ':4`` ._ _ , —: Ferry Road and north side of Country r Club Road. D _ ,,, • .- 1 4111 t ---v.. i, � i j- _74ai Yi - _:4_-- 6 CO r V w � — 0 A number of single ingress/egress streets exist: Sherbrook Place and Rainbow Z •, -- ''` Drive off of Boones Ferry Road, and O4 Sundeleaf Drive, Dolph Court and Bridge Court off of Country Club O s Road. Residents of these streets have no — �. alternatives out of their neighborhoods i _,. other than crossing the major arterials. • Z .$t d pT$„,,,,i.,..-,-.N . . 6 Y - -4...7:6 — %.741:!, . k .- --, -� �, I E 4I VS a "J''''. , ,'yam- - �, 1 14 UPLANDS NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT FEBRUARY 1, 2017 Transit Pedestrian and Bike Safety The neighborhood is currently served by Pedestrians and bicyclists have a tough three TriMet bus lines along Boones Ferry go of it in most areas of the Uplands and Country Club Road. neighborhood. Sidewalks are almost • Line 37-Lake Grove connects completely absent, located only in parts residents eastbound to the Lake of the Sherbrook, Dolph Court and Oswego Transit Center downtown, Bridge Court subdivisions. Pathways and westbound to Lake Grove and out are also very limited, located only along to the Tualatin Park and Ride. one side of Wembley Park Road, from Wembley Place to the western edge of • Line 38-Boones Ferry connects the neighborhood at Twin Fir. Uplands residents north to downtown Portland Drive is dangerous for most of its length via Mountain Park, and south to with blind curves between Egan and Tualatin via Kruse Way and 72nd Ridgecrest, unsafe ditches near Country Street. Club, and limited to no shoulder space for Line 78-Beaverton/Lake Oswego pedestrians. Blind curves on Wembley Z • Park between Prestwick and Crest are connects residents east to the hazardous at all times of the day and 0 downtown Lake Oswego Transit night. (17 Center, and west to the Beaverton Transit Center. M The lines 37 and 38 provide weekday service only, from morning through evening rush hours. Hope Community � 1 ��� jl�ill�lr� - _ Church at Twin Fir and Boones Ferry provides 12 park and ride spaces to serve ` these bus lines on weekdays. As part ;t ' O of TriMet's Service Enhancement Plan 70 the routes and frequencies of these two ,.ft lines are proposed to change following The City's Transportation System Plan O completion of the Boones Ferry Road (TSP) identifies several improvements to O project, and could provide more frequent the pedestrian and bicycle network in the service to Uplands residents. Line 78 Uplands neighborhood (see chart below). 0 provides more frequent service, broader These projects are also on the City's hours and weekend service and is not Capital Improvement Plan. As of 2016, all I' —0 proposed to change. remain unfunded. r s i -J /. $Lj —.r.�� j lir � — �' . _ r s y ii!11111 o:' _ moi_ III 15 UPLANDS NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT FEBRUARY 1, 2017 TABLE 1: Uplands Pathway Projects from the Lake Oswego Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and Transportation System Plan (TSP) Project Name Description III Fir Ridge Road Sidewalk: 900' long, 5' wide separated concrete Twin Fir to Wembley Park Rd. sidewalk, 5' wide landscape strip on the (TSP Project ID #12, CIP Rank #60) north side of street. Existing curbs. Extends a connection. Twin Fir Rdoad Pathway: 3,500' long, 5'wide asphalt shoulder pathway; Upper Drive &Boones Ferry Rd. include wide stripe with RPMs. Geotechnical (TSP Project ID #30, CIP Rank#29 ) studies, retaining walls, and storm drainage system required. Transit connection on Boones Ferry. D Glen Eagles Road Pathway: 1,920' long, 6'wide asphalt shoulder pathway. z Wembley Park Rd to Prestwick (TSP Project ID #204, CIP Rank#94) 4 Glen Eagles Place Pathway: 525'long, 6'wide asphalt shoulder pathway. ZWembley Park Rd to Glen Eagles Rd I (TSP Project ID #205, CIP Rank#95) rn_ 0 Prestwick Road Pathway: 880'long, 6'wide asphalt shoulder pathway. Glen Eagles Rd to Crest Dr (TSP Project ID #206, CIP Rank#98) CO OCrest Drive Pathway: 1,500' long, 6'wide asphalt shoulder pathway. 70 Prestwick Rd to Ridgecrest (TSP Project ID #207, CIP Rank#99) OOUplands Drive Pathway: 900' long, 6'wide asphalt shoulder pathway. Ridgecrest Rd to Wembley Park Rd. (TSP Project ID #208, CIP Rank#100) D z II 16 UPLANDS NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT FEBRUARY 1, 2017 Wembley Park Road Especially important to the neighborhood is the improvement of Wembley Park Road, which is funded in the Capital Improvement Plan for reconstruction and repaving from Country Club Road to Twin Fir Road, and to improve stormwater facilities. Design work is slated to begin in 2019. This is the longest thoroughfare with the most traffic in the neighborhood and is in the worst condition. The only improved pathway in the neighborhood is on certain stretches of Wembley Park Road. This pathway is heavily traveled and widely z praised by residents but is especially hard to access from streets that meet Wembley (I) Park, due to an absence of crosswalks. Parents are very concerned for the safety z of their children as they cross Wembley Park to access the pathway. Should rn Uplands Elementary School re-open in n the future, these issues become even more V , pressing. There are concerns that these perilous conditions will be worsened CO once the roadway is rebuilt unless proper O traffic calming devices or crosswalks are 70 installed. Parking 0 There is very little shared parking except O at Hope Church, the Tennis Center, and the schools. The main entrance to Springbrook Park is without designated parking spaces although cars are I- often parked here, and park across the pathway. If Iron Mountain Trail use z increases there will be a need for more designated parking at the Glen Eagles trailhead. III 17 UPLANDS NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT FEBRUARY 1, 2017 Transportation and Transportation and Right-of-Way Objectives Right-of-Way Action Steps 1. Develop solutions to pedestrian/111 Capital Improvements bicyclist crossing concerns across local City Responsibility roads, neighborhood collectors and major arterials. 1. Assess the following locations for 2. Improve roadway conditions and traffic calming devices: ensure regular ongoing maintenance. a. Wembley Park Road curves between Prestwick and 3. Increase and enhance trails and Crest pathways for walking and biking. b. Wembley Park Road —13 between Twin Fir & Fir Ridge I— 4. At major arterials create easier, safer c. Uplands Drive between Egan & Dentrances/exits onto neighborhood Ridgecrest Z collectors. Q 5. Use the space between the paved travel 2. Implement pedestrian activated (7) lane and private property line in a crosswalk technology and traffic way that preserves the natural flow signals at these locations: Z of pedestrian travel and stormwater a. Twin Fir Road at Boones Ferry rn drainage. Road 06. Design the right-of-way edge with b. Uplands Drive at Country Club a cohesive pattern of vegetation, Road off-street parking and stormwater c. Wembley Park Road at Country management facilities. Club Road O1 7. Promote the need for site-specific 3. Fix the dangerously deep ditches = infrastructure solutions, necessitated along Uplands Drive near Country by the diverse neighborhood Club, and along Glen Eagles Place near 0 topography. Wembley Park to improve vehicular Oand pedestrian safety. 4. Update the Uplands Drive Pathway project in the Transportation System I— Plan (TSP) (project #208) and Capital D Improvement Plan (CIP), to extend the Z project from Ridgecrest to Country Club Road. The amended project would be a new 1,600 foot long, 6 foot wide asphalt shoulder pathway on Uplands Drive from Wembley Park Road to Country Club Road. II 18 UPLANDS NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT FEBRUARY 1, 2017 Neighborhood Responsibility • Parking space and locations 5. Advocate for funding the design and • Landscape design character • construction of Uplands neighborhood Edge treatments sidewalks/pathways identified in the A design plan will help to create a more City's Transportation System Plan consistent pattern of transportation and (TSP; see Table 1): stormwater facilities that support natural a. Fir Ridge Sidewalk (TSP #12) stormwater flow and functions. It is b. Twin Fir Pathway (TSP #30) intended to improve the right-of-way c. Glen Eagles Road Pathway area over time, while waiting for a full (TSP #204 and #205) reconstruction. d. Prestwick Road Pathway (TSP # 206) Neighborhood Responsibility e. Crest Drive Pathway (TSP #207) f. Uplands Drive Pathway (TSP #208) 8. Distribute a set of right-of-way design guidelines to all Uplands residents 6. Partner with the City in the design that outlines the required process for z of the Wembley Park Road capital making improvements in the abutting improvement project. right-of-way area, and encourages residents to make improvements Projects/Programs that are consistent with the desired z neighborhood character. The Neighborhood and City Responsibility following should be included: rn 7. Using a collaborative process between a. Prior to making property 0 engineers, planners, and property improvements near the road, owners, develop a preliminary (10 to contact the City's Engineering CO 20%) design concept plan for Uplands Department to: O Drive and Wembley Park Road. The design plan will provide guidance • Determine the area that is in the /70 public right-of-way; to the Engineering Department to = • respond to Uplands property owners Determine if improvements who wish to improve the right-of- could be permitted; and• 0 way area abutting their property, or Determine if an Encroachment 0 who are required to make frontage Permit is needed under LOC improvements with redevelopment. 42.18.1010 Encroachments Within Public Rights-of-Way/ The plan will identify designs Easements. —C) appropriate for the diverse b. A three-foot-wide pedestrian travel topographic, hydrologic, geologic, path must be maintained along the z and lot pattern conditions in the shoulder of the paved roadway. neighborhood. Based on these conditions and the available right-of- c. If a bike or pedestrian pathway is way area, it will identify: planned for the right-of-way, new trees should not be planted in this • Street cross sections and plan views area, and should instead be located • Stormwater management on private property. approaches • Pedestrian space and locations 19 UPLANDS NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT FEBRUARY 1, 2017 d. New pavement for driveways and or/on-street parking should be minimized to reduce stormwater runoff and to provide space for stormwater management and landscaping. e. New gravel placed in the right-of way should have a minimum diameter of 1.5 inch (or more, depending on slope) and should be open-graded fractured rock to minimize erosion and allow for I— stormwater infiltration. > Z f. Where possible, hard surfaces (e.g. U rock or brick walls, asphalt (7) driveways and parking areas, graveled surfaces) should be Z balanced with vegetation to rn support stormwater infiltration and contribute to the landscaped 0 neighborhood character. g. Where on-street parking spaces are CO provided, pervious materials Oshould be used rather than asphalt. /J Z 0 0 z II 20 UPLANDS NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT FEBRUARY 1, 2017 NATURAL SYSTE VIS Inventory &Analysis Streams • Springbrook Creek drains part of the Land and Topography Mountain Park neighborhood and Uplands' topographic, geotechnical, flows along Boones Ferry Road around hydrologic, geographic and seismic the western margin of the Uplands features, including abandoned mine neighborhood. shafts, present unique development • In Springbrook Park, the creek challenges. and its tributary bisect the park and include wetlands at its upper Located on uplift abutting Iron Mountain reaches. Springbrook Park is a natural Park, its southern boundary is 350' watershed that also links all areas of above the Lake Oswego Hunt Club. The Uplands. z topography slopes downward easterly to Oswego Lake Country Club, northerly ' 0 to Country Club Road and westerly to Boones Ferry Road. Equally unique is the - distribution of Uplands total area: z __ ill • 50%+is public/institutional lands,including Springbrook Park, Lake 0 Oswego Indoor Tennis Center, - --~ .. Uplands Elementary/Lake Oswego F i , `, CO Junior High schools and Hope Y. 0 Community and River West churches. , -- • 50%+is remaining residential private property, including five newer • �. srC 0 subdivisions, located around Uplands „; ; ` ;�s f; _Y; _ ,.-r,.----e, .N� perimeter. '- 0�- "..P � • 40%-50%+is in a Sensitive Lands '" j M Overlay for tree groves and stream corridors. x ', • r 44 m z Trees and Wildlife IIIIIIIII Uplands' tree canopy is higher than the city average and provides more shade for its stream corridors. However, the water quality monitoring location nearer Oswego Lake is warmer in mid-summer than state requirements. 21 UPLANDS NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT FEBRUARY 1, 2017 Neighborhood locations between use of unimproved right-of-way edges, Springbrook Park and Iron Mountain have significantly impacted the flow of Natural Area have always been traversed stormwater throughout Uplands. Such by wildlife. Wildlife has increased development has resulted in reduced in Uplands as land has developed in infiltration of rainwater and increased neighborhoods north of Uplands and flow velocity. Reduced infiltration rates reduced habitat. Springbrook and Iron have in turn resulted in unmanaged Mountain natural areas are only a few flows, pollutants and transport of run-off hundred feet apart, so deer and coyotes over roads and adjacent properties. roam freely and share streets with residents. Birdsongs permeate all of Infiltration of rainwater is also limited in Uplands. the Uplands neighborhood because soils are typically fine grained (making them Development and Stormwater less permeable) and bedrock is located r Management near the land surface. Sloping topography > Residential development began in the over much of the neighborhood also Z 1920's in accordance with Clackamas means that runoff moves quickly Q County codes and was characterized downhill. .r . (,/) � by homes on large lots withopen ditch � =: �.:�e �� � ���,. ; • ` °�;F__ ., '. #..Ser.•. -7. � r , stormwater conveyance along the ., �� frontage of properties, and backyard ` Z septic tanks/drain fields that drained into rn existing ravines. This modest stormwater lLl '# ' +� 0and wastewater system worked well V - - I '4 in the older portion of Uplands located _ CO along perimeter views. O di Major growth with smaller ranch-style /7 -1 homes occurred during the 1950s to 1960s Z as new families were attracted to Uplands Due to these manmade and natural O 4 walkable k-12 schools. Sanitary sewer conditions, much of the rainwater runs O systems were installed after properties off the surface rather than infiltrating into were annexed into Lake Oswego in the ground. This means that there are 1960. Annexation of roads was declined large volumes of water to manage during at that time because of substandard large storms. Whether in roadside ditches conditions and were not annexed until or streams, runoff is often present at 1986. Development after annexation volumes or velocities that cause erosion. D included curbs, piping ing and catch basins in some locations, particularly in Uplands' As described further in this chapter, subdivisions. there is limited stormwater infrastructure present in Uplands to manage runoff in a Increased development density, house manner that protects property and natural size and amount of impervious surface on resources. Adding additional stormwater lots (including streets, driveways, roofs, infrastructure into this neighborhood will walkways, and patios), along with private require creativity and substantial funding. 22 UPLANDS NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT FEBRUARY 1, 2017 Right-of-way stormwater is managed :,.: z,: .;;; in three different ways in the Uplands h, / neighborhood: ,h i ,�;• 1. Undeveloped roadside open ditches, rt. • . typically located on the steepest ti: _ .., grades, Uplands Drive, Glen Eagles Road and mid-section portions of ` . Wembley Park Road, which are 3 approximately 60 to 90 years old. The - Glen Eagles Tributary culvert drains lower Wembley Park Road and open ditches on both sides of Glen Eagles = . Road from Crest Drive. Uplands ' Drive has open ditch drainage at the intersection with Egan Way. These roadside ditches, typically with z clay soils, continue to be degraded by increased water flow, rate and (7) volume, largely resulting from uphill development. Three private property F z owner- funded and City-approved - . : w projects have been constructed on \ ,• y '. — Glen Eagles Road during the last ,� _ V J decade to manage stormwater flow. _ Additional City-funded right-of-way repairs are needed to further protect • ..; these natural conveyances. r "'� „,�• 70 2. Piped with catch basins and curbs that connect to existing stormwater pipes are located in newer O subdivisions, including Sherbrook, _ : t, . 4,,� 0 Rainbow Terrace, Dolph and Bridge Courts, Wembley Place and Fir Ridge Road. --� �. 0. - of - -,-..,...4,....•-r„,,,,, w 3. Curbless right-of-way edges with F- drainage ditches filled in for shoulder ` _ parking or landscaped extensions of -Ft Z Pte': front yards, and some stormwater - R4-:":441,04.---,= ` _ piping. This condition is typical of . �'*- . . Crest Drive, Prestwick, upper section of Uplands Drive, Glen Eagles Place/ -2 Road/Court and most of Wembley . Park Road. 23 UPLANDS NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT FEBRUARY 1, 2017 Relying solely upon existing natural a. conveyances and open roadside ditches is no longer a viable solution for steep slopes ," draining from Crest Drive, as evidenced - ;, by: • Glen Eagles Road's degrading open ditches on both sides of the roadbed are exacerbated by lack of uphill - ., conveyance for run-off, road side - slopes, and a diagonal pipe crossing . above Glen Eagles Court. - • • The erosion level in the ravine below the Glen Eagles culvert has been observed to drop approximately one Zr inch per year during the last 20 years. December 2015 stormwater flows Z exceeded previous lateral heights, and ; washed out the rock outcrop used for r. (7) erosion observations. Z • Uplands Drive's single deep ditch is M undermining the abutting concrete wall at the intersection of Egan Way. Wembley Park Road Rehabilitation & GOpen ditches cause concern about Stormwater Project pedestrian and vehicular safety and The approved and funded Wembley Park CO future pathways connectivity, as noted Road Rehabilitation Project, scheduled to O in the Transportation chapter. begin design work in 2019, will provide an opportunity for significant stormwater improvements in its design and execution. A portion of the Wembley Park right- o of-way drains from Crest Drive to Glen O -* x 'Y = Eagles Road and includes a stormwater 7 -,-'* -1',004,-P.:*:,'" -,;' z i ;,;� --',,d . s A ', ....-.��. - system of piping and catch basins that 4 4- E ' ' ``� . outfall into an open roadside ditch. This ,: �,� ;�,,;. ik i." ditch connects with a conveyance to `- 41+ . Springbrook Creek, and ultimately flows G D F . ,.e..:- into Oswego Lake. Z " 1 4 �.f.� Improving stormwater treatment and ` x,11 �"�_ r` ;-': management for the roadway and this ,s- �- drainage system in the course of this road ?= J4 . ' -r., -' .-4 rehabilitation project is a high priority of 4'; n > the Uplands neighborhood. r•i' Y y--- - II 24 UPLANDS NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT FEBRUARY 1, 2017 Natural Systems Objectives abutting properties, erosion of conveyance systems, and help to reduce pollutants 1. Reconstruct and repave Wembley Park and better utilize Springbrook Park's Road from Country Club Road to Twin watershed potential. Fir Road, adding improved stormwater City Responsibility facilities (see 2019-2021 CIP). Work 3. Conduct pre-planning meetings with with the City to engage abutting property Uplands'residents regarding the Wembley owners in this project, and to help design Park Road and right-of-way design to the project in a way that improves the discuss design components including type multiple functions of the Wembley Park of surfacing, curbs, planting beds/swales, ROW. off-street parking,pathway, and other 2. Rehabilitate Springbrook Park's Stream concerns that best preserve the character of Corridor and Wetland to improve future the neighborhood and are code compliant. -10 watershed capabilities and better manage existing degradation of park trails and Programs & Projects water drainage onto abutting properties on Neighborhood Responsibility Z Wembley Park Road. 1. Support City staff in modifying codes and 0 3. Limit impervious surface area on regulations to better manage hardscape residential lots to reduce stormwater (impervious surfaces) and associated runoff. surface water run-off. Z m 4. Develop and maintain a coherent roadside 2. Request ongoing City maintenance of the drainage system. roadside drainage system in the public V J right-of-way. Help the City to identify and l Natural Systems Action Items prioritize maintenance needs by providing CO documentation of specific surface water O Capital Improvements: Wembley Park and Sensitive Lands conditions that are not Road Rehabilitation Project functioning properly and/or are negatively7°impacting private property. ' Neighborhood Responsibility O 3. Advocate for City adoption of incentives 1. Meet with the City Budget Committee and for voluntary stormwater improvements O City Council to advocate for the funded in the public right-of-way, which could be Wembley Park Road CIP project to be implemented based on an updated drainage completed as scheduled in 2019-2021. plan. 2. Advocate for the Wembley Park RoadI— CIP project to be designed and funded in 4. Support the City s efforts to improve accordance with low impact development stormwater management and treatment z techniques identified in the Lake Oswego by providing outreach and education to Stormwater Management Manual Uplands residents. wherever possible, including swales and plantings between vehicular traffic and pedestrian passage. When completed, the project should help prevent ongoing stormwater degradation of roads, flooding of yards/homes, runoff flowing over II 25 UPLANDS NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT FEBRUARY 1, 2017 C > Z 0 C') Z rn_ G) CO 0 70 0 0 0 D Z 26 UPLANDS NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT FEBRUARY 1, 2017 OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION Inventory and Analysis Recently, the City's Parks &RecreationII Department contracted to have invasive The center of the Uplands neighborhood ivy removed from Springbrook. These is Springbrook Park, a 52-acre natural area efforts have resulted in major die-off of that is owned by the City of Lake Oswego. ivy in 90% of the park. The 2015 Uplands Neighborhood Survey ,t x =� asked residents to rank open space and }�' ;� ' `__- recreation priorities on a scale of Not '` Important to Extremely Important. V' -�-- 95% of respondents ranked as Very y r Important or Extremely Important the = s ' _ :''Y = "Preservation of Springbrook Park • _. `" z and Iron Mountain as natural areas." � 1 Springbrook Park was cited by many ,r; "s in listing things they like about the <z. W neighborhood. IP z Springbrook Park was last logged in theAl' ,-....4- ',•..- : 1 = rD. — early 1960's when the portable sawmill '...4) $,' q Y li was removed. Over 40 years ago, a A ' ' ,. lir 0 petition drive resulted in an election with .• .. ` 80% of Lake Oswego residents voting -; ,, ' ' "yes" to acquire the 52 acres and preserve F�i 0 the natural area for residents. Friends of Springbrook Park, a 501(c)3 non-profit organization, was formed over ��' O . 4 10 years ago and partners with the City to T" ii ix- O maintain and enhance this natural area. 13 `' ' ". . _ � fi e . The park is one of the key strengths identified about the Uplands '" - I- neighborhood. It is very accessible to � `�-.. h ,'f ,;," • people who live in the neighborhood, • , holds considerable diversity of birds and �� i !�f I ! p "-- z wildlife, and is considered to be a healthy1111� rr;.,.• �i�G �, natural area. a LA ki „y,1 LkA) 1INDOOR`T'ENNIS Over the last 10 years, dozens of volunteer - - - - -1 ` 'NTt projects cleared about six of the 52 acres —•-- - - of invasive plants, and over 2,000 native - trees and plants have been planted. 27 UPLANDS NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT FEBRUARY 1, 2017 Track and cross country teams from as Very Important or Extremely Important LOHS have rebuilt and graveled two the "Preservation of Uplands Elementary miles of trails in Springbrook, to Oregon and LOJHS play fields and equipment for State Park standards. Eagle Scout projects recreation and organized sports." have built and installed kiosks, trails signs, and boot scrapers at entrances. New Prestwick Place is a garden area trail entrance signs have been installed developed by neighbors in a portion of through a neighborhood grant. unused City right-of-way, and is now if maintained by Public Works Department. - •'a • Open Space & Recreation C Objectives ----.47:., i ,r.■ ' 1. Continue to enhance and maintain I— Springbrook Park and Iron Mountain Y.'u ' 7� - Park through the removal of invasive Z :. 1 plants and restoration of native Q =it = ". • species. 2. Restore Springbrook Creek. rn Looking forward, it will be important Open Space & Recreation — .4 to conduct more outreach to neighbors, S Action Ste 0 city-wide residents and the City Council p .4 to maintain volunteer participation Neighborhood Responsibility Op and awareness of the park. The park O provides opportunities for educational 1. Partner with the Springbrook Park and programs with schools, faculty, and Iron Mountain Park friends groups to students; academic research with regional support their goals and work plans, Z universities on local habitat; partnering including: with County, State, and regional organizations for grants; and expanding a. Community outreach and Othe Friends Forum to build a bigger vision education for our parks. b. Partnerships with local schools c. Ongoing maintenance plans Springbrook Park is also the location of d. Grant opportunities D> the Lake Oswego Tennis Center. Recent a,, discussion regarding selling the Center „ ' / it."" have stopped and relocation has been Y -4. 1 removed from any near future plans. L_� /,•x;r' -moi;' The fields and playground at Uplands -- :=x k `'``‘ "- �` - r Elementary School (currently closed) ''' �, , �'`�•' • � and Lakeridge Junior High School also " �'`' r'°' e'4 provide open space and recreation rF : . ' •' I* facilities for the neighborhood. 84% of :, . r, s x neighborhood survey respondents ranked • •bs-'�: i- 28 UPLANDS NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT FEBRUARY 1, 2017 NEIGHBORHOOD INVOLVEMENT Purpose The main purpose of the neighborhood association is to provide a forum for residents to discuss matters of common concern and represent the views of the neighborhood before public bodies. ill i .. . all d S Matters of common concern include, 'ii f but are not limited to the livability of --- the neighborhood, city and region; ` ' �!f- _ � �` , participation in all phases of government - 4111F _ '` processes with special emphasis on i planning, land use and environmental N. J" ' Z quality, and ongoing communication with - 0 governments. in' eftV) The Uplands neighborhood has low = , % levels of citizen involvement with the „ li171association and is deficient in accurate .# - ' representation of the demographic mix, `a 0 as well as those who represent diverse Z interests and come from all geographic i% CO areas of the neighborhood. The association's activity has been primarily O focused on responding to issues and /70 seeking solutions. "' ., ,1*` 0 While this will always be a core mission �` r ` '--r of the association, the board would like '; 0 to establish a plan that will address ,>= : 0 how the neighbors can work together to 1War. build a safe community by establishing a �;, consistent form of communication in hope ; ,, • I— . to solicit a greater demographic range of \ 10. involved neighbors, and to implement an , s Z emergency preparedness plan. III 29 UPLANDS NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT FEBRUARY 1, 2017 Inventory and Analysis Neighborhood Involvement Objectives The Uplands Neighborhood Association meets monthly and holds general 1. Solicit residents to join the membership meetings twice annually. neighborhood association, particularly The neighborhood association board those who represent demographics composition is marginally older than that are lacking on the board. the median neighborhood age and represents fewer households with 2. Strengthen the neighborhood's level of school age children than are present emergency preparedness for natural in the neighborhood. Newsletters are disasters. distributed twice a year, two weeks prior to the bi-annual general membership 3. Find another avenue of meeting. The association uses the communication to increase = neighborhoodNextdoor.com neighborhood social media involvement. D platform. This website helps facilitate communication among neighbors. Q Currently the website has 362 registered Neighborhood Involvement (/) neighbors. Action Steps Z A "Welcome to the Neighborhood" kit Programs/Projects m 41 that contains brochures, maps, most recent newsletter and general information Neighborhood Responsibility O about Lake Oswego is distributed by a 1. Implement an events committee that I I neighborhood association board member will be responsible for creating new Op to all new residents. An emergency neighborhood events. These events O 4 preparedness program is currently in will cater to young families and will be place but the program chair seat is vacant. held at different times. Some block captains have been identified = but interest is lacking. The neighborhood 2. Identify a chair for the emergency O 41 has received support with CERT preparedness program who can build O (Certified Emergency Response Training) u pon the existing neighborhood and the association currently has a record emergency preparedness program in of residents that store emergency gas shut place. off wrenches and walkie talkies in their 3. Identify a resident that can create a home. Dneighborhood website. The website The results of the 2015 neighborhood will provide citizens a location to read up to date information on topics survey ranked neighborhood emergency related to the association or the preparedness as extremely important neighborhood itself. to the citizens. Broad representation in the neighborhood association was very important while opportunities for neighborhood events were only moderately important. 30 UPLANDS NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT FEBRUARY 1, 2017 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Analysis Economic Development Objectives Uplands is predominantly zoned low density residential R-10. Currently there 1. Maintain existing residential, Park and is no commercial or mixed-use zoning. The neighborhood supports home-based Natural Area and Public Functions businesses that conform with existing City zoning. regulations and recognizes the needs and 2. Ensure home-based businesses are desires of people to engage in small-scale in conformity with relevant City sign business ventures. codes and are not disruptive to our character. Economic Development z _- Action Items 0 . _ � Cr) Neighborhood Responsibility r'; 1. Obtain a list of current licensed home- ! based businesses in Uplands. Maintain ih Rl T.:1�,��sv,„„�,,,,��,n�.�,� 1t, 4 the list with future business licenses as 0 1 vN i::Y A r.P they are issued. ,<< ” 2. Review the status of these businesses ;h annually to ensure they are code i CO compliant and not disruptive to the 0 neighborhood. /70 3. Monitor and participate in any future I City code change process that deals O with home-based businesses. 0 U I— > z III 31 UPLANDS NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT FEBRUARY 1, 2017 ATTACHMENT C (Ordinance 2734) LU 17-0001 Updates to the Transportation System Plan 1. Page 88,Table 14 Pedestrian and Bicycle Projects Amend Table 14 by adding new text shown in bold. double underlined tune and deleting text shown in strikcthrough, as shown below. Table 14: Pedestrian and Bicycle Projects Map ID Estimated Source (Fig#) Type Project Name Description Cost Document Comments ** ** ** ** ** ** ** NA confirmed project consistent with Uplands Dr Pathway: goals of Ridgccrcst Rd 2,500' long,6'wide TMP Uplands 208 Pathways Country Club Rd.to asphalt shoulder $288,000 Uplands Neighborhood (7A&7C) Wembley pathway. 52.000.000 Neiehborhood Association Park Rd. Plan Board.Considcr Incorporate stormwater runoff in design. ** ** ** ** ** ** ** // // // February 1, 2017 ATTACHMENT C (ORDINANCE 2734)/PAGE 1 OF 3 LU 17-0001 2. Page 103,Figure 7A Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects Delete existing Figure 7A and replace with new Figure 7A. € � I.1 � i �4 ,;11.. r w fl i rn , oaQa i I`a i , a .ti 2 R 4 Z. i �� 1 , i N l I. .l �. 1 ,1 1 4-7 5 1: f 7 , ., s— i ' r--1. .1. CD et r � •i a f . . 1 T CO ....„.... 0 ♦� ..-.. _ 1 . .a-- \.._, U m ' 5 T I • 1 i i • ' .- -.-. l 11 li n ...).E., . ... . . . --7— ,. I, i ce+' • 1'. O1 E x-41( u a w //Sit144 of j ~ 's.4-1.I. i 4 A .... _ lie 17 g.. 1--;•r —r '2 i$ PS ,S g $ • • '0 1 1 1 Yi �' E 1 1 1 0 . February 1, 2017 ATTACHMENT C (ORDINANCE 2734)/PAGE 2 OF 3 LU 17-0001 I— m p W C (D (D 1--1 - CD VC r+ I (D CD 0 -G X -0O1-1 !-' N GO r* CD faJ .av aien seomnmer gm. = I-1 O CM C I-A - . V Figure ' Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects 7C UPDATED CD C 01CG4�• V Z tD D _..__—..-.._-------- ' n H D �� - CIBC....._.....).,..,1 ,HLIS Gauri:y 1- = n ■ = A K , .` M ■ ",f, . v CD z ! .F' , n H 1 43 `4 3 f7 i ;:..rr• ////r � Q ` L O IF pE 1 l ( CD �_ .t'1 �t -.t►.� .. .4 1 •` r 7 P CL ~rte■z7 ! (D 1: ttimh � ■ !! C N UQ � W- 3 m - '� i� i WV.u:no —�----- r co t LU _ . . . �._Planned I 'I n fD I.l rt ---•PathwaysVI D __ eke ,0�'- { l l P ----Sidewalks .4T - .I' l ! " J l f rn - ----Eike rd Ped / _ U.) Colningeni Prorate Property �. ..... r O �'Projects d R - ti.. ' W * Points al Interest KIK .x rti fit.w _ __ / Lake Oswego Boundary r'.r' ~-�"`--.-�- �-.._---.___- Urban Services Boundary • r✓* �°"`9e .. ,� 6 .. f - r l GB Metro) ` 4 n 1000 $orlll N ,a.,.,e- J .. •2 . FECt � ... . 1 g� x iTEL50k&ASSOCaTES.+r+c 4/''''. - 1.25.17 fe a '.' Ord i na17-0001 Page 107 ATTACHMENT D (Ordinance 2734) LU 17-0001 NOTE: Double underline text indicates new text to be added to the Community Development Code.The entirety of Attachment D, Proposed Uplands R-10 Overlay District, is new text. Explanatory text is provided in commentary boxes below key code sections and amendments.This is included for reference as part of the public hearings, and will be deleted as part of the final ordinance adopted by City Council. ' 1 112 PLAND R-1 ' •VERLAY DI TRI T 1. PURPOSE The ouroose of the overlay is to ensure that development in the overlay district promotes the unique character of the Uplands neighborhood as described in the Uplands Neighborhood Plan. 2, APPLICABILITY This article applies to lands within the Uplands R-10 Overlay District. as shown on Figure 50.05.012-A: Uplands R-10 Overlay District. F'gure 50.05.012-A: Uplands R-10 Overlay District 1p,1 11..1..44,r°4-.411j1-,,w•Li'ti,'jr,-i.liP -.<.7..--------- >--- A-lt 1 , _ ■ F JI1 Az -A HLJII e +I _ l iiir: - PIP m 611 II: 0 Lb— , 1 . m arposo 0 ti ma mt. SA.4601900K -11,11111111,11111 0 Luirnu _sr tf- ._� .1:4:?4/0„. .. � 7 / �yeaY )11 1111111 11 _ ', do, Uplands Neighborhood `� "g �, - o Uplands R-10 Overlay DistrictitorPP N .��, � ___i) �o as "IL -- ° [ AES°s/ n Uplands Neighborhood Boundary o goo 600 1,600 I I I _� \t \. reef DRAFT 02/01/17 LU 17-0001 ATTACHMENT D (ORDINANCE 2734)/PAGE 1 OF 8 3. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER STANDARDS To the extent that any requirement of this overlay imposes a regulation relating to the same matter as a reaulation applicable to the residential low density zones. flaa lots. or circulation and connectivity. this section shall prevail. Commentary: Overlay codes add to, or modify, the base zone requirements to address unique characteristics and desires of specific geographic areas of the city. 4. YARD SETBACKS (Non-Flag Lots) a. Front Yard Setbacks Front yard setbacks (other than for flag lots) shall conform to the standards in Table 50.05.012— 1. TABLE 50.05.012-1 — FRONT YARD SETBACKS FOR NON- FLAG LOTS Non-corner Lot Corner Lot Front yard Averaae of the Average of 25 ft. and setback [1] [21 setbacks of the closest the setback of the (See Figure buildings on the closest building on the 50.05.012-B) abutting lots on the abutting lot on the same block face same block face Minimum Where the averaae is less than 25 ft.: Front Yard The minimum setback is 25 ft. Setback Where the averaae is more than 40 ft.: The minimum setback is 40 ft. [1] Abutting flag lots shall not be considered in determining the average. The setback of the next abutting non-flag lot shall apply. See Figure 50.05.012-B. [2] If the lots abuts a vacant lot, or there are no abutting lots on the same block face, the setback of the underlying zone shall apply. DRAFT 02/01/17 LU 17-0001 ATTACHMENT D (ORDINANCE 2734)/PAGE 2 OF 8 Figure 50.05.012-B 1/..\stDo Not Use Abutting lot to use for front setback averaging Abutting Flag Lot r 7 I 1 Subject property 0 A C B Lot 8 = Vacant Use 25 ft. No Lot A I A (Corner) : C Use 25 ft. C B Commentary: The distance that homes are set back from the front property line varies throughout the neighborhood, however, many homes in Uplands are set back well beyond the required 25 ft. front setback distance. In most cases, the unimproved public right-of-way between the road and front property line creates additional distance to the house. The generous front yard area is one of the unique characteristics of the Uplands neighborhood. There is concern that as properties redevelop, new homes will increasingly be built at the minimum 25 ft. setback, which will change the character of the neighborhood. There is a desire to ensure that setbacks are similar to neighboring homes. This requirement applies to new construction, additions, and remodels. This approach is based on an existing standard in LOC 50.04.003 General Exceptions to Yard Requirements. This code section allows front yard setback averaging r 1 to reduce the required setback, when one or A 1 1 B both abutting lots have a legal house or I C I I garage set back less than the current _ _ _ _ requirement. Where there is only one Setback B Setback C abutting property with a lesser setback, the Setback A average is determined by the abutting property and the minimum setback for the zone. DRAFT 02/01/17 LU 17-0001 ATTACHMENT D (ORDINANCE 2734)/PAGE 3 OF 8 5. FLAG LOTS a. Only one flaa lot may be created behind a non-flaa lot. No flaa lot may be created from an existina flaa lot. Commentary: The number of allowable flag lots is currently determined by the total area of the site (each lot must be at least 10,000 sq. ft. in size). Two or more flag lots could be created behind the street-facing lot, if the site was at least 36,000 sq. ft. — large enough to accommodate at least three total lots, along with an access lane. This proposal would limit the number of lots to two, one abutting the street and one behind it. Multiple flag lot development is not seen as compatible with the character and development pattern of the Uplands neighborhood because long access lanes, fences, and homes located ten feet off the access lane result in a predominant view of hardscape, rather than the landscaped separation between homes that characterizes most of the neighborhood. b. Access Access lanes shall not extend or nroiect through the flag lot to abutting nronerty. Commentary: "Access Lane: The area on private property that extends from the public right-of-way and is permitted to provide ingress and egress to the property(or properties) by all applicable surface modes of travel." "Driveway: A vehicular accessway that has, as its primary purpose, the provision of a driveable connection between a structure or parking area on a lot and connecting to the shared access easement, access lane, private street, or public street system. "Driveway" may include parking pads, turnaround areas, and parking lot aisles." Existing code requires that"Access lanes shall extend through the partition site and be extended to abutting developable property to provide a continuous connecting access lane where practicable." Access lanes may serve two and not more than eight properties (LOC 50.06.003.1.d.ii, iv). This requirement was added to the code in 2010, and no through connections have been built to date; all developable lots in Uplands have frontage on a public street or access via an existing access lane. The concept to create an intimate private lane cutting through blocks is not seen as compatible with the meandering street pattern in hilly Uplands. The Uplands R-10 Overlay proposal would not allow a private access lane to"cut through" a block and connect to the next street. Note: The code calls for access to flag lots to be consolidated into a shared access lane (with the non-flag lot and/or other flag lots)wherever practicable. If not practicable, the flag lot could be served by a driveway, which is not required to be projected through to abutting property. DRAFT 02/01/17 LU 17-0001 ATTACHMENT D (ORDINANCE 2734)/PAGE 4 OF 8 c. Lot Configuration Requirements i. Determination of Front Yard The front yard of a flaa lot is measured from the lot line that is most parallel and closest to the street. Commentary: The front, rear and side yards are the required setbacks from the property line to the building (front yard = 25 ft. setback), but setback standards do not prescribe the house orientation/ where the front door is located. The current flag lot regulations require that the front yard be located between the house and the access lane (what's typically the"side").The City's old flag lot regulations (prior to 2010 infill code amendments) called for the front yard of the flag lot to be located between the house and street, but allowed some flexibility. The Uplands overlay proposal is to return to the pre-2010 method, orienting the setbacks the same as non-flag lots. d. Building and Site Design Standards i. Building Orientation There is no building orientation requirement. Commentary: The existing flag lot standards require that the front of the house be oriented toward the access lane, or projection thereof. This code requirement was added with other flag lot standards in 2010, and was intended to create a small private lane, with all homes facing toward that lane. The Uplands Overlay proposal to limit flag lots and not allow connecting access lanes makes the existing orientation standard unnecessary. The front yard, regardless of the front door location, would be oriented to the street, but there would be no requirement pertaining to where the front door is located (the "orientation"). ii. Setback Requirements The flaa lot setback reauirements in LOC 50.07.007.e.v. shall not apply within the Uplands R-10 Overlay District. All setbacks shall be those established by this overlay and the underlvina R-10 zone. Commentary: The existing flag lot standards have a 10 ft. setback from the front of the house to the access lane, and provide flexibility in the distribution of side and rear yard setbacks, with the intent of reflecting the setbacks on abutting properties. The result, as in the flag lots off of Wembley Park Road, is that homes can appear closely stacked together down the lane, and can create uncertainty in the application of standards. 6. LIMITATION ON IMPERVIOUS SURFACES a. No more than 50% of the lot may be covered with impervious surfaces. Commentary: The Uplands overlay proposal would allow 15%-25% of a lot to be covered with impervious surfaces such as patios and driveways, in addition to the building area counted toward maximum lot coverage (25-35%). There are four other neighborhoods in Lake Oswego with a limit on DRAFT 02/01/17 LU 17-0001 ATTACHMENT D (ORDINANCE 2734)/PAGE 5 OF 8 impervious surface. The two low-density neighborhoods have a 50% limit, and the two medium-high- density neighborhoods have a 60% limit. As defined by the Lake Oswego Utility Code (LOC 38),"Impervious surface means a hard surface area which prevents or retards the entry of water into the soil mantle and/or causes water to run off the surface in greater quantities or at an increase rate of flow than would occur under natural conditions. "Impervious surface" includes, but is not limited to, rooftops, concrete or asphalt paving, compacted gravel, walkways, patios, driveways, parking lots or storage areas, and oiled, macadam or other surfaces which similarly impede the natural infiltration or runoff of surface water." Scenarios: 10,000 sq. ft. lot/35% lot coverage: 1,500 sq. ft. additional impervious treatment allowed 20,000 sq. ft. lot/25% lot coverage: 5,000 sq. ft. additional impervious treatment allowed b. The area between the front lot line and the nearest edae of the buildina footprint shall not be covered by more than 30% of impervious surface. Commentary: The proposal to limit the impervious area between the building and front property line is intended to prevent hardscape (primarily driveways)from being the predominant surface treatment in the front yard. This is intended to support the existing and desired neighborhood character of generous open space on lots, lush landscaping and an abundance of trees, rather than an abundance of hardscape as viewed from the street. 7. STRUCTURE DESIGN a. Maximum Permitted Height The maximum permitted height for primary structures. reaardless of slope. is 30 ft. Commentary: Much of the Uplands neighborhood has some degree of slope. Existing code allows 4-5 ft. of additional building height on lots with slope. This existing standard, along with a 6 ft. allowance for roof forms and architectural features, is depicted in the figure below. Figure 50.04.001-A: Height Adjustment for Sloping Topography (existing code) 6-ft. Exception "w`V"" iO ' proposed to Base height-zone base height "'� be eliminated dependent i1 - 4-ft. adjustment to base height for Adjustment topography proposed to be prohibited Slope is measured between the highest and lowest existing ground surface elevation within the footprint of the dwelling, with the following classifications currently defining height: DRAFT 02/01/17 LU 17-0001 ATTACHMENT D (ORDINANCE 2734)/PAGE 6 OF 8 • Flat Lot: No elevation change within the footprint (30 ft. max height) • Lot with Sloping Topography: Elevation change of up to 10 ft. within the footprint of the dwelling (34 ft. max height) • Sloped Lot: Elevation change of 10 or more ft. within the footprint of the dwelling (35 ft. max height) The neighborhood is concerned with the impact of additional height that can be constructed on lots with slope, and is proposing a standard height measurement that would require the building to step down with the slope, rather than allowing additional height for the downslope portion of the house. b. Height—Additional Standards i. The additional heiaht allowed pursuant to LOC 50.04.001.1.a is not permitted. Commentary: The Code sets a maximum base height for structures in low-density residential zones, with additional height allowances for limited roof forms and architectural features that project above the maximum base height. The maximum base height in the R-10 zone is 30 ft. for flat lots, 34 ft. for lots with sloping topography, and 35 ft. for sloped lots. Roof forms may extend up to six feet higher than the base height (see figure above)when specific dimensional standards are met. The Uplands neighborhood has many single story ranches and split level homes that are well below the maximum base height in the zone. The neighborhood association feels that additional height up to 6 feet would be less compatible with the lower structure height that is common throughout the neighborhood. This recommendation is similar to the recent amendment to the Evergreen Neighborhood R-7.5 Overlay. c. Side Yard Setback Plane—Interior Yards i. Except as set forth in LOC 50.06.001.2.e.ii. the side profile of a structure shall fit behind a plane that starts at the side property line and extends upward to 12 ft. and slopes toward the center of the lot at a slope of 6:12 uo to the maximum allowed height at the peak. ii. Roof forms may penetrate into the side yard setback plane per LOC 50.06.001.2.e.i. Commentary: This standard modifies the existing side yard setback plane (illustrated below) by lowering the pitch of the plane from 12:12 to 6:12. The 6:12 pitch is currently used for the front yard setback plane. The 6:12 roof pitch measured at the side property line allows a side wall building height of 16.5 ft. to fit within the setback plane, before adding possible projections such as dormers. DRAFT 02/01/17 LU 17-0001 ATTACHMENT D (ORDINANCE 2734)/PAGE 7 OF 8 Figure 50.06.001-G: Side Yard Setback Plane Y Allowed ♦ 'rte Property f. Praiedbi-! f! / 12 ♦ ',� Line r r r 7• ♦. Maximum 14 ' r- Base 1 Height a• ■E 12' • ■ P a ■� . : r. i ; !!■■ I i NHL.:1F 1 Side Yard Setback Side Yard Setback 8. ON-SITE CIRCULATION—DRIVEWAYS AND FIRE ACCESS ROADS a. Driveway Approaches— Locational Limitations and Restrictions Only one driveway access point shall be permitted alona each lot frontaae. Commentary: Lots with more than 75 ft. of frontage along a single public street are currently permitted to have more than one driveway access (LOC 50.06.003.2 On-Site Circulation— Driveways and Fire Access Roads). The additional driveway access allows for horseshoe- shaped driveways and results in greater paved area, less landscaping, and reduced opportunities for on-street parking. A corner lot has two street frontages, and one driveway approach would be permitted along each. DRAFT 02/01/17 LU 17-0001 ATTACHMENT D (ORDINANCE 2734)/PAGE 8 OF 8 APPROVED: 02/27/17 EXHIBIT B-1 LU 17-0001 BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION 2 OF THE 3 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 4 5 6 A REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT TO THE ) LU 17-0001 - 1912 7 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO ADD THE ) (CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO) 8 UPLANDS NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, AN ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & ORDER 9 AMENDMENT TO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM) 10 PLAN AND AMENDMENT TO COMMUNITY ) 11 DEVELOPMENT CODE TO ADD UPLANDS ) 12 R-10 OVERLAY. ) 13 14 NATURE OF APPLICATION 15 16 Legislative text amendments to: 17 • the Comprehensive Plan to adopt the Uplands Neighborhood Plan into the 18 Neighborhood and Special District Plans volume; 19 • the Transportation System Plan to extend a pathway project along 20 Uplands Drive; and 21 • the Community Development Code (LOC 50), to add the Uplands R-10 22 Overlay District, LOC 50.05.012. 23 24 These amendments are requested on behalf of the Uplands Neighborhood Association. 25 26 HEARINGS 27 28 The Planning Commission held a public hearing and considered this application at its 29 meeting on February 13, 2017. 30 31 CRITERIA AND STANDARDS 32 33 A. Any Applicable State Law 34 35 Oregon Revised Statute 197.307: Approval Standards for Certain Housing in 36 Urban Growth Areas 37 38 B. City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan 39 Land Use Planning: 40 Development (Community Development Code) 41 Policy A-1.b 42 Policy A-1.d 43 44 Design Standards and Guidelines 45 Policy C-1 46 Policy C-5 LU 17-0001 EXHIBIT B-1/PAGE 1 OF 4 APPROVED: 02/27/17 Land Use Administration 2 Policy D-1 3 Policy D-3 4 Policy D-4 5 6 Inspiring Spaces and Places: 7 Goal 1 8 Policy 1 9 Policy 3 10 Policy 7 11 12 Complete Neighborhoods and Housing: 13 Housing Choice and Affordability 14 Policy B-1 15 16 Complete Neighborhoods 17 Policy C-3 18 Policy C-5 19 Policy C-7 20 21 Connected Community: 22 Safety 23 Policy A-1 24 25 Community Health and Public Safety: 26 Public Facilities and Services: Surface Water Management 27 Policy 1 28 Policy 3 29 Policy 5 30 Policy 8 31 32 Community Culture: 33 Civic Engagement 34 Policy 1 35 Policy 9 36 37 C. City of Lake Oswego Community Development Code 38 39 LOC 50.07.003.3.c. Published Notice for Legislative Hearing 40 LOC 50.07.003.16a Legislative Decisions Defined 41 LOC 50.07.003.16b Criteria for Legislative Decision 42 LOC 50.07.003.16c Required Notice to DLCD 43 LOC 50.07.003.16.d.iii Planning Commission Recommendation Required 44 LOC 50.07.003.16.e City Council Review and Decision 45 LU 17-0001 EXHIBIT B-1/PAGE 2 OF 4 APPROVED: 02/27/17 CONCLUSION 2 3 The Planning Commission concludes that LU 17-0001 is in compliance with all 4 applicable criteria. 5 6 7 FINDINGS AND REASONS 8 9 At the public hearing, one written letter was received in support, and one person 10 testified in support. The Planning Commission incorporates the staff report, dated 11 February 1, 2017, on LU 17-0001 (with all exhibits attached thereto) as support for its 12 decision. 13 14 ORDER 15 16 IT IS ORDERED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION of the City of Lake Oswego that: 17 18 1. The Planning Commission recommends that proposed Ordinance 2734, with 19 Attachments B, C, and D (02/01/17) [LU 17-0001] be approved by the City Council. 20 21 I CERTIFY THAT THIS ORDER was presented to and APPROVED by the Planning 22 Commission of the City of Lake Oswego. 23 24 25 DATED this 27th day of February 2017. 26 27 28 29 Rob Heape /s/ 30 Rob Heape, Chair 31 Planning Commission 32 33 34 LU 17-0001 EXHIBIT B-1/PAGE 3 OF 4 APPROVED: 02/27/17 I ATTEST: 2 3 PRELIMINARY DECISION - February 13, 2017 4 5 AYES: Arthur, Baker, A. Brockman, E. Brockman, Gaar, Heape, Ward 6 NOES: None 7 ABSTAIN: None 8 EXCUSED: None 9 10 ADOPTION OF FINDINGS AND ORDER - February 27, 2017 11 12 AYES: Arthur, Baker, A. Brockman, E. Brockman, Gaar, Heape, Ward 13 NOES: None 14 ABSTAIN: None 15 EXCUSED: None 16 17 LU 17-0001 EXHIBIT B-1/PAGE 4 OF 4 EXHIBIT C-1 APPROVED: 03/13/2017 LU 17-0001 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO o Planning Commission Minutes / February 13, 2017 v 1. CALL TO ORDER Vice Chair Rob Heape called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 380 A Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon. 2. ROLL CALL Members present were Vice Chair Robert Heape and Commissioners Randy Arthur, Skip Baker, Adrianne Brockman, Ed Brockman, William Gaar and Bill Ward. Council Liaison Theresa Kohlhoff was also present. Staff present were Scot Siegel, Planning and Building Services Director; Jessica Numanoglu Planning Manager; Sarah Selden, Senior Planner; David Powell, City Attorney; and Iris McCaleb, Administrative Support. 3. NOMINATIONS AND ELECTIONS 3.1 Nomination/Election of Chair and Vice Chair for Remainder of Fiscal Year (July 1, 2016 - June 30, 2017) For Chair, one nomination for Robert Heape was submitted to Mr. Siegel. A v2 e by ballot was taken and Robert Heape was elected Planning Commission Chair 7:0 For Vice Chair, nominations for Ed Brockman and Bill Ward were s .mitted to Mr. Siegel. A vote by ballot was taken and Bill Ward was elected Planning Co ' ission Vice Chair 4:3. 4. COUNCIL UPDATE Councilor Kohlhoff reported that the City was workin. .n its federal Municipal Stormwater Permit; it had recently moved to increase the Tra -:portation System Development Charges (SDC's) and they received an update on the C' Hall Rehabilitation project. 5. CITIZEN COMMENT None. 6. COMMISSION FOR CITIZ INVOLVEMENT- GENERAL UPDATES Chair Heape announc-. that the Palisades Neighborhood Association was once again organizing and a m=-ting is scheduled in April; and on February 10th some members of the Commission aft= ded a tour of the Tryon Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant. He also noted that the Par . -ecreation and Natural Resources Advisory Board had an opening. Com sioner Arthur announced that the Lakewood Neighborhood Association also had a m-• ing scheduled on February 22nd. He also recalled that the Commission for Citizen I volvement in the recent past had gone on neighborhood tours and that there were a number City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of February 13, 2017 EXHIBIT C-1/PAGE 1 OF 7 Page 1 of 8 APPROVED: 03/13/2017 of outstanding invitations such as Blue Heron, Rosewood, McVey/South Shore, Westlake a • a community board — Friends of the Lake Oswego Public Library Board. He suggested th., as the weather improved the Commission consider continuing the neighborhood tours. C .ir Heape acknowledged that this was something the Commission would begin plannin. ' the coming weeks. 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS 7.1 Community Development Code Amendment to Allow Bakeries in Industria 'ark Zone (LU 17-0002) Chair Heape opened the hearing. Mr. Powell outlined the applicable riteria and procedures. At time of declarations no conflicts of interest were reported. Commissioner A. Brockman stated that the proposed amend r ents were clear and suggested that presentation of the staff report be dispensed with and e Commission agreed by consensus. Questions of taff In response to a question from Commissioner A , ur, Ms. Numanoglu advised that the definition of bakery was broad and that the prposed amendment was for both retail and production bakeries, however it was primal.' for manufacturing and distribution for off-site sales. She clarified that in the Industrial 'ark (IP) zone there would be use-specific standards limiting the retail component to 2,000 resulting in more of an employment type of production bakery use as the primary use with e potential for accessory retail. Public Testimony Brent Bianchina, 18050 Tu-. ata Avenue. Lake Oswego. 97035, asked if the proposed amendment meant that . .akery would be allowed in the IP zone, if it would have to be incorporated with ano 'er use in a building or structure, or if it could be a free-standing bakery. Ms. Numanoglu ex. .fined that it would allow a free-standing production bakery, which would be primarily for :nufacturing and distribution for off-site sales with some accessory retail; if it were purely re Al it would be limited to 2,000 ft in size and must be co-located with another permitted us- in the building (it could not be in its own stand-alone building). She added that a drive-thro .h was not permitted. Com ' issioner A. Brockman moved to recommend approval of the proposed amendments an adopt the Findings. Conclusions and Order for LU 17-0002. Vice Chair Ward seconded ta'(e motion and it passed 7:0. 7.2 Uplands Neighborhood Plan and Uplands R-10 Overlay District (LU 17-0001) A request from the City of Lake Oswego for adoption of the Uplands Neighborhood Plan into the Comprehensive Plan, and amendment of the Transportation System Plan to include a new pathway section on Uplands Drive. The Commission also considered amendments to the Community Development Code (LOC 50)to add the Uplands R-10 Overlay District, LOC 50.05.012. Staff coordinator was Sarah Selden, Senior Planner. Chair Heape opened the hearing. Mr. Powell outlined the applicable criteria and procedures. At time of declarations no conflicts of interest were reported. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of February 13, 2017 EXHIBIT C-1/PAGE 2 OF 7 Page 2 of 8 APPROVED: 03/13/2017 Staff Report Ms. Selden introduced Bruce Brown, Chair of the Uplands Neighborhood Association (NA) Neighborhood Planning Committee, who assisted with the presentation. She briefly reviewed the three components of the land use request. Mr. Brown provided background on the planning process, including assessment and visioning with the committee and neighborhood constituency to gather information about neighborhood concerns, and drafting the Plan and Code amendments. He noted there had been several check-ins with the Planning Commission to gather feedback and fine-tune the proposed Plan and Code. Mr. Brown reviewed the public involvement process and provided an overview of the Plan. He noted that the Plan chapters were based on the neighborhood plan template developed by the City and described the Plan focus areas: development compatibility, stormwater management, pedestrian safety, and neighborhood capacity building. Uplands R-10 Overlay District Mr. Brown provided photo examples of the neighborhood's character, which he described as very nature-based with a huge tree canopy and a large nature park intertwined with homes and streets, which was what they would like to preserve. Ms. Selden provided an overview of the proposed R-10 Overlay District. She explained that the overarching goal was to ensure that new development was compatible with the existing development and preserved neighborhood character. She reviewed the area where the Uplands R-10 Overly District would apply and noted that the Overlay did not include the R-15 or R-5 zoned parcels within the Uplands NA boundary. Front Yard Setbacks Ms. Selden stated that examples of neighborhood character related to front yard setbacks included: deep setbacks which defined much of Uplands, and varied setback distances with some homes on shallower lots placed closer to the street. She reviewed the elements of the proposed standard for Setback Averaging. Flag Lots Ms. Selden reviewed the proposed Flag Lot standards related to the number of flag lots, access lane extension, house orientation and setbacks. She noted the Planning Commission's review of Flag Lot standards citywide and that the Uplands Overlay served as a test case. She shared examples of a three-lot flag lot development in Uplands, which neighbors felt was not compatible with the surrounding development and inspired the proposed changes to the Code. She compared the current flag lot standards with the proposed changes. Mr. Brown added that what they were proposing reflected how many single-lot flag lots had been developed throughout the neighborhood, perpetuating what was already a successful formula in the neighborhood. Ms. Selden noted an analysis of Uplands R-10 tax lots had been done to determine how many lots would be impacted by this proposed change to the flag lot standards. She shared a map, included in the staff report, showing lots that could be potentially impacted in Uplands and described how they would be impacted or if they could be developed otherwise. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of February 13, 2017 EXHIBIT C-1/PAGE 3 OF 7 Page 3 of 8 APPROVED: 03/13/2017 Limitation on Impervious Surface Ms. Selden described how stormwater management was a challenge in Uplands for reasons that were both natural and manmade. She acknowledged the limited stormwater management infrastructure in the neighborhood, making a reduction in stormwater runoff particularly important. She noted that four other neighborhoods had neighborhood zoning districts or overlays that limited the amount of impervious surface, and described the proposed standards for Uplands. Ms. Selden noted that limiting the amount of impervious surface between the house and the street was intended to limit the amount of runoff that went into the street and also contributed to the neighborhood character. Structure Design Ms. Selden noted that there were two components, which related to height and the side yard setback plane. She described the hilly topography in Uplands and how the predominant development style of ranch homes with one- and 1.5-stories had worked well with these natural features. She noted that home size had increased with new development, setbacks had been minimized and older one- and 1.5-story homes had been replaced with taller structures, with development on uphill lots looming over established residences; she shared some examples. She noted the Overlay proposes three code provisions to limit overall building height, and to reduce the height and bulk of homes at the side yard setback. Ms. Selden described how the existing Side Yard Setback Plane standard was applied, the recent 2016 Annual CDC amendments that changed the new reference point from which to measure, and what a building envelope could look like under the existing code. She indicated that the resulting proposal was to modify the Side Yard Setback Plane standard so that the roof pitch that established the interior side yard setback plane was lowered from a 12:12 pitch to a 6:12 pitch. On-Site Circulation—Driveway Approach Limitations Ms. Selden noted how the proposed standard addressed concerns about how the right of way was used, stormwater runoff, and impervious area and hardscape in the front yard. She clarified that currently, if a lot was wider than 75 feet, two driveway approaches were permitted on the frontage, and described the proposal to limit driveway access points to one along each lot frontage. Transportation System Plan (TSP) Amendments Ms. Selden explained that the proposed TSP amendment was an extension of the Uplands Drive Pathway. She noted that the pedestrian and bicycle pathway project in the TSP would be extended by 1,600 ft., adding a section from Ridgecrest Drive to Country Club Road. Decision-Making Criteria Ms. Selden briefly reviewed the applicable decision-making criteria, discussed in detail in the staff report, including Comprehensive Plan policies and State and Metro requirements. She noted that the number of lots potentially impacted by the proposed Overlay would not reduce the City's ability to meet required housing needs for large lot single family development. Mr. Brown added that the Uplands area was well suited to the development of accessory dwelling units. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of February 13, 2017 EXHIBIT C-1/PAGE 4 OF 7 Page 4 of 8 APPROVED: 03/13/2017 Questions of Staff Vice Chair Ward expressed his concern with limiting flag lots to only one lot and wondered if the City would see Measure 49 claims. Ms. Selden noted that Measure 56 notice went out to property owners 20 days prior to this public hearing and that some of the property owners were in attendance and may be providing testimony. Vice Chair Ward added that applying regular R-10 setbacks to flag lots would really enhance neighborhood compatibility. In response to a question from Commissioner E. Brockman, Ms. Selden provided clarification regarding the proposed front yard setback averaging and how it was determined. In response to Commissioner E. Brockman's follow up question regarding the proposed front yard setback standard, partitions, and smaller lots, staff noted that in those cases a minor variance to the setback could be sought or the Residential Infill Design Review process could be used. Mr. Brown added that the house could be designed to fit the smaller lot. In response to a question from Commissioner Arthur regarding Measure 49 claims, City Attorney Powell summarized the City's options in response to a Measure 49 claim. He noted the City had a choice to either compensate the property owner for the reduced value or to waive the regulation, if they agree with the claim that the property value had been adversely impacted. He added that proving a Measure 49 claim involved a lot of steps. In response to a question from Commissioner E. Brockman regarding public streets and the smallest number of homes that were built on a new public street, Mr. Siegel recalled a subdivision with about 10 homes on a cul-de-sac in the Oak Creek area, but noted they would have to do further research to answer more fully. He added that there were varying street profiles for public streets but none were as narrow as the 20-foot width of an access lane. In response to a question from Commissioner Gaar related to the proposal to reduce impervious surfaces, Mr. Brown noted that reactions from neighbors were generally positive and that people realized this was an issue throughout the neighborhood, especially with newer development. In response to a question from Commissioner Ward regarding the required right-of-way dedication for public roadways in a subdivision, Mr. Siegel stated that the standard local street dedication was 50 feet, but the City Engineer had the ability to deviate from this standard to meet neighborhood character, but typically 40 feet would be the narrowest approved. Public Testimony Bob Ervin, 2240 Prestwick Road, Lake Oswego, 97034, Chair of the Uplands NA, thanked the Commission for their time and effort over the several meetings held, as well as thanks to Ms. Selden and Mr. Brown. He added they had done the best they could to develop a Plan that suited the character of their neighborhood and noted that there was not a lot of room left in the neighborhood to develop additional flag lots. Commissioner A. Brockman thanked him and the committee for their work on the Plan, and noted there was a nice mix of homes in the neighborhood in terms of affordability. Chair Heape asked about his recommendations to address concerns expressed in the TSP regarding the dangers of crossing Country Club and Boones Ferry Road. Mr. Ervin responded that they had proposed pedestrian activated lights on Country Club, which was particularly dangerous at night for people getting off the bus. He added that perhaps the medians could be improved at Rainbow and Twin Fir on Boones Ferry, as well as at the exit from Country Club onto Uplands. Ms. Selden advised that the Engineering Department had a study done recently to see which intersections in the City would warrant the installation of signals and that they should have the results soon. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of February 13, 2017 EXHIBIT C-1/PAGE 5 OF 7 Page 5 of 8 APPROVED: 03/13/2017 In response to a question from Commissioner Arthur about the benefits of limiting driveways to one access, unless on a corner, Mr. Ervin stated that the benefits were to reduce runoff from excessive concrete in the hilly neighborhood, as the lack of stormwater infrastructure resulted in burdened ditches that resulted runoff into the streets. Secondly, it was also a pedestrian hazard to cross two driveways instead of one. He stated that the NA did not think having two driveway access points was necessary; it was clarified that there could be a driveway circle or other layouts on the property to allow vehicles to turn around, provided it met the standards for paved area. Mr. Brown briefly addressed the Commission to add to Mr. Ervin's response on the last question regarding driveway access, noting that street parking for visitors was relatively limited in the Uplands neighborhood, which was further reduced if a home had two driveway access points. Ms. Selden noted that one piece of written testimony in support of the proposal was received that afternoon and was provided to the Commissioners. Chair Heape closed public testimony. Deliberations Commissioner A. Brockman moved to approve the Plan as written for LU 17-0001. Commissioner Arthur seconded the motion. Commissioner E. Brockman expressed concern about the 30% impervious surface requirement in the front yard in conjunction with the elimination of two curb cuts. He was also concerned about how many guests one could park on their property. He pointed out that there could also be a safety issue if one had to back out of their driveway and there was not enough room on the property to turn around. Commissioners expressed their thanks for all of the work put into developing the Plan and remarked that it was quite significant that there was no opposition expressed. Commissioner Gaar stated that his main issue from a policy perspective was surface water runoff; he observed that individuals who had come and provided comments were not in opposition to the proposal related to limiting impervious surfaces and that the neighborhood agreed. Regarding flag lots, he agreed that the limit to one flag lot was very important in terms of maintaining neighborhood character as well as reducing impervious surface. He noted that Measure 49 claims could be burdensome and expensive, and that in his experience the City would waive the new requirements rather than pay out. Mr. Siegel clarified in what cases the Residential Infill Design Review and variances could be used related to the front yard setback. Commissioner Ward recalled that the flag lot proposal for Uplands would inform citywide flag lot regulations. Commissioner E. Brockman suggested that larger fixes to address stormwater infrastructure were also needed and wondered if stormwater SDC's could be increased to fund that. He added that with the limit of 50% impervious surfaces, there would be less need to reduce the impervious surface in the front yard area. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of February 13, 2017 EXHIBIT C-1/PAGE 6 OF 7 Page 6 of 8 APPROVED: 03/13/2017 Commissioner E. Brockman moved to amend the motion to eliminate the 30% maximum of impervious surface in the front yard standard. There was no second and the motion to amend failed. The original motion passed 7:0. Mr. Powell advised that this was a preliminary decision concerning the Commission's recommendation and that staff would return with the Findings, Conclusions and Order (final decision) on February 27, 2017. 8. OTHER BUSINESS 8.1 Planning Commission Goals and Work Plan for 2017 Mr. Siegel provided an introduction, noting this work session followed one held on January , 2017. He noted the staff report outlined seven ongoing projects, as well as 13 potential -w projects identified by the Planning Commission on January 23, or by the City Council. 'e described the electronic polling system, recently used by the City Council, to help th- Commission determine prioritization. He noted that staff currently had capacity t. ake on the work program already identified and ongoing, plus the capacity to take on one -:ditional substantial project. If the Commission found additional priorities, he sugges -d they would need to then determine which project(s) to drop. Mr. Siegel responded to 'ommissioner Ward's question about capacity to take on issues not identified that ma .e brought up during the year. Mr. Siegel indicated that the results of the exercise would .t be binding, but rather would provide direction for later discussion and decision-making b, he Commission. Ms. Selden led the Commission through the polling and ranki►. process for the seven ongoing projects and recorded the results. Mr. Siegel and Ms. Sel• n provided additional information on various projects, as requested. Ms. Selden then poll_: the Commission on the 13 potential new projects, several of which were related to City Co-ncil goals and others that were generated by the Planning Commission or citizens. A n additional question regarding addressing parking standards citywide was adde. at the Commission's request. Staff reviewed the results and Ms. Selden p -sented the priority of potential new projects, exclusive of City Council goals, based on e Commission's polling. Of the highest ranked projects, she asked the Commission to hoose their top priority for 2017 (results shown below): • Review Residential Infill Development (RID) Procedure (43%) • Review Parking Stand., ds (43%) • Clear and Objective oise Standards (14%) • Street Frontage I► provement Standards for Single Family Development (0%) Ms. Selden then sh, ed the polling results on the ongoing projects, and identified which had the highest and I. est priority rankings. Mr. Siegel t -n asked the Commission to weigh in on the priorities. Commissioner Gaar wondere. ow the Commission could not take care of the Comprehensive Plan Map correctans and annual Community Development Code (CDC) amendments, as these were the •ringboards from which the City did its work. Commissioners suggested that they would b- illing to work on these if it could be done in an expedited way. Chair Heape wondered if .ome needed fixes were more of a priority than others. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of February 13, 2017 EXHIBIT C-1/PAGE 7 OF 7 Page 7 of 8 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK EXHIBIT D-1 LU 17-0001 STAFF REPORT CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT APPLICANT FILE NO. City of Lake Oswego on behalf of Uplands LU 17-0001 Neighborhood Association LOCATION STAFF Uplands Neighborhood Sarah Selden, Senior Planner DATE OF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING DATE February 1, 2017 February 13, 2017 I. APPLICANT'S REQUEST The City of Lake Oswego is making this application for the Uplands Neighborhood Association to: • Adopt the Uplands Neighborhood Plan ("Plan") as part of the Neighborhood and Special District Plans volume of the Comprehensive Plan; • Amend the Transportation System Plan (TSP) to include a new pathway section on Uplands Drive; and • Amend the Community Development Code (LOC 50) to add the Uplands R-10 Overlay District ("Overlay"), LOC 50.05.012. Ordinance 2734, which would enact these changes, is attached as Exhibit A-1. II. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS A. Any Applicable State Law Oregon Revised Statute 197.307: Approval Standards for Certain Housing in Urban Growth Areas Planning Commission Public Hearing February 13, 2017 LU 17-0001 EXHIBIT D-1/PAGE 1 OF 22 B. City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan Land Use Planning: Development (Community Development Code) Policy A-1.b Policy A-1.d Design Standards and Guidelines Policy C-1 Policy C-5 Land Use Administration Policy D-1 Policy D-3 Policy D-4 Inspiring Spaces and Places: Goal 1 Policy 1 Policy 3 Policy 7 Complete Neighborhoods and Housing: Housing Choice and Affordability Policy B-1 Complete Neighborhoods Policy C-3 Policy C-5 Policy C-7 Connected Community: Safety Policy A-1 Community Health and Public Safety: Public Facilities and Services: Surface Water Management Policy 1 Policy 3 Policy 5 Policy 8 Community Culture: Civic Engagement Policy 1 Policy 9 Planning Commission Public Hearing February 13, 2017 LU 17-0001 EXHIBIT D-1/PAGE 2 OF 22 C. City of Lake Oswego Community Development Code LOC 50.07.003.3.c. Published Notice for Legislative Hearing LOC 50.07.003.16a Legislative Decisions Defined LOC 50.07.003.16b Criteria for Legislative Decision LOC 50.07.003.16c Required Notice to DLCD LOC 50.07.003.16.d.iii Planning Commission Recommendation Required LOC 50.07.003.16.e City Council Review and Decision III. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION Introduction/ Background Neighborhood Planning Neighborhood plans are official elements of the City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan, and are intended to address the unique characteristics of Lake Oswego's individual neighborhoods. The Comprehensive Plan calls for the City to: "Develop specific Neighborhood Plans and implementing measures as a means to enhance neighborhood livability and achieve desired neighborhood character. Adopt specific Neighborhood Plans upon finding that the proposed changes are in the public's interest and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. If appropriate, implementation may be accomplished through creation of a new zoning district or a new overlay zone." (Land Use Planning Policy D-4). Neighborhood plans do not serve as decision-making criteria for individual minor or ministerial development land use applications, e.g., land divisions or building permits. In order to require ministerial and minor development applications to "achieve desired neighborhood character" consistent with a neighborhood plan, the plan must be implemented through development regulations. The Planning Commission and staff have recommended that implementing code language be adopted concurrent with any neighborhood plan. To date, five adopted neighborhood plans have been implemented with some form of neighborhood-specific zoning district or overlay zone. First Addition (R-6 and R-2 zones) and Old Town (R-DD zone) have their own zoning districts, and the Evergreen, Lake Grove and Glenmorrie neighborhoods have overlay zones that apply limited modifications to the underlying residential zoning. The Uplands R-10 Overlay District would be the sixth neighborhood to adopt a unique set of development standards. The Uplands Neighborhood The Uplands neighborhood is a low-density residential neighborhood of approximately 400 homes, which is primarily zoned R-10. The neighborhood also includes a significant amount Planning Commission Public Hearing February 13, 2017 LU 17-0001 EXHIBIT D-1/PAGE 3 OF 22 of land zoned for public functions and park and natural areas: the Lake Oswego Junior High and Uplands Elementary School properties, along with the 52-acre Springbrook Park. The Uplands Neighborhood Association had been interested in developing a neighborhood plan since at least 2005, when they applied for plan development assistance but were not selected. Since that time, the neighborhood association continued their efforts toward the eventual development of a neighborhood plan and conducting pre-planning work, including a neighborhood survey and initial visioning. In November 2014, the Planning Commission selected the Uplands Neighborhood Association among those to receive assistance with neighborhood planning projects in the coming year. The Uplands Neighborhood Association was the only group to request assistance with development of a new neighborhood plan; they desired a full plan that addressed all the major topics included in the City's Comprehensive Plan: land use, transportation, natural systems, parks and recreation, neighborhood involvement, and economic development. Among the goals of their planning process was to address contextually appropriate infill that maintains neighborhood character while allowing for future development; better manage stormwater; and reduce traffic speeds and enhance non-vehicular travel. Proposal Development and Public Involvement In February 2015, the neighborhood association formed a seven-member Neighborhood Planning Committee that included a mix of new and longstanding board members. Each committee member took responsibility for one Plan topic area, or chapter. Staff began working with the committee in March 2015 on their first task, a neighborhood survey to identify neighborhood priorities for the plan, and to provide an opportunity for neighbors to share their interests and concerns about neighborhood livability issues. The survey was conducted using Survey Monkey, with a postcard announcement mailed to each neighborhood address and an offer to deliver hard copies to anyone who preferred not to take the survey online. The association received 90 responses, and the results served as a foundation for drafting the Plan chapters. In May 2015, the association held a biannual general membership meeting, publicized through a mailed survey, at which they presented the survey results and initial neighborhood inventory and analysis. The committee then developed the first draft of the Neighborhood Plan chapters, which were reviewed by staff, revised, and presented to the Planning Commission for a November 2015 work session. The draft Plan included Land Use Action Steps outlining several concepts for a proposed neighborhood zoning overlay. Following the initial draft plan and work session, the committee worked to refine the Plan and to further develop the overlay code concepts. The Planning Commission held a second work session in March 2016 to review an analysis of land use concerns related to the overlay code concepts, and provide feedback prior to the development of code language and the committee seeking neighborhood feedback. A third work session was held in May Planning Commission Public Hearing February 13, 2017 LU 17-0001 EXHIBIT D-1/PAGE 4 OF 22 2016 to look more closely at the question of lot sizes and zoning designations, and to discuss right-of-way facilities and encroachments. A fourth and final work session was held in December 2016, following the Uplands Neighborhood Association's annual meeting at which a draft Plan and draft Code were presented, and the distribution of a third neighborhood survey to seek feedback on the proposed overlay code provisions. At the fourth work session, the Commission reviewed and provided feedback on a revised draft Plan and the draft Uplands R-10 Overlay District code language, and recommended advancing the amendments to public hearing. The Uplands Neighborhood Association board met on January 19, 2017 to review the public hearing version of the overlay code that incorporated changes in response to feedback from the Planning Commission, and voted unanimously to recommend the public hearing version of the code for public hearing and adoption. Discussion The following summarizes the proposed amendments in Ordinance 2734. For the proposed Uplands Neighborhood Plan, please see Attachment B to Ordinance 2734; for proposed amendments to the Transportation System Plan (TSP), see Attachment C; and for the proposed Uplands R-10 Overlay District code provisions, see Attachment D. Attachment D also includes staff commentary that provides additional explanation of the proposed overlay district code. Uplands Neighborhood Plan (Attachment B) The proposed Plan includes seven chapters that serve to provide a complete overview of the neighborhood and its residents' vision for the future of Uplands. The chapters do not replace the city's Comprehensive Plan but provide a finer grained look at land use planning issues of importance to Uplands. With the exception of the first chapter, each includes an Inventory and Analysis to provide a factual basis and problem definition; Objectives that state broad goals identified through the neighborhood outreach process; and Action Steps to identify specific tasks needed to reach the neighborhood's objectives and realize their long term vision for Uplands. The Uplands Neighborhood Plan does not propose any new Policy statements for the Comprehensive Plan, but rather focuses on neighborhood advocacy and neighborhood-specific amendments to the Community Development Code (CDC), Transportation System Plan (TSP) and Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Following is a summary of each chapter: 1. Neighborhood History and Character Provides background and context, and summarizes the neighborhood's character as viewed by its residents. 2. Land Use Summarizes the neighborhood's development pattern, includes action steps calling for City adoption of the Uplands R-10 Overlay District, and neighborhood association efforts to more actively review and respond to land use proposals. The Planning Commission Public Hearing February 13, 2017 LU 17-0001 EXHIBIT D-1/PAGE 5 OF 22 key issues for this chapter are addressed in the Overlay and summarized in the description of Attachment D below. 3. Transportation Focuses on improving pedestrian facilities and setting a framework for a more consistent and functional right-of-way area. Streets in the Uplands neighborhood generally have rights-of-way (ROW) that are much wider than the publically improved area (50-80 feet vs. 20-30 feet). In most of the neighborhood, the area between the paved travel lane and private property line lacks curbs, pathways or sidewalks, which help to define the ROW edge. This area typically serves either as an extension of the abutting property owner's landscaping (shrubs and hedges, trees lawn, fences, rocks); privately maintained parking areas (paved or graveled), roadside drainage ditches; or pathways in very limited locations. City Code (Article 42.18 Public Rights-of-Way and Easements) requires a permit for encroachments in the ROW, with some exceptions for lawns, plants and trees, guardrails and handrails, and mailboxes if they do not create a line of sight traffic hazard or conflict with federal Americans with Disabilities requirements (LOC 42.18.1015(2)). The Engineering Department recommends that any property owner making improvements near the road contact the City to review their proposal. This is important even if an encroachment permit is not required, because the ROW serves as a system of connected facilities that require movement or flow: vehicle, bike and pedestrian travel, and stormwater drainage. Altering the ROW can have significant impacts on the flow of these systems, and particularly for stormwater, could have impacts on downstream neighbors. The flow of these systems and the hilly neighborhood topography make each ROW location unique; this necessitates a site- specific approach for ROW improvements. The Neighborhood Association and City have observed that private improvements in the right-of-way can help to beautify the neighborhood, but are typically done in an un-coordinated manner, often without review by the City for potential ROW line of sight traffic hazards or the necessity for encroachment permits. The Plan includes an action step calling for the Neighborhood Association to conduct outreach to Uplands property owners encouraging a more consistent and coordinated pattern of ROW improvements, through distribution of ROW guidelines to residents, which are outlined in the Plan. The Engineering Department would benefit from having a plan for neighborhood ROW improvements to better respond to requests from property owners, and to serve as a starting place for public improvements. The guidelines were developed collaboratively between Neighborhood Planning Committee members and the City's Engineering and Planning staff. Planning Commission Public Hearing February 13, 2017 LU 17-0001 EXHIBIT D-1/PAGE 6 OF 22 4. Natural Systems Describes the unique topographic, surface water,tree and wildlife conditions in Uplands, with a focus on stormwater management. Key issues regarding stormwater result from lack of infrastructure, poor drainage and sloping topography; these issues are documented in the Plan. Tying to the ROW Action Steps in the Transportation chapter, Natural Systems Action Steps focus on the opportunity to design and implement the Wembley Park Road Rehabilitation CIP project in a way that improves stormwater management, and the Neighborhood Association's role in promoting improved neighborhood infrastructure. 5. Open Space and Recreation Highlights Springbrook Park and Iron Mountain Park as key neighborhood assets, and their importance to the livability and character of Uplands. Objectives and Action Steps focus on Neighborhood Association outreach and partnerships to support existing Friends groups for each park, continuing to maintain and enhance these natural areas. 6. Neighborhood Involvement Provides neighborhood objectives to increase and diversify involvement in the association, with a focus on emergency preparedness planning and communications. 7. Economic Development Acknowledges and supports code-compliant home occupations, and calls for neighborhood review and monitoring of home based businesses and applicable City Codes to ensure continued compatibility with residential uses. (There is no commercial zoning in Uplands.) Transportation System Plan Amendments (Attachment C) The Transportation System Plan 2015-2015 was adopted in 2014 and included all but one desired transportation project in the Uplands neighborhood. The proposed TSP amendments are proposed to expand an Uplands Drive shoulder pathway that is currently listed in the TSP to be constructed from Wembley Park Road to Ridgecrest Drive. The proposed TSP amendment would extend the project from Ridgecrest north to Country Club Road. Uplands Drive is one of the more heavily trafficked streets in the neighborhood, and currently provides limited to no space for pedestrian travel off the paved travel lane. The extension would add an additional 1,600 lineal feet of pathway to provide a safer and more direct pedestrian route to Country Club Road for residents along the north eastern stretch of Uplands Drive and along Eagan Way. The pathway would connect to an existing shoulder pathway along the south side of Country Club Road, and to a TriMet bus stop located at the Upland Drive/Country Club Road intersection. The TSP amendments revise the project Planning Commission Public Hearing February 13, 2017 LU 17-0001 EXHIBIT D-1/PAGE 7 OF 22 description in Table 14 and revise two Pedestrian and Bicycle Projects maps that include this section of roadway. Uplands R-10 Overlay District (Attachment D) The purpose of the proposed Overlay is to promote development that is compatible with existing and desired neighborhood character. The Overlay is more comprehensive than the previous three neighborhood overlays adopted for the Glenmorrie, Lake Grove, and Evergreen neighborhood, and includes five major sections with 12 standards that serve to modify or add to the existing Community Development Code. A summary of the code provisions is provided below, and additional analysis can be found in the staff commentary provided in Attachment D. Front Yard Setbacks The distance that homes are set back from the front property line varies throughout the neighborhood, however, many homes in Uplands are set back well beyond the required 25 foot front setback distance. In most cases, the unimproved public right-of-way between the road and front property line creates additional distance to the house. The distance that homes are set back in Uplands is a factor of topography, views, lot shape and how homes were developed (e.g. 1940s subdivision vs. individual lot development) as well as a trend of increasing lot coverage with new development. The generous front yard area is one of the unique characteristics of the Uplands neighborhood, and there is concern that as properties redevelop, new homes will increasingly be built at or closer to the minimum 25 foot setback, which will change the character of the neighborhood. The Overlay proposal establishes front yard setbacks based on the average distance that abutting homes are set back from the front property line. This proposal is intended to create compatible home siting, while responding to the varying setback distances in different areas of the neighborhood. Flag Lots As defined by the Community Development Code (LOC 50.10.003.2 Definition of Terms): "A flag lot is a lot that: a. Has the actual building site located behind another lot; and b. Takes access from the street via: i. A driveway or access lane that is part of the lot and the width narrows to less than the minimum lot width for the zone; or ii. An access easement." Several flag lots are located in the proposed Uplands R-10 Overlay, most of which have one home located behind another lot, were developed under previous flag lot standards, and are sited on oversized lots that maintain a sense of privacy and separation between homes. In 2010, as part of the second round of Infill code amendments, several changes were made to the flag lots standards, including orientation of development around 20 foot-wide Planning Commission Public Hearing February 13, 2017 LU 17-0001 EXHIBIT D-1/PAGE 8 OF 22 private access lanes, that act as mini streets for the flag lot homes. These changes were intended to lessen the isolation of rear (flag) houses from the neighborhood, facilitate the future extension of private access lanes to additional parcels, and create more site- sensitive setbacks. The Uplands neighborhood has seen one flag lot development under these 2010 code amendments. With this development as an example, the Uplands Neighborhood Association asserts that current flag lot standards are incompatible with the existing and desired character of the Uplands neighborhood. Respondents to neighborhood surveys conducted in January and December 2016 affirmed support for limiting the number of flag lots on a parcel. Long access lanes, fences, and homes located ten feet off the lane result in a predominant view of hardscape, rather than the landscaped separation from homes that characterizes most of the neighborhood. Homes can also appear closely stacked together because the required front setback from the access lane for flag lots is ten feet, compared to the R-10 front setback of 25 feet for standard lots. Setbacks between abutting flag lot homes can also appear minimal, because the house and yard orientation is rotated; the 25 and 30 foot front and rear yard setback areas for non-flag are designated as side yards on flag lots, and allowed much smaller setbacks. Access lanes serving two or more "rear" (flag) houses must also be planned to connect through the back of the lot to abutting developable property, "wherever practicable."The access lane concept to create an intimate private lane cutting through blocks is not seen as compatible with the meandering street pattern in Uplands. The 2010 flag lot standards are geared toward areas where there are many abutting parcels with flag lot potential, and where a shared lane could provide a more organized and neighborly environment. In the Uplands neighborhood, such opportunities are limited. Further, if the Uplands R-10 Overlay limits flag lots to one rear lot, and prohibits connecting access lanes, the flag lot standards requiring dwelling orientation to the access lane no longer serve their intended purpose. The proposed Uplands R-10 Overlay includes several standards to modify the flag lot standards in LOC 50.07.007.2. The proposal would limit the number of flag lots to one lot behind a non-flag lot, prohibit the extension of an access lane to abutting developable property, expressly provide that the front yard shall be parallel to the street, eliminate the building orientation requirement, and apply the R-10 base zone setbacks rather than the setbacks established by the flag lot code section. Please see the Attachment D commentary for additional information on the flag lot amendments. One consideration with a limitation in the creation of flag lots is the concern that owners may have about a reduction of their development opportunities. Limitations on uses that create a demonstrable reduction in property values have the potential for triggering Measure 49 claims, which could result in a waiver of the limiting regulations in certain cases. Planning Commission Public Hearing February 13, 2017 LU 17-0001 EXHIBIT D-1/PAGE 9 OF 22 An analysis of Uplands R-10 tax lots, as depicted on Exhibit E-1 shows that there are ten lots large enough to be partitioned into three lots, but too small to be divided into four lots, conservatively taking into account 20% of the lot for an access lane extending all the way through the property (as required for projection of the lane). Of those ten lots: • Five lots would not be impacted by the proposed flag lot limitation. Two have sufficient width to be divided into three side-by-side lots, and three have sufficient width to accommodate two non-flag lots along the street frontage, and one flag lot behind. • The five remaining lots are too narrow to be partitioned side-by-side, but have sufficient gross area to accommodate three 10,000 sq. ft. lots, one behind another. The proposed Overlay does not prohibit the creation of a full public street to provide street frontage to these lots, however their width is most likely too narrow to accommodate a public right-of-way. These five lots also have site constraints in the form of steep slopes and/or stream corridors. While these constraints do not limit the number of permitted lots, it may limit their development likelihood, even under current regulations. These five lots, which could only achieve their maximum density through the creation of two flag lots, may have their development potential impacted by the Overlay code. Six additional parcels are large enough to be subdivided into four or more lots (two on the River West Church property). While not as common, flag lots served by access lanes can also be created through subdivisions. The Overlay code would not allow more than one flag lot to be created on a parcel through a subdivision process, and these parcels would need to create a public street.This could likely be accommodated on the majority of these parcels, however some could have their development potential impacted by the Overlay code. Limitation on Impervious Surface The amount of impervious surface is a concern because of its impact on stormwater in the neighborhood. In Uplands, stormwater management is a challenge for reasons that are both natural and manmade. Infiltration of rainwater is limited because the soils are typically fine grained (making them less permeable) and bedrock is located near the surface. Due to these conditions, much of the rainwater runs off the surface rather than infiltrating into the ground. This means that there are large volumes of water to manage in the winter, particularly during heavy showers or rains. Sloping topography over much of the neighborhood also means that runoff moves quickly downhill, and runoff is often present at volumes or velocities that cause erosion. The impermeable soil also results in low stream volumes fed by groundwater in the summer. There is limited stormwater infrastructure in the Uplands neighborhood to manage runoff in a manner that protects property and natural resources, making a reduction in stormwater runoff particularly important. Planning Commission Public Hearing February 13, 2017 LU 17-0001 EXHIBIT D-1/PAGE 10 OF 22 The R-10 base zone does not have a limit on the amount of impervious surface on a lot. Lot coverage standards apply to all structures or portions that are over 30 in. in height, with some exceptions (e.g. retaining walls, portions of eaves), however this does not limit the area of driveway paving, patios, sports courts, or other hard surfaces. Maximum lot coverage in the R-10 zone ranges from 25%to 35% based on the height of the primary structure. This leaves another 65%to 75% of the lot area for other surface treatment. There is no landscaping requirement for single family construction in the R-10 zone. Four other neighborhoods have neighborhood zoning districts or overlays that limit the amount of impervious surface. The limit in First Addition (R-6) and Old Town (R-0) is 60%. The limit in Lake Grove (R-7.5/R-10) and Glenmorrie (R-15) is 50%. Structure Design The maximum permitted height in the R-10 zone is 30 feet on flat lots, and 34-35 feet on lots with slope in the building footprint. The hilly topography in Uplands creates many situations were abutting homes are at different grades, and where sloped building footprints allow for taller heights under the current dimensional standards. Historically, residential development in Uplands has worked with these natural features. Oversized lots with small homes have provided generous separation between abutting dwellings, and the predominance of single-story ranches and split level homes has resulted in uphill homes of modest heights. As home size has increased with new development, setbacks have been minimized and older one- and 1.5-story homes have been replaced with taller structures, with development on uphill lots looming over established residences. The Overlay proposes three code provisions to limit overall building height, and to reduce the height and bulk of homes at the side yard setback. The maximum base height is proposed to be limited to 30 feet, regardless of slope; the additional permitted building height for roof forms and architectural features is proposed to be prohibited (as the Evergreen R-7.5 Overlay was recently amended); and the roof pitch that establishes the interior side yard setback plane is proposed to be lowered from a 12:12 pitch to a 6:12 pitch. On-Site Circulation— Driveway approach limitations One neighborhood concern with recent development is the amount of impervious area in the front yard, and the extension of paving into the unimproved right-of-way edge in the form of multiple driveway approaches. The construction of two driveway approaches is permitted on lots with more than 75 feet of frontage, which applies to most lots in Uplands. The maximum width of a driveway approach, measured at the right-of-way, is 12 feet per garage stall, not to exceed 30 feet, for a street facing garage, and 24 feet for a side-loading garage. The additional driveway approach adds paved area to the front yard and ROW, which has an impact on the visual character of the neighborhood as well as the amount of impervious area. The Overlay proposes limiting driveway access points to one per frontage, which would still allow two driveways for corners lots. Planning Commission Public Hearing February 13, 2017 LU 17-0001 EXHIBIT D-1/PAGE 11 OF 22 Variances With the proposed Overlay, an applicant could still pursue a design variance through the Residential Infill Design (RID) review process to receive an exception to the Overlay's requirements for front yard setbacks, building height, and side yard setback planes. The RID approval criteria address components of neighborhood character consistent with the Neighborhood Association's concerns. They focus on design compatibility and scale within the context of a neighborhood, and include consideration of: setbacks, setback plane, and garage openings; distance and visibility from adjoining properties; preservation of existing trees and other features of perceived value to adjoining properties; topography; perceived building height, form, proportion, massing and orientation relative to adjoining properties; treatment of elevations exposed to adjoining properties; perceived sight lines to and from windows, decks and outdoor living spaces; fencing or screening; and landscaping. IV. NOTICE OF APPLICATION A. Newspaper Notice On February 2, 2017, public notice of the proposed amendments and Planning Commission public hearing will be published in the Lake Oswego Review. B. ORS 227.186 (Measure 56) Notice The City followed the procedures required by ORS 227.186 (Ballot Measure 56) for notification of the owners of property potentially affected by the changes. The notice was mailed to all property owners within the proposed Uplands R-10 Overlay District on January 23, 2017. C. DLCD Notice Pursuant to LOC 50.07.003.16.c and ORS 197.610, staff provided required notice of the proposed CDC text amendments to the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD). D. Metro Notice Pursuant to Metro Code 3.07.810 and .820, staff provided notice of the proposed CDC text amendments to Metro not less than 35 days prior to the hearing date. V. COMPLIANCE WITH APPROVAL CRITERIA Legislative amendments to the CDC shall comply with the following criteria: Planning Commission Public Hearing February 13, 2017 LU 17-0001 EXHIBIT D-1/PAGE 12 OF 22 A. Any Applicable State Law Oregon Revised Statute 197.307: Approval Standards for Certain Housing in Urban Growth Areas Response: This statute requires that jurisdictions provide a clear and objective approval path for "needed housing." The proposed Uplands R-10 Overlay District, which applies to the development of single-family housing, maintains existing clear and objective language for single-family dwellings. The code amendments also maintain the existing Residential Infill Design (RID) Review variance procedure for granting exceptions to the Overlay standards and varying other dimensional standards, consistent with the two-track approach (clear and objective path and design review path) that is authorized by the statute. This criteria is met. B. Applicable Provisions of the City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan Staff finds that the following Comprehensive Plan Policies are applicable to this proposal: Land Use Planning Chapter Policies(Statewide Planning Goal 2) Development (Community Development Code) A.1.b: Maintain land use regulations and standards to: *** (b)promote compatibility between development and existing and desired neighborhood character. Response: The proposed CDC amendments promote compatibility of new single- family development by revising standards for front yard setbacks, flag lots, structure height, and side yard setback plane design to be more compatible with the existing Uplands neighborhood character, which is marked by a predominance of generous front yards, one and one-and-a-half-story homes, and a meandering street network. This criteria is met. A-1.d: Provide for the implementation of adopted neighborhood plans. Response: The Uplands R-10 Overlay District code provisions and TSP amendments are proposed to implement the proposed Uplands Neighborhood Plan, which includes Action Steps calling for these specific amendments. Planning Commission Public Hearing February 13, 2017 LU 17-0001 EXHIBIT D-1/PAGE 13 OF 22 This criteria is met. Design Standards and Guidelines C-1. Enact and maintain regulations and standards which require: a. New development to enhance the existing built environment in terms of size, scale, bulk, color, materials and architectural design; Response: The purpose of the proposed Uplands R-10 Overlay District is to promote new development that enhances the neighborhood by providing greater compatibility with existing development in terms of size and scale. In the Uplands neighborhood, existing R-10 zone dimensional standards allow new development to be taller and closer to the street than most existing homes. The hilly topography results in buildings on some lots looming over buildings on neighboring lots. This is accentuated by the low heights characteristic of ranch-style homes in the neighborhood. The allowed height of 34-35 feet on lots with sloping topography and sloped lots, combined with additional allowed height for roof forms and architectural features, permits new development that is typically much taller than neighboring structures in the Uplands neighborhood, and can detract rather than enhance the neighborhood environment. While all R-10 lots are subject to the same height standards and allowances, the topography of Uplands results in incompatible building heights. The minimum required front setback of 25 feet is also less than the distance that homes are typically set back in Uplands. The proposed Overlay establishes front yard setbacks based on the established setbacks of neighboring homes to create more contextually appropriate building siting, and to help maintain the generous front yards unique to Uplands' character. These proposed amendments are intended to ensure that new development enhances the neighborhood by complementing surrounding development. This criteria is met. C-5.Adopt and maintain clear and objective standards for needed housing, pursuant to state law. Response: The proposed Uplands R-10 Overlay District is consistent with this policy. See above response to Section B, Applicable State Law. Planning Commission Public Hearing February 13, 2017 LU 17-0001 EXHIBIT D-1/PAGE 14 OF 22 Land Use Administration D-1. Coordinate the development and amendment of City plans and actions related to land use with other affected agencies, including county, state, Metro,federal agencies and special districts. Response: Metro and the DLCD were notified of the proposed text amendment at least 35 days prior to the first Planning Commission hearing, as required by Metro Code and State law. This criteria is met. D-3. A Neighborhood Association may request, or a group of citizens may submit a petition requesting, that the City Council initiate a process to prepare a Neighborhood Plan and implementing measures, without fee. Response: The Uplands Neighborhood Association requested that the City assist in developing a neighborhood plan. This request was approved by the Planning Commission during their review of requests for neighborhood planning assistance, and affirmed by the City Council in their 2015 review of Planning Commission goals. Implementing measures for neighborhood plans, including CDC and TSP amendments, are recommended for adoption concurrent with the Plan to provide the regulatory basis for the Plan's vision and objectives. This criteria is met. D-4. Develop specific Neighborhood Plans and implementing measures as a means to enhance neighborhood livability and achieve desired neighborhood character. Adopt specific Neighborhood Plans upon finding that the proposed changes are in the public's interest and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. If appropriate, implementation may be accomplished through creation of a new zoning district or a new overlay zone. Response: The purpose of the proposed Uplands Neighborhood Plan is to enhance neighborhood livability with regard to transportation, stormwater management, parks, and neighborhood involvement.The Plan also identifies the defining aspects of Uplands' neighborhood character and those that residents feel are important to maintain. The Plan's Land Use Action Steps call for the adoption of a new Uplands R-10 Overlay District to maintain this desired character as new development occurs, and outlines the specific code provisions to be included in the Overlay. Planning Commission Public Hearing February 13, 2017 LU 17-0001 EXHIBIT D-1/PAGE 15 OF 22 The Uplands Neighborhood Association developed the Plan and Overlay based on input from residents in the best interest of their neighborhood and to implement their long-term neighborhood vision. This criteria is met. Community Culture Civic Engagement Goal (Statewide Planning Goal 1) 1: Provide citizen involvement opportunities appropriate to the scale of a given planning effort, ****. 2: Ensure that information related to land use planning and decision-making is readily accessible to the public and easy to understand. Response: Since the beginning of the planning process, the Uplands Neighborhood Association has held four general membership meetings at which the Plan and Code were discussed. General membership meetings were noticed with a mailed newsletter, neighborhood sign, and on Nextdoor.com. Eighteen board meetings were held during the planning period, noticed by neighborhood sign, and typically on Nextdoor.com. The Neighborhood Association also conducted three surveys during the planning process to get input on the neighborhood's vision and priorities, provide feedback on the Plan objectives and action steps, and respond to the proposed Overlay provisions. Fourteen of the 15 Neighborhood Association board members met on January 19, 2017 and gave final unanimous approval to forward the public hearing version of the amendments to the Planning Commission for public hearing. The Planning Commission also held four work sessions with the Uplands Neighborhood Planning Committee to review and provide feedback on the Plan and Code. A notice required by ORS 227.186 (Ballot Measure 56) was sent to all property owners in the Uplands R-10 zone with information about the proposed code changes, and a notice of public hearing was sent to all Lake Oswego Neighborhood Association chairs, along with local and regional organizations, including LONAC, the Lake Oswego Chamber of Commerce, and Metropolitan Homebuilders Association, and affected public agencies. These criteria are met. Inspiring Spaces and Places 1: Adopt implementation measures and guidelines that ensure: a. New development in residential areas complements the existing built environment in terms of size, scale, bulk, height, and setbacks. Planning Commission Public Hearing February 13, 2017 LU 17-0001 EXHIBIT D-1/PAGE 16 OF 22 Response: The proposal is consistent with this policy, which is similar to Land Use Policy C-1. See response to Policy C-1, above. 3: Establish standards for new development to preserve and enhance the natural environment, and to integrate natural features and functions. Response: The proposed Overlay includes a regulation limiting the total amount of impervious area to 50% of a lot. This standard, similar to existing requirements in four other neighborhoods, is intended to help reduce stormwater runoff, resulting erosion and transfer of pollutants and sediment into the city's streams and Oswego Lake. The proposed Overlay also limits the front yard to 30% impervious area, which is intended to reduce stormwater runoff flowing more directly into the street, where stormwater management facilities are limited. These standards are intended to promote landscaped area over paved surfaces, and provide greater natural infiltration. This criteria is met. 7: Enhance the unique character of Lake Oswego's neighborhoods and commercial districts as the City grows and changes by adopting plans, codes, guidelines and other implementation measures. Response: The Uplands Neighborhood Association's requests to develop a neighborhood plan, beginning in 2005, were in anticipation of change in the neighborhood, and then in response to an increased level of new residential development in recent years. The proposed Uplands R-10 Overlay responds to observations about new development and is intended to help shape this change in a way that enhances the neighborhood. This criteria is met. Complete Neighborhoods and Housing(Statewide Planning Goal 10) Housing Choice and Affordability B-1: Provide and maintain zoning and development regulations that allow the opportunity to develop an adequate supply and variety of housing types, and that accommodate the needs of existing and future Lake Oswego residents. Response: The Uplands Neighborhood Plan and Uplands R-10 Overlay District maintain the existing base zoning of R-10, which permits one detached or attached (zero lot line dwelling) home per lot, with a minimum size of 10,000 square feet. One secondary dwelling unit is also permitted on each lot. The Overlay does include Planning Commission Public Hearing February 13, 2017 LU 17-0001 EXHIBIT D-1/PAGE 17 OF 22 one requirement, for flag lots, that may limit the creation of new homes on a small number of lots. Lake Oswego's Housing Needs Analysis (HNA), adopted in 2013, shows that Lake Oswego has more low-density residential land than will likely be needed by the year 2035 to accommodate demand for single-family homes in the R-7.5, R-10 and R-15 zones. The HNA estimates a dwelling unit capacity of 1,646 units in these zones, and a demand for 783 units, leaving a surplus of 863 units. The potential loss of residential flag lots as described on pages 9-10 above is minimal, and does not impact the City's ability to meet future low-density residential housing needs. This criteria is met. Complete Neighborhoods C-3: Support development of Neighborhood Plans to maintain and enhance livability and desired neighborhood character. Neighborhood plans shall be determined to comply with and implement the Comprehensive Plan. C-7: Require infill housing to be designed and developed in ways to be compatible with existing neighborhood character. Response: The proposal is consistent with these policies, which are similar to Land Use Policy C-4. See response to Policy C-4, above. C-5: Develop and implement a Transportation System Plan (TSP) that assures multimodal access from residential neighborhoods to transit stops, commercial services, employment areas, parks, and other activity centers. AND Connected Community Chapter Policy(Statewide Planning Goal 12): Safety A-1. Designate, implement, and maintain routes for walking and biking that support safe movements from residential areas to, through and along schools, parks, transit, employment centers, town centers, neighborhood villages, and commercial corners and neighborhood commons. Response: The Uplands Neighborhood Plan includes eight Action Steps for improvements to the public right-of-way, aimed at providing safe pedestrian connectivity through the construction of pathways, consideration of traffic calming devices and improved crosswalks, and outreach and planning efforts to improve right-of-way edge for pedestrians, until future pathways can be Planning Commission Public Hearing February 13, 2017 LU 17-0001 EXHIBIT D-1/PAGE 18 OF 22 constructed. The proposed TSP amendments extend the Uplands Drive pathway project to help link residents neighborhood to Country Club Road facilities, including a transit stop and shoulder pathway that connect Uplands to destinations beyond the neighborhood. These criteria are met. Community Health and Public Safety Chapter Public Facilities and Services: Surface Water Management Policies (Statewide Planning Goal 6) 1. Use natural systems and non-structural methods to treat, convey and dispose of storm water runoff at the source to the extent allowed by site characteristics. 3. Protect and improve existing drainage systems and easements by: a. Prohibiting the encroachment of structures and other permanent im- provements over public storm drainage lines and within easements and drainage ways. b. Discouraging modification to existing open drainage ways that negatively impact surface water function. 5. Require all development and redevelopment to implement measures to minimize runoff from the development site during and after construction. 8. Provide and maintain development standards that promote Low Impact Development to improve water quality, reduce impervious surfaces, promote infiltration, and preserve open space. Response: The Overlay standard limiting the total amount of impervious area on the lot to 50% ensures that half of the lot area provides for natural and non- structural infiltration of stormwater, to the extent permitted by the soil conditions. The goal is to reduce runoff and the need for structural methods to treat and manage stormwater on-site. The Neighborhood Plan also proposes several Natural Systems Action Steps to improve stormwater management in the public right-of- way, including minimizing encroachments that modify roadside drainage systems, and integrating stormwater management into the Wembley Park CIP project. These criteria are met. Community Culture Chapter/Civic Engagement Policies (Statewide Goal 1): 1. Provide citizen involvement opportunities appropriate to the scale of a given planning effort, and ensure those affected by a Plan have opportunities to participate in the planning process. Planning Commission Public Hearing February 13, 2017 LU 17-0001 EXHIBIT D-1/PAGE 19 OF 22 9. Utilize broadly representative, special citizen advisory bodies to provide input on implementation of the Comprehensive Plan and other related land use planning matters. Response: Citizen involvement opportunities have included over twenty neighborhood meetings,three neighborhood surveys, and mailed notice to all R-10 property owners of the proposed amendments and opportunity to comment at the Planning Commission hearing. The seven-member Uplands Neighborhood Planning Committee, designated by the Neighborhood Association board, led the planning effort with ongoing input from the full board. These criteria are met. C. Lake Oswego Community Development Code Procedural Requirements LOC 50.07.003.3.c. Published Notice for Legislative Hearing LOC 50.07.003.16a Legislative Decisions Defined LOC 50.07.003.16b Criteria for Legislative Decision LOC 50.07.003.16c Required Notice to DLCD LOC 50.07.003.16.d.iii Planning Commission Recommendation Required LOC 50.07.003.16.e City Council Review and Decision Response: The Community Development Code 50.07.003.16.a defines "legislative decisions" to include amendments to the CDC and to Comprehensive Plan policies. Public hearings by the Planning Commission for recommendations to the City Council for "legislative decisions" are required to have at least 10 days prior published notice, per LOC 50.07.003.16.d.iii and 50.07.003.3.c. Notice is defined as being published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Lake Oswego at least ten days in advance of the hearing, and mailed at least ten days in advance to the Commission for Citizen Involvement and to all recognized neighborhood associations. The notice shall include: i. The time, date, and place of the public hearing; ii. A brief description of the proposed legislative amendment; and iii. A phone number for obtaining additional information. Notice of the public hearing was posted at City Hall, the Adult Community Center, the Library, and Palisades building on February 3, 2017.The hearing notice was published in the Lake Oswego Review newspaper on February 2, 2017. Legislative notice was mailed per LOC requirements on January 24, 2017. Planning Commission Public Hearing February 13, 2017 LU 17-0001 EXHIBIT D-1/PAGE 20 OF 22 The criteria for a legislative decision are addressed in Sections A and B, above. The City notified DLCD and Metro of the proposed action 35 days before the initial evidentiary hearings. These criteria are met. VI. CONCLUSION / RECOMMENDATION The proposed amendments are in compliance with applicable City Comprehensive Plan policies, state laws, and statewide planning goals. The amendments respond to neighborhood input and incorporate feedback from the Planning Commission during its public work sessions on the proposal. Based on the information presented in this report, staff recommends that the Commission recommend adoption of Ordinance 2734 (including all attachments) to the City Council. EXHIBITS This staff report and all exhibits referenced below are part of the record and can be found by visiting the land use webpage for case file LU 17-0001. A link is provided at the end of this report. A. Draft Ordinances A-1 Draft Ordinance 2734, dated 01/25/17 Attachment A— Reserved for City Council Findings (not included) Attachment B— Proposed Neighborhood Plan, 02/01/17 Attachment C— Proposed TSP Amendments, 02/01/17 Attachment D— Proposed Uplands R-10 Overlay Code, 02/01/17 B. Findings, Conclusion and Order (no current exhibits) C. Minutes (no current exhibits) D. Staff Reports (no current exhibits) E. Graphics/Plans E-1 Map of Dividable Lots F. Written Materials G. Letters (no current exhibits) Planning Commission Public Hearing February 13, 2017 LU 17-0001 EXHIBIT D-1/PAGE 21 OF 22 BACKGROUND MATERIAL AND REFERENCES Staff reports and public meeting materials that were prepared for these code amendments can be found by visiting the project web page for LU 17-0001. Use the link below to visit the City's "Project" page. In the "Search" box enter LU 17-0001 then press "Submit": http://www.ci.oswego.or.us/proiects Planning Commission Public Hearing February 13, 2017 LU 17-0001 EXHIBIT D-1/PAGE 22 OF 22 Hazel Dividable Lots a3 Subdividable-Public street needed to serve 4 or more lots under Wheatherstone Mountain proposed overlay Johnson Ter • :Sufficient lot width for 2 or more . ••• ••r non-flag lots as ci o`� 3 Lots 0 Dr o > 4 Lots 5 Lots F 0 •�yo •` y Labels on parcels signify:Year built and O P°2; •.y•• if slopes greater than 20%are present. Y Yo` 1 R-10 ;, -fiver diglureh i t o y = a :: K o� toe 4r Falstaff le, k oo v ...• - CDO hS P\ a M • Oho 3 m • • = U 0 • .1/2N W°Tb/ey r• ,tots W o° Dr R-10 '`ace NIL m' d o w R1 i'a� 9, a 1 o ? P Y r A � CarmanA D hYlUs Ct Or 0• N m `o VP\acd5 0 r 11 Rd E - Rd 4� R-15 it Ridge Rd Crest F .."......."-......4•S 3 sIPc�M:• Ra Blvd Rd ? c�a�c Groh �t�/es Ooo N m �- VI\\a9e a G o o� \< Bay m Edgemont Rd • E •O L oa E 73a Uplands R-10 Zone Dividable Lots N Analysis Taking into Account 20%for Access Red Cedar Way 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 Brookside Rd Feet THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK February 13, 2017 Iris McCaleb imccaleb@lakeoswego.city RE: Uplands Neighborhood Plan, Overlay, and TSP amendment-Testimony I, Patty Schaffer, resident of the Uplands Neighborhood for 8+years am in full support of the neighborhood plan overlay and TSP amendment. Since I have lived in the Uplands neighborhood,the character has changed significantly due to new home developments. Homes are either being demolished or lots split and very large homes built that do not fit the character of the neighborhood.Yes,these are beautiful homes, but am astonished with the outright disregard of the negative impact it is causing neighbors. I believe this overlay will assist with reducing the impacts new buildings will have on neighboring properties. The demographics of our neighborhood has slowing been shifting from "empty nesters"to young families. As time passes, I see many younger children walking to bus stops, walking to and from schools, and walking to our wonderful parks. In combination of an increase of children playing, more homes built which leads to more cars on the road. I have witnessed many instances in which cars and pedestrians share the road. I believe a pathway for walkers and bikers will reduce the risks of a dangerous situation. Please take my thoughts into consideration when making your decision. As a neighborhood board member, I will take part in all steps necessary to partner with the City for achievement of these initiatives. Thank you, Patty Schaffer 14611 Uplands Drive Lake Oswego, OR 97034 971-400-6397 LU 17-0001 EXHIBIT G-1/PAGE 1 OF 1 Bryan Spahr Submission March 31, 2017 March 31st, 2017 To: Lake Oswego City Council EXHIBIT G-2 From: Bryan Spahr 14584 Doris Ave LU 17-0001 Re: Ordinance 2734, Uplands Neighborhood Plan and Overlay Code (LU 17-0001) Dear Mayor Studebaker& Lake Oswego City Council Members, As a concerned member of the Uplands neighborhood I am writing this letter in opposition to the newly proposed Uplands Overlay District. My name is Bryan Spahr and I have lived at 14584 Doris Avenue since I purchased the property in 2008. I have attended the planning commission meeting, a neighborhood association meeting, and the city council learning session on March 215t to further educate myself on the proposal, and its affects on my property as well as those of my neighbors. In my study of the overlay, it has become apparent the plan has been developed with far too broad a brush for the diverse neighborhood that is Uplands. Outlined in the pages that follow, is my reasoning behind my urging the city council to oppose the passage of the overlay district. I have also proposed amendment possibilities that I feel offer a more equitable solution for all stakeholders. In observing the proposals put forth by the Uplands association, it is apparent the main objective is to limit infill, particularly flag lots with 3 or more properties being carved from large current existing parcels. Another apparent goal is to reduce the size of new homes developed in the neighborhood. As a resident of the Uplands neighborhood for nearly half my life, and Lake Oswego all my life, I do believe there is importance in maintaining existing neighborhood character.The proposed overlay casts far too broad a net due to the massive differences in lot sizes throughout the neighborhood (100,000SF down to 10,000SF). During the council learning session on March 21st, discussion centered only around a few large parcels that would be affected by the flag lot provision.The affect of the front setback proposal on smaller lots was not discussed or presented.This "front setback averaging" code change within the overlay creates a far greater encumbrance on the smaller lots in the neighborhood. It also creates inequitable setbacks based solely on whether development has already occurred next to the properties in question. In my personal example, I live in a modest 1500sf ranch home built in 1959. My home is typical of the mid century ranch homes in my sub-area of Rainbow Terrace.The house's footprint is the same as it was the day it was built in 1959. Under the proposed Uplands overlay, 2/3 of my lot would now be encumbered with setbacks and thus the buildable area would be reduced to 1/3 of the 12,000SF lot. With my home's current 1500 SF foot print, and taking the average of my adjacent neighbors' setbacks, the proposed overlay would cut any future ability to expand my 1959 home by half.This is a massive encumbrance on the value and potential future use of my lot. I have illustrated the proposed overlay's effects on my particular parcel in the plan view and calculations on the following page. Property in question Properties Needed to Determine "Average Setback" 14584 Doris Ave Example Property 14550 Doris Ave Northern Neighbor 14636 Doris Ave Southern Neighbor Lot Size 12000SF Lot Size 120005F Lot Size 120005F Dimensions 120 x 100 Dimensions 120 x 100 Dimensions 120 x 100 Front Set back 52.5ft from Right of Way Front set back 44ft.from Right of Way Front Set back 33ft from Right of Way *all dimensions taken from ci.oswego.or.us online maps Bryan Spahr Submission March 31, 2017 14550I } 120 FT LOT DEPTH EXISTING SETBACK PROPOSED SETBACK O Existing home Built in 1959 1500SF 3bd 2ba Lot Size 12,0005F .27 Acre —25Fr—•13.5FT•-13.5- D. 1 n —30 FT Using "front setback averaging" reduces current available building area by 50% 0 0 When examining my 12,000 square foot(SF) property located at 14584 Doris Ave, the average front setback between adjacent lots would result in 38.5 foot setback requirement( (33ft+44ft)/2 ) = 38.5 .The current front setback in the R10 zone is 25 ft from the right of way.Therefore,the front setback for my home would be increased from 25 feet to 38.5 feet. The proposed overlay reduces any future ability to expand my current 1959 home footprint by half. When factoring a 38.5ft front setback+a 30ft rear setback+a 10ft setback per side: 12000SF total lot area -3850SF (front setback area) 100ft x 38.Sft -3000SF (rear setback area) 100ft x 30ft -1030SF (side setback area) 10ft x 51.Sft x 2 sides = 4120SF buildable area When comparing the proposed resulting buildable area to the overall lot dimensions the result is 34.33% 4120SF/ 12000SF=34.33% The proposed overlay results in a maximum allowable building area of only 1/3 of the 12000SF lot. This is extreme for R10 zoning Bryan Spahr Submission March 31, 2017 A comparison of the current allowable buildable area (5470 SF) to the proposed buildable area under the Uplands overlay(4120 SF) results in nearly a 25% reduction from the current allowable buildable area of the lot-A significant figure that most definitely will affect the value of the property.This reduction in use of the property will likely result in affected parties like myself petitioning for a reduced tax basis with the county assessor. Supporting current setback figures to determine percent buildable area versus setback area: 12000SF—2500SF (Front)—3000SF(Back)—1030SF (sides) = 5,470 SF Current buildable area 5470/ 12000SF=45.6%current buildable area When comparing the current buildable area to the proposed buildable area for my 12,000 SF lot. 45.6%(Current) -34.3% (Proposed) = 11.3% 4 11.3/45.6=24.7% reduction in buildable area **The proposed overlay reduces the buildable area on a 12,000SF lot by 1/4th Examining a 10,000 Square Foot Lot When the calculations are performed on a 10,000SF lot (the smallest allowable by current city code for R10) and using the possible maximum front setback distance of 40 feet,the buildable area figure becomes even more extreme. 10000 SF total lot area —4000 SF (front setback area) 100ft x 40ft —3000 SF (rear setback area) 100ft x 30ft -600 SF (side setback area) 10ft x 30ft x 2 sides = 2400 SF buildable area 2,400 SF/ 10,000 SF = 24% buildable area.The proposed overlay in this scenario would result in a property owner being limited to a building area of only 24%of their 10,000SF lot. Additionally it is important to note that this buildable footprint of 2,400 square feet would include a garage (commonly 20X2Oft or 400 SF) further reducing the figure of actual occupied square footage with which a homeowner can develop. Going up instead of out(adding second or third stories) would be the common solution to the limited building footprint. The oversight here is that new tall homes were an item the neighborhood associated is trying to limit with this proposal in the first place.This proposal would actually encourage that type of building as it is one of the only options to achieve the square footage that many families demand. Bryan Spahr Submission March 31, 2017 Front Setback Averaging The Uplands Neighborhood Association has identified setback averaging as a way to limit the proximity of future development to the right of way& prevent large infill in the neighborhood.This proposal is presented as a way to "maintain the character of the neighborhood." The association has claimed in testimony, and in the overlay proposal that the deep setback homes on large lots are the norm in Uplands& new development has the potential to create a "sawtooth" or staggered effect on the neighborhood's streets. Upon examination however,this is not truly the case. Great diversity in lot size exists within the neighborhood- 10,000SF to 100,000SF. When walking the neighborhood one will notice that many homes were originally built quite close to the street. A blanket overlay of front setbacks will serve to harm smaller lot owners (10-15,000SF) in an unequal way to their neighbors with larger lots (15,000 and up). Additionally, a quick study of the city online maps yields many homes are actually sighted significantly closer than the city's current minimum 25 foot front setback requirement for R10 zoning. y4_. ,.� 1.• - �- r-- m._i i- ______, ;� , � 11 - -- .01011iii. .-, -• ,•,..._ .."....4„ .• - , ,,,,,,,,a . I ..:.:••• _•••,... TI-)..„ Ai 071 i _ w 111 pMi r = - LO jr. # School: . 0 pernear------ar. viliTIAjle North ! ow" j F....- 1_ ,.:.,.. - liromm rap. . . , ._, .wr4" ii- :„:„..,..:-.— • I / 14 -0 ---- m•m ........--\ .. w• Spring,.rook -.M ..,._, -0.. ilk, u ntn mlair ' - -2'.. -- 17-1111N..-Mk ' i / /1/1 . 4444111 rat illtiL Ais 11 i .. .. II .Wimill .. Mil • -V ifirs to Nu ifoVaiii - li-!-I-Ld 11' . # •iiii. 4,k1 -44ipp--.0. ii_ m.. WV ., .11P 10 at "ritis:-' , ____. „Piik‘..niii'' . e...7,.,ri,..i,:70•.,lop,..dintltih,. . c•--- n r.,,, munimmillnifil Wit _ ._.- • --) 1‘..s• ..,:i-,7-?,-/- . I .. 5./....-.4.,•,--, , , ,.---", 4.]•,,, N --\----- tr. 1 rl . n+ln a . r , ,-Y. K...# L— •- ... . This image serves as general illustration of smaller sub area lots lots (10,000-15,000SF) adversely affected by proposed overlay. Examples highlighted in orange include Rainbow Terrace, Fir Ridge, Sundeleaf, sections of Wembley Park, & Uplands Drive. Further detailed images of the homes and their locations relative to the right of way located on the following pages. Bryan Spahr Submission March 31, 2017 Sundeleaf Drive sub-area of Uplands Neighborhood 1388-0 j. , i -1393 � �JJ .1 .4 13 13903 —_I / 13, 1315\ __ill' — 135:Gi �� LSI 14071 ---- p —� p- ( 1.474 `� 13503 Hf 14,1.10,4' R. lJ +� 1417. 141 �• 1 1 1411 1:17 Front Setback Examples - Distance from Right of Way House Current Front Number Street Setback 13901 Sundeleaf Drive 10 ft 13903 Sundeleaf Drive 14 ft 13915 Sundeleaf Drive 24 ft 14071 Sundeleaf Drive 15 ft 13935 Sundeleaf Drive 19 ft 14179 Sundeleaf Drive 16 ft 14181 Sundeleaf Drive 22 ft 14140 Sundeleaf Drive 15.5 ft 14074 Sundeleaf Drive 21 ft Bryan Spahr Submission March 31, 2017 Rainbow Terrace sub-area of Uplands Neighborhood *established 1950's— Note many lots close to minimum R10 size *Also note vast majority of homes placed forward on lots =j -ti i � ;Gill] 2F?.c,c. Dr I * • sa 4 141, . 7ie.‹. 4110 ';.1 ' 144j 14j • dZ i L/ :. tier F 1T4-2111 2900 � � 1 ` ' ---- :P) 14481 a V T 14 145 145611 — `!3 * . 145 6 I 145 303 14 599 I: .-F- 1462 145.9 LJ? �� JJ L 14_ 1 14 - 144 146 14727 ‘ — — 14..1'4 � I ! OPE •-- 14r,7 j rt a O :9F.•IUNIT(' 1', �!!! HURCH N..1','"' . T + UnIan0sI WI 1 , Front Setback Examples- Distance from Right of Way House Current Front Number Street Setback 14433 Doris Ave 22 ft 14461 Doris Ave 25 ft 14491 Doris Ave 25 ft 14669 Doris Ave 19 ft 14677 Doris Ave 18.5 ft 14700 Doris Ave 25 ft 14825 Rainbow Drive 17 ft 14813 Rainbow Drive 18 ft 14781 Rainbow Drive 16.5 ft 14771 Rainbow Drive 17.5 ft Bryan Spahr Submission March 31, 2017 Fir Ridge Road sub-area of Uplands Neighborhood *note the deep lots but forward located homes ib / 1 -fsieekSpnngbrook ti!`k sri l7 g b ! o a Pa-rk tin CO 7s' Q W c) ( -c . w " w -Id/ r ` I cri>i 2 j jiJJ �rlI N � > _ _I1 31 71.1 ii Fir _mmil Ridge Rd I 4 I c r i di __ L r . - •C- jj ej I LI ___(j<3 r .._ „ ,fr)i gr! I-1 - - , CD (21 � `- j9 _. 3 j9 41 � I �30� S 14870] ' .. i I i - Front Setback Examples- Distance from Right of Way House Current Front Number Street Setback 3360 Fir Ridge Rd 22.5 ft 3350 Fir Ridge Rd 24 ft 3330 Fir Ridge Rd 12 ft 3270 Fir Ridge Rd 22 ft 3230 Fir Ridge Rd 21 ft 3361 Fir Ridge Rd 18 ft 3351 Fir Ridge Rd 13.5 ft 3343 Fir Ridge Rd 22 ft 3311 Fir Ridge Rd 23 ft 3271 Fir Ridge Rd 24 ft Bryan Spahr Submission March 31, 2017 Uplands Drive sub-area of Uplands Neighborhood *homes in red illustrate the common nature of forward located home footprint 2104 .a f{ On Cli f ;( -..937L In 29$ 1:36, 3 _______---- ir irt . ir _ _ cc r J } Ell I i 14$ A # 1 144 n 2.:i 1 3[i lail 218 �fi 1 1 > /. ` � In . _ � ,� rat117 : . ~ l w i i i .::'r s :,, 4 1:4•4ii .4.0.- - - . , , \ ji, ., •, Oswego L Country C r. 24totsipp.„,t UMW ...,t / _ % ,r_ \ ..,,,.. -Tg um Asi-iii i 1,,. - -00- , ,\ __, , , .., , , 1 —,.. _.„ ge \--,.. 4 , ,, ,,„ , _ 22 . __..ii. r,M \,s, rik4, '.1 1 \ \ 1 1 a+ ‘ - .- i Front Setback Examples- Distance from Right of Way House Current Front Number Street Setback 14250 Uplands Drive 22 ft 14260 Uplands Drive 23 ft 14280 Uplands Drive 25 ft 14360 Uplands Drive 24 ft 14371 Uplands Drive 19 ft 14540 Uplands Drive 22.5 ft 14626 Uplands Drive 19 ft Bryan Spahr Submission March 31, 2017 Further Addresses *Illustrating the current commonality of existing homes placed close to the ROW. House Current Front Number Street Setback 2955 Wembley Park 18 ft 2920 Wembley Park 28 ft 2900 Wembley Park 23 ft 2800 Wembley Park 22 ft 2759 Wembley Park 22 ft 2580 Wembley Park 16.5 ft 2648 Wembley Park 12.5 ft 2291 Wembley Park 25 ft 2286 Wembley Park 23 ft 2425 Prestwick Rd 11 ft 2405 Prestwick Rd 22.5 ft 2420 Prestwick Rd 16 ft 2251 Prestwick Rd 24.5 ft 2200 Prestwick Rd 25 ft 2411 Glen Eagles Place 6 ft 2505 Glen Eagles Place 25 ft 2569 Glen Eagles Place 19 ft 15085 Glen Eagles Place 18.5 ft These example addresses and front setbacks are by no means comprehensive.The data was briefly compiled with a short review of the city's online maps tool.They are included to illustrate that the assertions of the Uplands neighborhood association "deep lots with homes located far away from the street" do not apply to a vast number of properties within the neighborhood.The data shown challenges this assertion and its use as a way to define the neighborhood and limit future development. Bryan Spahr Submission March 31, 2017 A Different Setback for Every Lot The association has claimed in testimony that the setback provision is an effort to eliminate or minimize the "sawtooth" effect of some homes being placed close to the street while others are placed far away from the front property line. If approved,the proposal disproportionally creates encumbrance setbacks on properties who have yet to develop and/or were originally placed far from the street. It applies a new strict setback limitation to smaller lots that are already not divisible currently under the existing code. The proposal may actually further create the sawtooth issue the association claims to prevent as front setbacks would now be different for every single property in Uplands. Many homes are currently at or beyond the minimum 25ft. setback. Aside from the inequities in this approach for smaller lots, each property having its own unique "averaged" setback will also serve to add an entirely new layer of complexity to the code for both homeowners and the planning& building departments. These setbacks would be constantly changing as development occurs and housing footprints move.This creates what I would call "rolling setbacks" Are property owners going to be required to survey their neighbor's adjacent lots to determine their unique average setback prior to submitting plans for any development?Will the city take on this responsibility of verifying the dimensions? The use of setback averaging is entirely arbitrary,varying home to home. It adversely affects those who have yet to expand their home's footprint. If both adjacent properties have already been built to the existing 25 foot setback, the proposed overlay would have no effect on future development. If both adjacent properties have yet to expand their building footprint the proposed overlay could create a maximum 40ft setback from the street.This is essentially the case with my property at 38.5 feet averaged setback.The 40ft. maximum results in some properties losing 15 feet of front buildable area while some properties are left completely unaffected.This is hardly equitable for those who are encumbered by the new 40ft. front setback simply because they and/or their adjacent neighbors have not expanded their home. A Comment on Neighborhood Involvement I consider myself an engaged citizen; however, like many in the neighborhood, I do have an active and time constrained life outside of Uplands issues and proposals. My first awareness of the neighborhood association's actual hard proposal was the legally required yellow mailer sent by the city. I previously have responded to the Uplands neighborhood association online survey regarding neighborhood code.This online survey was presented however as a survey for feedback.Yet,from my memory of the survey it appears it was essentially a test proposal of what the association was planning to put in place.At that time I voiced concern in the survey regarding many of the proposed ideas. I would like to request the results of the neighborhood survey be made public, or at least available for the council to review. During the learning session with the city council on March 21st Uplands association board member Mr. Brown was asked about the level of neighborhood involvement and awareness of the proposed changes. His response was attendance at neighborhood meetings was an average of around 10 or so people with the largest being 30 people. In a neighborhood of roughly 400 households and conservatively 800 citizens, this amounts to less than 5%of the neighbors attending or actively participating in the discussion. Mr. Brown has claimed at both the planning commission meeting and the City Council learning session that the response to the proposed overlay has been largely positive.This assertion apparently is based on the active participation of less than 5%of the neighborhood. At this time,the Uplands Neighborhood Association website is unreachable through the city's web-link. I cannot find any information on the Uplands Nextdoor site pertaining to the overlay proposal.There are no notices of public hearing signs placed in the neighborhood for the April 4th hearing. While it may be true the Uplands association has made efforts to inform constituents regarding this overlay proposal, it is my opinion that many in the neighborhood are still unaware of it.The planning commission report notes"At the public hearing, one written letter was received in support, and one person testified in support." Mr. Brown has twice highlighted "no testimony in opposition"to the proposal, however only one letter in support and one in- person testimony in support hardly indicates active support. A potential code change of this magnitude should require far more active buy in and awareness than 5%of neighbors and affected stakeholders. Bryan Spahr Submission March 31, 2017 Proposed: I respectfully petition the council to vote against the uplands overlay code as written. Below I have outlined potential amendment options to create a more equitable solution for Uplands neighbors Possibility 1 Apply the front setback averaging provision only to lots 15,000 square feet or larger& additionally apply The averaging provision to future divisions of 20,000 or greater lots. This would accomplish the uplands association's goal of limiting flag lots& building size, while not encumbering the property rights of long established small single R10 lots (some dating back to the 1940s& 50s). Lots of any size below 20,000 SF are already not divisible under the city's existing R10 criteria and thus cannot be turned into "flag lots" as the association is trying to prevent. Lots of 15,000SF or more would have the available space to accommodate homes built to the new proposed regulations. Any future infill development and lot splitting of 20,000SF or greater lots would then be made with these new overlays fully known, as opposed to retroactively taking away use of personal property after owners had purchased under the established R10 25ft front setback regulations. Possibility 2 Exempt certain sub-areas of the Uplands neighborhood as their existing character and lot size differs greatly from the one illustrated by the neighborhood association. Proposed exempt sub-areas would be Rainbow Terrace &Sundeleaf Drive.These neighborhoods largely do not contain divisible lots and have been long established. Precedent exists for exempting certain areas from the overlay as numerous properties along Ridgecrest are currently exempt from the proposed plan. Possibility 3 Refer the code back to the Uplands Neighborhood association for greater consensus and further input. Request demonstrably stronger buy-in and active participation from affected neighbors This allows time for bringing more parties to the table and developing a larger consensus with more active involvement from stakeholders. Bryan Spahr Submission March 31, 2017 Conclusion I would again like to thank the council for your consideration in this matter.As a lifetime and third generation resident of Lake Oswego, I too want what is best for the city. I care about preserving the character that continues to make the city and particularly the Uplands neighborhood unique. I am however deeply opposed to elements of this neighborhood overlay, particularly the proposed front setback requirement for the following reasons: • This regulation has wide reaching affects and is applied without consideration if the lot in question is 10,000 SF or 100,000 SF. • It creates a clear inequitable application of code, adversely affecting some citizens while leaving others unscathed. • It has the potential to allow only a 24% buildable area on a 10,000 square foot lot • It has significant potential to limit even modest development or expansion of some small older established homes. My own personal example would allow only 1/3 of my lot as buildable area, and limits any expansion of my 1959 home by half. • The overlay will result in some neighbors having reduced use or value of their lots. Other neighbors who have already built, have adjacent lots that have been built, or were fortunate enough to have original existing setbacks at 25ft or less reap the added property value or land use benefit. • No property should be subject to a change in code simply because an abutting property has been or has not been developed. • This averaging means of determining setback will effectively create a unique front setback distance for every single property in the neighborhood adding code confusion and unnecessary complexity • The neighborhood association has not illustrated that participation in the process and awareness in Uplands is high enough for such a major revision of the current code. Sincerely, Bryan Spahr From: Bryan Spahr To: Council Distribution Subject: Uplands Overlay Update Date: Monday,April 03,2017 9:42:47 PM Mr.Mayor&Council Members, This evening the Uplands Neighborhood Association chair,Mr.Robert Ervin&I had a productive discussion regarding my letter in opposition to the proposed plan.We particularly discussed my concerns regarding the front setback averaging proposal.Mr.Ervin requested we meet to further work toward an amicable solution for this portion of the proposed overlay. In regards to the April 4th hearing he suggested the passage of the resolution with the setback averaging portion left open for amendment resulting from our further collaboration.I have agreed that I would support this process and look forward to working with the association.Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Bryan Spahr 7.2 ..j'p` 0`, COUNCIL REPORT r o PREGOta TO: Kent Studebaker, Mayor Members of the City Council FROM: Paul Espe, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Ordinance 2737—Annexing Property at 16287 and 16425 Bonaire Avenue (Tax Lots 2600 and 2900, Tax Map 21E07DC); AN 17-0001 and AN 17-0002 DATE: March 15, 2017 Date of Meeting: April 4, 2017 ACTION 265 I 16 224 Enact Ordinance 2737 (Exhibit A-1), annexing Tax Lots 16 266 16 225 �I 1 2600 and 2900 (Tax Map 21E07DC) at 16287 Bonaire 311 - 16 232 Avenue, plus a portion of the Bonaire Avenue right of 315 I 16310 9or s 16 284 way adjacent to the property and extending south to 1 333 the current City boundary. _ 16344 16 317 frj ,_,,17., CO W N 351 W W SUGGESTED rai to — 16350 16 373 iJ W MOTION Madrona q1 377 Move to enact Ordinance 2737. 16 410 N 111 2 16 410 TOO° / N ,oD ., for/ 16 428 INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND 121 16 446 16 441 16 444 The proposed annexation is owner-initiated and will 443 I — result in the addition of approximately 1.06 acres of 16 494 16 475 A 16 472 residential land to the City, plus adjacent right of way. 515 _ 16 518 16 51316 508 This Council report describes the reasons for the 535 _! 16 ti,d W _� ml annexation and provides basic background information. The criteria for approving annexations and the findings in support of this annexation are included in Attachment B of Exhibit A-1. Owners/Applicant: Karral and Tamra Draper, John and Loretta Eastman and Tony Weller- CES NW Inc. Location/Size: The subject properties total 1.06 acres (46,174 square feet). They are located on the west side of Bonaire Avenue 1,271 feet north of the intersection of Bonaire and Washington Court. Existing Land Use: Tax Lots 2600 and 2900 are occupied by single-family dwellings which take direct access to Bonaire Avenue. Neighborhood: The properties are located within the Lake Forest Neighborhood. Purpose of Annexation: The property owners initiated the annexation to connect to City sewer service and develop the property. Page 2 DISCUSSION Plan and Zone Designation: The subject properties are currently under Clackamas County's jurisdiction and zoned Low Density Residential R-8.5. This area is designated R-7.5, Low Density Residential on the City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan Map and will be zoned R-7.5 upon annexation. Development Potential: The territory consists of two parcels of 0.53 acres each that could each be divided into two lots. Sensitive Lands: There are no Sensitive Lands designated on the properties. Sewer and Water Service: Sanitary sewer service is available from an eight-inch City of Lake Oswego sanitary line located in Bonaire Avenue. Upon connection to the sewer, the septic systems will need to be decommissioned per DEQ standards. Water is available from a six-inch Lake Grove Water District line in Bonaire Avenue. The properties will continue to receive water from the Lake Grove Water District after annexation. The closest fire hydrant is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Bonaire Avenue/Madrona Street. Surface Water Management: Currently, the territory is under the jurisdiction of the Surface Water Management Agency of Clackamas County (SWMACC). Upon annexation, the territory will be withdrawn from SWMACC and will be subject to the City's stormwater management regulations. Any new development will be subject to these provisions, which ensure that new development does not have an adverse effect on adjoining properties and does not overburden the City stormwater system. Service Districts: Upon annexation, the properties will, by operation of ORS 222.520, be withdrawn from the Lake Grove Fire District #57, the Clackamas County Enhanced Sheriff's Patrol District and the Surface Water Management Agency of Clackamas County (SWMAC), but will remain in the Lake Grove Water and the Lake Grove Park Districts. Transportation: Bonaire Avenue is a two way local street and is under the jurisdiction of Clackamas County. The right-of-way for the subject segment of road will fall under the City's jurisdiction upon annexation; however, the road maintenance jurisdiction and road permitting authority will not be transferred to the City of Lake Oswego until the road transfer process with the County has been completed. TriMet bus line 37, which operates between Tualatin Park & Ride and downtown Portland provides the closest bus service to the property. Service can be accessed at the intersection of Boones Ferry Road and Washington Court. ALTERNATIVES & FISCAL IMPACT The draft findings provided in Attachment B of Exhibit A-1 conclude that the proposed annexation complies with all applicable State statutes and Metro code requirements. This annexation is for two parcels that consist of a total of 1.06 acres. The estimated assessed value of the residential properties is $589,406. The estimated tax revenue after the parcels are annexed is $969.00. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of AN 17-0001 and AN 17-0002. EXHIBITS A-1 Ordinance 2737 Attachment A: Map Attachment B: Criteria, Findings, Conclusion, and Effective Date EXHIBIT A-1 ORDINANCE 2737 AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING TO THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO TWO PARCELS CONSISTING OF 1.06 ACRES LOCATED AT 16287 AND 16425 BONAIRE AVENUE,TOGETHER WITH THE ADJACENT PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY; DECLARING CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO ZONING PURSUANT TO LOC 50.01.004.5(a-c); AND REMOVING THE TERRITORY FROM CERTAIN DISTRICTS (AN 17- 0001 AND AN 17-0002). WHEREAS, annexation to the City of Lake Oswego of the territory shown in the map in Attachment "A" and described below, would constitute a contiguous boundary change under ORS 222.111, initiated by petition from the property owners as outlined in ORS 222.111(2); and, WHEREAS, the City has received consent for the proposed annexation from more than half the owners of land in the territory, who own more than half of the land in the territory and more than half of the assessed value of the land in the territory, as required by ORS 222.170; and, WHEREAS, the part of the territory that lies within the Lake Grove Fire District #57 will, by operation of ORS 222.520, be withdrawn from that district immediately upon approval of the annexation; and, WHEREAS, the part of the territory that lies within the Clackamas County Enhanced Sheriff's Patrol District will, by operation of ORS 222.520, be withdrawn from the district upon approval of the annexation; and, WHEREAS, the part of the territory that lies within the Surface Water Management Agency of Clackamas County will by operation of ORS 222.250 be withdrawn from that agency immediately upon approval of the annexation; and, WHEREAS, LOC 50.01.004.5 specifies that, where the Comprehensive Plan Map requires a specific Zoning Map designation to be placed on the territory annexed to the City, such a zoning designation shall automatically be imposed on the territory as of the effective date of the annexation; and, WHEREAS, this annexation is consistent with the Urbanization Chapter of the City of Lake Oswego's acknowledged Comprehensive Plan, Oregon Revised Statutes 222.111(2), and 222.170 for boundary changes, and Metro Code Sections 3.09.050 (b) and (d). Now, therefore, the City of Lake Oswego ordains as follows: Section 1. The real property described as follows is hereby annexed to the City of Lake Oswego: A tract of land located in the southeast quarter of Section 7,Township 2 South, Range 1 East, of the Willamette Meridian, Clackamas County, Oregon, being all of that certain tract of land conveyed to John W. and Loretta M. Eastman by Warranty Deed - Statutory Form as recorded in Document No. 79-25060; and all of that certain tract of land conveyed to Karral L. and Tamra Ordinance 2737,AN 17-0001,AN 17-0002 (Tax Map 21E07DC, Tax Lots 2600 and 2900) PAGE 1 L. Draper by Bargain and Sale Deed -Statutory Form as recorded in Document No. 2014- 039746, said Documents of the deed records of Clackamas County, said certain tracts respectively, more particularly described as follows: The East 160.00 feet of Lot 220, Map of Bryant Acres, Plat 3 (Plat No. 442); and the East 160.00 feet of Lot 195, Map of Bryant Acres, Plat 3 (Plat No. 442). Excepting therefrom all that portion of land within the right-of-way of Southwest Bonaire Avenue. Together with a tract of land located in the southeast quarter of Section 7, Township 2 South, Range 1 East, of the Willamette Meridian, Clackamas County, Oregon, more particularly described as follows: A portion of Southwest Bonaire Avenue (A.K.A. Bonita Drive), a 40.00 foot wide right-of-way established by said Map of Bryant Acres, said portion bounded on the north by the easterly projection of the north line of said Lot 220, and bounded on the south by the westerly projection of the south line of Lot 197 of said Map of Bryant Acres, said portion being 560.00 feet in length. The annexed territory is depicted on Attachment A. Section 2. The annexed area lies within the following districts and shall be retained within these districts upon the effective date of annexation: Lake Grove Park District Lake Grove Water District Section 3. The annexed area lies within the following districts and shall be withdrawn from these districts upon the effective date of annexation: Lake Grove Fire District#57 Clackamas County Enhanced Sheriff's Patrol District Surface Water Management Agency of Clackamas County Section 4. In accordance with LOC 50.01.004.5, the City zoning designation of R-7.5 shall be applied to the subject property on the effective date of annexation. Section 5. The City Council hereby adopts the findings of fact and conclusions set forth in Attachment B in support of this annexation ordinance. Section 6. Effective Dates: a. Effective Date of Decision to Annex. Pursuant to Metro Code 3.09.050(f), the effective date of this annexation decision shall be immediately upon adoption, unless a governmental entity that qualifies as a "necessary party" under Metro Code 3.09.020(j) has contested this annexation, in which event this annexation decision shall be effective on the 10th day following the mailing of this ordinance by the City Recorder to Metro and to all necessary parties who appeared in this proceeding. Ordinance 2737,AN 17-0001,AN 17-0002 (Tax Map 21E07DC, Tax Lots 2600 and 2900) PAGE 2 b. Effective Date of Annexation Ordinance. Pursuant to Lake Oswego City Charter, Section 34, this ordinance shall be effective on the 30th day after its enactment. c. Effective Date of Annexation. Following the filing of the annexation records with the Secretary of State as required by ORS 222.177, this annexation shall be effective upon the later of either: 1. the 30th day following the date of adoption of this ordinance; or 2. the date of filing of the annexation records with the Secretary of State. Provided, however, that pursuant to ORS 222.040(2), if the effective date of the annexation as established above is a date that is within 90 days of a biennial primary or general election or after the deadline for filing notice of election before any other election held by any city, district or other municipal corporation involved in the area to be annexed, then the effective date of the annexation shall be delayed until, and the annexation shall become effective on, the day after the election. Section 7. Mailing Copies of this Ordinance; Metro Notice Within 30 days following the date of adoption: a. The City Recorder shall mail a copy of this ordinance to all persons and governmental entities that appeared at the public hearing and requested a copy of the ordinance following adoption. b. The City Recorder shall mail a copy of this ordinance together with the applicable mapping and notice fee charged by Metro pursuant to Metro Code 3.09.110, to the Metro Data Resource Center, 600 NE Grand Ave., Portland, OR 97232. Read by title only and enacted at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego held on 4th day ofApril, 2017. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: EXCUSED: Kent Studebaker, Mayor Dated Ordinance 2737,AN 17-0001,AN 17-0002 (Tax Map 21E07DC, Tax Lots 2600 and 2900) PAGE 3 ATTEST: Anne-Marie Simpson, City Recorder APPROVED AS TO FORM: David Powell, City Attorney Ordinance 2737,AN 17-0001,AN 17-0002 (Tax Map 21E07DC, Tax Lots 2600 and 2900) PAGE 4 235 H Annexation to the City of Lake Oswego 16 AN 17-0001 &AN 17-0002/Ordinance 2737 265 — I 16 224 16 266 16 225 > 311 16 232 16310 A 4 ! ! d ;315 16 284 1 — ____ A d 1333 k 16344 16 317 4 w w N c ) w co W Cr 351 �� 16350 16 373 e W Madrona St . 377 16 410 01 01 t ! ! N) W 411 i 16 410 N CO > 0 16 428 421 16 446 16 441 _ 16 444 443 16 494 16 475 16 472 515 � 16 518 � u) 16 513 16 508 01 _ N Iv Iv 535 — ; 00 A „ i-n„ 16 5231 16 514 04 > •F Attachment A (�° ►s�,) �� I < Map and Lot# 21E07DC TLs 2600 &2900 oa �2 573 Cit of Lake Oswe o: —' 04%riI6131-.40111r411." ,� N COMPREHENSIVE PLAN = R-7.5, Residential��4 • ZONING = R-7.5, Residential '^��� i,- C Clackamas County: N II�61�� ', 575 °:,1n. ZONING = R-8.5 Residential DIP liA, ,• I Lake Oswego / Subject I4 3 i R-7. L__, City Limits V Property i. �l ii` I I 0 100 200 300 Feet �( 3/15/2017 ATTACHMENT B Criteria, Findings, Conclusion, and Effective Date APPLICABLE CRITERIA: A. Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS), Boundary Changes; Mergers and Consolidations. 1. ORS 222.111(2) -Annexation of Contiguous Territory, Authority and Procedure for Annexation, Generally. 2. ORS 222.170- Annexation by consent of more than half of the owners of land in the territory to be annexed, who also own more than half of the land in the territory, and of land representing more than half of the assessed value of the territory. B. Metro Code. 1. 3.09.040(a)(1-4) Minimum Requirements for Petitions. 2. 3.09.045 (D-E) Expedited Decisions (criteria incorporated for non-expedited decisions by MC 3.09.050(D) 3. 3.09.050 (A-D) Hearing and Decision Requirements for Decisions other than Expedited Land Decisions. C. Comprehensive Plan - Urbanization Chapter 1. Policy A-3: "The Urban Services Boundary (as depicted on the Comprehensive Plan Map) is the area within which the City shall be the eventual provider of the full range of urban services." 2. Policy C-3: "Ensure that annexation of new territory or expansion of Lake Oswego's Urban Services Boundary does not detract from the City's ability to provide services to existing City Residents." 3. Policy C-4: "Prior to the annexation of non-island properties, ensure urban services are available and adequate to serve the property or will be made available in a timely manner by the City or a developer commensurate with the scale of the proposed development." FINDINGS: A. Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS), Boundary Changes; Mergers and Consolidations. 1. ORS 222.111(2)Annexation of Contiguous Territory, Authority and Procedure for Annexation, Generally. ORS 222.111(2) provides that a proposal for annexation of territory to a City may be initiated by the legislative body of the City, on its own motion, or by a petition to the legislative body of the City by owners of real property in the territory to be annexed. The owners of the properties at Bonaire Avenue have petitioned the City for this annexation. The proposed annexation complies with this statute. Ordinance 2737 (AN 17-0001 &AN 17-0002) ATTACHMENT B/Page 1 2. ORS 222.170 -Annexation by consent of more than half of the owners of land in the territory to be annexed, who also own more than half of the land in the territory, and of land representing more than half of the assessed value of the territory. ORS 222.170 states that an election need not be held on the question of annexation within the territory proposed to be annexed if more than half of the owners of land in that territory consent in writing to the annexation. These owners must also own more than half of the land in the territory to be annexed and more than half of the assessed value of all of the land in the territory. All of the owners of the properties at 16827 and 16425 Bonaire Avenue have consented to the annexation on the annexation petition (on file)1. The proposed annexation complies with this statute. B. Metro Code 1. 3.09.040 - Minimum Requirements for Petitions. (A) A petition for a boundary change must contain the following information: 1) The jurisdiction of the reviewing entity to act on the petition; 2) A map and a legal description of the affected territory in the form prescribed by the reviewing entity; 3) For minor boundary changes, the names and mailing addresses of all persons owning property and all electors within the affected territory as shown in the records of the tax assessor and county clerk; and, 4) For boundary changes under ORS 198.855 (3), 198.857, 222.125 or 222.170, statements of consent to the annexation signed by the requisite number of owners or electors. The above information was submitted as required by Metro Code. The property owners have signed the application and petition. A map and legal description in the form required by the City have been included in the application materials and are on file. The property owners have consented to the annexation on the annexation petition, meeting the consent requirements of ORS 222.170. The annexation petition complies with the Metro code requirements. 2. 3.09.050 - Hearing and Decision Requirements for Decisions Other Than Expedited Decisions. (B) Not later than 15 days prior to the date set for a boundary change decision,the approving entity shall make available to the public a report that addresses the criteria identified in subsection (D) and includes the following information: (1) The extent to which urban services are available to serve the affected territory including any extra-territorial extensions of service. The properties are located within the Urban Growth Boundary and the City's Urban Services Boundary. Metro Code section 3.09.020 defines urban services as including sanitary sewers, water, fire protection, parks, open space, recreation, streets, roads and mass transit. ' The right-of-way is exempt from ad valorem taxation. Consequently under ORS 222.170(3)the right of way is not considered when determining the number of owners,the area of land or the assessed valuation required for consent, unless an "owner" of the right of way files a statement consenting to or opposing annexation on or before the date of the public hearing. Ordinance 2737 (AN 17-0001 & AN 17-0002) ATTACHMENT B/Page 2 Water: Water is available from a six inch Lake Grove Water District line in Bonaire Avenue. The properties will continue to receive water from the Lake Grove Water District after annexation. The closest fire hydrant is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Bonaire Avenue/Madrona Street. Sewer: Sanitary sewer service is available from an eight-inch City of Lake Oswego sanitary line located in Bonaire Avenue south of the two properties. Upon connection to the sewer, the septic system will need to be decommissioned per DEQ standards. Surface Water Management: Upon annexation, the territory will be withdrawn from Surface Water Management Agency of Clackamas County (SWMACC) and will be subject to the City's storm water management regulations. Any new development will be subject to these provisions, which ensure that new development does not have an adverse effect on adjoining properties and does not overburden the City stormwater system. Fire Protection: Lake Grove Fire District #57 provides fire protection services to the subject properties by agreement with the City of Lake Oswego. Upon annexation, the properties will be withdrawn from this fire district and served directly by the City. The Jean Road Fire Station, located southeast of the site, would be able to respond to emergencies under the eight minute goal established in the Comprehensive Plan. Police: Upon annexation, the subject properties will be withdrawn from the Clackamas County Enhanced Sheriff's Patrol District and will be served by the City of Lake Oswego. The Lake Oswego Police Department reviewed the proposal and indicated that it does not have any concerns with serving these properties upon annexation. Parks and Open Space: The City has 537 acres of park and open space lands, or 14.6 acres per 1,000 population. The parks nearest to these properties are Waluga Park East, Waluga Park West and Lamont Springs Natural Area. Waluga Park East and West are located north of Oakridge Road and East and West of Waluga Drive. These two parks consist of 53 acres of active and natural passive areas. West Waluga Park includes two lighted baseball fields, a playground picnic shelters, lights and restrooms. Lamont Springs is a natural park with no amenities for organized recreational activities. The City's park system will not be overburdened by any additional population annexed to the City with this application. Lake Grove Park District: The Lake Grove Swim Park, managed by the Lake Oswego School District, and funded by the Lake Grove Park District, is located at 3800 Lakeview Boulevard. The swim park is approximately 1.3 acres in size with restroom, play and swim facilities. These properties will remain within the Lake Grove Park District following annexation. Transportation - Streets and Mass Transit: Bonaire Avenue is a two way local street. Upon annexation, the Bonaire right of way along these properties frontage and extending south to the current city boundary will be within the City, however the road maintenance, repair and permitting authority will remain with Clackamas County until it is appropriate to either enter into an intergovernmental agreement to transfer those functions or to complete a formal road jurisdiction transfer process under ORS 373.270. Tri-Met bus line 37, which operates between Tualatin Park & Ride and downtown Portland provides the closest bus service to these properties. Service can be accessed at the intersection of Boones Ferry Road and Washington Court. Ordinance 2737 (AN 17-0001 &AN 17-0002) ATTACHMENT B/Page 3 (2) Whether the proposed boundary change will result in the withdrawal of the affected territory from the legal boundary of any necessary party. ORS 222.520 authorizes the City to withdraw the properties from the Lake Grove Fire District #57, the Clackamas County Enhanced Sheriff's Patrol District and the Surface Water Management Agency of Clackamas County. Upon approval of the annexation, the ordinance will withdraw the properties from these service districts. (3) The proposed effective date of the boundary change. The proposed effective date of the decision is outlined in the final section of this report. (D) To approve a boundary change, the reviewing entity shall apply the criteria and consider the factors set forth in subsections D and E of section 3.09.045 (Expedited Decisions). 3.09.045 (D) -To approve a boundary change through the expedited process the City shall: 1. Find that the change is consistent with expressly applicable provisions in: a. Any applicable urban service agreement adopted pursuant to ORS 195.065 The City has entered into ORS 195.065 agreements with: 1) Lake Oswego School District; and, 2) the Lake Grove Fire District. The intergovernmental agreement with the Rivergrove Water District is not discussed in this section because it was entered into before the adoption of ORS 195.065, and consequently does not include all of the provisions necessary to be considered an "urban service agreement" under that statute. Lake Oswego School District: The City and the Lake Oswego School District entered into an ORS 195.065 urban service agreement for park services in July, 2003. The School District operates the Lake Grove Swim Park located at 3800 Lakeview Boulevard. The agreement states that the annexation of property by the City within the Lake Grove Park District (which funds the swim park) shall not cause the withdrawal of these properties from the district. Lake Grove Fire District #57: The City and District entered into an ORS 195.065 urban service agreement for fire protection in July, 2003. The agreement states that upon annexation of property within the district by the City, the annexed property shall be withdrawn from the District and the City shall provide fire protection services. b. Any applicable annexation plan adopted pursuant to ORS 195.205. There are no applicable annexation plans adopted pursuant to ORS 195.205 relating to the affected territory. c. Any applicable cooperative planning agreement adopted pursuant to ORS 195.020(2) between the affected entity and a necessary party. There are no ORS 195.020(2) cooperative agreements (which relate to special districts) between the City and a necessary party. d. Any applicable public facility plan adopted pursuant to a state wide planning goal on public facilities and services The sanitary sewer system is already in place on the north and south ends of Bonaire Avenue. The subject properties will need to connect to City sewer and the existing septic tank will need to be decommissioned per DEQ standards upon annexation. Ordinance 2737 (AN 17-0001 & AN 17-0002) ATTACHMENT B/Page 4 e. Any applicable Comprehensive Plan policies Comprehensive Plan Map: The subject properties are currently designated R-8.5, Low Density Residential on Clackamas County's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Maps. The properties are also designated as Low Density Residential R-7.5 on the City's Comprehensive Plan Map. Upon annexation, a City zoning designation of R-7.5 will be applied to this parcel. The City and County have coordinated their comprehensive plans within the Dual Interest Area outlined in the City/County Urban Growth Management Agreement (dated February 4, 1992 and updated November 18, 1997), hence the City/County designations have been determined to be compatible. Therefore, this annexation is compatible with the City's Comprehensive Plan Map. Comprehensive Plan Policies: The updated Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan contains the following relevant language in the Urbanization chapter, Policy A-3: "The Urban Services Boundary (as depicted on the Comprehensive Plan Map) is the area within which the City shall be the eventual provider of the full range of urban services." The properties to be annexed are within the City's Urban Services Boundary. The proposed annexation and the withdrawal of the properties from the identified districts are consistent with this policy. Policy C-3 states: "Ensure that annexation of new territory or expansion of Lake Oswego's Urban Services Boundary does not detract from the City's ability to provide services to existing City residents." The approval of this annexation will result in the addition of 1.06 acres to be served by the City. As stated in Section 2(b)(1), the addition of this territory will not detract from the City's ability to provide police and fire protection to existing City residents. Annexation of these properties will not affect the City's ability to provide parks and recreation services. Public facilities, such as sewer and water are also found to be adequate to serve this site. Comprehensive Plan Policy C-4 states: "Prior to the annexation of non-island properties, ensure urban services are available and adequate to serve the properties or will be made available in a timely manner by the City or a developer commensurate with the scale of the proposed development." Community Development Code Section 50.06.008.3 requires that all development be provided with the following utility services: sanitary sewer, water, sidewalks, pedestrian and bicycle paths, traffic control signs and devices, street lights, streets, and TV cable. These utilities are now in place or can be put in place to serve these properties. In the event that future development occurs, an applicant for development is obligated to construct all necessary public facilities to serve their development. As noted above, police and fire services are available upon annexation. The amount of protection provided will be similar to protection provided to other City residents because the properties proposed to be annexed is not isolated from other areas of the City. Urban Growth Management Agreement: General Urbanization Policy 4.A.4 of the Clackamas County Comprehensive Plan calls for the establishment of Urban Growth Management Areas and Urban Growth Management Agreements to clarify planning responsibilities between the County and cities for areas of mutual interest. Policy 4.A.5 directs the County to establish agreements with cities and service districts to clarify service and infrastructure responsibilities for areas of mutual interest. Similarly, the Lake Oswego Comprehensive Ordinance 2737 (AN 17-0001 &AN 17-0002) ATTACHMENT B/Page 5 Plan, Urbanization Chapter, Policy D-3, calls for entering into and maintaining an Urban Growth Management Agreement (UGMA) with Clackamas County for lands within the Urban Services Boundary. In furtherance of these policies, the City and County have entered into an Urban Growth Management Agreement that stipulates a mutual interest in coordinated land use planning, compatible comprehensive plans and provision of urban services and facilities. This agreement ensures coordination and consistency between the City and County comprehensive plans and outlines responsibilities in providing services and managing growth within the Dual Interest Area. Subsections 6 and 7, provided below, are applicable to annexations. "6. City and County Notice and Coordination: The City shall provide notification to the County, and an opportunity to participate, review and comment, at least 35 days prior to the first public hearing on all proposed public facilities plans, legislative changes to the City Comprehensive Plan, or quasi- judicial land use actions adjacent to, or in close proximity to unincorporated areas. The City shall provide notice to the County of private or City initiated annexation requests within five days of the filing of an application..." The Urban Growth Management Agreement specifies that the City notify the County of an annexation request within five days of when it is submitted to the Boundary Commission. There is no longer a Boundary Commission for the Portland Metropolitan area. Staff relies on the notice requirements of Metro Code 3.09.030, which requires notice 20 days prior to the scheduled hearing for an annexation for all necessary parties (other governmental entities), unless a shorter time is agreed upon. The County is a necessary party under the Metro Code definition and has been notified. "7. City Annexations A. The City may undertake annexations in the manner provided for by law within the Dual Interest Area. The City annexation proposals shall include adjacent road right-of-way to property proposed for annexation. The County shall not oppose such annexations. B. Upon annexation, the City shall assume jurisdiction of the County roads and local access roads pursuant to a separate road transfer agreement between the City and county." The City is undertaking this annexation in the manner provided for in the applicable ORS and Metro Code for the territories that lie within the Dual Interest Area. This annexation will be consistent with the City and County comprehensive plans which have been coordinated in the Dual Interest Area within the regional Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). f. Any applicable concept plan Consistency of the proposed boundary change with urban planning agreements is mentioned under D(1)(c)above. 2. Consider whether the boundary change would a. Promote the timely orderly and economic provision of public facilities and services b. Affect the quality and quantity of urban services c. Eliminate or avoid unnecessary duplication of facilities or services Ordinance 2737 (AN 17-0001 &AN 17-0002) ATTACHMENT B/Page 6 Due to the proximity of the properties to existing City services, this annexation will promote the timely, orderly and economical extension of public facilities and services. The subject properties can readily be served with urban services and facilities. If and when additional development occurs in the area, provision of public facilities and services will occur consistent with the City's adopted public facility master plans, ensuring that it does not adversely affect the quality or quantity of urban services and avoiding unnecessary duplication of facilities or services. Therefore, this boundary change will is consistent with criteria 2.a through 2.c. (E) A city may not annex territory that lies outside the UGB except it may annex a lot or parcel that lies partially within and partially outside the UGB. The properties to be annexed are located entirely within the Metro Regional Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). CONCLUSION: Based on the criteria and findings set forth above, the City Council concludes that AN 17-0001 and AN17-0002 comply with all applicable criteria and the annexation should be approved. EFFECTIVE DATE: A. Effective Date of Annexation Ordinance. Pursuant to Lake Oswego City Charter, Section 34, the ordinance shall be effective on the 30th day after its enactment. B. Effective Date of Annexation. Following the filing of the annexation records with the Secretary of State as required by ORS 222.177, this annexation shall be effective upon the later of: 1. the 30th day following the date of adoption of this ordinance; or 2. the date of filing of the annexation records with the Secretary of State; provided however that pursuant to ORS 222.040(2), if the effective date of the annexation as established above is a date that is within 90 days of a biennial primary or general election or after the deadline for filing notice of election before any other election held by any City, district or other municipal corporation involved in the area to be annexed, then the effective date of the annexation shall be delayed until, and the annexation shall become effective on, the day after the election. Ordinance 2737 (AN 17-0001 &AN 17-0002) ATTACHMENT B/Page 7 7.3 D�.j'p` 4,r„ COUNCIL REPORT o r o PREGOta TO: Kent Studebaker, Mayor Members of the City Council FROM: Paul Espe, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Ordinance 2739—Annexing Property at 13730 Cameo Ct. (Tax Lot 700, Tax Map 21E04CA); AN 17-0003 DATE: March 15, 2017 Date of Meeting: April 4, 2017 ACTION Enact Ordinance 2739 (Exhibit A-1), annexing Tax Lot 700 ,� !RI (Tax Map 21E04CA) at 13730 Cameo Ct. "� ; 3,. 1 .. n' c?j •3x00 F: i i13705 13U1 1 a SUGGESTED MOTION --1 ,,, 138 1 - s F2 Move to enact Ordinance 2739. 4o� `,V011 Kn0.4aus Rd R-7.5 N ,]]Ola 11 11 0 g INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND 19795 '1,f'' 3' , 115 0 ti The proposed annexation is owner-initiated and will4 ,r° ?. ? , m R-7.5 result in the addition of approximately 0.59 acres of „w I f N , residential land to the City. This Council report describes ,,,a ,„o, 141C0 14,02 14,06 .b the reasons for the annexation and provides basic ,z _ ',,� �, background information. The criteria for approving 1=1Z=% 141,s R-�� ="_� sao may' 14145 R-10 annexations and the findings in support of this 414= 360 :3951 4"6h 6 Is 150 'iS: 1 annexation are included in Attachment B of Exhibit A-1. a o f 11555 N Owner/Applicant: Daniel and Anne Goodwin Location/Size: The subject property totals 0.59 acres (25,700 square feet). It is located on the south side of Cameo Court. Existing Land Use:Tax Lot 0700 is occupied by a single-family dwelling which take direct access to Cameo Court. Neighborhood: The property is located within the Forest Highlands Neighborhood. Purpose of Annexation: The property owner initiated the annexation to connect to City sewer service. DISCUSSION Plan and Zone Designation: The subject property is currently under Clackamas County's jurisdiction and zoned Low Density Residential R-20. This area is designated R-7.5, Low Density Residential on the City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan Map and will be zoned R-7.5 upon annexation. Page 2 Development Potential: The residential property consists of one parcel of 0.59 acres that could be divided into three lots. Sensitive Lands: There are no Sensitive Lands designated on the property. Sewer and Water Service: Sanitary sewer service is available from an eight-inch City of Lake Oswego sanitary collection line located in Cameo Court. Sewer is also available from an eight-inch collection line from the abutting Redwood Court Subdivision. Upon connection to the sewer, the septic system will need to be decommissioned per DEQ standards. Water is available from a six-inch Lake Oswego Water Main in Cameo Court. The closest fire hydrant is located approximately 100 feet west of the site along the south side of the cul-de-sac. Surface Water Management: Any new development will be subject to the City's stormwater management regulations, which ensure that new development does not have an adverse effect on adjoining properties and does not overburden the City stormwater system. Service Districts: Upon annexation, the property will, by operation of ORS 222.520, be withdrawn from the Lake Grove Fire District #57, the Clackamas County Enhanced Sheriff's Patrol District, but will remain in the Lake Grove Park District. The property receives Lake Oswego Water. Transportation: Cameo Court is a local street ending in a cul-de-sac it is classified as local street in the City's functional street classification system, and the right-of-way along this property is under the maintenance jurisdiction and permitting authority of the City of Lake Oswego. ALTERNATIVES & FISCAL IMPACT The draft findings provided in Attachment B of Exhibit A-1 conclude that the proposed annexation complies with all applicable State statutes and Metro code requirements. This annexation is for one parcel of approximately 0.59 acres. The estimated assessed value of the residential property is $517,167. The estimated tax revenue after the parcel is annexed is $1,337.00 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of AN 17-0003. EXHIBITS A-1 Ordinance 2739 Attachment A: Map Attachment B: Criteria, Findings, Conclusion, and Effective Date EXHIBIT A-1 ORDINANCE 2739 AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING TO THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO ONE PARCEL CONSISTING OF 0.59 ACRES AT 13730 CAMEO COURT; DECLARING CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO ZONING PURSUANT TO LOC 50.01.004.5(a-c); AND REMOVING THE TERRITORY FROM CERTAIN DISTRICTS (AN 17- 0003). WHEREAS, annexation to the City of Lake Oswego of the territory shown in the map in Attachment "A" and described below, would constitute a contiguous boundary change under ORS 222.111, initiated by petition from the property owners as outlined in ORS 222.111(2); and, WHEREAS, the City has received consent for the proposed annexation from all of the property owners and not less than 50 percent of the electors residing in the territory as outlined in ORS 222.125. WHEREAS, the City has received consent for the proposed annexation from more than half the owners of land in the territory, who own more than half of the land in the territory and more than half of the assessed value of the land in the territory, as required by ORS 222.170; and, WHEREAS, the part of the territory that lies within the Lake Grove Fire District #57 will, by operation of ORS 222.520, be withdrawn from that district immediately upon approval of the annexation; and, WHEREAS, the part of the territory that lies within the Clackamas County Enhanced Sheriff's Patrol District will, by operation of ORS 222.520, be withdrawn from the district upon approval of the annexation; and, WHEREAS, LOC 50.01.004.5 specifies that, where the Comprehensive Plan Map requires a specific Zoning Map designation to be placed on the territory annexed to the City, such a zoning designation shall automatically be imposed on the territory as of the effective date of the annexation; and, WHEREAS, this annexation is consistent with the Urbanization Chapter of the City of Lake Oswego's acknowledged Comprehensive Plan, Oregon Revised Statutes 222.111(2), 222.125 and 222.170 for boundary changes, and Metro Code Sections 3.09.050). Now, therefore, the City of Lake Oswego ordains as follows: Section 1. The real property described as follows is hereby annexed to the City of Lake Oswego: A tract of land in Section 4, Township 2 South, Range 1 East, of the Willamette Meridian, Clackamas County, Oregon and being a part of that certain tract of land conveyed to James B. Jones. et ux, and recorded in Book 306, Page 59. Deed Records, more particularly described as follows: Ordinance 2739,AN 17-0003 (Tax Map 21E07CA, Tax Lot 00700) PAGE 1 Beginning at an iron rod in the South line of said Jones property which iron rod bears South 69°50' East along the South line of said Jones property 240.89 feet from the Southeast corner of Block 48, Forest Acres, Records of Townplats, Clackamas County, Oregon. From said place of beginning: thence continuing South 89°50' East along said Jones South line 120.00 feet to an Iron pipe at the Southwest corner of that certain tract of land conveyed to William R. Volm, et ux, by deed recorded June 15, 1956, in Book 512, Page 293. Deed Records; thence North 0°95' East along the West line of said Volm tract 217.27 feet to an iron pipe In the Southerly right of way line of a 30.00 foot roadway; thence West along said Southerly right of way line 120.00 feet to an Iron pipe; thence leaving said Southerly right of way line South 0°95' West 216.92 feet to the place of beginning. The annexed territory is depicted on Attachment A. Section 2. The annexed area lies within the following districts and shall be retained within these districts upon the effective date of annexation: Lake Grove Park District Section 3. The annexed area lies within the following districts and shall be withdrawn from these districts upon the effective date of annexation: Lake Grove Fire District#57 Clackamas County Enhanced Sheriff's Patrol District Section 4. In accordance with LOC 50.01.004.5, the City zoning designation of R-7.5 shall be applied to the subject property on the effective date of annexation. Section 5. The City Council hereby adopts the findings of fact and conclusions set forth in Attachment B in support of this annexation ordinance. Section 6. Effective Dates: a. Effective Date of Decision to Annex. Pursuant to Metro Code 3.09.050(f), the effective date of this annexation decision shall be immediately upon adoption, unless a governmental entity that qualifies as a "necessary party" under Metro Code 3.09.020(j) has contested this annexation, in which event this annexation decision shall be effective on the 10th day following the mailing of this ordinance by the City Recorder to Metro and to all necessary parties who appeared in this proceeding. b. Effective Date of Annexation Ordinance. Pursuant to Lake Oswego City Charter, Section 34, this ordinance shall be effective on the 30th day after its enactment. Ordinance 2739,AN 17-0003 (Tax Map 21E07CA, Tax Lot 00700) PAGE 2 c. Effective Date of Annexation. Following the filing of the annexation records with the Secretary of State as required by ORS 222.177, this annexation shall be effective upon the later of either: 1. the 30th day following the date of adoption of this ordinance; or 2. the date of filing of the annexation records with the Secretary of State. Provided, however, that pursuant to ORS 222.040(2), if the effective date of the annexation as established above is a date that is within 90 days of a biennial primary or general election or after the deadline for filing notice of election before any other election held by any city, district or other municipal corporation involved in the area to be annexed, then the effective date of the annexation shall be delayed until, and the annexation shall become effective on, the day after the election. Section 7. Mailing Copies of this Ordinance; Metro Notice Within 30 days following the date of adoption: a. The City Recorder shall mail a copy of this ordinance to all persons and governmental entities that appeared at the public hearing and requested a copy of the ordinance following adoption. b. The City Recorder shall mail a copy of this ordinance together with the applicable mapping and notice fee charged by Metro pursuant to Metro Code 3.09.110, to the Metro Data Resource Center, 600 NE Grand Ave., Portland, OR 97232. Read by title only and enacted at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego held on 4th day of April, 2017. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: EXCUSED: Kent Studebaker, Mayor Dated Ordinance 2739,AN 17-0003 (Tax Map 21E07CA, Tax Lot 00700) PAGE 3 ATTEST: Anne-Marie Simpson, City Recorder APPROVED AS TO FORM: David Powell, City Attorney Ordinance 2739,AN 17-0003 (Tax Map 21E07CA, Tax Lot 00700) PAGE 4 13599 Annexation to the City of Lake Oswego AN17-0003/Ordinance 2739 ,,,..-----\ \ ! 1S) ca i 13501 Y 13680 390001 i 13699 01 i \ 13700 10 W W 0')13705 13741 o CS) w o-"'*-''.-.**-*'*-*'*'''''''''..-.*.\ 7u'�� 7"'6, \ -1 13781 ��„ CS) S CO CS) CD 13701 5. Knaus Rd 14056 73 (KNAUS) X83 LP ca ca ca N. ca s, 13707 N rn r o 0 0 CO 70�St5`�'u'j 13725 0 13795 ] 14062 Cameo Ctca /_, ,�066 rn �"b�� .tr� z �' C7‘,) C 14p80 rn • c w , (-4 Ni C w 00 co 14084 140B8 14110 14101 l '14100 1\ 14102 141p6 "cvp ,�3q,`L 73 014121 o +r 13g31 00 R-1 0 0 1412001 13840 0 13841 9j 14122 14128 / 14145 / / R-10 k1A`1 \ 14144 13850 13851 16N \ c~n o SI 1� Q 14150 14151 o con con o a) 13855 C L U1 �u►l try ' ll 'd Attachment A IU° ,o Oil , .1 • Map and Lot# 21 E04CA TL 700 ._ �EG� �;�� ,1F \4 p City of Lake Oswego: ,-�\� ^�`ti�L COMPREHENSIVE PLAN = R-7.5, Residential 1:�w�--rk c ZONING = R-7.5, Residential • ,"A ,- Clackamas County: N /�•� �lrAiiii , CS if ZONING = R-20 Residential > DO 0 , Lake OswegoSubject L__, City Limits A Property 2 i. k'� ` - 0 100 200 300 400 500 � Feet �( 1/30/2017 ATTACHMENT B Criteria, Findings, Conclusion, and Effective Date APPLICABLE CRITERIA: A. Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS), Boundary Changes; Mergers and Consolidations. 1. ORS 222.111(2) -Annexation of Contiguous Territory, Authority and Procedure for Annexation, Generally. 2. ORS 222.125 -Annexation by consent of all owners of land and the majority of electors. 3. ORS 222.170- Annexation by consent of more than half of the owners of land in the territory to be annexed, who also own more than half of the land in the territory, and of land representing more than half of the assessed value of the territory. B. Metro Code. 1. 3.09.040(a)(1-4) Minimum Requirements for Petitions. 2. 3.09.045 (D-E) Expedited Decisions (criteria incorporated for non-expedited decisions by MC 3.09.050(D)) 3. 3.09.050 (A-D) Hearing and Decision Requirements for Decisions other than Expedited Land Decisions. C. Comprehensive Plan - Urbanization Chapter 1. Policy A-3: "The Urban Services Boundary (as depicted on the Comprehensive Plan Map) is the area within which the City shall be the eventual provider of the full range of urban services." 2. Policy C-3: "Ensure that annexation of new territory or expansion of Lake Oswego's Urban Services Boundary does not detract from the City's ability to provide services to existing City Residents." 3. Policy C-4: "Prior to the annexation of non-island properties, ensure urban services are available and adequate to serve the property or will be made available in a timely manner by the City or a developer commensurate with the scale of the proposed development." FINDINGS: A. Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS), Boundary Changes; Mergers and Consolidations. 1. ORS 222.111(2)Annexation of Contiguous Territory, Authority and Procedure for Annexation, Generally. ORS 222.111(2) provides that a proposal for annexation of territory to a City may be initiated by the legislative body of the City, on its own motion, or by a petition to the legislative body of the City by owners of real property in the territory to be annexed. The owners of the property at Cameo Court have petitioned the City for this annexation. The proposed annexation complies with this statute. Ordinance 2739 (AN 17-0003) ATTACHMENT B/Page 1 2. ORS 222.125 -Annexation by consent of all owners of land and the majority of electors. ORS 222.125 states that an election need not be held on the question of annexation within the area proposed to be annexed if all of the owners of land in the territory and not less than 50 percent of the electors, if any, residing in the territory consent in writing to the annexation. The property owners, who are also registered voters, have signed the annexation application. The proposed annexation complies with this statute. 3. ORS 222.170 -Annexation by consent of more than half of the owners of land in the territory to be annexed, who also own more than half of the land in the territory, and of land representing more than half of the assessed value of the territory. ORS 222.170 states that an election need not be held on the question of annexation within the territory proposed to be annexed if more than half of the owners of land in that territory consent in writing to the annexation. These owners must also own more than half of the land in the territory to be annexed and more than half of the assessed value of all of the land in the territory. The property owners of 13730 Cameo Court have consented to the annexation on the annexation petition (on file). The proposed annexation complies with this statute. B. Metro Code 1. 3.09.040 - Minimum Requirements for Petitions. (A) A petition for a boundary change must contain the following information: 1) The jurisdiction of the reviewing entity to act on the petition; 2) A map and a legal description of the affected territory in the form prescribed by the reviewing entity; 3) For minor boundary changes, the names and mailing addresses of all persons owning property and all electors within the affected territory as shown in the records of the tax assessor and county clerk; and, 4) For boundary changes under ORS 198.855 (3), 198.857, 222.125 or 222.170, statements of consent to the annexation signed by the requisite number of owners or electors. The above information was submitted as required by Metro Code. The property owners have signed the application and petition. A map and legal description in the form required by the City have been included in the application materials and are on file. The property owners who are one in the same as the electors have consented to the annexation on the annexation petition, meeting the consent requirements of ORS 222.125 and 222.170. The annexation petition complies with the Metro code requirements. 2. 3.09.050 - Hearing and Decision Requirements for Decisions Other Than Expedited Decisions. (B) Not later than 15 days prior to the date set for a boundary change decision,the approving entity shall make available to the public a report that addresses the criteria identified in subsection (D) and includes the following information: (1) The extent to which urban services are available to serve the affected territory including any extra-territorial extensions of service. The property is located within the Urban Growth Boundary and the City's Urban Services Boundary. Metro Code section 3.09.020 defines urban services as including sanitary sewers, water, fire protection, parks, open space, recreation, streets, roads and mass transit. Ordinance 2739 (AN 17-0003) ATTACHMENT B/Page 2 Water: Water is available from a six-inch Lake Oswego Water Main in Cameo Court. The closest fire hydrant is located approximately 100 feet west of the site along the south side of the cul-de-sac. Sewer: Sanitary sewer service is available from an eight-inch City of Lake Oswego sanitary collection line located in Cameo Court. Sewer is also available from an eight-inch collection line from the abutting Redwood Court Subdivision to the south of the property. Upon connection to the sewer, the septic system will need to be decommissioned per DEQ standards. Surface Water Management: Upon annexation, the territory will be subject to the City's storm water management regulations. Any new development will be subject to these provisions, which ensure that new development does not have an adverse effect on adjoining properties and does not overburden the City stormwater system. Fire Protection: Lake Grove Fire District#57 provides fire protection services to the property by agreement with the City of Lake Oswego. Upon annexation, the property will be withdrawn from this fire district and will be served directly by the City. The Main Fire Station, located southeast of the site, would be able to respond to emergencies under the eight minute goal established in the Comprehensive Plan. Police: Upon annexation, the subject property will be withdrawn from the Clackamas County Enhanced Sheriff's Patrol District and will be served by the City of Lake Oswego. The Lake Oswego Police Department reviewed the proposal and indicated that it does not have any concerns with serving this property upon annexation. Parks and Open Space: The City has 537 acres of park and open space lands, or 14.6 acres per 1,000 population. The nearest parks to this property are Woodmont Natural Park and Springbrook Park. Woodmont Natural Park is 6.8 acres and located on the corner of Knaus Road and Atwater Lane. Woodmont Park is a natural park that has no amenities for organized recreation activities; however, the Parks Department has begun the master planning process for the property in the near future. Springbrook Park is 52 acres and contains the Lake Oswego Indoor Tennis Center.The City's park system will not be overburdened by any additional population annexed to the City with this application. Lake Grove Park District: The Lake Grove Swim Park, managed by the Lake Oswego School District, and funded by the Lake Grove Park District, is located at 3800 Lakeview Boulevard. The swim park is approximately 1.3 acres in size with restroom, play and swim facilities. This property will remain within the Lake Grove Park District following annexation. Transportation - Streets and Mass Transit: Cameo Court is a local street ending in a cul-de- sac. It is approximately 20 feet wide in a 30 foot wide right-of-way. There are no curbs, sidewalks or street lights on this street. Cameo Court is under the jurisdiction and permitting authority of the City of Lake Oswego. The nearest mass transit service is Tri-Met bus line 78, which operates between Tualatin and downtown Lake Oswego. Service can be accessed at Country Club Road. Ordinance 2739 (AN 17-0003) ATTACHMENT B/Page 3 (2) Whether the proposed boundary change will result in the withdrawal of the affected territory from the legal boundary of any necessary party. ORS 222.520 authorizes the City to withdraw the property from the Lake Grove Fire District #57, the Clackamas County Enhanced Sheriff's Patrol District and the Surface Water Management Agency of Clackamas County. Upon approval of the annexation, the ordinance will withdraw the property from these service districts. (3) The proposed effective date of the boundary change. The proposed effective date of the decision is outlined in the final section of this report. (D) To approve a boundary change, the reviewing entity shall apply the criteria and consider the factors set forth in subsections D and E of section 3.09.045 (Expedited Decisions). 3.09.045 (D) -To approve a boundary change through the expedited process the City shall: 1. Find that the change is consistent with expressly applicable provisions in: a. Any applicable urban service agreement adopted pursuant to ORS 195.065 The City has entered into - ORS 195.065 agreements with: 1) Lake Oswego School District; and, 2) Lake Grove Fire District., The intergovernmental agreement with the Rivergrove Water District is not discussed in this section because it was entered into before the adoption of ORS 195.065, and consequently does not include all of the provisions necessary to be considered an "urban service agreement" under that statute. Lake Oswego School District: The City and the Lake Oswego School District entered into an ORS 195.065 urban service agreement for park services in July, 2003. The School District operates the Lake Grove Swim Park located at 3800 Lakeview Boulevard. The agreement states that the annexation of property by the City within the Lake Grove Park District (which funds the swim park) shall not cause the withdrawal of this property from the district. Lake Grove Fire District #57: The City and District entered into an ORS 195.065 urban service agreement for fire protection in July, 2003. The agreement states that upon annexation of property within the district by the City, the annexed property shall be withdrawn from the District and the City shall provide fire protection services. b. Any applicable annexation plan adopted pursuant to ORS 195.205. There are no applicable annexation plans adopted pursuant to ORS 195.205 relating to the affected territory. c. Any applicable cooperative planning agreement adopted pursuant to ORS 195.020(2) between the affected entity and a necessary party. There are no ORS 195.020(2) cooperative agreements (which relate to special districts) between the City and a necessary party. d. Any applicable public facility plan adopted pursuant to a state wide planning goal on public facilities and services The sanitary sewer system is already in place on Cameo Court. The subject property will need to connect to City sewer and the existing septic tank will need to be decommissioned per DEQ standards upon annexation. Ordinance 2739 (AN 17-0003) ATTACHMENT B/Page 4 e. Any applicable comprehensive plan policies Comprehensive Plan Map: The subject property is currently designated R-20, Low Density Residential on Clackamas County's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Maps. The property is also designated as Low Density Residential R-7.5 on the City's Comprehensive Plan Map. Upon annexation, a City zoning designation of R-7.5 will be applied to this parcel. The City and County have coordinated their comprehensive plans within the Dual Interest Area outlined in the City/County Urban Growth Management Agreement (dated February 4, 1992 and updated November 18, 1997), hence the City/County designations have been determined to be compatible. Therefore, this annexation is compatible with the City's Comprehensive Plan Map. Comprehensive Plan Policies: The updated Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan contains the following relevant language in the Urbanization chapter, Policy A-3: "The Urban Services Boundary (as depicted on the Comprehensive Plan Map) is the area within which the City shall be the eventual provider of the full range of urban services." The property to be annexed is within the City's Urban Services Boundary. The proposed annexation and the withdrawal of the property from the identified districts are consistent with this policy. Policy C-3 states: "Ensure that annexation of new territory or expansion of Lake Oswego's Urban Services Boundary does not detract from the City's ability to provide services to existing City residents." The approval of this annexation will result in the addition of 0.59 acres to be served by the City. As stated in Section 2(b)(1), the addition of this territory will not detract from the City's ability to provide police and fire protection to existing City residents. Annexation of this property will not affect the City's ability to provide parks and recreation services. Public facilities, such as sewer and water are also found to be adequate to serve this site. Comprehensive Plan Policy C-4 states: "Prior to the annexation of non-island properties, ensure urban services are available and adequate to serve the properties or will be made available in a timely manner by the City or a developer commensurate with the scale of the proposed development." Community Development Code Section 50.06.008.3 requires that all development be provided with the following utility services: sanitary sewer, water, sidewalks, pedestrian and bicycle paths, traffic control signs and devices, street lights, streets, and TV cable. These utilities are now in place or can be put in place to serve this property. In the event that future development occurs, an applicant for development is obligated to construct all necessary public facilities to serve their development. As noted above, police and fire services are available upon annexation. The amount of protection provided will be similar to protection provided to other City residents because the property proposed to be annexed is not isolated from other areas of the City. Urban Growth Management Agreement: General Urbanization Policy 4.A.4 of the Clackamas County Comprehensive Plan calls for the establishment of Urban Growth Management Areas and Urban Growth Management Agreements to clarify planning responsibilities between the County and cities for areas of mutual interest. Policy 4.A.5 directs the County to establish agreements with cities and service districts to clarify service and infrastructure responsibilities for areas of mutual interest. Similarly, the Lake Oswego Comprehensive Ordinance 2739 (AN 17-0003) ATTACHMENT B/Page 5 Plan, Urbanization Chapter, Policy D-3, calls for entering into and maintaining an Urban Growth Management Agreement (UGMA) with Clackamas County for lands within the Urban Services Boundary. In furtherance of these policies, the City and County have entered into an Urban Growth Management Agreement that stipulates a mutual interest in coordinated land use planning, compatible comprehensive plans and provision of urban services and facilities. This agreement ensures coordination and consistency between the City and County comprehensive plans and outlines responsibilities in providing services and managing growth within the Dual Interest Area. Subsections 6 and 7, provided below, are applicable to annexations. "6. City and County Notice and Coordination: The City shall provide notification to the County, and an opportunity to participate, review and comment, at least 35 days prior to the first public hearing on all proposed public facilities plans, legislative changes to the City Comprehensive Plan, or quasi- judicial land use actions adjacent to, or in close proximity to unincorporated areas. The City shall provide notice to the County of private or City initiated annexation requests within five days of the filing of an application..." The Urban Growth Management Agreement specifies that the City notify the County of an annexation request within five days of when it is submitted to the Boundary Commission. There is no longer a Boundary Commission for the Portland Metropolitan area. Staff relies on the notice requirements of Metro Code 3.09.030, which requires notice 20 days prior to the scheduled hearing for an annexation for all necessary parties (other governmental entities), unless a shorter time is agreed upon. The County is a necessary party under the Metro Code definition and has been notified. "7. City Annexations A. The City may undertake annexations in the manner provided for by law within the Dual Interest Area. The City annexation proposals shall include adjacent road right-of-way to property proposed for annexation. The County shall not oppose such annexations. B. Upon annexation, the City shall assume jurisdiction of the County roads and local access roads pursuant to a separate road transfer agreement between the City and county." The City is undertaking this annexation in the manner provided for in the applicable ORS and Metro Code for the territories that lie within the Dual Interest Area. This annexation will be consistent with the City and County comprehensive plans which have been coordinated in the Dual Interest Area within the regional Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). f. Any applicable concept plan Consistency of the proposed boundary change with urban planning agreements is mentioned under D(1)(c)above. 2. Consider whether the boundary change would a. Promote the timely orderly and economic provision of public facilities and services b. Affect the quality and quantity of urban services c. Eliminate or avoid unnecessary duplication of facilities or services Due to the proximity of the property to existing City services, this annexation will promote the timely, orderly and economical extension of public facilities and services. The subject Ordinance 2739 (AN 17-0003) ATTACHMENT B/Page 6 property can readily be served with urban services and facilities. If and when additional development occurs in the area, provision of public facilities and services will occur consistent with the City's adopted public facility master plans, ensuring that it does not adversely affect the quality or quantity of urban services and avoiding unnecessary duplication of facilities or services. Therefore, this boundary change will is consistent with criteria 2.a through 2.c. (E) A city may not annex territory that lies outside the UGB except it may annex a lot or parcel that lies partially within and partially outside the UGB. The property to be annexed is located entirely within the Metro Regional Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). CONCLUSION: Based on the criteria and findings set forth above, the City Council concludes that AN 17-0003 complies with all applicable criteria and the annexation should be approved. EFFECTIVE DATE: A. Effective Date of Annexation Ordinance. Pursuant to Lake Oswego City Charter, Section 34, the ordinance shall be effective on the 30th day after its enactment. B. Effective Date of Annexation. Following the filing of the annexation records with the Secretary of State as required by ORS 222.177, this annexation shall be effective upon the later of: 1. the 30th day following the date of adoption of this ordinance; or 2. the date of filing of the annexation records with the Secretary of State; provided however that pursuant to ORS 222.040(2), if the effective date of the annexation as established above is a date that is within 90 days of a biennial primary or general election or after the deadline for filing notice of election before any other election held by any City, district or other municipal corporation involved in the area to be annexed, then the effective date of the annexation shall be delayed until, and the annexation shall become effective on, the day after the election. Ordinance 2739 (AN 17-0003) ATTACHMENT B/Page 7 Annexation Request AN 17-0001 : 16287 Bonaire Ave . AN 17-0002 : 16425 Bonaire Ave . AN 17-0003 : 13730 Cameo Court . City Council Public Hearing ‘'# April 4 , 2017 ZoningMap 16287 & 16425 Bonaire Ave (AN 16-0008) 16 275 16 265 16 244 o zaz 16 219 16 265 16 2241 1 I IH.5' 16 266 16 225 16 285 16 295 16 276 16 311 1 16 232 16 317 16 310 - 16310 w 16315 6 284 16 323 16 330 Il 16333 Al 16 377 16 342 16344 16 317 A 1 w Subject 2 M 16 351 w /� 16 [ 393 16 396 16350 16 373 _ Annexations 16 377 �, Dry° ° 16 415 16 422 "" `�' ' 1 S 16 431 J 16 411 16 410 ^' a o N6 ° i6 16 428 4 w 0 m 16 44 18 438 N6y°O Y 16 421 16 446 16 16 444 s%� A + s �6 �6- 16 443 16 494 16 16 440 16 472 16 510 46 4,c 16 515 16 518 ~��. '' �' 16 Q 16 508 ... .Ire . F0 16 566 w m v ' L •�: J 16 535 16 514 '� `'' o " ' w � � 16'6, It y 6,�0 16 536 16< � . vv�� �- ♦ 6j ,�6 �° 1155451 16 =f, 16 54'6 l OSl1N OS SING ��6 6�6 16 565 16 570 s� a p g j Y _, r�b',67 .cntv m co 6' g 1 e 66� ''•G �6�6�p�° 16 601 ~ 16 411,*T c ,c w s`flq • ■, 4. m a ,fir 6�� L9 ^� 0`c�° 16 626 r w N.._ + et j �1 676 ^ ^ '�j �Z 16 605 g 16 16 622 rn o o A i. w o rat 4. ,6 16 676 16 675 cn ~ ,,,,.„..,,t,„ • 1a g = - _ co 7300 q6 ie 16666 aZ cm w w n -w p LL. 16 678 16 �1 o� - P V� •$ mom. s .6 �c 76� 16 712 I g „6 4,:, O D `7p w [1J ti EE co ^6 p 7 Ya to 1 1• �� � a A ash! •Letit_f,!. rr 4- ear- . l: o U +� + . WASHINGTON COURT .� U `ITI, 6807 WE _..II 1680g. l \ i - i ■ ■ •• s ZoningMap 4726 Upper Drive (AN 16-0009) 1�' 13900 135111 13539 , . to �' r, g 13599 WOODMONT 13700 Subject PARK 13$41 13705 13741 Annexation 14p00 o vrr 1§005 r'�? ��� 13781 A 13799 SWEGO 01 ID s `r C001•71( a `� o "9 •tel - L • • I �G' 13701 01 IMm � fls� 14456 �3 pcw11>sy � ROAD Q0µ 1p051 14454 'e3 i�'s 707irr + v w o v `� o o o0 13803 13880o ao 2 (�7 13795 vs 25 p >q 14462 ± • 1 MIME 'w 1p061 66 Alf p �¢�Tp PrEmmonsi 13881 f 13882 0 r 131 : u m 6T o v O w g p W IN y Fn 140 14084 Y m m rn m 4 13900 7 14084 0 8 13961 0°0° 14058 M. LPI -OSriE • ti 14110 FIRST 14101 14100 ".., 11 L.O.UNITED 13962 o 14102 14106 CHURL F 43 6',. '<b 13m CHURCH ° 10.4$1 ♦a� SCIENTIS U o Bao 13831 OF CHRIST 14100 F CFR! 14108 14121 4 14120 cc — j 3841 ZOa ��� 10.141 14122 14128` 13840 O �1GRD�U1EP ' 1 U 14130 14112 1�1�1 14144 13850 C t~ 13051 161 2." S N W Q 14138 z 14124 it 1 J � itto--Y0,,,, 1� 14150 14151 q o UW 13855 Ada 14136 y ROSARIAN Country C ' oa U m GARDEN COUNTRY aimmimi o 5N...........tyrerFT10 N A i rte_ 1007 1425 1425 �p� I I m Annexation Criteria Metro Code 3 . 09 . 040- . 050 — Procedures and Urban Service Availability ORS 222 . 111 (2 ) — Authority and procedure . ORS 222 . 125 & 222 . 170 — Consent of registered electors and owners . Action Upon Annexation 16287 and 16425 Bonaire Avenue will be withdrawn from : • Lake Grove Fire District # 57 • Clackamas County Enhanced Sheriff's Patrol District • Surface Water Management Agency of Clackamas County Action Upon Annexation 13730 Cameo Court will be withdrawn from : • Lake Grove Fire District # 57 • Clackamas County Enhanced Sheriff's Patrol District Tax Revenue and Assessed Value Address Assessed Revenue Value 16287 Bonaire Ave. $589,406 $969.00 & 16425 Bonaire Ave 13730 Cameo Ct $517, 167 $ 1337.00 Conclusion & Recommendation • The proposed annexations meet State statutes and Metro code requirements . • Public facilities and service can be provided in a timely, orderly, and efficient manner. • Staff recommends approval of the proposed annexations / FlA f0 v` �� o )REGO? 8.1 Dj'p` 424� COUNCIL REPORT r TIO r o 0Rd� TO: Kent Studebaker, Mayor Members of the City Council FROM: Erica Rooney, PE, City Engineer Engineering Department SUBJECT: Resolution 17-12— Declaring the Intent to Form Local Improvement District for a Public Sewer Affecting 1507, 1523, and 1531 Cedar Street (Tax Lots 21E10CD02000, 1900, & 1800) and Directing Preparation of an Engineering Study DATE: April 4, 2017 ACTION Unless the Council by a vote of at least two-thirds of the Councilors present deems it not in the public interest to comply with the petition, adopt Resolution 17-12 declaring the intent to form a local improvement district and directing the preparation of an engineering study. SUGGESTED MOTION Move to approve Resolution 17-12 (Attachment 1). Note: The Council should first entertain any motion to not comply with the petition because it is not in the public interest to do so. Unless such a motion is made and approved by at least two-thirds of the Councilors present, the Code requires the Council to adopt a resolution (such as Resolution 17-12) declaring the intent to initiate the LID and directing preparation of and engineering study. See LOC 40.02.020(3). INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND On February 16, 2017, Marlin DeHaas, as representative for property owners Harris and Mawdsley, presented documentation as follows: 1. Petition for Formation of a Local Improvement District, signed by two of the three affected property owners. (Attachment 2) 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city Page 2 2. Letter of Support (Attachment 3) In accordance with LOC 40.02.020(3), property owners Harris and Mawdsley are petitioning the Council to declare by resolution the intent of the Council to initiate such an improvement and to direct the preparation of a study. The Code section further states that if the Council is satisfied that the petition is signed by owners of at least 51 percent of the property owned within the proposed district, the Council shall pass the requested resolution, unless by a vote of at least two-thirds of the Councilors present, the Council deems it not in the public interest to comply with the petition. Background There is an extensive history leading up to the current petitions for an LID. In March 2015, the City was informed by the owner of 1523 Cedar Street (Harris) that her sewer lateral had been disconnected from the party line she shared with 1531 Cedar Street, and that may have happened when a former adjacent property owner relined their lateral prior to selling the property at 1531 Cedar Street. It became apparent that three properties were sharing one party line, and two of the upstream properties (1523 and 1507) had been cut off. The cause of disrupted service was solely a private matter between the affect properties that shared the party line. The City was asked to resolve the problem, and over the next 18 months City staff engaged in numerous conversations, meetings, extensive site work, and solutions development with the various property owners. The solutions suggested ranged from relatively minor costs to reinstate the party line lateral, to installing new accessible public sewer main lines in Cedar Street. A summary of the options is noted below: General Estimated Solution Issues Costs Private Sewer Grinder Pumps for Owners Harris and Mawdsley $10,000 per 1507 and 1523 Cedar rejected property owner Reconnect party line Owners rejected, and could not $1-$2,000 total reach consensus (private) Lay new laterals parallel to old Owners could not reach $4-6,000 per system consensus property owner Install new Public Sewer line back Requires easements and $50-75,000 total yards (petitioners'preference) condemnation of one property (Mattersdorff). Long-term access challenges for maintenance Install new public sewer in Parrish Requires new deep laterals on $100-$150,000 and Cedar (deep) two private properties. total 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city Page 3 1110 Figure 1 -Cedar Street Sewer, � Z111 _5 J J 11120 _IP��� N ,G� : ? r i_,urA�iu ■_mu••,•1 I\C 1-1. 1 Lriva' —N. t, _36 -V —I _[ . _ C.ti N.) _ cr_zt j C U7 -. . D 0-) N Ark Legend I CO i co co l i i i I Public Sewer Options MI - Existing Party Line Sewers --I — Existing Public Sewer Lines Grinder Pump Option 177 - 1 x Break in Party Line m 01 01 50 25 0 50 Feet -'''+' 1 DISCUSSION The owners of 1507 (Mawdsley) and 1523 Cedar (Harris) are now exercising their right to petition for the City Council to initiate an LID process in accordance with LOC 40.02. The owner of 1531 Cedar (Mattersdorff) is not a part of this petition; however the LID would affect that property, and would require either an easement or condemnation of a portion of property for an easement to install the project as proposed by the petitioners. Unless two-thirds of the Councilors vote that it is not in the public interest to comply with the petition, the Council is required by Code to adopt a Resolution directing staff to develop a detailed written engineering report regarding this matter, in preparation for a future public hearing. The written engineering report will need to fully describe the project, include plans and specifications for construction bidding purposes, determine probable costs of the project, including acquisition of easements (possibly by condemnation), recommend an assessment methodology, determine a construction financing interest rate, and other requirements as noted in LOC 40.02.030. Once the written engineering report is completed, a public hearing would be held on the formation of the Local Improvement District and the method of assessment. However, parties 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city Page 4 may object to formation of the LID by filing a remonstrance. Generally, if more than two-thirds of the property to be assessed file a remonstrance, the proceedings shall be suspended for six months. The petitioners are recommending only the one option, a new public sewer main in the backyards of the three properties. Both the Engineering and Public Works Departments do not favor this option because of the long-term challenges associated with access for maintenance purposes, and the high costs for repair in the future. Our current policy and practices are to not put public mains in backyards or inaccessible locations. Rather, the Engineering and Public Works Departments now require new extensions to be in accessible public right-of-way. This may cause some individual properties to install sewer grinder pumps, but it minimizes the maintenance and repair costs for future ratepayers throughout the city. ALTERNATIVES & FISCAL IMPACT The petition request asks City Council to direct staff to develop a written engineering report, including full plans and specifications for the one alternative in which they are willing to participate. Development of this work will take several months and would require directing resources away from current sewer projects, such as the Marylhurst Pump Station replacement project and the Sewer Rehabilitation Project. As an alternative, a consultant could be hired to develop the LID package, minimizing the impact on current City staff work assignments. Fiscal impacts of this petition to the City will be the cost to develop the written engineering report to estimate costs of the project and the recommended method of assessment. A sufficient, but very preliminary plans and specifications will need to be prepared to the degree necessary to be able to provide an estimate of the costs of the project. There is a risk in undertaking the development of the written engineering report, in that should the LID not be established or passed by future ordinance, the report and design costs necessary to estimate the costs of the project would be lost, and absorbed by the sewer fund. (The actual project costs include full design and development of plans and specifications, and construction contract administration. If the LID is successfully implemented, these costs would be recouped in the overall costs of the LID assessments.) All costs associated with the development and establishment of the LID would come from the Sewer Fund. RECOMMENDATION Council is asked to consider Resolution 17-12,— Declaring the Intent to Form a Local Improvement District for a Public Sewer Affecting 1507, 1523, and 1531 Cedar Street (Tax Lots 21E10CD02000, 1900, & 1800) and Directing Preparation of an Engineering Study. 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city Page 5 Per LOC 40.02.030(3), the Council must adopt a resolution like Resolution 17-12 unless a motion is made to not comply with the petition because it is not in the public interest to do so, and that motion is approved by the vote of at least two-thirds of Councilors present. The approach proposed in the LID petition requires an easement from 1531 Cedar St. Staff recommends that the Council approve the resolution, but on the condition that, prior to investing substantial time in engineering, an attempt be made, within sixty days, to negotiate acquisition of an easement from Mr. Mattersdorf and the other owners without resorting to condemnation. If that attempt is unsuccessful, staff would report back to Council. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution 17-12, 2. Petition for Formation of a Local Improvement District, signed by two of the three affected property owners, February 16, 2017. 3. Letter of Support, DeHaas, February 16, 2017. 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION 17-12 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO DECLARING THE INTENT TO FORM A LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT(LID) FOR PUBLIC SEWER IMPROVEMENTS AFFECTING 1507, 1523,AND 1531 CEDAR STREET(TAX LOTS 21E10CD02000, 1900, & 1800)AND DIRECTING PREPARATION OF AN ENGINEERING STUDY WHEREAS, the owners of 1507 and 1523 Cedar Street submitted a petition to the City requesting a local improvement district to be formed that would affect their properties and 1531 Cedar Street for the purpose of constructing a public sewer system; and WHEREAS, the petition is from two-thirds of the affected properties, and complies with the requirement that a petition be signed by at least 51 percent of the abutting owners; and WHEREAS,the affected area is at least 100 yards in length or serving an area of at least 100 square yards; and WHERAS, it appears the petitioners have met the requirements outlined for requesting the City declare an intent to initiate such improvements, per LOC 40.02.020, and WHERAS, LOC 40.02.020(3) requires the Council to pass the resolution unless there is a vote of at least two-thirds of the Councilors present deeming it not in the public interest to comply with the petition. NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego that: Section 1. The City Engineer is directed to meet with the property owners within 60 days from the date of this Resolution to ascertain whether the City would be able to negotiate and obtain a public sewer easement at a reasonable cost for the project through the back yards of the properties. A. If the City Engineer determines that a public sewer easement could be obtained without condemnation at a reasonable cost for the project, staff shall proceed in accordance with subsections (1) and (2) below. (1). Staff shall develop a written engineering report containing the information specified in LOC 40.02.030 be filed with the City Recorder. (2). Upon the filing of the written engineering report, the City Recorder shall, in the manner required by LOC 40.02.040 and 40.02.060, set a date and give public notice for a public hearing before the City Council to consider any objections to the proposed improvement district and to consider authorizing the formation of the district and initiation of the project. Resolution 17-12 Page 1 of 2 B. If the City Engineer determines that a public sewer easement could not be obtained without condemnation,the City Engineer shall report back to the Council within 60 days from the date of this Resolution. The Council then shall, pursuant to LOC 40.02.020(3), determine whether proceeding with preparation of an engineer's report and formation of the district is not in the public interest. Section 3. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect upon passage. Considered and adopted at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego on the 4th day of April, 2017. AYES: NOES: EXCUSED: ABSTAIN: Kent Studebaker, Mayor ATTEST: Anne-Marie Simpson, City Recorder APPROVED AS TO FORM: David Powell, City Attorney Resolution 17-12 Page 2 of 2 Erica Rooney, PE City Engineer Engineering Department RIECH City of Lake Oswego PO Box 369 i 2 Lake Oswego,OR 97034 CITY OF 1lLgE r.r rsapE Re: Sanitary Sewer System Con::1?fsr :y Dst:e ;-len.t Dept. 1531 Cedar Street(Mattersdorff) 1523 Cedar Street (Harris) 1507 Cedar Street(Mawdsley) Erica, We have exhausted our efforts to obtain various easements required for construction of a standard S S system to replace the current non-conforming facility. The only non-easement system available is the Parish-Cedar route, for which you have estimated construction costs upwards of$90,000. We estimate construction of two service laterals at approximately $10,000,for a rough total cost of $100,000. This cost is prohibitive. One option which has been mentioned is the use of private pumping systems. These are strongly rejected because of property devaluation,reliability(power failure), etc. Accordingly,Mawdsley and Harris are submitting herewith written petitions requesting the Council to declare by resolution the intent of the Council to initiate S S improvements for tax lots 1800, 1900& 2000,Map 21EDC and to direct that an engineering study of the project be made and that a written project report containing the information specified in LOC 40.02.030 be filed with the Recorder. Vesting deeds for the three properties are attached. Areas and assessed valuations are as follow: OWNER TAX LOT AREA ASSESSED VALUATION Mattersdorff 1800 7500 sq ft $154,327 Harris 1900 7500 sq f1 $467,060 Mawdsley 2000 7500 sq_ft $165,615 *as per deed Time is of the essence. Harris and Mawdsley have been forced to use a porta-potty for more thRn 18 months due to blockage in the old non-conforming system. Peter C.Mawdsley, as Trustee of the Peter C. Mawdsley Trust U/T/A 09/01/94 (the"Peter Mawdsley Trust)and Peter C. Mawdsley as trustee of the Virginia G Mawdsley Trust U/T/A 09/01/94(the "Virginia Mawdsley Trust"), collectively referred to as the"Mawdsley Trusts", as owner of the property commonly known as 1507 Cedar Street, Lake Oswego, Oregon and legally described as the West One-Half of Lot 14 and all of Lot 15,Block 45, South Oswego, in the County of Clackamas, State of Oregon. The Mawdsley Trust's mailing address is: 1861 Kilkenny Drive,Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 85. Peter C. Mawdsley V% Date Debra Lynn Harris, as owner of the property commonly known as 1523 Cedar Street, Lake Oswego, Oregon and legally described as Lot 16 and the East One-Half of Lot 17,Block 45, South Oswego, in the County of Clackamas, State of Oregon. Debra Harris's mailing address is: 1523 Cedar Street,Lake Oswego,Oregon 97034. LE4, 42 co / / 7 Debra Lynn Hath / D2lte Date of Filing: PETITION FOR FORMATION OF A LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT Lake Oswego IN Mb CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO,OREGON Engineering Department Proposed Purpose of Local Improvement District': Can SWrt/rf San fcrri, 5e:.all Proposed Boundaries of Local Improvement District(at least 100 yards in length or servicing an area of at least 100 square yards): %crx L o/s is-O7 /S2 3 �' /,S 3/ , M if; 2/.E//�.» /Ze/c'e" /9 /Solo Ger-/or Si, TO THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO AND THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCIL THEREOF: We,the undersigned owners'of not less than 51%of the benefited real property within the proposed boundaries of the local improvement district described above,pursuant to Lake Oswego Charter Sections 37 and 38,and LOC 40.02.020,hereby petition and propose the above described local improvement and the formation of a district for the purpose of accomplishing the same,request the Council declare by resolution the intent to initiate such improvement,and to direct the preparation of an engineering study (including project plans and specifications) and written report pursuant to LOC 40.02.030, describing the project and its boundaries, an estimate of the probable cost, recommended method of assessment,determination of special benefit, and estimated assessment to each lot specially benefited. (Following preparation of initial engineering report,the City Council will schedule a public hearing for the purpose of receiving written and oral comment and remonstrances relating to the formation of the district and the proposed assessments,pursuant to LOC 40.02.040 -.060.) Name;(printed) Address(Mailing) I Tax Lot(Benefited Tax Map Property) J'efs'r C ntheriskv /8b/Ai/teak he oswer. G? Zoo 2-lE-%Cl - CfJ k'7a3.J Signature(s): tX!e� ` " "f `4 Signatures Continued I Example:construction of a street,sidewalk,water line,or sewer line(ORS 310.140). 2 Owner is defined as the owner of the title to real property or the contract purchaser of real property,as shown on the last available complete assessment roll in the office of the county assessor. 3 If property is owned by two or more persons,all owners must sign. If any person signs on behalf of any owner as agent,conservator,or trustee(including"living trusts"),documents evidencing authority to sign must be submitted to the City Recorder with petition. Petitioners should sign using name as it appears in the deed records. The use of surname only,i.e.,Mr.Jones,Mrs.Brown,is not acceptable;use name as appears in deed records,i.e.,Mr.John Jones,Mrs.Jane Brown. If property is owned by entity,then name of entity should be given and signed by authorized official,i.e.,ABC Corporation,by John Jones, President. See First Page of Petition for Description of Proposed Local Improvement District, Boundaries,and Procedure for Formation of Local Improvement District Name°(printed) ( Address(Mailing) I Tax Lot(Benefited I Tax Map { Property) L'efO,ra L+n:v!for'µ i5123 L_slur Sr L %4?-oG 2-1E- 'U CO 1,7d?,G r Signature(s): 0 2-IE-_- Signature(s): 21E Signature(s): 2-IE- Signature(s): 2-1E- Signature(s); °If property is owned by two or more persons,all owners must sign. If any person signs on behalf of any owner as agent,conservator,or trustee(including`living trusts"),documents evidencing authority to sign must be submitted to the City Recorder with petition. Petitioners should sign using same name as they appear in the deed records. The use of surname only,i.e.,Mr.Jones,Mrs.Brown,is not acceptable;use name as appears in deed records,i.e.,Mr.John Jones,Mrs.Jane Brown. If property is owned by entity,then name of entity should be given and signed by authorized official,i.e.,ABC Corporation,by John Jones,President. Page -Petition for Formation of a Local Improvement District Project Name/Reference: Ver.02-16 FOP it N>rb_BARGAIN lltSLLE DUO IWO rklunl'w emw,blet n,anamo MRVEM3.NES9 LAW rvu,&Y,K.N PIPM AND OP wv.a,.mm,mv BE NO PART OFANY STEVENSNESS FORM MAY BE REPRODUCED MANY FORM OR BYANY P rr'TRONIC OR MECHANICAL MEANS.• at STATE OF OREGON, County of ss. Grantor's then AAA MAMA ---------------------- Clackamas County Official Records 2011-069939 - - -- -- - Sherry Hall,County Clerk Einta ANN new eltum)m ~•Addresa.pp: �f4S's Name and address /111010 VIII IIII 0010II01542089201100699390010018 I IIIII'I1II IIII' $47.00 _.._ L2_ et �_��//ff'' 12/05/2011 03:16:00 PM Quist Stua2 TINAJAR until requested amemsameane eaterrrmmvim to Rama,Adeess,nPI. $5.00$10.00$16.00$18.00 By Deputy. _, �ttwte- ct4 C<t U� M �l ---' KNOW ALL BYTHESE PRESENTS that IYQ-j.1{.AD15_ atl ¢}t1�Q�.ett� l.�s_______ hereinafter called gramor,for the consideration hereinafter slated,does hereby grant,bargain,sell and convey unto- .Wen hereinafteriotled grantee,and unto grantee's heirs,successors and assigns,all of that certain I y,with the tenements,hered- itaments and appurtenances thereuntobelonging or in any way appertaining,situated in_ County, State of Oregon,described as follows,to-wit (./t ate 'rtets}"nte—tire (of 17, t l oc% 4sT eSc \ Give o� !w'��tie r .e' Qsty Crct CjQ�kattktts' attJt eW-e- oreiat. 2 1E 10CD 01900 00263413 (IF SPACE INSUFFICIENT.CONTINUE DESCRIPTION ON REVERSE/ To Have and to Hold the same unto grantee and grantee's heirs,successors and assigns fore The true and actual consideration paid for this transfer,stated in terms of dollars,is$ °However,the actual consideration consists of or includes other property or value given or promised which is 0 part of the 0 the whole(indicate ' which)consideration.°(The sentence between the symbols 0.it not applicable.should be deleted.See ORS 93.030.) In construing this deed,where the context so requires,the singular includes the plural,and all grammaticalichanges shall be .IL made so that this deed shall apply equally to corporations and to individuals. ,(+ ,+ .':51.-11 IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the grantor has executed this instrument on___ _ s. _—_____ grantor is a corporation,it has caused its name lobe signed and its seal,if any,affixed by an officer or other person duly authorized to do so by order of its board of directors. BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS INSTRUMENT,THE PERSON TRANSFERRING FEE TITLE SHOULD INQUIRE ABOUT THE PERSON'S RIGHTS,IF ANY,OVER ORS 195.300,195901 AND 195.305 TO t'/L / j 195.338 AND SECTIONS TO It CHAPTER 424.OREGON LAWS 2007,AND SECTIONS 2109 AND 17. CHAPTER 855,OREGON LAWS 2009.THIS INSTRUMENT DOES NOT ALLOW USE OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS INSTRUMENT IN VIOLATION OFAPPLCABLE LAND USE LAWS AND REGULATIONS. "'-may --- BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS INSTRUMENT THE PERSON ACQUIRING FEE TITLE TO THE _ PROPERTY SHOULD CHECK WITH THE APPROPRIATE CITY OR COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY AS DEFINEDTTHE UNIT OF HAT ORS 92.010 OR 215010,BEING,TOVERIFYTTHHEAPPROVEEOTITISEWFULLY ESS OF THE LOl OR PARCELT OR �TO ---------- DETERMINE ANY UMTS ON LAWSUITS AGAINST FARMING OR FOREST PRACTICES.AS DEFINED IN ORS 30.930,AND ID INQUIRE ABOUT THE RIGHTS OF NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNERS,IF ANY, UNDER ORS 195 300.19530I AND 195 305 TO 195230 AND SECTIONS 5 TO 11.CHAPTER 424.ORE- GON LAWS 2007.AND SECTIONS 2109 AND 17,CHAPTER 855,OREGON LAWS 2009. J! ,. 'I ' ,/ STATE OF OREGON,County of L J 1f LCU)CoU --_- This instrument was,qpknowledged betfaar� me on by bot;7Y_41._it140 tILLU.c s liter x[.11_N2tC_15_ .-.-- This instrument was acknowledged before me on r./-0► -Sn . ASEAL l L JANIS M. H );1/4 24 NOTARYSAC-OREGON (h() No}�yuL•blic for Oregon 0/�1 on `ttor COMMISSION NO.457882 • 70_y 2. MY COMMISSION EPIRES APRI.20.2015 y` _MAI — MN PUBLISHER'S NaitII ueln9 RIB toss to convey real prepertr subject to ORS 92-027.'nests the rapmed nlerante. Clackamas County Official Records 2014-050352 Sherry Hall, County Clerk 10/01/2014 11:01:37AM 0-0 Cnt=1 Stn=6 KARLYN $10 00$16 00$10 00$22.00 $58.00 `,e T a P1 e a THIS SPACE RESERVED FOR RECORDERS USE After recording return to: The Mattersdorff Bank Trust 930 Bullock Street Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Until a change is requested all tax statements shall be sent to the following address: The Mattersdorff Bank Trust 930 Bullock Street Lake Oswego, OR 97034 File No.: 7072-2313335 (wsw) .Date: September 03, 2014 (l-1 rf STATUTORY WARRANTY DEED cn cs David B. Cook,Grantor, conveys and warrants to Donald W. Mattersdorff,as Trustee of The Mattersdorff Bank Trust,dated October 3, 2013 ,Grantee,the following described real property U free of liens and encumbrances, except as specifically set forth herein: LLI2 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Real property in the County of Clackamas, State of Oregon,described as < follows` 21 E10CD01800 00263404 CO THE WEST ONE-HALF OF LOT 17 AND ALL OF LOT 18,BLOCK 45,SOUTH OSWEGO,IN THE CC COUNTY OF CLACKAMAS,STATE OF OREGON. NOTE:This Legal Description was created prior to January 01, 2008. Subject to: 1. The 2014/15 Taxes, a lien not yet payable. 2. Covenants, conditions, restrictions and/or easements, if any, affecting title, which may appear In the public record, including those shown on any recorded plat or survey. The true consideration for this conveyance Is$253,000.00. (here comply with requirements of ORS 93.030) Page 1 of 2 AT 0 APN:00263404 Statutory Warranty Deed File No.:7072-2313335(wstw) -continued BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS INSTRUMENT,THE PERSON TRANSFERRING FEE TITLE SHOULD INQUIRE ABOUT THE PERSON'S RIGHTS, IF ANY, UNDER ORS 195.300, 195.301 AND 195.305 TO 195.336 AND SECTIONS 5 TO 11, CHAPTER 424, OREGON LAWS 2007, SECTIONS 2 TO 9 AND 17, CHAPTER 855, OREGON LAWS 2009, AND SECTIONS 2 TO 7, CHAPTER 8, OREGON LAWS 2010. THIS INSTRUMENT DOES NOT ALLOW USE OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS INSTRUMENT IN 6 VIOLATION OF APPLICABLE LAND USE LAWS AND REGULATIONS. BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS INSTRUMENT,THE PERSON ACQUIRING FEE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY SHOULD CHECK WITH THE APPROPRIATE CITY OR COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY THAT THE UNIT OF LAND BEING TRANSFERRED IS A LAWFULLY ESTABLISHED LOT OR PARCEL,AS DEFINED IN ORS 92,010 OR 215.010, TO VERIFY THE APPROVED USES OF THE LOT OR PARCEL, TO DETERMINE ANY LIMITS ON LAWSUITS AGAINST FARMING OR FOREST PRACTICES, AS DEFINED IN ORS 30.930,AND TO INQUIRE ABOUT THE RIGHTS OF NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNERS, IF ANY, UNDER ORS 195.300, 195.301 AND 195.305 TO 195.336 AND SECTIONS 5 TO 11, CHAPTER 424, OREGON LAWS 2007, SECTIONS 2 TO 9 AND 17, CHAPTER 855,OREGON LAWS 2009,AND SECTIONS 2 TO 7,CHAPTER 8,OREGON LAWS 2010. Dated this ZG day of September, 2014. -David B. Cook STATE OF Missouri ) 1 )ss. County of ST 6-Ir.1 ) This instrument was acknowledged before me on this Zf ,day of September, 2014 by David B.Cook. ., // nes /1' Notary Public for Missouri ® m My commission expires: s//b/.tvl(y t a a THOMAS M HUEBNER -, Notary Public-Notary Seal State of Missouri,St Louis County ) Commission 4' 14885948 • VMy Commission Expires May 16,2018 • Page 2 of 2 • e 1 te+ z* '4,1` � um'llI I whi ,illdlllllululelillll r• ... /h BARGAIN AND SALA USD �/.rs-w PIifA C. NhMOSLSY and VIRGINIA G. NAVOSELY, Trustaaa, Granters, transfer and convey max C. NN/A�M_D of PATER C. NAMDSLBY TROST, MIA 9/01194. an undivided one- en tnfl and to VIoo s/A 0. NAwDSLnn• crusted of the VIRGINIA G. NAMoSLRV TRUST o/T/A 9/01/94, an nada.. a.a.,:.'r.11'C4. y�, Jhanta i.. e,,,_.Vy.w... - the right of survivorship. Grant�ntf ac� cel+e, successors, and soigne ally of that certain real property with ls, t and appurtenances thereunto belonging or in anywise appertaining, situated in the County of Clackamas,. State of Oregon, to-Witt West half of Lot 14 and all of tot IS. StOck 45, 'South Oswego. County Of Clackamas, State of Oregon, cxs21y lumen as 1510 Cedar Street, take oswaga. Oregon. 1 a tJcD 00000 • Thr true and actual anlderation far thaw d ns � hs actual consideration consists of Talus given and proaised which is the consideration. DATED this -an— day of _ � . 1991. ma AN TRq 1 UM Ian ST IoNLii Or--T E PICPOtTE Tele INEtauem. II VIOLATfV* or aTIlti Lana an can Ann aNaOisno... as roar mono acorns son INSTNUNANT. E lone PRISON ACQUIISIO Pa SITS TA SEE PROPORTT SNOWab CMS Mia TEl APPlOPRIaa GIRT OR i PLUM*OSrExi9a0R TO "152"7 Arnow)COS, �J ..tee`; ..-c x40.4 . 72`a� it ,f,.H,.-K 2.ntre 725.2 PETER C. NAWDSLEY / VI GI YA G. NAWDSLEY // STATS Or OREGON a county of es. Personally appeared on theaday of ✓./ y($/,a.> , 1994. MINA C. fAVDSLIT and VIRGIKIA G. IIAMDRf.6Y and aCknowlsdthin initr t to ba their voluntary act and deed. la.,(FSR9/(41 / A CAOf Fara STN l/vC NOTARY WIBLM. Pob1 , or on / F,Is a, SSON marsU sus N1' emission OapiYe,r/2/jp:fit COwalSugMsapgflpen o:Eggs Satan an WES a® 94-072360 PINAR C. and VIRGINIA G. NAVOSLEY, Trustees, STATE OF OREGON Granton CLACKANAS COUNTY PATES C. NAWDELNY. Traataa, Grantee Beet`.ed end inseam ,a the public VIRGINIA C. MAVDSLSY. "Mast**, Grantee refere as Clacks/es County After recording return tea GEC/IMM ND TEE: 0427 525 as Mr. and ere. Peter C. w.sisley ten 00 um. 09/13/94 1025$ AN take take Cewwpo eo O Driess97014 JOHN KAUFFNAN. COUNTY CLERK tat ettreatonr No cAa gas nnaoaIV ARO SALE DEAD .. (133028MAWDS) 94-072360 Erica Rooney, PE City Engineer 380 AAve(PO Box 369) Lake Oswego, OR 97034 _ . 1:v. 4.r c Re: Sanitary Sewer Service Laterals: 1531 Cedar St. (Mattersdorff) F E; ` :}cF 1523 Cedar St. (Harris) 1507 Cedar St. (Mawdsley) ° f .. : EGO ................l�� .. ..�'.� L:s.E p"lr rip In support of our LED petition, we offer the following: 1. The proposed LID is intended to replace the existing non-conforming 3-party sanitary sewer system constructed by a single owner of all 3 lots with only a single service line connecting to the public sewer. 2. No cross easements were provided when the original owner sold lots separately. 3. The City has constructed several sanitary sewer(SS)projects in the area, but failed to investigate how all adjacent lots were served. One SS project was constructed in Cedar St. at a depth not sufficient to serve the 3 subject lots. 4. None of the current individual owners (or the City)were aware of how or where the subject SS system was constructed. 5. The subject lots lie in one of the early L.O. Subdivisions, South Oswego, vintage late 1940's. The norm in the 40's was one lot per service lateral connection to the public SS,however, the subject 3 lots were all connected to the public SS with only a single service lateral.Another example of non-conforming construction occurs east on Cedar St. where 5 lots are connected to a single service lateral. 6. Current standards have been strictly enforced for at least 50 years,requiring each residence to have its own service lateral connection to the public SS. 7. Pipe materials used in the late 40's were not up to the quality of materials used today. These older systems are subject to infiltration,root infestation,and require more maintenance than newer systems. 8. A recent prior owner of the Mattersdorff lot,in an effort to clear and repair his portion of the system,threaded a 4 inch line through his 6 inch line and past the connection serving the other two lots,inadvertently cutting off the other two users which shared the line. These two users have shared a porta-potty for over 20 months because Mattersdorff has refused to allow the blockage (which occurs on his property)to be cleared. 9. The current system is non-conforming, is more than 60yrs old, is constructed of poor quality materials, is subject to infiltration and root infestation and is currently plugged.Now is the appropriate time to replace the entire system with a conforming facility. The LID as proposed requires no City cost partition. 10. The petitioners for the LID examined 6 alternate routes for a replacement system.Five required easements. The sixth, a line in the public right-of-way of Parish St. and Cedar St.,has a City estimated cost of$80,000-$90,000. Estimated costs are $10,000 each for two owners to reverse their plumbing to intercept the Parish-Cedar SS at 12 ft deep in Cedar St. The total Parish-Cedar cost to be born by two owners($55,000 ea) is prohibitive. 11. The best alternative is one which was proposed by the City, a public sewer line located in a public easement at the back line of the 3 lots. Costs of this project have been estimated at + $40,000 plus easement costs and would be shared equally by the owners of the 3 lots. 12. A solution of using individual sewer pumps to serve the two lots now using a porta-potty has been mentioned. Such systems are completely unacceptable when a reliable gravity system is available. Respectfully, d Marlin J. De , P.E., P.L.S. (retired) Representive of Peter C. Mawdsley and Debra Lynn Harris c/c: Peter C. Mawdsley Debra Lynn Harris Scott Lazenby, City Manager M. Dehass submission for 8.1 Resolution 17-12 Erica Rooney, PE City Engineer 380 A Ave (PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 March 31, 2017 Re:Proposed LID to relieve porta potty use. You have advised me that the Resolution of Intent will be on the April 4th Council agenda. Thank you. Time is of the essence in completing this sanitary sewer project such that the afflected parties will have gravity sewer service. The LID formation is process oriented. If not pursued vigorously that process can be objectively lengthy. We suggest you strive to meet the following schedule: 1. Resolution of Intent to Council April 4, 2017 2. Engineering report to Recorder April -65 2017 3. Deliver notice of public hearing to the Review April-75 2017 0= 4. Ad in Review April 13 & 20, 2017 4%i2c :: �; 5. Mail notice to owners April-32, 2017 6. Public hearing and resolution to construct April-255 2017 Hoping it might be helpful, I have attached penciled drafts of a Notice of Public Hearing and a Resolution forming the LID with authorization to Council. You have my previous drafts of the Resolution of an Intent and Engineer's Report. Please let us know if there is any information or assistance we might provide in order that the LID process is timely. Respect-Fu .d Marlin J. Dehass, PE,PLS (retired) rj i Representative of Steve Mawdsley and Debra Lynn Harris !�' � • �:�s 1�� c/c: Steve Mawdsleyln ���' Debra Lynn Harris L� �,� r 1rj Scott Lazenby, City Manager , i,' ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION 17-12 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO DECLARING THE INTENT TO FORM A LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT(LID) FOR PUBLIC SEWER IMPROVEMENTS AFFECTING 1507, 1523,AND 1531 CEDAR STREET(TAX LOTS 21E10CD02000, 1900,&1800)AND DIRECTING PREPARATION OF AN ENGINEERING STUDY WHEREAS, the owners of 1507 and 1523 Cedar Street submitted a petition to the City requesting a local improvement district to be formed that would affect their properties and 1531 Cedar Street for the purpose of constructing a public sewer system;and fh.6 WHEREAS, the petition is from two-thirds of thee,affected properties, and complies with the requirement that a petition be signed by at least 51 percent of the abutting ems;and WHEREAS,the affected area is at least 100 yards in length or serving an area of at least 100 square yards; and WHERAS, it appears the petitioners have met the requirements outlined for requesting the City declare an intent to initiate such improvements, per LOC 40.02.020, and WHERAS, LOC 40.02.020(3) requires the Council to pass the resolution unless there is a vote of at least two-thirds of the Councilors present deeming it not in the public interest to comply with the petition. NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lake9swego that: Sectior 1. ray-€rngineer-Fs-directed to-rneet-wit. es " N , prepewners--within 60-da om .. Council, by Resolution 17-12, declares its intention to initiate such Sanitary Sewer improvements and directs that an engineering report of such project be made and that a written project report containing the in-Formation specified in LOC 40. 02.030 be filed with the Recorder. Resolution 17-12 Page 1 of 2 ENGINEERING O4DEPARTMENT V-Ps- EO s� N � 1w~ O ° REGO \ LID Petition for Cedar ;Az2 Resolution 17- 12 April 4 , 2 0 1 7 Figure 1 - Cedar Street Sewer' 117 14 10 i _ 11T2 0 .6 1115 I g—j�Il . � N V� = ,.kkouaaa _iaaua•sI.- • I OC>1 . 01 c3 o IN � J N _ra.1 -II N W Cri ~aaaaaaaa'aaaaaaaaaa 111111. CEDAR STREET s° coo 8" I • D 1 xm. 1 Imo__101 A I� U) Legend I CO co I I I II Public Sewer Options (./) - Existing Party Line Sewers —1 — . Existing Public Sewer Lines 70 I Grinder Pump Option M ` Break in Party Line n m V ' ♦ 50 25 0 50 Feet W4E _o. -I . - - S J 1n CI O 'EGO 8.2 (7:4--k-it toss COUNCIL REPORT o GREGOt TO: Kent Studebaker, Mayor Members of the City Council FROM: Jessica Numanoglu, Planning Manager SUBJECT: Authorize Release of Roadway and Utility Easements over 13211 Knaus Road and 13209 Amber Place DATE: March 31, 2017 ACTION AND SUGGESTED MOTION Move to authorize the City Manager to release the City's interest in roadway and utility easements over properties at 13211 Knaus Road and 13209 Amber Place, in exchange for reciprocal releases of easement rights by the owners of those properties. DISCUSSION In 1981 the City acquired the property at 13245 Knaus Road and constructed the Knaus water reservoir on the site. That property and a number of properties to the west had at one time been under common ownership. I,_ wuNTY `-J ILAKE OSWEGO ,�- a— _ il 15209 �I Knaus 0. 1 211 Reservoir ~F ' AUS 13237 Site 13305 ROAD KNAU 13245iD 1651 ROAD cc - _ I L_________ 1640 _ r--- s cn 8 , • J I circ .ate 0 0,5, _ w:7) - t�ri_,__J :� \ ' i� i Country 1634 j.,f ..� J / -- o-. ,, 1655ri I I 1 13311 r1 1 11142 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city Page 2 Referring to the map labeled Exhibit B on the attached Declaration, easements from 1954 and 1964 for roadway access, pipelines and water tanks encumber a strip along the northern boundary of the City property, as well as 13237 Knaus Road (Dogra property), 13211 Knaus Road (Mission Homes property) and 13209 Amber Place (Buck property). There are currently no pipelines or water tanks in the easement areas. Furthermore, none of the properties is using the easement areas for access, with the exception of the Dogra property, which accesses Knaus Road across the City parcel. Mission Homes received land use approval for a four-lot subdivision of its property in 2016 (LU 15-0070) and the owner of the Buck property has filed a pending land use application to partition that property into two parcels (LU 17-0016). Both property owners are requesting the release of the easements for platting purposes since they are no longer needed by the City or the other owners (note: the presence of easements does not prevent either of the properties from being divided as approved in LU 15-0070 or as generally proposed in LU 17-0016). The City's Public Works Department has determined that the easements are no longer needed for any public purpose. In exchange for the City releasing its easement rights across the Mission and Buck properties (portion of easement marked with diagonal lines on attached Exhibits B and D), Mission and Buck will simultaneously release their easement rights across the city property (shown with dashed lines on attached Exhibit B).1 RECOMMENDATION Authorize the City Manager to release the city's interest in roadway and utility easements over properties at 13211 Knaus Road and 13209 Amber Place, in exchange for reciprocal releases by the owners of those properties. ATTACHMENT • Declaration of Partial Easement Release document with map and legal descriptions 1 Those exhibits,and the declaration,were prepared by a title company at Mission Homes' request. Although the text of the declaration has been revised,the exhibits are still in the form created before the city's request for reciprocal releases. The city will require the exhibits to be updated before the declaration is signed and recorded. 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us ATTACHMENT RECORDATION REQUESTED BY,AND AFTER RECORDATION, RETURN TO: Mission Homes Northwest,LLC PO Box 1689 Lake Oswego, OR 97035 DECLARATION OF PARTIAL EASEMENT RELEASE This Declaration of Easement Partial Release ("Release") is made and entered into this day of , by Mission Homes Northwest, LLC an Oregon Limited Liability Company, Vivek Dogra and Meenakshi Dogra and Howard Jonathan Buck and the City of Lake Oswego, a municipal corporation ("Declarants"). RECITALS: A. Declarants at the time of recording of this Declaration, are the record Owners of that certain real property described in Document numbers 2015-045923, 2015-054006 2016-037921 and 81-33298, Clackamas County Deed Records B. The Properties are subject to easements recorded April 29, 1954 as Book 481, Page 9 and Book 639, Page 430 recorded on May 7, 1964 in Clackamas County Deed Records (the "Easements"). C. Declarants are the record owners of all properties benefited and all property burdened by the Easement. D. Declarants desire to release the portion of the Easement recorded April 29, 1954 as Book 481, Page 9 as described in Attached Exhibit"A" and shown on attached Exhibit"B" and that portion of the Easement recorded on May 7, 1964 in Book 639, Page 430 as described in Attached Exhibit"C" and shown on Attached Exhibit"D" E. In addition; Mission Homes Northwest, LLC and Howard Johnathan Buck desire to release all title and interest in and to those easements described as Book 481, Page 9 recorded April 29, 1954 and Book 639, Page 430 recorded on May 7, 1964 in Clackamas County Deed Records RELEASE NOW, THEREFORE, Declarants, on behalf of themselves and their grantees, heirs, successors and assigns, convey, release and terminate their declared interests, as stated in above recitals, to the respective property owners burdened by said easement interest. Page 1 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Declarants executed this Release on the day and year first above written. Mission Homes Northwest, LLC By: Josh Kelso, Member Vivek Dogra Meenakshi Dogra City of Lake Oswego By: Howard Jonathan Buck STATE OF OREGON ) ) ss. County of 1 This instrument was acknowledged before me on 2017,by Josh Kelso as Member of Mission Homes Northwest, LLC Notary Public for Oregon My commission expires: OTATE OF OREGON ) ) ss. County of ) This instrument was acknowledged before me on 2017,by Vivek Dogra and Meenakshi Dogra Notary Public for Oregon My commission expires: Page 2 STATE OF OREGON ) ) ss. County of 1 This instrument was acknowledged before me on 2017,by as of The City of Lake Oswego, a Municipal Corporation Notary Public for Oregon My commission expires: STATE OF OREGON ) ) ss. County of 1 This instrument was acknowledged before me on 2017,by Howard Jonathan Buck. Notary Public for Oregon My commission expires: Page 3 EXHIBIT "A" Mission Homes NW, LLC Oregon Iron &Steel, Release February 7, 2017 Project No. 2312-016 Property Description A tract of land situate in the NW 1/4, Section 4,T. 2 S,, R. 1 E., W.M., City of Lake Oswego, Clackamas County, Oregon, being a portion of that easement granted to Oregon Iron and Steel Co., as noted in Book 481, Page 9, Clackamas County Deed Records; and being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the northeast corner of that tract of land conveyed to Mission Homes Northwest, LLC recorded in Document No. 2015-045923, Clackamas County Deed Records, said point being on the north line of said Oregon Iran and Steel Co. easement; thence, along the north line of said Oregon Iron and Steel easement, also being along the north line of said Mission Homes Northwest, LLC tract and along the north line of that tract of land conveyed to Howard Buck, recorded in Document No. 2015-054006, Clackamas County Deed Records, North 88°35'30" West,424.28 feet; thence, South 0°00'00", West 50.00 feet; thence, South 88°35'30" East 50.00 feet; thence, North 0°00'00" East 40.00 to a point that is 10.0 feet south of the north line of said easement; thence, along the southerly line of said easement being parallel with the north line of said easement, South 88°35'30" East, 374.26 feet to a point on the east line of said Mission Homes Northwest, LLC tract; thence, along said east line, North 0°07'10"East, 10.00 feet to the point of beginning. Containing 6,242 square feet, more or less. Bearings are based on SN2016-1 B1, Clackamas REGISTERED County Survey Records. PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR ///<*iz OREGON JULY 25. 1990 GARY R. ANDERSON 2434 RENEWS: -� / /J ..\2372-()16.151.5<emy 47D1 WORM,('02372-75 o vgon Ion and sWof..dacr ROADWAY/PIPELINE/WATER TANK EASEMENT Cl/ ���� PER BOOK 481, PAGE 9 W 0 50' 100' 0 J SCALE:1"=100' a cc Li LEMl 8�X 43305 0OC_ `PARCEL i� 1 Q ! -P.O.8. ry 4 77777777777/7777f47iii/777/74/4/7/7i777777i A 4 1 w CI DO BDC 5— 4006 C. t40. 20 DS '1 c5 �{cGq5 Ce fTl o LIS0 • X ��205 p45923 _ cv �N 2 MiSS1dt 1 0�fl., �N.%���^� O Doc 00 0 of O' Q = w PPA2�p7 107• OpG? G\�QQG� Y 00 4 w O ' COUNTRY COMMONS N 0 0 4 c) - •-- r lu 5 6 a N _ _ _ __ % DATE-- , EXHIBIT B ORABY 02FEB17 WESTLAKE GRA hi CONSULTANTS in. z LOCATED IN THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 4 CIECKEDe' US ENGINEERING • SURVEYING ♦ PLANNING cn TOWNSHIP 2 S. RANGE 1 E, W.M. CLACKAMAS COUNTY, OREGON RE��oN 0 PAGING CORPORATE CENTER 15115 S.W. SEQUOIA PARKIPAY, SUITE 150 (503) 884-0852 4 JOB NO. TIGARD. OREGON 97224 FAX (503) 824-0157 0 231/-0167 _ - EXHIBIT "C" Mission Homes NW, LLC 10' Roadway easement, 639/430 February 2, 2017 2312-16 Property Description A 10.0 foot wide strip of land situate in the NW 1/4, Section 4,T2S, R 1 E, city of Lake Oswego,Oregon, W.M., Clackamas, County,Oregon, being a portion of a roadway easement document recorded in Bk 639, Pg 430, Clackamas County deed records and being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the northeast corner of that tract of land conveyed to Mission Homes, NW, recorded in Document No. 2015-045923, Clackamas County deed records, said point being on the north line of said roadway easement; Thence, along the north line of said Mission Homes tract and the north line of said roadway easement, North 88°35'30"West, 217.18 to the west line of said roadway easement Thence South, 10.00 feet Thence, parallel with the north line of said roadway easement and Mission Homes parcel, South 88035'30", East 217.18 feet to a point on the east line of said Mission Homes parcel; Thence, along the east line of said Mission Homes parcel, North 10.00 feet to the point of beginning. J\2912016.15\Suri y\n edineympeane�,s,Jaw fra 0 20' 40' I I SCALE: 1"=40' 3 LEM186x 43305 1 w U DO0. 1y0. E "-' Q a POINT OF `� [BEGINNING a /1 — S88'35'3O"E 217.18' N. N 00'00'00"E� 10.00' _�" S00'07'10"W N88'35'30"W 217.16' 10.00' cp EASEMENT AREA PORTION OF BOOK 639, PAGE 430 co w 2,172 SQ. FT 0 BUCK DOC- gp06 E5 NW, LLC 921 E 2015— 1 14C).OG016-1337 o M1S5104y N 2015-045923 DOC2 :, DOG. 1O' 75 0 0 f y in H m ,0 2 P X � w i cv DATE 02FEB17 11 I WESTLAKE DRAWN BY SLH2 i CONSULTANTS isc. 6 LOCATED IN THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 4 CHECKED BY Z TOWNSHIP 2 S, RANGE 1 E, W.M. WS ENGINEERING • SURVEYING • PLANNING CLACKAMAS COUNTY, OREGON REVISIDN 0 PACIFIC CORPORATE CENTER 3 15115 S.W. SEQUOIA PARKWAY, SUITE 150 (503) 664-0652 2 JOB ND. TIGARD. OREGON 97224 FAX (503) 624-0157 � 0 2312-016 ,