Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda Packet - 2017-12-19
w --''ff- N.N%*NS%14'-"°117N 411.4°.";#7 , 't--*-----,....--- . 4.,,... , ,‘1,\:„,t,-, -/-----„___ - e 41, _...ill..,„•m . • • q.-- . , ,, ! ..-.:l' '.'"htl .WV. ..-.,..,.-1 . *Pi :; - 4 ri ... t 4.1.27.--itri: 1. -1, i „ ' 'A.: %4A- . ... r ..*;10 A, PI :.,'tli . r..=,)-(---,. , 0 -.4i.. . -r k Iwo '\ ifilf01.4 '' A..; Air _ .„* . ....*t.r_+. r-: -- Lake Oswego ,,,. t.*„ ., . 0,-- .,, City Council Meeting ,,- . . Tuesday, _ ' , December 19, 2017 * - -- - -- . 7-44 pJ-:. to. l• -,-.:! 3: .. Y \ \'-t, ip.. � ,l � ��} G- � ^.\ r7 li AI t ,: _, .,fir j�. lic I''i' k . r • A ii'fAlioo- Ail .i I 1'1 1, 1 � 1 'r — -----.\_',-;-":. ",4'... 3` 4 so- - Photo Credit: Margaret Kay Bengtson 2015 • CONSENT AGENDA , • • • ■ The consent agenda allows the 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. 7.1 Approval of Meeting Minutes 7.1.2 November 7, 2017, Meeting Minutes Motion: Move to approve minutes as written. 7.2 Findings, Conclusions, and Order, (LU 17-0024) Zoning Map Amendments for Property at 1774 Ridgecrest Dr. Motion: Move to adopt the Findings, Conclusions and Order denying the requested Zoning Map amendment for 1770 Ridgecrest Drive and directing staff to revise the application. 7.3 Findings, Conclusion and Order Legalizing Areas of Boones Ferry Road and Lanewood Street at 15630 Boones Ferry Road Motion: Move to adopt the Findings, Conclusions and Order legalizing areas of Boones Ferry Road and Lanewood Street at 15630 Boones Ferry Road. w '- '....N.Ns%%-.1"7 4.4°7 't--1,---- _4.-- 'vri r ` P--- ,, '1 rr+ ,Ari' P 4.„:., , 1\1:r, • ' ^kcte . ______-------- "%:!"af" _ 6,1** . " `..i ; .C� -,_.--1. "`� is4h.or -. �!' _ Irr t 4.2:.2_„_„iii:„L. _i.e. _,,.. ...„4=1- _ . . I _it_ .-., 1 _ • . • • ......, ..,_. ..„..„ .., .1, .. 4 r 1 Iii! ttli t - k _ . , ', flifillik,' . iv, ,, _ ., . . . . . ., , , .. _ , , lfs . . -+ Lake Osviegoit .. _ .._ . ._. • Redeve.._ . lo ment A enc Meeting - * i grA --r--, Tuesday, December 19, 2017 .. v� �- - . ,:•;•4.cy, Ix -.-. ‘.1.(71\ ,..:\•• J4i. ,. .11 „ . 1 . ,,, • .ry, #7:--,4 . '. . N -I — i, i �) ,,,,,,,,,c, ( , y e 1, 1 �' ' 4 �'f,If f l F I 4 „�' 1k' 11 ..,r.1:.1--ti--4- Photo Credit: Margaret Kay Bengtson 2015 - ` " ,s r fl ! , S- - ', CONSENT AGENDA Ar . ...i • --- • Vi' '' `` '�44 • The consent agenda allows the 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. 13.1 Approval of Meeting Minutes 13.1.1 October 17, 2017, Special Meeting 13.1.2 November 7, 2017, Special Meeting Minutes Motion: Move to approve minutes as written. .� ; • oftelr 90.00,07- AGENDA o � CITY COUNCIL AND LAKE OSWEGO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING IV �� O December 19, 2017 3:00 p.m. c'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, CITY COUNCIL 2. ROLL CALL 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 4. PRESENTATION 4.1 Unsung Hero Awards 5. 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. 5.1 Prior Citizen Comment Follow-Up 6. STUDY SESSIONS 6.1 Community Swimming Pool 6.2 2016-17 Financial Review 6.3 2017 Update to the 2001 Water Master Plan 6.4 Ordinance 2759, An Ordinance of the City of Lake Oswego Amending LOC 50.06.003.1, LOC 50.07.007.2 and LOC 50.10.003.2 of Chapter 50 (Community Development Code)for the Purpose of Updating the Flag Lot Standards Regarding Landscaping, Setbacks and Parking; Limiting the Number of Flag Lots Served by an Access Lane to Two; Removing the Requirement to Connect Access Lanes; Amending the Definition of Flag Lot, and Adopting Findings (LU 17-0052) 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city Page 2 7. CONSENT AGENDA—Full Council Approval Motion: Move to adopt the consent agenda. 7.1 Approval of Meeting Minutes 7.1.1 October 17, 2017, Regular Meeting Minutes 7.1.2 November 7, 2017, Regular Meeting Minutes Motion: Move to approve minutes as written. 7.2 Findings, Conclusions, and Order, (LU 17-0024) Zoning Map Amendments for Property at 1774 Ridgecrest Dr. Motion: Move to adopt the Findings, Conclusions and Order denying the requested Zoning Map amendment for 1770 Ridgecrest Drive and directing staff to revise the application. 7.3 Findings, Conclusion and Order Legalizing Areas of Boones Ferry Road and Lanewood Street at 15630 Boones Ferry Road Motion: Move to adopt the Findings, Conclusions and Order legalizing areas of Boones Ferry Road and Lanewood Street at 15630 Boones Ferry Road. 8. CONSENT AGENDA—Councilor Approval 8.1 Resolution 17-57,A Resolution of the City Councilors of the City of Lake Oswego Approving an Appointment to the Planning Commission Motion: Move to adopt Resolution 17-57. 9. INFORMATION FROM COUNCIL 10. REPORTS OF OFFICERS 11. ADJOURNMENT, CITY COUNCIL 12. CALL TO ORDER, LAKE OSWEGO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (LORA) 13. CONSENT AGENDA 13.1 Approval of Meeting Minutes Motion: Move to approve minutes as written. 13.1.1 October 17, 2017, Special Meeting Minutes 13.1.2 November 7, 2017, Special Meeting Minutes 14. BOARD BUSINESS 503.635-0215 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city Page 3 14.1 Eighth Amendment to the Block 137 Project Development Agreement Motion: Move to authorize the Executive Director of the Lake Oswego Redevelopment Agency to sign the Eighth Amendment to the Block 137 Project Development Agreement with Evergreen Block 137 Joint Venture, LLC, correcting an omission from the Sixth Amendment. 15. STUDY SESSION 15.1 Civic Center Concept Design and Floor Plan 16. ADJOURNMENT, LORA 503.635-0215 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city 4.1 CE OsoCOUNCIL REPORT OON TO: Kent Studebaker, Mayor Members of the City Council FROM: Diana Smith-Bouwer, Project Specialist Public Affairs SUBJECT: Unsung Hero Award DATE: December 19, 2017 ACTION In recognition for significant efforts that have been quietly offered over a sustained period of time to the Lake Oswego community. INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND Each year the City of Lake Oswego's "Unsung Hero" Award honors someone or a group who has worked quietly behind the scenes on behalf of the community without any expectation of recognition. This award is intended to seek out and recognize someone or a group who has been involved in volunteering during the past year and over a sustained period of time but who is not generally well known by the general public for the good deeds that they do. Award Criteria This Unsung Hero Award honors someone who demonstrates the following traits and qualities: a. Behind-the-scenes effort to bring meaningful and positive change in the lives of Lake Oswego citizens. b. Consistent excellence, enthusiasm, creativity, and persistence on behalf of the community in a manner which generally has not been recognized in any other way. c. Elicits respect and is a positive role model in the community. d. Promotes the spirit of community involvement by helping others with no intention of personal gain. 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us Page 2 Process: The City's Public Affairs Department accepts nominations for the Unsung Hero Award throughout the year via a number of channels, including the City's website, mail-in or walk-in delivery to the Public Information Office at City Hall. The completed Nominations are due early November each year for review and selection by a designated committee. The winner's name will be engraved on the Unsung Hero plaque that is displayed at City Hall on the first Floor, 380 A Avenue. The winner will also receive an individual award and their picture in the Lake Oswego Review and the City's publication, HelloLO in the January issue. The City of Lake Oswego is proud to recognize our Unsung Heroes that do so much to make our community such a wonderful place to live! Award Recipients: 1. Mark Browne — LO History Curator for Library and LO Heritage House 2. Jan and Duke Castle - Building a more Sustainable and Resilient community 3. Taylor Finley— Emergency Preparedness 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us 4.1 Mayor's Script Unsung Heroes One of the positive annual events associated with our community is the recognition of volunteerism, through the "Unsung Hero" Award . Since 2001 , the City has recognized people in Lake Oswego who best exemplified selfless community service. These are the people that work quietly, often behind the scenes without seeking or receiving pay or recognition . These are the people who when you ask for help put their hand up, step forward , and get things done without a motive other than helping their neighbors and their community. These are the people that make Lake Oswego such a wonderful place to live and raise our families. 4.1 Mayor's Script Over the last 16 years the City has recognized 64 outstanding volunteers; and tonight, we are pleased to have as our guest of honor, our 2017 "Unsung Heroes" at this special awards ceremony here tonight. When we called to invite these special guests to this ceremony, the recipients proved to be a modest group, somewhat reluctant to step into the spotlight. Here are some of the responses we heard when calling to let them know they would be honored : "You sure you have the right number and the right person?" "Well now that is pretty cool" "That makes a good day ever better!" 4.1 Mayor's Script These kinds of responses underscore the fact that to these people, their contributions and involvement are second nature and they have no expectation for rewards or recognition . They are helping others out of the goodness of their heart because it's the right thing to do. All the nominations had made a variety of contributions, all were extremely deserving of the award with individuals and groups making contributions of volunteerism in all aspects of our community. We had five judges this year, including John LaMotte, City Councilor. It was a challenge to make a selection with everyone nominated a wonderful example of an Unsung Hero. After thoughtful deliberations our committee selected four heroes for 2017. 4.1 Mayor's Script Now, without further adieu , I am pleased to announce the Unsung Hero Awards. As I say your name, please come forward to receive your award . 4.1 Mayor's Script Mark Browne-Mark is creating something Lake Oswego has truly needed for many years and something other communities already have: he has been quietly creating and curating historic photographs, artifacts, letters and more, into a well-organized, useful collection everyone can use and enjoy. He has worked with LO library staff to digitalize more than 300 photographs that would surely have been lost had it not been for Mark's efforts to capture and add them to the library's historic photo collection. He also organized thousands of old photographs —stored for years out of sight and out of reach in the Oswego Heritage Council's (OHC) vault, making them easily accessible and preserving them in accordance with the latest standards to prevent further deterioration. Not limited to photos, Mark has also used his attention to detail to develop truly informative museum displays and exhibits for OHC's Museum. Using his own money, Mark has taken classes and talked to experts in the field of preservation to make sure OHC's curation and preservation is of the highest quality and lasts for generations to come. His vision, his attention to detail, and his perseverance have made an important contribution to our community and created something very special for the City of Lake Oswego. 4.1 Mayor's Script Jan and Duke Castle-For more than twenty years this dynamic duo has brought to our community their passion, integrity and dedication for a more sustainable and prepared City. Conducting over 400 sustainability trainings and workshops, Duke and Jan have helped launch a sustainability plan which was adopted by the City Council in 2008, moving the City into the future with a more sustainable footprint for future generations. They have also worked with a team of neighbors to create the Lake Oswego Sustainability Network, to connect people working on sustainability measures on their own and to raise the profile of sustainability in Lake Oswego. This group formed action teams in areas of economic vitality, energy, water, transportation, community solar, emergency preparedness and climate change. They also help organize several events each year that attract and inform hundreds of folks, including the Green Home tour, Eco-Film Festival and earthquake preparedness outreach presentations. In 2013, Jan moved her attention to emergency preparedness with amazing results, including the team formation of PrepLO, a group of Neighborhood Association Chairs that help each other spread emergency preparedness information into the neighborhoods at the household level. She has led her colleagues to organize their neighborhoods, give presentations, staff information tables at emergency fairs, and has worked with the City's Emergency Preparation Team to coordinate preparation activities between the city, school district, and citizens. Because of the efforts and contributions of Duke and Jan, our community has a greater acceptance and understanding of sustainability practices and emergency preparedness. 4.1 Mayor's Script Taylor Finley-For several years Taylor has provided the organization, guidance and support to prepare LO neighborhoods for the Cascadia Subduction Zone Earthquake. He has organized, researched and presented to monthly neighborhood groups topics that include emergency equipment lists, how to use water filters and purification, food and temporary heating, and shelter options. He also created and set up a Prep Westridge website filled with useful information neighbors use to better prepare for the predicted Cascadia Subduction Zone Earthquake and other emergencies. Taylor works closely with other PrepLO volunteers to share vital information and keep his neighbors informed, prepared and ready to step up and step in when an emergency happens. Because of Taylor's involvement, organization and commitment, the Westridge neighborhood is prepared! Thank You! to all of our Unsung Heroes who make the Lake Oswego Community a better place to live, work and play. 5. Citizen Comment (.-( E0,p LAKE OSWEGO ��+ COUNCIL MEETING _,i c) OREGN CITIZEN COMMENT The Mayor will call you to the table in front of the dais at the appropriate time. You will have three minutes to speak. The light in front of you will turn yellow when you have one minute left to speak and red when your time is up. SUBMIT TO THE CITY RECORDER Date: /'2 ` /9` /7 Subject: - --44,-°'nf..9 z./ / J Name: 4.lr a 4/ �.c e,07,_rdrot Address: 333sv die 04i4469' .44, City/State/ZIP: `✓ 0 az 97a-E5--- Phone: 7d "Phone: X03 970 .37S<5- • Are you part of an Organized Presentation? Yes No If yes, list speakers in order of presentation: Rev Dec 2017 (<:.\--A E s� LAKE OSWEGO •,• �� COUNCIL MEETING U �� O OREGOC� CITIZEN COMMENT The Mayor will call you to the table in front of the dais at the appropriate time. You will have three minutes to speak. The light in front of you will turn yellow when you have one minute left to speak and red when your time is up. SUBMIT TO THE CITY RECORDER Date: \ .2, -4 11— Subject:2 Name: 1--'Y ; riot V 1t4-4..., V (C- ("Ia kit S�JIt)j3 Address: \ 4 L'' (C 17- - lO' t/` ._r City/State/ZIP: 1A--i& O5cLJD 1 .7Q3 Phone: `; L 3. 7,D.6-- I i Are you part of an Organized Presentation? Yes N,//v If yes, list speakers in order of presentation: �� Rev Dec 2017 LAKEOSWEGO7J Lake Oswego School District Lel Office of the Superintendent 2455 SW Country Club Road P.0 Box 70 Lake Oswego,Oregon 97034-0070 503-534-2000 SCHOOL DISTRICT Lake Oswego Mayor Studebaker and City Council December 19, 2017 City of Lake Oswego PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Dear Mayor Studebaker and City Council members, Thank you for the opportunity today to address you about an issue of common concern between the city and the school district: the district swimming pool, the only public swimming pool in Lake Oswego. The Lake Oswego School District pool, dedicated in October 1970, is a 25-yard pool with eight lanes and a depth of 4 to 5 feet. It is used extensively by the community for laps and community programs, which totals 88% of the available time. Twelve percent (12%) of the available pool time is used by the high school swim and water polo teams. In May 2017, 60% of Lake Oswego voters approved Measure 3-515, a school bond to address deferred maintenance and correct safety and security issues at our buildings. Included in the bond is $7 million as an allocation toward the cost for pool repairs or replacement. In preparation for our school bond, an independent Facilities Condition Assessment of all district buildings was performed. The pool building was rated at .64; a rating in the critical range. This means the District must address facility deficits as soon as possible. To name a few issues, our current pool is without sufficient lanes and depth to ensure the best performance for our student athletes. It is also expensive to operate because of the highly inefficient ventilation system and peeling paint. In addition, there is insufficient parking for all who use the facility. We are concerned that$7 million may not be enough to build a new pool that meets the extensive needs of the community and district. As vice chair of the Lake Oswego School Board, I request that the City and the District explore the possibilities of developing a partnership to build a pool to benefit the citizens of Lake Oswego and the Lake Oswego School District. The school board would like to begin the process of creating a memorandum of understanding, so together, we may receive community input, explore options, and build a lasting partnership to develop a vision for a community-based pool that meets everyone's needs. Page 2,LOSD Letter of Support for Community Pool This gives the City and the District the chance to research potential sites for the pool and understand what it means to co-own and/or co-manage a community asset like a pool. From comments we have received in focus groups and in public testimony, there is pent up demand for such a community asset, therefore, we want to work in partnership with the City to conduct extensive research as to the type of facility the community wants and needs. Please let us know how you would like to proceed with next steps. We see this is a once in a generation opportunity for the City and District to create a facility that is forward thinking in its design and management. Our vision is to forge new pathways for working with the City on community asset projects just like this. We are ready to assist you in any way. Thank you, Bob Barman Vice Chair, LOSD John Wallin Board Chair, LOSD Liz Hartman Member, LOSD Sara Pocklington Member, LOSD Rob Wagner Member,LOSD 6.1 COUNCIL REPORT . fi � � o aREGOr� TO: Kent Studebaker, Mayor Members of the City Council FROM: Scott Lazenby, City Manager Ivan Anderholm, Director of Parks & Recreation SUBJECT: STUDY SESSION ON COUNCIL POLICY DIRECTION ON CITY INVOLVEMENT IN SWIMMING POOL FUNDING AND OPERATION DATE: November 27, 2017 MEETING DATE: December 19, 2017 ACTION Provide policy direction on city involvement, if any, in funding and/or operating a community swimming pool. INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND A year ago, Lake Oswego voters approved a school bond measure that included $7 million to replace the current LOSD swimming pool. Members of the community have expressed interest in expanding the scope of the pool design. One option is to build a larger (50 meter) pool that could be used be used for major swim meets and lap swimming. Another option is to build two pools in a single complex: one for use by LOSD swim and water polo teams as well as by the community for lap swimming, and another that would be designed for recreational swimming by families and people of all ages. Either option would cost as much as $6 million more than the amount allocated in the school bond. The key policy question before the City Council is: should the City of Lake Oswego be in the pool business? DISCUSSION Some factors to consider include: • Lake Oswego operates a swim park on Oswego Lake. Both it and the Willamette River beach at George Rogers Park are well used in the summer for recreational swimming. 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us Page 2 • All Lake Oswego residents currently have access to the LOSD Pool. Some, but not all, residents also have access to swimming pools through their HOAs (e.g., the Mountain Park community center) or through membership in private athletic clubs. • There are several options for locating a community pool. The operating cost would be less if it was part of a larger parks and recreation center, but it would still require a sizeable operating subsidy (probably twice the current golf course net income gap). • Community support for paying to build and operate a community pool could be gauged through our community attitudes survey, due to be done in the next few months. • If an additional $6 million were funded through a general obligation parks bond, the resulting tax rate would be less than seven cents per thousand assessed value. If the annual operating subsidy (estimated at between $300,000 and $400,000) were funded through a special levy, the tax rate would be similar (between six and seven cents per thousand). • The Parks Board currently has Swimming Pools prioritized 18 out of 27 unfunded projects in the CIP. RECOMMENDATION While replacement of the current pool is not one of the most urgent needs to be addressed by the school bond, at some point the LOSD Board will need a decision from the City Council as to whether or not the City is interested in some aspect of funding and/or operating a pool facility. The Council may decide that it doesn't rank as a high priority, in comparison with other major City goals. If on the other hand the City Council would like to explore the idea of a community pool, staff can work on design, location, and funding options based on Council direction. 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us 6.1 Exhibit 101 From: Bill Beard To: Council Distribution Subject: No to community pool and even higher taxes Date: Tuesday,December 19,2017 8:56:50 AM This Council and current City government is on a spending binge that has already raised our property taxes to obscene levels. While the whole country is showing a dislike for ever increasing government spending, you guys are not even slowed in your march towards your vision of utopia and a bigger local government. YOU'RE GREAT AT SPENDING OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY. Best regards, Bill William Beard M&A Advisor bill@btsi.com www.btsi.com Office: 503-697-8312(OR) 949-497-4906(CA) 425-455-5496(WA) Cell: 503-307-6082 6.1 Exhibit 102 From: Charles Collins To: Council Distribution Subject: Community Swim Facility Date: Tuesday,December 19,2017 2:59:44 PM Dear Mayor Studebaker and Council, I am not in favor of council considering using LO taxpayer funds for a community swim facility. The November school bond that skyrocketed our LO property tax should be enough to support a new swim pool for the school district. I do not know anyone who is asking for a new community pool or would have supported a brand new city hall. Spending is easy, fiscal restraint is tough work. Sincerely, Charles Collins Charles Collins charlesmcollins l nme.com 503.869.3000 6.2 D--j'p` E 4i, COUNCIL REPORT a.: r- Aiiiiii r o oReoo� TO: Kent Studebaker, Mayor Members of the City Council FROM: Shawn Cross, Finance Director SUBJECT: Financial Review for the Twelve Months Ending June 30, 2017 DATE: December 8, 2017 MEETING DATE: December 19, 2017 ACTION Review and discuss financial results for fiscal year (FY) 2016-17. INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND This report revolves around: - A comparison of revenues and expenditures to the budget as shown on the attached reports1; - The result of revenues minus expenditures which is a "surplus" when revenues exceed expenditures, and a "deficit" when expenditures exceed revenues, also called a "contribution to fund balance" or "use of fund balance;" and - An estimate of unassigned fund balance in the general fund. We have used the terminology of surplus and deficit in the past and it is used on the attached reports. The report includes all twelve months of FY16-17 and is an annual activity. The results of the annual activity fall into fund balance, and fund balance is the accumulation of all past years' activity. Fund balance is sufficient when all legal restrictions, commitments, council assignments, and minimum policy requirements can be maintained after each year's activity has been rolled into it. This has been most important in the general fund. The reports were standardized and are system generated. They are subject to some limitations. For example,when revenues and expenditures are shown on one and the same report,the variance between actual and budgeted numbers for revenues will show as a negative number when revenues exceeded budget. A negative variance in the revenue section is favorable,while a negative number in the expenditures section is unfavorable. Also,a deficit on a report is shown as a positive number and vice versa for a surplus. These oddities are not uncommon in financial systems. 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us Page 2 After the last day of a fiscal year, city staff continue to receive, approve and record vendor invoices for goods and services received in the previous fiscal year. Certain tax revenues received in July and August also pertain to the previous fiscal year and are recorded. Staff continues to reconcile all major asset, liability, revenue and expense accounts until the beginning of October when the city's audit begins. The first financial report is a city-wide report. It includes the city's general fund, all utilities and other enterprise funds, internal service funds, and capital funds. City-wide results are best discussed by highlights from each of those funds. DISCUSSION General Fund The general fund often garners the most attention. For FY2016-17 the general fund's expenditures exceeded revenues by about $260,000. This is primarily due to the transfer of funds for the new public works operations center. This use of fund balance was planned and budgeted. Generally across the board, personnel services came in under budget due largely to a lower cost of living adjustment (COLA) then was budgeted. The ending fund balance in the general fund continues to satisfy all legal restrictions, commitments, council assignments, and the city's 30% minimum policy requirement. Going into more depth: General Administration/Non-Departmental - The good news is that many revenues came in at plan or above. - Property taxes are up from budget about $640,000. This increase is primarily due to a higher collection rate being realized than budgeted. - The miscellaneous revenues are up substantially primarily due to a refund from Pacific Source from the previous year's health insurance premium of about $328,000. Library - The improvements to the library were originally budgeted in capital outlay. After researching what the improvements meant to the building, staff classified for financial purposes these improvements to repairs and maintenance. This explains why materials and services is over budget and nothing appears to be spent out of capital outlay. ACC - The kitchen upgrade is rolling over to FY2017-18. Planning - Materials and services are under budget primarily due to the online land use permitting software carrying over to FY2017-18. Police 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us Page 3 - Materials and services are $300,000 under budget primarily due to the Computer Automated Dispatch System (CAD) moving to FY2017-18. Fire - The new rescue boat purchase is rolling over to FY2017-18 Parks - The debt service line is the capital lease payments made by parks for their vehicles under the new Enterprise program. - The increase in transfers is for golf. - Capital is under budget primarily due to Iron Mountain Park project rolling over to FY2017-18. The General Fund ended the FY2016-17 with a total ending fund balance of$25.3 million, and an unassigned ending fund balance of$16.4 million, which includes the 30% minimum reserve policy requirement. The estimated total FY2016-17 ending fund balance during the FY2017-18 budget process had a total ending fund balance of$21.84 million, and an unassigned ending fund balance of$15.63 million. The difference between estimated and actual year end unassigned fund balance is about $800,000. The remainder of the difference between estimated and actual is assigned to the various general fund departments. Tourism The tourism fund balance continues to grow after the repayment of the work done on the Iron Furnace to the general fund. Revenues exceeded budget by $30,000 due to strong transient lodging fees. Trolley All parties in the Willamette Shoreline Trolley Consortium have made their annual payments. In addition, the trolley fund received $17,000 from Multnomah County for additional costs related to the Sellwood Bridge project and $12,000 from the City of Portland for a portion of right of way work done in sundry income. Water Fee for service billings is above budget by roughly $200,000. About $135,000 is from customer sales. On a $12.1M budget this amounts to about 1%. The city is seeing some economies of scale with operations at the water treatment plant. The costs are increasing by about $1M but Tigard paying about $1.4M resulting in about a $400,000 savings. Sewer Sewer fees for services are a little below budget but are meeting expectations. Here fees are based on relatively predictable average winter consumption numbers. 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us Page 4 Capital outlay is below budget primarily due to the Marylhurst pump station project rolling over to FY2017-18. Stormwater Again, revenues are very close to budget. Intergovernmental revenues are from the FEMA grant. Capital outlay is below budget because more of the D Avenue project is occurring in FY2017-18 than originally budgeted. Street Street revenues across are slightly over budget. Miscellaneous revenues includes an Energy Trust of Oregon rebate for street lighting of$32,800. The large variance in capital outlay is due to a rainy spring causing some of the street rehab projects to move FY2017-18 and the Boones Ferry project land acquisition taking longer than initially anticipated. The work for rehab was pushed back to July, August, and September. System Development Charges Revenues came in about $2.1 million above budget. This is due primarily to the fees paid for multiple non-residential projects around the city. The capital outlay variance is mainly due to the Woodmont Park, Iron Mountain Park, and the Boones Ferry Road projects rolling over to FY2017-18. Operations Building Capital Projects The large budget variance is due to construction starting later in the year due to poor weather. The project will be wrapping up in FY 2017-18. Engineering Personnel services is under budget primarily due to two retirements. Materials and services variance is not due to any large items, but a lot of small savings on many line items. LO-Tigard Water Partnership Construction for the most part is complete in FY 2016-17. A small amount of punch list work will still be done in FY 2017-18. Capital outlay is under budget not because of the project is rolling over to the next fiscal year, but rather due to the project itself is under budget. Any funds left when we close the capital project fund at the end of FY 2017-18 will be transferred back into the water fund. LORA/City Debt Service Both intergovernmental resources and debt service are under budget by $7,500,000. This is due to not refinancing the East End line of credit in conjunction with the bond sale for the police station. This will happen at the end of FY 2017-18. Endowments Both of the endowments have a positive variance for investment income. This is primarily due to the value of the investments going up from the previous year. Each year the investments are 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us Page 5 recorded at market value with the difference being recorded as investment income. These funds are managed by the Oregon Community Foundation. CONCLUSION The City's revenues, overall, are close to budget. Some types of revenue, such as intergovernmental were lower than planned, but property taxes and licenses and fees were higher. The City's diversification in revenues helps balance these fluctuations and the City seems well diversified. The fair market value of most properties in Lake Oswego continue to increase to such a degree that it equates assessed value (AV), and an automatic 3% increase in AV can again be expected. The Clackamas County Assessor has informed the City that it should plan for a 3.75%-4.25% increase in AV for FY2017-18. It is reasonable to assume that this trend will continue. The city ended the year in as good as or better shape than estimated during the building of the FY17-18 budget. There is an additional unassigned ending fund balance in the general fund of about $800,000 above that was estimated during the budget process. This amount will be included in the amount available to council for one-time projects during the budget process when building the FY2018-19 budget. The budget process is to begin in just a few months. ATTACHMENTS 1. Budget Summary- Citywide 2. General Fund Summary 3. General Fund by Division 4. Budget Comparison by Fund 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us 4JOJ. . ATTACHMENT 1 Citywide '. . CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO For Fiscal: 2016-2017 Period Ending: 06/30/2017 .0011" C FISCAL YEAR 2016-2017 YTD 2015-2016 ACTUAL YTD ACTUAL BUDGET BALANCE %OF BUDGET Revenue 303 -PROPERTY TAXES 37,915,362 39,695,710 38,824,000 -871,710 102.25% 304-FRANCHISE FEES 2,580,077 2,743,582 2,615,000 -128,582 104.92% 305 -INTERGOVERNMENTAL 36,492,550 20,150,385 30,784,000 10,633,615 65.46% 306 -LICENSES AND FEES 11,269,933 11,155,659 8,652,000 -2,503,659 128.94% 307 -FINES AND FORFEITURES 960,187 1,047,501 973,000 -74,501 107.66% 308 -SALES AND SERVICES 34,471,696 34,594,085 34,554,000 -40,085 100.12% 309 -SPECIALASSESSMENTS 8,529 5,563 11,000 5,437 50.57% 310-MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES 1,876,273 2,584,351 833,000 -1,751,351 310.25% 312 -CHARGES FOR SERVICES 12,664,669 13,557,960 13,787,000 229,040 98.34% 320-TRANSFERS 17,253,814 12,083,773 30,285,000 18,201,227 39.90% 344-PROCEEDS SALE OF CAPITAL ASSETS 19,488,243 61,285 0 -61,285 0.00% 355 -OTHER FINANCING SOURCES 3,695,881 0 25,000,000 25,000,000 0.00% Revenue Total: 178,677,215 137,679,853 186,318,000 48,638,147 73.90% Expense 410-PERSONNEL SERVICES 42,046,875 42,300,887 45,450,000 3,149,113 93.07% 420-MATERIALS&SERVICES 36,144,302 34,411,046 34,772,000 360,954 98.96% 450-OTHER FINANCING USES 0 0 0 0 0.00% 460-DEBT SERVICE 31,943,809 17,140,123 33,428,000 16,287,877 51.27% 470-TRANSFERS 17,253,814 12,083,773 30,285,000 18,201,227 39.90% 480-CAPITAL OUTLAY 52,755,954 32,494,582 52,969,000 20,474,418 61.35% 490-CONTINGENCY 0 0 65,208,108 65,208,108 0.00% Expense Total: 180,144,754 138,430,411 262,112,108 123,681,697 52.81% (Surplus)Deficit: 1,467,539 750,558 75,794,108 75,043,550 0.99% 12/11/2017 9:24:06 AM Page 1 � ` O ATTACHMENT 2 General Fund Summary Il— i' • „ i ', CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO For Fiscal: 2016-2017 Period Ending: 06/30/2017 .0011" • FISCAL YEAR 2016-2017 YTD 2015-2016 ACTUAL YTD ACTUAL BUDGET BALANCE %OF BUDGET Revenue 303 -PROPERTY TAXES 31,427,651 32,760,319 32,120,000 -640,319 101.99% 304-FRANCHISE FEES 2,580,077 2,743,582 2,615,000 -128,582 104.92% 305 -INTERGOVERNMENTAL 4,552,914 5,898,916 6,147,000 248,084 95.96% 306 -LICENSES AND FEES 1,924,935 1,823,352 1,745,000 -78,352 104.49% 307 -FINES AND FORFEITURES 960,187 1,047,501 973,000 -74,501 107.66% 308 -SALES AND SERVICES 3,949,353 4,201,260 4,074,000 -127,260 103.12% 309 -SPECIALASSESSMENTS 0 0 0 0 0.00% 310-MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES 1,094,089 802,078 349,000 -453,078 229.82% 312 -CHARGES FOR SERVICES 7,159,670 7,677,000 7,677,000 0 100.00% 320-TRANSFERS 112,814 118,523 120,000 1,477 98.77% 344-PROCEEDS SALE OF CAPITAL ASSETS 19,481,597 29,507 0 -29,507 0.00% 355 -OTHER FINANCING SOURCES 195,881 0 0 0 0.00% Revenue Total: 73,439,168 57,102,037 55,820,000 -1,282,037 102.30% Expense 410-PERSONNEL SERVICES 32,611,677 32,779,047 35,075,000 2,295,953 93.45% 420-MATERIALS&SERVICES 14,598,118 16,504,979 16,336,000 -168,979 101.03% 460-DEBT SERVICE 16,831,495 44,065 0 -44,065 0.00% 470-TRANSFERS 4,340,000 7,091,000 6,990,000 -101,000 101.44% 480-CAPITAL OUTLAY 1,032,751 944,129 3,021,000 2,076,871 31.25% 490-CONTINGENCY 0 0 9,103,837 9,103,837 0.00% Expense Total: 69,414,041 57,363,220 70,525,837 13,162,617 81.34% (Surplus)Deficit: -4,025,127 261,183 14,705,837 14,444,654 1.78% 12/11/2017 9:25:14 AM Page 1 4JOJ . ATTACHMENT 3 General Fund by Division t- CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO For Fiscal: 2016-2017 Period Ending: 06/30/2017 C i?E 0O. . FISCAL YEAR 2016-2017 YTD 2015-2016 ACTUAL YTD ACTUAL BUDGET BALANCE %OF BUDGET Expense Division:10-General Administration 410-PERSONNEL SERVICES 4,849,993 4,955,733 5,285,000 329,267 93.77% 420-MATERIALS&SERVICES 3,402,307 3,173,425 3,427,000 253,575 92.60% 460-DEBT SERVICE 16,813,288 0 0 0 0.00% 470-TRANSFERS 4,259,000 6,952,000 6,952,000 0 100.00% 480-CAPITAL OUTLAY 88,931 80,122 50,000 -30,122 160.24% 490-CONTINGENCY 0 0 7,800,253 7,800,253 0.00% Division 10 Total: 29,413,518 15,161,280 23,514,253 8,352,973 64.48% Division:13 -Redevelopment 410-PERSONNEL SERVICES 211,616 259,133 272,000 12,867 95.27% 420-MATERIALS&SERVICES 270,633 299,153 297,000 -2,153 100.72% 470-TRANSFERS 0 0 0 0 0.00% 490-CONTINGENCY 0 0 14,067 14,067 0.00% Division 13 Total: 482,249 558,286 583,067 24,781 95.75% Division:20-Library 410-PERSONNEL SERVICES 2,697,745 2,704,489 3,133,000 428,511 86.32% 420-MATERIALS&SERVICES 1,219,682 2,749,226 1,395,000 -1,354,226 197.08% 470-TRANSFERS 0 0 0 0 0.00% 480-CAPITAL OUTLAY 0 0 1,120,000 1,120,000 0.00% 490-CONTINGENCY 0 0 40,956 40,956 0.00% Division 20 Total: 3,917,427 5,453,714 5,688,956 235,242 95.86% Division:21 -Municipal Court 410-PERSONNEL SERVICES 367,520 351,628 396,000 44,372 88.79% 420-MATERIALS&SERVICES 624,178 707,953 713,000 5,047 99.29% 470-TRANSFERS 0 0 0 0 0.00% 490-CONTINGENCY 0 0 59,044 59,044 0.00% Division 21 Total: 991,698 1,059,581 1,168,044 108,463 90.71% Division:26-Adult Community Center 410-PERSONNEL SERVICES 696,035 681,680 786,000 104,320 86.73% 420-MATERIALS&SERVICES 422,327 469,364 450,000 -19,364 104.30% 470-TRANSFERS 0 0 0 0 0.00% 480-CAPITAL OUTLAY 0 26,159 100,000 73,841 26.16% 490-CONTINGENCY 0 0 20,825 20,825 0.00% Division 26 Total: 1,118,362 1,177,203 1,356,825 179,622 86.76% Division:31 -Planning 410-PERSONNEL SERVICES 1,570,001 1,551,917 1,709,000 157,083 90.81% 420-MATERIALS&SERVICES 920,089 948,802 1,457,000 508,198 65.12% 470-TRANSFERS 0 0 0 0 0.00% 480-CAPITAL OUTLAY 23,723 0 0 0 0.00% 490-CONTINGENCY 0 0 318,768 318,768 0.00% Division 31 Total: 2,513,813 2,500,719 3,484,768 984,049 71.76% 12/11/2017 9:24:54 AM Page 1 General Fund by Division For Fiscal:2016-2017 Period Ending:06/30/2017 FISCAL YEAR 2016-2017 YTD 2015-2016 ACTUAL YTD ACTUAL BUDGET BALANCE %OF BUDGET Division:40-Police 410-PERSONNEL SERVICES 9,141,438 9,630,288 10,012,000 381,712 96.19% 420-MATERIALS&SERVICES 2,920,523 3,117,573 3,506,000 388,427 88.92% 470-TRANSFERS 0 0 0 0 0.00% 480-CAPITAL OUTLAY 168,096 175,589 265,000 89,411 66.26% 490-CONTINGENCY 0 0 279,475 279,475 0.00% Division 40 Total: 12,230,057 12,923,449 14,062,475 1,139,026 91.90% Division:43 -Fire 410-PERSONNEL SERVICES 9,686,378 9,252,629 9,827,000 574,371 94.16% 420-MATERIALS&SERVICES 1,461,052 1,544,192 1,653,000 108,808 93.42% 470-TRANSFERS 0 0 0 0 0.00% 480-CAPITAL OUTLAY 355,646 0 85,000 85,000 0.00% 490-CONTINGENCY 0 0 515,315 515,315 0.00% Division 43 Total: 11,503,076 10,796,821 12,080,315 1,283,494 89.38% Division:50-Parks and Recreation 410-PERSONNEL SERVICES 3,390,950 3,391,550 3,655,000 263,450 92.79% 420-MATERIALS&SERVICES 3,357,328 3,495,292 3,438,000 -57,292 101.67% 460-DEBT SERVICE 18,207 44,065 0 -44,065 0.00% 470-TRANSFERS 81,000 139,000 38,000 -101,000 365.79% 480-CAPITAL OUTLAY 396,355 662,259 1,401,000 738,741 47.27% 490-CONTINGENCY 0 0 55,134 55,134 0.00% Division 50 Total: 7,243,841 7,732,167 8,587,134 854,967 90.04% Expense Total: 69,414,041 57,363,220 70,525,837 13,162,617 81.34% (Surplus)Deficit: 69,414,041 57,363,220 70,525,837 13,162,617 81.34% 12/11/2017 9:24:54 AM Page 2 ATTACHMENT 4 Comparison by Fund .:'. x CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO For Fiscal: 2016-2017 Period Ending: 06/30/2017 FISCAL YEAR 2016-2017 YTD 2015-2016 ACTUAL YTD ACTUAL BUDGET BALANCE %OF BUDGET 180-CAPITAL RESERVE FUND Revenue 310-MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES 6,765 11,486 4,000 -7,486 287.16% 320-TRANSFERS 0 920,000 920,000 0 100.00% 344-PROCEEDS SALE OF CAPITAL ASSETS 0 0 0 0 0.00% Revenue Total: 6,765 931,486 924,000 -7,486 100.81% Expense 470-TRANSFERS 0 0 0 0 0.00% 480-CAPITAL OUTLAY 0 0 0 0 0.00% 490-CONTINGENCY 0 0 0 0 0.00% Expense Total: 0 0 0 0 0.00% Fund 180(Surplus)Deficit: -6,765 -931,486 -924,000 7,486 100.81% 280-TOURISM FUND Revenue 305 -INTERGOVERNMENTAL 0 0 0 0 0.00% 306 -LICENSES AND FEES 424,203 416,353 383,000 -33,353 108.71% 308 -SALES AND SERVICES 0 600 0 -600 0.00% 310-MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES 3,428 3,917 1,000 -2,917 391.71% 320-TRANSFERS 0 0 0 0 0.00% Revenue Total: 427,631 420,870 384,000 -36,870 109.60% Expense 420-MATERIALS&SERVICES 35,625 84,965 90,000 5,035 94.41% 470-TRANSFERS 99,000 130,000 130,000 0 100.00% 480-CAPITAL OUTLAY 68,938 68,469 85,000 16,531 80.55% 490-CONTINGENCY 0 0 629,173 629,173 0.00% Expense Total: 203,562 283,434 934,173 650,739 30.34% Fund 280(Surplus)Deficit: -224,068 -137,436 550,173 687,609 -24.98% 12/18/2017 8:40:02 AM Page 1 Comparison by Fund For Fiscal:2016-2017 Period Ending:06/30/2017 FISCAL YEAR 2016-2017 YTD 2015-2016 ACTUAL YTD ACTUAL BUDGET BALANCE %OF BUDGET 290-TROLLEY FUND Revenue 305 -INTERGOVERNMENTAL 40,000 43,533 40,000 -3,533 108.83% 308 -SALES AND SERVICES 44,475 12,300 12,000 -300 102.50% 310-MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES 58,148 19,577 5,000 -14,577 391.53% 312 -CHARGES FOR SERVICES 0 0 0 0 0.00% 320-TRANSFERS 20,000 20,000 20,000 0 100.00% Revenue Total: 162,623 95,410 77,000 -18,410 123.91% Expense 420-MATERIALS&SERVICES 111,946 75,174 87,000 11,826 86.41% 470-TRANSFERS 0 0 0 0 0.00% 490-CONTINGENCY 0 0 323,774 323,774 0.00% Expense Total: 111,946 75,174 410,774 335,600 18.30% Fund 290(Surplus)Deficit: -50,677 -20,236 333,774 354,010 -6.06% 320-BUILDING FUND Revenue 306 -LICENSES AND FEES 2,614,913 2,602,905 2,399,000 -203,905 108.50% 310-MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES 43,493 28,844 11,000 -17,844 262.22% 320-TRANSFERS 0 0 0 0 0.00% 344-PROCEEDS SALE OF CAPITAL ASSETS 0 14,488 0 -14,488 0.00% Revenue Total: 2,658,406 2,646,236 2,410,000 -236,236 109.80% Expense 410-PERSONNEL SERVICES 991,729 1,117,484 1,142,000 24,516 97.85% 420-MATERIALS&SERVICES 1,141,552 1,113,443 1,203,000 89,557 92.56% 480-CAPITAL OUTLAY 96,654 0 0 0 0.00% 490-CONTINGENCY 0 0 55,000 55,000 0.00% Expense Total: 2,229,935 2,230,927 2,400,000 169,073 92.96% Fund 320(Surplus)Deficit: -428,472 -415,309 -10,000 405,309 4,153.09% 550-GOLF COURSE FUND Revenue 308 -SALES AND SERVICES 663,456 557,567 745,000 187,433 74.84% 310-MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES 10,890 6,717 2,000 -4,717 335.85% 320-TRANSFERS 281,000 339,000 238,000 -101,000 142.44% Revenue Total: 955,346 903,284 985,000 81,716 91.70% Expense 410-PERSONNEL SERVICES 367,583 358,825 390,000 31,175 92.01% 420-MATERIALS&SERVICES 570,818 523,941 515,000 -8,941 101.74% 470-TRANSFERS 0 0 0 0 0.00% 480-CAPITAL OUTLAY 37,135 36,553 35,000 -1,553 104.44% 490-CONTINGENCY 0 0 125,075 125,075 0.00% Expense Total: 975,536 919,319 1,065,075 145,756 86.31% Fund 550(Surplus)Deficit: 20,190 16,035 80,075 64,040 20.03% 12/18/2017 8:40:02 AM Page 2 Comparison by Fund For Fiscal:2016-2017 Period Ending:06/30/2017 FISCAL YEAR 2016-2017 YTD 2015-2016 ACTUAL YTD ACTUAL BUDGET BALANCE %OF BUDGET 560-TENNIS FACILITY FUND Revenue 305 -INTERGOVERNMENTAL 0 0 0 0 0.00% 306 -LICENSES AND FEES 1,630 2,040 2,000 -40 102.00% 308 -SALES AND SERVICES 379,521 404,330 408,000 3,670 99.10% 310-MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES 9,710 36,063 5,000 -31,063 721.25% Revenue Total: 390,861 442,432 415,000 -27,432 106.61% Expense 410-PERSONNEL SERVICES 185,208 203,159 225,000 21,841 90.29% 420-MATERIALS&SERVICES 173,508 164,705 182,000 17,295 90.50% 470-TRANSFERS 0 0 0 0 0.00% 480-CAPITAL OUTLAY 91,190 0 0 0 0.00% 490-CONTINGENCY 0 0 111,000 111,000 0.00% Expense Total: 449,906 367,864 518,000 150,136 71.02% Fund 560(Surplus)Deficit: 59,045 -74,569 103,000 177,569 -72.40% 570-PUBLIC ART FUND Revenue 310-MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES 304 1,148 0 -1,148 0.00% 320-TRANSFERS 99,000 237,250 238,000 750 99.68% Revenue Total: 99,304 238,398 238,000 -398 100.17% Expense 420-MATERIALS&SERVICES 90,000 123,908 154,000 30,092 80.46% 470-TRANSFERS 0 0 0 0 0.00% 480-CAPITAL OUTLAY 10,000 40,000 84,000 44,000 47.62% Expense Total: 100,000 163,908 238,000 74,092 68.87% Fund 570(Surplus)Deficit: 696 -74,490 0 74,490 0.00% 12/18/2017 8:40:02 AM Page 3 Comparison by Fund For Fiscal:2016-2017 Period Ending:06/30/2017 FISCAL YEAR 2016-2017 YTD 2015-2016 ACTUAL YTD ACTUAL BUDGET BALANCE %OF BUDGET 610-WATER FUND Revenue 305 -INTERGOVERNMENTAL 0 1,431,073 1,593,000 161,927 89.84% 306 -UCENSES AND FEES 0 0 0 0 0.00% 308 -SALES AND SERVICES 13,199,676 12,672,908 12,472,000 -200,908 101.61% 310-MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES 102,613 82,605 35,000 -47,605 236.01% 312 -CHARGES FOR SERVICES 0 0 1,000 1,000 0.00% 320-TRANSFERS 0 0 0 0 0.00% 344-PROCEEDS SALE OF CAPITAL ASSETS 3,323 6,413 0 -6,413 0.00% 355 -OTHER FINANCING SOURCES 0 0 0 0 0.00% Revenue Total: 13,305,613 14,192,999 14,101,000 -91,999 100.65% Expense 410-PERSONNEL SERVICES 1,935,487 2,039,677 2,262,000 222,323 90.17% 420-MATERIALS&SERVICES 3,021,907 3,509,407 3,834,000 324,593 91.53% 450-OTHER FINANCING USES 0 0 0 0 0.00% 460-DEBT SERVICE 4,309,216 6,444,216 6,445,000 784 99.99% 470-TRANSFERS 5,000,000 2,017,000 2,017,000 0 100.00% 480-CAPITAL OUTLAY 184,702 112,754 475,000 362,246 23.74% 490-CONTINGENCY 0 0 7,478,237 7,478,237 0.00% Expense Total: 14,451,312 14,123,054 22,511,237 8,388,183 62.74% Fund 610(Surplus)Deficit: 1,145,699 -69,944 8,410,237 8,480,181 -0.83% 620-SEWER FUND Revenue 306 -LICENSES AND FEES 6,409 64,908 45,000 -19,908 144.24% 308 -SALES AND SERVICES 13,205,180 13,523,752 13,640,000 116,248 99.15% 310-MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES 147,863 120,591 80,000 -40,591 150.74% 344-PROCEEDS SALE OF CAPITAL ASSETS 0 0 0 0 0.00% 355 -OTHER FINANCING SOURCES 0 0 0 0 0.00% Revenue Total: 13,359,452 13,709,251 13,765,000 55,749 99.59% Expense 410-PERSONNEL SERVICES 531,475 652,165 688,000 35,835 94.79% 420-MATERIALS&SERVICES 4,345,554 4,925,366 4,876,000 -49,366 101.01% 460-DEBT SERVICE 6,364,806 6,359,631 6,360,000 369 99.99% 470-TRANSFERS 0 95,000 95,000 0 100.00% 480-CAPITAL OUTLAY 377,720 1,372,338 3,400,000 2,027,662 40.36% 490-CONTINGENCY 0 0 16,428,218 16,428,218 0.00% Expense Total: 11,619,555 13,404,500 31,847,218 18,442,718 42.09% Fund 620(Surplus)Deficit: -1,739,897 -304,751 18,082,218 18,386,969 -1.69% 12/18/2017 8:40:02 AM Page 4 Comparison by Fund For Fiscal:2016-2017 Period Ending:06/30/2017 FISCAL YEAR 2016-2017 YTD 2015-2016 ACTUAL YTD ACTUAL BUDGET BALANCE %OF BUDGET 625 -STORMWATER FUND Revenue 305 -INTERGOVERNMENTAL 0 332,019 0 -332,019 0.00% 306 -UCENSES AND FEES 0 0 0 0 0.00% 308 -SALES AND SERVICES 2,850,614 3,098,436 3,037,000 -61,436 102.02% 310-MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES 8,246 40,286 9,000 -31,286 447.62% 320-TRANSFERS 1,602,000 0 0 0 0.00% 344-PROCEEDS SALE OF CAPITAL ASSETS 0 0 0 0 0.00% Revenue Total: 4,460,860 3,470,741 3,046,000 -424,741 113.94% Expense 410-PERSONNEL SERVICES 365,412 384,514 411,000 26,486 93.56% 420-MATERIALS&SERVICES 1,211,158 1,379,931 1,574,000 194,069 87.67% 450-OTHER FINANCING USES 0 0 0 0 0.00% 460-DEBT SERVICE 232,720 235,495 236,000 505 99.79% 470-TRANSFERS 1,602,000 0 0 0 0.00% 480-CAPITAL OUTLAY 1,410,998 194,685 316,000 121,315 61.61% 490-CONTINGENCY 0 0 725,262 725,262 0.00% Expense Total: 4,822,288 2,194,625 3,262,262 1,067,637 67.27% Fund 625(Surplus)Deficit: 361,428 -1,276,116 216,262 1,492,378 -590.08% 650-STREET FUND Revenue 304-FRANCHISE FEES 0 0 0 0 0.00% 305 -INTERGOVERNMENTAL 2,287,761 2,351,829 2,187,000 -164,829 107.54% 306 -UCENSES AND FEES 2,525,854 2,601,187 2,600,000 -1,187 100.05% 310-MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES 68,909 156,047 36,000 -120,047 433.46% 320-TRANSFERS 2,000,000 5,625,000 5,625,000 0 100.00% 344-PROCEEDS SALE OF CAPITAL ASSETS 0 2,850 0 -2,850 0.00% 355 -OTHER FINANCING SOURCES 0 0 0 0 0.00% Revenue Total: 6,882,524 10,736,913 10,448,000 -288,913 102.77% Expense 410-PERSONNEL SERVICES 527,334 514,411 591,000 76,589 87.04% 420-MATERIALS&SERVICES 2,114,222 2,632,193 2,596,000 -36,193 101.39% 470-TRANSFERS 0 2,525,000 2,525,000 0 100.00% 480-CAPITAL OUTLAY 2,898,484 3,490,128 7,998,000 4,507,872 43.64% 490-CONTINGENCY 0 0 2,809,167 2,809,167 0.00% Expense Total: 5,540,040 9,161,731 16,519,167 7,357,436 55.46% Fund 650(Surplus)Deficit: -1,342,484 -1,575,181 6,071,167 7,646,348 -25.95% 12/18/2017 8:40:02 AM Page 5 Comparison by Fund For Fiscal:2016-2017 Period Ending:06/30/2017 FISCAL YEAR 2016-2017 YTD 2015-2016 ACTUAL YTD ACTUAL BUDGET BALANCE %OF BUDGET 660-SYSTEMS DEV CHARGES FUND Revenue 305 -INTERGOVERNMENTAL 0 0 0 0 0.00% 306 -UCENSES AND FEES 3,500,190 3,227,611 1,123,000 -2,104,611 287.41% 309 -SPECIALASSESSMENTS 2,915 1,686 2,000 314 84.28% 310-MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES 51,582 57,030 22,000 -35,030 259.23% Revenue Total: 3,554,688 3,286,327 1,147,000 -2,139,327 286.51% Expense 420-MATERIALS&SERVICES 54,445 207,446 0 -207,446 0.00% 480-CAPITAL OUTLAY 3,645,863 146,857 2,263,000 2,116,143 6.49% 490-CONTINGENCY 0 0 6,653,732 6,653,732 0.00% Expense Total: 3,700,307 354,303 8,916,732 8,562,429 3.97% Fund 660(Surplus)Deficit: 145,619 -2,932,023 7,769,732 10,701,755 -37.74% 670-PUBLIC WORKS SUPPORT SERVICES Revenue 305 -INTERGOVERNMENTAL 0 0 0 0 0.00% 306 -UCENSES AND FEES 0 0 0 0 0.00% 310-MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES 42,843 34,170 30,000 -4,170 113.90% 312 -CHARGES FOR SERVICES 2,136,000 2,039,000 2,039,000 0 100.00% 320-TRANSFERS 0 0 0 0 0.00% 344-PROCEEDS SALE OF CAPITAL ASSETS 0 4,940 0 -4,940 0.00% Revenue Total: 2,178,843 2,078,110 2,069,000 -9,110 100.44% Expense 410-PERSONNEL SERVICES 1,135,437 1,064,265 1,211,000 146,735 87.88% 420-MATERIALS&SERVICES 687,142 654,962 815,000 160,038 80.36% 470-TRANSFERS 0 0 0 0 0.00% 480-CAPITAL OUTLAY 162,598 0 30,000 30,000 0.00% 490-CONTINGENCY 0 0 305,136 305,136 0.00% Expense Total: 1,985,176 1,719,227 2,361,136 641,909 72.81% Fund 670(Surplus)Deficit: -193,667 -358,883 292,136 651,019 -122.85% 677 -OPERATIONS BUILDING CAPITAL PROJECTS FU Revenue 310-MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES 62,950 33,508 15,000 -18,508 223.39% 312 -CHARGES FOR SERVICES 0 0 0 0 0.00% 320-TRANSFERS 2,039,000 4,207,000 4,207,000 0 100.00% Revenue Total: 2,101,950 4,240,508 4,222,000 -18,508 100.44% Expense 420-MATERIALS&SERVICES 0 0 0 0 0.00% 470-TRANSFERS 0 107,250 108,000 750 99.31% 480-CAPITAL OUTLAY 731,090 9,386,697 11,492,000 2,105,303 81.68% 490-CONTINGENCY 0 0 27,683 27,683 0.00% Expense Total: 731,090 9,493,947 11,627,683 2,133,736 81.65% Fund 677(Surplus)Deficit: -1,370,860 5,253,439 7,405,683 2,152,244 70.94% 12/18/2017 8:40:02 AM Page 6 Comparison by Fund For Fiscal:2016-2017 Period Ending:06/30/2017 FISCAL YEAR 2016-2017 YTD 2015-2016 ACTUAL YTD ACTUAL BUDGET BALANCE %OF BUDGET 680-ENGINEERING FUND Revenue 305 -INTERGOVERNMENTAL 0 0 0 0 0.00% 306 -UCENSES AND FEES 213,622 373,477 255,000 -118,477 146.46% 310-MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES 55,492 30,671 11,000 -19,671 278.83% 312 -CHARGES FOR SERVICES 2,498,778 3,403,762 3,274,000 -129,762 103.96% 320-TRANSFERS 0 0 0 0 0.00% 344-PROCEEDS SALE OF CAPITAL ASSETS 3,323 3,088 0 -3,088 0.00% Revenue Total: 2,771,216 3,810,997 3,540,000 -270,997 107.66% Expense 410-PERSONNEL SERVICES 2,730,349 2,730,188 2,976,000 245,812 91.74% 420-MATERIALS&SERVICES 623,419 726,588 913,000 186,412 79.58% 470-TRANSFERS 0 0 0 0 0.00% 480-CAPITAL OUTLAY 70,548 31,994 35,000 3,007 91.41% 490-CONTINGENCY 0 0 201,440 201,440 0.00% Expense Total: 3,424,315 3,488,770 4,125,440 636,670 84.57% Fund 680(Surplus)Deficit: 653,099 -322,227 585,440 907,667 -55.04% 690-LO-TIGARD WATER PARTNERSHIP FUND Revenue 305 -INTERGOVERNMENTAL 25,219,057 9,143,834 12,355,000 3,211,166 74.01% 306 -UCENSES AND FEES 0 0 0 0 0.00% 308 -SALESANDSERVICES 0 0 0 0 0.00% 310-MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES 204,637 384,842 10,000 -374,842 3,848.42% 312 -CHARGES FOR SERVICES 870,221 438,199 796,000 357,801 55.05% 320-TRANSFERS 5,000,000 617,000 617,000 0 100.00% Revenue Total: 31,293,915 10,583,874 13,778,000 3,194,126 76.82% Expense 410-PERSONNEL SERVICES 665,185 457,153 479,000 21,847 95.44% 420-MATERIALS&SERVICES 475,518 214,644 322,000 107,356 66.66% 470-TRANSFERS 0 0 0 0 0.00% 480-CAPITAL OUTLAY 38,694,672 14,808,598 19,800,000 4,991,402 74.79% 490-CONTINGENCY 0 0 736,013 736,013 0.00% Expense Total: 39,835,375 15,480,396 21,337,013 5,856,617 72.55% Fund 690(Surplus)Deficit: 8,541,460 4,896,521 7,559,013 2,662,492 64.78% 12/18/2017 8:40:02 AM Page 7 Comparison by Fund For Fiscal:2016-2017 Period Ending:06/30/2017 FISCAL YEAR 2016-2017 YTD 2015-2016 ACTUAL YTD ACTUAL BUDGET BALANCE %OF BUDGET 810-BONDED DEBT SERVICE FUND Revenue 303 -PROPERTY TAXES 2,417,047 2,250,724 2,198,000 -52,724 102.40% 310-MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES 13,896 16,023 6,000 -10,023 267.05% 355 -OTHER FINANCING SOURCES 0 0 0 0 0.00% Revenue Total: 2,430,943 2,266,747 2,204,000 -62,747 102.85% Expense 420-MATERIALS&SERVICES 0 0 0 0 0.00% 460-DEBT SERVICE 2,463,984 2,203,084 2,204,000 916 99.96% Expense Total: 2,463,984 2,203,084 2,204,000 916 99.96% Fund 810(Surplus)Deficit: 33,041 -63,663 0 63,663 0.00% 815 -CITY/LORA DEBT SERVICE FUND Revenue 305 -INTERGOVERNMENTAL 870,794 926,816 8,442,000 7,515,184 10.98% 310-MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES 0 0 0 0 0.00% 355 -OTHER FINANCING SOURCES 3,500,000 0 0 0 0.00% Revenue Total: 4,370,794 926,816 8,442,000 7,515,184 10.98% Expense 420-MATERIALS&SERVICES 3,500,000 0 10,000 10,000 0.00% 460-DEBT SERVICE 870,794 926,816 8,432,000 7,505,184 10.99% 470-TRANSFERS 0 0 0 0 0.00% Expense Total: 4,370,794 926,816 8,442,000 7,515,184 10.98% Fund 815(Surplus)Deficit: 0 0 0 0 0.00% 820-ASSESSMENT PROJECT FUND Revenue 306 -LICENSES AND FEES 58,176 43,828 100,000 56,172 43.83% 309 -SPECIALASSESSMENTS 5,614 3,877 9,000 5,123 43.08% 310-MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES 2,591 2,350 1,000 -1,350 234.99% Revenue Total: 66,381 50,055 110,000 59,945 45.50% Expense 480-CAPITAL OUTLAY 0 0 0 0 0.00% 490-CONTINGENCY 0 0 0 0 0.00% Expense Total: 0 0 0 0 0.00% Fund 820(Surplus)Deficit: -66,381 -50,055 -110,000 -59,945 45.50% 12/18/2017 8:40:02 AM Page 8 Comparison by Fund For Fiscal:2016-2017 Period Ending:06/30/2017 FISCAL YEAR 2016-2017 YTD 2015-2016 ACTUAL YTD ACTUAL BUDGET BALANCE %OF BUDGET 830-BICYCLE PATH FUND Revenue 305 -INTERGOVERNMENTAL 22,023 22,366 20,000 -2,366 111.83% 310-MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES 696 694 1,000 306 69.36% Revenue Total: 22,719 23,059 21,000 -2,059 109.81% Expense 480-CAPITAL OUTLAY 0 0 0 0 0.00% 490-CONTINGENCY 0 0 0 0 0.00% Expense Total: 0 0 0 0 0.00% Fund 830(Surplus)Deficit: -22,719 -23,059 -21,000 2,059 109.81% 840-LIBRARY ENDOWMENTS FUND Revenue 310-MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES -99,334 375,676 95,000 -280,676 395.45% 320-TRANSFERS 0 0 0 0 0.00% Revenue Total: -99,334 375,676 95,000 -280,676 395.45% Expense 420-MATERIALS&SERVICES 0 0 0 0 0.00% 470-TRANSFERS 25,000 28,762 30,000 1,238 95.87% 490-CONTINGENCY 0 0 786,000 786,000 0.00% Expense Total: 25,000 28,762 816,000 787,238 3.52% Fund 840(Surplus)Deficit: 124,334 -346,914 721,000 1,067,914 -48.12% 850-ACC ENDOWMENT FUND Revenue 310-MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES -67,239 238,517 61,000 -177,517 391.01% 320-TRANSFERS 0 0 0 0 0.00% Revenue Total: -67,239 238,517 61,000 -177,517 391.01% Expense 420-MATERIALS&SERVICES 0 0 0 0 0.00% 470-TRANSFERS 87,814 89,761 90,000 239 99.73% 490-CONTINGENCY 0 0 400,000 400,000 0.00% Expense Total: 87,814 89,761 490,000 400,239 18.32% Fund 850(Surplus)Deficit: 155,053 -148,756 429,000 577,756 -34.68% 12/18/2017 8:40:02 AM Page 9 Comparison by Fund For Fiscal:2016-2017 Period Ending:06/30/2017 FISCAL YEAR 2016-2017 YTD 2015-2016 ACTUAL YTD ACTUAL BUDGET BALANCE %OF BUDGET 910-LORA EAST END BONDED DEBT SVC FUND Revenue 303 -PROPERTY TAXES 3,403,980 3,558,277 3,365,000 -193,277 105.74% 305 -INTERGOVERNMENTAL 3,500,000 0 0 0 0.00% 310-MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES 9,109 46,083 10,000 -36,083 460.83% 320-TRANSFERS 0 0 0 0 0.00% 355 -OTHER FINANCING SOURCES 0 0 25,000,000 25,000,000 0.00% Revenue Total: 6,913,090 3,604,360 28,375,000 24,770,640 12.70% Expense 420-MATERIALS&SERVICES 0 0 520,000 520,000 0.00% 460-DEBT SERVICE 870,794 926,816 9,751,000 8,824,184 9.50% 470-TRANSFERS 6,100,000 0 18,000,000 18,000,000 0.00% 490-CONTINGENCY 0 0 0 0 0.00% Expense Total: 6,970,794 926,816 28,271,000 27,344,184 3.28% Fund 910(Surplus)Deficit: 57,704 -2,677,544 -104,000 2,573,544 2,574.56% 920-LORA EAST END CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Revenue 305 -INTERGOVERNMENTAL 0 0 0 0 0.00% 308 -SALES AND SERVICES 179,421 122,931 166,000 43,069 74.05% 310-MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES 34,653 29,524 30,000 476 98.41% 320-TRANSFERS 6,100,000 0 18,000,000 18,000,000 0.00% 344-PROCEEDS SALE OF CAPITAL ASSETS 0 0 0 0 0.00% 355 -OTHER FINANCING SOURCES 0 0 0 0 0.00% Revenue Total: 6,314,074 152,455 18,196,000 18,043,545 0.84% Expense 420-MATERIALS&SERVICES 3,339,373 1,519,393 695,000 -824,393 218.62% 470-TRANSFERS 0 0 0 0 0.00% 480-CAPITAL OUTLAY 3,242,613 1,861,380 3,495,000 1,633,620 53.26% 490-CONTINGENCY 0 0 18,100,000 18,100,000 0.00% Expense Total: 6,581,986 3,380,773 22,290,000 18,909,227 15.17% Fund 920(Surplus)Deficit: 267,912 3,228,319 4,094,000 865,681 78.85% 12/18/2017 8:40:02 AM Page 10 Comparison by Fund For Fiscal:2016-2017 Period Ending:06/30/2017 FISCAL YEAR 2016-2017 YTD 2015-2016 ACTUAL YTD ACTUAL BUDGET BALANCE %OF BUDGET 930-LORA LAKE GROVE BONDED DEBT SVC FUND Revenue 303 -PROPERTY TAXES 666,684 1,126,390 1,141,000 14,610 98.72% 305 -INTERGOVERNMENTAL 0 0 0 0 0.00% 310-MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES 7,754 22,764 2,000 -20,764 1,138.20% 320-TRANSFERS 0 0 0 0 0.00% 355 -OTHER FINANCING SOURCES 0 0 0 0 0.00% Revenue Total: 674,437 1,149,153 1,143,000 -6,153 100.54% Expense 420-MATERIALS&SERVICES 0 0 0 0 0.00% 460-DEBT SERVICE 0 0 0 0 0.00% 470-TRANSFERS 0 0 300,000 300,000 0.00% 490-CONTINGENCY 0 0 0 0 0.00% Expense Total: 0 0 300,000 300,000 0.00% Fund 930(Surplus)Deficit: -674,437 -1,149,153 -843,000 306,153 136.32% 940-LORA LAKE GROVE CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Revenue 305 -INTERGOVERNMENTAL 0 0 0 0 0.00% 308 -SALESANDSERVICES 0 0 0 0 0.00% 310-MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES 2,186 3,142 2,000 -1,142 157.10% 320-TRANSFERS 0 0 300,000 300,000 0.00% 355 -OTHER FINANCING SOURCES 0 0 0 0 0.00% Revenue Total: 2,186 3,142 302,000 298,858 1.04% Expense 420-MATERIALS&SERVICES 50,000 50,000 50,000 0 100.00% 480-CAPITAL OUTLAY 0 0 440,000 440,000 0.00% 490-CONTINGENCY 0 0 209,361 209,361 0.00% Expense Total: 50,000 50,000 699,361 649,361 7.15% Fund 940(Surplus)Deficit: 47,814 46,858 397,361 350,503 11.79% (Surplus)Deficit: 5,492,666 489,375 61,088,271 60,598,896 0.80% 12/18/2017 8:40:02 AM Page 11 i, VIk to kt i..4 o , vw o cIREGOk FY2016- 17 Financial Results December 19 , 2017 Agenda 1 . Presentation of Financial Information 2 . GASB 68 — Pension Reporting iu o °REca FY16- 17 FINANCIAL RESULTS FISCAL YEAR 2016-2017 YTD 2015-2016 ACTUAL YTD ACTUAL BUDGET BALANCE Revenue 303 - PROPERTY TAXES 31,427,651 32,760,319 32,120,000 -640,319 304 - FRANCHISE FEES 2,580,077 2,743,582 2,615,000 -128,582 305 - INTERGOVERNMENTAL 4,552,914 5,898,916 6,147,000 248,084 306 - liCENSES AND FEES 1,924,935 1,823,352 1,745,000 -78,352 307 - FINES AND FORFEITURES 960,187 1,047,501 973,000 -74,501 308 -SALESANDSERVICES 3,949,353 4,201,260 4,074,000 -127,260 309 -SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS 0 0 0 0 310 - MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES 1,094,089 802,078 349,000 -453,078 312 -CHARGESFORSERVICES 7,159,670 7,677,000 7,677,000 0 320 -TRANSFERS 112,814 118,523 120,000 1,477 344 - PROCEEDS SALE OF CAPITAL ASSETS 19,481,597 29,507 0 -29,507 355 -OTHER FINANCING SOURCES 195,881 0 0 0 Revenue Total: 73,439,168 57,102,037 55,820,000 -1,282,037 Expense 410 - PERSONNEL SERVICES 32,611,677 32,779,047 35,075,000 2,295,953 420 - MATERIALS & SERVICES 14,598,118 16,504,979 16,336,000 -168,979 460 - DEBT SERVICE 16,831,495 44,065 0 -44,065 470 -TRANSFERS 4,340,000 7,091,000 6,990,000 -101,000 480 -CAPITAL OUTLAY 1,032,751 944,129 3,021,000 2,076,871 490 -CONTINGENCY 0 0 9,103,537 9,103,837 Expense Total: 69,414,041 57,363,220 70,525,837 13,162,617 iii[( Deficit: (Surplus) -4,025,127 261,183 14,705,837 14,444,654 'REGO' FISCAL YEAR 2016-2017 YTD 2015-2016 ACTUAL YTD ACTUAL BUDGET BALANCE Revenue 303 - PROPERTY TAXES 31,427,651 32,760,319 32,120,000 -640,319 304 - FRANCHISE FEES 2,580,077 2,743,582 2,615,000 -128,582 305 - INTERGOVERNMENTAL 4,552,914 5,898,916 6,147,000 248,084 306 - LICENSES AND FEES 1,924,935 1,823,352 1,745,000 -78,352 307 - FINES AND FORFEITURES 960,187 1,047,501 973,000 -74,501 308 -SALESANDSERVICES 3,949,353 4,201,260 4,074,000 -127,260 309 -SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS 0 0 0 0 310 - MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES 1,094,089 802,078 349,000 -453,078 312 -CHARGES FOR SERVICES 7,159,670 7,677,000 7,677,000 0 320 -TRANSFERS 112,814 118,523 120,000 1,477 344 - PROCEEDS SALE OF CAPITAL ASSETS 19,481,597 29,507 0 -29,507 355 -OTHER FINANCING SOURCES 195,881 0 0 0 Revenue Total: 73,439,168 57,102,037 55,820,000 -1,282,037 Expense 410 - PERSONNEL SERVICES 32,611,677 32,779,047 35,075,000 2,295,953 420 - MATERIALS & SERVICES 14,598,118 16,504,979 16,336,000 -168,979 460 - DEBT SERVICE 16,831,495 44,065 0 -44,065 470 -TRANSFERS 4,340,000 7,091,000 6,990,000 -101,000 480 -CAPITAL OUTLAY 1,032,751 944,129 3,021,000 2,076,871 490 -CONTINGENCY0 0 9,103,837 9,103,837 Expense Total: 69,414,041 57,363,220 70,525,837 13,162,617 ti Ul Surplus) Deficit: -4,025,127 261,183 14,705,837 14,444,654 'R E G Dr FISCAL YEAR 2016-2017 YTD 2015-2016 ACTUAL YTD ACTUAL BUDGET BALANCE % OF BUDGET Revenue 303 -PROPERTY TAXES 31,427,651 32,760,319 32,120,000 -640,319 101.99 %o 304 -FRANCHISE FEES 2,580,077 2,743,582 2,615,000 -128,582 104.92 % 30.5 -INTERGOVERNMENTAL 4,552,914 5,898,916 6,147,000 248,084 95.96 %o 306 -LICENSES AND FEES 1,924,935 1,823,352 1,745,000 -78,352 104.49 %o 307 -FINES AND FORFEITURES 960,187 1,047,501 973,000 -74,501 107.66 % 308 -SALESANDSERVICES 3,949,353 4,201,260 4,074,000 -127,260 103.12 % 309 -SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS 0 0 0 0 0.00 °o 310 -MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES 1,094,089 802,078 349,000 -453,078 229.82 %o 312 -CHARGESFORSERVICES 7,159,670 7,677,000 7,677,000 0 100.00 °o 320 -TRANSFERS 112,814 118,523 120,000 1,477 98.77 °o 344 -PROCEEDS SALE OF CAPITAL ASSETS 19,481,597 29,507 0 -29,507 0.00 %o 355 -OTHER FINANCING SOURCES 195,881 0 0 0 0.00 % Revenue Total: 73,439,168 57,102,037 55,820,000 -1,282,037 102.30 % Expense 410 -PERSONNEL SERVICES 32,611,677 32,779,047 35,075,000 2,295,953 93.45 % 420 -MATERIALS & SERVICES 14,598,118 16,504,979 16,336,000 -168,979 101.03 %o 460 -DEBT SERVICE 16,831,495 44,065 0 -44,065 0.00 % 470 -TRANSFERS 4,340,000 7,091,000 6,990,000 -101,000 101.44 % 480 -CAPITAL OUTLAY 1,032,751 944,129 3,021,000 2,076,871 31.25 %o 490 -CONTINGENCY 0 0 9,103,837 9,103,837 0.00 % Expense Total: 69,414,041 57,363,220 70,525,837 13,162,617 81.34 % (Surplus) Deficit: -4,025,127 261,183 14,705,837 14,444,654 1.78°% FISCAL YEAR 2016-2017 YTD 2015-2016 ACTUAL YTD I ACTUAL BUDGET BALANCE Expense Division:20 - Library 410 - PERSON NEL SERVICES 2,697,745 2,704,489 3,133,000 428,511 420 - MATERIALS &SERVICES 1,219,682 2,749,226 1,395,000 -1,354,226 470 -TRANSFERS 0 0 0 0 480 - CAPITAL OUTLAY 0 0 1,124,000 1,120,440 490 - CONTINGENCY 0 0 44,956 40,956 Division 20 Total: 3,917,427 5,453,714 5,688,956 235,242 4 Ump aREGo FISCAL YEAR 2016-2017 YTD 2015-2016 ACTUAL YTD I ACTUAL BUDGET BALANCE Expense Division:50 - Parks and Recreation 410 -PERSONNELSERVICES 3,390,950 3,391,550 3,655,000 263,450 420 -MATERIALS &SERVICES 3,357,328 3,495,292 3,438,000 -57,292 460 - DEBTSERVICE 18,207 44,065 0 -44,065 470 -TRANSFERS 81,000 139,000 38,000 -101,000 480 -CAPITAL OUTLAY 396,355 662,259 1,401,000 738,741 490 - CONTINGENCY 0 0 55,134 _ 55,134 Division 50 Total: 7,243,841 7,732,167 8,587,134 854,967 4 'iP .rnimp °.../ aREG0 FISCAL YEAR 2016-2017 YTD 2015-2016 ACTUAL YTD I ACTUAL BUDGET BALANCE Expense 280 -TOURISM FUND Revenue 305 - INTERGOVERNMENTAL 0 0 0 0 306 - LICENSES AND FEES 424,203 416,353 383,000 -33,353 308 - SALES AND SERVICES 0 600 0 -600 310 - MISC:ELLANEOUS REVENUES 3,428 3,917 1,000 -2,917 320 -TRANSFERS 0 01 0 0 Revenue Totals 427,631 420,870 384,000 -36,870 Expense 420 - MATERIALS & SERVICES 35,625 84,965 90,000 5,035 470 -TRANSFERS 99,000 130,000 130,000 0 480 - CAPITAL OUTLAY 68,938 68,469 85,000 16,531 490 - CONTINGENCY 0 0 629,173 629,173 Expense Totall 203,562 283,434 934,173 650,739 Q Ump FISCAL YEAR 2016-2017 YTD 2015-2016 ACTUAL YTD I ACTUAL BUDGET BALANCE 290 -TROLLEY FUND Revenue 305 - INTERGOVERNMENTAL 40,000 43,533 40,000 -3,533 308 - SALES AND SERVICES 44,475 12,300 12,000 -300 310 - MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES 58,148 19,577 5,000 -14,577 312 - CHARGES FOR SERVICES 0 0 0 0 320 -TRANSFERS 20,000 20,000 20,000 0 Revenue Total: 162,623 95,410 77,000 -18,410 Expense 420 - MATERIALS & SERVICES 111,946 75,174 87,000 11,826 470 -TRANSFERS 0 0 0 0 490 - CONTINGENCY 0 0 323,774 323,774 Expense Total: 111,946 75,174 410,774 335,600 1.,04,00,. 0 \--‘ REG 0 FISCAL YEAR 2016-2017 YTD 2015-2016 ACTUAL YTD I ACTUAL BUDGET BALANCE 610 -WATER FUND Revenue 305 - INTERGOVERNMENTAL 0 L431,073 1593,000 161,927 306 - IJCENSES AND FEES 0 0 0 0 308 - SALES AND SERVICES 13,199,676 12,672,908 12,472,000 -200,908 310 - MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES 102,613 82,605 35,000 -47,605 312 - CHARGES FOR SERVICES 0 0 1,000 1,000 320 -TRANSFERS 0 0 0 0 344 - PROCEEDS SALE OF CAPITAL ASSETS 3,323 6,413 0 -6,413 355 - OTHER FINANCING SOURCES 0 0 0 0 Revenue Total: 13,305,613 14,192,999 14,101,000 -91,999 Expense 410 - PERSONNEL SERVICES 1,935,487 2,039,677 2,262,000 222,323 420 - MATERIALS &.SERVICES 3,021,907 3,549,407 3,834,000 324,593 450 - 0TH ER FINANCING USES 0 0 0 0 460 - DEBTSERVIC:E 4,309,216 6,444,216 6,445,000 784 470 -TRANSFERS 5,000,000 2,017,000 2,017,000 0 480 - CAPITAL OUTLAY 184,702 112,754 475,000 362,246 490 - CONTINGENCY 0 0 7,478,237 7,478,237 Expense Total: 14,451,312 14,123,054 22,511,237 8,388,183 C Fund 610 (Surplus) Deficit: 1445,699 -69,944 8,410,237 8,480481 ..6;ipu U v 0 REG 0 FISCAL YEAR 2016-2017 YTD 2015-2016 ACTUAL YTD ACTUAL BUDGET BALANCE 620 -SEWER FUND Revenue 306 - LICENSES AND FEES 6,409 64,908 45,000 -19,908 308 -SALES AND SERVICES 13,205,180 13,523,752 13,640,000 116,248 310 - MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES 147,863 120,591 80,000 -40,591 344 - PROCEEDS SALE OF CAPITAL ASSETS 0 0 0 0 355 - OTHER FINANCING SOURCES 0 0 0 0 Revenue Total: 13,359,452 13,709,251 13,765,000 55,749 Expense 410 - PERSON NEL SERVICES 531,475 652,165 688,000 35,835 420 - MATERIALS & SERVICES 4,345,554 4,925,366 4,876,000 -49,366 460 - DEBTSERV1C:E 6,364,806 6,359,631 6,360,000 369 470 -TRANSFERS 0 95,000 95,000 0 480 - CAPITAL OUTLAY 377,720 1,372,338 3,400,000 2,027,662 490 - CONTINGENCY 0 0 16,428,218 16,428,218 Expense Total: 11,619,555 13,404,500 31,847,218 18,442,718 Fund 620 (Surplus) Deficit: -1,739,897 -304,751 18,082,218 18,386,969 ,Olpt' meow 0 \--‘ REG 0 FISCAL YEAR 2016-2017 YTD 2015-2016 ACTUAL YTD I ACTUAL BUDGET BALANCE 650 -STREET FUND Revenue 304 - FRANC:H ISE FEES 0 0 0 0 305 - INTERGOVERNMENTAL 2,287,761 2,351,829 2,187,000 -164,829 306 - LICENSES AND FEES 2,525,854 2,601,187 2,600,000 -1,187 310 - MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES 68,909 156,047 36,000 -120,047 320 -TRANSFERS 2,000,000 5,625,000 5,625,000 0 344 - PROCEEDS SALE OF CAPITAL ASSETS 0 2,850 0 -2,850 355 -OTHER FINANCING SOURCES 0 0 0 0 Revenue Total: 6,882,524 10,736,913 10,448,000 -288,913 Expense 410 - PERSONNEL SERVICES 527,334 514,411 591,000 76,589 420 - MATERIALS &SERVICES 2,114,222 2,632,193 2,596,000 -36,193 470 -TRANSFERS 0 2,525,000 2,525,000 0 480 -CAPITAL OUTLAY 2,898,484 3,490,128 7,995,000 4,507,872 490 - CONTINGENCY 0 0 2,509,167 2,809,167 Expense Total: 5,540,040 9,161,731 16,519,167 7,357,436 Fund 650 (Surplus) Deficit: 4,342,484 -1,575,181 6,071,167 7,646,348 44, ` B 0_ U 01 0 \--‘ REG 0 FISCAL YEAR 2016-2017 YTD 2015-2016 ACTUAL YTD I ACTUAL BUDGET BALANCE 690 - LO - TIGARD WATER PARTNERSHIP FUND Revenue 305 - INTERGOVERNMENTAL 25,219,057 9,143,834 12,355,000 3,211,166 306 - LICENSES AND FEES 0 0 0 0 308 - SALES AND SERVICES 0 0 0 0 310 - MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES 204,637 384,842 10,000 -374,842 312 - CHARGES FOR SERVICES 870,221 438,199 796,000 357,801 320 -TRANSFERS 5,000,000 617,000 _ 617,000 0 Revenue Total: 31,293,915 10,583,874 13,778,000 3,194,126 Expense 410 - PERSONNEL SERVICES 665,185 457,153 479,000 21,847 420 - MATERIALS &SERVICES 475,518 214,644 322,000 107,356 470 -TRANSFERS 0 0 0 0 480 -CAPITAL OUTLAY 38,694,672 14,808,598 19,800,000 4,991,402 490 - CONTINGENCY 0 0 736,013 736,013 Expense Total: 39,835,375 15,480,396 21,337,013 5,856,617 Fund 690 (Surplus) Deficit 8,541,460 4,896,521 7,559,013 2,662,492 o o1 PREGO FY16- 17 FINANCIAL RESULTS 0 0o, Highlights, Q & A GASB 68 PERS UNFUNDED 1pi ACTUARIAL LIABILITY 70 Unfunded Actuarial Liability 60 — 58.5 50.2 50 — 41.2 40 — — 36.6 34.3 30 2 27.9 .4.4 0 = 20 Eir 15.8 17.9 8.9 10 0.8 0 1'—(2.1) (10) 12/31/2004 12/31/2005 12/31/2006 12/31/2007 12/31/2008 12/31/2009 12/31/2010 12/31/2011 12/31/2012 12/31/2013 12/31/2014 12/31/2015 12/31/2016 Actuarial Valuation Date v � 'EGO) QUESTIONS • Edi- ° 'EGD 6.3 oc En COUNCIL REPORT rtt V O oREGo� TO: Kent Studebaker, Mayor Members of the City Council FROM: Joel B. Komarek, P.E. Project Director SUBJECT: 2017 Update to 2001 Water Master Plan. DATE: December 8, 2017 MEETING DATE: December 19, 2017 ACTION/SUGGESTED MOTION No Council action is requested. Staff will provide a status report on progress to update the City's 2001 Water Master Plan and preview 2017 plan elements. INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) Chapter 333-061-0060(5) requires "(a) Community water systems with 300 or more service connections shall maintain a current master plan. Master plans shall be prepared by a professional engineer registered in Oregon and submitted to the Authority for review and approval." The last update to the City's water master plan occurred in 2001. There are a variety of reasons why community water systems update water master plans including: • Compliance with Oregon Health Department regulations—OAR 333-061-0060(5)(b): "Each master plan shall evaluate the needs of the water system for at least a twenty year period and ..." • Changes in land use, population growth and water demands. • Integration with other planning rules and regulations. For example: o Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 448.119 —448.285: "The Legislative Assembly finds that an agreement between this state and the federal government to assume primary enforcement responsibility in this state for the federal Safe Drinking Water Act is in the best interest of this state,..." (ORS 448.273). o OAR 666-015-0000(11) Public Facilities Planning. "... a city or county shall develop and adopt a public facility plan for areas within an urban growth boundary containing a population greater than 2,500 persons." 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeosweao.city Page 2 o OAR 690-086 Water Management and Conservation Plans. o Oregon Integrated Water Resources Strategy, 2012. o Oregon Resilience Plan, 2013. o Regional Water Providers Consortium, Regional Water Supply Plan, 2016. o City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan, 2013. Pursuant to a qualifications and price based selection process, Brown and Caldwell was selected to assist the City with an update to its 2001 Water Master Plan. Council awarded a contract to BC on January 17, 2017. Based on an engineering analysis of the City's water system in 2001, system deficiencies at the then current annual average and peak day water demands were identified. Deficiencies included: • Inadequate distribution system storage for emergency supply and fire suppression; • Undersized pipelines to provide adequate flow for fire suppression; • Undersized and obsolete equipment in several of the City's water pump stations; • Lack of source redundancy (i.e., no physical connections to an alternate source of supply). The 2001 master plan identified $38M (year 2000 dollars) in capital needs through 2040. Since that time, approximately$29M in capital improvements have been completed or avoided, leaving approximately $9M in capital construction. An example of an "avoided" capital improvement is construction of a new system intertie with the City of Portland, estimated at the time to cost approximately $3.1M.The need for that particular project was replaced by the water supply partnership with the City of Tigard. DISCUSSION The 2017 update to the 2001 WMP will analyze Lake Oswego's water system using updated population forecasts, development potential and water demands. In a departure from past master plan update efforts, the 2017 update will also evaluate the water system for resilience against the Cascadia subduction zone earthquake event and for resilience to known regulatory constraints and potential long-term supply constraints resulting from climate change. Since beginning its work in February 2017, BC has completed approximately 2/3rds of its authorized scope of services. Preliminary findings from that work will be previewed for Council at the December 19 study session. 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city ENGINEERINGVik G dCDEPARTMENT H\\OOJ 2017 WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE DECEMBER 19 , 2 0 1 7 Project Drivers MULTNOMAH CO. .CKAMAsc6. ' ..- RECOMMENDED ALIGNMENT 5 = UNTREATED WATER PIPELINE =TREATED WATER PIPELINE �;1 T. ® WATER FACILITY ■ PARK WA VGA H Rrsnevara BOARA Ger Pow L "4111115 r W E $TATIIN! if „. S LAKE OSWEGO CP Tirs . WAra z g7e Tenarmort e Pum �� T. 0 NEWHAM Wu OIVA]M 1, MAPLETON MAE 01410#1%':•'..:-. 0 ._ ,_ z �� 1 GLADSTONE z N CiACKAAALS RREAIMIA IT 3 WEST LINN RSA AIN Lake Oswego • Tigard205 .114 Water PartnershipIlliSOREGON 213 sharing water connecting communities CITY P” _Ain) 1 . U � 0 � 'E G Dt' 2001 Water Master PlanUpdate Jfvii,„„,,i,i.,,,,,,, . -8 ■• P-035 + Water System Master Plan I t Final Report - p unary,2001 0 j.C4C F-C3U y Q} 1u. illjellikh , . . ' •- irrirlotalla P 1 ,74 li E__' 01- '. FINAL . iw . iiiii.,4111141. Ref 11E0 ) 2 FIGURES P-020 i If llgr TABLES 4401 mw -P .o- 4.f .0:. .3011. iie. .., illiiii P a12 Mr : s I. 2111g -E3 Ma 'II !" -ifr i I 4 .'''',4.• 4,,,, . •:::- I .yr, -‘„- , AA r_ f ' J '1r� .. , is f; MONTGOMERY WATSON 'City of Lake Oswego r•$ _ {r ,, - P-025 ■ { ti Water System R ili nes e ce , - I/ lat � . � i i . ;%% *044 11 1::. 4 ' :111 • 1t • r' • 1 ~�� , .. r•\ 6 i *w.., x , }+1--• / r . - • • . ,,. . 4k" . . * O /... . 410/ . ,t:\, U 0 'EGo Water Backbone I egena Emergency _ Urban Service lr_ ` * Shelters Bcundry i-� a„ �" Critical FaciliEies Backbone Pipe Size -t lfl1 `i • city Building 4.2-6 inches _ r I !yam 1V r' �t�{//r j ��\ ; /M �1r 111`, ` J • Maintenance i .10 inches r -f Facility ,era t+ r � • Fire Station 4 .713-29 inches • ����� l .m11 • Water Well X30-48 inches Iiiiiiih,': .: I `` IIt., i t r ! SI Nan-Backbone lb �� � r ♦�-'- 'n � 1.4• • :: : mp StaPipe �F� � �� �+t 11#ftf%f�; s O , rn 0111614 ita� �*i�+��14-1 rit • University N . rn ,,�7 11 �+� 1 S • Portland Faold .1* mnIMIWIF mini-' M7A1111111.111ptiolerill ...... ...4411 lila vi, Mh'"MMXIBMIF )119"." ilblill• ft-t.. -• • Al 011.101111ftur— Apika A rtikwatfomik --- ••=4.111 - Aloe 714pI . �omilVI'lam ,� 11•il I ::I, 0 -' ,it ._. . n I �`'1��mi Ail lay �►� V--.15,j6., a Gig' ,� fir Vmo r- • l_I - - P16Mr 11 • • . le11.0 Cnn,-.Fen nnnalr;InoN#f'.anF va Forth%lart;annranhre CI4FCrnnn,.c nS IISf1A IISr,Aalnr:eIl Ir.am the[IIS IN..,fnmmi.nn. t 'EGD Assessing the Water Backbone's Resilience 0 -,.)r. Legend 1 1111111� Liquefaction Induced Number of Breaks JSettlement Per Pipe Segment IS • ~ Low(<2") —0-0.1 ` 11 * Medium(2"- i 1 ' rl . �1�-r- 1.0-2.0 .� rrF + 2.0+ —— —!..— 0 5,000 Ft N 1.---- ii. _1,-4--c--=C.....\\I 4.i_j, ,' 1 1111 .....Lic , _ ffir ... ..-- —1. . VII VVV y C U 0 vowiEG0 k Facility Assessments , , , . . ,• _ ,. . _,. ,...... • , ..,. , ,.. • . .. . ..,„, . .• _..„.„..„ . .„4„, ... . ..... ,..:: .i • .14....;*,,r,....7.... . •. ...., •• .,. l • .. :... 7i!••!' .-•-.'."--,A.2'... • ' : . , • •.• '•••' 01.7.'4"; . • ...‘.:. . ..;',,,f•*7•,, • •,.•'"eV,' :..f' ..,,_,. • -FP .. .... s .. •',C4 •.. • ' •a., k• ' ' ' .:"7- ,4.4`•••••••-:a- -. ' - 't •7' - .'- 11 ' • '1,.•_: ''' - 4.• -ale...,. -‘,-. -1,- 11 •' , - -• 7-- . 'N : -, ' .' , • . N'tAir' •.. . „IV,-- . n , ,,.....- •• :V' •• ,, ' a. . . ---.. . '- ,1"4',47". '• , •%.i.-Ti z'''", 7 7... \ .444,....4. : • 4 - '. • vip.-. • .., . •- . - . • ..---- : Niamin'' ... n t"-- 1111 P . . . .,._ ; Olt 0 I III ah 6,, ripti i 4 ' . . t , ! - : ''- • - - - . •_‘...4,4- - . - . . - .--- 1 P --.- 1 i yla - gal ,..4 - ^ "• • IILIBMY IsON 0301 5 _.. - -- -- ._ • ...x /1111 N • •• -- I • a ,...- 1°-••-••••- .._,.. . di e".-- '0 • / .:1 mp-• i4.. 7.\ '.. :..... '• --.., , , ..• •• ? •-•••4 4,, . . ; . i' l kr/ I \u 0 \ 0 N-- • -- RE G 0 -r" Mitigatingrisks Ar aft 111 J V Cv r�I V DiEGD k SupplySource of Risks 11 , , ,. .4. i 1 I. • I, 1 •�� 1 i. 1 \ \ , . , . l 0 'EG� Emergency Source = Tigard's I ••ft w Legend Emergency Sources of ASR Wells A j Supply Capacity = 4 mgd i -wG � !;� I,�, WTP Water Treatment Plant �lir(6 at build-out) V..� �IM WF � { � j � � Urban Service Boundry IN��� `4r , Backbone Pipe Size r� r � v1t �ti 2 8 inches l � -� kif, ill IIP1II s 10 - 16 inches ® Pari ` `� /Mil ti��. 18 -29 inches ���' ,4 � 30 -48 inches grZS�� i1 � _j �� l far Non Backbone Pipe Imiurii F1 f 11 � ra...CE. Source = `'t ' 1111111h,A01R� t Allimpinzre.."111:4,.; `. - riA•111110Bp / 4 �.glatit lizi— IL� Willamette River #i__. f �r " ��''����� � ' * Ca acity = 4 mid -- kagiederf AtPeitil Al IN- II- N.A. ....L . "Fv . a JP OIDArdi DORT . . litliir q 140WW iii Ill 10 ,7'.._ 7 ri . ,:u1IN, OW 1 - WTP 4 ro U 4 P 'EG0 Emergency SupplyOptions .. .. „ Source = Tigard's ,,,► Source = Well Supply Legend filwi�, RI Emergency Sources of ASR Wells ��., ���`� Ca •acit = 0.5 mgd , Supply Capacity = 4 mgd � G f � !A l — WTP Water Treatment Plant V j (6 at build-out) ..a� WF ` �� j maw►' l / Urban Service Boundry "UM huh�.''+tom"" + Pipe Size 4. „ � }+�!-'e�rr`-1 V lir /rtM1t1 p t ww , I�1 irti jNiL Backbone 8 inches �71 �� 1� if/fit 10 - 16 inches .' 1 Ifilitommitil NUM gNIWig �N ii 18 -29 inches r��Amp �. 30 48 inches ZSR � � AI r Nan-Backbone Pipe MEW: s `` � � it w esizaim ' �.. - `2 A/ a �� ifiu , `r.— r�,�'_-Y Source = �. � i , ���, ... i,� �� Willamette River Source = Joint =i �f wry '� '� , s � � � '��� � Capacity = 4 mid Water Commission _ MIstr.W.F.Wil. til • -"`"'v .'°``- via Beaverton "iffw . IJP L LP% Capacity = 4 mid soli .7 L. )11'qUidm go o„, r Source = City of _ WTP 11 Portland via Tigard . O Capacity = 6 mgd U 4 °RECON` Emergency SupplyOptions Source = Tigard's rial 1 r,.1fk�► O Source = Well Supply Legend Emergency Sources of ASR Wells >. 1s, �`� Ca •acit = 0.5 mgd , Supply Capacity = 4 mgd Vis f L 1 !�� in i – WTP Water Treatment Plant V j (6 at build-out) ..amWFmgc---c. �� j I �� ,- l / Urban Service Boundry �Mi Dill �'tomSi + Backbone Pi e Size + dWiti 1�r laa ill /rtM�t� ptw , I�1 ill ti j��L 2 - 8 inches l � -� 1� if/fit 10 - 16 inches ipir �111i uilakii 18 -29 inches ® 1 :../ 41111110 ir *mines Ciao W416% gir ,+� Ir' , 4,.. 30 -48 inches gain � 1 � � r7 li Non-Backbone Pipe Asislrgio `r.–Ariati, ,,,,-,z „= �—immoSource = / , ..we,L .. i,� „ .e LI Willamette River Source = Joint =i ����f ��� '� ��� , s W1"/"....'+r � `t, ti Capacity = 4 mad Water Commission h - it tiv � A+ MI- • - via Beavertonihis ,A, i„j L u40 _ Capacity = 4 mgd j;�� rft. I Source = WWSP via Tigard Source = City of Capacity = 5 to 10 mgd 1 - WTP 11 Portland via Tigard — Wry, . O t Capacity = 6 mgd Illy i c) U 0 Water Master Plan Outputs • Capital Improvement Program — 2018-2045 — Upgrades to existing facilities — New facilities needed — Additional facility assessments needed • Emergency Supply Options • Operational Improvements • Budgets and Schedules „4 4v � o ! ` i oREG �/ O 6.4 D0s COUNCIL REPORT 442,cc) TO: Kent Studebaker, Mayor Members of the City Council FROM: Leslie Hamilton, AICP, Senior Planner Planning and Building Services SUBJECT: Study Session: Ordinance 2759, Flag Lot and Access Lane Amendments (LU 17-0052) DATE OF REPORT: December 8, 2017 DATE OF MEETING: December 19, 2017 ACTION This report provides background information to the Council for its December 19, 2017 study session regarding proposed amendments to the Community Development Code (LOC Chapter 50—CDC) relating to flag lots and access lanes. A study session was requested due to the policy implications of some amendments. The public hearing on this proposal is scheduled for January 2, 2018. The Council may direct staff to prepare a draft ordinance and return for the public hearing before the Council. INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND The proposed amendments to the Community Development Code (CDC) [Ordinance 2759] are part of the City's on-going effort at process improvement, which includes making regulations more usable for residents, developers, and City staff by correcting errors, eliminating text ambiguities and redundancies, and codifying past code interpretations. Additionally, the amendments respond to community concerns regarding flag lot developments. The proposed amendments include provisions that will: • Limit the number of flag lots served by a private access lane; • Increase the number of parking spaces required in flag lot developments; • Increase the front setback on flag lots; • Provide flexibility on setback orientation on certain flag lots; • Delete the requirement to connect private access lanes; • Clarify that lot coverage and floor area on flag lots are calculated on net site area; • Clarify the location of required landscaping and fencing in flag lot developments. 503.635-0215 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city Page 2 The proposed amendments were the subject of five Planning Commission (Commission) work sessions in January, February, April, June and September 2017, a Public Review Draft that was circulated August 15-31, 2017, notice to owners of residential properties large enough to be divided (mailed September 11, 2017), and Planning Commission public hearings on October 9 and November 27, 2017. For the purposes of review, staff encourages the Council to read the staff report dated September 29, 2017 (Exhibit D-1); the memo to Planning Commission (Exhibit D-2), and the updated code amendments (Attachment 2, dated 12/06/17 to Exhibit A-1.1). DISCUSSION At its public hearing on October 9, the Commission recommended that the Council adopt the proposed amendments. Of all the amendments, the items below generated discussion at the Commission's public hearings. Limit on Flag Lots [LOC 50.06.003.11: Currently, up to eight flag lots can be served by an access lane, which has a minimum width of 20 feet. Developments of nine or more lots require the construction of a public street; public streets generally require a right-of-way dedication width of 50 feet. The original package of flag lot amendments focused on controlling the impacts of development (parking, drainage, setbacks, etc.) without limiting private property rights. The Commission requested that staff analyze the impacts of reducing the size of flag lot developments after receiving public input that larger subdivisions or serial partitions served by private access lanes (flag lot developments) impact the surrounding neighborhood character. The key concerns related to parking spillover onto public streets, garbage collection (cans placed at the end of a private drive where it meets a public street), and the lack of public access on private access lanes. One consideration with a limitation on 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, or compensation to the property owner for the lost value. Another consideration is the impact to density that a limitation on flag lots would have. However, as described in Exhibit D-1, the 2013 Housing Needs Analysis identified 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. On October 9, the Planning Commission tentatively recommended limiting the number of Flag Lots to two (not more than three lots in a development served by a private access lane), and requested that Staff consider standards for a reduced-width street (< 50 ft. right-of-way) that could serve developments of 4-8 lots. On November 27, Staff returned to the Commission with an amendment that created a standard for a 38-foot private street that could serve 4-8 lots; the private street section was inclusive of roadway, parking, drainage and sidewalk. The City Engineer recommended against dedication to the City of these smaller streets due to concerns about maintenance costs, efficiency, and the ability to service the smaller streets with the City's equipment. At its public hearing on November 27, the Commission recommended that the 503.635-0215 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city Page 3 Council adopt the proposed amendments without the proposed private street standards; flag lot developments would be limited to three lots (one standard lot and two flags) served by a private access lane. Parking [LOC 50.06.003.11: The minimum on-site parking requirement for single-family dwellings is one space per dwelling. Required parking cannot be within a front yard setback, though it is not uncommon for residential lots to have additional parking, for example in a driveway area in front of a garage. Currently, where an access lane serves seven or eight dwelling units, additional parking for four standard vehicles must be provided either "on-lane" in small turnouts, or "off-lane" in a small parking lot. Smaller flag lot developments have no requirement for providing parking in addition to the one space required on each lot. Because of the narrow width of access lanes (20 ft.), parking cannot generally be provided on the lane. The Commission recommends that for each flag lot served by an access lane, a standard parking space be provided on the lane. This may limit development in some cases as the areas provided for access and parking are excluded from Net Developable Area. Setbacks and Orientation f LOC 50.07.007.2.e.v(1)l: In 2010, the flag lot standards were amended to require development sites to provide the opportunity for access lanes (existing or potential) to be extended onto an abutting property. In addition, whether or not there is development potential on the abutting lot, the front yard setback on the flag lot is measured from the access lane or a projection of the access lane (see Figure 50.07.007-A: Flag Lot Front Yard). Since 2010, no partitions or subdivisions have resulted in connected access lanes, and the potential for connected access lanes was not generally supported by the community. The Commission recommends removing the requirement to connect access lanes. The Commission also recommends the front setback for the "last" flag lot be similar to the what is required in the zone for corner lots, measured either from the property line parallel to the public street or to the property line parallel to the orientation of the projected access lane. This change provides flexibility for appropriately orienting the house on its lot. Front Setback on Flag Lots [LOC 50.07.007.2.e.vl: Recent flag lot developments can appear crowded as viewed from the street or access lane, and the difference in front setback requirements between flag and non-flag lots may be contributing to this problem. This is particularly true where flag lots line both sides of a private access lane and is due in part to the narrower width of these lanes compared to standard city streets. As recommended by the Planning Commission, the front setback, measured from the access lane, is proposed to increase from 10 ft. to 15 ft. Lot Coverage and Floor Area FLOC 50.07.002.e.viil: This amendment clarifies that lot coverage and floor area are both calculated on net area (i.e., the area in the access lane/flag pole area is deducted from the gross lot size). Presently, the access lane/flag pole area is netted out only for determining minimum lot area and lot coverage. This change is consistent with the original intent of the 2010 Flag Lot Amendments. 503.635-0215 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city Page 4 Flag Lot Screening, Rear Yard Landscaping [LOC 50.07.00.2.f.ivl: The Flag Lot standards require a landscaping buffer to be provided along the rear property lines of flag lots. As the required orientation of houses on flag lots changed in 2010, the screening requirement was rotated to what was previously a side yard. A "rear" yard is always opposite a "front" yard, but because of the way side and rear flag lot setbacks are calculated (cumulatively), the "rear" yard may not be the largest yard. The proposed amendment requires the landscaping buffer to be provided along the largest side or rear yard of a flag lot. Therefore, the yard that is most likely to be actively used and also has the most space for plantings will have a landscape buffer. Flag Lot Definition [LOC 50.10.0031: The Flag Lot standards (established in 1998) are imposed at the time of lot creation and enforced at the time of building permit review. Accordingly, the Flag Lot standards do not apply to lots created prior to 1998. The amendment to the definition of "flag lot" clarifies that the flag lot standards apply only to lots created under the Flag Lot standards. Lots created before September 6, 1998, the effective date of the flag lot requirements, that do not have standard frontage on a public street are not considered "flag lots." ALTERNATIVES & FISCAL IMPACT The Council may direct staff to prepare a draft ordinance and schedule a public hearing on the proposed Code amendments. The proposed amendments may indirectly have a positive fiscal impact, as they include some code streamlining; however the limitations on the number of flag lots served by an access lane, as well as the increased parking requirements could have a negative fiscal impact. 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 regulation in certain cases or compensation for the lost value. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Council identify items in the proposed Code amendments that the Council would wish additional information on, and provide direction to staff for preparation of a draft ordinance and subsequent public hearing before the Council. EXHIBITS A. Draft Ordinances A-1.1 Draft Ordinance 2759, 12/06/17 (supersedes Exhibit A-1) Attachment 1: Reserved for City Council Findings (not included) Attachment 2: Draft Code Text, 12/06/17 (supersedes version dated 11/08/17) B. Findings, Conclusions and Order [No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use] C. Minutes C-1 Planning Commission Minutes, 10/09/17 503.635-0215 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city Page 5 D. Staff Reports D-1 Planning Commission Staff Report, 09/29/17 D-2 Planning Commission Memo, 11/17/2017 E. Graphics/Plans E-1 Density Analysis: Serial Partitions and Access Lanes E-2 Density Analysis: Serial Partitions and Public Streets F. Written Materials F-1 Public Review Draft Narrative, 08/15/17 F-2 Spreadsheet Comparison of Flag Lot/Access Lanes and Public Streets, 09/29/17 G. Letters G-1 Letter from Sheila Carlson, 08/29/17 G-2 Letter from Bill Abadie with Hallinan Heights Neighborhood Association, 08/30/17 G-3 E-Mail from Dianne Cassidy, 08/30/17 G-4 E-Mail from Jim Standring, 08/31/17 G-5 Letter from James Adkins with Home Builders Association of Metro Portland, 09/05/07 G-6 E-Mail from Scott Bullard with Forest Highlands Neighborhood Association, 09/06/17 G-7 E-Mail from Diana Boom with Evergreen Neighborhood Association, 09/27/17 G-8 Photos submitted by Liz Martin, submitted 10/08/17 G-9 E-Mail from Jim Fisher, 10/02/17 G-10 Letter from Waluga Neighborhood Association, 10/09/17 G-11 Letter from Wendie Kellington on behalf of Stuart Bingham, 10/09/17 G-12 Statement from Bill Abadie, submitted 10/09/17 G-13 Statement from Liz Martin, submitted 10/09/17 G-14 Map-Uplands Flag Lot Dev. And City of Portland Handout on Flag Lot Dev. submitted by Audrey Mattison, 10/09/17 G-15 Photo of Prohibited Parking on Access Lane, submitted Carolyn Krebs, 10/09/17 G-16 E-Mail from James Adkins, Home Builders Association of Metro Portland, 10/23/17 G-17 E-Mail from Bruce Brown, Waluga Neighborhood Association, 11/27/17 G-18 E-Mail from James Stupfel, 11/27/17 G-19 Letter from James Adkins, Home Builders Association of Metro Portland, 11/27/17 G-20 Letter from J. Terrance Bittner, Attorney for Bryn and Janice Torkelson, 11/27/17 G-21 Letter from Renee France, Attorney for Teri and Saul Caprio, 11/27/17 G-22 Sample Plans submitted by Ralph Tahran, 11/27/17 G-23 Letter from Jerry Nierengarten, Lake Grove Neighborhood Association, 10/27/17 503.635-0215 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city Page 6 Staff reports and public meeting materials can be found by visiting the project web page. Use the link below to visit the City's "Project" page. In the "Search" box enter LU 17-0052 then press "Submit": http://www.ci.oswego.or.us/proiects 503.635-0215 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city DRAFT 12/06/17 EXHIBIT A-1.1 LU 17-0052 ORDINANCE 2759 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO AMENDING LOC 50.06.003.1, LOC 50.07.007.2 AND LOC 50.10.003.2 OF CHAPTER 50(COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE) FOR THE PURPOSE OF UPDATING THE FLAG LOT STANDARDS REGARDING LANDSCAPING, SETBACKS AND PARKING; LIMITING THE NUMBER OF FLAG LOTS SERVED BY AN ACCESS LANE TO TWO; REMOVING THE REQUIREMENT TO CONNECT ACCESS LANES; AMENDING THE DEFINITION OF FLAG LOT, AND ADOPTING FINDINGS (LU 17-0052). WHEREAS, notice of the public hearing for consideration of this Ordinance was duly given in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, public hearings before the Planning Commission were held on October 9 and November 27, 2017, at which the staff report, testimony, and evidence were received and considered; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has recommended that LU 17-0052 be approved by the City Council; and WHEREAS, a public hearing on LU 17-0052 was held before the Lake Oswego City Council on January 2, 2018, at which the staff report, testimony, and evidence were received and considered; and WHEREAS, the Council finds that the Community Development Code should be amended to update the Access and Flag Lot standards; and The City of Lake Oswego ordains as follows: Section 1. The City Council adopts the Findings and Conclusions (LU 17-0052), attached as Attachment 1. Section 2. The Lake Oswego Code is amended by adding the new text shown in double underlined type and deleting text shown in strikcthrough type as shown in Attachment 2. Section 3. 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 4. 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 2nd day of January, 2018. Ordinance 2759 EXHIBIT A-1.1/PAGE 1 OF 2 DRAFT 12/06/17 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: EXCUSED: Kent Studebaker, Mayor Dated: ATTEST: Anne-Marie Simpson, City Recorder APPROVED AS TO FORM: David Powell City Attorney Ordinance 2759 EXHIBIT A-1.1/PAGE 2 OF 2 ATTACHMENT 1 Reserved for City Council Findings (not included) ATTACHMENT 2 (Ordinance 2759) PROPOSED CHANGES: Shown as strikeout text for deletions, and LU 17-0052 underline text for new language. 50.06.003 CIRCULATION AND CONNECTIVITY 1.ACCESS/ACCESS LANES(FLAG LOTS) a. Definition of Access For the purposes of this section, access shall be defined as: "area within public right-of-way directly affected by the traffic generated by the particular development and necessary to provide safe and efficient ingress and egress to the property." b. Applicability This section is applicable to all major developments and to the following minor developments: i. Construction or alteration of multi-family dwelling; ii. Construction or alteration of major public facilities; iii. Construction or alteration of commercial development; iv. Construction or alteration of institutional development; v. Construction or alteration of industrial development; and vi. Land divisions (partitions and subdivisions). c. Standards for Approval i. Every residentially zoned lot shall abut a street for the following minimum length: TABLE 50.06.003-1: MINIMUM STREET FRONTAGE Residentially Zoned Lot Minimum Street Frontage Rowhouse 17 ft. Flag Lot LOC 50.07.007.2.c All Other 25 ft. DRAFT 12/06/17 LU 17-0052 (Ordinance 2759) ATTACHMENT 2/PAGE 1 OF 18 ii. Access design shall be based on the following five criteria: (1) Topography; (2) Traffic volume to be generated by the development; (3) Classification of the public street from which the access is taken (residential.local, collector or arterial); (4) Traffic volume presently carried by such street; and (5) Projected traffic volumes. iii. Direct permanent access from a development to an arterial street is prohibited where an alternate access is either available or is expected to be available. A temporary access may be allowed only where approved by the City Engineer under LOC Chapter 42. iv. Direct access from a development or a structure to a local residential street is required unless such access is not available. v. The City may require shared access with a neighboring site or an extension of residential streets across adjacent properties to provide access to the development if necessary to prevent adverse impacts on traffic flow. vi. If no satisfactory access from a public street to a development is available, the City shall require postponement of the development until such time as a satisfactory access becomes available. vii. Access !cr.= created by a pert!t!cr pr!:atc streets created by a subdivision shall. contemporaneously provide an option of dedication to the City. Dedication: City will not accept access lanes because they do not meet public street standards for width, access, etc. (Nov 2017). d. Standards for Access Lanes Access lanes shall meet the following minimum standards: i. Twenty-ft.wide easement. ii. Access to two to threefour dwelling units—12 ft. of pavement with a four ft. shoulder on each side. iii. Access to five to eight dwelling : ::c 16 ft. of pavement with a two ft. shoulder on each side. DRAFT 12/06/17 LU 17-0052 (Ordinance 2759) ATTACHMENT 2/PAGE 2 OF 18 iv. When providing access for seven to eight dwelling units,tho access lanc shall be designed to provide "on lanc" pz rk rg far mini „,w, of fcur standard vehicles or provide an "off lane" �!rg aroma for a minimum of faur standard vehicles. viii.Access lanes shall align with existing and/or planned streets or access lanes where practicable. ivi. All new or modified access lanes shall follow access spacing as shown in Table 50.06.003-2, Access Spacing, where practicable, and, as determined by the City Engineer, shall not create a traffic operational or safety conflict. TABLE 50.06.003-2:ACCESS SPACING Minimum Spacing Functional Classification (ft.) Major Arterial 300 Minor Arterial 200 Major Collector 150 Neighborhood Collector 100 Local Residential Street 50 Local Commercial/Industrial 50 Street Oct 2017(PC): Planning Commission recommends limiting flag lot developments to two flag lots (and one non- flag lot) accessed by an access lane, and requiring one additional parking space on the access lane for each flag lot. [Note: If a flag lot is served by a DRIVEWAY, no additional on-site parking space is required.] Amendment to Access Spacing Table clarifies that the spacing does not apply to driveways (which only serve one lot, by definition). e. Traffic Study Determination of the location and configuration of an access shall be based on a traffic study, unless otherwise approved by the City Manager. f. Expenses Borne by Developer The expense related to modification of an existing street to accommodate proposed access including all traffic control devices and lighting shall be paid for by the developer. g. Distance between Access and Nearest Intersection Except for partitions, access from a development to a collector or an arterial shall be not less than 100 ft.from the nearest intersection of street centerlines. DRAFT 12/06/17 LU 17-0052 (Ordinance 2759) ATTACHMENT 2/PAGE 3 OF 18 50.07.007 LAND DIVISIONS 1. REQUIREMENTS FOR LAND DIVISIONS All land divisions shall meet the requirements of this Code including all zone district standards and dimensions except as modified in this section. 2. FLAG LOTS a. Purpose;Applicability i. The purpose of the flag lot section is to: (1) Enable the efficient use of residential land and public facilities and services, (2) Provide standards for site, building, and design compatibility of the new development with the existing neighborhood character, (3) Reduce the area of impervious surface resulting from redundant access paving, and improve the appearance where pavement is necessary, and (4) Minimize the disturbance of natural resources. ii. The provisions of this section shall apply to all land divisions and lot line adjustments creating flag lots in residential zones after September 6, 1998, and to any development occurring on a flag lot in a residential zone created after September 6, 1998. Exception:These provisions do not apply to existing flag lots that are reconfigured through a Lot Line Adjustment; the standards in effect at the time of the existing flag lot's creation remain applicable. iii. Compliance with Zone Standards. Flag lots shall comply with the requirements of the underlying zone except where noted in this article.A land division or lot line adjustment creating a flag lot shall also comply with any specific residential design criteria contained within an applicable adopted neighborhood plan. DRAFT 12/06/17 LU 17-0052 (Ordinance 2759) ATTACHMENT 2/PAGE 4 OF 18 CREATION OF FLAG LOT: Under the legal lot creation analysis, "creation" of a lot could include reconfiguration of an existing flag lot through a Lot Line Adjustment (LLA). Because orientation and setbacks of flag lots changed considerably in 2010, a LLA that "creates" a new flag lot could create non-conformities with setbacks and orientation. This amendment clarifies that the applicability of current flag lot standards do not apply to existing flag lots(developed or undeveloped)that have their boundaries adjusted through a LLA. Oct 2017 (PC): Combined with edits to Flag Lot definition, clarifies that development on lots created before 9/1998 and that do not have frontage on a public street are not subject to the then current flag lot standards because the Flag Lot Standards per LOC 50.07.007.2 are imposed at the time of creation of the flag lot. If created before the 1998 Flag Lot standards, even if boundaries later adjusted by LLA, development on the lot is subject to the underlying zone standards [Phantom Bluff]. iv. Parcelization Plan In addition to the general application requirements for land divisions or lot line adjustments, an application to create a flag lot shall include a conceptual plan of complete parcelization of the subject property illustrating the maximum potential density, and shall include a site plan illustrating the location of existing structures on adjacent parcels.The reviewing authority may impose conditions in order to ensure that parcelization of the subject property will not preclude the development of surrounding properties. Such conditions may be related (but not limited)to access, circulation, building location, utility availability, and natural resource protection. May 2017: Clarifies that the parcelization plan should show maximum potential density. b. Exceptions The reviewing authority may allow exceptions to this section without the need to obtain a formal variance pursuant to LOC Article 50.08,Variances, in one or more of the following circumstances: i. Landscaping required by LOC 50.07.007.2.f.i as separation between driveways, which would not result in screening or buffering as intended due to topography, lot configuration, or existing natural resources which would be preserved, may be modified or may not be required; ii. Setback adjustments of up to two ft.which are necessary to site a dwelling in compliance with this article, or will result in additional separation from existing dwellings on surrounding lots, may be permitted; iii. If an existing structure(s)would be located on a proposed flag lot created by partition and the structure(s)would become noncomplying with any regulation of this Code,the proposed partition may be approved if the standard causing the noncompliance can be adjusted under LOC 50.04.003.2, General Exception to Lot Area and Dimension Requirements. DRAFT 12/06/17 LU 17-0052 (Ordinance 2759) ATTACHMENT 2/PAGE 5 OF 18 iv. Minimum driveway widths of 12 ft. required by LOC 50.07.007.2.c.iii may be reduced, when approved by the City of Lake Oswego Fire Marshal. c. Access i. When creating flag lots,the reviewing authority shall require that access to the flag lots is consolidated into a single shared access lane with access to the non-flag lot(s) peront pc mor off site, wherever practicable. If not practicable, then new lots may have individual access pointsan additional accccc r c;be a!!c'.ved on site or off site.Aeeccc !a:cc chw!! extend through the partition c!to or d be oxtor ded tc plouttIng developob!c property to provide a continuous connecting access lane whoro practicable. MAINTENANCE 1: The "parent parcel" ceases to exist after the LLA or land division that creates a flag lot; reference is changed from "parent parcel"to "non-flag lot(s)". MAINTENANCE 2: "Partition" site changed to "development" site because flag lots can be created through lot line adjustments, partitions and subdivisions. Ocr 2017(PC): Deletes requirement that access lanes make connections to abutting "developable" lot(s). ii. Flag lots shall have access to a public or private street; however, actual street frontage shall not be required. iii. A driveway shall be used to serve a single propertylot.An access lane shall serve no more than two flag lots (the access lane may also provide access for one non-flag lot) eight properties. (1) Driveway widths shall be a minimum of 12 ft. Driveway length, construction standards, and turnaround requirements shall be determined by LOC 50.06.003.2, On-Site Circulation— Driveways and Fire Access Roads. (2) See LOC 50.06.003.1.d, Standards for Access Lanes,for width of access lanes. iv. No more than two driveways (whether to flag lot or non-flag lots) or access lanes shall be permitted within a distance equal to the minimum lot width of the underlying zone, or within 50 ft. of each other if no minimum exists, as measured from the closest edge of each driveway or access lane. v. All dwellings buildings on flag lots must post an address at the beginning of the driveway or access lane.The address shall be no less than six in.tall, must be on contrasting background, plainly visible, and must indicate the direction to the buildinizdwelling. OCT 2017(PC): Flag lot development limited to two flags and one non-flag. Access lanes can therefore serve a maximum of three dwellings. DRAFT 12/06/17 LU 17-0052 (Ordinance 2759) ATTACHMENT 2/PAGE 6 OF 18 d. Lot Configuration Requirements i. Determination of Front Yard The front yard shall be determined as follows: (1) Except for a lot thct fronts c~ c p "!:c street, as provided below,the front yard(s) of a flag lot shall be measured from the access lane or frcrn c pro octoc' c::+c^�'.on of the access lane through the property (see LOC 50.07.007.2.e.v for setback requirements). Exception: For a flag lot at the farthest end of the access lane or a flag lot served by a driveway,the zone front yard setback shall apply and is measured from either the property line most parallel to the public street or the property line most parallel to the orientation of the proiected access lane or driveway(see Figure 50.07.007-B). DELETE REQUIREMENT TO CONNECT ACCESS LANES,ADD SETBACK FLEXIBILITY FOR"LAST"FLAG LOT: The Planning Commission recommended removing the requirement to connect access lanes. This amendment also provides flexibility on setbacks for the "last" flag lot: the amendment would apply the zone front setback(25 feet in R-15, R-10, R-7.5; 20 feet in R-5, R-3 and R-0), measured from either the property line parallel to the public street (similar to the Uplands proposal) or to the property line parallel to the orientation of the access lane/driveway. Where connectivity for public access is needed, a public street dedication or pedestrian access easement and future street plan would be required under a separate code provision (Street Connectivity). Mav 2017:The current flag lot standards treat a single flag lot that accesses via a pole (i.e., it "fronts" on a public street) differently from a single flag lot that accesses through an easement(no frontage). In the former case,the 25-foot front yard is measured from the property line abutting the street. This discrepancy is identified in Exception 1 (moved from introduction). The flexibility proposed for the "last" flag lot should apply to the flag lot in two-parcel partitions: front either measured from property line parallel to the public street, or along property line parallel to projected access easement. [Prior to 2010, "front" always measured from property line most parallel to public street; the Flag Lot Amendments in 2010 that created the streetscape/orientation to the access lane created this discrepancy]. The option allows flexibility—the remaining setbacks would be distributed according to formula and abutting development pattern; the applicant's burden is to show how the setback distribution responds to existing development on abutting properties. DRAFT 12/06/17 LU 17-0052 (Ordinance 2759) ATTACHMENT 2/PAGE 7 OF 18 (2) A front yard occurs on cithcr sidc of the acco !enc cf the flag lot. Scc Figure 50.07.007 A: ct Frcr`YM.d, ub Figure 50.07.007 A: Flag Lot Front Yard • Flag Fat Flag is t projettkinofberms lane ` 5, nag kit /{ =can dIM Street DOUBLE FRONT YARD ON FLAG LOTS: May 2017:The situation described in the graphic—i.e.,that access lanes are located on two sides of a flag lot—has never occurred in the 8 years that this has been effective. This requirement sets up the impossibility of requiring a dwelling to "orient" in two opposite directions—see e(i)(1), Building Orientation, below. Staff recommends deleting this subsection and graphic. FEditor's Note: Figure 50.07.007-A was repealed by Ord. 2759, and the reference is reserved for future use.] ii. Lot Width Lot width shall be measured by a line connecting two points on opposite side yard property lines,that will result in a line parallel to the front yard. iii. Lot Size Area of access easement or flagpole shall be deducted from the gross acreage of the flag lot.The "flag" portion of the lot shall be equal to or exceed the square footage of the underlying zone. DRAFT 12/06/17 LU 17-0052 (Ordinance 2759) ATTACHMENT 2/PAGE 8 OF 18 e. Building and Site Design Standards i. Building Orientation The reviewing authority shall require the following: (1) Except for dwellings on flag lots(s) at the farthest end of the access lane or flag lots served by a driveway, nNew dwellings on flag lots shall have the front of the house oriented towards the access lane or from a projected extension of the access lane through the property. FLEXIBILITY ON"LAST"FLAG LOT: The Planning Commission recommended elimination of the requirement to connect private access lanes to abutting development. Similar to the flexibility on the location of the "front" setback on flag lots at the end of an access lane,this amendment gives flexibility to the orientation of the dwelling on the "last" flag lot, i.e.,the "front of the house" does not have to coincide with the front setback). However, subsection (2) below still applies to the last flag lot, requiring maximum separation and privacy. (2) Buildings shall be oriented to provide the maximum separation and privacy from existing dwellings on abutting lots outside of the partition site.The reviewing authority may require conditions of approval to include measures such as specific building locations, increased setbacks, additional height restrictions, location and orientation of windows and other openings. ii. Garage placement she!! be reviewed at the time of building perm!t epp!!cation to ensure -- • •- --- •- -- •- -- rt she!! rnce ,,,,,,,,,,�,.,•. _ _ _ _ _ _. - _ . �„ ., ... t the following requirements: (1) Be side loading where e::::'::!:.g redius can be provided het e!!ows for u ,,,,,,,,,,wm of 24 ft. separation from the garage door and any obstructions or property lines, or (2) Be placed such t"ut no more than 10%of_arage wall area is visible from the intersection of the flag lot driveway and street. . _ _ -- en e gerege has wall(s)facing a street,these wall(s) she!! "u:.e more than one plane or she!! ! c!wdc fenestration equal to at least 10%of the garage wall. When the lot is a corner lot(eb:::tfng two or more streets),t`:!:subseetion!,epp!!ed to uch wall that faces a street. (a) To demonstrate compliance w•!+.".th..:c et r.dard, building elevatio:s:he!! be d::brr.!tte4 which depict the facade ar a facing the street at a width equal to the access asement. DRAFT 12/06/17 LU 17-0052 (Ordinance 2759) ATTACHMENT 2/PAGE 9 OF 18 {b} The arca of a specific facade of a building is determined by adding the square footage of surface arca of each section of wall facing the street. For buildings with more than ono w�,p!u~c; u!ang one facade (for example, rooms tt g out from tho :r,..~ ";:!!ding or a building where each floor is set back from the floor below), all of the walls are included in the total area.Tho oto! oroa docs not include any roof area. GARAGE APPEARANCE AND LOCATION STANDARDS: Deleted in entirety because garages on flag lots are never close enough to a public street for these standards to have any practical effect. The Garage Appearance and Location standards are meant to minimize the appearance of a garage from the street. The garage design standards that apply to Non-Flag lots are not applicable to garages that are at least 60 feet from a public right-of-way, regardless of whether the garage doors face the street. In flag lot developments in all zones,the garage face on a flag lot could be no closer to the street than 75 feet. For example, using minimum dimensional standards of the R-5 zone (20-foot front setback and 20-foot rear setback on non-flag lot), and assuming only a 25 foot deep building envelope, plus a 10 foot side setback on the abutting flag lot,the flag lot dwelling is 75 feet from the street. iii. Maximum Structure Height The height of a single-family residential structure and any accessory structures on a flag lot shall not exceed: (1) For flag lots created after August 14, 2003,the taller of: (a) Twenty-two ft., or (b) The average height of all dwellings on properties abutting the development site, as determined prior to the time of creation of the flag lot.Where there is no dwelling on the abutting property or where a dwelling is located more than 100 ft. away from the development site: (i) The maximum height permitted in the underlying zone shall be used for calculating the average, except: 1. In cases where the abutting property is zoned to permit a height greater than that allowed on the subject site,then the maximum height for the zone in which the subject site is located shall be substituted and used to calculate the average. (2) For flag lots created before August 14, 2003,the taller of: (a) The maximum building height limitation established at the time of creation of the flag lot.The methodology used to calculate the maximum building height permitted by this subsection shall be the same methodology used at the time of lot creation to establish the maximum building height, or (b) Twenty-two ft. (see LOC 50.10.003.2, Height of Building, for methodology). DRAFT 12/06/17 LU 17-0052 (Ordinance 2759) ATTACHMENT 2/PAGE 10 OF 18 The City Manager may execute and record amendments to previously recorded development restrictions, upon the owner's or adjacent property owner's request, or at the City's discretion, if necessary to reflect a taller building height limitation than previously approved. (3) Modification of Approved Building Height The maximum building height of single-family residential structures and accessory structures on a flag lot (whether created prior to or after August 14, 2003) may be modified from that previously determined at the time of creation of the flag lot to the average height of all dwellings on properties abutting the development site.Where there is no dwelling on the abutting property or where a dwelling is located more than 100 ft. away from the development site,then the maximum height permitted in the underlying zone shall be used for calculating the average. In cases where the abutting property is zoned to permit a height greater than that allowed on the subject site,then the maximum height for the zone in which the subject site is located shall be substituted and used to calculate the average. Where an existing structure on an abutting lot exceeds the maximum height allowed by the underlying zone,then the maximum height permitted by the underlying zone shall be used for purposes of calculating the average. An application for modification of maximum building height for a flag lot shall be processed pursuant to LOC 50.07.003.11, Modification of Development Permits, as a new application. The City Manager may execute and record amendments to previously recorded development restrictions. (4) Exceptions to Maximum Structure Height A greater height than otherwise permitted for roof forms or architectural features, such as cupolas or dormers, may be allowed pursuant to LOC 50.04.001.1.g.ii, 50.04.001.2.g.ii, or 50.04.001.3.f.v(2). iv. Access Lane Siting The access lane shall be located no closer than five ft.to any existing dwellings. v. Setback Requirements (1) The standard front yard setback of the zone shall be superseded by the following front yard requirement:A minimum 15ten ft.front yard setback is required from the access lane, except that a 20-ft. setback is required from the access lane to the front of a garage or carport when the garage or carport opening faces the access lane. For flag lot partitions or subdivisions that receive a minor variance to the determination of the front yard, per LOC 50.08.002.2.m,the setbacks from the access lane described above shall apply. For purposes of this standard, the access lane shall include the projected extension of the access lane through the property as illustrated in Figure 50.07.007-B: Access Lane. DRAFT 12/06/17 LU 17-0052 (Ordinance 2759) ATTACHMENT 2/PAGE 11 OF 18 Exception:This provision does not apply to the flag lot(s) at the farthest end of the access lane. In such case,the zone front yard shall-apply and be measured from either the property line most parallel to the public street or the property line most parallel to the orientation of the proiection of the access lane. FRONT SETBACK INCREASE: Front Setback, as measured from the access lane, is increased from 10 feet to 15 feet; Planning Commission determined that the 10 foot setback creates a crowded feeling along the access lane. Where the zone setback is required, the front yard would be 25 feet in R-15, R-10, R-7.5; or 20 feet in R- 5, R-3 and R-0. FRONT SETBACK FLEXIBILITY: The Planning Commission recommended elimination of the requirement to connect private access lanes to abutting development. Without a required connection,there is no reason to provide a streetscape along the lane for the "last"flag lot. This amendment provides flexibility on the location of the "front" setback on flag lots at the end of an access lane. Figure 50.07.007-B:Access Lane 4 Er P—L rim Lor 1 QIP n.1 ProJetted extension et the ataets lane through the rehr Mg Ipl. ▪ 1fi C Flag Lot t 'r ■ • n I Steil DRAFT 12/06/17 LU 17-0052 (Ordinance 2759) ATTACHMENT 2/PAGE 12 OF 18 F l ag•Lot¶ 111-1125'•Front•Setback dptions¶ Flag-1_0011 15411 • • A c t i 20'¶ Garage¶ e s ¶ L a Street¶ Access Lane Graphic revised (bottom graphic)to reflect (1) increased setback to dwelling and (2) flexibility on location of front setback on last lot. (2) Where a flag lot abuts a lot in a residential district of lower density,the greater setback requirements of the more restrictive district shall apply for those yards which that have abutting property lines. (3) The side and rear yard setbacks shall be established at the time of flag lot creation, subject to the following requirements: (a) The sum of the side and rear yard setbacks on flag lots shall be not less than: (i) 50Fifty ft. in R-10 and R-15 zones; and (ii) 45Forty five ft. in the R-7.5 zonercsidcntial zoncs other R 10 and R 15.; and 'iii) 35 ft. in the R-5. R-3 and R-0 zones. (b) In applying the flexible standard, provide yard dimensions that are similar to the yard dimensions of primary structures on abutting properties that are not part of the DRAFT 12/06/17 LU 17-0052 (Ordinance 2759) ATTACHMENT 2/PAGE 13 OF 18 partition site and that abut the rear or side yards of the flag lots, but in no event shall the rear or side yard established under this section be less than: ii) 14Ten ft. in the R-15, R-10 and R-7.5 zones, and iii) 7.5 ft. in the R-5, R-3 and R-0 zones. SETBACK DISTRIBUTION: In the R-5, R-3 and R-0 zones,the cumulative rear and side setbacks had to add up to 45 feet on flag lots, which was 15 feet more than the cumulative rear and side setbacks on non-flag lots. Staff could find no legislative history that this discrepancy was intentional, and the stated reason for the setback distribution was to "provide flexibility while maintaining the same overall combined setback total." The cumulative side and rear setbacks on non-flag lots is 30 feet (20 ft. rear and 5 ft. on each side). The proposed cumulative of 35 feet, with nothing less than 7.5 feet, is closer to the non-flag distribution and will generally ensure that one yard is bigger(i.e., a rear yard). [Flag lot opportunities in R-5, R-3 and R-0 zones are fewer than in the other zones. This amendment does not affect density.] May 2017: Updated number conventions to match rest of Chapter 50: Only numbers below eleven are written out. vi. Lot Width Requirements The lot width dimension of a flag lot shall knot be less than the minimum lot width requirements of the underlying zone. vii. Lot Coverage and Floor Area For the purposes of calculating lot coverage and floor area on flag lots,the area of access easement or flagpole shall be deducted from the gross acreage of the flag lot. LOT COVERAGE AND FLOOR AREA BASED ON NET SITE AREA: Consistent with the intent of 2010 Flag Lot Amendments,this section clarifies that lot coverage and floor area on a flag lot are calculated on the net area (i.e., the area in the access lane/flag pole is deducted from the gross lot size). Currently, lot coverage is based on net lot area on flag lots but floor area is based on gross lot area. Staff recommends stating this specifically in the Flag Lot section. f. Screening, Buffering and Landscape Installation i. A minimum five-ft. landscape strip shall be provided between the access lane and the exterior lot line perimeter of the development site when the shared access lane is.providedlocated along the perimeter of the development site site, and along both sides of the access lane when the shared accccc :c ;:rovidcd at the interior of the development site, abutting both sides of the access lane serving flag lots except for pedestr .z. ucd vehicle access to the flag lot(s) served by the access lane. Where land area is not sufficient to accommodate a-the five-ft. wide landscape DRAFT 12/06/17 LU 17-0052 (Ordinance 2759) ATTACHMENT 2/PAGE 14 OF 18 strip on either side of the new access lane,the reviewing authority may impose conditions of approval to include measures that will provide effective buffering and screening.These measures may include landscaped islands, fencing, and meandering access lane. Exception: If a new lot is provided on both sides of an access lane, the landscape strip is not required. The reviewing authority shall require the landscape strip to be planted with trees and shrubs in order to mitigate the visual impact of wide expanses of pavement, and to provide a visual buffer between the access lane and the affected dwelling(s) located on abutting parcels. Plant materials used for screening and buffering shall be of a size to provide an effective screen within two years of planting.Trees shall be a minimum two-in. caliper, and shrubs shall be a minimum of five-gallon at time of planting. Maintenance of the buffer is an ongoing obligation of the property owner. Exception: Trees are not required when the trees would conflict with utilities. LANDSCAPING BUFFER ON INTERIOR SIDE OF ACCESS LANE: The requirement to provide landscaping on the interior side of the access lane has been deleted; it is often removed by the homeowner and does nothing to buffer existing development from flag lot development impacts. Landscaping only required along exterior, as shown below(green stripe). If access is provided in the middle of the site, no landscaping would be required on either side of the access lane. Flag Lot ii Flag Lot i CONFLICT BETWEEN UTILITIES AND FLAG LOT LANDSCAPING: The Engineering staff noted the potential conflict between utilities (which are often placed within the access lane/easement) and the requirement of trees in close proximity; current policy is to prohibit trees within public easements. This amendment makes an exception to the tree requirement when utilities are present. [Note: the revisions to the flag lot fencing requirement should effectively buffer the access lane from the views of immediately abutting properties.] DRAFT 12/06/17 LU 17-0052 (Ordinance 2759) ATTACHMENT 2/PAGE 15 OF 18 ii. Existing mature vegetation and trees shall be integrated as screening where practicable.The reviewing authority may require dwelling and garage placement or orientation in a manner that will minimize the removal of specific trees, hedges, or other vegetation that would serve to screen the proposed structures from existing and potential surrounding homes. i. The perimeter of thereat-and side yards of the flag lotbj shall be screened from abutting lots outside of the development partition site with a six-ft.tall fence, except: FLAG LOT FENCING: The "sides and rear" of flag lots must be fenced, but with the change in orientation in 2010,the "sides and rear" were rotated 45-degrees. This amendment would require fencing at the perimeter of any new flag lot. Flag Lot Flag Lot (1) Where a four-ft.fence is required by LOC 50.06.004.2.b.i, Fences, or where such screening would conflict with standards for Sensitive Lands Overlay Districts; or (2) Where the fence would be located within a wetland or stream channel. DRAFT 12/06/17 LU 17-0052 (Ordinance 2759) ATTACHMENT 2/PAGE 16 OF 18 iv. A landscaped buffer within the rear deepest side or rear yard provided in compliance with the flexible setback standard of LOC 50.07.007.2.v(3), setback a minimum of six ft. in widthL shall be created along the r ar property line and planted with a deciduous or evergreen hedge, a minimum four ft. in height at planting, which shall grow to a height of six ft. within two years and shall be maintained at a minimum of that height.Thisc above requirements pertaining to the "r ar yard" is are not applicable where the deepestr ar yard abuts Oswego Lake or railroad rights-of-way. FLAG LOT LANDSCAPING: The "rear" of a flag lots must provide a landscaping buffer, but with the change in orientation in 2010, the "rear" was rotated 45-degrees. This amendment would require landscaping in the deepest side or rear yard provided on a flag lot [Note: A"rear" is always opposite a "front", but because of the flexible/cumulative setback standard,the "rear" may not be the largest yard; the largest yard, which provides the activity area, should have the buffering. iv. Tree Removal Mitigation A minimum of one evergreen or deciduous tree shall be planted at a 1:1 ratio where practicable in order to mitigate the removal of existing trees necessary for site development as a part of the creation of the lot or for the first dwelling constructed on the lot.The mitigation trees shall be of a species which will attain a minimum of 30 ft. in height. Deciduous trees at planting shall be a minimum of two-in. caliper and evergreen trees shall be a minimum of eight ft. tall. DRAFT 12/06/17 LU 17-0052 (Ordinance 2759) ATTACHMENT 2/PAGE 17 OF 18 50.10.003 DEFINITIONS 2. DEFINITION OF TERMS The following terms shall mean: //////////////////////////////// Access Lane The area on private property that extends from the public right-of-way and is permitted to provide ingress and egress for two to three lots the property or properties by applicable surface modes of travel. ////////////////////////////// Flag Lot A lot that was created after September 6, 1998 and: 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. //////////////////////////////// OCT 2017(PC): Access Lane: Clarify that access lanes can serve no more than three lots. Flag Lots:The Flag Lot standards were created in 1998 and are imposed at the time of lot creation, not development. Accordingly,the Flag Lot standards do not apply to lots created prior to 1998. This amendment clarifies the definition of"flag lot" is applied to lots created through the Flag Lot standards. Lots created before Sept 6, 1998,that do not have standard frontage on a public street, are not considered "flag lots." The amendment clarifies that the flag lot standards only apply to lots created after that date. DRAFT 12/06/17 LU 17-0052 (Ordinance 2759) ATTACHMENT 2/PAGE 18 OF 18 APPROVED: 11/27/2017 EXHIBIT C-1 LU 17-0052 ILA CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 2017 1. CALL TO ORDER 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 Chair Heape, Vice Chair Bill Ward and Commissioners Randy Arthur, Skip Baker, Ed Brockman, Nicholas Sweers. Staff present were Scot Siegel, Planning and Building Services Director; Leslie Hamilton, Senior Planner; Debra Andreades, Senior Planner; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney; and Iris McCaleb, Administrative Assistant. 3. COUNCIL UPDATE Councilor Kohlhoff provided an update on recent Council activities. 4. CITIZEN COMMENT Charles "Skin" Ormsby, 170 SW Birdshill Road, Portland, 97219, requested a copy of the annexation report released to the City by Portland State University. He invited the Commission to the general meeting of the Birdshill Neighborhood Association. He -xpressed concern and frustration about not being notified of Willamette Shore Line Con ..rtium meetings and other meetings including a meeting with the Tryon Creek Culvert Rep . ement project with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Mr. Ormsby also provided an ..date on the status of the Terwilliger sewer installation and issues not being addressed. e stated that he may not be able to stay for the duration of this evening's meeting and s►.red that he supported the Lake Oswego Neighborhood Action Coalition (LONAC) po ' ion on flag lots and was also very concerned about street connectivity and asked the rec• : be left opened. He indicated that in April he had requested and was still waiting for a 1••. report from ODOT regarding the costs related to the expansion of Highway 43. He al o alerted the Commission of an upcoming project regarding the potential of electronic • ling on 1-205 and 1-5, leaving Highway 43 the only non-toll roadway. Mr. Siegel advised Mr. Ormsby • contact the City Manager's office for a copy of the annexation report prepared ► Portland State University. Regarding the Willamette Shore Line Consortium, Mr. Siegel .ted he was unsure if they were meeting, but would follow-up with Mr. Ormsby regardi . minutes of past meetings. Mr. Ormsby emphasized the importance of the city obtainin. . copy and reviewing the Tri-Met Bus Stop Report for bus stop accessibility throughout t city. 5. CO SSION FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT air Heape announced upcoming vacancies on various boards and commissions. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of October 9, 2017 EXHIBIT C-1/Page 1 of 18 APPROVED: 11/27/2017 6. MINUTES Consideration of the SentAmbo;-1-t 1U17, minutes was moved to the next meeting. 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS 7.1 Community Development Code Amendments — Flag Lots and Private Access Lanes (LU 17- 0052) A request from the City of Lake Oswego for text amendments to the Community Development Code amending the standards for development of flag lots and private access lanes. The proposed text amendments are to the following sections: Circulation and Connectivity [LOC 50.06.003], Park and Open Space Contributions [LOC 50.06.005], and Land Divisions, Flag Lots [LOC 50.07.007.2]. Staff coordinator is Leslie Hamilton, Senior Planner. Chair Heape opened the hearing and Mr. Boone outlined the applicable criteria and procedures. At time of declarations no conflicts of interest were reported and no one challenged any Commissioner's right to consider the application. Staff Report Ms. Hamilton presented the staff report and provided background and the history of the project to date, including four Planning Commission work sessions and two public review draft comment periods. She introduced Exhibits G-8, G-9, G-10, G-11, and G-12 into the record. She provided history of Flag Lot— Evolution: • Pre 1998: No Flag Lot Criteria • 1998-2010: Flag Lot 1 —first criteria developed • 2010-Present: Flag Lot 2 — additional criteria developed Ms. Hamilton described the main updates made from 2010 to the present (Flag Lot 2), including: • The addition of public access lane connectivity between abutting flag lot developments. • The 90-degree rotation of the front lot line to face the access lane. • The requirement to distribute the side and rear setbacks to create site-specific and context-specific setbacks. Ms. Hamilton stated that some of the key discussion points were around density and parking, including the number of flag lots accessing an access lane. She explained that currently the limit was eight and that staff had looked at limitations of six and four. She noted that the parking standard would be discussed as well to address concerns that flag lot developments didn't provide enough parking which could result in cars spilling out into the neighborhood. Lot Line Adjustments and Flag Lots: Current Code • New flag lot standards apply to existing flag lots that are reconfigured by a lot line adjustment. • Creates non-conformities regarding setbacks and orientation on developed flag lots. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of October 9, 2017 EXHIBIT C-1/Page 2 of 18 APPROVED: 11/27/2017 Proposed Code • For Flag Lots approved prior to 2010, new development/remodels must comply with the dimensional standards and orientation in effect at the time the flag lot was created. Mr. Boone added that for lots that pre-date 1998, the underlying zone standards at the time of development would apply. Orientation/Setbacks: Current Code • "Front" measured from access lane projection even if access lane cannot connect to abutting lot. Proposed Code • Zone "front" can be either parallel to Public Street or parallel to access lane orientation; measured from property line. • Maintain rear/side setback distribution to minimize impact to abutting properties. Ms. Hamilton explained that no access lanes had been connected since 2010 and that there were exceptions to the connectivity standard. She explained that even if a connection couldn't be made the access lane had to be projected; this change would provide additional flexibility. Mr. Siegel clarified that these were private lanes, not local streets. Commissioner Brockman raised a question about access lane projections in a practical sense, which would not be possible unless an easement was granted. He opined the people developing behind the flag lot development would not be guaranteed access through the access lane. Mr. Siegel responded that the easements were required to be recorded. Garage Appearance Standards: Proposed Code • Garage Appearance and Location standards deleted. • Not effective: garages on flag lots are more than 60 feet from the public street which is the limit for non-applicability on non-flag lots. Flag Lot Front Setback: Proposed Code: • For flag lots with an access lane, increase setback from 10 ft. to 15 ft., as measured from the access lane. • No change to garage face setback from access lane (20 ft.) Setback Distribution — R-5, R-3, R-0: R-5 Flag I R-5 Non-flag I R-7.5 Flag I R-7.5 Non-flag Side Setback 110 ft. (each) 15 ft. (each) 1 10 ft. (each) 115 ft. (total) Rear Setback 125 ft. 120 ft. 1 25 ft. 130 ft. Total 145 ft. 130 ft. 145 ft. 145 ft. Current Code — R-5, R-3, R-0 • Sum of side and rear setbacks at least 45 feet • No setback less than 10 feet City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of October 9, 2017 EXHIBIT C-1/Page 3 of 18 APPROVED: 11/27/2017 Proposed Code— R-5, R-3, R-0 • Sum of side and rear setbacks at least 35 feet • No setback less than 7.5 feet Ms. Hamilton explained the Setback Distribution standard and how it was calculated. The proposed amendment would better ensure that one yard would be big enough for an activity area. In response to question from Chair Heape regarding the 5-foot setback on R-5 non-flags and if that would change, Ms. Hamilton responded it would not be less than 7.5 feet on flag lots. Lot Coverage and Floor Area: Current Code • Lot coverage and lot area based on Net Developable Area. • Floor area based on gross area of flag lot. Proposed Code • Lot coverage, lot area and floor area based on Net Developable Area. • Consistent with original intent of 2010 Flag Lot Amendments. Screening/Access Lanes: Proposed Code • Delete landscaping on inside (dwelling side) of access lane. • Delete requirement for trees in buffer when potential conflict with utilities exists, as determined by City Engineer. Ms. Hamilton noted there were often potential conflicts when trees were required to be planted in those strips and the utilities that often run up and down the access lanes. She explained that one approach was to delete the requirement for trees in the buffer and the other was to delete the landscaping on the dwelling side of the access lane. She advised that the proposal would require buffering of the access lane only on the edge adjacent to another property. Screening/Perimeter Fencing: Current Code • Fencing required along-side and rear property lines of flag lots. • Screened at the rear. • Orientation rotated in 2010, leaving one side unfenced. Proposed Code • Fencing required at perimeter of new flag lots. • Screening buffer against largest yard. Ms. Hamilton explained that the code change would return to the earlier (1998-2010) requirement for perimeter fencing. She noted the buffering standard currently required a 6- foot buffer along the rear property lines of a flag lot, but that was not necessarily the largest yard or the activity area so the proposal was for a 6-foot landscaping buffer against the largest yard/activity area. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of October 9, 2017 EXHIBIT C-1/Page 4 of 18 APPROVED: 11/27/2017 Serial Partitions and Density Ms. Hamilton noted the Commission's question about what the impacts to density would be if flag lots were limited on access lanes. She indicated that density impacts were hard to quantify exactly; it depended on context, lot shape, slope, sensitive lands, access constraints, etc. Ms. Hamilton summarized the results of the map analysis: • By limiting the number of flag lots served by an access lane to six, 25 flag lots would be lost. • By limiting the number of flag lots served by an access lane to four, 64 flag lots would be lost. • By limiting the number of flag lots served by an access lane to one, about 130 flag lots would be lost. She clarified that it did not account for smaller flag lots as the map analysis was based on parcels that could be divided into five or more lots. Ms. Hamilton referenced the spreadsheet of a comparison of Flag Lot/Access Lanes and Public Streets (Exhibit F-2), described the methodology used and noted that the density impact varied according to lot shape, such as long and narrow. She noted there were trade- offs between access lanes and public streets—flag lot access lanes were efficient in terms of providing less impervious surface and public streets, once dedicated, became a maintenance responsibility for the City. She clarified that access lanes could be more flexible in terms of saving trees. In response to a question from Commissioner Arthur, Ms. Hamilton clarified that the map analysis provided information about additional lots while the discussion about limiting flag lots served by an access lane, e.g. limiting to four flag lots, would not include the original structure unless it was served by the access lane. Mr. Siegel added that the one fronting the street was not considered a flag lot. Ms. Hamilton clarified that the front house was typically served by the public street, while the parcels along the access lane were the flag lots. She further clarified that the spreadsheet was an exercise in density impacts and assumes total lots, including the front house. In response to a question from Chair Heape, Ms. Hamilton stated the lot size was used for the spreadsheet analysis was 75,000 sq. ft. Commissioner Baker asked about the Housing Needs Analysis (HNA) referenced in the staff report. Ms. Hamilton clarified that the HNA showed that Lake Oswego had more low-density residential land than would likely be needed by 2035; there was an estimate of 1,646 units in these zones, and a demand for 783 units, leaving a surplus of 863 units. She pointed out that the HNA was not specifically looking at flag lots versus non-flag lots, but was consistent in terms of how the capacity was determined, such as taking out sensitive lands. Parking Ms. Hamilton explained that currently the only requirement for flag lots was that every single- family dwelling had to have one off-street parking space on their property outside of the setbacks. She further explained that in flag lot developments with access lanes that served seven or eight lots, four standard parking spaces, either on-lane or off-lane, are required. She reviewed the three proposed options: Option 1 • Two "on-lane" standard parking spaces required for access lanes serving 4-6 dwelling units. • Four"on-lane" standard parking spaces required for access lanes serving 7-8 dwelling units. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of October 9, 2017 EXHIBIT C-1/Page 5 of 18 APPROVED: 11/27/2017 • Will affect density because area devoted to parking is not counted in Net Developable Area. Option 2 • One "on-lane" standard parking space required per flag lot if access serves 4-8 dwelling units. • No additional "on-lane" standard parking spaces required if access lane serves 2-3 dwelling units. Option 3 • Reduces flag lot developments to six lots served by an access lane. • Four additional "on-lane" standard parking spaces required if access lane serves 4-6 dwelling units. Ms. Hamilton advised that that staff recommended that the Commission make a recommendation to Council on the amendment options presented, and to adopt Ordinance 2759 (including the attachments). Commissioner Brockman asked about potential Measure 49 consequences which Mr. Boone addressed, noting there might be situations where a property owner would chose to make a Measure 49 claim. Public Testimony Bruce Brown, 2323 Wembley Park Road, Lake Oswego, 97034, noted he lived in the Uplands Neighborhood and had recently presented to the Commission on the Uplands Neighborhood Plan Overlay, which dealt with flag lots. He noted three items to comment on: • The number of lots allowed should reflect the underlying zoning density, if the Commission decided not to limit it to one flag lot. Some sort of sliding scale could be developed. Higher density zones could accommodate flag lots more easily in terms of character and density. • The biggest negative comes out of the concept of the private access lane, which could be detrimental to the character of a neighborhood. Potentially you could start to get private enclaves in what would otherwise be publicly accessible neighborhoods; it not only isolates the people on that street, but the people who lived at the end of the access lane didn't get people walking by. He advised that any access lane that served two flag lots or more should be required to have a public access easement even if it was not a public street. • Regarding setbacks, he didn't see any logical reason for a flag lot to have reduced setbacks; the lots should have to conform to the setbacks of the underlying zone. Lastly, Mr. Brown stated that he agreed that the flagpole should be deducted from the calculation and that it should be kept in the Code. In response to a question from Commissioner Brockman, Ms. Hamilton confirmed that an easement over the front lot for an access lane would be counted in the parcel's size. Commissioner Brockman observed that the very last lot would be in the same situation. Wendy Kellington, Kellington Law Group, 1335 Chandler Road, Lake Oswego, 97034, stated she was representing Stuart Bingham. She referenced the letter and maps submitted, Exhibit G-11. She explained that Mr. Bingham owned, individually or with his wife, three lots that were created by a subdivision in the 1920's on Phantom Bluff Court and that in 1959 Phantom Bluff Court was vacated and thereafter became a private street. She stated that it looked like a City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of October 9, 2017 EXHIBIT C-1/Page 6 of 18 APPROVED: 11/27/2017 public street; it did not look like a flag lot situation, the lots were linear. She indicated that the concern and hope they had was to obtain clarification in the proposed amendments that a situation like that, where you had existing platted lots created by subdivision long before there were flag lots, being served by a private streets, were not being embraced by the flag lot standards or access limitation standards. She stated she didn't see that the Bingham's lots fit the definition of a flag lot; the site had to be behind another lot. Staff thought they would meet the definition of a flag lot, but staff also felt that because the lots were created before the flag lot provisions were adopted, they would be developed under the traditional rules that would apply. She opined that staff did not intend for this type of development to be considered a flag lot. Staff clearly didn't inventory all of the private roads in the City to determine how many pre- existing lots would be rendered undevelopable. Ms. Kellington added, if this was consistent with Commission's view as well, her written material offered four different ways to clarify things. She noted this would be similar to the proposed language that said existing flag lots that were reconfigured through a lot line adjustment were subject to the standard when the flag lot was created and were not subject to the new standards. Ms. Kellington suggested that if there was an existing lot that met all of the zoning and was created prior to the flag lot standards, and was never created as a flag lot, that it was developable as a regular subdivision lot or a regular partition lot; it wasn't subject to these new flag lot standards. She suggested the definition for flag lot could be amended to say it was a newly created lot. Ms. Kellington explained that the lots that Mr. Bingham and his wife owned were shown as 37, 38, 39, and 40, and more currently were referred to as 1300, 1500, and 1600. She pointed out that they abutted Phantom Bluff Court and were existing platted subdivisions lots; they should be developable as just regular lots. She added that Commissioner Brockman was correct that lot 1300 was composed of three additional lots that were consolidated for tax purposes. Ms. Kellington pointed out that if the assumption was made that you had developable lots that abut a private street (like 1300, 1400, 1500), was the intention that they be developable or were they somehow being affected by the flag lot standards which would foreclose them from developing because there were already four to six primary dwellings that were served by Phantom Bluff Court? Commissioner Brockman brought up the distinction between lots of record and tax lots; tax lots were just for tax purposes. Ms. Kellington agreed and added they didn't want to wade into that. Mr. Boone noted what was at question to the Commission was whether what Ms. Kellington raised was an issue. He read aloud the Code definitions of lot and lot of record; a legal lot was tied to the time of creation. He referred back to the discussion about lots that were created prior to 1998; if they were legally created at the time, the standards that were applied were the zone standards. He referenced another provision that stated the code only applied to lots that were created after 1998 as flag lots and that to Ms. Kellington's client's point, those lots were created in a legally created subdivision at the time; the later street vacation didn't change the legality of the creation of the lots. Mr. Boone further explained that they did not become flag lots under the post-1998 flag lot code; the base zone standards would apply. He advised that there were two code provisions that applied here that addressed that and the legislative history also provided that clarity. In response to a question from Commissioner Ward if Phantom Bluff Court was a developed road at this time, Ms. Kellington responded that it was actually a public street vacated in 1959. Commissioner Ward asked if the owner was interested in winding up with five buildable lots? Ms. Kellington stated it had been consolidated for tax purposes and that they may or may not. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of October 9, 2017 EXHIBIT C-1/Page 7 of 18 APPROVED: 11/27/2017 She added the owner was interested in maintaining tax lot 1300 now, and someday selling tax lots 1500 and 1600, perhaps to his children. Mr. Boone clarified that the tax lot references were to the tax lots and the underlying plats would be what the City would recognize. Mr. Boone confirmed that he did not think these amendments would constrain future development on these lots, however he didn't know the specifics of the lots. He noted that if a large lot came in now for a partition the new standards would apply going forward. Mr. Boone clarified that it would not apply to a lot line adjustment so long as it did not create a flag lot. Ms. Kellington described a scenario where Phantom Bluff Court was considered a private access way and if somehow developing off of Phantom Bluff created a flag lot situation; then the entire length of Phantom Bluff Court would be included as something you would be subtracting out of the lot area, resulting in a lot becoming undevelopable. Ms. Kellington thanked Mr. Boone for his comments. Ms. Kellington clarified she was trying to make sure things were clear. Bill Abadie, 1498 Meadows Drive. Lake Oswego. 97034, voiced his concerns with the proposed amendments related to flag lots and private access lanes. His first concern was with the number of lots that could be accessed by a private lane in flag lot developments. He stated that flag lots should be limited to one additional lot behind an existing home and comply with the prevailing zoning requirements; if a developer or landowner wanted to develop more, they should go through the subdivision process. Mr. Abadie referenced the May 2017 Planning staff memo to the Commission regarding the Uplands overlay discussion. He opined that flag lot issues were citywide and questioned whether the city wanted numerous overlays around the city. He recommended the City adopt the Uplands Overlay citywide. Mr. Abadie objected to the proposed on- and off-lane parking requirements on private access lanes; it should be at least one if not two per lot if three or more homes were on a private access lane. He advised it was of the utmost importance if the City was going to continue to allow four or more homes to be accessed by a private access lane; this created parking issues and congestion. Another issue he raised was the construction of secondary units on flag lot development, such as garage apartments which compounded the problems with private access lanes; secondary units should be prohibited on flag lots. He referenced the stated purpose for the flag lot standards and opined this was not happening. He held that developers were squeezing in larger homes on smaller lots with substandard streets. He opined this had led to parking, stormwater, and garbage pickup problems; it also created challenges for emergency vehicles. He expressed his concern that the flag lot code was a means for developers to bypass more thorough and restrictive processes and that Lake Oswego citizens had to live with the problems it created. In summary, Mr. Abadie requested the following: • Limit flag lots to one additional home, which could most efficiently be accomplished by adopting the Uplands Overlay citywide. • Do not allow changes to prevailing zoning requirements in flag lot developments. • Increase the on-lane and off-lane parking requirements for private access lanes. • Prohibit secondary units in flag lot developments. He referenced the written testimony submitted by the Hallinan Heights Neighborhood Association and noted support from a number of other neighborhood associations. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of October 9, 2017 EXHIBIT C-1/Page 8 of 18 APPROVED: 11/27/2017 In reference to the suggestion flag lots should be processed as subdivisions, Commissioner Brockman stated that under current code, four lots or more were already processed as a subdivision. Mr. Siegel confirmed this; there was not a separate process for flag lots and a subdivision could have private lanes or public streets. Commissioner Arthur asked for clarification from staff about secondary dwelling units (SDU) and accessory dwelling units (ADU). Ms. Hamilton stated they were the same; a guesthouse was defined differently by the code and described their approval process. She noted that an SDU did not require a separate address or access, are a maximum of 800 square feet; and one additional off-street parking space was required. Mr. Siegel advised that there were Metro Code provisions that required the allowance of one additional accessory dwelling unit on each lot in zones that authorized a detached single-family dwelling; accessory dwellings were permitted subject to siting and design standards. Donald Mattersdorff, 930 Bullock Street. Lake Oswego. 97034, stated flag lots were an important issue to Lake Oswego and how the community would grow in the future. He acknowledged that a lot of work had gone into this project but commented it was the first evening of taking public comment; it was a little late in the game. He stated public comment as to the general direction should have been solicited earlier in the process. He reviewed the public comment drafts and helped to prepare some comments and disagreed with almost every word in both drafts. He questioned why they were here tonight talking about flag lots; was it so a homeowner could sell off a lot and stay in their home or was the city creating a second parallel code by which developers could bypass the established code in Lake Oswego? Mr. Mattersdorff opined the private lane route allowed for substandard development, including the ones developed on Cedar Street, which created a tremendous amount of problems for neighbors. He advised that the city needed to revisit the purpose of flag lots and they should be limited to one new structure behind the other house with access taken from a lane. He pointed out that the Cedar Street development included tearing down the front house, which in his opinion made it no longer a flag lot development. He opined people were now planning projects with one lot in front and all the others behind for the expedience of using the flag lot standards with reduced setbacks, etc. He further shared concerns about the Cedar Street development and the vacation of the street easement. He encouraged the Commission to go back and start at first principles, which was permitting one new structure behind an existing structure; anything else should follow the standard code. Commissioner Brockman asked what he considered the standard code. Mr. Mattersdorff responded that the city had a code that had been developed carefully over many years, requiring the width of the cul-de-sac, dimensional standards, etc. He held that flag lots bypassed a very large number of them, the major and minor development code. Commissioner Brockman observed the proposed amendments were restricting flag lot development, not enhancing it from what currently was code. Mr. Mattersdorff responded that they'd like to see it reduced to one lot. Chair Heape asked Mr. Mattersdorff for any thoughts on the earlier suggestion for the number of allowed flag lots to be guided by the underlying zone. He responded that his personal view was that flag lot developments were a blight, more than one additional lot. He added he didn't like the larger direction of creating multiple new structures behind a sometimes-imagined front structure. Commissioner Arthur asked Mr. Mattersdorff if he had any perspective or thought to offer on the prospective loss of value to property owners if they lost development opportunity by the City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of October 9, 2017 EXHIBIT C-1/Page 9 of 18 APPROVED: 11/27/2017 code restricting development from eight lots to one, for example and whether he had any concerns for the vested property rights of that owner or comments he'd like to share. Mr. Mattersdorff responded that the city had all sorts of codes that people had to meet; if their lot did not meet the standards created over the years they should not be allowed to develop. James Stupfel, 1137 Spruce Street, Lake Oswego, 97034, stated that anyone that lived in or planned to move into a neighborhood should be able to look at the zoning or review the development code to understand what kind of community currently existed and how it would look in the future. He stated that he valued living in a medium low-density neighborhood like the Hallinan neighborhood, along with the walkability and the connected streets which were wide enough even without sidewalks to safely traverse. The flag lot code as proposed, he opined, would continue to erode the connectivity and the density as they knew and understood. He advised that neighbors didn't and couldn't safely access these narrow private streets, like Cedar Street, for example. He suggested these types of developments pushed excessive burdens onto adjacent properties and that allowing the continuation of the subversive flag lot loophole of the code, on top of the historic lot of record issue, did not seem to be consistent with the R-7.5 zoning of their area. He suggested such developments would change their area over time, which was not what he understood it to be when he moved there; if the city wanted to increase the density, then the underlying zoning should be changed. He held that the discussion should be about one flag lot, not a flag lot subdivision. Chair Heape referred to the two comments regarding interest in requiring public access or an easement for public access and asked if that was possible. Mr. Boone acknowledged that it was possible; if the Commission found that public access was necessary for the neighborhood character and walkability it could be included as a standard, it was ultimately judged under the conditioning authority. He explained that when more lots were created, more people were being put on the sidewalks so they were required to mitigate that impact, it was a permissible requirement. Liz Martin, 1017 Cedar Street, Lake Oswego, 97034, talked about the effects on the Hallinan Heights neighborhood and how they have had to try to become experts to understand the City Code. She discussed the Cedar Street property and showed before and after photos (Exhibit G-8), mentioning that the City vacated the street. She referenced City staff statements that maintaining streets was burdensome and pointed out all the trees that had been removed from the property. She opined that neither of the staff statements made sense for their neighborhood; flag lots were cutting corners and there was little thought about the effect on neighbors. She pointed out that there was no access since Cedar Street was vacated and showed the "after" photo, noting the moved Cedar Street; there was no open space, views had been blocked, and it was now a crowded mass of homes resulting in little privacy. She advised that there was no public access to Freepons Park although the findings showed a Development Review Commission condition of approval that there be an open public parkway connected to the development to Freepons Park. She reported that there was now a locked gate where the keys were only issued to the flag lot owners. She concluded that the result was an overdeveloped street with a private drive and locked access to Freepons Park. Ms. Martin advised that the biggest concern was lack of parking. She showed a photo of construction vehicles parked near her front yard and pointed out that any extra vehicle could not fit on the access lane, including guests; the land was simply overdeveloped and was the easiest way to get around the subdivision code. She stated that it did not take into account the people who already lived there. She requested the Commission consider a flag lot to be a single lot behind a parent lot with street frontage. In response to a clarifying question from Commissioner Baker, Ms. Martin stated she was advocating for one flag lot only to be allowed. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of October 9, 2017 EXHIBIT C-1/Page 10 of 18 APPROVED: 11/27/2017 Jerry Nierengarten, 15561 Twin Fir Road, Lake Oswego, 97035, stated he was the chair of the Lake Grove Neighborhood Association. He stated that the neighborhood had reached no consensus on what to do about flag lots, however, as a neighborhood they were very concerned and were envious of the Uplands Overlay. He noted Lake Grove had been affected by flag lots and that two lots behind a home were very common. He indicated that the neighborhood thought the Commission needed to consider a more complicated code with exceptions. He opined the difficulty was with more than one lot and that Lake Grove had large lots and narrow streets with no sidewalks. He advised that flag lots with access lanes were not big enough for emergency vehicles and not accessible to garbage and recycling pick-ups. He added that having more than two lots needed to be considered from a traffic and safety standpoint. He pointed out that with flag lots you had to be specific with requirements and what the development was doing to the lot in front; for example there could be up to three cans (trash, recycling, and yard debris)from each of the eight houses on garbage day. He also pointed out that in much of their neighborhood mailboxes were only on one side of the street. He reported that their Board could not reach any agreement on the number but could agree that the size of the lot needed to be considered when deciding how many flag lots could go behind it; one flag lot didn't need as wide a street in front as four flag lots would. He added that allowing one flag lot would be a good starting point, with exceptions to allow more depending on the width of the front street. When asked, Ms. Hamilton responded that an access lane would have to be at least 20 feet wide. Commissioner Brockman indicated that in his experience with the fire department they required different widths depending how many flag lots were being served. Mr. Siegel added that for certain access lanes there had to be a turn-around. Mr. Nierengarten stated that for the two lot flag lots the garbage truck didn't go down those streets. Commissioner Brockman agreed the access lane would be too narrow. Gary Buford, 5 Camelot Court, Lake Oswego, 97034, stated his professional credentials. He addressed proposed amendments of required open space dedication on certain partitioned sites that were greater than 75,000 sq. ft. of land area. He opined it was a bad idea because land of a proposed partition was usually a relatively private piece of land and did not usually contain a 50-foot public road right-of-way; a minor land partition and the parcels therein usually were connected by 20-foot wide drive aisles. He indicated that the open space sites within the partition were expensive to maintain and would possibly never be used. He described his own residential property, a four-acre strip, with a portion too steep to develop for residential building. He advised that open space should be included as part of the parcel not as shared open space. Ms. Hamilton clarified that the open space requirements as part of large partitions in previous drafts had been dropped and was no longer part of the proposed amendments. Mr. Buford responded that if the open space requirements for large partitions had been dropped it would make his day. Audrey Mattison, 2929 Glen Eagles Road, Lake Oswego, OR stated she had lived in Uplands for 50 years and was Vice Chair of the Uplands Neighborhood Association. She stated that she had been following infill for many years and was involved in developing the Uplands Overlay. She provided comments about complexity, efficiency, connectivity, and community and acknowledged it was complicated. She advised that the Uplands Neighborhood Plan took two years to research and develop and she also referenced the City of Portland flag lot standards. She stated she was in support the Hallinan letter dated August 30, 2017 and other City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of October 9, 2017 EXHIBIT C-1/Page 11 of 18 APPROVED: 11/27/2017 similar requests. Commissioner Baker asked if she was advocating for the proposed changes and Ms. Mattison replied no, she was supporting having just one flag lot. Kate Meyers, 5250 Carman Drive, Lake Oswego, 97035 and Carolyn Krebs, 16925 Denney Court, Lake Oswego, 97035, stated they were Board members representing the Lake Forest Neighborhood Association (NA). Ms. Meyers stated that the Lake Forest NA voted at their most recent Board meeting to support the definition of flag lot as proposed in the Hallinan testimony. She added that they really liked the idea that a flag lot was a pole and flag. She stated that anything that was larger should go through the Planned Development process; they were not opposed to additional development. Ms. Krebs stated the Lake Forest neighborhood, like Hallinan, had experienced adverse impact from flag lot developments in their neighborhood. She advised that flag lot standards could combine with Planned Development (PD) with Sensitive Lands delineations that resulted in lot sizes out of character with the neighborhood and smaller than 75% of the underlying zone allowed through Exceptions. She opined that the "a la cart" use of land division categories and exceptions had led to overly complex regulations and undesirable outcomes pitting density against resource protection. She added that in their neighborhood it was desirable to have residential development with significant resources on each residential parcel rather than have resources cut off completely in set-aside areas of protection and off limits. Ms. Krebs stated that private access lanes that served multiple homes didn't provide connectivity; it was quite the opposite, they cut off neighbors from public streets and made it questionable whether they could be walked or biked by neighbors not served by those private lanes. She noted Carman Grove, a nine-lot subdivision in their neighborhood, as an example. Only one lot on that site met the minimum lot size requirement; five lots were called flag lots in the staff report. She further described that development application and approval, including setback exceptions. She opined this set a precedent for the neighborhood. She indicated that they were anticipating a 10-lot subdivision on Bonita with a resource protection designation, where flag lot and PD overlay standards would once again suggest that this type of tightly configured development was what was best for their neighborhood. Ms. Krebs stated that the Lake Forest NA supported the positions taken by Hallinan in their letter dated August 30, 2017, to limit the number of flag lots to one served by a private lane; if a developer wanted more than one lot they should be required to construct a public street. She added that the Lake Forest NA requested the code of the Uplands Overlay District apply to low-density single-family zones, including R-7.5, citywide. She referred to the specific code sections of the Uplands Overlay that should apply related to access lane extension and projection to abutting properties, especially important in Lake Forest. In addition, she stated that minimum onsite parking requirements for single-family residences should be two spots each for both the parent and flag lot. She suggested the Commission should consider requiring access driveways to include one additional parking space to take pressure off of fire access lanes used for illegal parking. She referred to the photo she submitted (Exhibit G-15) showing a car parked illegally on a signed fire access lane; she stated that providing this type of dedication for parking was needed and should not allow for reducing lot size. She emphasized the need for adequate parking. Ms. Krebs stated that she didn't think it was appropriate to put flag lots on a Planned Development and would like to see the Commission put this on the work list to look at in the future. Ms. Meyers opined that the combining of the two standards allowed too much a la carte picking of standards to comply with. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of October 9, 2017 EXHIBIT C-1/Page 12 of 18 APPROVED: 11/27/2017 Ms. Krebs confirmed for the Commission that the Lake Forest NA was recommending two off street parking spaces for each flag lot. Jim Bolland, 804 Fifth St., Lake Oswego, 97034 stated he was the Co-chair of the Lake Oswego Neighborhood Action Coalition (LONAC). He stated representatives from Hallinan attended LONAC's last meeting and after a lively debate the board voted to support the Hallinan recommendation for one parent lot and one flag lot; this was also supported in the Upland Overlay Code. Mr. Bolland stated he had served on the Infill Task Force and recalled the concept of the private access lane was an outcome of that effort; however, the Task Force never intended for an access lane to serve more than a couple of homes. He opined that when talking about devaluing property you had to keep in mind that the flag lot standard had only been in effect for a few years; prior to that, flag lots were not allowed. Mr. Bolland added that LONAC also supported Hallinan's recommendation that secondary dwelling units (SDU's) not be allowed on flag lots because of the way they compounded parking problems. He reported that LONAC also supported the concept of two on-site and one off-site parking space. Mr. Bolland spoke about meeting density requirements and that in 2013 the City adopted a new Comprehensive Plan; during its development there was a lot of talk about density standards and meeting growth projections. He recalled that the City had received confirmation from the State and Metro that the city was okay with its density and growth requirements, however the State had pointed out that the only thing the city could do that would be a problem would be if they down zoned one part of the community and didn't up zone another area. He opined that changing the flag lot standard would not be an issue as it was not down zoning. Mr. Bolland encouraged the city to go back to the traditional definition of a flag lot as one parent lot and one flag lot and to get away from having private access lanes serving multiple lots; it didn't work and was bad planning. When asked if the City could negotiate with Metro regarding the SDU requirement, Mr. Siegel advised that with City Council direction the code could be amended to disallow SDUs on flag lots, however, the city would have to reconcile the change with the existing Comp Plan and Code that were currently in compliance with Metro Code. Mr. Bolland added that the First Addition/Forest Hills NA supported SDUs but agreed with the issues raised by Hallinan as it compounded the parking issue. Vice Chair Ward stated he did sit in on one of the Infill Task Forces and it had always been unclear in his mind where the notion of serving eight flag lots with an access lane came from. Regarding SDUs, Mr. Siegel clarified that existing Code required one off-street parking space for a SDU in addition to one off-street parking space for the primary dwelling. Ms. Hamilton added, regarding the number of flag lots served by access lanes, it was in the flag lot standard itself as well as in the separate Access Standard; she was not sure when it was added. Mr. Bolland opined it was added after the second Infill Task Force completed its work. Charles (Skip) Ormsby. 170 SW Birdshill Road, Portland, 97219, stated he agreed with the Hallinan and LONAC testimony and that Birdshill would soon have a resolution stating that. He added he was also curious about how the flag lot numbers were derived and would also like the Metro density letter provided during the Comprehensive Plan update to be provided in the record. He opined the picture of Hallinan was scary and abysmal. He understood that surface water management was still an issue there and expressed concerns about surface water management in Birdshill and December flooding on Fielding Road and risks to emergency responders. He opined this was a matter of neighborhood concern throughout the City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of October 9, 2017 EXHIBIT C-1/Page 13 of 18 APPROVED: 11/27/2017 Lake Oswego area, especially in the outlying dual interest areas related to street and sewer capacity. Mr. Ormsby pointed out that Exhibits E-1 and E-2 showed densification potential within the Willamette River Greenway. Teri Caprio, 5570 Neff Park Lane, Lake Oswego, 97035, shared that the proposed ordinance could have a major impact on her property. She stated she had been working with the City for years and had an approved division in front of the City using a flag lot concept. She stated that she had been careful to share overall plans with the City to make sure there were no misunderstandings of the multi-year divisions that would take place. She added that any proposal that reduced the number of allowed lots under this ordinance would result in a major financial impact on her property. When asked if her proposed development would require an open space under the current code, Ms. Caprio replied that she did not know. Ms. Hamilton showed a plan of Ms. Caprio's property and noted the development was proposed as a serial partition serving a number of flag lots off an access lane. She recalled it was approved for a Minor Partition in 2013, with the idea that there would be a series of partitions to get it to 9 or 10 lots. Ms. Hamilton advised that what was locked in now with that approval was only the first partition. She added that if the flag lot numbers changed Ms. Caprio would be affected by the limits on the number of flag lots based on this development plan. Ms. Caprio added that in this particular case there were already nine existing homes on the one lot so the partition would not affect traffic. When asked if she was an advocate of the proposed changes, Ms. Caprio responded that she did not know; she didn't want anything to affect her property and the plans she had been making for years. Carole Ockert, 910 Cumberland Road, Lake Oswego, 97034, stated she was the Chair of the First Addition-Forest Highlands (FAN-FH) Neighborhood Association. She shared that while developing the FAN-FH Plan it was decided to give people a development option. She noted that flag lots were more of the double-lot splits, not the serial partitions. She clarified that in order to discourage the flag lots they established a policy to support the granting of a variance to the street frontage requirement to minimize the number of flag lots and to allow people to develop side-by-side when possible. Regarding SDUs, Ms. Ockert opined that Metro clearly saw them as important and they were seeing SDUs in FAN-FH where there was both street frontage and an alley, which helped with the extra traffic. She encouraged the Commission to keep that in mind when discussing access lanes. She added that the FAN-FH Board had a standing position related to off-street parking —to go from one parking spot which was required by Code, to two spaces. She suggested the Commission consider this now for flag lots and that the FAN-FH Board would like that to be the requirement citywide. Commissioner Brockman asked staff to clarify its support for having lesser street frontage. Ms. Hamilton confirmed that a Minor Variance allowed for a reduction of five feet or less and that a Hardship Major Variance would be required for anything beyond that. Mr. Boone added that a Major Variance would be difficult to get; the lack of ability to create a partition was not a hardship as there was no guaranteed right to do a partition. Rebuttal None. Questions of Applicant None. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of October 9, 2017 EXHIBIT C-1/Page 14 of 18 APPROVED: 11/27/2017 Deliberations Chair Heape opened deliberations. He suggested discussing the concepts presented and then having the Code amendments brought back based on the Commission's direction. Mr. Siegel suggested the Commission might want to start with the density conversation, which affected parking. Commissioner Brockman suggested it might make more sense for a third task force to make a recommendation to the Commission, to have it vetted better. Vice Chair Ward recalled that they had held four work sessions on this matter thus far and had had a lot of time to work on it as well as a lot of public testimony tonight. He added that he felt prepared to make a recommendation; Chair Heape agreed and suggested there were additional things or concerns raised tonight that could be added to the Commission's plan for future work. Commissioner Brockman noted they had received overwhelming testimony related to limiting it to one flag lot, which was not the direction the Commission had been going; he opined that further vetting was needed to understand the consequences, good and bad. He recalled testimony related to concerns of right-of-way width and commented that possibly the width of the access lane should be tied to the number of lots with a maximum of four lots. Chair Heape suggested moving ahead tonight, starting with density and the number of flag lots followed by parking and then the other topics. No Commissioners objected. Density Chair Heape summarized that the Commission heard significant input from neighborhood associations asking for a single flag and pole as well as some concern over negative impacts from one property owner, and concerns from another about specificity and removing ambiguity. Commission discussion followed: • Vice Chair Ward stated that was clear that many people wanted to see a single flag behind an existing lot, like in the Uplands NA. He noted that the Commission had received material supporting this from Hallinan Heights, Evergreen, Waluga, Oak Creek, and Lake Forest neighborhood associations, all expressing support for this position. He stated that with that kind of support from so many recognized NAs he recommended changing the flag lot rules. • Commissioner Sweers agreed that the NAs brought a compelling argument but that sometimes poles had more than one flag. He suggested reconsidering four lots in conjunction with making that harder to reach for the developer. He agreed with Vice Chair Ward's suggestion for a one-lot requirement with the understanding that there were variance opportunities to reach a maximum of four. • Commissioner Baker stated he tended to agree with a maximum of four lots and that requiring a wider private road could alleviate some issues with vehicles and garbage trucks. • Commissioner Brockman suggested that one option was to do nothing and leave the code as it was. He commented that if changes were needed down the road there could be a different process to ensure a more comprehensive solution that didn't have unintended consequences. • Chair Heape stated he shared some of the ideas expressed — a larger number of flags meant that the access requirements increased. He was concerned that as the number of flags increased, what was to prevent the development from having a regular constructed street? He believed that going to a 50-foot wide right-of-way would become excessive. He recalled another concern that was brought up regarding access from the public's point of view; having private accesses closed to the public did not promote connectivity. He suggested that in addition to the size perhaps they should City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of October 9, 2017 EXHIBIT C-1/Page 15 of 18 APPROVED: 11/27/2017 consider requiring public access as well. He questioned whether it should be made a public street when going up to a higher number of lots. • Commissioner Arthur noted that tonight's testimony was convincing and compelling in support of significantly reducing the number of flag lots permitted on a private access lane. In his best judgement his recommendation was to explore lowering it to two flag lots in addition to the existing house. Ms. Hamilton explained that flag lots that accessed a lane were to be combined where practicable; if it served two properties, including the front lot, it had to be 20 feet wide; if it served just one flag in back and the access couldn't be combined, it could be a private drive at 12 feet wide. Commissioner Brockman opined the 12-foot driveway option was not very well known. • Commissioner Arthur added that, in light of testimony and commentary that the 2010 Infill Task Force never intended for an access lane to serve more than "a couple" of flag lots, taking everything together, he was persuaded that no more than two flag lots should be authorized on an access lane. He strongly recommended the Commission recommend allowing up to two flag lots on an access lane, in addition to the front lot or original structure. • Commissioner Brockman reminded they had had many work sessions and a public hearing that resulted in a recommendation about substandard lots that the Council did not take. He opined he was not sure what would get approved by City Council. • Chair Heape summarized the similarities: o Two recommendations to consider up to four flag lots o One recommendation for only one flag lot o One recommendation for up to two flag lots Chair Heape asked for a recommendation. Commissioner Arthur moved to recommend authorizing up to two additional flag lots to an existing parcel, for a total of up to three homes on the original parcel. Commissioner Sweers seconded the motion. [No vote was taken.] Discussion followed. Chair Heape stated that had heard suggestions to have additional standards. The Commission also heard that it might make sense to look at the underlying zoning in terms of applying something citywide; R-3 or R-5 could possibly support additional flags while in R-7.5 or R-10 it might be more compatible to have larger and fewer flag lots. He questioned whether they should consider basing part of the criteria for allowing more than one flag lot on the underlying zoning. Mr. Boone reminded the Commission that at this point in the process this was more of a straw poll than a vote. Chair Heape polled the Commissioners. All of the Commissioners were in agreement with recommending up to two additional flag lots on an existing parcel, for a total of up to three lots on the original parcel. Parking Chair Heape stated there were a couple of options related to parking. He asked for comments: • Commissioner Brockman stated that if they were to go the direction as discussed, two houses would be using the access lane and that current road widths didn't require any additional parking requirements. Commissioner Sweers concurred; under this scenario. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of October 9, 2017 EXHIBIT C-1/Page 16 of 18 APPROVED: 11/27/2017 • Commissioner Arthur expressed that he still had concerns about parking and that they had not discussed the width of the private access lane, if it should remain at 20 feet. He stated he felt strongly that each residential unit should have enough driveway space to accommodate two cars, and his preference would be to require an additional parking space to those two, as well. • Vice Chair Ward stated he completely agreed with Commissioner Arthur: two on-site parking spaces and one more in an additional location, either on the access way or on the lot. • Commissioner Brockman asked if the front lot were accessing off the main street, would it still be required to have one additional parking spot on the access lane? Commissioner Ward clarified only the flag lots would be required to have an additional parking spot on the access lane. • Ms. Hamilton clarified that there was a Code section that prohibited required parking in a setback. The parking would have to be outside of any setback to count toward the required parking. Mr. Boone added that the required parking space was typically in the garage and that currently there was only one required parking space for single-family development. He noted that it could be on a parking pad located outside the setback, in a carport, or in a garage. • Commissioner Arthur noted he had observed a car parked in a driveway, but the concrete driveway wasn't long enough to accommodate the car so that he perceived the car was hanging out into the private access lane. He added that, on balance, there should be one additional parking space on the access lane near the flag lot residence in addition to what was required now for single-family development. • Commissioner Brockman stated that currently in the flag lot standards the garage setback had to be 20 feet from the private access lane. He held that if a parking spot was required off the lot, it would reduce the amount of developable area for the partition. He pointed out that the Commission was already recommending reducing the development potential from nine to three lots. He noted that the access lane was 20 feet plus a five-foot vegetative strip and that the drives could not be combined, resulting in a 12-foot-wide driveway. • Commissioner Baker stated that the Commission had heard a lot of concerns about parking and was in favor of requiring one additional on-site parking space for each flag lot, in addition to the current code requirement. • Commissioner Brockman described how requiring two off-street parking spots would affect the locations of development on the site due to setback requirements. • Ms. Hamilton confirmed that each parking spot was about 200 sq. ft. Chair Heape summarized that there was a recommendation for requiring one additional parking spot for each flag lot. He polled the Commissioners and five of the six Commissioners were in favor. Discussion followed about whether the additional parking spot should be on the private access lane or on the lot, as it was not clear during the polling. Commissioners asked staff if there were bump outs for parking on the access lane in the Hallinan Heights example or could people simply parallel park on the lane? Mr. Siegel clarified there had to be a minimum clear width of at least 14 to 16 feet wide for fire department access; any parking would have to be outside that; the dimensions for an on-lane parking space were 8.5 feet wide by 18 feet long minimum, with additional space needed for a taper. He advised that parking bays could be configured a lot of different ways and would be site specific; if it's one flag lot the parking could be parallel to the lot or at the end of the lane, as flag lots don't have street frontage. Mr. Siegel added that some of the public street facing lots didn't have on-street parking today. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of October 9, 2017 EXHIBIT C-1/Page 17 of 18 APPROVED: 11/27/2017 Commissioner Baker stated he believed there was consensus for an additional parking space on the access lane, not on the lot. Chair Heape observed that many of the concerns raised in testimony were related to visitor or worker parking, a situation where someone would not park their car in someone else's garage or in their driveway. Commissioner Ward stated he lived on a private lane that was paved, and with 20-feet of paving it was possible to park there and for a vehicle to also get by, this worked for occasional parking. He indicated that it seemed doable without a great deal of developable space being lost and a parking space was obtained. Commissioner Brockman noted he often drove through First Addition which had narrow paving and sometimes someone had to pull over to let someone else pass; this was not an unusual thing. Chair Heape asked for a recommendation. Commissioner Arthur suggested requiring one additional parking space off-site, on the private access lane, in addition to the one required on- site parking space for a single-family dwelling. He added it might make sense to require the private access lane to be 22 feet wide or the appropriate width to accommodate fire department access and on-lane parking spots. It was suggested that a two-car garage could meet this requirement, but several Commissioners expressed concern that would not address the problem of workers and other occasional guests. Chair Heape polled the Commission about requiring one additional parking space per flag lot to be located on the private access lane. Five of the six Commissioners were in favor. The Commissioners discussed the remaining code amendment recommendations: • Screening/Perimeter Fencing — Commissioners agreed with the staff recommendation. • Screening and Access Lanes — Commissioners agreed with the staff recommendation. • Lot Coverage and Floor Area — Commissioners agreed with the staff recommendation. • Setback Distribution (R-5, R-3, R-0)— Commissioners agreed with the staff recommendation. • Flag Lot Front Setback— Commissioners agreed with the staff recommendation. • Garage Appearance Standards — Commissioners agreed with the staff recommendation. • Orientation/Setbacks— Commissioners agreed with the staff recommendation. • Lot Line Adjustments and Flag Lots— Staff and Commissioners further discussed this proposal and the example raised in testimony regarding the property on Phantom Bluff. The Commission asked for the language to be further clarified by staff, including the definitions of flag lot and access lane, and to remove any ambiguity. • Delete Access Lane Connection Requirement— Commissioners agreed with the staff recommendation. • Commissioner Brockman asked how the Commission could move forward the discussion regarding the width of local public roadways, including possible amendments to Chapter 42. Commissioner Brockman stated he was in support of recommending that staff pursue this further with the City Engineer. Commissioners were in support of this. Commissioner Arthur moved to recommend to City Council the adoption of Ordinance 2759 (LU 17-0052), with the changes as discussed by the Commission, returning with the Findings, Conclusions and Order on October 23, 2017. Vice Chair Ward seconded the motion and the motion passed 6:0. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of October 9, 2017 EXHIBIT C-1/Page 18 of 18 EXHIBIT D-1 LU 17-0052 STAFF REPORT CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT APPLICANT FILE NO. City of Lake Oswego LU 17-0052, Ordinance 2759 LOCATION STAFF Residential Citywide Leslie Hamilton, AICP, Senior Planner DATE OF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING DATE September 29, 2017 October 9, 2017 I. APPLICANT'S REQUEST The City of Lake Oswego is proposing to amend Chapter 50 (Community Development Code) of the Lake Oswego Code for the purpose of amending various sections relating to flag lots and access lanes. The proposed amendments include provisions that will: • Limit the number of flag lots served by a private access lane; • Increase the number of parking spaces required in flag lot developments; • Increase the front setback on flag lots; • Provide flexibility on setback orientation on certain flag lots; • Delete the requirement to connect private access lanes; • Clarify that lot coverage and floor area on flat lots are calculated on net site area; • Clarify the location of required landscaping and fencing in flag lot developments. The amendments are more fully described in Section III of this report as well as in the narrative of the Public Review Draft, Exhibit F-1. The draft text amendments which would enact these changes, can be found in Attachment to 2 to Exhibit A-1 (Ordinance 2759). Planning Commission Public Hearing October 9,2017 LU 17-0052 EXHIBIT D-1/Page 1 of 11 II. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS A. Any Applicable State Law Oregon Revised Statute 197.307: Approval Standards for Certain Housing in Urban Growth Areas B. City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan Land Use Planning Development (Community Development Code): Policy A-1.b Design Standards and Guidelines: Policies C-1 and C-5 Land Use Administration: Policy D-1 Inspiring Spaces and Places: Goal 1, Policy 1 Complete Neighborhoods and Housing Housing Choice and Affordability: Policy B-1 Complete Neighborhoods: Policy C-7 Community Culture: Civic Engagement Policies 1 and 9 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 Planning Commission Public Hearing October 9,2017 LU 17-0052 EXHIBIT D-1/Page 2 of 11 III. INTRODUCTION / BACKGROUND INFORMATION The purpose of the proposed amendments is to correct errors, eliminate text ambiguity or redundancy, and clarify text. Additionally, the amendments respond to community concerns regarding flag lot developments. This process is part of the City's ongoing effort to make the regulations more business-friendly and resident-friendly while maintaining community standards. Proposed Ordinance 2759 consists of amendments to the flag lot standards. Staff had previously requested input from the public and the Planning Commission on an amendment that would have added a requirement to provide open space for partition sites that are 75,000 square feet or larger. Based on input from the public and Planning Commission, that amendment is not proposed. It was believed that it could result in small private open space areas that would have little or no public benefit and could be difficult to maintain. The text boxes in Attachment 2 describe the reason for each amendment, and include commentary on its background and discussion points. The amendment that generated the most discussion at the work sessions and Public Review Draft—limiting the number of flag lots served by an access lane - is further described and analyzed below. Section II (Background) of the Public Review Draft (Attachment 2) describes the policy issues behind each of the proposed amendments as listed below: • Limits on the Number of Flag Lots • Access Lane Parking • Lot Line Adjustments and Flag Lots • Setbacks and Dwelling Orientation on Flag Lots • Garage Appearance and Location Standards for Flag Lots • Flag Lot Front Setbacks • Setback Distribution on Flag Lots in the R-5 Zone • Lot Coverage and Floor Area Calculations for Flag Lots • Flag Lot Screening and Fencing Comments on Public Review Draft The Public Review Draft was circulated August 15—August 31, 2017 for public review and comments. Seven comments were received from the following: three individuals, three Neighborhood Associations (Hallinan Heights, Forest Highlands and Evergreen), and one professional organization (the Home Builders Association of Greater Portland), [see Exhibits G-1 through G-7]. Planning Commission Public Hearing October 9,2017 LU 17-0052 EXHIBIT D-1/Page 3 of 11 On the larger policy issues, there did not appear to be consensus in the public comments. Three approved of limiting the number of flag lots served by an access lane, and supported limits ranging from one to three to six dwellings; two were opposed due to potential impacts to density. On the question of flag lot parking, two commenters support requiring additional parking but suggested different standards. Two commenters were opposed the then-proposed requirement of Open Space dedication for certain serial partition sites. Density Impacts from Limiting Flag Lot Development 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. Currently, up to eight dwellings can be served by a private access lane, which has a minimum width of 20 feet (because the flag lot standards require a 5-foot buffer on the outer edge of an access lane, staff has used a 25-foot access lane width for the purposes of analysis). Public streets generally require a right-of-way dedication width of 50 feet. If the number of flag lots were limited to six lots, for example, a public street would be required to serve a development of seven or more lots. Attachment F-2 is a spreadsheet that calculates the maximum density of flag lot developments that are served by an access lane compared to developments that create a public street to serve the lots. [Note: The analysis is broad and assumes rectangular parent parcels, access lanes and public street alignments that are straight and extend from the fronting public street to the rear of the parent parcel; slopes, sensitive lands and other constraints were not included in the analysis. There are many factors that affect access, density and lot layout, including the opportunity for density transfers on sites with sensitive lands.] The analysis shows that the biggest impact to density comes on parent parcels that are long and narrow (75 ft. x 1,000 ft.). In the low-density residential zones (R-7.5, R-10 and R-15), density impacts are generally small (loss of one lot) or none. On larger lots, there can be a density gain from providing a public street since flag lot developments are currently limited to eight lots. However, public streets are considerably more expensive to design and construct; public streets, unlike access lanes, include sidewalks, curbs and gutters and the additional impervious surface area must be managed in storm facilities. Additionally, private access lanes are maintained by the property owners who jointly use them. Once a public street is dedicated, the City would assume the financial burden of its maintenance. Staff identified the properties that were dividable either individually or cumulatively if abutting properties are under the same ownership. Exhibit E-1 calculates density based on flag lot development, i.e., 10% of the lot area is devoted to circulation and netted out of the gross acreage before calculating density. Exhibit E-2 calculates density based on the provision of a public street, i.e., 20% of the lot area is devoted to Planning Commission Public Hearing October 9,2017 LU 17-0052 EXHIBIT D-1/Page 4 of 11 circulation and netted out of the gross acreage before calculating density. The maps also illustrate RP designations and steep slope, which can further affect density or lot configuration. In addition, undivided properties typically have frontage onto an existing public street; as these properties are divided, the City requires dedication of right-of-way for frontage improvements such as widening of a street or a pathway. Because these right-of-way dedications are subtracted from the net buildable area they too reduce development potential, regardless of whether a site is developed with a private access lane or public street. The maps illustrate that many of the lots that are potentially dividable into 5 or more lots have constraints such as limited access, steep slopes, sensitive lands, historic landmarks, and/or odd shapes. While some of these constraints do not limit the number of permitted lots, they may limit their development likelihood, even under current regulations. 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. Given the constraints on many of the potentially dividable lots as shown in Exhibit E-1 and E-2, the potential loss of residential flag lots as described above is minimal, and does not impact the City's ability to meet future low-density residential housing needs. IV. NOTICE OF APPLICATION A. Newspaper Notice On November 28, 2017, public notice of the proposed CDC text amendments and Planning Commission public hearing was 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 residential property owners with property—individual or abutting—that could be further divided on September 11, 2017. Planning Commission Public Hearing October 9,2017 LU 17-0052 EXHIBIT D-1/Page 5 of 11 C. DLCD Notice Pursuant to LOC 50.07.016, staff has provided 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: 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 flag lot amendments, which apply to the development of single-family housing, maintain 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 existing zone design and 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. Planning Commission Public Hearing October 9,2017 LU 17-0052 EXHIBIT D-1/Page 6 of 11 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 flag lot setbacks, parking, landscaping and access lanes to be more compatible with the existing neighborhood character. This criteria is met. Design Standards and Guidelines C-1. Enact and maintain regulations and standards which require: C-5.Adopt and maintain clear and objective standards for needed housing, pursuant to state law. Response: The proposed flag lot amendments are consistent with this policy. See above response to Section A, Applicable State Law. 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. Planning Commission Public Hearing October 9,2017 LU 17-0052 EXHIBIT D-1/Page 7 of 11 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: The Planning Commission has held four work sessions in 2017 on the flag lot amendments (January, February, April and June) to review and provide feedback on the Code. In addition, two Public Review Drafts have been circulated to the public—one in April — May and one in August. A notice required by ORS 227.186 (Ballot Measure 56) was sent to all property owners in the city with residential property that is potentially dividable 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. Response: The proposal is consistent with this policy, which is similar to Land Use Policy C-1. See response to Policy C-1, above. 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 amendments to the flag lot standards affect all residential zones except R-W (cabana). Minimum lot size is unchanged in all of these zones. The amendments reduce the number of flag lots that can be served by Planning Commission Public Hearing October 9,2017 LU 17-0052 EXHIBIT D-1/Page 8 of 11 an access lane to less than eight, which my limit the creation of new homes on 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 3-5 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-7: Require infill housing to be designed and developed in ways to be compatible with existing neighborhood character. Response: The proposal is consistent with this policy, which is similar to Land Use Policy C-4. See response to Policy C-4, above. Community Culture Chapter/Citric 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. 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 four study sessions and two public review drafts, and mailed notice to all residential property owners potentially affected by the reduction in the number of flag lots served by an access lane, and opportunity to comment at the Planning Commission hearing. 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 Planning Commission Public Hearing October 9,2017 LU 17-0052 EXHIBIT D-1/Page 9 of 11 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. A Public Review Draft was circulated between August 15 and August 30, 2017, and public hearings will be held before the Planning Commission and City Council. All required notification measures and opportunities for input as specified in the Code were provided during this process, including noticing to all Neighborhood Associations and business organizations. Public hearings will be held before the Planning Commission and City Council. Therefore, the process followed for these amendments is in compliance with the above cited Comprehensive Plan policies. These criteria are met. VI. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Commission make a recommendation to City Council on the amendment options presented, and to adopt Ordinance 2759 (including the attachments). EXHIBITS A. Draft Ordinance A-1 Ordinance 2759, draft 09/28/17 Attachment 1: Reserved for City Council Findings (not included) Attachment 2: Community Development Code Amendments Draft, 08/15/17 Planning Commission Public Hearing October 9,2017 LU 17-0052 EXHIBIT D-1/Page 10 of 11 B. Findings, Conclusions and Order [No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use] C. Minutes [No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use] D. Staff Reports [No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use] E. Graphics/Plans E-1 Density Analysis: Serial Partitions and Access Lanes E-2 Density Analysis: Serial Partitions and Public Streets F. Written Materials F-1 Public Review Draft Narrative, 08/15/17 F-2 Spreadsheet Comparison of Flag Lot/Access Lanes and Public Streets, 09/29/17 G. Letters and E-Mails G-1 Letter from Sheila Carlson, 08/29/17 G-2 Letter from Bill Abadie with Hallinan Heights Neighborhood Association, 08/30/17 G-3 E-Mail from Dianne Cassidy, 08/30/17 G-4 E-Mail from Jim Standring, 08/31/17 G-5 Letter from James Adkins with Home Builders Association of Metro Portland, 09/05/07 G-6 E-Mail from Scott Bullard with Forest Highlands Neighborhood Association, 09/06/17 G-7 E-Mail from Diana Boom with Evergreen Neighborhood Association, 09/27/17 Planning Commission Public Hearing October 9,2017 LU 17-0052 EXHIBIT D-1/Page 11 of 11 • p E1--fp MEMORANDUM tnt EXHIBIT D-2 wow0 LU 17-0052 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Scot Siegel, Director Planning and Building Services SUBJECT: REOPEN HEARING on LU 17-0052— Private Streets DATE: November 17, 2017 On October 9, 2017 the Planning Commission held a public hearing on amendments to the standards for flag lots and private access lanes. At that time, the Commission tentatively recommended limiting the number of Flag Lots to 2 (not more than 3 lots in a development served by a private access lane), and inquired as a reduced-width street (<50 ft. of right of way) may be permitted for developments containing 4-8 lots. On November 13, the Commission reviewed Staff's proposal allowing developments of 4-8 lots to be served by a paved private street, 38 ft. in width, inclusive of roadway, parking, drainage, and sidewalk. Because this proposal was not part of the public hearing draft, the Commission decided to reopen the hearing to allow public testimony on it. The reopened public hearing is scheduled for November 27; as directed by the Commission, the scope of this hearing shall be limited review of the proposed Private Street Standard. [See Attachment 2 of Ordinance 2759 dated 11/08/17, pages 2-3 of 20.] In preparation for the reopened hearing, the City has notified all parties who were notified of the original (October 9) hearing and those who have testified on this case. LU 17-0052 EXHIBIT D-2/PAGE 1 OF 1 503.675.3984 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us ' \2, I 2, f s'2 2 2.2 ,, . 1 a''''' '* '1 a 1. A .0 tt A A a I. ,..... "*" a a i N. c., i T a x,,,, ,., i / '2 a "'"-an ' Ns 2 a. i 2, # a a a a , a„,„, , , .1 12,5 '2 2,.,..• L.‘ .4 t .f ,. 1 R. 2 . am., • A '' t 3 t' a IV g V • a % ‘,., .. , i - .\ ‘ , • . ..,„.- L. ;,.i ,...°' ,. , SEE0V0 at 1 g G., g % 't• ' v.,' " Lt-t rt, 1 .SE 3 1 St 1 SW ttttr Ln I 1 n .:., ., e „ .W ,..; ,,,,,sr 5 i i ,,,, , VI f t 0,0 H.tt 1 . Ellrettd 5, SW 9,010*St ' 9a • '''t st' o a Fa, t i ,r,,, a 't MA,. ..,,, SE ¢,t,,, St 2 a 1 ,... I , '7". a.,'2 ss 2 , 22, s, a .1. 0 a - - ,--, a a ' s°'"" I ! ,.. s; a a s. ..s.' i I 6 mott ' ' _t ri i SW En,/ SW Engtttt . t 1 RtttO or 01-VS It SW El.StZ 1 I g „ sw, „ tint a . / 1 Reatt ,.R.3,,,,,, R-3 ::2'. 4 I I a ,„,„; ,-- -a,,,,, , 1 9 R. ...., ,..T, R-3 % ., e .itt SI 'rrtt. Way J ra 1 „„, , „....- a. a # 0- # a a a.,, "a‘a t, 1 0, i,„ ( 2 --- - A V .,, ,,, 22 2 1 1... . 7„„ 4 VV ,. v ..,-=,, V. . R-5 , 2 I #.,, ,,,,,,, e I ., t''''' •V 0-3 i a a 22" k 2 ,,liz,. a newt.. R., . 90.rted 0,./ ri ISS IVIV 'tr.. or V , ' ''''',, 1 R10 .. ..° “ R-7.5 e° ti .'..,, R-7.5 2 a R-3 g ,..." ...e 0...a '2 1 -,, / \ i R-7.5 sw „..s. , 1 a •,, ,!., , www,,, VV ss ssw. „ , ss,„„s„,,,, ,, ( i wss....ss. ‘ i M V " '''' '''' a t P t I.,.. 5.7.5 1. Rt j a °°°°.° ,.,, I R-10 G::' ,.. „..,,3,. .„„ :,.,0°'2' „ ..., ,i 2,...... °,..„ ' ..NE, ttat o,„0„ 00 0' '" 1*. i (22. R-3 ff y 2. .,....„ . i i V ''', I 0 R-7 5 / 3 \ , o e I 0 . t 0-75 i a I g i 4 I ' It '," F, 't%,,,, i r,' ".,1, • t R.10 t or t'nrorro,r„,„, milop. , . ..,„ 1 I °..... 8.. • a a t so "G.,... 7 .,a ch., ,, 3 i 2 .." 2 ‘ I' , I 1„ ., .0 ' (7‘,..e. ..,„1:1.5 .„, ,, et f 0.° R-10 4 g i ' , „-- •• f' a .,- ' „'• i i 1 ''''r a• .2 6- m .r.. .... En I thed. ',no, 580 6 c: ,,,., a e.' I a° Nfo. Dividable Lot- V VS R-3 i t ' g g GAdjacent Owners , rtr f aI / R-10 , 4 0.3 ,,,. ‘,....., . .a, " -Wembley . t q 5 or more divisions ... , Adge IV ,... ,,,,, z a •ti„.„ G "G / -r*NrCt f "' 44. VI \ , t;12-7.5 IV • ,,,, '22 . ..,„ ,xe. 2, 2.. RP Designation ,.. , ,„ _ $.., -„, 'Vi' .., ,.. . ',,,, .... . ,p.°4 w„ B.t . 1.1 \ Labels on parcels signify potential lot divisions. ... R-15 vo°::' i ‘Zo` 4 °.a......... ,., ... . • .°°. isw 2... c.,,,,v „ 3 , %.,, ,.... . q ,,,,,„ 13•Y ' III;' ' 4,14.46. a,. a asas"' i , 2 R-15,v ,,,,,,,,,\,,,,,,, ,,,,,,s r• , . cm .. S sw ,,, sw e.... . 9 'NA i .i'd i 1'''''' 1 \ i T ,a 0 I , . ,61 ' , ,,,,°' ?, R-7.5 2.,. .°2'. 7. it-15 *. e. .../ R-15 i m .t „,, °,,. i.27 I i 1 , i 22 F0,,,pd .00 0„.0,0 , q t, 4 t I .,,,. , 1 * P.m, ,„ „,,, ,.. I. se ,, G.' .1''' ‘, '"""'•Gh R40 °.„ sw ......z.. ,....' 2. , e..,°'\ 2. st 0 \ \ a 2 I 2%. ISW 000,, 5, t, 1, ttt' 1 j . OM . a .2 N \ .20 /''' .1'''''3 SIS' - ''' 3 R-3 'Is s,..' 9 ' w 'N. R-10 w R-7 5 i 2. . ML.... j, 1 a 3 a ,,,r,„.,,, ..„,--R-15 /'t,'I 2 V -2-%. 9 4, ''''''"2, '22..., 9 „ gg . .! i G ,.. 1 ' 4 .."'"g a R-7.5 a I 4 0-15 I a a i I V 1 v // • i t'ttItt Ct .4E, I ,s.' I f ,..,, ... ' „.,,,,' 0 Ittedst ( Stt.,: ''' tt ‘,, I, 4, , ',. ... . i . L , . '%gtic:g a ..1,..= . 5 57 so, .. V•• cr.... G c.g.c, 1 1 % ' ''' f‘" 2 '2,22:, ' R-3 no.a.g.o.2t agr , g I , / gg, : ''''. .gg., \ Le, r; LG. . N. °,.., ... .2 t „„ / c....^.. '''"' .% / ' i "..., i 9 ....... . / „n 9 i 1 I 4' N. a i • \ ,#a, Wt tt 0 i .'",,,, '6. , l''''',' D.,,,,. o, 1. c..., w, Vt.. VI I, al 4 1 e , SI Rom 9 Pat Rd .0 tr..r ' a o 1 , a 6, a, k , , R40 '' i vr cI4 '''' 7 t 1 /. . I t a# .... ‘......,,ge a Gg .% 1G o, Wren 0 ./ , t\ t a V,,, S. ' t ...1,. "T'''' 1,1 1 a / ‘.. 1„ ---,,. „,„„„ . „I„..., „,, a # R-7.5 .2 i I. '-' .; ‘, ,./ V. 3 ...... ,. 1 i / i ..... „„ 1 3 % i , 311indley. Ir ,ff., , 5 r.r. Itt9 , t , tr tt 5 11 0, le I I 00.0itt' 0 tf tt't 1 tt, ' 7 R-10 e t 2. .. a-11 t R-15 , c. \ \ • 0 0 / . ,,,. . S a s2 .PeAn g Ad' ; I 4.5,1 9 5 I e°''',, 1 ''''''.., A / a I' N. s 02, 2 7,2, ‘ t.,, \'22 2,2,, v 2 ....I °E. 1,.„, .se.d i sw L. ''',,, ! i i x,,,..u, o a ,s"‘22 ,,,,,2 2 s . 2 222,, ,,,, a g i ' `g $ °g., ' 1 '' .. ° g , .3 1013 R-15 A . a -a2 ,,,,./t ,,1 i. a° I s'.^...- a , I' cr..,, e 1 R-15 ,..,.. ] 4 , 0, ,.....'VS V 71 .rt,., 'II, / '''''"'''''''. R-10,,N 2 2 ,.2.'`' ,,. " VI Iv, „...,,, I , 222. %.. ' .1 V 01/I. '''' g t,... .6 7'`''''' 1 , i IV 0 \ e•=, i ' 1 ' -.... ...--,... 53",,..., ... g s , .,7 ,, , i sw m.o.. \ .., • sw F,II '''' G.' t 1 k r , iir enct 0.15 a 6 / ..,,,,,, '''''s ‘ i 1 I C.PW0.19 t ' i i ‘„, wf'°4 sw , ,s ,--' ,:. ‘ , ws, • sw ss.s._ 1 -,, ....-^ SW CM LI -, ..„, ' 015 5,, a.... ,'" , ## SIIV , ttr'A ‘ ‘ Chi tt.,.........? ......... ' „,...'"'°, ' .. ' I R.15 . _, a ...„, ti SW Rad Led V ..Dian Ort i a ..n.ct e2 2....,o .., wn, 1... e , , s a. 't L. 41 i , Clue D. orn i 5 \ 4% te: nr \ .0. svi eawn, Si j co Ga. . a „,, ,, -I ! II ' 2 54 2 2 a VV 515 SY, ,,„ 4 e 'N .....„ ,,, i g _ , g 0 .. .., , .. g g g i 0 t.,„ , 1 4 4, i ' 'T .. . 4 , SerialPartitions i a l' I, N i ,,,&. 1 R-15 f ,, ..„, .f a Analysis of Contiguous Lots Under the Same.., ,,,... 0-10 0-1° „,..../ ..,, I. . Ownership&Taking into Account 10%for Access Z I i - 5 2 - Iv-, s, VS IS, in s WWI; Rd 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 • ,,,,.... SI i 'tt., ,., . t' se 5 ,s_ 44, , , .. s. .. sr i Miles / ‘.., 4 71515 s.. II , sm '4 .„,,....0, ? VI a sw a.... . 3 3 4=' \ I i 3 ,,, , ...t. , . e"' • ! 43„,„, 3a ‘ 333.333aw. 1 A t kd ; ; A A a sA v ,09aaa a -2 c., , VV i i. 9a T „„„ e i / 'w:, '''''"7 ' ", i v .3 v. 1 „ ,I a .g g a , t# , a ' ..,,=„ ,'gv • I g t 3 t' a I g V a L . Av._. , - gs .•\ ‘ 3 • i 9'''`a '. 9, •1 V 2, 0, , SE Saps St It y; 1 gm.. ;... `25 -15' 5..." ". ; 1 .3 . 33. St tr •i; ;Whtt Ln i 1 n .:., sw „.,1 who.sr i i , ' ,,, \, ,./ f S.' . Swytt Y;;•S 1 . EWW. . SW Syyliwiss St ‘. ; • i ‘ ;' iy. % ;; NY... Syy SE SW., St V 5 i g al 0. '7'6*. a.-., ,..,„„ . .g 4 0 a ... t,, .''' 'm' ' ' Si'" s''''' I ! ,.. a a a . a ...,n . s, ....... s, ....' , i I 6 Ny ‘ sin, I'. , ; :4 i SW Ens" SW EnSts.; Rd.. . ;mown St SW Elt Stl. 1 i t g 0 Pritt . • 1 1,3,,,,,, 1 ,,,, L,,,, .rn "'81, ...., ,. e .L... R-3 R-3 ma.. w 14 4 4 xx. ww. 1 „,,, ...... %. i a V ,,„ ,i,„ ( R-10 '''''' ''''''''' " a , ,,0, , „ ...", „. 1,5 , A I e as 3 2 1 5 k.r, ,t 0 4 09 , „vv.,, , ,,v0.9 I a g 0Aa• ,--.- * I Destiend ytd ' r' '''' i 1 ;'" ,,... . V i", ''''',,/ 1 R-3 R.5 R-7.5 ,,, ... vr...., , ,* ,...1 .,..2., ; Ay SYttyy , S, / G. ti ,• R-7.5 sv, „...„ s,.., ,al :./ R-15 ... \ a t ....... .. ...v. a 11 i - 0"-- '' f., P E yaw 12.7.5 •=i1; .41 '... wx.13 I ,411X R-10 Pr ‘....... ,....," ' 1' '''.r, e. i i i i S‘ SYstts ; \ le ; SYS ;t• \ r„ ,..1 o I t. . ; R-7 5 , i '''''%,„. 1 .,' ',„,,,, • 1 4 t ''',." v„,, ,,,,,,r 1. 1 :1- ..' R-10 a R-7.5 44 1 ip 4- a'. •' a i ...). 6 , 1 Sy ;ftty.tr wyyyry . S . a a - ,, ..„ VW,, a r. 0.,,, L, 55, , y A ,,Ix, g 3 i 3 ." ,,.., e 4,, „ f ': :, ' ‘ t..-f :".9 c...... VV V .., iv i I 4 g i , , ,5:5 j ,r,,,,,, , et rga R-10 ' VV - •• ,' V .,- . SE ''' ...,4,., .T i ,, Si '' [Yarn WY ., #. A i ..... ,....., A V l'07 „„--,, ‘,.., a e.' I a° Nfo. Dividable Lot_ A R-3 IV /g .t, Adjacent Owners.. , g - 4 ..., R-10 , , R.3 i ..„ „ P, ;a ..; V C' -Wembley . ; Of ; 5 or more divisions ..... , Rdge ,... ,,, z a 1„,, 5 S / .....nr. f "' \ yyyyt; V. VI • '44 XX. XX, 0 / ,,, . ,,, ,,,. RP Designation V V ,,,,, V In . 5.15 ., R-3 ' ... .V 4, „ "' - - . . , ... ...- ,.... „r„„„ VVV Wstw.6 , StlY t ;''' :'''' SI . V I i % '' ;;; Wat• S, Way cystV Ry S.;';;; -. Steep Slope ne,.i .. % a Labels on parcels signify potential lot divisions. ... VI 41.) R-15 ' /VV XX, 4 4,,,x4 ,.. ... . 2 Pm, is,,,,,„„,„, c,.., ,„„„ i , = A % ie dt . a ss ‘, i ss, 1*7, ' X '. ; R. w .4,4, w1. 4 4 • '''''''' 'raY k G....,1 R-15„„„ i , „ I ,,,,,,,\, ,,„ c4, „ ,,„ , ....„ ' „,,,,,,,,,,.'''''' A ,, VVVV A, g VV g"'" ` % AA ;A . , ,.. . 9 °...,w. ,, ,,,,s' i r' ....i: .7''''`a '' .1' 4%,„ •i''''''' X„.„, w www .owww VV i XXa X., 7 4,- .4. 11 . ..., . WM..' ; R-7.5 I „v ' ii-15 *. e, ,..... ...a syy; S R-15 1.- VVV V ss SA, ..111°' 12 V VV 2 "S„ .t gr i ‘. S. a ,111 g11. ,,, sV R-7.5 v. ,,,/,V, tag i i i i . Rs.. p, yty.. , V 4, V / th • VV1-; ;tty ;.; I ; y.„ VV 'oag. 11::g R-10 earner .1 4 44, v....1„.„,..,a„., X , se X '' . 41''' ‘0, ....14 11-10 X ,,,, ....,gz. ,,,,. .,,, , v."\ I" . , \ \ V.,,, . I 't '..,,, ,:i 5 a ',, A i A4 m„„, 4A°4 AAA 4' V i i 3 i .... ..."'R'S .1 S ., %,, 4,1 I j . .. Sil R-7.5 R-7 5 I . . „,av" "4, ,..,,,,.,.„, \ ' ,,. , 'v.,' „v0 I.. I... .„„- 4. Z 12-3 X s41 1" ' VV R-10 1 ' . .-... 4,""‘, '',../ , ,‘ , ,,, I , ,s. a "."'". a R-7.5 V a m 5-13 1,.,: g i i A i %AA. I vi . I--a. .9 a 99'• Sv ' a A t I/ • v„. v ..9 g":9 ( .v.: g•'' g- V v. .. . at. .,,,,. 0, 5 v. 0. a ... ... 9 A 0... v g E -1., I A A, ,A ''' 5 ,,t eV° a ,. ' R-3 . 5., /t 5' J „ 1 ..52. ' . Witynny ' „„e„.„ g ;;;:, \ 1 E7 S •. ,rn 2 L.. 9. -,.. , ar, 1 ,,,' ...,,..'' ne / „n i W ; H I ' N. ..... . .. i • \ ... .. .'''''''' '''' ''' '4 VVI a . .... ... 0 i s,.. ,'....., . ';‘...' .... VII L. . ;; %. 0.- .... ..... .5. I, / 4 1 . ,,,,, i . .0°..... '.... SW Rows.. 9 syYS ; S•S?<NY• Se •t; r, ,. lid yr ; ; a o 1 a '' i„" c'''' ‘;'5' ' t „set r . I VI 1 ..... , -,...........'' a 12. .S 112 .. i ..,.... 5, we S. a . a. a 2 a a V 24,„ 510,,...2 1T'''' '4/ 1 ag a / ‘.. IV .1E11..2 c1 g„.... . ....5. S,,, a 5 R-7.5 44 1 a 'A .; I, AAA/ i 3 ...0 A 1 90 ga ) i / 59 ... , 1 g L i A 1 5, 5 5 . A. A,51. g' g a ••''' -1. I I „„4,11x /VV. a I ,r, .4, ' 4 5-10 e V 5-15 t R-15 ‘A. \ • A . le , .,,99, ga' . Lg A , v.a .1 ; I ags.. s, 5 I e"N, 1 V°""..., ,A' X' / \ s ° . It % .,, \t, ,,,,,„ , 12-10 3,.. ,w vX:1, ,,,,,..... //e V _Am 1 .,.. ,N i , a c wr ,, V V % '12.5, 1 ' .1 i a , i ' 12 I1.......... 1 '11S.... 112.. e ,..., ,m , V R-15 A A a I R-15 0 ,,,,t, ; /. ' a , s, 1 y 4, 44 4 4.4 AA,„„,, V 4.' rrAA„A "I I 4, 4"4'. 'n"'''''';'. 4:4 ev, 9 2 L. ' g 0/ . gaVV a 0g oft Aa I. ..„. . Avta. gag" .a•A V s.' %.,:, I '...' 1 e` VV 0 I .1 ' I ......c, •g e•=, 1313, s . e : g g ..' , 5 =,, , 1 VW... • . 41. gge vs..... • 5., 1., '''' 1 'V r ir....... ' 12.15 2' I .5. 1 5...2..5 t ' . 1 i i \,, „f%4 „ ,..,.. ,,,„V -,.,,-- ,. ‘ , , • ..• ,.,._ vVVV M. 4,.." ss,'2' ' ,,,,„ '..... V/ i ' ••,, 0 ''‘ R-10 a WSW . . , ;. ‘. A .ug.esser Centemma wy... ;4 R-15 . wi 1- a SW Red Led V ..Stian St 't i , a ..n.ct 2' ...v. .5., ... ... , , s a 1/ , SWi. w 91I ) aue a ..r, . . . ' \ 4% a nr WOW Sawn WY Gab .i V '''gg 0.,..„ V '.. g , , , L., .. .. ,. ,, .. 5. , . ,..,,, : 0 5,.., ,„ 4 i SerialPartitions i i 1) i ,L ... .- 8 - t 1 1 . i N V A 3 N 00.0 a a 1 R-15 V ', Analysis of Contiguous Lots Under the Same R-10 n..,° ,,,,,,„. 1. . Ownership&Taking into Account 20%for Access Z .," I i — 5 2 - VAAA . .; SW, . a WIWI Rd 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 V VI '4'.3 ......... 0' , a 112 ,,, 5. i Miles ,,,..IVV VV ' ' , ,,,,, ''''' 5.,....Id tit, VII V A 0 A IV EXHIBIT F-1 LU 17-0052 ,Ai411- 7I`Cr, � G.) V 0111- O �REGO� Flag Lots and Private Access Lanes, Draft #2 (LU 17-0052) Request for Public Comments for Preparation of Hearing Draft August 15, 2017 The City is requesting public comments on this draft by Thursday, August 31, 2017 (5:00 p.m.). Comments submitted by the deadline will be considered in preparing the Public Hearing Draft for the Planning Commission hearing tentatively scheduled for Monday, October 9, 2017. Please see the inside cover for information on how to submit comments. LU 17-0052 EXHIBIT F-1/PAGE 1 OF 10 HOW TO SUBMIT COMMENTS The Planning Department is accepting written comments to assist in the preparation of a Public Hearing Draft of proposed Community Development Code amendments addressing development of flag lots and private access lanes. This is the second Public Review Draft issued for this proposal. The prior draft, published on April 21, 2017 under File No. PP 16-0003, has been updated to reflect public comment and feedback from the Planning Commission. All written comments received by 5:00 p.m.,Thursday, August 31, 2017, will be considered in preparing the Public Hearing Draft of the proposal for the Planning Commission hearing tentatively scheduled for October 9, 2017. For more information or to submit comments, please contact: Leslie Hamilton, AICP, Senior Planner Planning & Building Services Department City of Lake Oswego 380 A Avenue P.O. Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Phone: 503-675-3731 Email: Ihamilton@lakeoswego.city LU 17-0052 EXHIBIT F-1/PAGE 2 OF 10 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction 1 II. Background 2 Ill. Conclusion 7 IV. Attachments 7 LU 17-0052 EXHIBIT F-1/PAGE 3 OF 10 I. INTRODUCTION Proposal Summary This is a request from the City of Lake Oswego for a text amendment to the Lake Oswego Community Development Code (CDC or City code), amending the standards for development of flag lots and private access lanes. The Planning Commission and City Council identified this as a 2017 Planning Commission Goal. The purpose of the amendments is to streamline, update and clarify the code. This process is part of the City's ongoing effort to implement the Comprehensive Plan (adopted in 2014), pursuant to City Council policies on preserving the character of existing established residential neighborhoods, maintaining clear and objective standards for development, and avoiding unnecessary restrictions on property owners. Key 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. An Access Lane is: 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 applicable surface modes of travel. [LOC 50.10.003 Definitions] Key Dates • Public Comments due on this draft—August 31, 2017 • Planning Commission Public Hearing (tentative)—October 9, 2017 • City Council Public Hearing (tentative)—November/December, 2017 The ordinance would go into effect thirty days after City Council adopts its final decision. August 15, 2017 Flag Lots and Access Lanes(Public Review Draft) Page I 1 LU 17-0052 LU 17-0052 EXHIBIT F-1/PAGE 4 OF 10 II. BACKGROUND The Planning Commission (Commission) has conducted four work sessions (January 23, February 27, April 10, and June 12) and received one update (July 10) on the proposed amendments. The purpose of this Public Review Draft is to assist staff in identifying any comments, questions, or concerns from the public prior to the Commission holding a public hearing. The amendments require Measure 56 Notice, as the proposed reduction in the number of flag lots and increase in the amount of parking required on an access lane would limit the use of residential property. This following summarizes the proposed amendments to the Community Development Code (Chapter 50) regarding Flag Lots and Access Lanes and identifies issues raised in the Planning Commission work sessions and in public comments on the prior Public Review Draft issued in April. These items correspond to the order in which they are addressed in Attachment A. Item #1 (Limit the Number of Flag Lots in the City) is new. 1. Limit the Number of Flag Lots [LOC 50.06.003.1.d]: The proposal contains options for limiting the number of flag lots served by a private access lane to between four and six lots. The proposal also requires additional parking for flag lot developments. Both issues arose from the Cedar Street subdivision in the Hallinan Neighborhood in 2014 [LU 14-0046], where some neighbors felt that a subdivision consisting of eight flag lots on one access lane did not fit the character of the neighborhood. If the City had limited the number of flag lots in that case as considered here, a public street would have been required to serve a subdivision containing eight lots. By requiring a public street for developments of more than four or six lots, this code change could reduce allowed development and test the City's compliance with State and Metro housing rules, as discussed below. There are also actions the City could take to mitigate any reduction on housing density that might result. For example, with the City Engineer's concurrence, the Planning Commission could consider adopting a minimum local street standard for small subdivisions that reduces the standard right-of-way width, which is currently 50 ft. By comparison, the standard width of a private access lane easement is only 20-30 ft. The State Metropolitan Housing Rule (OAR 660, Division 7), adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission in 1981, is intended to "ensure opportunity for the provision of adequate numbers of needed housing units and the efficient use of land within the Metropolitan Portland (Metro) urban growth boundary, to provide greater certainty in the development process and so to reduce housing costs." It requires local jurisdictions in the Portland Metro area to maintain zoning for residential August 15, 2017 Flag Lots and Access Lanes(Public Review Draft) Page 12 LU 17-0052 LU 17-0052 EXHIBIT F-1/PAGE 5 OF 10 densities averaging six, eight, or 10 dwelling units per net acre, and to provide buildable lands for a housing mix consisting of at least 50 percent attached and multifamily dwellings. The standard for Lake Oswego is 10 dwelling units per acre. "Multnomah County and the cities of Portland, Gresham, Beaverton, Hillsboro, Lake Oswego and Tigard must provide for an overall density of ten or more dwelling units per net buildable acre. These are larger urbanized jurisdictions with regionally coordinated population projections of 50,000 or more for their active planning areas, which encompass or are near major employment centers, and which are situated along regional transportation corridors." (OAR 660-07-0035) The Planning Commission has asked whether Lake Oswego could request a lesser density requirement, as the cities of Tualatin, West Linn and Wilsonville, for example, are required to plan for a density of only eight units per net acre. Further, the Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan, updated in 2013, forecasts a population of only 45,693 within the Urban Services Boundary by 2035. However, it is not clear that the proposed amendment would take the City out of compliance with the Metropolitan Housing Rule. Staff is analyzing this as part of the current proposal. In its most recent analysis of planned density, the City demonstrated that it had land zoned for an average density of 10.2 dwelling units per net acre. (Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan, 1994) If an updated analysis were to show the proposed amendments would take the City out of compliance with the State rule, it would either have to abandon the proposal or request an amendment to the rule, which could be difficult to achieve as it would affect other jurisdictions. However, even if successful in amending the State rule, the City would still have to comply with the Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan. Metro Code (Chapter 3.07, Title 1) prevents cities from reducing planned/zoned densities without commensurately increasing density elsewhere in the city. For these reasons, the City is seeking public input but has not yet committed to a preferred alternative for limiting the number of flag lots on a private access lane. 2. Access Lane Parking [LOC 50.06.003.1.d]: The minimum on-site parking requirement for single-family dwellings is one space per dwelling. Required parking cannot be within a front yard setback, though it is not uncommon for residential lots to have additional parking, for example in a driveway area in front of a garage. Where an access lane serves seven or eight dwelling units, additional parking for four standard vehicles must be provided either "on-lane" in small turnouts, or "off-lane" in a small parking lot. The proposal contains options for providing additional on-lane or off-lane parking for flag lot developments as small as two lots. This may affect allowable density in some August 15, 2017 Flag Lots and Access Lanes(Public Review Draft) Page 13 LU 17-0052 LU 17-0052 EXHIBIT F-1/PAGE 6 OF 10 developments as the areas provided for access and parking are excluded from Net Developable Area. Staff is analyzing this as part of the current proposal. 3. Open Space/Serial Partition Sites [LOC 50.06.005.11: As identified by the 2015 Audit of the Comprehensive Plan and CDC, the applicability statement for Open Space should be amended to apply to serial partition sites where one or more of the new lots could be further divided to achieve four or more lots in total. This will result in reduced development potential of some properties, but is intended to remove a loophole where developments of four or more lots have not been required to provide open space, the effect of which has been an increase in density above that which is envisioned by the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed amendments would require (1) all "serial partition" sites of 75,000 square feet or more to provide 20% open space, and (2) serial partition sites of less than 75,000 square feet to provide open space only if there are resource lands present on the site. These triggers are identical to the open space triggers for subdivisions. Note: This amendment may no longer be necessary if the City Council limits the number of flag lots allowed on an access lane. 4. Lot Line Adiustments and Flag Lots [LOC 50.07.007.2.a.iil: The flag lot standards apply to all land divisions and lot line adjustments (LLA) that "create" a flag lot. Under the legal lot determination analysis, "creation" includes reconfiguring an existing flag lot through a Lot Line Adjustment; it also applies to an existing flag lot that is further partitioned (and thus has a new configuration). The first flag lot standards were codified in 1998; these standards were altered considerably in 2010, including amendments to setbacks and dwelling orientation. Applying the new standards to developed flag lots often creates non-conformities to setbacks and orientation. The proposed amendment exempts applicability of the current flag lots standards to existing, developed flag lots that are reconfigured through a Lot Line Adjustment. For flag lots approved pre-2010, any future development or remodel would have to comply with the dimensional standards (setbacks, lot coverage, building height, etc.) of the base zone, and the dwelling orientation requirements that existed when the flag lot was created. 5. Setbacks and Orientation [LOC 50.07.007.2.e.v(1)1: In 2010, the flag lot standards were amended to require the development sites to provide the opportunity for access lanes (existing or potential) to be extended onto an abutting property where such property may be further divided. The proposal would remove this requirement; access lanes would no longer have to be planned to connect to and through abutting developable properties (where impediments do not exist), as private access lanes do not provide August 15, 2017 Flag Lots and Access Lanes(Public Review Draft) Page 14 LU 17-0052 LU 17-0052 EXHIBIT F-1/PAGE 7 OF 10 public access. Where connectivity for public access is needed, a future street plan may be required under a separate code provision. Relatedly, whether or not there is development potential on the abutting lot, under current code the front yard setback on the flag lot is measured from the access lane or a projection of the access lane (see Figure 50.07.007-A: Flag Lot Front Yard). In situations where there is no opportunity to extend the access lane to abutting lots (e.g., railroad, existing development), or if the Code is amended to remove the requirement that access lanes in abutting developments be connected, the proposal would provide greater flexibility in setbacks and dwelling orientation on flag lots. This change will allow the City to prioritize setbacks where it makes the most sense. For example, dwellings would be placed so that the greater setback is where living spaces on abutting lots are next to one another, or where setbacks it facilitates protection of significant trees. The proposed amendments would apply the zone's front yard setback either to the property line that is parallel to the public street, or to the property line that is parallel to the orientation of the access lane, based on this analysis; the setback distribution would continue to apply to the remaining setbacks. 6. Garage Appearance and Location Standards (LOC 50.07.007.2.e.iil: These standards are proposed to be removed entirely because garages on flag lots are never close enough to a public street for the standards to have any practical effect. As a comparison, the garage appearance and location standards for non-flag lots do not apply to garages that are located more than 60 ft. from a public street; garages on flag lots are generally located more than 60 ft. from the public street. 7. Flag Lot Front Setback (LOC 50.07.007.2.e.vl: Recent flag lot developments can appear crowded as viewed from the street or access lane, and the difference in front setback requirements between flag and non-flag lots may be contributing to this problem. This is due in part to the narrower width of private access lanes compared to standard city streets. As recommended by the Commission, the front setback, measured from the access lane, is proposed to increase from 10 ft. to 15 ft. 8. Setback Distribution on R-5 Flag Lots (LOC 50.07.007.2.e.v(3)1: In the Medium and High Density Residential Zones of R-5, R-3 and R-0, the cumulative side and rear setbacks must add to 45 feet on flag lots, which was 15 feet more than the cumulative sides and rear setbacks on non-flag lots. Staff could find no legislative history that this discrepancy was intentional, and the stated reason for the setback distribution was to August 15, 2017 Flag Lots and Access Lanes(Public Review Draft) Page 15 LU 17-0052 LU 17-0052 EXHIBIT F-1/PAGE 8 OF 10 "provide flexibility while maintaining the same overall combined setback total." The cumulative side and rear setbacks on non-flag lots in these three zones is 30 feet. The proposed cumulative of 35 feet, with nothing less than 7.5 feet, is closer to the non-flag distribution and will generally ensure that one yard is bigger (i.e., a rear yard). This amendment does not affect density. 9. Lot Coverage and Floor Area f LOC 50.07.002.e.viil: This amendment clarifies that lot coverage and floor area are calculated on the net area (i.e., the area in the access lane/flag pole is deducted from the gross lot size). Presently, the access lane/flag pole area is netted out only for determining minimum lot area and lot coverage. On the Public Review Draft, the City received comments recommending that the dimensional standards for flag lots should be the same as for regular lots and comply with all standard code provisions and current zoning. The proposed amendments clarify that lot size, lot coverage and floor area are calculated based on the net lot area of the flag lot (i.e., the area in the flag pole or access lane is deducted from the flag lot area before lot size, lot coverage and floor area is calculated). This ensures that perceived lot size and dwelling size are the same on a flag lot as on a non-flag lot. 10. Flag Lot Screening Along Access Lane and Potential Conflict with Utilities [LOC 50.07.007.2.f.il: Engineering staff noted the potential conflict between utilities (which are often placed within the access lane/easement) and the requirement of trees in the landscape buffers required along the access lane. The proposed amendment makes an exception to the tree requirement when utilities are present and the City Engineer determines that there will be a conflict. 11. Flag Lot Screening, Perimeter Fencing [LOC 50.07.002.f.iiil: The current flag lot standards require fencing along the side and rear yards of flag lots. When the orientation of flag lots was rotated in 2010, this standard was not amended to reflect the new orientation and often one lot line was not fenced. The proposed amendment would require fencing at the perimeter of the new flag lots (graphic provided in text). 12. Flag Lot Screening, Rear Yard Landscaping f LOC 50.07.00.2.f.ivl: The Flag Lot standards require a landscaping strip to be provided along the rear property lines of flag lots. As the flag lot orientation changed in 2010, the screening requirement was rotated to what was previously a side yard. A "rear" yard is always opposite a "front" yard, but because of the flexible/cumulative setback standard, the "rear" yard may not be the largest yard. The largest yard, which generally provides the activity area for the occupants, should August 15, 2017 Flag Lots and Access Lanes(Public Review Draft) Page 16 LU 17-0052 LU 17-0052 EXHIBIT F-1/PAGE 9 OF 10 have the buffering. The proposed amendment requires the landscaping buffer to be provided along the largest side or rear yard of a flag lot. III. CONCLUSION The City is seeking public input on this proposal. Staff will consider all input received by August 31, in preparing the public hearing draft of the proposal for the Planning Commission hearing, which is scheduled for October 9, 2017. IV. ATTACHMENT Attachment 1—Proposed Code Amendments: Flag Lots and Access Lanes NOTE: ATTACHMENT NOT INCLUDED, PLEASE REFER TO ATTACHMENT 2 OF ORDINANCE 2759 FOR PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENTS. August 15, 2017 Flag Lots and Access Lanes(Public Review Draft) Page 1 7 LU 17-0052 LU 17-0052 EXHIBIT F-1/PAGE 10 OF 10 Density Comparisons Between Access Lanes and Public Streets EXHIBIT F-2 Zone Parent Minimum Lot Lot Width Lot Depth Access Lane Sq Ft Public Street Sq Ft Max Density Max Density Max Density Density Lot Size Size (25' access lane) (50' ROW) Access Lane Access Lane Public Street Loss or (Gross) (True) Gain R-5 75,000 5,000 75 1000 25,000 50,000 10 8 5 -3 75,000 5,000 250 300 7,500 15,000 14 8 12 4 75,625 5,000 275 275 6,875 13,750 14 8 12 4 75,000 5,000 300 250 6,250 12,500 14 8 13 5 75,000 5,000 1000 75 1,875 3,750 15 8 14 6 R-7.5 75,000 7,500 75 1000 25,000 50,000 7 7 3 -4 75,000 7,500 250 300 7,500 15,000 9 8 8 0 75,625 7,500 275 275 6,875 13,750 9 8 8 0 75,000 7,500 300 250 6,250 12,500 9 8 8 0 75,000 7,500 1000 75 1,875 3,750 10 8 10 2 R-10 75,000 10,000 75 1000 25,000 50,000 5 5 3 -3 75,000 10,000 250 300 7,500 15,000 7 7 6 -1 75,625 10,000 275 275 6,875 13,750 7 7 6 -1 75,000 10,000 300 250 6,250 12,500 7 7 6 -1 75,000 10,000 1000 75 1,875 3,750 7 7 7 0 R-15 75,000 15,000 75 1000 25,000 50,000 3 3 2 -1 75,000 15,000 250 300 7,500 15,000 5 5 4 -1 75,625 15,000 275 275 6,875 13,750 5 5 4 -1 75,000 15,000 300 250 6,250 12,500 5 5 4 -1 75,000 15,000 1000 75 1,875 3,750 5 5 5 0 R-5 50,000 5,000 175 285 7,125 14,250 9 8 7 -1 50,000 5,000 200 250 6,250 12,500 9 8 8 -1 50,000 5,000 285 175 4,375 8,750 9 8 8 0 R-7.5 50,000 7,500 175 285 7,125 14,250 6 6 5 -1 50,000 7,500 200 250 6,250 12,500 6 6 5 -1 50,000 7,500 285 175 4,375 8,750 6 6 6 -1 R-10 50,000 10,000 175 285 7,125 14,250 4 4 4 0 50,000 10,000 200 250 6,250 12,500 4 4 4 0 50,000 10,000 285 175 4,375 8,750 5 5 4 -1 R-15 50,000 15,000 175 285 7,125 14,250 3 3 2 -1 50,000 15,000 200 250 6,250 12,500 3 3 3 -1 50,000 15,000 285 175 4,375 8,750 3 3 3 0 LU 17-0052 DRAFT: 09/29/17 EXHIBIT F-2/PAGE 1 OF 1 RECEIVED August 29, 2017 AUG 2 9 2017 Leslie Hamilton PLANNING & City of Lake Oswego BUILDING SERVICES Re: Comments on NARROW Flag Lots Dear Leslie, My comments and recommendations are for NARROW FLAG LOTS rules. Assuming density is a goal of the City, then it follows that all infill flag lots that comply with the zoning requirements should be "doable". However,narrow lots are generally uncommon, and I don't believe their special constraints have ever been addressed in the Code, because under the current rules lots less than 75' wide are virtually undevelopable. In order to illustrate the above,I have attached examples of a 2-lot scenarios and(2) 3-lot scenarios,which,under current rules would create footprints,of ridiculously shaped homes. Below each scenario, I have included a sketch showing my RECOMMENDED EXCEPTION FOR NARROW LOTS LESS THAN 75' WIDE to illustrate how the problems can be resolved. These recommendations are mostly to do with minor adjustments to Access Lanes and setbacks Please give these narrow lots special consideration and incorporate the recommendations into the proposed code. Thank you, Sheila Carlson sheilacarlson@comcast.net 503 421.5882 LU 17-0052 EXHIBIT G-1/PAGE 1 OF 4 2 Lot _5e-enar,o a _ 1- - I'•._. 5' Land4cape Buffer_ ._ ..] _ C ! l 25'Access Easement I • ... . / -No Dev't 1 (5' Buffer+ 4' +12' driveway +4') • 'Possible ' N 19'wide footprint ; ( _I19' wide footprint • No Garage Possible 1j No Garage Possible/• m = Lot#2 EXISTING RULES Lot#1 . 00 ( U;�°lcvelopctk.7le. ZI 445 r5 9 i a " - n Access side m ___._ - 5 Side Setback o9 9ment � , for garage access from ease 20' Access Easement N (4' +12' driveway +4') Garage5 , - -11 64" f g- 4 3 Cfaru�� End lot facing the street I .7 i , I r r / . RECOMMENDED EXCEPTION FOR NARROW LOTS < 75' wipe 3 Lot- J e-i'?ariv - c-r r C fi\ 5' Landspape buffer • ✓ 25' Access Easement 0 (5' BuffE r + 4' +12' +4') N �' . V . N 62' /' 17' wide footprint 17' wide footprint I 1 117 wide footprint r ' No Garage Possible j No Garage Possible i No Garage Possible X / 2 W Lot#3 Lot#2 Lot#1 -' EXISTING RULES 0 (Undevelopable) T — as ,s — '▪ U P20' Acss Easement I - - _ ___ .._._; m (4' + 1 ?' +4') w i / E — I ----2:(---1 ,- 6'setback 1---� E n 1— -- ' No Setback 5 _ ,r._Access_I ne / I fr Access Lane; at Garage only 62' i I , i s Garage . i : Garage Garage ` — . . i i $ . 1 . • i , _________ / `1 . I Lot#3 Lot#2 Lot#1 RECOMMENDED EXCEPTION FOR NARROW LOTS < 75" WIDE 3 - LOT SCENARIO - B C 5' Landscape buffer •1 25' Access Easement 0 (5' Buffer+ 4' +12' +4') oU' N 62' 17' wide footprint 1 17' wide footprint 17 wide footprint No Garage Possible No Garage Possible No Garage Possible 5, C` CO Lot#3 Lot#2 Lot#1 0 L7e/f EXISTING RULES _Ip.i9ble (Uridevelopable) aii A 5' Side setback ! 20'Acce s Easement MGarage 1 (4' + 12' 4') House: No Setback - ,- }(-5'setback 7 4 fr Access Lane fr Access Lane K & 62' I i I at Garage onl - Garage i Garage Lot#3 Lot#2 Lot#1 RECOMMENDED EXCEPTION FOR NARROW LOTS < 75' WIDE August 30, 2017 Leslie Hamilton, AICP, Senior Planner Planning & Building Services Department City of Lake Oswego 380 A Avenue P.O. Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 lham i lton@lakeoswego.city Dear Ms. Hamilton: I am submitting these comments on behalf of the Hallinan Heights Neighborhood Association board of directors regarding the August 15, 2017 Flag Lots and Private Access Lanes, Draft#2 (LU 17-0052). First, we want to reiterate our May 18, 2017 comments we submitted previously on the issue. As I believe you are aware, the flag lots on Cedar Street have had negative effects on the character of our neighborhood, not to mention the issues with increased traffic congestion, parking, and poor emergency vehicle access. It is our opinion that the proposed changes to the Lake Oswego Community Development Code will do little to ameliorate the problems with the current code. A copy of our May 18, 2017 comments is enclosed. The following additional comments are hereby submitted in response to the August 15, 2017 Draft#2, Background section. 1. Limit the Number of Flag Lots FLOC 50.06.003.1.dl: We object to the current code and the proposed changes. This is of upmost importance to us. The flag lot ordinance should limit the number of flag lots served by a private lane to a maximum of one additional lot/home. If the developer wants to develop more than one lot, they should be required to construct a public street that meets current requirements. Having substandard private access lanes providing access to multiple lots creates problems as evidence by what has happened on Cedar Street. You raise the issue of density requirements with Metro; however, it is our understanding that the City is exceeding the density requirements. If an analysis is needed to document the City's current average dwelling density, we request the City do so before these code changes are finalized. Furthermore, if the City needs to obtain an amendment to the State Metropolitan Housing Rule (OAR 660, Division 7) regarding density, then we LU 17-0052 EXHIBIT G-2/PAGE 1 OF 8 strongly encourage the City to do so, even if it results in increasing density elsewhere in the city. 2. Access Lane Parking FLOC 50.06.003.1.d1: We object to current code and the proposed changes. The minimum on-site parking requirement for single- family dwellings should be two, since most residents living in a single-family home in Lake Oswego have two or more cars. This is of utmost importance for single-family dwellings accessed by private lanes. Otherwise, residents park in fire lanes and create congestion on nearby public streets. 3. Open Space/Serial Partition Sites (LOC 50.06.005.11: If the City limits the number of flag lots, this amendment would most likely not be necessary. 4. Lot Line Adiustments and Flag Lots FLOC 50.07.007.2.a.iil: We support the proposed changes. 5. Setbacks and Orientation FLOC 50.07.007.2.e.v(1)1: Our concern with the proposed change is that it may be short sighted and create problems when the adjoining property owner tries to develop their property which may include demolition of existing structures. This wouldn't be as substantial of an issue if the number of flag lots were limited to one unless the developer is required to construct a public street. 6. Garage Appearance and Location Standards (LOC 50.07.007.2.e.iil: No comment. 7. Flag Lot Front Setback FLOC 50.07.007.2.e.v1: We support the proposed change. 8. Setback Distribution on R-5 Flag Lots (LOC 50.07.007.2.e.v(3)1: No comment. 9. Lot Coverage and Floor Area (LOC 50.07.002.e.viil: We support the proposed change. 10. Flag Lot Screening Along Access Lane and Potential Conflict with Utilities fLOC 50.07.007.2.f.i1: No comment. ii. Flag Lot Screening, Perimeter Fencing (LOC 50.07.002.f.iiil: No comment. 12. Flaa Lot Screening, Rear Yard Landscaping (LOC 50.07.00.2.f.ivl: No comment. LU 17-0052 EXHIBIT G-2I 'AGE 2 OF 8 Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed Community Development, Chapter 50, code changes. If you have any questions or would like to discuss our concerns, please contact me at 503-347-4266 or babadie@comcast.net. Sincerely, 6:d2 0674,,;, Bill Abadie Vice-Chair Hallinan Heights Neighborhood Association Cc: Planning Commission Hallinan Heights Neighborhood Association Board Members LU 17-0052 EXHIBIT G-2/PAGE 3 OF 8 Comments on the Public Review Draft of April 21, 2017 for Flag Lot and Serial Partition Code Amendments From the Hallinan Heights Neighborhood Association (Flag Lot Study Group) May 18, 2017 Summary • Flag lot developments (as opposed to individual flag lots) should not be allowed. Or, put another way,flag lot developments should be limited to a maximum of one new/additional home. • The dimensional standards of a flag lot should be the same as for a regular lot and comply with all standard code provisions and current zoning. • The practice of allowing developers to bypass normal code requirements for minor and major developments, by designating them as flag lots and following an alternative, less demanding set of rules, has led to a series of substandard developments, not in keeping with our code, and the practice should be discontinued. • The amendments to the flag lot code proposed in the public review draft of April 21, 2017, go in the opposite direction. They codify these abuses. Therefore we object to the proposed amendments. Flag lot developments (with more than one new home) should not be allowed. Historically, homes were built on larger lots, often with large back yards,to allow for septic systems. Today, most homes are connected to the public sewer. In less densely developed neighborhoods, such as Glenmorrie, the large backyards remain, unused as septic fields, and we can understand the desire of landowners to partition some or most of this space and to sell it as a separate buildable lot, behind their own home, and with LU 17-0052 EXHIBIT G-2/PAGE 4 OF 8 access to the street by an access lane or easement. Flag lots were conceived and initially approved for this purpose. According to the Lake Oswego Code (LOC 50.10.003) a flag lot is defined as: "A lot that: a. Has the actual building site located behind another lot; and b. Takes access from the street via: 1. 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 2. An access easement." That is the full text of the definition. There is no additional definition in our code. A single home flag lot would be as illustrated below. Flag portion Wing Jot Pole p rtion Street Certain conditions should apply. There must be an existing home in front, one that the owners do not want to demolish. Secondly, the new lot must be behind the old lot, with reference to the street, not beside or in front of it. In short, flag lots must look like a flag. LU 17-0052 EXHIBIT G-2/PAGE 5 OF 8 We believe that the concise definition of a flag lot in our code adequately expresses these concepts, and should be strictly interpreted. We object to the liberal practice of allowing multiple homes to be built on a parcel under the auspices of a flag lot. This practice has led to substandard setback, access, parking, stormwater and a myriad of other issues. We believe that the Flag Lot and Serial Partition Code Amendments as proposed in the April 21, 2017 Public Review Draft have the effect of codifying these abuses, which instead should be prohibited. Exhibit A in our argument is the flag lot development, which was approved over the objections of neighbors at 850 Cedar Street in early 2015: LAX LOT TArywQTXTOIL vix -_�� za 1 PIX • 5me CEDAR ST �!�w T W�sT.S500 r !! -0____-----------_________ .•.___„_ , __, ,; _._... _ `yam !X\--� : 1.111 i .., , ..../ pm I To.. itLOT -00 I I 1 _Ho, —LIT LOT 5101 J �Y � \ I- J L I t.---..-__cifL -.J L_ I PRIVATE ACCESS LANE ._ r TAX LOT rii iI i i i ----.- TAX LOX {J ii i i I I i I ! •sun° ! � I :I I I I ` -i s; L _J ---_.J L -._.J L.._.__.J iI �, - L._____.9_41--)... / i r-. 1AM LUT Q 1900 TAT LOT 4701 ?W •�,1 r TAX LOT 47cUU O 1 m ,A c ON o XEI: In this formulation, all eight newly created lots shared one, sinuous driveway. These were flag lots because, according to the developer, lots 1 through 7 were "behind" lot 8. Furthermore,the city LU 17-0052 EXHIBIT G-2/PAGE 6 OF 8 considered that all eight lots were "behind"the property next door to the west (labelled as Tax Lot 5101 on this drawing). In our opinion, this was an incorrect application of the code. First, since Lot 8 did not yet exist, it was a fictitious analysis. A developer shouldn't be allowed to plan things so that one lot is in front, blocking access to the street,just for the expedience of calling it a flag lot. Secondly,Tax Lot 5101 faced Cedar Street, and the new lots were beside, not behind it. Thirdly, Lake Oswego owned a right-of-way easement extending across almost half of the property, which shows up on the drawing as a dotted line coming in diagonally from the cul-de-sac. The easement was acquired in anticipation of a future extension of Cedar Street, which would have been the proper course and is what should have happened. For the flag lot plans of the builder to be approved,the city had to vacate that easement, which it did. We do not see how our existing codes were upheld in this instance. Neighbors and citizens felt let down by the manner in which the application was examined and approved in the City. More importantly, future amendments to our flag lot code should be designed to prevent misuse of the code, not to codify it. If developers would like to develop a lot,they should be allowed to do so. But they should follow the rules which were designed over many years to yield acceptable results for Lake Oswego, and not use flag lot rules to a purpose for which they were not designed, in order to circumvent the rules and to cut corners. For these reasons,we object to the amendments as proposed. LU 17-0052 EXHIBIT G-2/PAGE 7 OF 8 Addendum A. Below are before and after photographs of the Freepons development at 850 Cedar Street. The top photograph shows the original home on 1.2 acres. The bottom photograph shows the development with 5 of the 8 homes constructed. This development was approved as a flag lot. .;',..r.i0- ,,, . :e r;:: ,...NAL .„1.t...., : � 'g it w lik'''.1;,:ti,:r'.::.4::.' .. '�:.Ce �„ }1„ Y . r 40.... n T J T` • f �rT ' � ,4• 's 1 e SW:` �edarg dog `.., Sl�ra;,. Oat R :.i----_.- 1 .r SI '::r r.:e G , , . i _-( - ia'— ", t... •,_ . # I tis , 4.1 . Lt - A . J .„ .... . 1 ..„..,..,...." , ..... . . . 1---.•,' 1 . , . , . .... . . • , . , . ,- ,.. . , . , ,... . - r . , +F I i . or •9,- • .- o • ' Man lata Tarmcn!I:cn Rvnn.•1 a la rrn- LU 17-0052 EXHIBIT G-2/PAGE 8 OF 8 McCaleb, Iris From: Dianne Cassidy <cassidy@pacifier.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2017 11:28 AM To: Planning Commission Subject: Comments regarding Flag Lot codes To The Planning Commission: Re: Flag Lot Code revisions There should be no flag lot developments with more than 3 lots. 4 or more are a Planned Unit Development and require appropriately sized streets (below) and builder-paid infrastructure. If more than 3 flag lots are allowed, the PUD designation becomes irrelevant and the codes can be interpreted capriciously as staff understands it or desires. Codes should be clear and fair to everyone. Newly created access lanes must allow for emergency vehicles. Use of fire sprinklers should be for extreme cases where vehicles would be slowed or big rigs could not go because of terrain, not because of newly built, inadequate infrastructure. Terrain considerations examples: steep hills, within a high wildfire risk zone, etc. Consult with fire department- responses should be independent and politically protected- if that is possible. Small PUDs should not be required to have curbs and sidewalks. If roadways are wide enough for two cars, then people can walk and cars can stop in one direction if there is traffic coming from the opposite direction. Adding sidewalks eats up more land that can be used for parking on graded shoulders (ROW). Access lanes must be wide enough to allow for parallel parking on at least one side of the lane. Each residence connecting to the lane should be able to have a minimum 4 outside parking spaces, including parking on lane. All parking must be accounted for with no overlaps in parking space requirement. IE: 3 houses, each with 2 outdoor parking spaces on the property, will each need 2 spaces on the lane. The lane should have min. 6 parking spaces total, 2 for each house. If no provisions are made for adequate parking, home owners, their guests and neighbors will be negatively impacted. The city consistently fails to consider the reality of life in the suburbs and that homes need to have sufficient parking and this is creating problems chiefly in the town centers. We do not need to extend parking problems into the single family residential areas and upset the natural order of life here. Urban planning ideology does not fit suburban towns. Other: Stormwater runoff has been a problem for newly developed lots, even with engineered on-site drainage facilities. (Hallinan neighborhood was especially hit hard.)No matter how many lots are developed, neighborhoods must be protected! How? If developers can follow code and still create a nightmare for a whole neighborhood,what can be done to prevent this from occurring again? Thank you, Dianne Cassidy 3601 Wren St. Lake Oswego, OR 97034 LU 17-0052 EXHIBIT G-3/PAGE 1 OF 1 From: Jim Standrina To: Hamilton,Leslie;Jim Standrina Subject: LU 17-0052 Date: Thursday,August 31,2017 4:22:58 PM Hello Leslie I have a couple of concerns.With limited opportunities for UGB expansion this proposal may limit net density in the City. I believe that the requirement of 20%open space for site larger than 75,000 square feet may leave us with small open spaces that may be expensive to maintain and frankly that may not get used.Perhaps a fee in lieu might be better? Thank you, Jim Standring 12670 SW 68th Suite 400 Tigard,Oregon 97223 LU 17-0052 EXHIBIT G-4/PAGE 1 OF 1 HBA Home Builders Association of Metropolitan Portland - - i September 5,2017 Robert Heape, Chair, Lake Oswego Planning Commission 3rd Floor, City Hall,380 A Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 Subject: Lake Oswego Community Development Code (CDC or City code), amending the standards for development offlag lots and private access lanes Dear Chair Heape and Commissioners: On behalf of the Home Builders Association of Metropolitan Portland, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed amendments to the Lake Oswego Development Code. Much of the work in the code update clarifies existing code language for a more easily understandable document, however the HBA is concerned with updates to the code that would limit the maximum number of buildable lots in the city. Included in the draft amendments is an option to reduce the number of lots that may be served by an access lane from eight units to six.The HBA thinks the eight unit standard is a unique and effective policy in the city of Lake Oswego that should be maintained given the current need for housing in the city and across the region. Additionally,the added applicability of open space requirements to serial partition sites, in the same manner as subdivisions,will affect the total number of lots to be created in Lake Oswego,which the HBA thinks are valuable and should be preserved for needed housing in the city. These open space sites are expensive to maintain and may never be used. The HBA would ask that in lieu of the open space requirement, an option for a fee for park development be implemented in addition to/or in place of the open space requirement. The HBA values its long-standing partnership to support the economic and community development goals of Lake Oswego,while ensuring residents have access to a wide range of housing options that meet varying needs and income levels. Respectful! , James Adkins Government Relations Coordinator Home Builders Association of Metro Portland Home Builders Association of Metro Portland 15555 SW Rangy Rd.,Ste.301 Lake Oswego,OR97035 503-684-1880•Fax 503-684-0588 LU 17-0052 EXHIBIT G-5/PAGE 1 OF 1 From: S Bullard To: Hamilton.Leslie Cc: Gary Willihnaanz(aarv.willihnaanz(clamail.com) Subject: LU 17-0052: Flag Lots and Private Access Lanes Date: Wednesday,September 06,2017 4:29:49 PM Dear Leslie, Hope your summer is going well. Please accept this letter of support and comment regarding LU 17- 0052: Flag Lots and Private Access Lanes from the Forest Highlands Neighborhood Association (FHNA) Board. Regretfully, we were unable to gather comment and approval from the board members prior the requested date but hope that you are able to include this communication anyway. The FHNA board supports the proposed amendments and, as a neighborhood with significant past, current, and future development, feels that LU 17-0052 will help to preserve the character and quality of our neighborhood while providing clear and objective standards for development. One comment is to suggest a simplified "one step" process that enables the city planner the flexibility to apply a 90 degree rotation (while maintaining setbacks) of the designated flag lot front when the decision will preserve the character of the neighborhood. Another comment was that the planning commission consider allowing the private access lane buffer on both sides to be combined onto one side where practicable (i.e. to preserve SL, utility access, or a sharp corner). The entire FHNA Board greatly appreciates the hard work and efforts by commission members and staff on this issue. Respectfully, Scott Bullard On behalf of and as Co-Chair of the Forest Highlands Neighborhood Association Scott Bullard 14130 Taylors Crest Lane, Lake Oswego OR 97035 SB2527(ahotmail.com 1503-332-9190 LU 17-0052 EXHIBIT G-6/PAGE 1 OF 1 From: Everareen Neiahborhood Assn. To: Hamilton,Leslie Cc: Bill Abadie,Hallinan NA Subject: LU 17-0052-flag lots and private access lanes Date: Wednesday,September 27,2017 10:20:56 AM ENA (Evergreen NA) fully supports the comments and recommendations submitted by Bill Abadie for Hallinan NA regarding the proposed text amendments to the CDC amending the standards for development of flag lots and private access lanes. Please present our support to the Planning Commission. Thank you. Diana Boom, ENA Secretary Find us on the Web httns://sites.google.com/site/evergreenneighborhood/ LU 17-0052 EXHIBIT G-7/PAGE 1 OF 1 • ,! ..t•11 i . ' ars :.,,,k' ,it}� t ! y , ... yti X11 i • • i f ,�r. {: . �,tia., rear C eco' ti WI• Nit .': �' S1 BMs '{ -- ?� 3•',{ Y `� '`�' • . •• - -.,.Zorr-.-... , 1-. -I-._N. - ,„ ...., , .., "1 '''ililik' %--..'.1 %. '-, i -'...4r lie. 1 4"' . . • } _ LLr �'Y S ' • 8 IV .3' • - dSt 19t A. e j!,I II i".. 7:-.,_. , 4 igi,..: '. .. ....01_:,...:itt:'. ...,1111H17;'4 . . 401.15,,,„: St :II- ,. ,t .I . 1112 ,• ' l 1 If ' tirP I ., -r • r l ILIII _ c,.,.. , , .... -�� k.., ,, # . � ...., } LU 17-0052 EXHIBIT G-8/PAGE 1 OF 2 r r fY rn— y��'�` • f, 4 p.'1: SWlf 1, f�y� ,,. ' / s 4 n 4 S'`.t.. ki ?5� ti Y �� yi Y. ins: I ,Z y. t¢%� p �.. 3 Y n !le �psaq i_ L. � \�,,,,, ,?e,.,: .� tea. : ._.___ ;._.n.„ ,-_, \ T __lag� i LU 17-0052 EXHIBIT G-8/PAGE 2 OF 2 From: James Fisher To: Hamilton.Leslie Cc: Bill Abadie;Liz Martin;Donald Mattersdorff;James Stunfel;Sarah Ellison;Suzanne Elstad; odxbeaslevtoa amail.com;Chris&Renee Huettemeyg,L;christy;Steohanie Waaner; Michael Buck;Jackie E. Manz Subject: Flag Lots: LU 17-0052 Date: Monday,October 02,2017 3:14:44 PM Dear Ms. Hamilton Thank you and the Planning Department for considering the following comments on flag lots. The comments are my own and do not represent the official position of any organization. I object to numerous recommendations contained in Planning File LU 17-0052 regarding changing certain standards in the Development Code dealing with flag lots, as listed below: 1. The City should use the common definition of a flag lot. A flag lot is a single lot behind an existing parent lot with frontage on a public street. 2. Any proposed development of more than two new lots should be a minor subdivision up to a total of three new lots. Four or more new lots (including the parent parcel) should be classified as a subdivision. 3. Minor subdivisions and subdivisions should be platted and constructed in full accordance with City Development Code standards, particularly with regard to public streets, setbacks and utilities. Discussion The problem with LU 17-0052 stems from conflicting City Council policies that pit preservation of existing neighborhood character against "unnecessary restrictions on property owners". The inherent vagueness in these policies has allowed too much policy wiggle room for the Planning Commission and Council, thus allowing both bodies and the Development Commission to adhere to "policy" and consistently overrule neighborhood objections to certain controversial developments. One result of the City's approach is that private developers consistently use the ruse of"flag lots" in the current Development Code to construct single-family homes with sub-standard streets that dead end without full code cul-de-sacs. This restricts public access, overburdens existing street parking, hampers trash pickup, and reduces public safety because of restricted emergency vehicle access. Hallinan Heights neighborhood is being adversely impacted by these policies which severely detract from the character of our neighborhood; I reference the recent 8 lot Cedar Street development and the Tentative Plan for 6 lots submitted with the pre-application materials for 1107 Yates Street. No public streets in either development: flag lots all except for the fronting lot on the public street. It was not always this way with City policy: as examples witness the relatively recently constructed full cul-de-sacs on Warren Court, Lamont Court and Mardee Avenue in the Bryant Neighborhood; Cortez Court in the Lake Forest Neighborhood; and Cardinal Place and Cardinal Court in the Blue Heron Neighborhood. City policy needs to change and our neighborhood needs to be treated equitably with other neighborhoods in the City. In summary, the proposed modifications to the Development Code with respect to flag lots are completely inadequate, inconsistent with previous City policy, and unfair to our neighborhood. No one can argue that these are "streamlined" amendments: the proposed amendments perpetuate the unfair, arcane and complex existing rules and are designed to allow developers LU 17-0052 EXHIBIT G-9/PAGE 1 OF 2 to cram more lots into our neighborhood while giving staff and Council the flimsy cover of following policy and the Development Code. I ask that the City stop this process now and adopt simple rules that include the common definition of a flag lot as one lot behind another. Thank you again for your consideration. Jim Fisher Co-Coordinator, Friends of Hallinan Heights Woods Board Member, Oswego Lake Watershed Council Sent from my iPad LU 17-0052 EXHIBIT G-9/PAGE 2 OF 2 .dater. \ \ tibt•614/ Neighborhood Association communications@waluganeighborhaod.org October 8, 2017 Lake Oswego Planning Commission Board Members Cindy Maddox Leslie Hamilton, Senior Planner Cheryl Uchida 380 A Avenue, Third Floor Co-Chairs PO Box 369 Will Mahoney- Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Watson Vice Chair Re: LU 17-0052 Sandy Desmond Secretary/Treasurer Dear Planning Commissioners and Ms. Hamilton, Bruce Goldson Past Chair The Waluga Neighborhood Association (WNA) Board also fully supports Jim Newcomer the recommendations, comments and objections submitted to date by the Hallinan Heights Neighborhood Association Board regarding the proposed Rett Russell text amendment to the CDC amending the standards for development of Carol Lavender flag lots and private access lanes. Board Members The WNA board also recommends that the recent approved code overlay at Large outlined in the Uplands Neighborhood Association Plan be applied city- Dick Benedetti wide specifically for flag lots and access lanes. Kate O'Reilly Michael Sorrell We also recommend that no secondary dwelling units be allowed on flag lots and flag lots should not be made smaller in the prevailing zone. Gene Park Art Ostergard The proposed text amendment will NOT preserve the character of existing established neighborhoods where it's residents value and embrace. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit written testimony on the proposed text amendment to the Community Development Code amending the standards for development of flag lots and private access lanes. Our written testimony will be presented in person at the October 9, 2017 Planning Commission Public Hearing. Sincerely, Cheryl Uchida and Cindy Maddox Waluga Neighborhood Association Co-Chairs LU 17-0052 EXHIBIT G-10/PAGE 1 OF 1 ,"': . KELLINGTON " LAW GROUP, Pc Wendie L.Kellington Phone(503) 636-0069 P.O.Box 159 Mobile(503) 804-0535 Lake Oswego Or Facsimile(503) 636-0102 97034 Email:wknklaroc.com October 9, 2017 Via Hand Delivery Lake Oswego Planning Commission 380 A Ave. Lake Oswego, OR 97034 RE: LU 17-0052 Dear Lake Oswego Planning Commission Chair and Members: Thank you for your time and the courtesies of City staff concerning this matter. This firm represents Stuart Bingham, who owns either individually or with his wife, three (3) existing R-10 zoned lots located at 16350 Phantom Bluff Ct. in Lake Oswego. Phantom Bluff Ct. was previously a public street, but was vacated in 1959 and thereafter became a private street. Mr. Bingham acquired his lots for investment purposes in 1973 (2.36 acres and developed with a residence and outbuildings), 1983 (.46 acres -undeveloped) and 2003 (.50 acres - undeveloped) respectively.' These lots are part of an existing 1920s vintage subdivision. When Mr. Bingham acquired these lots, they were and still are simply pre-existing residential lots. The Bingham lots abut Phantom Bluff Ct. and do not appear to meet the definition of a "Flag Lot"because no building site could be "located behind another lot."2 For information 1 There may be two other platted lots. As you can see from the attached Exhibit 1,two lots have been consolidated for tax assessment purposes. The effect tax consolidation on those two additional lots is beyond the scope of this letter. We simply note that it is possible that there are two more preexisting subdivision lots(for a total of five(5) owned by Mr.Bingham,with frontage on Phantom Bluff Ct. 2 LOC defines Flag Lot as follows: "Flag Lot 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 LU 17-0052 EXHIBIT G-11/PAGE 1 OF 8 purposes, a map of the Bingham lots is attached as Exhibit 1. However, city planer Leslie Hamilton has stated that she understands that all lots abutting Phantom Bluff Ct. are flag lots as defined. We are also advised by staff that it is not intended that the proposal affects existing lots that were not created as flag lots. Respectfully,we think that it is fair to say that the proposal is confusing and could benefit from some clarity concerning its effect on preexisting lots abutting a private street, including where those lot's boundaries are adjusted via lot line adjustment later on. All of Mr. Bingham's lots were created by land division principles and not as flag lots. Mr. Bingham is concerned that the proposal makes his properties, and those that his wife and he own together, undevelopable as an unintended consequence, even though they are zoned residential and meet all dimensional standards. The proposed new language imposes new restrictions on existing lots and parcels that were created before the existing or proposed flag lot standards were ever adopted. It can be read to make essentially any existing lot or parcel undevelopable if it now meets the definition of "flag lot"because most neighborhood streets will already have 4-6 primary dwellings on them. There are a surprising number of private streets in the city, and as we understand it, the city does not have a list of all of them. Accordingly, the impact of the proposal if its apparent unintended effects are not addressed, are unknown and are likely to be far more severe on the city's ability to comply with its state and Metro region housing obligations than is presumed, and would require a specific evaluation that has not been undertaken to determine compliance with state and regional housing standards. Thus, we suggest the planning commission recommend the addition of new language to the proposal, to clarify it is intended scope is to only to apply to new lots and parcels created as flag lots, not to preexisting lots and parcels, and not to lots or parcels the boundaries of which have been adjusted via lot line adjustment. Relatedly, because the proposal is designed to clarify previous flag lot ordinance amendments, a global clarification of the rules applicable to flag lots versus the rules that apply to existing platted lots on private streets, makes sense, avoids confusion and avoids needless controversy later on. Suggestion The planning commission should make clear that the proposal applies only to newly created lots or parcels that meet the definition of a"flag lot", and that the flag lot standards are not intended to, and do not apply to, existing platted subdivision or partition lots or other parcels predating flag lot standards, or lot line adjustments to them, merely because they are on private streets. In this regard,we suggest an additional "Exception"to be placed in the appropriate part or parts of the code by the codifiers, to say essentially: ii. An access easement." 2 LU 17-0052 EXHIBIT G-11/PAGE 2 OF 8 "Exception: The city's "Flag Lot" standards do not apply to existing lots or parcels created by subdivision or partition or deed that were not created under rules applicable to "flag lots". An existing lot or parcel not created as a flag lot, that is reconfigured through a Lot Line Adjustment,where no new lot or parcel is created, shall not be deemed to subject such lot or parcel to standards applicable to Flag Lots." The above general suggestion extends the policy embraced by the language in the proposed new exception to the "Land Division" standards of LOC 50.07.007(2)(a)(ii), more broadly. See Draft 09/29/17 Corrected"Attachment 2,p 6. In addition to that general suggestion, we have four specific suggestions to accomplish the objective of limiting the scope of the proposal to that which we understand is intended: FIRST RECOMMENDED ADDITION(LOC 50.07.007(2)(a)(03): "Exception: These provisions do not apply to existing flag lots including those that are reconfigured through a Lot Line Adjustment; the standards in effect at the time of the existing flag lot's creation remain applicable."4 SECOND RECOMMENDED ADDITION We suggest the city modify the definition of Flag Lot to include the yellow highlighted language below: "Flag Lot "A newly created lot that * * * "* * * "An existing lot or parcel the boundaries of which have been reconfigured without creating a new lot or parcel, is not a newly created lot." THIRD RECOMMENDED ADDITION The proposed language at "Draft 09/29/17 Corrected" Attachment 2, p 2 & 3 & 4, at"d" should be revised to make clear that the proposed new restrictions there only apply to newly created flag lots. Specifically we suggest adding the highlighted language in yellow below, that: 3 New suggested language is shown with yellow highlight. 4 See Draft 09/29/17 Corrected"Attachment 2,6. 3 LU 17-0052 EXHIBIT G-11/PAGE 3 OF 8 "Access lanes serving lots and parcels created as flag lots, shall serve not more than eight primary dwelling units and shall meet the following minimum standards * * *" This provision does not apply to existing flag lots that are reconfigured through a Lot Line Adjustment; the standards in effect at the time of the existing flag lot's creation remain applicable." FOURTH RECOMMENDED ADDITION We suggest you make clear that the proposed new restriction at "Draft 09/29/17 Corrected"Attachment 2,p 19 applies only to "Flag Lots" and accordingly be revised to add the highlighted language below: "vii. Lot Coverage and Floor Area "For the purposes of calculating lot coverage and floor area on a lot created as a flag lot, the area of access easement or flagpole shall be deducted from the gross acreage of the flag lot. This provision does not apply to existing flag lots that are reconfigured through a Lot Line Adjustment; the standards in effect at the time of the existing flag lot's creation remain applicable." Additional Evidence that these Clarifications Should be Adopted Strong evidence that an exception to the flag lot rules is intended for existing lots and parcels not created under flag lot standards, is the staff report analysis of the impact of the proposal on the city's compliance with the Metropolitan Housing Rule and Goal 10 (Housing). As noted briefly above, the Housing Needs Analysis evaluation in the staff report contains no analysis of how the proposal would impact the city's needed housing stock if it results in existing lots and parcels, on existing private streets, becoming undevelopable. This significant(we think unintended)restriction on the developability of the city's existing housing stock, cumulatively with the other acknowledged limitations on further division of oversized residential lots and parcels on private streets under the proposal, has not been evaluated and would have to be under Goal 10 and OARs, as well as Metro Functional and Framework Plans. Specifically, in the staff report analysis, there is no identification of the number of private streets or the number of currently residentially developable lots and parcels that will become undevelopable under the proposal. As we understand it,the reason there is no such analysis, is that the proposal is not designed to make existing subdivision lots or partition parcels or other preexisting parcels on private streets, undevelopable, regardless of whether there are already 4 or 6 primary dwellings developed on the private street. This issue is further reason why the proposal should be clarified to make it clear it only applies to new lots and parcels created as flag lots. 4 LU 17-0052 EXHIBIT G-11/PAGE 4 OF 8 Our Proposal is Consistent with City Practice and State Law As noted above, we are advised that the city's practice is not to treat existing subdivision lots or partition parcels or other parcels, including those subject to a lot line adjustment, as "flag lots". In other words, if lots or parcels were not created under flag lot standards, they aren't considered to be "flag lots"by the city, even if there is a subsequent lot line adjustment. Thus, the standards applicable to "flag lots" simply do not apply to those lots and parcels. Rather, existing lots and parcels are developable under the land use standards that apply to such lots or parcels, not flag lot standards, even where their boundaries are adjusted via lot line adjustment. Mr. Bingham's lots appear to be conforming lots in all but the flag lot standards. They are not considered"nonconforming lots"under LOC because they meet all dimensional standards that apply. "A nonconforming lot that does not meet the minimum size or dimensional requirements of the zone in which it is located may be developed as permitted in that zone; provided, that(i) the structure complies with all applicable Code standards or(ii) the applicant obtains a variance pursuant to LOC Article 50.08, Variances." LOC 50.01.006 (5)(a) What the Bingham lots could not meet are flag lot specific standards (again if they were flag lots which with all due respect does not seem to be the case under the existing definition): • Phantom Bluff Court already has well more than 4-6 dwellings with primary dwelling. • Phantom Bluff Court lots and parcels have never been developed by having their"Lot Size"reduced by the amount of acreage consumed by Phantom Bluff Court. • Phantom Bluff Ct. is considered an"access easement" and it is a reasonably long street. Without clarification, under the proposal, the area of the entirety of Phantom Bluff Court would have to be deducted from the lot area of each of the existing lots (which makes no sense) likely making the existing lots not meet lot coverage and floor area standards (Attachment 2, p 19) for any development. The city's practice and our requested amendments that the flag lot standards don't render existing lots and parcels undevelopable, is also consistent with ORS 92.017 which provides: "A lot of parcel lawfully created shall remain a discrete lot or parcel,unless the lot or parcel lines are vacated or the lot or parcel is further divided, as provided by law." 5 LU 17-0052 EXHIBIT G-11/PAGE 5 OF 8 For all these reasons we respectfully request that the proposal be modified to make clear it applies only to newly created flag lots. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, 'Vewdie "e2€i ageacc Wendie L. Kellington WLK:wlk Enclosures CC: Client Leslie Hamilton, via email Evan Boone, Esq., via email 6 LU 17-0052 EXHIBIT G-11/PAGE 6 OF 8 T . --o ' Eli? S[ t6Ziz \ 5,VE\ Z/'99 �C r. 'L-1 L) i I, ion - 1 Fvai\ \ -sip 1 �I cti ;\-'' •1 •-' - ' Zi n p 1\, r N 1 \ ,V\ '3 L e.0 �,� f �► ^i^ di 3 ` QOM Z d b tib/ • i d \ c CO t% 1 2.w V _0) • r+ +_ c ��� 9,�'0� '�``��z �� l �o� 3�, IS�91 Z g E y 02°�9 3aS 8g'6 o� \ r ),I 90119.1121 Z'I `r E42.:- E --9"--79-----211:::74- - E�. la N 3d 5L'0 N `�5 ` r,�,! �d , :9 x s %G 3 IE cq 0 0 I r\o�'� az,-,3. I v 2 web — s` '__--ek \ U • &6 ,y .D o. / oti' E6.� 44 '9 �r� LL. k —90 17 ,, , r k° m_ 1� oZ �yb� \ ��� b6 a I S �•\ �y r. ckk.�� �1� gi�g �'Ey a c�,v�� n1 �� zI c.) z. -syr' £ y,-� .�b2 N I \ �\4012 3 � O. • 1ioQ `\ 'Db0g0 N /�w (� �� �N 009 j a' \ 5g1 \ •��' I �b 9ti'Ov‘ 94 �� I 00SI zr N LLI 9S / ;� , N I d 0 Z y°�w'0/� N 'Li', ods y� 1,1 o �� \$ + 5 Z 3 )/il P N (N Ci a �,S l N •4h Exhibit 1 , Page 2 of 2 . - V•.•' , 01. ,,, k F . (., C , ,'-'\ 1.'s / , - .,',p• ,:c f•'' ,-/'' "4 ,\), ,,,,,,,s•V, ..?, \ k ,...: O ..,.•, - , , Ak . ,Ii. 0 1+50..1 8.5'ne''' :`? )it''' ‘''''. _,r-,... .1 UlS. 4 0- e S..e".‘ 0 'NA,' ...c7,' rk) t 3.1,6' ,040. 3:e. ..i''' ,,136•1' .S.1:316'' A . N,;',,4' ,2,,.:..• 8.' c,' '-' • .6.,*.....6. t.,,o. 'a 4,II:AS•4.6, F''4' ,,..,,1 i;e '''''42.;•••••• 1 .,1 :`,'.,, "7•;:•:;••,. (Ob' LI SA DE 5 , ., t).,.-.., ,.,57,• .5 06 WO'. 2 5, '- l'I'/' / t, ' 0 . 4. 3 , :D IN T 2 5. R.1 E. 5 ECT ION'S 8-3 W.V. • s,i, •laif&: i 41 CAMAS COUNTY,OREGON ---...?"'.,-, .,,,0•6 , .5 C A LE 1 loch = 100 f e et- , j 4- ' i.o.3 4' s,6?.,,•75. , •6'':,.e.7...,:.,. ,..a.,56• ..c.2„1:;1‘a ' , TO 0.5 we9 b " Inchc.-Ves Iron Pipe '"u".9 5 k,,,,A. ,_ ,.1..9,,, fi.78 ,r7. 9:,,,, .,,,,,,, _ \ 4,7,sa '''' . !.AE,a;r76-.' ',',.. --'-- 2,4;,:.' ' /v.7/_,,,:6' •,;.... .t /. - / a- •S' ""... 6 758,6 .' 4./,,./: 5 0,O' '93' 4 " T.i7.4. .5 „g9..S : •/° 8.4 14936.(,5 tr.' l'VI 4.5i:.‘.. -A- .4--; 9...1, 4/ . T,A. 4'1 eo 5' 14.95,re""cd `7.- -i;..z.•,..:;• ,-z,, 8. 45, ; , 5 , 'C.'. '6,4:,? ........C%''''''' A.' s ..,60. 5.5..5 / • go ',ke . ' •!\'07-„' ,'.4° R,,, ,... '..4:4,, , 6 m es,,5i,e„-,, ,s 9. -fr.„. LA K E OS WEGO 4,''1.371‘,0-, 7' 31- "...'g'..:. `',„°, e,t6,,'" ,' 8 A' 7,.5 X -',' .1..- -.• •=,..o- :;".5. ,,.-3/.,'"'• kg. 6 - 9°,r • ,,,, 5, ,c, , 6.. 7,4 --- 4- . ,,:, ., . _,,, .0,., J., '84 . 6/kG-' (9; e'''.';•:4'''. `'.•_""•8''''''' ..i.°8s. -s,P° 't6,./' CO -,:.,,, 3., 9Pe.:-.9 _,,,,,,...0 g:A 1134.48' , 91 0- ',re"' //2.43 ,, ..,.„ .„'I'l ..144 ri...',{„ g 33+I ./.4.3•AV -a. 1,, le ‘,1• ,...,.• 5.,,.,„. :, \,- ,• 6'.•°;;,,,, /.eeo 6,4- c -', !,, .37 N Z420.ie' t ‘'• .5c 0 4• .,------ g;:r4-f;,w_.(IL 48) , O..Iti'. *•.58/8", `'..4.-',....; ,_ . !.,4e ' . .. ..;,.',7;. ' 9 k ''''VI *"" 6.4 U/ ')• O,:s 3'6...1 '':.%-'"'''''..,5..E. -CI •••'..5‘• ,o• ,6•_,•••• ''•;*?, . 0.,,sk. \., 0.•6Y's.:-.0,.. I 'f;:3,/'''81G.22',w.-,.,,,,,,-.0)9,,,,,,:e 61",,A1T *iv 6 -A ''''4,-„. :14- .7.1....„...,r. '‘,:,...,,, ..i;.0:7.d..zori..ii,,', ,o Is ,5, 3G-1° t..•4 1,,L., ,,) 1.,•.4169' ,.." .5,,51:A.,,,i..140.'t/17."'s.‘0- ' 11-5.9>Fir""'',„Yt '' 4"-ta-'12 I. N9-13.9.;•‘:9 :L. c••945A. --#1/4.,. 8 - C.)/ ,•, , ,, •, ,•7 : ,, . '--,..1- - ;,. .3-3 7 n'O- .V.e"9Als,59,97%:'vli.: 91 .... .,k,. ,78.4'..ftt' '.,,,.."...,. 4,9;4. 9-t I, 6I -' ra,,,,, 9 --k.... ow 4., , 17 ',.,:,• " ,a',..5/ 4."'.1.4 ,,,• 4. .-,,,,i.,. • - ,.... '' '•.6 '...‘. 'f''' • oo'i ,,s ......- on', k 1 ,6 ea. -'....i- > 4.• 21„, ,,,T 1 i „<" .,,, ,..., . ',..!,,!.. 4°'1"4-1°'--: 0 4'441.1i. '- t,''' .181•*.V.1-V 2'17,6, :' '' it"-r-,-... 'e,e- ,ke e 7 i. -'t 4..2 ei, 4, 4 c; --.4 .'0 '1' 83 '6 AI "::‘4'... /.1 1 6 4. . 0,-. 0 on, ,, , 551'l• ...... .0 .j. ,et, A,-,,,,E• •- .iii, .5,„ . ,P t\t\ • •,,,, fe, cl•• . \° '7,-,.. . k ‘V.1.. "i"* ' 's. 41 "!. . (170U 6'• R,...,o.0.4 N..r4..,-.7.;. 4 kig..5 i,9 .4, ,S m44, .‘k g° '."." •5'9..,te, i 4'.'.c,-. ., .3.3oA-. - ;,,, 0.04 4• -,„„, ''' 96.0 i:/ , ---"_1'...5.,,,,„ s-1,1„ ' 1\ 6i k A. '‘.0'' ^' . . .., 0,, 4.°,`• 1 c•,',•,., ^, • -',-.: ,.° Al.z° ._'• J4",Yg 1 4 *f.''' • 4i• . 20 /9 15 Z'a; / -P..1..., - - t Io v'••-•-- - • el5. ..., .ki596..1-, ,..,„, .,/. 4-5',' • , , .t .),•,••••L, , -• , s _ • k,I • .vV- - 3 . 4.4 4 .0.,ei, .4.., ,i,o.• t ,,sei.,s I: 4 (4-• ''' '-\\.5 .74;4"6.' , 'I 0+, 23 iot 44 4/4. 1 ir'' .. ' LC- ---. . ‘°••'''., •\ '''..': •. . i.'74-'91 . °•\ 21 9.),°,d 0.43.1' • --4- .3 -n .. \",* ' ' •:' S' o'L-,7ese ,\6,k7le.k'; ' '•°' 'fr°' ‘''' 4/666 0 ,kl. ,,,,,, 0. • ' '''i, • 4.1 , aes, p Y, , , ,,,„, •- A,,,„..; ,,0 ye- ,.itt•14 ' ' <4,`• %,-, .) -,-,:..,„..i.,:480.5//1• \al' '('''',DI: •••• 4 „ . 0, ,,,,0.' , t, ,E4,-.-I?...„....,,_ 41 •"?.,,,.".. e;5' O .,,,.\\?5 ' ' • ;','...-_/4...,,,,,,c- 5,.,,,• .,,,6,29,.....:',..•'7..T.E I'.e 17 ,.._,..9.9..;:*)2,":14.8 f.,<,.' ,,,i ' Yi• k• .'11' ° .i, .;-t, oo b„`, „4„. .k 41'4.9\--..';‘-:--?„.(3.()'' ,s_e;90.....-Al 6'4.4 e 1-...s•641.0 \ 8•7..eie 4. te . , .,... IP e f e;' 5'6 ' /./84A. .5 le-34• 0 b \27. , P• 4, ,A.Ai. e. 2 s„A. , p• .1 5,, t. w , . ,,,, ,,,90.5, ,e,,,,,,,., 144 . 5,. • '44" i ',,-t .4.5 45 ,.. . s.0 '' •0,-1,•::::v.' d3 . 0".4 :e!'w/P4 i.!9 z , •"-- ,I9'3.5' 804.,-,-%, \\/,; _) ,.. 5,,i - c.,80...,4, .a. !".,••••---_,-0- - ,0'...,5 60. A R . I '1' ' N6.5.16'4' ,.,61 /74,kr....,e a'11 "i? ''''' ,. 17-•S° .<6°7.:.1'1,` I • -. 41 n "\ •5''''id' -14 8/' t.j , • O q .., 1.... -e,s. 41' • .- '• 10_51":'9 e •4._ , 5,, . -0 6 • \-\ '4'116\ . )i 6S'S. .3.;94. '.4q-,.?: /3 .; ' i exo.4 e, I • :1' 0 1 723 A ,'..) 0 ty ic,,,,,. ,,,,e-t,...,,b. ,, . .e...,.....4 C• ---• •,..• , 74-2' *.i . 43 \.0-.4. 0° ,>:..,. `..,.: /332 4. .k. '.. •••5-sPo q's ,, , t.*- .-"tk 01:1•4'la's- tie- = ' ,sso' 41% '',/.3 • tsl •1,14 , e.,. ....c.:*---. . . :,....-,, ,,,,!: ,y; .0..,,, . '.!' '• .37 ‘6 ''6.•ie;--4- '-'1 441.° !.26. 11'.';:Ze ',\•-,), ' 4' 64:.*-:iii '''' ' ' :c '4•;-.f, ‘ V- t ''.:19-- 0• ... / .,I,' ' ..- se zi.(..'b k 6) ._ .N. • •,.',,- ‘4'. .,....A. .L.'1/#' 4j. -,,,r,v St, ,0"--.,,.. , .5- ' ,, -'pa.., ''116V-Ak „7.97;41',/ ,,... ,‘ CA --•-•,yr.4 ',,• 'D -^‘..3•,•• . ;* 6'...., , 56 ‘ 0 IA' ' 74.°1 ,, .355 'cl?' •-•-.:: o •,..3 freq. 'AI: .ski,,t,-. '''' ' ' 96‘.• ''' ''';'''',' 47 ,'/ °'".9 9s. -.%. ,... <,, ,:„,,, ..,„;..p., s-\ .„, 5,z • .... .15,4 ,,,,,eS. , a 010 ,66 ..........-_ .4,,),,' 31• , ..3,',:.;0 •if.,:.• i. ientr.t1t..6;k/...:.‘,;6 ..;..)•3;:3.A'ii.i..! .3),..,o-. I s-, '. ..°4ek i ' ''I I tk V.4 itR"'r•re.52. '' a ,. -- %.• '‘'11, .41'.'''' .'61.. k 6'6;'4: +.5-9 A ...°..,,,.'''' 'i • C,..,,..„t_ , , •,,,,,•\ ‘' ' 2 2 ' 0'.'-''' --''''''.-e_..'''''•;'• ''''';'/,'97f' • 7 L-i_12,,,„,,,,43,. , a,.. ,. ,,,.,..... U--7-- , /_/:-:::,,--,:,„..4..--4,,,,.....,„„ ?,...5. .. ed.",O., •7'.76..!'!' ,-.-,i',, . , i i ,..;.,..- \ „..- '‘.t.513,-vir:-•'("\ •__;,... cf, ,7:61., , ...,,,,,, 3-%..'W i - t --, 2 42 36. ,s7',$9‘4.,...45,r6gg• -'' ' / '2`Y'-',i90..' 1.,R--4.- i : SHOFiE \ L= 3.30 SC:. -' '''' \ .*: .. 55 / /. . ft- R s 40' 4,1.2 s.. ‘ - *4 ' .0.,-.• 4, Q- o g.•,' g' \ I 4 = 7.,".,, IS 4 '' '9etzr• t..: • ,89- G ,,, z, . , , . 1 ,.8,,13. 8 1 /6 _. (---,-_ --, COUNTY S 'S ,,, PS-1003 Hello. My name is Bill Abadie and I live at 1498 Meadows Drive in Hallinan Heights. I want to voice my concern with the proposed community development code amendments for Flag Lots and Private Access Lanes. First, my concern is with the number of lots that can be accessed by a private lane in a flag lot development. A flag lot is just that. A driveway or access lane with a lot behind an existing home, shaped like a flag. Flag lots should be limited to one additional lot behind an existing home and comply with prevailing zoning requirements. If a developer or landowner wants to develop four, six or eight homes on a parcel, they should go through the subdivision process. In the Planning Department's May 24, 2017 Memorandum to you, the Planning Commission, Ms. Hamilton states quote "In previous work sessions, the Commission considered extending the Uplands Neighborhood Overlay's limit of one new flag lot City-wide, but advised that the uplands recommendation was a result of careful research and outreach by the Uplands Neighborhood Association, and the recommendation was specific to the character of that neighborhood." Unquote However, flag lot issues are not unique to Uplands. They are City-wide. If a neighborhood overlay is required to limit the number of lots accessed by a private lane, is the City willing to aid in the development of numerous overlays? Rather, I recommend and that the City adopt the Upland's overlay City-wide. Second, I object to the proposed parking requirements for on-lane or off-lane parking on private access lanes. The on- and off- lane parking requirement should be at least one if not two per lot if there are 3 more homes accessed by a private access lane. This is of utmost importance if the City is going to continue to allow four or more homes to be accessed by a private lane. Otherwise, residents and their guests will continue to park in fire lanes and create congestion on nearby public streets. Another issue that is occurring is the construction of secondary units in flag lot developments such as garage apartments. This increases the number of people living in the development, which compounds the problems with private access lanes. Secondary units should be prohibited on flag lots. For flag lots, one of the stated purposes is to provide standards for site, building and design compatibility of the new development with the existing character of the neighborhood. From what I have seen around town, this isn't happening. Developers are squeezing in larger homes on smaller lots with substandard access. This has led to parking, storm water, and garbage pickup problems. It also creates challenges for emergency vehicles. LU 17-0052 EXHIBIT G-121/PAGE 1 OF 2 A specific example is what happened on Ceder Street. Where there was one home, we now have eight. There are on-going drainage, traffic and parking issues. I still don't understand why or how the City could vacate its right of way for a public street and allow an 8-lot subdivision to be constructed masquerading as a flag lot development. I'm not necessarily against in-fill and re-development. Change is inevitable. My biggest concern is the flag lot code is a means for developers to bypass more thorough and restrictive processes and we the citizens of Lake Oswego have to live with the myriad of problems it creates. In summary, I recommend First - That the City limit the number of flag lots to one additional home, which can most efficiently be accomplished by adopting the Uplands Overlay city-wide. Second - Do not allow changes to the prevailing zoning requirements in flag developments, Third - Increase the on-lane or off-lane parking requirements on private access lanes, and Fourth - Prohibit secondary units in flag lot developments. Lastly, I am not here as a vocal minority complaining about flag lots. The comments submitted on behalf of the Hallinan Heights Neighborhood Association have received support from a number of other neighborhood associations including Oak Creek, Lake Forest, Palisades, Waluga and Evergreen. I want to thank you for the opportunity to comment tonight, and I ask that you take my concerns to heart and make changes to the code that will make Lake Oswego better for generations to come. 2 LU 17-0052 EXHIBIT G-12/PAGE 2 OF 2 Hello everyone! I'm Liz Martin at 1017 Cedar St....Thank you for having us tonight and for hearing our input on Flag Lot Developments. I guess we all know that Hallinan Heights is the Poster Child here...and I wanted to talk about how it has affected our neighborhood... For the last 3 years Hallinan Heights neighbors have had to TRY and be experts to understand the complex development codes that affect us.. I would say that the most astounding thing to us was the city's interpretation of the code allowing the 850 Cedar St property to be developed as a Flag Lot. Go To Original Property Picture... Here is the original property. The definition of a Flag Lot, which is still the current code, includes.... a parent parcel, with the home frontage on a public street. As you see the original home is in the center of the property....and was slated to be torn down when the Flag Lot was approved. Our question was and still is ... How is this a flag lot under the current definition? It's not....The parent parcel was removed... And our Second Question was Why are you allowing a flag lot instead of a proper subdivision? That became obvious.... (Go to Second Picture) so they could put more homes on... without any of the cumbersome regulations of a subdivision. When you are cutting corners, which is what a Flag Lot actually is doing by not conforming to a proper subdivision, the mindset is, what can I squeeze in here and how can I make this happen. There was little thought or awareness of how development of the land would affect the surrounding homes. And how has that affected us? The obvious is that... Were this a subdivision under code there would be 4-5 homes on R75 lots and instead of a private dri=veway( which includes part of their lot size), Cedar street would have had to be extended. LU 17-0052 EXHIBIT G-13/PAGE 1 OF 4 Now we have... 1. More traffic...the new neighbors have several 'Slow Down " signs. So their kids can ride bikes and walk across the street. Cars go faster and are more confused because the street continues on to a smaller private lane. 2. No full street access, because Cedar Street was vacated to have a smaller private lane put in. 3. There is not a proper culdesac for emergency vehicles on the flag lot, So more confusion again as to how to get up there 4. No open space, and now we have blocked views. There are a crowded mass of homes with little privacy and little privacy for us. 5. No public access to Freepons Park from the property, IN the findings and conclusion order the condition for approval for the development by the DRC was an "open public parkway connecting the development to the ar "...Instead there is a locked gate where The keys are only issued to the flaglot residents. Now we are an overdeveloped street with a Private Drive, and private locked entrance to the park that is not consistent with our neighborhood. The walkability of our School and Park Neighborhood could have been enhanced with a subdivisons sidewalks and accessability. 6. And Construction would have been completed sooner....well over 3 years we are still under construction. BUT The biggest concern of the neighbors and what we fought the hardest for, was PARKING Because it's a flag lot the builder only had to create 4 on street parking spots for the 8 homes. That alone is not compatible with our street and our neighborhood. We have ample parking in front of our homes....We were concerned that there would be vehicles parked on Cedar Street, in front of our houses, using our parking spots because they could not fit on the private lane. LU 17-0052 EXHIBIT G-13/PAGE 2 OF 4 And That Sadly Became a Reality (PIC of vehicles) Here is a common scene last week, this is 3 years into the project, with two homes left to be sold. Our front yard has been a staging spot for many of the vehicles for years now, with no indication that this will end with the construction. This was PGE doing some routine work and their quote for not parking on the property was...."There's no room up there. I feel like that sums it up and it's just common sense, coming from the people who are trying to work there. Any extra Vehicle cannot fit, guests have trouble parking up there, and there's "no parking signs" all over their private drive because it blocks the road for emergency vehicles. Some have no parking in front of their own home. The land is simply overdeveloped and its not responsible development...it's the easiest way to get around the code of a subdivision it's getting around properly taking care of what little land we have to develop in our neighborhoods. And it is definitely not taking into account those who already live there and now have to deal with the problems these Developments bring to our individual property and our neighborhood. We hope that you will see how defining a Flag Lot as anything other than the known definition, "a single lot behind an existing parent lot with frontage on a public street", is just another way to to quote the Freepons development team, t and cheatuto the code and opens up a can of development worms. Thank you so much... Lu 14-0046-1862 DRC public hearing Nov 17 & Dec 1 2014, pg7 #10 The applicants plans show the soft surface pathway through the open space tract ending abruptly at the south property line and not connecting to any pathway on the Freepons Park site. The commission finds that in order to mitigate the traffic impacts of the development under LOC 50.07.003.5 a condition of approval should be imposed to LU 17-0052 EXHIBIT G-13/PAGE 3 OF 4 extend the path onto the park site in order to complete the pedestrian connection between the subdivision site and the park required by LOC 50.06.003.4 cvii subject to approval of the parks Department (condition A 8 (g) The applicant testifies that they had no objection to this condition. Exhibit explaining why the gate should be unlocked....to Freepons Park from the Development LU 17-0052 EXHIBIT G-13/PAGE 4 OF 4 iN ,uuvu 4 n,1 10000' 1 1--,717ti 100.00' A....A 10000' .}„I 10000' .n .I 10000' 4..r1 - , Ft'no0 12si —__ —I.S' __ _. V.1.1L...... 3 L.1.4.L��� .a 1.1-13 �''. - RIDGE SB9°31'00"E -- zo 1 >s - .V. ROAD I. ru11)/» 1...144C i ---.41E1•1 giC'ht ' "' —— '^r. ... .--- { + .f .....r--_^-5 B-9°31'00"E __ 100 14' 1 l U 1017 00' "l9 ' • 100.00' p • 'rra 100.00' -1•-m•4 1 1 J 105.2T 89-0 51 T��. . 400 3501 3601 3701 3800 3801 , p w it.x,> 33(] 3290 FS 3270 3230 bi. 3210 - 3009 C' 1 f 0 t1 m r. S --. 114 39 Y ti() m '' s 300 _._ T 1. 2. a 1e hoe g S [s:-,41 e�wry I ~( z z 1 R1 U . � -• 1L- 110 (kr 11 112 115 40 ,,,,, ,. .�„ �r - ' `rir 4976' 150.25' _imps. 303 ,,yr ��r _ - ,`i/rr//ter//igdeS 4401/,. /,/(., `.deE'' �' PARCEL 2 0,30 Ac. I 4300 . �---- 1 - yam• ,Ot Ot 1��'.i i/I.r 99494.r r////3115 1 \ v �� - - -1' 1- : 0.32 Ac. o, . 120 aa no'oa a 119N 90.o0 on K I - 3105 -''• .— f .; 20. N - I Nifizol e rn-1AL 1'f=L'R L.CrIS 1i C 4600 f�} 116 X11.s'a" 7412;21 IR_ �r wrwaw r, 1". 2 1 ,--- �uI w 3181 +oo1s �,�.," � a C) 4 3 i. H :,:•• a PARS+ ,, +; 4?00 - - s77s ' • 96' 40*� v 01_\ N� / 3201 g f /f f\ _ 9a 95 0 116 /`- ' N.99.00'00'W f z .a.,0 Z g • . . ;3 4 ,� Pm.IL L *"-.i 4200 C`' '. 5501 /� . .,-i. • 3101 k 90•W'40 tib' m la"se° ,N rybe 0.38 Ac. 109 00' �° .. 3050 2 N 90'99'00"E 4500 _ 117 yg�� 5500 ( + PAF 4601 `+ 3131 ,..rr'.,, v r 0.30 Ac. ; / 3161 w ,�am,r.., m V " 05fi �� ��: Rb5 V J r 4 0 :, / 0 g ��g - e �f PARCEL 1 •• 11� , . x, 125 �� P ,9�ov120 119 T1s t,:.., �,•1 540❑ 'P`' r�C • 070 l H8� „LTR.x X125 x • • S CO. RD. NO. 2213 V N�� 5300 :4 :a � � 3100 • ,. .. • 126• • ” e4�. •�2i.�.� +,1,T 121 .c.--,(Ir. �.. • • • , 1 „a at• K:-'!• • s•r-,,#'sA.- ,i�i1 '!.-�4.}A'11 ye. .i ,,-., � •,-- 1 . dY. :- x- +• f: k ..1F s,4-r .•i 4._,, v + .` • • , • • . • THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK LU 17-0052 EXHIBIT G-14/PAGE 2 OF 4 CITY OF PORTLAND OREGON - BUREAU OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES —_aixrjFfr oat Napo a w* p v , A i,_,,,,):„ 7 ri-r---..-..., Yr _,A,„ 'e� 1851 711VFJRc 0 GWDE P Flag Lot Regulations, Ch. 33.110, 33.610 and 33.611 Flag lots _. ®.0.®00®0411 00.00011000 The Portland Zoning Code defines a flag lot as, a lot with two dis- iLandscaped 4#1 10 buffer area1 tinct parts: i® �i 1. flag, which is the only building site; and is located i s 110i behind another lot; and i . i FLAG PORTION i 2 .The pole, which connects the flag to the street; provides i i the only street frontage for the lot; and at any point is i 110. 1 less than the minimum lot width for the zone. i i is s i Purpose of flag lot regulations •a �#�!I The flag lot regulations allow the creation of flag lots in limited FLAG LO / I - circumstances. The limitations minimize the negative impacts of i o ei flag lots and additional driveways on an area while allowing land to i,it ei __ be divided when other options are not achievable. i'°/i 1 ` When can a flag lot be created? 0'1 1 DWELLING a Main I,d I � entrance 1 garage /i I� _ •The location of an existinghouse or attached ara a that has I Porch been on site at least five years precludes a land division that I i creates lots that meet the minimum lot width standards for the 1ym�r _ _ _ _ _ _ zone; or SIIlFWAI K - I i •The site has one of the following dimensional constraints: STREET • In R2.5 zones, a site is less than 50 feet wide if two lots are proposed or is less than 75 feet wide if three lots are proposed; or • In RF-R5 zones, the dimensions of a site preclude a land division that meets the minimum lot width stan- dards for the zone. In addition, the following requirements must also be met: • Up to three lots are proposed, only one of which is a flag lot; and • Minimum density for the site is met; and • In the "a" overlay, flag lots averaging 2,500 square feet may be created in the R2.5 and R2 zone (see Zoning Code section 33.405.070.0 or Options for Land Division in the "a" Overlay Zone handout for specific standards). Standards for flag lots Flag lots must comply with the standards of the base zone unless otherwise specified. Generally, new flag lots may only be created in single-dwelling zones. Standards for multi dwelling zones apply to flag lots created before July 1, 2002 and are found in Zoning Code Section 33.120.270.1. Standards for flag lots in single-dwelling zones are outlined below. Flag lot access pole M •A 12-foot width is required for the entire length of the pole. N 1. •The Fire Code standard that requires access to the house within 1 50 feet must also be met unless fire sup- pression sprinklers are installed. Contact the Fire Bureau for more information. o •The pole must be part of the flag lot, connect to a street and be under the same ownership as the flag portion of the lot. Access easements to allow for use of the pole by another lot may be required. of 0 FLAG LOT REGULATIONS 7 1900 Siglett CJl/RUU')4ENUE, PORTLAmAnti OFA-J i1 33Evr 34526 • www.portlandoregon.gov/bds CITY OF PORTLAND OREGON - BUREAU OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Minimum lot area and dimensions Only the flag portion of the lot is included when calculating minimum lot area. Minimum lot width and depth is 40 feet measured at the midpoint of opposite lot lines of the flag portion of the lot. In the Glendoveer Plan District, the minimum lot width and depth is 70 feet. Setbacks Flag lots have required setbacks that are the same along all lot lines. Required setbacks are: • RF, R20, R10 zones and Glendoveer Plan District — 15 feet • R7 through R2.5 zones — 10 feet Building coverage Only the flag portion of a flag lot is considered when calculating building coverage. Height In the Glendoveer Plan District, the maximum height for all structures on a flag lot is 25 feet. Landscaping In the R7 through R2.5 zones, when the flag lot area is less than 10,000 square feet, five feet of landscaping will be required along the perimeter of the flag portion of the lot to screen the flag lot from neighboring properties. The required outdoor area and detached accessory structures may not extend into the landscape buffer. The land- scaping must be installed to the L3 standard (see Zoning Code section 33.248.020, Landscaping and Screening Standards for specific requirements). Vehicle area A flag lot is allowed at least a 12-foot wide vehicle area. Where the width of the flag pole is greater than 30 feet, no more than 40 percent of the land area between the front building line and the property line at the street may be paved or used for vehicle areas. Where practical, shared access via easements must be used. Frequently Asked Questions Q Where are the flag lot regulations located? A Most regulations for flag lots are in the following sections of the Portland Zoning Code: • Section 33.110.240.F, Single Dwelling Zones — Flag lot development standards • Section 33.120.270.1, Multi Dwelling Zones — Flag lot development standards for flag lots created before July 2002 • Section 33.610.400, Lots In RF through R5 Zones — Flag Lots • Section 33.611.400, Lots In R2.5 Zone — Flag Lots • Section 33.530, Glendoveer Plan District • Section 33.405, Alternative Design Density Overlay Zone Q Flag lots are created through which land use review procedure type? A The creation of flag lots are normally processed through a Type lx Land Division procedure. If any portion of the lots, utilities or services are located within a Flood Hazard Area or Landslide Hazard Area, then the application is processed through a Type IIx procedure. If an Environmental Review is required or any por- tion of the site is in an Open Space Zone, then the application is processed through a Type III procedure. Q Can I move my property line to create a flag lot? A No. Property line adjustments cannot result in a flag lot. m Q Are flag lots allowed in commercial, multi-dwelling and industrial zones? A No. The creation of new flag lots is restricted to Single-Dwelling Residential Zones. Lots created in other zones must comply with the lot dimension standards of the applicable zone. An existing flag lot in a multi dwelling zone may be developed under the standards in 33.120.270.1. For more information visit or call the Planning and Zoning staff at the Development Services Center at 1900 SW 4th Avenue, 7 Suite 1 500, 503-823-7526. For current Portland Zoning Code visit www.portlandoregon.gov/zoningcode m 0 Information is subject to change. 0 FLAG LOT REGULATIONS — 1900 SiglettJU4RVIYA4ENUE, PORTLAMA,rIjuOFA'J krI R‘Ar A526 • www.portlandoregon.gov/bds *: , - . A •ist 'f•-•4't ''"ett 1, • ir sti iti- r Ij I }S c `f va F t f f .0 1 ,..7,:t .,,.....,,,,,,,,,, . . '. '',...1,:;/:''' 'I' - -{'. a. 1 ,1 i , () ,.: • • As Q • 1` tom - ,: .. • I,. • ' `*r', , s C t-`¢ J /:rte i 14 i 1\3 .f........ .. t, "'Nt/,�•)C4. •_ ;''t'..yam. 'iS isiMet • • AliY', • • r. t` '. - - - r 7� 4 Siegel, Scot From: James Adkins <JamesA@hbapdx.org> Sent: Monday, October 23, 2017 11:13 AM To: Siegel, Scot Cc: Ed Brockman; Jim Standring; Paul Grove Subject: Lake Oswego Community Development Code (CDC or City code), amending the standards for development of flag lots and private access lanes Hi Scot, On behalf of the Home Builders Association of Metropolitan Portland, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed amendments to the Lake Oswego Development Code. We are reaching out to you to reiterate our concerns with the code updates presented to the planning commission on Monday, October 9th in addition to the new policy direction that is now being pursued after that meeting by the planning commission. Our concerns pertain to the requirement for a public street as opposed to a private lane for developments of more than three lots, the additional parking space required for flag lots and the proposed reduction in allowable total flag lots from 8 to 3. With regard to the public street requirement,this presents a range of obstacles to realizing any lot development of smaller parcels in general. Small parcels of land and skinny lots will most likely be forced into smaller partitions than currently available under code. Serial partitions would most likely become prohibited if future partitions would now require a 50 ft. right of way, where the land allotted for future development only planned for a 20 ft. access lane.The new parking requirement would require an additional easement and would encroach even further upon net buildable land for any future partitions.Additionally,the overall engineering requirements are much greater for public roads standards in contrast to a 20 ft. access way. With regard to the reduction of allowed flag lots, we believe that had the Planning commission included this proposal in the notifications to the public, a greater deal of input would have been delivered to the Planning commission by your citizens and neighbors. It would also appear that such a policy decision could cause measure 49 claims moving forward with this proposal. The HBA values its long-standing partnership to support the economic and community development goals of Lake Oswego, while ensuring residents have access to a wide range of housing options that meet varying needs and income levels.The HBA and our members are here as a resource to the City of Lake Oswego as the conversation on these code amendments develops. I hope this is helpful perspective from our members. Please share this with staff and others as you see necessary and feel free to contact me any time at this email or on my cell number below. James Adkins Government and Political Relations Coordinator Home Builders Association of Metro Portland t 503.684.1880 I c 503.428.2618 I f 503.684.0588 I hbapdx.org_ LU 17-0052 EXHIBIT G-16/PAGE 1 OF 1 EXHIBIT G-17 LU 17-0052 From: Bruce Brownfmailto:Bruce(Egbdarchitects.coml Sent: Monday, November 27, 2017 2:07 PM To: Hamilton, Leslie <Ihamilton(Wci.oswego.or.us> Subject: Flag Lot Private Streets (LU-17-0052) Leslie: I will not be able to attend this evening but I would appreciate if this email could be entered into the record. To the Lake Oswego Planning Commission: In response to the current re-review of the Flag Lot Access Lane/Private Street Standard currently before the commission, I offer the following comments. I do not have any particular issue with the proposed standards. However, I do think allowing private streets within otherwise public neighborhoods will have a significant and negative impact on the cohesiveness of the neighbor. Private drives serving 1 and perhaps 2 flag lots may have minimal impact, but a private street serving 4-8 lots could be devastating to a neighborhood. Private streets smack of"gated communities"and placing a gated community in otherwise publically accessible neighborhood fabric will likely have an ill effect on the overall neighborhood character. I offer two possible alternatives. First, any street or lane serving more than 2 lots must be dedicated to city for public access. Or as a second option, any street or lane serving more than 2 lots must have a public access easement. That street or lane must be allowed to remain in the public access realm. Neighbors have a hard enough time meeting and communicating without adding another layer of"us"and "them"with private streets. Thank you for your consideration. Bruce Brown,AIA Uplands Neighborhood BRUCE BROWN,AIA 1 CSI Principal Oregon Registered Architect,LEED AP GBD Architects Incorporated 1120 NW Couch St.,Suite 300 Portland,OR 97209 Tel.(503)224-9656 www.abdarchitects.com LU 17-0052 EXHIBIT G-17/PAGE 1 OF 1 McCaleb, Iris From: James Stupfel <hhnalo@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, November 27, 2017 2:58 PM To: Planning Commission; Siegel, Scot; Hamilton, Leslie Cc: Barbara & Jim Fisher; Bill Abadie; Christian Huettemeyer; Christy Clark; Donald Mattersdorff; Hallinan Heights; James Stupfel; Liz & Jeff Martin Subject: Hallinan Heights Testimony for Hearing on LU 17-0052 (Flag Lots AND Private Streets) Below is the official position of the Hallinan Heights Neighborhood Association(HHNA)as unanimously adopted by the HHNA Board of Directors as part of an emergency Board meeting called specifically for this purpose.Please note that this testimony may also be read at the hearing tonight by a member of the neighborhood association on behalf of the neighborhood. HHNA does NOT support the addition of private streets as proposed by staff in the latest proposed change to the Flag Lot Code update process(LU 17-0052).Private streets have no place in most of our neighborhoods and the Commission has received testimony regarding the negative impacts created by larger existing flag lots that have private streets: there's exclusivity brought into neighborhoods that does not allow neighbors outside of the development to walk, drive, or otherwise access these streets but still brings on the burden of additional traffic,parked cars, and other uses on the existing surrounding infrastructure that the new homes(on the private streets)are free to use. Standard streets were created for a reason and large flag lot subdivisions,private streets, or other complicated loopholes should not be allowed just to give developers a way to develop property beyond what STANDARD would dictate. HHNA believes that the code changes should eliminate all proposed private street text and limit flag lot to developments consisting of 1 parent and 2 additional lots at most, as recommended by Planning Commission at the November 13th meeting. In addition to providing this testimony against the adoption of the new Private Streets proposal,HHNA would like to request that any decision that changes the Commission's November 13th decision in relation to flag lots be postponed until sufficient notice can be offered and proper public outreach completed. It's a travesty that such substantial changes that clearly go against nearly all public testimony and discussion thus far were proffered on such short notice-mailed notices did not arrive to HHNA until November 20th. With a hearing scheduled for November 27th on the issue(the Monday immediately following a long holiday), there simply has not been enough time for adequate review, discussion, and discourse among the multitude of people and groups who provided testimony already, including the neighborhood associations and other groups who have commented and officially supported HHNA's position. 7 days to review,prepare a position, meet, and vote is not enough. This Flag Lot review process has been going on for the better part of a year and the public's response has been a solid NO to large flag lot developments, including the private streets that go along with them. This change would undermine all of the citizen involvement to date. -James Stupfel, Chair Hallinan Heights Neighborhood Association Find us on Facebook:Hallinan-Heights-Neighborhood-Association LU 17-0052 EXHIBIT G-18/PAGE 1 OF 1 HBA Home Builders Association of Metropolitan Portland November 27, 2017 Robert Heape,Chair, Lake Oswego Planning Commission ! 3rd Floor, City Hall, 380 A Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 Subject: Flag Lots and Private Access Lanes (LU 17-0052) Dear Chair Heape and Commissioners: On behalf of the Home Builders Association of Metropolitan Portland, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed amendments to the Lake Oswego Development Code. We would first like to commend the hard work of the city staff throughout this process. Scot and Leslie met with us on multiple occasions to hear out our concerns around the code updates and we feel they have worked towards a reasonable compromise with regard to the new right of way requirements of developments with 4 or more lots. We are asking the planning commission to add a level of discretion to the code updates with regard to sidewalks and parking space provisions.While the HBA is supportive of much of the work in the code update regarding private streets, we think it might be helpful to all involved in the land development process to have some flexibility when prescribing sidewalks or added parking as a requirement for new development. Connectivity and safety are important elements to good city planning, however it is not an unforeseeable scenario where a plot of land's dimensions would mean losing a buildable lot in order to accommodate the added right of way for a 38 ft. private street. Much of the future development in Lake Oswego will be infill and redevelopment.This means that the remaining buildable land inventory needs to be used in the most efficient way possible. We think this could be achieved by an added provision in the code update that gives some discretion around requirements for private streets on a case by case basis through the approval process,taking into account the additional land requirements of a private street and the necessity of added parking and sidewalk connectivity and other factors allowing for the best possible use of the land. The HBA values its long-standing partnership to support the economic and community development goals of Lake Oswego, while ensuring residents have access to a wide range of housing options that meet varying needs and income levels.The HBA and our members are here as a resource to the City of Lake Oswego as the conversation on these code amendments develops. Respectfully, ,,fames Adkins Government Relations Coordinator Home Builders Association of Metro Portland Home Builders Association of Metro Portland 15555 SW Bangy Rd.,Ste.301 Lake Oswego,0897035 503-584-1880•Fax 503-684-0588 LU 17-0052 EXHIBIT G-19/PAGE 1 OF 1 t. I • J Terrence Bittner Attorney at Law ► r Lm —y � r; Admitted in Oregon& _ Washington E-Mail: tbittner@bittner-hahs.com Direct Dial: (503)445-4301 ATTORNEYS AT LAW•ESTABLISHED IN 1983 Main Line:(503)228-5626 W EBEI l i.. WWW.BITTNER-HAHS.CQM Fax: (503)228-8566 November 27, 2017 Lake Oswego Planning Commission NOV 27 2017 380 A Ave. CT!OF LAK OSWFGO Lake Oswego, OR 97034 L:.te.;op hent Re: LU 17-0052 Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: This firm represents Bryn and Janice Torkelson. They own 2.7 acres accessed by an easement from Knaus Road. The address is 13501 SW Knaus Road. They purchased the property from Bryn's parents in 1994. They have access to their property pursuant to a 20 foot easement. Based on the current definitions of a flag lot, their property would be included and they would only be able to build one additional home on their property without having to build a private road. Given that their access is provided by a 20 foot easement, they do not have the ability to create a 38 foot private road, or for that matter any private road. While we understand that the community has concerns about congestion and parking, requiring a private road to access property that is served by an existing easement serves no purpose. The easement was negotiated by the parties most affected by the development of the Torkelson's property. There is no reason to impose a burden on the Torkelsons which is beyond their control to satisfy. We understand that the hearing scheduled for November 27, 2017 is for the purpose of addressing the private road issue, and not the number of buildable lots on a flag lot, but there should be some exceptions to the private road requirement where the property is otherwise legally divisible, does not create a parking problem, and would be otherwise consistent with the City's goals providing more buildable lots, taking into consideration the affordability of building. We have attached a plat map showing the location of the property and the current easement. This property should be able to be developed by adding a minimum of two additional LU 17-0052 EXHIBIT G-20/PAGE 1 OF 3 4949 SW MEADOWS RD SUITE 260-LAKE OSWEGO,OR 97035 B]TTNER&HAHS,P.C. Page 2 buildable Iots without the necessity of having to creating a private road. While this would be most easily addressed by permitting at least two additional lots to their property (three buildable lots on 2.7 acres in the middle of Lake Oswego)to the extent this must be addressed in the context of a private road, we respectfully request that the Planning Commission omit the requirement of a private road, and permit access to more than two flag lots (three including the frontage lot), where access is beyond the control of the owner of the property and where the existing access is adequate for the desired development. Although the Torkelson's property is not currently within the city limits, it is anticipated that it could only be developed if annexed by the City, hence our interest in adopting new rules regarding flag lots and private streets. Mr. Torkelson desires to preserve his right to build on his acreage to the same extent the property could have been developed when he purchased the lot in 1994. To deny him would be to unfairly deprive him of rights previously enjoyed. The flag lot owned by the Torkelsons is very spacious and the addition of two homes, as originally permitted, would assist the city of Lake Oswego in their desire to increase density, without creating a burden to traffic patterns or the surrounding neighborhood. iospectfullfy . i,mine., olo, i . 44;le, ence Bittner Attorney for Bryn and Janice Torkelson JTB:klc LUtC1n7-0eObBin&]anice1LSLOPlanning CEmXHIBITSa -26 % 'Aided,,ap`.3 Exhibit to Torkelson Written Testimony"" WFG National Title Customer Service Department WFG National Title Insurance Company PortlOand OR 9722k3#350 o Williston Financial Group company a Phone:503.603.1700 Fax:888.833.6840 is w*- E-mail:cs®wrgnationaititle.com • Parcel # : 00202211 / 21 E04BD01200 . .,,y >' Y„>^y`vx , , K ',i JC`<`nn `<1\ C`C .y�' y _ _ , I ,'* y�y'` .y..y.>�/yy>?y�v%Yr1% X)(�<w>`>!<<%,,<,<%,n.<k/ \( o .... N tx �)^YyXX<<;CY.c�,"� ;� Y �y< Y /'CJe<)l .r`G>CY .J.Y '>y3°3 ,,lm wt ...... ..,. .,,,, x `�v'C_ <>Kxj!�Y< r` '<\<' ,, \i�<`> wn J\(n _ x Y• • „,xy's X'Jc",,'"V A,es,,�:K,A. n.0 /� .>Y��"�yyYY�vXX)- , - ° 1 ' !!:.) a _'`• , (.), y>}�v<Y„x „ x < x <\<X,�n`<\\i<\>.� Y ) '3W. ... y . ti Ly - + = ifj, ;7> •^ v < • <X,\,><<\) > y 0 v j Y Y >x), y,. YK ^ < <"2 wA iC>k ,m C]}• ”\.,.< >' { < ( �n,< < \`•` > yY y y ,,, >'Y.xvx .!,< . f) • ' M ,SX "r^j vyy,,,�.e. >^'< K: „X K A, y),moi,, >,Y,y'>>>' , 4j nnea,,• i lye; " ���� - x k.< .c ,Y>. .y %i .TJ1 !Go '<��iC'< K"x��.<�GKkXX �'>'- - - _ - •.. . �,, .302 >'a` <i •:� " _ tES�9 E� •`,,,,,.y,,,,,, .r,,, m„ XVc A'YNc.x _. %.1 ,(,,) 5/•• .^ KO , tc.<<V>)”. 7-21 nxxXYv, 1 ' Arm; .1) ` _ _ 3726 ,1 ,\A.,---„x . > (' rat ,i,�.)/ ,... .- 'r d _.. YK k>.•- •t - toot ",Q /\ S,,; r eV\) "Cl" �� npp ...,. - >,XXXx� ,. 01M t^� \ J k ""'_ s ate.. y ' KG •_: N,'>',...,2<-?‹ >, ,XY y > ►wart_ _ - - -r1 f�iq;,�,..1L TSI .""<;...,)<''',;:>>..X7,‹). >>.s''> ), - ---�.n... •• ` r,� a ;ani` Le. "x>,..,‹ .t)A‹>. 'c> C-`C v `��% 7-17 f+ " 7 Y�ci x)�x , Yt>y R20 T' ,.�A<,-'.yn ‹YY pyr x^„<Y<x”` - t7 . 120) 4 4 UM 2.791.• - .. �4>,`>C 1.. ^%Ky>.< i Jv;Y>>viX TY„,,„T^K. .- b r. 4''5e`,...).(,/>;<:,(x`,,, h>CKx �^ <kx 77^'`{k>�j'<kr>> j notMac Ci4 1 ' ^Tx1�X� v; `•y Y> `kY x>XY+rvx>T< --� � - 1:) : CC j � + a.aara _ ,. x Xy\ Y vx> >><veyx^�!<Kx ` toot r �' � — R20 x^r v > ,, \>C a'1`,, ;. `fix\ . .',, V�� � ?)?vxY>)!v x ?yY % „`C�(<+cx�,/ •-__ __ __ T} > Y„x'>,>Xr%1,>;.,-<li hl„ [K>x>Cx Mlrt - 1100 7lM _ _ > > Y Y lC 1t> ? �x < K _ .. ,1,40 O!•h '.i T'V Yx^Yi K\.\'V',~t\>�'' )'/ Y>)X Y . MO fJ r 1 ♦ 101X1.0 %>-xY. YX. - ,, �- < ^/< C x, `< y ,�, P RCEL• J Xx�� 1 . 6 v i�J ,',,vY,c „Y<>< {\ f�”. GL��1 J JJ RC Yy�x > x^C`< ^ C`<Y`>? <k>>YV yKvxyT iw La <rj`>>`> <<<<, <<�C\ > Y>')Y>)y� > Y>�),v>>y vY,>j?cx,,"k on- >aY)' <<n < ,</:;�v `>>'�YY >',Y > 'y )•'Y YT x r x raw ,(% )`> 'r,< ` ” >iC,>i,>)C,A( -1< �,`<K�l>>��C'X�i�<Y>\>i<�CYY y >•' vxY"` ,Y,, ,,,,<„,,, x,x,,Y x Y ') Yx>,/"x • _ -,..:•-•,>,,,x>):„\,.\- > Yv Y T Y x T�Y<x „ K' .� < .Ck. RZO „ ,f' , >/Y y?hY'! \-YC'> Y`Y '''',.\).>X-v - - %S�'�' .r '„>:< Rx Y � >>. Y V V i Yx >� V ) .X'rXv<,c T < \y✓Y`'\'>i v x,x�, v .A,,A Cr`<n�<\(�-)k-�ti 1 -,x,--,,'S.,>',<\,,\):„,,, „.,,,>rkxy>"xx>•<<x�t x X`<�n i - ” �`<>< `< X , .KA...,.. .,/,,A, k,.,•• ..„.>,/,,,,,,.,),,,vvY> yk•rf.,XYK >A ,: < K� < K �`�k>'..6 ./>.•YYY y/Yx c— ^.< K ,<.•>Xy.Y>>j'VY x' x,,,,/�,(< K n A < t ,l,C < X, >,..`' >.Y, / J. '' IlV x,, x r ),/^^ ^`<\-,.,`<` r' '4,,X.' <,< ' ',‘ rt ,('', <-‘,/,'''\>.^�l1> `r X5/•<'5,'"-Y~v ./•- x/> .i a 3 W Q ti Z � a y Renee M. France wo rfrance@radlerwhite.com Q s 971-634-0217 November 27, 2017 Y VIA EMAIL Ihamilton@Iakeoswego.city Cl- Iu Lake Oswego Planning Commission I c/o Leslie Hamilton,Senior Planner Planning& Building Services J City of Lake Oswego LLI 380 A Avenue,Third Floor PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 I Re: Private Street Standards CO I LU 17-0052 T n • Lake Oswego Planning Commission: 0 o This office represents Teri and Saul Caprio,the owners of property located at 5570 Neff Park Lane (the • "Property").A map depicting the Property in red is attached.The Property currently supports one single • family dwelling and a multifamily structure with eight dwelling units.The Caprio's have been working for ° years on a phased partition of the Property to create 10 single family lots consistent with the zoning and 3 surrounding area. In 2014,the Caprio's received preliminary plat approval to divide the Property into 3 01 lots.While they have not yet moved forward with the final plat for the initial partition,the preliminary and planned lot layout is based upon the existing code provisions for flag lots, as 8 of the 10 lots would • be served by a newly aligned SW Neff Park Lane. The designed and engineered access lane approved in o the preliminary plat is consistent with the existing requirements for access lanes serving up to 8 lots. Teri Caprio testified at the October 9, 2017 hearing in opposition the proposed text amendments.The Caprio's continue their general opposition to the flag lot and access lane text amendments. However, the Caprio's appreciate the Planning Commission's efforts to consider a private street option as an o alternative to public streets, and we offer these specific comments on the standards for private streets serving 4 to 8 lots included in proposed Table 50.06.003-2. W It is important to understand that this Property has unique access limitations as a result of surrounding LLI development. The Property is surrounded to the north and west by existing single family development with no through street access capability. Inverurie Road is located directly east of the property. Inverurie Road dead ends into the railroad tracks and associated railroad right-of-way located south of the Property.The area east of Inverurie Road is also developed with existing single family development ° • fronting Inverurie Road creating no opportunity for through access from the east. Furthermore,the property is already developed with residential uses. A single family dwelling and 8 units of multifamily • dwellings are currently located on the Property.Therefore,the planned land division to create 10 single family parcels would only increase the total number of dwelling units on the Property by one. LU 17-0052 EXHIBIT G-21/PAGE 1 OF 3 {00738276;1} °;a November 27, 2017 Z Page 2 Qw >L Once again,the Caprio's appreciate efforts to develop private street standards as an alternative. However,the proposed standards would result in a private street on the Property that is not proportional to the anticipated impact of the planned future development and would include features Ce that are not consistent with the location of Property.Specifically,the proposed private street standards °' would require 38 feet of total width with a 14-foot travel lane,two 8-foot parking lanes and at least one 11, 5-foot sidewalk. Because of the location of the Property and the lack of existing or planned sidewalks on Inverurie Road, a sidewalk on Neff Park Lane would create limited, if any, pedestrian connectivity. Additionally,there is no evidence, based upon the existing dwelling use on the Property,that two full lanes of parking would be necessary to serve 8 single family lots on the Property. ce Therefore, if the Planning Commission elects to recommend private street standards,we request elimination of the sidewalk and dual parking lane requirement.That would reduce the total width to 25 feet, but retain the 14-foot travel and one full lane of parking, as well as the shoulder areas. In the alternative,we request that the Planning Commission and City consider an exemption process that would allow planning staff to evaluate site specific factors at the request of an applicant and exempt certain land divisions from elements of the private street standards such as the sidewalk requirement and the additional parking lane where appropriate. Creating some flexibility through a site specific exemption process could avoid inequitable impacts on land owners with uniquely situated properties and situations,such as the Caprio's. Best regards, RADLER WHITE PARKS&ALEXANDER LLP Renee M. France Attachment Priani0052 EXHIBIT G-21/PAGE 2 OF 3 ltlti�u� J' 1 n . i t j 'G' L 1 •C 'Y' .1 :.:___j: 1 ._. !,___11. 1: nr iC y . —: 7,1_ I '.ad!l1gR-,.; Y; '.c.T,-,7,(+i 7 AL 1 1 f1+�`•' 1 f a-C l _ i 1 - _ rz s CI'. L� iv — L _ �" .0 ,.........k.\-\,ti � l'` .� n�l ��--I 1 �.• - - .— -_.Sl yr^'` 1 ti 151Y'-''' _rrf•�l y{,'� I 1 1 1 1 j 1 ; . y 1 -y.�. jF"r • !' 1 .1' S .Ji ---'._- -fit- _I di. J.•= v- '-..-- 1. , ,�-. ..-'j 1 _X. ---k-` _-1 f 5 / i'\ 1 ♦ 1 1 - _, I The Children), + ' L./..c/ Il i 1T `1\ `'r 4,y� +� t n \ \. „\y\ . - r7w _. ._-�. +'_P L__—� f 1 Gly R47r9Ltila _ �:,.ri�i—`��"J� '• i IIII I Shop ,l.; + N ...Y LU 17-0052 EXHIBIT G-21/PAGE 3 OF 3 1 II m---1 • I A. I. 5' L _ 1 ' o- , _� 1 t/ i _ r ,_, , , 4) ^`,,f 1 '' i 0fN 1/f' ti. , ' 1fg6Sf fvBT,4Wra4 -� _) ADA £46tMENT 30' L 0" j. .- I r, 1 tz.-- .<1 Cl/OAF LAtie °. I 1 A- '1 finAkiiva Prfctill Iw : 1 iL�tf asale °10) 54.d____ ... . „_ I j . A. , '5 SMAlPLI It • L i , --,;:. /(1'tX://le-'/lit n , --T. i - : 7:1 *5 "vB z i c ,r rs oet 4 , r,�yyWIAlfe#116C1T LU 17-0052 EXHIBIT G-22/PA �= r 1 • • /2 ' � r . r . _ . __I _ _ 10' ! :I r g .. ... i —1 1_, .. i - ;- ,. ___ _ _ 1,i-, , < I, igotyotz _ _" .1. 37‘0 Si sagrocre-0 fia e wise/10/T _ ._ X , _..3 ). % I OF , -- - I.- /� V, .rt � I _ SOW//'//rte 3 41i JP 1 .es ,- 1 . 1-'jig* , 'Oif G 'r �. � L te N.3 C:b ?Aro • IL ,.. 4-6 'r 'i :,%.' , - 30' -"- ii . P. i',4-AfriAlta trfrices ft, syt . mi— i : $ i 1 5'Lobizarafff •sc51 : . 1 lik + D 0 vP ri 6 ON Mr Ika k I Zs Pte irecs> al r Sj , 1J Ira; orre g toys �5, M H''/6'?wo Or?/,z 7f►nl lit R aro /s u .G / C cS'r'R al" lti . ,�j;�Jq�ht/i��/7�1T G(�i�„o TLU 17-0052 EXHIBIT G-22/PAGE — c +. 1--- . 1 i_. //9f /if C . 1 , i ...: s -. __ ---T - I . , .. ,_ N 01 . 11 * t . I ' 11Q--:- OP lip X . "4 t A_ i : A . i c....:_ . Is: iii. P:71---7...._.. .....2,__, 0 W Jt i 4 . 1 :i :, _ c, J r� ��6 'WS. w ! , .117-:7RT:i A,..,=, .. • Ji ,�, li ,t . 4--; 1 ____ 1.4] --. -I —- — — --- 7 Ap ,fe5-49:/1-. AIIPU- /7Em',D i*li . , ; Illf •ie s" 'il • I %A "for . X00. a; - 'I'd -,. - N'f�G(D/lB'G1S 14,/dv ,� tiG st 3e ' ifil °3g'ror.lG �—' 4-6.. ,1;..IF //0-1.11 1 C . • _, y 1AA.,..1 al‘ . X71 • 1 Ti- 1 NIP- 9 1 - 3d' ►- -4 I JI 0 -1---.0 ____L mg, . .. . . , N ._-- o- s . 1i► - . a '_4 j �� j. CS'CgeAla 1) . 4 m ! dt '‘' .J-i r H H I -4 I .11 c 'Gff ��E� Im /*AA f/�G 1 . - •. 1 ' .1 — limoJ - -4 �ii� • f �` a 1 . - If ix 2?C: -i •• 2 0' • Sd 2S:Sf , CrAA — = .- T,gemtv,f 4ilia0P-lair/ 1 - ,/Od' ;r! MO' - • 1.14-'Td RECEIVED Leslie Hamilton Senior Planner OCT 2 7 2017 City of Lake Oswego P.O. Box 369 PLA�NING Lake Oswego, OR 97034 BUILDING SERVICES RE: Flag lots Leslie, At our October Board meeting last Thursday the Lake Grove Neighborhood Board discussed flag lot policy. This is certainly an important issue for our community as infill changes the look and feel of our neighborhoods. Lake Grove Neighborhood has seen the creation of a large number of flag lots and seen the side effects of increased traffic, declining safety for walkers and a loss of street parking on recycling pick-up days and, most notably, a loss in our tree canopy, especially from the declining numbers of large trees from the increase in hardscape. While we love the simplicity of restricting flag lots to just a single lot behind a lot on the street, as seen in the overlay for the Uplands neighborhood, we would have difficulty imposing that in Lake Grove where we already have a number of two flag lot sites off a main street. Our Board does support the following: 1] No more than two flag lots behind the frontage lot on the City street. 2] Requests for more than two sites behind the lot on the street should be considered a minr subdivision and developed under those rules and restrictions. 3] Flag lots must have on site parking for at least two vehicles and pole driveway cannot be used for parking. 4]The pole in the flag lots cannot be counted in the required minimum lot square footage for either the site on the street or the flag lots themselves. 5) Concern and attention need be given to lot coverage ratios on the flag lots for appropriate tree mitigation and planting. Flag lots add by their very nature and design add more impervious surface to neighborhoods; and the access roadways ("poles") have buffers that are too small to accommodate large trees. Best regards, Jerry Nierengarten Lake Grove Neighborhood Chair LU 17-0052 EXHIBIT G-23/PAGE 1 OF 1 PLANNING AND A.< \)s`- '6' 101: BUILDING SERVICES ir1104, v111151111 � o ° REGO. LU 17-0052 City Council Work Session Flag Lot Amendments December 19 , 2 0 1 7 Flag Lot - Evolution Pre 1998 : No Flag Lot Criteria 1998-2010 : Flag Lot 2010- Present : Flag Lot 2 FlagLot 110 I Fiag Lot �0" Flag Lot PraJeeted extension of the etaeis lane through the rear Hag las- A 1R' _,._ G t--I Hai Lased Gar II 30' a) O N Non-Flag w Street Street Flag Lot — Examples1 TL 2900 Nom. 7 1 3201 �_ `\ xoaexsE.wc. l I' i.V.SEmac. j ' r— ', TL 3001 I! TL 3002 A CL 3200 aEE';:n�� > I j' j TL 3000 Es eu¢E wa- \�, f on iso/ - ' 1 ''....,.\ „' TL 4402 MSA Es � *"'''''''''''''j 'er \ ,"\ xv SETL 4401 <\ t TL 4400 ic TL 3I00 '�� y='Cr k—Iioam TL 4403 a" ",.. TL 4300 I aFP \ \ \\ DESIGN FlagLot — ExamLane ) rl SRN I , gI / a / /, / S r 7 1 I / 1 / l 1Pl / Mar I // I I /1 S i,ill " / I r I / I I r5. , I PARCEL 1 / .sc, } II �04, , GROSS=17,053 SQFT / } } e NET=17053 SQFT / ` } } ir\\ / } I } 1 }\ e • ,' ,., } t N. t ` \ / // 1\ \\ f qPM PREL M ARY PLAN \ J/ g�.y$� / \ N. • , LOT UNE ADJUSTMENT ®n°'° // PARCEL 2 \ \ } BEIM A roM P or MOT as.'SWEAT HIus.PI GROSS=14,532 SQFr. \ 1 116"�`.or were'/.. • , ¢,mow. / NET=12.798 SOFT. carr or ix¢am.,- .q,/ , , euen.,rm COMM Oeeeetl $1/4 • A \\ J/ . GRAPHIC SCALE 5-•_i �.w.. qMN 6 �.�, aP,aoa, O • p Off.ZS MO \ Mgt `r..a s..a -.••• St "NYC/ R/DA880Q4 TES ,prnr xvmw awme PROfESSIaia 1J...0 9.4 .cvK2... mev FIag Lot — ExamplesLane ) 1 NETIE CREEK I .�, -j — 1 CONSERVATION EASEMENT I INA %.: \ 10,ar RP 1. I 1 0 • 4 LOT#311197/./ • /. 5 ti TAX LOT P 41 w�. . - 4 ]Bar BUFFER \� . 700 • I NE/W RCPAEDGE EItN81RUCTIONSER3ACK 1 \\ 0 +,� �' O \ -:.\ ,- - -- 90AP'�ER\\*' \`\ O (,]y 00 , Ip19E19PGK 744444:::`\ 10,00'RP ``•���\ • \` \\ ' 3AVIM'B6WPE BUFFER ...................... 0.1 .. i J *//� "44-..,..0.46,... - - FILL LINIT6 _ _ �— { J i„��/' `�� 3EfHkClt \ i T��� I J/ ` //mil/I�_.e_At����/���i. �� - — Y ice_ 0___.,._. \ FILL LI ITS �' I ....... reir'_.t.1 _:::::.:'::-,,'',,,'‘‘‘ ,\‘',„'' ,,,' ,‘\\\,\ , •'' ,'‘ \,Nigild Ilk _DTH 1 - =--mce oPAc rowEnx,B- ,,yyam� - - Ca .'t yi///ir$e - ---_-------_-_-- - /rte Yfj/i //ri .•t: 0 0 0 - - a - - - -O / ��fj//�„p -WETLAND - - - - .:. O =_ - - 'EnucREEK CONSERVATION EASEMENT . - . - ' I I 0 ( Subdivision )FIag Lof — Ex m les cc . / .... .. ED AUTHORIZACCESS 25'WIDE ACCESS ROAD c� PER LU 15-00(11 VISION TRIANGLE / EASEMENT WITH 16'PAVING .7_, LOT 13 PE •R LOC.42.03.130 PAVEMENT AND 2'GRAVEL SHOULDER m z z t / TAPER EACH SIDE LOT 12 a 1.- ,„I2 R INCREASED RP DISTRICT AREA 289 SF �y�` LOT 11 a W PUBLIC 8"SANFFARY 40' PECIAL A.z 7 ,_. STREET SETBACK / V :'_ 49.9' - EXIST.CULVERT i .Ry.w.;: +f ` 124.1'milamiva_ / illagri iAVEL LANE •. •1rry ` ]E BIKE LANE • ���; �ri�. �aQ J/ VEL SHOULDER / p wyCNI'E 1 cu � N- -� ) r *off °/ o ` 30' 112700 b — --�- c„..—.--\--(A �•y '� " • d -�,'`4 • • �� / 1 �, �` 16T 4' ` j TRACT �� sy NEW EIWLCING iQ fO Y� 15,278 S.F.GROSS �� FyG o 20,299 5.E, C v 1 vrnEn C. sr 1- 1 l p r / .1 i i`q7.1 m a �° 4v -- 14)4 ! k. !Q 1 SOT 3 s���y 1 ;4 s°ti oa as •`+i /r `pFG/ lex 1 ® C36 :85t:j f=1xU 7LOT / l(N .</ lx� 13;582 SFGADSS l 2 L, J L / , .F./ $ OUSF, i� �. /- - _ �� . _— b / :. Fr 4 -WET' r INCREASED RP\ 4—— } ... b / ` L1MFF DISTRICT AREA\ 1559... , 1026'a .,l - '165.7, . 11 Fla Lot — Exam les (Serial hi, .. , ,,,,,. ,. , i 1 ,� u...:R , _ 1 i ', 1 L__-, 11T ...16.4.9Esir ' ;',11:-:: '�'�' Uam' q { , T-4I___ ;=3,41 tt A F {R- '{ IC- I i f` ; i ,irk ti : i 1 ,,v Y..� �' � 1i L 3 x C i\i fir: y ]�A ,,. PARCELI- .___:-:_s_ .... 1 " \ t 12860 SF + g�,Gti41� R umk ca�]+e¢ 50 �i Lei.„ ., sI wnro,.+a+yrs 2F-PZI N601 Reed tat., Flag Lots Served by Access Lane Current Code • Up to 8 lots can be served by a 20' access lane • 9+ lots served by a 50' public street Proposed Code • Three lots — two flag lot and one regular lot — can be served by a 20' access lane • 4+ lots served by a 50' public street • Will affect density because area devoted to circulation is not counted in Net Developable Area Access Lanes, Private Streets & Public Streets Access Lane: 20' — • I I , 4' shoulder I 12' paved aisle 14' shoulder Private Street: 38' I I I I I , 5' sidewalk I 8' parking I 14' paved aisle I 8' parking Public Street: 50' aI I I I I I 5' sidewalk 15.5' park I 21' paved travel lane 17' parking 15.5' park) 5' sidewalk strip strip Access Lanes, Private Public Street I • 1 INIIISZIE.0 1 ! BMA.IC.•la,' I Q.. _ . . - - 123. CEL - i. 1 1- • ig 125. I I R , !,•, , 9 383 S.F.PARCEL 3 I 1 PAR4 -r I j 1 E"--1 4trolip-tan 7.553 S.F.JP I---ii b F ' eutnms 1-ran..12s' .1-7—''''''' ' 1 1 • I as,111.3 gi 1 I .1 ULM. 1 7,536 S.F. l I 341g, 1 _ ..-_ _ . 1 nt_ii F,r 12t• i 1-- -ii- t •1 . I' r , I PARCEL 5 __ _I '11'7 I PARCEL 2 r- - 7,508 S.F. _IC IM.0•IZY r„r.1._.---!--- i 90' —1 l'iTi=lst f 1 ------ - I I PARCEL i I 7,400 S.F. 1 / I 1 Int.FAc HEIM="L.P11 1-:..! ;., IR 1 I. I r2,- , L— -;PARCEL 9 1 PI,ARCEL 10 7.799 S.F. i,r7.0 I- 1_ I —.- 'I - 8,251 S.F. 1 - 1 BALI l<3.C.=SLY L II I I 1_,...•••."I ..., I 1 ...-'----- -,ft to 1 PARCEL 1 VI k_..--- i I I PARCEL 75 S.F.5 ---J I•-••• '------.--.---- 1 A12,860 S.F.---,t, 1 - -"._ - _ - ----.--'' - -re. CP ?t‘C\C\ --- --.-- !l . I--' -- SOT‘3° o IT M. 411. J-1-1, lEBBI"d.2 tl- LOTS 7, S&S I4 NEED TO BE PUMPED FOR \V SANITARY SERVICE s,..' '''''''''. PR.W2f07. 5--FORT*ORD free Access La nes, Private Streets & Public Streets j Coll mu nity ` areal 1 I a' C Trion [ 'rfrn College r 1 r._--.._: 1 �e.r hAcNar1 - -. ..-- �I k I N3uralA I d3- m r Park- C] ss r p a ! J L _—_°'iCRfnR'od-`-Fid_- y ...----, 1 Park }', I'-Ili-.._ L -_1-'ine Cone 1 1 x © I-�J J _ irmherhne Parkgr �Ik. {'i y .J.�..� F_I \ Oak Creek Tochstcne I I + r-'- •� SodtRivond E Elementary Schaal �-J f J __I—'-, Wo ]mor�- -- Skaffa' };�j �r-r----., ', d Park School We11'ake do sikr Lie Oswego �X-�_•�' P° rJ .4tlult fZ?` ---- Ott 1 1-T�--- --Par I - G ru•:e Park Command 1^ II Westlake.ire High Schaal -- I --,, r-- Center I �,• 4a ^ Elementary School Ody _ LO Jr ,a C•�ry JI I_ Library u'r `T Wes[Hale High u6 R�-- y Cc a - Mantessari School Rosman / Park\ School Oswego Lake Pork fT l • Cs Springbrook �c Courtrp Club Mairyfire I Hruse y Park Our Lady of �rPart on F n IIs I ,r,1^adnws -- Q. -+ errrp� the Lake R ay Ira b Kmcad 9 �, F c'y \� Scholl H'il MMI '1 iI Mountain S Lluliolo I` - -_,�, a P BParkyan5 adr ,,-Sq,, ,rk Corridor - 'F -- _-� andel eA Rod., __,� Pen-Moto-1 e --- . ,,.r plaza Rory fL Park Fir „'Nature �k)J ais Walago Village KinderCare Prese y Ca 'Pt, Pad,lMontessori ampr��bp.rl--5 / 7'` i Park-West ''..,,r afden Sim George �1 .,0-OFT- I`I ,;:_:_11 , a ii o Rogers r C''' L''1,1-1-,-'''' j!_, pi x�m Park Rogers P'urk fY r P�'-� ns ppal - "South ¢aa Elleri Bergin l t ds V Shore NaAire �m� la I e L r T Natural Area Preserver ...� J - Fru s r, .L_..\, -„EX.::: �a 8fr;n Sokth ,c9 ff ,. '•f:l'•_ r. kyd} ,__swim Park 3 Shag Fre tt' s Hallinan Glenmorrie r-- _I .9� ”,--,..J,.b'%"yin° Station - Open Space .i1' Cl-.. Id 0-1 PS' .'r.�•.,-_-,S'r- 4m� ,r,SokiT FreePonsP.irk �` I `j! ._„,.----•,-- �L3tnonl 'i: Park Hallinan - Springs C E Greertree ¢a Elementary Notneol.4rea [;reentreea park .Aspen Schaal Her, ...J ¢b Lake Osrr ego ��r---..l;arh i 1 Creek r�hif[Iren'•' Public Golf ,�a m' .r Glenmorrie Acack leadenly City r Coure `--� Park Mairtenance a I U l Shap Jea-i Road m Lakeridge q�� 1 erin, o, _ —e3--• Rd �, 9 - rl,' --._Jean Rd Fire O� "•f Hiyh Schad HefgiY �_I'--.. SYalion Westridge ❑r Hazeli�- �, • LI -- :Lakeridge ,9..„, Elementary Lakertdge Fieltll p } ' LI ` l r J 4 ns a School w°Y High Scholl A--- -i � ' �-- I Jr High 1- � � r .ry,�cr` ,v stridge f Form L---'1_•3 l•r,„..,2.3,) ,..i- r': ICooks munil�r:a Butte r Firlmef �I�' lessar4-- Park Property Srnek . Schad 1 _•.—- Property I• • �'��--> Rjvler Cirkm i-I -. Sodnno r' E em`en1:Fy"j "1I-._--_--, ._._Jr__.. Maidwr. 3' l I.noa il--, am•11,"1 ni,?K n[ru- _il Briaht Woods l_r-- -_- Pecan Geek �kwr5l fk '� ," 1 ,..1-- Nahge Pork -I NaturalArea I y t ` 1 i I r ! ! ���J i s i ...+ 1 i ,Kn:eis tl I Y' f ; • RdArea k- a� Goods ,--- . ,.,.,_ _, ,::_._ , .,7, .lommoil .7- / -71, li ' UN II 14080-14088 Goodall Rd • bitNr— Lake Oswego r . rV / I high sch a i L 14050 & 14062- 14070 1 -�___._-----,• e `e - _i _.._.IT Goodall R d ke :ween '-L _.�___ �- - ; . ��I///yyy --1...'7,d,',1,,�.n1 l fj _ _ � l r'''',-__ .. ` I — -— Ell ' f ,.'. t, --.y_, 1' I M -4 -____...1 . .",,,, .- i. a.. L I .I I r L • • ~ lI _�Jr. - s. - -- High Milffir..iiiiiii,11114I. :011111P:...,,,,Alk ' ''.3 ----3—' .1- 11,,, 1 c...11, .- ---\-- - — .---- - - _____-- Lake Ccintr; tCkh 14080- 14088 Goodall Rd I v I • 18'-20' private lane o 7 , 4062 2)...• 3 lots, >18,000 sf. ft. y Ao. • Single-loaded lane �D T----:- • • No on-lane parking r -� -` _s • Extra-deep driveways w/ �. IL double-parking possible s , $c OW- �4° • 10' buffer gravel & 140E14plantings 3 4OBB . . • -1. 110. -0 _ in.. • - .- 4 AAA() FIRST 14080- 14088 Goodall Rd ( Entrance) _ , . •:•••., ,4.3.',..4_1...f ',if 7'. w a A. 1, ; - • G fix` I M1` t c fir.-"*.'1' y { + 1 'yam ` N j Lg 1 1 ''..:•4111. �_ � 111 yR.,. i y ,y � 1 ,'rq rI �J7,,, . 1 •api4 � • ,k • yY' r r+ °`T fJ 1 4'�" ti 11 Yy Ef +FR!' 1•• �' r • ma.. , {I\ y X-: - t .. '_ • d pp f .� :, '•'-1 •)-' till,'" -.- •••,':::',,- .:',K4';.LL.11.- .,,,_ _.-- - _ _ , , \ I _ i..,,,. . . •'1.f:'''. ),. . }_ y am: �i1 s ti`. 46`r c' ''ar �,.^ + 14080- 14088 Goodall Rd ( looking west) d.,----- .,, ,,, • -„ •,, . ...,,,,,,..:44. ,......-...„ .. , ..,,. , ..,), .,,,,,,,„., • .,„• , _.., . - . . ,. r...„ ...• . • . ..„ ,, • ,...•,,,,...:•,.. ,.- _,. .,,, ._ 2.,...iyer - • {_ +-' 1,.. .. �Jy .. Fes_. - • • .#1, - ...'...itirot. r,�' * - - IM. ` [. "l 'I' ve �� Fi..r * t' '' , •� K -1(.7'1.,/ ►1 _ ,. t t , ,. .01,' -.-.,� ;h' .� •i._ 1-. 1 ` y �. s �t ��s, r r 'vi _ + 1 ) ?� ` �� {♦ x t "{ �-�� ` - *All . • �yy 1Yr � /A }I / Joi. 1, .. ';:1/4,.....,r:.. ' . .... _. 1, ., _ _ _ • .,. _...: _.c....„:. ....,...._.., .:e„.. . • • ._ ... .. . ; . ... . ,... ..4:...:.4....:„ "...• 4_... :.. 2. . ,..0.,.....7„ .., ... .. . 14050 & 14062- 14070 Goodall Rd (r) 7, (5, G) A4O0 • '‘ ° 0 0 * • 20' private lane _..-., . • • 3 lots, >15,000 sf. ft. .73 (one dividable) _ * o) lil A- t,„ • 4 Lots, double-loaded t7 0 . Al114 4 A40- 2 0- 10 - • No on-lane parking ) 1 74 fia • • 5' landscape buffer0 • 0 1 \ . ...• • _elk 1 , r , . , _......... ,4080 N. 14084 (0' \ A40B8 _ _,Ac ---r- FIRST 14050 & 14062- 14070 Goodall Rd _ ....-..-,..•• , • . .. . _ . . ., .. _;.„ :.. • 40106... .:Itt>4,..... ,,-. .. q.,,,. .., .r .• • . • -4_1_.. - -:...k ". ..• ... . c• ... • ,Alik ..t.:,., _ AP'k . 7, _ - • •lic IhmuL:r. . - •.„I. .,;;IILM.• , r .11 - •'.' ..c.-.--7.- . .• .... .• r';/.....• ..-..•'.. ,...•"4. .....0,-•--,••..,!. "..• ' •...4 r- , ' -.- '-.-....:(--..,'..-0:,etr.-0.1, Ir. • -4- '1.S•1!"....1t':AI.- R -. „ ....• ... ...•. . . ....4 ' '* . • . Tr.7.7. ''."..':-. ‘•.= . L ., - ......., .46... . . „ .. . • .......4.:.. k 1.4•' -IL; '''' ' ''.,,'• `• • •J ' 4 • 4. .4 " , Y . •1___..• i, .. . . • --:Vis- -.7.1 4 _erg '-' .-.Z.;ft• iateilmilint; .• T..' -• .. :"`...... V . ,, ••••'. ..., --. • ...,:- - ".'4..,,,X4-.., .- , 4.i .•- • ':-', 'r iv -;').-'-'4 .. .1• • .. . . ... . ''... r ...•,.•.. ; 1 .1rA t •. . . . . .• . '•.. j.' ''.••• . ..... •.• . . . ..,k. • •• • .• . •••• • ..;• . .. . . - I ' '- '."•.';7,'"..••.•'-' •• • .1-..V•ig; • . . -. : ..• '•... •i. ,,.? .4: ...' !. - . , ie .....k.,. . 4.fiNc,: - ,-4 t ...:••••-• -- . ---40.• . ..-,,,...' ',!,-,•,,,-. -• ..... ..........;••--.. -.- • . • - . - . .• - , . •..„.., .••., • .. • .• 4.,,_ 1.i....:_,.,. ... .1 • '- :•1- 'At.'..- _ • .''''''''...;-..' '.' -...— - '- d . ' • • 1 I a a a t t'' i •10. ..1 ).10.• .• . . . • ..-, -,.. • .. - r! 411 .••11TF.Pommi I, 1 'Avi'--..,.e ..-.1s— • •tr., ,, , ._, .-. . • • . .. •••• . •. 1,'".- . :, vi.t . •''' .,.r :T, . . ii.,e• ..-z*N6-. •.0:. .,,,,..._•...,••:.,. ...--,,. -• -,i.--• ;:i-07...4' . _ • . 1.1,0 .,... -1 ','41 I:: . ' --- - . . 41 • A- 'r • . .....-,- -• ,.-1+0. :1' ---I.•1.. mtai.... -1. i i• ' ••• . . ' I* iVf - -.... .. ...- .... • , -.-",, ....4.:4,....;-__. . .1 , , liti : . e _ . .-:14aNirtimirr.r. _ ... Itor 44.-I.-, ,4.-"I''• -' , '-. 40ILk .-5 .... .: . . •--,.-•...-- . . ••• ..- ... - - . - . _•• se . .. . . • 74.-i - -- • '---• -- .,,,,Arat.;_.jrk. .,. .. - • • • -, _ . - .. ...•.•_ • _ „.._ - . ., ,..... _ • __ _ .1......... 7... ............._-_ . - .—..,._.,_ Nilte, . • . , • • .1.4. * .•--•`i'i'••:1-'.3-",t,L,+;kt.m.k. t lic.4.-1F0.*Ior -... . - -- - • --". ." " '''' '' ...-6-i..tz-!jri a.' • ;'4"1,...r•. '•'''. ••'' :•- ,,'' : ' Glenmorrie Terrace • 13'-25' private lane i . - --.,.__-— %• `o\J Greenway • 9 lots, >20,000 sf. ft. ° '. � � , \, • Mostly single-loaded 1ao �- 6, e , � • Some on-lane parking � , `, �. • >800' long , '�;' os .'' —1a • 35' radius turnaround \ / `'� --00 / 43 • Vie' ut .1 jf ~ 16540 o •{ • e'tLU�` n_ oc.p \ VP Ill .1 ''. • .\\ ,p �`,Q rt 01, �S • 4 1, �/ ..7 I . Glenmorrie Terrace , ,:_ , . 44( ,,,,ir--1 ,A.io-- . .• tri. ` ,4,A r . a ,Z� , 'z -.. :4 13,_ . �..r t ,•, , f 24 s . - .. ' � + - . ,J• . 13 R Freepons Village 0 1 o a X22 77, • 16' road in 16'-20' access .____ail \ c \ • and utility easement \ '�� 1', ' �'`/ • 8 Lots, 7,500-13,000 sq. N. ft. o ' rn c° • Double loaded 1233 l_ 01 CO • Lane inside northern lots JT )- PVT _ St • 4 On-lane parking spaces a I 0 1255 • Turnaround (garbage `�' co ' co co trucks) 1287 o COa N St _i 13'05' • — .• . _ . _ . ... . .-1 o 'Freepons co U _1 Park 1335 AX 4r $ eMI p ons Village 'U,EEMAOM or m, MASSORA TAX LOT BOO i "�°' ',E , TAX LOT 5900 0 CEDAR ST1 ofm„ rrml P PAW InM Mm _ IMYE1 a5 IE MSc rill. rPM014 R9P -J56L„_ -{1 Mrsz]BE]10M' . `.` i Tiw 955 ; .� m.tt '40 n4 mak - --1:----------- mw___ rAM 2,eEa 15'nMl[M,R ur'• `,\ 1 _ �_- !a_ ` G91EMl iG ter' .\\v`, OYQ.pS11Y4�1W 1121 , SIE&Y ORIIALE ti� OW1,11 row A ME awl e=tlWR s11Mi-I �_ ham-~- Y,�' MAC MUM `�-�”'IN➢YRAq I B[I14 wU,rO By Ptt I IU 5M __.." -�! \ . 111.11611 19 09r O. �t rum r� .�MSC a ,� TAX LOT.3000 Eilrl¢aite /, I I1 I; y 0101 SPACE- '\ TAv Ow 25 IF Imc Aamss rumrT rM-A so' "m `-ter+®x,Mw ria Ai �! IR sa osw�r-~ s,u.m s \. \, , ' moss AMnawA uo un,n i u�. I;,- \�, ;' ' OmMn or rV11,CM1 _ *MI5 , :WA SEIBW PROW Cr MI 111,121 Y `- - /�\ 'U, �p ruFA E0,52 S + a:i EOi IMG:l0,4W Sf B'uc 011:1 1 !``•\ a ♦•PY am SIPM I S11.P!]Y FAx LOT 5101 �wAM1auESm1 " Da 1,,,.1.. vxm kr lm,au sSou sF �\ '`\ ` _ • AM rM • nor 11117—..1 uN J ' r-- J _ —rm SEAM% -, L r num a Yrr �'' - !MIMEAMMFMr ORp4R M MOT MA WOWR 1. PRIVATE ACCESS LANE umEASYNI ORM '+ TAX LOT r ,Ss ANA 11,02 n 4111 Sz51 V E UN , M1 I• I .,,o ss1 3700 rth111 SEWS j MF111.9 A MKS —I U — - F -IG AMI — 1I . `, VIM nu I 271.601 ! 57111g7 M fa It 1a[ -�' p'SIC tb WC 1V snE tS ME 1-.---.•�—; Ia we 1P sor /,5 ,AM SE,BAOr nal mM1Pli !MI M1ra mm WW1 IMAM SM.= nID Yai01! IrMo YRAIX Y,Vm 9EI&IXi•�YII MMMT 5 j �1 l ; Li ' SIM%SF 1 1' i} s I j ! i 9'su �---T� gg g g r,vM zMAu a :,.s11 SF ! 9 ! v, s ! R ! 11116 s ! 5/500 SF ! j I I , a o J I , scoeVarg 1- rs''SM 2S.KV 15 15.1.111 I —-F S M OF 1 I-I WO MINX 111/10 SMACK b.MM a1.M MO ZOO, TIM 11100I M.�Aa TAX LOT ASA I r1M I 110 I oral I ,� WOOra I 1ES4 4900 SWIM MAW MI MAP TAX LOT 4701 TAX LOT 4700 25 IE Imc TO 1012510 100 10WE 2 1012., Freepons Village — Private Access Lane No Parking ;Ar s �. 0 _l.� ,., '- ,. .r - : , ++ _ �� •4 y f -7-- =- _- ° ( -ANE , „.;,,,,,,...1,. .-....,-;----- _ - . - .--ess/ _ - =�k ; _ iitil P U E 16' -► , I �.. •'' .. , - 1. ce`i 4, .. .. - F re e p o n s Village — Private Access Lane With Parking and Stormwater Planter . 4 irs 74, •,:l• • , ' li a Ak I is - , . lii ..f.,--,..• _ . - - --- "" ir 4 ..• ,.ac.1111111pli ,..f, ... • ••'' 4Niov- . , _ .....,_____ 11 SIM Ar MO . A. ' --- —11 101`.1, ti. , :11... ..." . ' •" — . - lit .. . .. - ' 1 ,i...A-'•-• '-.P.......1. ..,,___,- • ''s ' limi - s. a irn01 0 i c .. .f.-i ...„ 'k'tl,'i-'''' TOw-AWAY . •,;-:7':I: .:1:,, t,..." .20:T,. -4,i------:-Iii . ,, - '4,4'- k• r'-eziog -.- 'WO' ''," ' „7-4.,, • ,. - ,„,..,.._. somvir. -— I , e -.4.- ---- P.'• I ia;. .!•,"1":,-47., ' 2--:= ,. —4—.----,,_1*---;,', .-, V c..*'4,''''V'F'. •t.. - , ,-;-44iimt r.,..., it. , r‘Ar•,.' .}' IF .-....:",:'... ' ....-,444T'Or, I.i-,',44-1-c.' '.", •I .'Z... le. 4-,.. . .. .- , ,. '_;.,,i't4thier: '-'-'4• 17..4' 1._.''''. , - . .• II iv-.1.41-1%/72261Pil2 •,':. •-• _ Auburn Lane — Public w/Parking, 40 ft. ROW, 10 lots le_: ' i -1/4.3(._ cr 13448 Public Street Hopkins Ln • Zero Lot Line 4798 4793 Townhomes 4782 .� 4771 • 2,000+ sq. ft. ' 4766 j. , TRACT C TRACT D 4765 4750 _ /' Auburn TRACT A Ln 13470 w H � � � ti � � � o U t� � o co r Q 00 a) 347 7r � �, ; 1 Lo �, I � H 7 1 v 4 I I a 1354611 4 el r_ r_ AI \ II 1 I ...Et , L Auburn Lane — Public w/Parking, 40 ft. ROW, 10 lots ,, _.....fr_......_, ....,- ,,r ' • ,-., Am"!, • . , • :,jiiiiii i v • ....0: .h71gj `` koLlittA,....,_ :-. :4*-1;11111--'"„,..,,,,_.,_=...:3\ `: _- — i - r+w. /�� ` ` _ ' �I ... - \ -. ' *' 1. L. • Ji t Auburn Lane — Public w/Parking, 40 ft. ROW, 10 lots y a \At� ,e * ,' r•; �` + f ' ?- sy ` . 3-- r. _ •,• :S - .,, ..41 ;r te• .ra: Yea - ..:.�.a A ' -- -- - -. - `; *,fi.•.. _ wig s1--..r.:,.4.r '•'-.. 'rte .0 rte Jen n ifers Way/Koderra Ave/Rachel Ln/Braeden Ct 6 ( Public) 179851-' j , • – — °I ui 1 a-+ of • 20'-24' Public Streets 1 — --- O � o i • 25'-30' ROW 1799J1 0,3 j -- ________________________j -0 ct • 15 lots, 5,200-7,400 sq. ft. _ 0 Rachel Ln 1 ,------..\ >' • single-loaded 1 $00 �_pg (131—,D- • ; g Limited on-street arkin I m18021 1 _ _ i -.--. • 5' sidewalks in easements p 018042 -E w .n, L 18064 ar L 1 u) 0v w 1808 - KoderraAve 18 J I cry 1 oTT7. . rti ] - Jen n ifers Way/Koderra Ave/Rachel Ln/Braeden Ct 6 ( Public) ,, , . : , , ', -,,,,, s •, i.� 20'-24' Streets in 25'-30' ROW01 �� � ,, , � i r, , 15 lots, single loaded t a . -0 Limited on-street parking ` = ' -a Ra*heI Ln ° 5' sidewalks in easements ,,:,., ;.r ,, A( , WI Aillei , ,r '' 0 ;,k r:r 3 0) *it if:.1 ,44 _ _ #: # ; Cr , -fir - CD /[41°. M.- -I.,*_ �yp'r • is Koderra dairlidrar Ave 4 Aiii- i • •..p• 6 Bra eden Ct ii, • ...•110.7. I'. . .• _ • . • ••• ), .3. ' .1• ... - ... , • ••• • • P •' . '15 •AP''' • . ' Tb- •••/i _ . - -."-• : . .' - _...- • -, Arli .... 1 .• ... ...,... . ... • • ( if . .. 6 ....-- . . . ... .. _. riiii-....,.... ;.••., • '' • i+ • ' . ..,..1., . . .4.•• '''''''--.14 11111t , -4 '.'•::•• z -.0.. i .... •. P.'. . . ., • • ,•"- :- •""-, .1.. .. ..r .0. OlE . f • '''' • . •...... - 4 - .. ,.• - t . ..._ - • I ...... -A J . :•- .• _ "-- --- . •,. L I ri ' . ...,.. ' ' N....c-- • JIML- '611‘ . r,, .. —.• ' .1; .5D --•:':-2•L''' -: .:'.1.' —.. • ..r. .....,:t .., , ..., V V + 4 -4=E._.. 411=0- 11, . ,..4 . , — • lo • — 41V1111=5. =. — im MN * .1." A I • , '. . ' r`, I + 1 r „+.1., .:,, ! *•T.• 1 4'." 4 \ _ , :.i,lik. ., . ..... ., ..4. i 1 • � -_— 1 t. • ‘ -1,.. _.,-.., , 1 .. _-...,. .,,,_, 4 ...r. ii., _. _ 4 ! . • b e i ■ . t ,. i , , _i_J 1114.. ., U . I, a ddi 3 r L W 1 : „.... + , , 11 -,. /iv • '1i, 1 11''.• 1- 1 ' a – 1 .i.'1 1'1. •-$ :21., - I . • ‘'. • • • te A. • ". . – . •,' 4--- v• • ' i, r-i-.1.- • •'4•11 tir. . . : , ..s. • , „„, - • N, , ., c,. ••,. ..„ ,,,,,, . . -. / '•i •_;-:,:k•,. ,i`.7,!.! .C',...&'!, . r . ......; • ...• •: !•• - 0...• -:......e." '4' • , dr'"0 ,-. %. ''',1•''-.. -'. ' . . • : .• - - P . , .,. --,'- ' • • . - -- '14 , , Y•-•,.. ' lilt'ill Soli 1 . – , , ',..-4'1 1-1:"' '.1:4 oe 4•'' • -i ,..,-.., 11 •,• , ___ ' ,.-..."' - -.0' kt - ,,,- - • --• ••-"ri- ._ , ;•y--• - . . ._ - '''' . "'- • - - — ---..--• -....."....• • -• 4 Ira, .Ilifi...' .. "."- > • • .4k....1 .L- . . CD ,,..4 ..",J 4 ,04..-5,...Vril .1,.. --.1 .-1 aL 0.1, 1111 - , .' .. -•,, rr.-c - . •;."-- • •e....i. a , .. ,. 1. .....,.......41ii p 4; • L— . ' . : tie. •,.... T . (I) -..... . ..• , . , . :- .. L'I V ' :1 ., . ., . • •-..„.t, -., -..' i .,., -.. C .. ., . :.,,.. : . .iv.1 ,- —.. ..,‘.• •,-..'.1i . , ., _) -bre ,i,. I 1 ., LO 6 Koderra Ave y1 ;}.: am r r, � -Y: ; : ....:74411... pr • . if ' l , ; 4 4. • Wim• A L` 0.� _ , Tr - Q1' ICLOIll '41111.11166... Village Park Lane 0, 6' • park Ln 20' Private Lane 3 • Curbed one side, no A887 s 1670 shoulder cn cc • 4 lots, 13,900-25,000+ sq. ft. : 1691 / 1692 • Single-loaded • \1\11 0\\\, No formal on-lane parking • No sidewalks g Or C Village Park Lane --- • 1 Ljoy-4'' • , p , .• '1 .0' rip ,---6. 4 - li. r• • age '--2-)'ot ' i • rt ; r-"+" • 4., . ;' , . .-.• . issilw 0 .‘ ... .. ,. . ,. . .... ...." ..... . .., - . - lit, •, " ,..... .. . 1 4 .S.lir' . . ..... - , . . .., .. •, . ! • t . ••• ' 4,111 0..e?f• ' r a rillk* . '. • •• .""L.:. • . V . •lif 40; . .. io`r .... • I ' l r . • 1, • -.. 111 • • .1 . 6*•?f .. ' ' i'lqii . *Neck • . • = ' . 6 . . ....- • - • .i, .. 1 • .,..-,:- , •- .....; . , 4 , .. ,„ .,‘:: ', • ,,. . ...... t ..k • ... ..... :: :: • . ) k ., , • i i 1 a • -:,: . • • •' # .• . . 0 L. e.,: .. 1,i,;:tv'Ll7 '.:•,,, t ''''. '1'4'PIII"--111"'Nen.7.6 1:11s..-. -....r. 11111':: . -- Village Park Lane -411 ' .0 ' .'. ',A; ..v.. ;i q - ,..-,•'.''''• i -„fel -!"." • ,•:§i_4. *Y:IliTi _.', -It* 4; . ' ‘44'.. - ..-• ..-:4 ''.- V.-70 kr4 L4•.'•-.. ie.,4"...-• .... W...A 1 r'.r,40,76.-', ' .• ........0° . . Mir - ,. - i litt.P. ..f . • . • • • Z. , -1 -'41 , ____:.. . .•,..., lie , _..6_iiiF . e 07 5°Ilk Alla . .J. • Cip ,A•.k 1 . -; ;',1. -1'. c • % nt.Rill, i . . - .-.•% ., ,16,,. It. t*:. -• ..,• d• • 4' . • Ji. ' = ... -.1, • ---a -,.... ' • ~".• 46•. 7,- ,.„,-c•, .. •A ... - ...•• '... '.....•......,.. -: •4. •.:-•-ilp .. _ 010 4....... . , _...,..„....,......,, .e. *I 45• la 7• ._ 4-'*1-.-.1"114110/ W'''_a._41111111111111ro.,_ lillititewl _ - 1 . __ _ • - ..."."""..... ........._-11-'' „ - .411. - ,.. ...7,1. ... -41•- 111111111111111kiht, i -. ... ... .. ..• ' ''... Ali ...... •• 1 ... it --or- -4... . ..... - -__ , .... ' • • . .111' .11: 01.. • • / 1: 6. ... '4% • . .1 ... i ...... or , 4 r 7.1,:' , ) Hide 1 Divic1aIeProperties , ._ .... . . . . . s. --" !1 I`'- a-: . r 1� -�`/- .. . ' `�_ , / ._. '_-' 1 _ . / ri'-^^ t.3' s Je' - r'• i 1 , ' / -...; - ndpcenpomas _. - �' ` ' ! ` can ems.„: — J - S ` 5.:. RP Desmon - } `f t I F r�r ` .t^ � 1,r- — .' • — - - _ _I _1 i - 1_ 11 , '_4 t I •Ir ti - ./// 1! • - . . 1i: _ . , .. - ,± } I,�,Y.., I•I� Y'[ - \ f•_ r !' f _ „ 4• �'� -� I' " 3�^' 1 _I_` # —_ fir, - t �f• - ✓y� ~ __r -1 ' __ .- •-' •�'• - !r_'S' t! '- r , 7 , • ` ,r I i' .. 1 - -1 • '1} i 1 4.I' €' r •\I t•\ I. .. / I v� .� \'.. 1 — i 1 1 ... '^'- '-1-1 ti 1 1 - • Serial Partitions { 1 r'•i 1 'J Analysts of Con[guous Lots Under the same 1. --/!�'.. ' . „ • Ownership&Talcun ,g into Account 10%for Acc,ns i. r' —. _. 1 -- - - DividablePt r i o e es p • I\ r. 4 •, • --' j' i k.- J--- _ / 1 ��J� - M l�_ , I , .,�, i • • — e L-•' - _ .f l f � +` ., r -A c„-i.,a l 1, - !!` ---" _ -I -,. - ., - — ' ' r f • ,, GrgabkLR- ..-. _ �' k. / a I ti sa�,aa emus I _ _ ,1 : I1 ._i _�.- � ,, t ' s 1 \ 4 7.7:_-; . i _i i \f _. . l I t `FI I - -D- a f .., .� • ". - ;'. • f.. /'•`l• � `�'. •. _� r--1,1,... - — _f •• - - •J �. f 1 •fy I : • •k f / •v F .� , • `- ' — ••� % —1' 2• • + ,� `j ii -1I 11I + Y, ., s. / 1*•. A J • ,•i f 1 •' L i �I 1 \ of • . •, ti r • j . 't' r•;,- \,, • • Serial Partitions I • •I—+ .. 1 r analysts W Contiguous Las Under the same l _—/+ e + • • - i Ownership Taking into Account 2140 for Access 1 f 0 OM OM 1 �J •-.. • _ . r -- -fit T ! _ —__— • -- — Orientation/Setbacks Current Code • "Front" measured from access lane projection even if access lane cannot connect to abutting lot Proposed Code • Zone "front" can be either parallel to public street or parallel to access lane orientation; measured from property line • Maintain rear/side setback distribution to minimize impact to abutting properties Orientation/Setbacks o Flag Lot ,, tki Front-- 2 � w Flag Lot Flag Lot Front Front 2010 - Present Proposed - Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : Screerrir�g �►ccess Line . 20' access lane FIa Lot • 5' landscaping buffer on B both sides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : ;: • Trees (2" cal.) and shrubs (5 gallon) required utilities Effectiveness of inside buffer (often removed) :::: Screening/Access Lane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . WIN Flag Lot ••••••• •••" " • " " " • '•• • ••••• • ••••• • •• •• • ••••• • ••••• • • . . " • • " • • " • • " • • " • • " • • " • • " • • " • • " • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . •.• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Flag Lot . . . . . FlagLot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • .• • •.•.• • •.•.• • •.•.• • •.•.• • •.•.• • •.•.• • •. .• • •.•.• • •.•.• • • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • '•.• • •.•.• " • " . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . . . . . - • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .•. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Street Street Other Flag Lot Amendments • Parking: One additional parking space for each flag lot served by access lane • Setbacks : Increase front setback from 10' to 15' on flag lots; R-5 setback distribution reduced • Design : Delete garage appearance and location standards • Landscaping: Buffer along largest yard • Fencing: At perimeter of Flag Lots • Lot Coverage & Floor Area : Based on net area • Flag Lot Definition : Clarify that lots created before 1998 are not Flag Lots a I 7.1 D A E 44 COUNCIL REPORT r o dR�ddC.‘ 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: December 11, 2017 MEETING DATE: December 19, 2017 SUGGESTED MOTION Move to approve minutes as written. ATTACHMENTS 1. October 17, 2017, Draft Regular Meeting Minutes 2. November 7, 2017 Draft Regular Meeting Minutes 503.635-0215 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city ATTACHMENT 1 E____ A EW st CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES 1i. 0October 17, 2017 EGO� 8. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Studebaker called the regular City Council meeting to order at 4:02 p.m. following the Lake Oswego Redevelopment Agency meeting on October 17, 2017, in the City Council Chambers, 380 A Avenue. Present: Mayor Studebaker and Councilors Manz, Gudman, LaMotte, Kohlhoff, Buck, and O'Neill Staff Present: Scott Lazenby, City Manager; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney; Anne- Marie Simpson, City Recorder; Joel Komarek, Project Director; Sarah Selden, Senior Planner; Scot Siegel, Planning and Building Services Director Mayor Studebaker announced that no eComments for Council consideration had been received. 9. CITIZEN COMMENT • Mark Rockwell, 13455 Knaus Road Mr. Rockwell cited results of a national study that found a strong majority of Americans felt short- term rentals should be legal. He expressed the belief that this reflected the view of individuals in Lake Oswego. Reporting high levels of such rental activity in Lake Oswego over the past year, he noted that there had been few, if any, serious related incidents. He discussed demographics of typical guests, along with primary reasons for their visits to the city. Hosts offering short-term rental housing were similarly conscientious, he noted; 25% were 60 years of age or older and were reliant on the supplemental revenue from home sharing. Council was asked to adopt an ordinance that would allow licensed, taxed, and thoughtfully-defined short-term rentals in Lake Oswego. • Gretchen Amann, 182 D Avenue Ms. Amann explained that she had been an active host, renting the guest room of her home for stays of one to three days. Noting that she was not currently engaged in short-term rental, she emphasized that she was always present during the stays, and that the experience had been positive, both for her and for her neighbors. At times she hosts her own family members, at no charge, in the guest room; she asked Council how they were any different from Airbnb or other City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 8 October 17, 2017 short-term rental guests. As a citizen of Lake Oswego, she asked why the City was turning down the opportunity for occupancy tax revenue. She urged the Planning Commission to recommend an ordinance change that would permit licensed, taxed, and carefully-defined short-term rentals. • Ryan Kovac, 908 Lake Front Road By renting out a room in his home, Mr. Kovac reported improvements to his single-income home situation over the past two years. Designated as an Airbnb "superhost", he had hosted a broad array of guests with no difficulties whatsoever. The City would do well to embrace the hosts as virtual ambassadors for the community, he noted; he often recommends local restaurants and other destinations and even serves as a tour guide. He and other hosts would willingly pay applicable taxes or permitting fees and would comply with safety codes; many value the opportunity to earn extra income. He particularly recognizes the role of host as a means of involvement in the community. As compared to hotels, short-term rentals allow visitors to enjoy Lake Oswego in the best way: through a caring and knowledgeable citizen. Mr. Kovac responded to questions from Councilor LaMotte, indicating that Airbnb was the access point for the great majority of local short-term rentals. He found this platform was key to his participation and that it provided excellent support to both hosts and guests. Councilor O'Neill requested clarification of applicable City code. Mr. Lazenby indicated that, for some years, rentals of less than 30 days' duration had been prohibited in residential areas. Brief discussion followed as to awareness of the code on the part of Airbnb and the citizens who are operating these rentals. • Kathy Avery, 14292 Meadow Grass Street Ms. Avery explained that she had begun running an Airbnb rental about a year earlier and was currently a "superhost". However, upon learning of the City's short-term rental restrictions, she had discontinued showing availability for her home. She highlighted her very positive experience with Airbnb guests and conveyed details about their backgrounds and reasons for visiting. She expressed her hope that short-term rentals would be allowed, with reasonable regulations. Among her suggestions, modeled on the City of Bend's approach, was a Good Neighbor Agreement that host and guests were required to sign. She emphasized the goal of hosts to provide an atmosphere for quiet and respectful guests, who were encouraged to dine, shop, and enjoy Lake Oswego's outdoor venues. Ms. Avery responded to questions about qualification as a "superhost". She clarified that, most often, the owner was present at the short-term rental property; for other properties, there might be contact information or instructions on arrival. In her own travel experience, these were not second or third homes bought as investments. She affirmed that printed copies of her statement were available for Council members. • Shelly Kintzinger, 444 6th Street Ms. Kintzinger described the historic cottage on her property and her enjoyment in hosting guests through the Airbnb or other platforms. As with other short-term rental hosts, she values City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 8 October 17, 2017 the ability to earn extra money, but recognizes that hosts have many different reasons for participating. The City should work hand in hand with Airbnb, in particular, as it focuses on belonging, in the community and across the world. She highlighted many of the benefits to the guests coming to Lake Oswego and observed that no property damage or other problem had ever resulted from her guest stays. Airbnb is an important aspect of travel today. She expressed her support for allowing this use, noting that regulation, including tax collection, should be easy. In response to questions from Councilor Kohlhoff, Mr. Siegel clarified that the City code issue is a situation where an owner hosts a guest in a residential zone for less than 30 days and there is commercial activity, i.e., where the homeowner is receiving compensation. • Jane Hartfield, 718 3rd Street Ms. Hartfield asked that the City consider how to more equitably manage short-term rentals through regulation, rather than prohibition. She described economic and family factors that made it important for her and her husband to remain in their home, while being able to rent the home from time to time. She commented on several concerns about short-term rentals that Councilor Kohlhoff had presented in an email response earlier: (1) Adverse impacts on affordable housing inventory. She stated that this could be regulated by restricting short-term rentals to the primary residence only, to prevent investors from buying up affordable condominiums and other housing. (2)Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) being used for short-term rentals versus affordable housing. For several reasons, including economic viability, she did not regard ADUs as a significant percentage of affordable housing. (3) Neighborhoods' importance to the community and impacts of constant guest turnover. This could be regulated by limiting the number of days for short-term rentals, as other cities have done. She and her husband wished only to rent the property for a few weeks a year, and she asked that Council consider this so that they can stay in the home. • Charles Ormsby, 170 SW Birdshill Road, Portland 97219 Mr. Ormsby indicated that he would be following up later on concerns about the intersection of State Street and B Avenue in relation to the North Anchor project. He also thanked the Police Department for their rapid and effective response to a traffic incident on his street on October 11. 9.1 Prior Citizen Comment Follow-Up No follow-up on prior Citizen Comment was presented. 10. COUNCIL BUSINESS 10.1 Pavement Management Engineering Project Report and Attachment Mr. Komarek, in his capacity as the project manager for the Pavement Preservation Program, provided background of the request before Council to approve the $5.2 million contract with Murraysmith, as detailed in the Council Report. Approval of the contract would enable the City to initiate the more aggressive pavement preservation program called for in support of 2017 Council City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 8 October 17, 2017 Goals. That approach entails a total $21 million worth of pavement preservation and rehabilitation projects over the next four years. In reviewing the competitive proposal process that led to the selection of Murraysmith, he emphasized their strong reputation in Lake Oswego and other communities. Staff believes that Murraysmith has the capabilities and capacity to address the workload and to deliver within the specified timeframes. Mr. Lazenby highlighted the contract's specification of the not-to-exceed amount. He noted that it also allows the City to pay as costs are incurred and to address a variety of projects that have grown in complexity. The resources of Murraysmith allow the flexibility to accelerate or delay projects in accordance with availability of funds, a great advantage to the City. Mayor Studebaker expressed concern about the $5.2 million contract amount in relation to the full $21 million worth of projects; in that it represented about 25% of the total, he asked about any opportunity to minimize costs of personnel assigned to the City project work. Mr. Komarek reiterated the key advantage of the program management approach, explaining how the teams assembled serve as an extension of City staff; individuals are brought on board only as their particular skills are needed for a project. This allows the City to manage the related human resources expense effectively. Mayor Studebaker inquired about potential opportunities to reduce expense by recruiting the necessary people as City employees, perhaps on a temporary basis. Ms. Rooney described significant challenges that would be involved, including the very robust market for engineers; short-term project work likely would not be attractive to candidates. She indicated that the resources offered by Murraysmith would provide a more viable option. The 25% of the projects total was not unreasonable, in her view. It was comparable to the City's experience with smaller in-house projects and consistent with other cities' 4- or 5-year programs. At the request of Councilor Manz, Ms. Rooney clarified roles of professional staff that might be called on by Murraysmith, as compared to the Laurel Street project. Councilor Manz posed additional questions about the not-to-exceed amount and possible options for reducing it. Mr. Komarek explained how the $5.2 million amount was set, based on the need to deliver the $21 million worth of projects. The not-to-exceed amount was considered a budget number, but City staff would control the issuance of task orders, ultimately directing the services that could be billed by consultants. He highlighted other internal controls, noting that regular reporting to Council would include updates on projects status and budget. Councilor Manz initiated discussion about Staff's plans for managing these projects, given the number of other major projects underway or contemplated. Mr. Komarek, emphasizing Staff's focus on meeting the pavement preservation objectives set by Council, acknowledged that coordination would be very challenging; adherence to the "dig-once" philosophy was a significant factor. It was important to move quickly to get projects underway for summer 2018. Councilor Buck asked about coordination with the Boones Ferry Road Project. Ms. Rooney noted that in order to meet the aggressive schedule that would enable the City to achieve its Pavement Condition Index (PCI) goals, there would be impacts on the community and, inevitably, inconvenience. She discussed the complexity of planning pavement projects for the next five years and indicated that Staff might turn to the Council for guidance in planning for an area like Boones Ferry Road. She emphasized the importance of the Murraysmith project management team in keeping all of the coordination on track. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 8 October 17, 2017 Mr. Komarek responded to Councilor Buck's questions about initial activities of the consulting team and related expense. A top priority would be tasking the team with development of an overall program management plan; this would be the guiding document for the pavement preservation program. The next priority would be analysis of all of the streets targeted for treatment, with vetting considerations including coordination with other projects, community impacts, and opportunities to impact PCI quickly. He reiterated Staff's ability to direct the assignment and expense of personnel as specific expertise is needed. Councilor LaMotte asked about the number of projects addressed by the contract. Mr. Komarek described the four major projects and other components of the pavement preservation program (Council Report, Attachment 1, Exhibit A — Scope of Work). Observing that he shared some of the concerns about the 25% expressed by Council colleagues, Councilor LaMotte requested clarification of roles of consultants and Staff. Mr. Lazenby noted that Murraysmith should be regarded as an extension of the City's engineering staff. Ms. Rooney described the two major functions served by the Murraysmith teams: (1) the program management aspect that involves planning for the future, notably the analysis they will perform using the City's StreetSaver pavement management model; and (2)the design and other services related to specific projects. Through a designated Murraysmith team member, all would report to Mr. Komarek. With regard to concerns about the cost, she added, more staff "up front" was necessary to delivering on a compressed timeline. In the final analysis, however, the percentage of total project cost would be 25%, the same as if the City was doing the projects sequentially. Councilor Gudman reminded his colleagues of the Council's determination that (1) they did not want to add staff and (2)they wanted to improve the City's roads to achieve designated standards. He found the 25% to be consistent with the City's internal costs and expressed confidence in Staff's process for finding this provider. Council should move forward with the contract, he indicated. Councilor Manz asked about possibilities for a two-phase approach. This would provide Council with an update after the analytical process was completed and prior to the start of design work, perhaps increasing the City's control of costs and other factors. Mayor Studebaker suggested that periodic updates from Staff would allow Council members to help with decision making. Ms. Rooney emphasized that this approach to program management does not provide any services that existing City staff has not been performing; the cost seems higher, she noted, because more people are being deployed for the work. Councilor Kohlhoff indicated that she did not find the contract amount to be a concern. She observed that higher cost was inherent with availability of workers on demand and with independent contractors in general. Mr. Komarek indicated that, in the absence of better information, he concurred that the $5.2 million would likely be the amount the City would pay for the services if they could be performed in house. In response to Councilor Kohlhoff's inquiry about insurance coverage, Mr. Boone advised that Murraysmith had $2 million professional liability insurance, as well as general liability and other coverage (Council Report, Attachment 1, p 5). Regarding the not-to-exceed amount, Mr. Komarek clarified that this did not authorize Murraysmith to spend $5.2 million; rather, it established a budget under which the City would be authorizing specific scopes of work through individual task orders over the four-year period. This was the recommended approach, he indicated, because it was not possible to know the scope of City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 8 October 17, 2017 the construction work several years in advance. Mr. Lazenby advised Council of being able to monitor costs on the City's [website] financial dashboard and providing feedback to staff. Mayor Studebaker moved to award a personal services contract to Murraysmith to provide program management, design, and construction management services for the Fiscal Year 2018 to Fiscal Year 2021 Pavement Management Program for a not-to-exceed amount of $5,200,000. Councilor Gudman seconded the motion. A voice vote was held, and the motion passed, with Mayor Studebaker and Councilors Manz, Gudman, LaMotte, Kohlhoff, Buck, and O'Neill voting `aye'. (7-0) 11. STUDY SESSIONS 11.1 Economical Housing Solutions Report and Attachment Ms. Selden provided background and status of Staff's research efforts in support of the 2017 Council Goal to explore economical housing solutions. The purpose of this study session, she noted, was to refine the strategies that are under consideration and to provide direction to Staff to guide next steps. Four areas of interest had been identified in the earlier study session, as detailed in the Council Report: (1) the concept of setting goals or targets; (2) exploring opportunities related to Secondary Dwelling Units (SDUs); (3) consideration of financial incentives, such as a construction excise tax (CET), that might be developed to help private and nonprofit developers to close the funding gap for developing and operating lower-cost housing; and (4) determining Council's wishes with regard to seeking out opportunities for affordable housing to be integrated into development projects, perhaps to include identifying opportunity sites. Drawing Council members' attention to Attachment 1 of the Council Report, Ms. Selden highlighted key statistics that helped to clarify needs for affordable housing in Lake Oswego. She addressed a variety of questions about the data and asked Council members to consider the value of setting targets. Extended discussion followed, with Councilor O'Neill and others indicating interest in establishing quantifiable goals in terms of number of affordable units needed. Mr. Siegel suggested that Council first consider their objectives, e.g., addressing need for senior vs. workforce housing; after that, analysis of the supply and need could be done, potentially followed by setting of targets. In further discussion, Council members expressed interest in demographic and other information to help identify needs for workforce housing; Staff indicated that additional data could be provided at a later session. Council members exchanged views on the benefits and challenges related to the four points raised in the Council Report. Councilor Gudman suggested that a two-year trial period be implemented in which System Development Charges (SDCs) would be forgiven for SDUs; a defined test period could also be undertaken to seek out opportunities for private or nonprofit housing development. Councilor Buck indicated that incentivizing construction of ADUs was positive but would not make a significant impact on the number of affordable units in the city; Council should give higher priority to finding ways to finance larger multi-family projects. Councilor Kohlhoff described benefits of first targeting the workforce housing, perhaps for the next five years. She expressed support for reduced SDCs as City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 8 October 17, 2017 proposed in the Council Report (p 3, Option B) and advocated immediate implementation of a 1% CET. Councilor LaMotte indicated that a goal should be set in relation to progress toward achieving the 1,600-plus units that would need to be added over the next 20 years, addressing residents at or below the 80% level of median family income. Council could set a number that seemed achievable and then employ various initiatives to reach the goal over time. The limited amount of land in Lake Oswego should be kept in mind, he cautioned. Councilor Manz expressed support for SDC reductions as suggested in Option B (Council Report, p 3), rather than full waivers. She was not willing to commit to implementing a CET, but looked favorably on the opportunity to seek sites for private or nonprofit housing development. In response to Mr. Lazenby's request, Mayor Studebaker polled the Council on their willingness to consider a CET of 1% or a lesser amount; three Council members indicated they would do so. All Council members showed willingness to consider SDC-related incentives for development of economical housing. Following Councilor Gudman's request and additional discussion, Mayor Studebaker asked how many Council members would favor an experimental period of five years with a sunset provision, if such incentives were implemented; all Council members indicated they support this. Councilor LaMotte discussed several issues that had been raised as obstacles to advancing the development of SDUs. These would need to be addressed as part of the SDU item, he noted. In further discussion of SDU opportunities and challenges, Council members made additional requests for information from Staff. Mr. Siegel advised that Staff would follow up at a future study session with current standards for SDUs, as well as related financial information. They would present the information such that Council could consider the need for code changes and opportunities for incentives. A possible metric or means of evaluating the program at certain intervals could also be provided. 11.2 Future Study Session Topics Report Mayor Studebaker called on Council members to consider topics for future study sessions. In gauging Council interest in revisiting the need for tiered water rates, he determined that there was insufficient support for a discussion. He polled the Council to determine the level of interest in studying the issues identified in the Council Report: (1) Short-term Rentals: Councilors LaMotte, Manz, and Gudman favored a review of this topic; Councilors Kohlhoff, Buck, O'Neill, and Mayor Studebaker opposed further discussion. It was determined that this topic would not be revisited in a study session. (2) Housing Redevelopment and Trees: Councilors Kohlhoff, LaMotte, Gudman, and Manz supported this as a study session topic. Councilors Buck and O'Neill and Mayor Studebaker did not endorse discussion of this topic. It was determined that Council would be considering this in a future study session. (3) Community Recreational Swimming Pool: Councilors LaMotte, Manz, Kohlhoff, Buck, and O'Neill favored this as a study session topic. Councilor Gudman and Mayor Studebaker did not support further discussion of the topic. It was determined that Council would be considering this in a future study session. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 8 October 17, 2017 12. INFORMATION FROM COUNCIL Councilor Manz reported that the recent opening event of the Lake Oswego-Tigard Water Partnership was a positive experience. She described the successful Meals on Wheels drive underway at New Seasons; other sponsors, including Gubanc's and Babica Hen, were commended, as well. She reported on her attendance at other successful events: the Lake Oswego Sustainability Network green building presentation and the "Respond to Racism" event. Finally, she expressed appreciation to City staff members Sidaro Sin and Megan Phelan for their effective response to a sensitive parking situation in the construction area on First Street. Councilor Gudman discussed services of the Hunger Fighters Food Pantry, noting that it was open on Saturdays from 1:00 to 3:00 at Lakeridge Junior High School. He followed up on Council's recent approval of recommended changes to the Clackamas County Coordinating Committee (C4) bylaws; the recommended revisions had subsequently been approved by C4. He drew Council members' attention to information about a TriMet bond measure now under consideration. This would help to pay for the Southwest Corridor project, and might come before voters in 2018. He commented on the good planning evident in the beauty of trees on Kruse Way for drivers entering Lake Oswego from the west. Councilor Kohlhoff related her positive experiences on the October 7 Clackamas Watershed Tour. She announced an upcoming session on affordable housing to be presented by Clackamas County on October 25. Finally, she indicated that she would be attending the Northwest Public Employees conference on October 24, which would address diversity and inclusion in the public employee arena. 13. REPORTS OF OFFICERS No reports were made. 14. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Studebaker adjourned the meeting at 6:21 p.m. Respectfully submitted, APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: Anne-Marie Simpson, City Recorder ON Kent Studebaker, Mayor City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 8 October 17, 2017 ATTACHMENT 2 O�`A E � a„ �� CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING H MINUTES V 1� O November 7, 2017 OREGON 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Studebaker called the regular City Council meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. on November 7, 2017, in the City Council Chambers, 380 A Avenue. 2. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Studebaker and Councilors Manz, Gudman, LaMotte, Kohlhoff, and Buck Excused: Councilor O'Neill Staff Present: Scott Lazenby, City Manager; David Powell, City Attorney; Anne-Marie Simpson, City Recorder; Bonnie Hirshberger, Citizen Information Specialist; Erica Rooney, City Engineer; Rob Amsberry, Engineering Technician; Katy Kerklaan, Citizen Information Specialist; Paul Espe, Associate Planner Others Present: Carlotta Collette, Metro Councilor; Nick McMurtrey, Murraysmith; Matthew Keenen, SunCal; Brian Cullen, PERC Water 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Studebaker led the Council in the Pledge of Allegiance. 4. PRESENTATIONS 4.1 2017 Photo Contest Winners Mayor Studebaker called for winners of the City's 2017 Photo Contest to come forward and discuss their entries as the images were displayed. Accepting their awards in person were: Shelley Markstaller, Pam Helling, Megan Lovelace, Sandy Nolan, Sarah DeMerritt, Krystle Perkins, David Murray, Emma Boden, Grace Kriwanek, and Janis Reid. Winners not present were: Bill Eklund, Erik Graham, Connie Frank, Scott Ginn, and Aaron Rotkowski. 4.2 Metro Councilor Carlotta Collette City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 11 November 7, 2017 With accompanying slides, Councilor Collette first updated the City Council on three major activities of the Metro Council: (1) Regional Transportation Plan. She emphasized the importance of staying informed on the Transportation Plan update process, noting that Lake Oswego's transportation projects will not be funded through regional dollars unless they are part of this Plan. (2) Growth Management. She highlighted the evolution of urban growth boundary (UGB) management in the region over the last 10 years and noted the key role of cities. Effective UGB management is a significant Metro responsibility and is a major focus this year, to be taken up by the Metro Policy Advisory Committee (MPAC). (3) Solid Waste System Management Plan. Another major Metro responsibility, this is an area facing significant changes that must be addressed through the System planning process now underway. Decisions will include determining the best destination(s)for the region's garbage and for ways to minimize the amount of waste going into landfills. The updated System plan will be wrapped up in fall 2018, she reported, with the related contracts completed in 2019. Updates were also presented on (1) Zoo bond: The remaining projects funded by the 2008 bond are being coordinated, encompassing the new"Polar Passage"and improvements to primate and rhino habitats; all will be underway in the next 18 months. (2) Oregon Convention Center hotel: After being deferred for many years, this is now an active Metro project and is well underway. Larger conventions are already being scheduled in anticipation of the hotel completion. Finally, Councilor Collette thanked the City Council members for their leadership in serving both the local community and the entire region. In approaching the end of her service on the Metro Council, she acknowledged that her role as the city's representative was a privilege and an honor. Responding to Mayor Studebaker's inquiries, she clarified that the Oregon Convention Center hotel was expected to be completed by mid-2019. As suggested by Councilor LaMotte, she confirmed that the loss of the plastics recycling market in China was a great concern to Metro. To help address the need for innovative waste projects, Metro is currently developing a grants program, she reported. In concluding discussion, Council members expressed their gratitude to Councilor Collette for her service and recognized her for a variety of achievements. 5. CONSENT AGENDA 5.1 Approval of Meeting Minutes 5.1.1 September 19, 2017, Regular Meeting Motion: Move to approve minutes as written. Report and Attachment 5.2 Resolution 17-30, A Resolution of the Lake Oswego City Council Authorizing an Intergovernmental Agreement with the Lake Grove Fire District Providing for the Continuation of Fire and Emergency Medical Services for Fiscal Years 2017-2018 Through 2021-2022 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 11 November 7, 2017 Motion: Move to adopt Resolution 17-30. Report and Attachment 5.3 Adjustments to Terms of Boones Ferry Road Annexation Agreement Motion: Move to authorize adjustment of the terms of the annexation agreement for 16524, 16552 and 16556 Boones Ferry Road (previously authorized on September 5, 2017) substantially in the form presented. Report and Attachment END CONSENT AGENDA Councilor LaMotte moved to approve the Consent Agenda. Councilor Manz seconded the motion. A voice vote was held, and the motion passed, with Mayor Studebaker and Councilors Manz, Gudman, LaMotte, Kohlhoff, and Buck voting `aye'. (6-0) 6. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA No items were removed from the Consent Agenda. 7. CITIZEN COMMENT • David Elton, 18552 Edgewood Court Mr. Elton reiterated the observations of Council members about Councilor Collette, highlighting her integrity in office. He announced that Beth Oliphant Hoover had received a citizen volunteer award from the Elton Family Charitable Trust. He updated the Council on Tom Smythe, longtime football coach at Lakeridge High School, and noted that a 77th birthday party would be held for him on December 13. Finally, he inquired as to how a private citizen could fund the repair of public sidewalks or pathways, such as dangerous portions of Boones Ferry Road. Mayor Studebaker indicated that the City would follow up with him to provide information. • Darryl Boom, PO Box 328, Lake Oswego Mr. Boom requested that his time allowance be given to Carole Ockert, as needed. • Carole Ockert, 910 Cumberland Road Ms. Ockert noted that she serves as chair of the First Addition Neighbors and Forest Hills Neighborhood Association (FAN/Forest Hills) and wished to convey neighborhood concerns about the D Avenue Improvement Project and a need for greater City/neighborhood collaboration. Displaying a map of the neighborhood, Ms. Ockert discussed the importance of the historic First City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 11 November 7, 2017 Addition grid of straight streets and alleys as opposed to the meandering roadway shown in the current design. Staff's characterization of the level of neighborhood opposition to this design feature was understated, she indicated; further, the claim of traffic-calming benefits had not been confirmed with a study nor had impacts of traffic shifts from D Avenue been considered. The 2012 and 2015 neighborhood surveys had cited the preservation of First Addition's character as the top issue for neighbors. With the design as proposed, the FAN/Forest Hills tree committee had raised related concerns about potential loss of 40 trees on D Avenue alone. Lake Oswego's three formalized groups focused on historic preservation had not been contacted about the proposed re-design of D Avenue; members of all three organizations had expressed concerns to her. Cost was an additional serious concern: The increase to a $5.4 million project from the $802,000 in the 2016 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) did not reflect the project that the neighborhood was expecting. As presented, the project was not ready to proceed at this time. She asked Council to consider the concerns of the FAN/Forest Hills board. Indicating that he was also a First Addition resident, Mr. Boom added specific concerns about the project costs. As compared to the $2 to $3 million estimated in September 2016, the current total indicated to him that the project had grown out of control. He also expressed concern about plans to re-allocate funds for city-wide re-surfacing to this project. • Charles Ormsby, 170 SW Birdshill Road, Portland 97219 Mr. Ormsby inquired about the status of the proposed July 4, 2018, fireworks on the Willamette River. He objected to the idea of fireworks on the river because of difficulties that would be presented for first responders in the event of an emergency. He advised the Council to follow up with ODOT and TriMet about the insufficient vehicle turning radius in the State Street/B Avenue intersection adjacent to the North Anchor Project. He also requested an evaluation of TriMet bus stops in Lake Oswego, as well as the date of the next Willamette Shore Line Consortium meeting and related right-of-way and other documents. He listed and described the need for additional documents: material related to the Special Transportation Area on Highway 43 in Lake Oswego and review of the Terwilliger Boulevard sewer project. He indicated support for Ms. Ockert's earlier presentation. Finally, in relation to the Tryon Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant item on the agenda, he requested access to the safety corridor evaluation mentioned in the two Foothills District plans. 7.1 Prior Citizen Comment Follow-Up No follow-up on prior Citizen Comment was presented. 8. COUNCIL BUSINESS 8.1 Resolution 17-58, A Resolution of the City of Lake Oswego, Oregon, Authorizing the Issuance, Sale, Execution and Delivery of Full Faith and Credit Refunding Bonds, in One or More Series, to Refund All or a Portion of Certain Outstanding Debt of the City; Authorizing a Pledge of the Full Faith and Credit of the City to Secure the Full Faith and Credit Refunding Bonds; Authorizing the Execution and Delivery of Financing, Legal and Disclosure Documents that Establish the Terms for the Execution, Sale and Delivery of the Full Faith and Credit Refunding Bonds; City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 11 November 7, 2017 Designating Authorized Representatives and Delegating Responsibilities; and Related Matters. Resolution 17-61, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego Adjusting the Budget for the Fiscal Year Commencing July 1, 2017 Approving Resources/Requirements, and Making Appropriations Report and Attachments Mr. Lazenby announced that this item would be postponed, likely to the next Council meeting, to allow the City's Finance Director to make any necessary changes to the resolutions. This was to ensure that the refinancing would not be affected by potential tax changes at the national level. 8.2 D Avenue Improvement Project Update (WO 233) Report and Attachment Ms. Rooney introduced the D Avenue Project team members and outlined their roles on the project: Mr. Amsberry, serving as project manager; Ms. Kerklaan, the assigned Citizen Information Specialist; and Mr. McMurtrey, the project engineer. The team would provide the Council with an overview of the project status, as promised earlier, and also would respond to any questions from Council members. Mr. Amsberry noted that various tasks had been completed, as shown in the Council Report, enabling the project to reach the 60% design milestone. With accompanying slides, he reviewed the primary project goals: (1) Addressing localized flooding. This will involve addition of new pipe, replacement of deteriorated pipe, and other measures that will allow for future expansion of stormwater facilities. (2) Stormwater treatment. In order to meet regulatory requirements and other related objectives, the project will include streetside stormwater treatment facilities and infiltration systems. (3) Pedestrian improvements. Project work will address the current sidewalk between State and 5th Streets, which is not compliant with Americans with Disabilities Act requirements. Additional sidewalk installations will be made from 5th to 10th Street, making the Forest Hills Elementary School-to-Public Library and other connections. (4) New road pavement. The structural base of the road will be rebuilt and then repaved. Mr. Amsberry discussed details of project elements and locations as displayed on a graphic of the area. Ms. Kerklaan noted that the project would be moving into the 90% stage of design in the next month. As outlined in the Council Report (p 2-3), a comprehensive public outreach effort and great public participation had been part of the project. She reviewed key elements of the team's outreach, including walking tours and questionnaires that were sent to D Avenue property owners; a well-attended open house in the spring, where early design concepts were presented and feedback was requested on two potential road alignments; individual meetings with D Avenue property owners and with the City's Library Director over the summer; and a second open house in October to share the 60% design plans and collect additional feedback to guide further design refinements. Based on information from neighbors about their own properties and the overall neighborhood, team members had developed a block-by-block assessment of all properties along D Avenue. Overall, she reported, there is strong support for the project. The need to address stormwater, pedestrian access, and D Avenue pavement issues has been widely recognized; City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 11 November 7, 2017 neighbors are particularly excited about the new sidewalk. Many have indicated their support for the landscaping and for the stormwater treatment facilities, as presented. Some neighbors have expressed concern about the proposed tree removals and replacements, and support for efforts to limit tree removal. Ms. Kerklaan discussed Staff's commitment to preserving as many trees as possible, as discussed in the Council Report (p 3). Conflicting views have been expressed by neighbors with regard to lighting, and Staff is exploring options, with an eye to ensuring compliance with dark sky policies. Finally, she described concerns about speeding traffic expressed by many neighbors from the outset of the process. The desire to slow traffic through the design had led to the proposed concept of the meandering road; the design also offered a means of balancing many project components with neighbors' needs. From its initial presentation at the spring open house through the recent open house, the majority of participants and neighbors have expressed a preference for the meander, she reported. However, there are still several neighbors who feel the straight roadway is more consistent with the First Addition development pattern. Mayor Studebaker inquired about the extent of public participation, and Ms. Kerklaan provided approximate numbers: 30 neighbors, of the 56 properties on D Avenue that were targeted, attended the walking tours; more than 75 people attended the spring open house; about 55 participated in the October open house. Additionally, she reported on written input in various forms, noting that the project website provides summary information. Brief discussion followed, with Staff confirming their assessment of the majority preference for the meander design. Councilor LaMotte shared his perceptions of the outreach, which he regarded as very extensive public process that provided an opportunity for people to learn and to be heard. Mr. Amsberry discussed a slide that demonstrated advantages of the meander design in terms of accommodating competing project needs: stormwater facilities, tree removal/preservation and tree health; parking needs; and sidewalk buffers to improve safety of pedestrians. Recognizing that many residents had long-established landscaping and other improvements in the public right of way, Staff wished to work around those; the meander design provided the ability to do so, he noted. Next Mr. Amsberry addressed questions from Councilor LaMotte about the more global approach to neighborhood stormwater issues; and from Councilor Buck about the proposed sidewalk buffers and parking. At Councilor Gudman's request, he clarified comparative costs of the straight versus meander road designs, which the engineers had confirmed were essentially the same. In concluding, Mr. Amsberry updated Council on the schedule, which called for delivery of the 90% design by the consultants in late November. Requests for construction bids would go out in early January 2018 and contract award was scheduled for February, he indicated. Construction was planned for spring through fall of 2018, possibly extending into spring 2019 for landscaping/final paving. Ms. Rooney reviewed the project cost estimate, now at $5.3 million. She discussed factors that accounted for the increase over the amount shown in the CIP a couple of years earlier, including the addition of water work and significant overall increases in construction cost. She noted that there was little opportunity for optional reductions because the project work was largely basic elements, such as road replacement, stormwater facilities, and underground improvements. In that the project will serve 112 properties, she regards it as worthwhile. In summary, 51% of the City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 11 November 7, 2017 project costs are associated with street, pedestrian, and typical Street Fund-related improvements; 41% is associated with stormwater improvements; and 8% relates to water. Finally, she drew Council's attention to potential concerns about availability of CIP funds for stormwater, as discussed in the Council Report (p 5). Councilor Kohlhoff expressed appreciation for the clear and comprehensive information provided in relation to trees as a component of the project. She expressed support for the use of native trees in replacement of necessary removals and commended the beauty of the rain gardens. Overall, her concerns about the project had been addressed effectively, and she encouraged those who had remaining concerns to continue to ask questions. Mr. Amsberry and Mr. McMurtrey responded to Councilor Buck's questions about plans for a crosswalk at the 5th Street/D Avenue intersection. It was noted that this element had not yet been finalized. Councilor Buck initiated discussion about maintenance requirements for the stormwater facilities. Mr. Amsberry indicated that this would be the responsibility of the City's Public Works staff; and facility-specific maintenance plans would be developed. Ms. Rooney noted that these stormwater facilities are the wave of the future, and that the City would need to recognize them as a growing element of the ongoing maintenance program. Councilor Buck indicated that it would be good to identify related maintenance costs as similar installations are considered elsewhere in the city. In response to questions about lighting as a project component, Mr. Amsberry described related challenges and options under consideration. As requested by Councilor LaMotte, Mr. Amsberry clarified details of the parking/pathway configuration at the Library. The team's efforts to enhance pathway lighting had been guided by neighbors' complaints about safety and other concerns along D Avenue. Finally, he confirmed that size and other specifications for parking and stormwater facilities were developed to better delineate these features and improve traffic flow. 8.3 Ordinance 2753, An Ordinance of the City of Lake Oswego Amending Sections 50.04.002, 50.05.007, and 50.07.003.13 of the Community Development Code for the Purpose of Implementing the Boones Ferry Road Project (LU 17-0028). Report and Attachment Mr. Powell reviewed the background and tentative decision of the City Council on October 3 to approve these code amendments relative to the Boones Ferry Road Project, with four modifications as outlined in the Council Report (p 2). As Council had directed at the public hearing, Staff was now presenting Ordinance 2753 adopting Council's tentative decision approving the Planning Commission's recommendation, with the four modifications, which he detailed. Staff's recommendation was to enact Ordinance 2753. Mayor Studebaker moved to enact Ordinance 2753 finalizing the City Council's tentative decision in LU 17-0028 and adopting findings. Councilor Gudman seconded the motion. Councilor Buck recused himself from voting on the final decision because of a conflict of interest relating to his and his family's ownership of a business in the Boones Ferry Road Project area that could be impacted. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 11 November 7, 2017 Councilor Manz asked about the need for a text revision to clarify the Tree Removal: 276" reference for the Jenike property(Attachment C to the Ordinance, p 12 of 16). In brief discussion, Mr. Powell suggested that the legislative history on the matter, including the change to the legend specifying that "Tree Removal May Be Necessary", would make it clear that the intent was not to mandate removal of trees here and elsewhere in the Project area. Councilor Manz indicated that she was satisfied with the text as it stood. A voice vote was held, and the motion passed. with Mayor Studebaker and Councilors Manz, Gudman, LaMotte, and Kohlhoff voting `aye'. Councilor Buck was recused. (5-0) 8.4 Tryon Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant Design Alternative Report and Attachment Mr. Lazenby noted that the Tryon Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant is owned by the City of Portland, although both Portland and Lake Oswego use it for wastewater treatment. He discussed the status of an upgrade being planned by Portland's Bureau of Environmental Services (BES) that would essentially maintain the same location, footprint and technology for this aging facility. As outlined in the Council Report, the two cities had been approached by Mr. Keenen on behalf of SunCal. The SunCal organization envisioned a new plant design that was fully enclosed, offering a much smaller footprint and various related benefits; for Lake Oswego, this could include freeing up land for development in the Foothills area. Mr. Lazenby noted that both cities would require assurances that (1) the alternative plant design was functionally feasible and (2) the economic effect on their ratepayers would be neutral. Currently being prepared was a Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Lake Oswego and the Portland BES, allowing 90 days for SunCal to prepare engineering and financial analyses of feasibility. A separate agreement with SunCal had been proposed for performing the feasibility analysis, which would include significant engineering analysis by PERC Water. Costs of analysis would be split equally between the City and SunCal, with provision for reimbursement to the City as described in the Council Report (p 2). The investment in the feasibility study was worthwhile, he indicated, as it could potentially present an excellent opportunity for the City. Council was asked to authorize Mr. Lazenby to sign the two agreements. In response to a question from Mayor Studebaker, Mr. Lazenby observed that the primary interest of the BES was being able to treat the sewage generated by their residents affordably, while being a good neighbor. However, they have expressed openness to exploring other possible models, including a public/private partnership. Following introductions by Mr. Lazenby, Mr. Keenen discussed the SunCal organization and its focus on large-scale master planning and building infrastructure projects nationwide. They look forward to determining whether or not the alternative plant design is feasible. Mr. Cullen, president of PERC Water, described the great opportunity to redevelop the plant, bringing with it improved water quality and state-of-the-art technologies. Acknowledging the risks to both the City and to the companies, he regarded it as risk that is worth pursuing. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 11 November 7, 2017 Councilor Gudman highlighted benefits of the smaller footprint and the enclosed facility offered by the alternative design. A compelling consideration, on the other hand, was the very favorable terms for the City under the current intergovernmental agreement. While reluctant to jeopardize that, he indicated that he would support moving forward with the proposed analysis. At Councilor LaMotte's request, Mr. Lazenby clarified land ownership and economic aspects of the alternative design and development potential for the area. Councilor LaMotte asked about the intent to explore development opportunity beyond the new plant and adjacent additional land that might become available. Mr. Keenen confirmed that SunCal recognized the potential for additional development in the Foothills area and would work with private property owners to develop a master plan for that area, utilizing the existing Framework Plan. Councilor LaMotte expressed support for this approach. Mayor Studebaker moved to authorize the City Manager to sign a Memorandum of Understanding with the Portland Bureau of Environmental Services and a feasibility analysis agreement with SunCal LLC for Tryon Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant design alternatives. Councilor Manz seconded the motion. A voice vote was held, and the motion passed, with Mayor Studebaker and Councilors Manz, Gudman, LaMotte, Kohlhoff, and Buck voting `aye'. (6-0) 9. PUBLIC HEARING 9.1 Ordinance 2759, An Ordinance of the Lake Oswego City Council Amending the Zoning and Comprehensive Plan Maps for 2311 Iron Mountain Blvd. (21E09BB02900) and the Adjacent Public Right-of-Way; Rezoning the Subject Parcel from R-15 to PNA, and Adopting Findings (LU 17-0050). Report and Exhibits Mr. Powell read the Ordinance title. He noted that since it pertained to a single-property zone change, this would be conducted as a quasi-judicial hearing. Next he reviewed parameters for this land use request and outlined the hearing process as shown in the agenda. He asked if any City Council members wished to make any declarations with relation to ex parte contacts, bias or conflicts of interest; no declarations were heard. Finally, he asked if any member of the audience wished to challenge a City Council member's right to hear the application; no challenges were heard. Mr. Espe noted that this map amendment was a part of the City's ongoing map amendment process, as identified through the 2015 code audit. Displaying a slide showing the change of zoning and Comprehensive Plan map designation for the parcel (Council Report, p 1), he stated that it should have designations consistent with the surrounding uses as a park, hence the change from R-15 to PNA. In concluding, he cited references in the Council Report supporting Staff's recommendation to approve LU 17-0050 and to enact the Ordinance. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 11 November 7, 2017 Mayor Studebaker asked if anyone wished to testify in opposition to or in favor of enactment of the Ordinance or if anyone wished to present neutral testimony. No requests being heard, he closed the hearing. Councilor Manz moved to enact Ordinance 2759, approving LU 17-0050 and adopting Findings and Conclusions. Councilor Gudman seconded the motion. A voice vote was held, and the motion passed, with Mayor Studebaker and Councilors Manz, Gudman, LaMotte, Kohlhoff, and Buck voting `aye'. (6-0) 10. INFORMATION FROM COUNCIL Councilor LaMotte reported on Council members' attendance at the November 6 dedication of the new Brian Doyle Garden at the Lake Oswego Public Library. City staff was commended for the beautiful space and for an inspiring event. Councilor Manz reported that Meals on Wheels had achieved a record fundraising amount of $9,629 recently. In addition to the Brian Doyle celebration, she had recently attended a Metro workshop on racism and also the Basic Rights Oregon fund raiser. She provided details about a "Respond to Racism" event scheduled for November 13 in Lake Oswego. Councilor Gudman announced that he had distributed material to Council members from a recent MPAC meeting. He drew Council's attention to housing development information related to Wilsonville: (1)Since removing all system development charges (SDCs)for accessory dwelling units (ADUs) in 2010, Wilsonville had received a total of six applications for ADUs. (2) A special assessment added to all development in the Frog Pond area had resulted in Wilsonville ranking highest in SDCs in the region. Additionally, he noted that, although total property tax bills in Lake Oswego had increased, the actual tax rate had decreased about 10% over the past 13 years. This was owing to the City's progress in paying off its General Obligation bonds, a trend that will continue. 11. REPORTS OF OFFICERS No reports were made. 12. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Studebaker adjourned the meeting at 8:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Anne-Marie Simpson, City Recorder City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 11 November 7, 2017 APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: ON Kent Studebaker, Mayor City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 11 November 7, 2017 7.2 eiCOUNCIL REPORT ,rdcc) TO: Kent Studebaker, Mayor Members of the City Council FROM: David Powell, City Attorney SUBJECT: Findings, Conclusions and Order (LU 17-0024) Zoning Map Amendments— 1770 Ridgecrest Drive DATE: December 12, 2017 MEETING DATE: December 19, 2017 SUGGESTED MOTION Move to adopt the Findings, Conclusions and Order denying the requested Zoning Map amendment for 1770 Ridgecrest Drive and directing staff to revise the application. DISCUSSION On December 5, 2017, the City Council conducted a public hearing on the Planning Commission's recommendation to amend the Zoning Map Designation for the front portion of 1770 Ridgecrest Drive from R-10 to R-15 to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Map, which designates the entire property as R-15. The Zoning Map currently designates the back portion of that property as R-15. At the hearing, the property owner's representatives opposed the map amendment, pointing out that the property is more similar to the R-10 parcels to the west than it is to the larger R-15 parcels to the east. They were also concerned that the proposed amendment would result in a loss of development potential. The City Council tentatively decided to deny the requested Zoning Map Amendment, and to direct staff to return to the Planning Commission with a revised application to amend the Comprehensive Plan Map to designate the entire property at 1770 Ridgecrest Drive as R-10, to amend the Zoning Map designation for the back portion of that property from R-15 to R-10, and to extend the Uplands R-10 Overlay District over the entire property. The attached Findings, Conclusions and Order finalize the City Council's tentative decision. 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeosweao.citv Page 2 RECOMMENDATION Adopt the Findings, Conclusions and Order in LU 17-0024 denying the requested Zoning Map change for 1770 Ridgecrest Drive, and directing staff to revise the application. ATTACHMENT • Findings, Conclusions and Order LU 17-0024 (relating to 1770 Ridgecrest Drive) 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city ATTACHMENT 1 BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL 2 OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 3 A REQUEST FOR AMENDMENTS TO THE LU 17-0024 ZONING MAP TO CORRECT AN ERROR AND (RELATING TO 1770 RIDGECREST DRIVE) 4 MAKE THE ZONING MAP CONSISTENT WITH CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP. 5 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & ORDER 6 NATURE OF APPLICATION 7 Amendment to the Zoning map designation for the front portion of 1770 Ridgecrest 8 Drive (LU 17-0024, Ordinance 2757) from R-10 to R-15 to make the Zoning Map consistent with 9 the Comprehensive Plan Map. 10 11 NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS 12 This matter came before the Lake Oswego City Council on the recommendation of the 13 Planning Commission for a quasi-judicial amendment to the Zoning Map to correct a conflict 14 between the Zoning Map and Comprehensive Plan map. 15 HEARINGS 16 The Planning Commission held a public hearing and considered this application at its 17 meeting on September 25, 2017, October 23, 2017 and November 13, 2017, where the 18 Commission adopted its Findings, Conclusions and Order recommending approval of LU 17- 19 0024. 20 The City Council held a public hearing and considered the Planning Commission's 21 recommendation on December 5, 2017. 22 CRITERIA AND STANDARDS 23 A. City of Lake Oswego Community Development Code-Procedure (LOC Chapter 50) 24 LOC 50.07.003.1.b Burden of Proof LOC 50.07.003.7 Appeals 25 LOC 50.07.003.15 Major Development (excluding subsection d.ii) 26 LOC 50.07.003.5 Conditions of Approval LOC 50.07.003.3 Notice of Public Hearing LOC 50.07.003.4 Hearings before a Hearings Body Page 1 of 4— FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & ORDER (LU 17-0024— RELATING TO 1770 RIDGECREST DRIVE) 1 LOC 50.07.003.16.a Legislative Decision Defined (Quasi-judicial Comp. Plan and Zone Map Amendments to be processed via Major Developments Procedures) 2 LOC 50.07.003.16.c Required Notice to DLCD LOC 50.07.003.16.d Planning Commission Recommendation Required 3 LOC 50.07.003.16.e City Council Review and Decision 4 B. City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan Policies 5 Land Use planning 6 Policies D-1 and D-5 Land Use Administration Policy E-2(a)(b)(i)(ii A-G) Comprehensive Plan Amendments 7 Community Culture (Civic Engagement) 8 Policy 1, 2, 4 and 5 Citizen Involvement g Complete Neighborhoods and Housing Goals 1-5 10 Policy A-1c Housing Location and Quality 11 Policy A-2 Density 12 Connected Community Policy C-6 Efficiency 13 C. Metro Urban Growth Management Function Plan 14 Title 1: Housing [MC 3.07.12.E 15 Title 5: Regional Transportation Functional Plan [3.08.510.A] 16 E. Transportation Planning Rule (Chapter 660, Division 12) 17 OAR 660-12-060(1) 18 FINDINGS AND REASONS 19 The City Council received testimony from representatives of the owner of 1770 20 Ridgecrest Drive objecting to the proposed Zoning Map amendment to change the designation 21 of the front portion of the property from R-10 to R-15. It was argued that the back portion 22 should instead be re-zoned to R-10 because the size and configuration of the property is more 23 similar to the R-10 parcels to the west as opposed to the R-15 parcels to the east, and because 24 of concerns about loss of development potential. 25 The Council recognizes the importance of making the Zoning Map consistent with the 26 Comprehensive Plan Map, but also notes the similarities between the subject parcel and the R- 10 properties to the west, coupled with a lack of evidence in the record of any rationale as to Page 2 of 4— FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & ORDER (LU 17-0024— RELATING TO 1770 RIDGECREST DRIVE) 1 why the Comprehensive Plan should have a dissimilar designation for 1770 Ridgecrest. An 2 amendment of the Comprehensive Plan Map designation for the entire property to R-10 should 3 be considered, together with a corresponding Zoning Map amendment for the back portion. 4 This would also require amending the Zoning Map to extend the Uplands R-10 Overlay District 5 over the entire property. Since those potential changes are outside the scope of the proposal 6 for LU 17-0024 as described in the previously-issued public notices, it will be necessary to revise 7 the application and provide new notices of proceedings before the Planning Commission. 8 CONCLUSION 9 The City Council concludes that, for the reasons stated in these findings, the request to 10 change the zone designation for the front portion of 1770 Ridgecrest from R-10 to R-15 should 11 be denied. Draft Ordinance 2757, implementing that request, should not be enacted. 12 ORDER 13 The request in LU 17-0024 to change the zone designation for the front portion of 1770 14 Ridgecrest Drive from R-10 to R-15 is denied. Staff is directed to revise the application to 15 request amendment of Comprehensive Plan Map designation for the entire property at 1770 16 Ridgecrest Drive from R-15 to R-10, and amendment of the Zoning Map designation for the 17 back portion of that property from R-15 to R-10 and to extend the Uplands R-10 Overlay District 18 over the entire property. Staff is also directed to issue new notices for the revised application 19 and to return the matter to the Planning Commission for a hearing and recommendation. 20 21 AYES: 22 NOES: 23 ABSENT: 24 ABSTAIN: 25 EXCUSED: 26 Page 3 of 4— FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & ORDER (LU 17-0024— RELATING TO 1770 RIDGECREST DRIVE) 1 DATED this 19th day of December, 2017. 2 3 Kent Studebaker, Mayor 4 5 6 ATTEST: 7 Anne-Marie Simpson, City Recorder 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Page 4 of 4— FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & ORDER (LU 17-0024— RELATING TO 1770 RIDGECREST DRIVE) 7.3 D0s COUNCIL REPORT 442,cc) TO: Kent Studebaker, Mayor Members of the City Council FROM: David Powell, City Attorney SUBJECT: Findings, Conclusions and Order Legalizing Portions of the Boones Ferry Road and Lanewood Street Rights-of-Way adjacent to 15630 Boones Ferry Road DATE: December 18, 2017 MEETING DATE: December 19, 2017 SUGGESTED MOTION Move to adopt the Findings, Conclusions and Order legalizing portions of the Boones Ferry Road and Lanewood Street rights-of-way adjacent to 15630 Boones Ferry Road DISCUSSION On December 5, 2017, following a public hearing, the City Council tentatively decided to legalize certain portions of the Boones Ferry Road and Lanewood Street rights-of-way adjacent to the property at 15630 Boones Ferry Road as authorized by ORS 223.935. Dedication of the rights- of-way and construction of sidewalk improvements had been required in 1978 as a condition of the development permit for the commercial center structure on the premises (DR 22-78). Although the right-of-way improvements were constructed and have been used by the public continuously to the present time, no formal dedication documents have been recorded or can be found in city records. The attached Findings, Conclusions and Order finalize the City Council's tentative decision and order the legalization of the rights-of-way in accordance with the procedures authorized by state law. RECOMMENDATION Adopt the Findings, Conclusions and Order legalizing portions of the Boones Ferry Road and Lanewood Street rights-of-way adjacent to 15630 Boones Ferry Road. 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeosweao.citv Page 2 ATTACHMENT • Findings, Conclusions and Order 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city 1 BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL 2 OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 3 ROAD LEGALIZATION PROCEEDINGS (ORS 223.935—223.950) 4 PORTIONS OF BOONES FERRY ROAD AND FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & ORDER LANEWOOD STREET ADJACENT TO 15630 5 BOONES FERRY ROAD, LAKE OSWEGO 6 7 NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS 8 These road legalization proceedings under ORS 223.935 were initiated by the Lake 9 Oswego City Council at the request of the City Engineer. The proposal is to legalize portions of 10 the Boones Ferry Road and Lanewood Street rights-of-way adjacent to property at 15630 11 Boones Ferry Road. 12 HEARING 13 The City Council held a public hearing to consider the proposed legalization on 14 December 5, 2017. Following the hearing, the City Council made a tentative decision to order 15 the legalization as proposed, subject to adoption of written findings, conclusions and an order 16 finalizing the decision. 17 CRITERIA AND STANDARDS 18 ORS 223.930 to 223.950 19 EXHIBITS RECEIVED 20 Exhibit 101: October 26, 2017, City Engineer's Report by Crystal Shum, PE (Including Exhibits 1 through 41 to the report) 21 Exhibit 102: November 4, 2017, Memorandum titled "In the Matter of Lake Oswego's 22 Claim to 'Road Legalization Proceedings' from David Nepom, individually and on behalf of Lynn Nepom, Leah Nepom, and Nepfam, LLC 23 Exhibit 103: December 5, 2017, Memorandum titled "Response to Nepom Memo re: 24 Boones Ferry Legalization" from Clark Balfour and Doug Kincaid, Special Counsel 25 Exhibit 104: Photos of a sidewalk at a different location, submitted by David Nepom 26 Page 1— FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & ORDER (ROAD LEGALIZATION PROCEEDINGS) David D.Powell Lake Oswego City Attorney's Office PO Box 369/380 A Avenue Lake Oswego,Oregon 97034 Exhibit 105: Copy of a dictionary definition of "road," submitted by David Nepom 1 FINDINGS AND REASONS 2 As support for its decision, the City Council incorporates the October 3, 2017, City 3 Engineer's Report by Crystal Shum, PE, (Exhibit 101) with all exhibits to the report, and the 4 December 5, 2017, Memorandum from Special Counsel Clark Balfour and Doug Kincaid (Exhibit 5 103), supplemented by the further findings and conclusions below. In the event of any 6 inconsistency between the City Council's supplementary findings and the incorporated 7 materials, the Council's supplementary findings control. 8 Following are the supplemental findings and conclusions of this Council: 9 As detailed in incorporated Exhibit 101 (the "Engineer's Report"), this matter concerns 10 legalization under ORS 223.935 to 223.950 of portions of the Boones Ferry Road and Lanewood 11 Street rights-of-way, including parking strips and sidewalks, adjacent to property at 15630 12 Boones Ferry Road (referred to in the Engineer's Report as the "Commercial Center Property"). 13 The Engineer's Report also addresses proposed legalizations adjacent to three other properties. 14 However, the proceedings on those other matters were continued to a later date. 15 Legalization Warranted 16 In 1978 the city's Development Review Board granted the previous property owner a 17 development review permit to construct the current commercial center improvements on the 18 property (DR 22-78). The approval included a requirement to dedicate ten feet of additional 19 right-of-way along Boones Ferry Road and five feet of additional right-of-way along Lanewood 20 Street, and to construct sidewalks within the expanded right-of-way areas, as proposed by the 21 owner in the development application. The property owner complied by constructing the 22 required sidewalk improvements. The easterly (for the Boones Ferry frontage) and northern 23 (for the Lanewood frontage) edges of the new sidewalks corresponded with the respective 24 easterly and northerly boundaries of the expanded right-of-way areas. Despite the dedication 25 requirement, no corresponding dedication documents have been recorded in county deed 26 Page 2— FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & ORDER (ROAD LEGALIZATION PROCEEDINGS) David D.Powell Lake Oswego City Attorney's Office PO Box 369/380 A Avenue Lake Oswego,Oregon 97034 1 records, or can be found in the city's title reports or other records. 2 The same sidewalk improvements, and the parking strips between the sidewalks and 3 curbs, have existed in the same location from the date of their installation sometime before 4 1987 continuously to the present date, as evidenced by the statements in oral testimony and in 5 the Engineer's report together with photographic exhibits to that report (Exhibits 42 through 51 6 to the Engineer's Report). The only exception would be the replacement of the curb ramp at 7 the corner of Boones Ferry and Lanewood, which appears to have been done as a condition of 8 the approval of development on property across Lanewood Street to the south, and which 9 remains within the same expanded right-of-way area as approved in DR 22-78 (Exhibits 50 and 10 51 to the Engineer's Report). 11 As stated in the Engineer's Report and also in oral testimony, these improvements have 12 been used by the public continuously from the time of their installation to the present date. 13 The sidewalk improvements connect with, or, across Lanewood, line up with, the sidewalks to 14 the north and south of the Commercial Center Property, and function as part of a continuous 15 public sidewalk system north and south along Boones Ferry, as well as an east-west public 16 pedestrian connection along Lanewood. 17 Further, two public utility poles with utility wires have been installed in the parking strip 18 between the sidewalk and curb along Boones Ferry, together with support structures that 19 extend above and across the sidewalk, and with cables from the support structures to the 20 ground on the easterly side of the sidewalk. As established in the road-view photographic 21 evidence (Exhibits 46, 47, 48, 50 and 51 to the Engineer's Report), these have existed 22 continuously from at least 2002 to the present— likely longer, as the shadows from the poles 23 can be seen in the 1998 aerial photo (Exhibit 43 to the Engineer's Report). Public utilities are 24 placed either in public right-of-way or within public utility easements. From the oral testimony, 25 there are no public utility easements in that area. Thus the continuous existence of utility poles 26 and other utility facilities in the parking strip and across the sidewalk underscores the fact that Page 3— FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & ORDER (ROAD LEGALIZATION PROCEEDINGS) David D.Powell Lake Oswego City Attorney's Office PO Box 369/380 A Avenue Lake Oswego,Oregon 97034 1 the area has been used continuously as part of the public right-of-way for Boones Ferry Road. 2 The area that should have been formally dedicated as part of DR 22-78, and which 3 includes the Boones Ferry and Lanewood right-of-way improvements discussed above, is 4 described and depicted on Exhibit 4 to the Engineer's report (labeled "Parcel 1 Prescriptive 5 Right-of-Way"). This area extends to the back (easterly on Boones Ferry; northern on 6 Lanewood) edge of the sidewalk improvements on both Boones Ferry and Lanewood. 7 This area meets the criteria of ORS 223.935(1), which authorizes a city council to legalize 8 a city road "[i]f, through omission or defect, doubt exists as to the legal establishment or 9 evidence of establishment of a public road." As established in the testimony and evidence, in 10 the incorporated materials, and as summarized in these findings, the failure to submit the 11 required dedication documents, or to record and retain any submitted dedications, has created 12 doubt as to the legal establishment of the Boones Ferry and Lanewood right-of-way, including 13 the sidewalks and other improvements, or as to the evidence of such establishment. 14 The criteria are also met under ORS 223.935(3), which separately authorizes legalization 15 "[i]f the road as traveled and used for 10 years or more does not conform to the location of a 16 road described in the city records." The testimony and evidence, including the incorporated 17 materials, as summarized in these findings, establish that the improvements in the right-of-way 18 area proposed for legalization and shown in Exhibit 4 to the Engineer's Report, have been 19 traveled and used by the public, and used for public utilities, for more than 10 years. However, 20 title reports obtained by the city, the tax map of the area, and other city records do not show 21 this area as formally dedicated right-of-way. 22 The City Council finds that it is in the public interest to legalize the area shown in Exhibit 23 4, as it is important to resolve any doubt or inconsistencies as to the legal boundaries of these 24 important city transportation facilities—especially in light of pending right-of-way 25 improvements contemplated for the Boones Ferry Corridor. 26 Page 4– FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & ORDER (ROAD LEGALIZATION PROCEEDINGS) David D.Powell Lake Oswego City Attorney's Office PO Box 369/380 A Avenue Lake Oswego,Oregon 97034 1 Owner's Objections 2 David Nepom, an owner of the property at 15630 Boones Ferry Road, submitted on his 3 own behalf and on behalf of the other owners a memorandum opposing the legalization, which 4 was received as Exhibit 102 (the "Nepom Memo"). Mr. Nepom (referred to here as the 5 "Owner") also testified at the public hearing. 6 For the most part, the Owner's testimony reflected the same objections the Owner 7 raised in the Nepom Memo, all of which have been rebutted in thorough detail in Exhibit 103 8 (the "Balfour Memo"), which has been incorporated above as part of the City Council's findings. 9 As a result there is no need to repeat those points in detail in these supplemental findings. 10 At the public hearing, the Owner testified that he had paid to maintain the plantings in 11 the parking strip, suggesting that this is consistent with private ownership of that area as 12 opposed to public right-of-way. To the contrary, Lake Oswego, like most if not all other cities, 13 allows abutting property owners to maintain landscaping in unpaved portions of the public 14 right-of-way, including parking strips. LOC 42.18.1015(1)(f) allows an exemption, from what 15 would otherwise be a requirement to obtain a right-of-way encroachment permit, for "[I]awns, 16 plants and approved street trees that do not obstruct visibility for pedestrians, bicyclists and 17 motorists." The owner also testified that he complied at his expense with a city directive to 18 trim vegetation that created vision clearance issues. Again, this is consistent with the right-of- 19 way encroachment allowance under the cited Code subsection, which is limited to vegetation 20 that does not obstruct visibility. In addition, LOC 42.18.1015(2) states that such encroachments 21 are not exempt from permit requirements "if they create a line of sight traffic hazard * * *." 22 Nothing about the Owner maintaining plantings or being required to comply with vision 23 clearance standards is inconsistent with the parking strip being within the public right-of-way. 24 The Owner also testified that he had complied with the city's directive to repair a 25 portion of the sidewalk at his expense, suggesting that this is consistent with private ownership 26 of the sidewalk itself. To the contrary again, Lake Oswego, like most cities, requires abutting Page 5— FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & ORDER (ROAD LEGALIZATION PROCEEDINGS) David D.Powell Lake Oswego City Attorney's Office PO Box 369/380 A Avenue Lake Oswego,Oregon 97034 1 property owners to maintain sidewalks within the adjacent right of way: 2 "It shall be the duty of owners of property abutting or lying adjacent to sidewalks constructed upon the public streets of the city to keep such sidewalks, and the 3 property lying between such sidewalks and the adjacent and abutting property, in good repair and free from obstruction and to keep the same clean of debris 4 leaves and any growing material and ice and snow, and free of any other object or matter which may impede or render hazardous the use of the sidewalk and 5 property lying between the same and abutting and adjoining property." 6 LOC 42.08.410(1) (Emphasis added). The described city directive to repair the adjacent 7 sidewalk is consistent with the repair notice authorized by LOC 42.08.420 for violations of 8 42.08.410. 9 At the hearing, the Owner submitted Exhibit 104, consisting of photos showing circled 10 dots in the middle of a sidewalk. The Owner testified that these were surveyor's marks on the 11 sidewalk in front of his sister's property on SE Milwaukie Avenue in Portland, and that they 12 demonstrate that the sidewalk is only partly within the right-of-way. The Owner urged that this 13 shows that public sidewalks are not always on public property, and therefore the use of the 14 sidewalk in front of his Lake Oswego property by the public is not necessarily consistent with 15 that area being considered right-of-way. The City Council notes, however, that a city cannot 16 authorize the public to trespass on private property, and would not construct or authorize 17 sidewalk improvements that invite the public to do so. Consequently it is important that public 18 sidewalks be within dedicated public rights-of-way or dedicated public easements. The fact 19 that errors of dedication, surveying or recording may happen on occasion doesn't alter the fact 20 that a public sidewalk by its nature is an element of a public right-of-way or public easement. 21 The statutory road legalization procedure exists to provide a mechanism to correct such errors. 22 The Owner also submitted Exhibit 105, a copy of a dictionary definition of "road," to 23 further the argument made in the Nepom Memo, and repeated in testimony, that "road" 24 legalization proceedings cannot include sidewalks. This argument is thoroughly addressed and 25 rebutted in the Balfour Memo, incorporated in these findings. The Council will not repeat those 26 points here. The Council notes, however, that the "road" definition in Exhibit 105 includes, Page 6— FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & ORDER (ROAD LEGALIZATION PROCEEDINGS) David D.Powell Lake Oswego City Attorney's Office PO Box 369/380 A Avenue Lake Oswego,Oregon 97034 1 prior to the section highlighted by the Owner, the following: "an open way or public passage for 2 vehicles, persons, and animals" (Emphasis added.) Nothing about Exhibit 105 supports an 3 argument that road legalization proceedings cannot include sidewalks in addition to curbs, 4 parking strips and vehicle travel lanes. 5 The Owner testified that he has paid real property taxes for the property that were 6 based upon lot dimensions that include the area to be legalized. The City Council understands 7 the equity argument being made, however it notes that payment of property taxes is not a 8 defense to road legalization under ORS 223.935 et seq. Since the statutory procedure exists to 9 formally recognize the existence of roads where they do not appear of record, an effect on the 10 lot size of record is to be expected in most, if not all, legalization proceedings. If prior payment 11 of property taxes for the area proposed for legalization were a defense, the legalization process 12 would be pointless. As to the equities, the Council notes the responses in the incorporated 13 Balfour Memo to the Owner's "good faith purchaser" arguments, particularly the points about 14 constructive notice and inquiry notice. The Council also finds that the existence, location, 15 design and public usage of the sidewalks, together with the location of the utility facilities, 16 make their character as right-of-way improvements and installations obvious. Due diligence 17 and reasonable inquiry at the time of purchase would have disclosed any discrepancy between 18 the physical right-of-way improvements and the lot dimensions that show of record. An 19 owner's failure to engage in due diligence does not bar the public's ability to legalize long- 20 existing and important right-of-way improvements under the applicable statutes. 21 Finally, the Owner asserted in his testimony that legalization would amount to a 22 "taking" of the legalized area without just compensation in violation of the "State Constitution" 23 and the "Federal Constitution." Road legalization proceedings under ORS 223.935 et seq. do 24 25 26 Page 7— FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & ORDER (ROAD LEGALIZATION PROCEEDINGS) David D.Powell Lake Oswego City Attorney's Office PO Box 369/380 A Avenue Lake Oswego,Oregon 97034 1 not concern, and provide no process for determining, compensation for the road itself.' 2 Likewise, a lack of compensation for the road is not a defense to the legalization. This is 3 because, in legalization proceedings, installation of public right-of-way improvements (the 4 alleged "taking" of the property) has already occurred. Here, the Owner's predecessor installed 5 the right-of-way improvements decades ago to fulfill a condition of a development permit 6 authorizing development of the current commercial center on the property. The predecessor 7 did not contest that condition or obligation as an unconstitutional "taking" (in fact, such right- 8 of-way exactions remain a typical and defensible condition of approval for similar development 9 today), but instead constructed the required right-of-way improvements in the area designated 10 for formal dedication, and allowed the public and utilities to use the improvements and the 11 area from that point forward. Even if the current Owner could somehow contest that exaction 12 39 years later, the prescriptive rights the public has gained over the years would likely defeat 13 any takings claim. In any event, an attempt to claim compensation for the legalized area would 14 need to occur in different proceedings in a different forum. 15 CONCLUSIONS 16 The City Council concludes that road legalization of the area shown in Exhibit 4 (to the 17 Engineer's report is in the public interest. The Council also concludes that legalization of the 18 area authorized by ORS 223.935(1) because, through omission or defect, doubt exists as to the 19 legal establishment or evidence of establishment of the public road in that area. The Council 20 further concludes that the legalization is also separately authorized by ORS 223.935(3) because 21 the portion of the roads shown in Exhibit 4 as traveled and used for 10 years or more does not 22 conform to the location of the roads described in the city records. 23 24 25 26 1 However,compensation may be claimed under ORS 223.945 for private structures encroaching on a road proposed to be legalized. Page 8— FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & ORDER (ROAD LEGALIZATION PROCEEDINGS) David D.Powell Lake Oswego City Attorney's Office PO Box 369/380 A Avenue Lake Oswego,Oregon 97034 1 ORDER 2 The Lake Oswego City Council orders that the area shown in Exhibit 4 to the Engineer's 3 Report (labeled "Parcel 1 Prescriptive Right-of-Way"), a copy of which is attached and 4 incorporated in this Order, is legalized under ORS 223.935 to 223.950 as city roads, specifically 5 as parts of the public rights-of-way of Boones Ferry Road and Lanewood Street. The City 6 Engineer is directed to cause the survey map and narrative for the legalized city roads to be 7 prepared and filed with the county surveyor in accordance with ORS 223.950(2) and 209.250. 8 In accordance with ORS 223.950(4) the roads exist as shown in this order, and any records 9 showing the location of the roads that conflict with the location as shown in this order are void. 10 11 AYES: 12 NOES: 13 ABSENT: 14 ABSTAIN: 15 EXCUSED: 16 17 DATED this 19th day of December, 2017. 18 19 Kent Studebaker, Mayor 20 21 22 ATTEST: Anne-Marie Simpson, City Recorder 23 24 25 26 Page 9— FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & ORDER (ROAD LEGALIZATION PROCEEDINGS) David D.Powell Lake Oswego City Attorney's Office PO Box 369/380 A Avenue Lake Oswego,Oregon 97034 EXHIBIT 4 Boones Ferry Rd Lake Oswego Work Order No.: 183 (Oakridge Rd/Reese Rd Madrona St) File No.: 017 • September 15,2017 Assessors Map:2 1 E 08BD Parcel 1 Tax Lot No.: 03000 PARCEL I (PRESCRIPTIVE RIGHT-OF-WAY) A parcel of land lying in the Northwest quarter of Section 8, Township 2 South, Range 1 East of the Willamette Meridian, Clackamas County, Oregon, and being a portion of that tract of land conveyed to David R. Nepom and Leah Nepom, as tenants in common by Bargain and Sale Deed recorded March 17, 2003 in Document No. 2003-032306 and Marleo, Inc., an Oregon Corporation and Nepfam LLC, an Oregon Limited Liability Company by General Warranty Deed recorded June 30, 1998 in Document 98-058924, Clackamas County Official Records, said parcel also being all that portion lying Northwesterly of the line delineated by following the noted below stations and offsets, Southeasterly of the centerline of Boones Ferry Road, and all that portion lying Southerly of the line delineated by following the noted below stations and offsets, Northerly of the centerline of Lanewood Street,inclusive, as said centerlines are described below. BOONES FERRY ROAD CENTERLINE A road centerline situated in the Southeast one-quarter of Section 7, and in the Southwest one-quarter of Section 8, and the Northwest one-quarter of Section 8, all within Township 2 South, Range 1 East of the Willamette Meridian in the City of Lake Oswego, Clackamas County,Oregon,being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at Boones Ferry Road Centerline Station 10+00 per Record of Survey number 2013.083 as recorded in the Clackamas County Survey Records. Thence from said point of beginning North 47°36'13"East, a distance of 167.89 feet to Station 11+67.89 at a point of curvature; Thence along the arc of a 5729.58 foot radius curve to the right, through a central angle of 03°06'00" (the long chord bears North 49°09'13" East, 309.96 feet) 310.00 feet to Station 14+77.89 at a point of tangency; Thence North 50°42'13" East, 637.07 feet to Station 21+14.96 at a point of curvature; Thence along the arc of a 5729.58 foot radius curve to the left, through a central angle of 02°36'00" (the long chord bears North 49°24'13"East,259.98 feet)260.00 feet to Station 23+74.96 at a point of tangency; Thence North 48°06'13" East, 85.00 feet to Station 24+59.95 at a point of curvature; Thence along the arc of a 1145.91 foot radius curve to the right,through a central angle of 10°31'00"(the long chord bears North 53°21'43" East,210.04 feet) 210.33 feet to Station 26+70.29 at a point of tangency; Thence North 58°37'13" East, 768.60 feet to Station 34+38.88 at a point of curvature; Thence along the arc of a 716.20 foot radius curve to the left, through a central angle of 15°25'30" (the long chord bears North 50°54'28" East, 192.23 feet) 192.81 feet to Station 36+31.70 at a point of tangency; Thence North 43°11'43" East, 516.51 feet to Station 41+48.21 at a point of curvature; Thence along the P:1ODOT10008087W1Survey\Documents\ EXHIBITS LEGALS10008087W-V-EXI7PRW.doc EXHIBIT 4 Page 1 of 4 arc of a 954.93 foot radius curve to the left,through a central angle of 12°42'30" (the long chord bears North 36°50'28"East, 211.37 feet) 211.81 feet to Station 43+60.02 at a point of tangency; Thence North 30°29'13" East, 279.39 feet to Station 46+39.41 at a point of curvature; Thence along the arc of a 716.20 foot radius curve to the left,through a central angle of 18°22'30" (the long chord bears North 21°17'58"East,228.71 feet)229.69 feet to Station 48+69.10 at a point of tangency; Thence North 12°06'43" East 511.40 feet to Station 53+80.49 at a point of curvature; Thence along the arc of a 1432.39 foot radius curve to the right, through a central angle of 11°20'33" (the long chord bears North 17°46'59" East, 283.10 feet) 283.56 feet to Station 56+64.05 at a point of compound curvature; Thence along the arc of a 3819.72 foot radius curve to the right, through a central angle of 07°34'57" (the long chord bears North 27°14'44" East, 505.13) 505.50 feet to Station 61+69.55 at a point of tangency; Thence North 31°02'12" East 104.47 feet to Station 62+74.03 at the point of termination. Centerline stationing and Basis of Bearings are determined by holding a station of 10+00.00 at a 3/4"iron pipe at the Centerline of Boones Ferry Road as per survey number 2013-083, Clackamas County Survey Records. LANEWOOD STREET CENTERLINE A road centerline situated in the Northwest one-quarter of Section 8, Township 2 South, Range 1 East of the Willamette Meridian in the City of Lake Oswego, Clackamas County, Oregon,being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at Boones Ferry Road Centerline Station 46+09.72, at a 2.55 foot offset to the left, thence South 89°40'17" East, a distance of 365.67 feet to Station 3+65.67 and the terminus of this description, all per Record of Survey number 2013-083 as recorded in the Clackamas County Survey Records. Offset Distances Northeasterly of Station to Station Lanewood Street Centerline 0+65.00 to 0+73.77 41.62 feet along a straight line to 37.12 feet 0+73.77 to 0+81.86 37.12 feet to ah arc with a radius of 25.00 feet, concave Northeasterly, with a central angle of 30°07'50", a long chord that bears South 38°12'51" East,a chord distance of 13.00 feet, and an arc length of 13.15 feet to 26.95 feet 0+81.86 to 0+87.80 26.95 feet to an arc with a radius of 10.00 feet, concave Northerly,with a central angle of 36°23'31", a long chord that bears South 71°28'31"East,a chord distance of 6.25 feet, and an arc length of 6.35 feet to 25.00 feet P:IODOT10008087W1SurveylDocuments1_EXUmITS LEGALS10008087W-V-EX17PRW.doc EXHIBIT 4 Page 2 of 4 0+87.80 to 1+92.72 25.00 feet parallel with the centerline Offset Distances Southeasterly of Station to Station Boones Ferry Road Centerline 46+76.62 to 46+83.85 43.61 feet to an arc with a radius of 10.00 feet, concave Easterly, with a central angle of 50°04'52", a long chord that bears North 01°53'30"East, a chord distance of 8.47 feet, and an arc length of 8.74 feet to 40.00 feet 47+09.33 to 47+82.93 40.00 feet to an arc with a radius of 756.20 feet, concave Westerly, with a central angle of 16°01'28", a long chord that bears North 18°55'12"East,a chord distance of 210.80 feet, and an arc length of 211.49 feet to 40.00 feet Excepting therefrom, all that portion of said parcel lying within the existing right-of-way of Boones Ferry Road and Lanewood Street. The parcel of land to which this description applies contains 2,952 square feet. REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR OREGON JULY 15, 2003 TOD V. KELSO 50701 EXPIRES: 6/30/2019 P:1ODOT10008087W1Survey\Documents\_EXHIBITS LEGALS10008087W-V-EXI 7PRW.doc EXHIBIT 4 Page 3 of 4 • 49+00 4i a / r' 48+69.10 S 39.82 14.2o' 46�85,00 40.00,P' /TAR-10.00' L-6.35' / A=36'23'31" / CH=S71'28'31"E EXISTING 6.25' RIGHT-OF--WAY / LINE R=25.00' 0 o ©L=13.15 + o . ,cu A 30'07'50" I co vim-N h CH=538'12'51"E Lv IN �o;n co 4) 13.00 �. k, ':'2. `'v R-10.00' '' ii 29 L=8.74' . x ---4 # - - N A-50'04'52" Q U > 4 PARCEL 1 CH=N01°53'30"E / PRESCRIPTIVE RIGHT OF WAY 8.47' 0 ssa, / AREA 2,952 SQ. FT. / -1 ,!.- FILE NUMBER: 17 OWNER: DAVID R. NEPOM, LEAH NEPOM, MARLEO i el a INC., AN OREGON CORPORATION AND NEPFAM LLC, / C`' '' AN OREGON LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY ADDRESS: 15630 BOONES FERRY ROAD F,, DEED DOC. NO. 2003-032306 ,o i' . 0;-,,,,o'999" DEED DOC. NO. 98-058924 0i3.6,-,6:00 . 4v 46+83.85 ► / 46+76.62 N -./5 '‘,Y4'," 0+73.77 r- 39 0 0+81.86 rn 65 r.,,. �0+87.80 ± ‘,' o'\' STA: 46+09.72 d 0+00 *- OFF: -2.55' LT f fi ,1+00 f--2+00 �� 1 ¢6x I I ' 589'40'17"E '365.67' I ' , , rn • 17 0 rno o O " o 20 N4 LANEWOOD STREET N SCALE 4 40 D 204D N �`i � J ( FEET ) I LEGEND 1 INCH = 40 FT. ® PRESCRIPTIVE RIGHT-OF-WAY (PARCEL 1) 2,952 SQ. FT. PAGE 4 OF 4 I FILE NO.: 017 I BOONES FERRY RD I SUBMITTAL DATE: 09/15/2017 I WKP- C I TAX LOT: 03000 I (Oakridge Rd/Reese Rd-Madrona St) I REVISED DATE: I TAX MAP: 21 E 08BD I I REVISED DATE: I „ 1F 'a°"s I ADDRESS: 15630 BOONES FERRY RD I LAKE OSWEGO WORK ORDER NO.183 I REVISED DATE: I DWG:C4308007-V-EX17Paw.DWG EXHIBIT 4 Page 4 of 4 8.1 Dj'p` 4 COUNCIL REPORT 41.4G11TIO r 42,o dR�ddC.‘ TO: Kent Studebaker, Mayor Members of the City Council FROM: Corinne Strauser, Deputy City Recorder SUBJECT: Planning Commission Appointment DATE: October 11, 2017 ACTION Adopt Resolution 17-57, approving an appointment to the Planning Commission. BACKGROUND On July 17, 2017, Commissioner Bill Gaar resigned from the Planning Commission. The City Council Interview Committee consisting of Councilors Skip O'Neill and Theresa Kohlhoff, and Planning Commission Chair Robert Heape, met on October 10, 2017 to interview a candidate to fill the remainder of Bill Gaar's term on the Planning Commission. It was the consensus of the Interview Committee to recommend that Vickie Hansen be appointed to fill the remainder of Bill Gaar's term expiring on May 31, 2019. Mayor Studebaker concurred with the recommendation of the Interview Committee and has made the appointment. RECOMMENDATION Adopt Resolution 17-57. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution 17-57 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION 17-57 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCILORS OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO APPROVING AN APPOINTMENT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION WHEREAS, Planning Commissioner Bill Gaar resigned effective July 17, 2017; and WHEREAS, a City Council Interview Committee consisting of Councilors Skip O'Neill and Theresa Kohlhoff and Planning Commission Chair Robert Heape, met on October 10, 2017 to interview a candidate for the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, it was the consensus of the Interview Committee to recommend that Vickie Hansen be appointed to fill the remainder of Bill Gaar's term on Planning Commission expiring on May 31, 2019. WHEREAS,the Mayor has appointed Vickie Hansen to fill the remainder of Bill Gaar's term on the board, effective December 19, 2017, subject to the approval of the City Councilors; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Councilors of the City of Lake Oswego approve the Mayor's appointment of Vickie Hansen to the Planning Commission to fill the remainder of Bill Garr's term expiring on May 31, 2019. 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 19th day of December, 2017. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: EXCUSED: Kent Studebaker, Mayor ATTEST: Anne-Marie Simpson, City Recorder APPROVED AS TO FORM: David Powell, City Attorney 13.1 D A E qf REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY REPORT /,,,//lir o dR�ddC.‘ TO: Kent Studebaker, Chair Scott Lazenby, Executive Director FROM: Anne-Marie Simpson, Recording Secretary SUBJECT: Approval of Board Meeting Minutes DATE: December 11, 2017 MEETING DATE: December 19, 2017 SUGGESTED MOTION Move to approve minutes as written. ATTACHMENTS 1. October 17, 2017, Draft Special Meeting Minutes 2. November 7, 2017, Draft Special Meeting Minutes 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us ATTACHMENT 1 r-S." 4,4_ LAKE OSWEGO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING MINUTES V O October 17, 2017 OR�GOr� 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Studebaker called the Lake Oswego Redevelopment Agency (LORA) meeting to order at 3:02 p.m. on October 17, 2017, in the City Council Chambers, 380 A Avenue. 2. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Studebaker and Board Members Buck, O'Neill, Manz, Gudman, LaMotte, and Kohlhoff Staff Present: Scott Lazenby, Executive Director; Evan Boone, Deputy LORA Counsel; Anne-Marie Simpson, Recording Secretary Others Present: Vanessa Sturgeon, Sturgeon Development Partners; Bob Thompson and John Jamie!, TVA Architects 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chair Studebaker led the Board in the Pledge of Allegiance. 4. CONSENT AGENDA 4.1 Approval of Meeting Minutes 4.1.1 September 5, 2017 Meeting Minutes Motion: Move to approve minutes as written. Report and Attachment END CONSENT AGENDA Board Member Gudman moved the adoption of the Consent Agenda. Board Member LaMotte seconded the motion. Lake Oswego Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 5 October 17, 2017 A voice vote was held, and the motion passed, with Chair Studebaker and Board Members Buck, O'Neill, Manz, Gudman, LaMotte, and Kohlhoff voting 'aye'. (7-0) 5. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA No items were removed from the Consent Agenda. 6. STUDY SESSION 6.1 North Anchor Project Design Report Mr. Lazenby reviewed background leading to this North Anchor Project design presentation. The study session would provide the Board an opportunity to offer feedback and direction on the conceptual design, both to Staff and to Sturgeon Development Partners, as the disposition and development agreement is being prepared. He outlined several elements of the design that addressed specific project objectives, as explained in the Redevelopment Agency Report. Mr. Thompson, accompanied by Mr. Jamie!, emphasized his team's positive relationship with City planning staff and the progress made on the design, especially over the past eight months. With an accompanying PowerPoint presentation, he discussed the project location in the blocks north and west of the State Street/B Avenue intersection. The approach for achieving a village scale suitable for Lake Oswego was achieved by a design encompassing three separate buildings: (1) In two buildings an apartment project with 87 units would occupy the west property and half of the east property. (2) A third building housing a 78-room hotel would occupy the east property along State Street. He discussed the configurations of the buildings, noting that a retail base is planned for both projects. The team had been guided by the City's code and other criteria as they have addressed such aspects as parking, for which they proposed a total of 250-some stalls. He described the design concept in detail, with slides showing site plans and various architectural renderings for each of the three buildings. A series of courtyards woven through the project was key to achieving the desired scale and character, he indicated. Highlighted hotel elements included meeting rooms, which would be available for community use and would help activate the State Street/B Avenue corner, and an upper level that would be set back to provide an outdoor terrace; this feature would impart an understated elegance akin to the feel of a European village, he noted. Immediately to the west, a sky bridge would connect the building designated for both apartment and hotel uses to the restaurant and other hotel amenities. Plans for the west apartment building included a strong base of ground-floor retail, helping to activate B Avenue and improve the pedestrian experience. With regard to parking, Mr. Thompson explained that the team had identified an opportunity by incorporating the north-south alley into the design. He described this vehicle access from B Avenue, which would provide a sort of porte-cochere for hotel guest drop-off and would enable all parking facilities to be kept out of view. Together with the courtyards and use of glass, this Lake Oswego Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 5 October 17, 2017 would support an open and transparent experience as hotel visitors and apartment dwellers would have sightlines through to the back of the buildings. In support of a European flavor and fragmentation of the building, other design features included (1) Juliet balcony doors on the second and third floors and (2) chimney-like features that would keep HVAC and other roof- mounted equipment out of view. Describing the exterior materials under consideration, he indicated that consistency of materials was a means of linking the two apartment uses. Finally, he reviewed floor plans, emphasizing the team's efforts to minimize less-visually-pleasing impacts to passing pedestrians. Additional efforts would be made to maintain the pedestrian connection, including the north-south alley, in the east apartment/hotel portion of the project. The team was well along in developing the overall design, he concluded, and eager to hear feedback from the Board. Board Member Kohlhoff indicated that she found the sky bridge and adjacent corner with glass very attractive. She was less enthused about the flat roof design, despite the intended suggestion of pitch. A specific concern for her would be the potential for unsightly clutter on the apartment balconies, although this design feature would be attractive to tenants. Mr. Thompson noted that this issue could be managed through tenant rules. Board Member Manz indicated approval of the hotel's European-inspired design and inquired about conference room dimensions and exterior material. For the apartment exterior, she requested clarification about proposed material for the angled surface above the third floor; in responding, Mr.Thompson emphasized the architects'focus on a simple and elegant framework. Member Manz described the sky bridge as a nice offset to the roundabout at the south end of 1st Street. In response to her final question, Mr. Thompson advised that the apartment project was comprised mostly of studio and one-bedroom units, but also some with two bedrooms. Board Member LaMotte commended the team for addressing challenges of the site and for the excellent programming. He endorsed Member Kohlhoff's concern about the balconies, but agreed they could be managed. Referencing Member Manz's question about the angled planes suggestive of a roofline, he expressed concern about the harsh look of using only one material; it should be broken up visually. Overall, he endorsed the three-building design concept. Mr. Thompson responded to his questions about the sidewalk width on the State Street hotel frontage, noting that it would comfortably accommodate pedestrian activity. Member LaMotte requested that landscape features beyond trees and tree grates be considered in this area. He also inquired about the plan for parking on the 1st Street segment; Mr. Thompson said current plans include some parallel parking and a drop-off area for apartment tenants. As there would be both parking and retail activity on the street, Member LaMotte stated that the plan seemed to be on the right track. After additional questions and comments about the underground parking and access to suitable parking for restaurant guests and shoppers, he indicated that it was important that employees of businesses within the properties not park on the nearby streets. He also requested that the design team work with City staff to resolve street and sidewalk issues related to better preservation of a Heritage Tree adjacent to the project site. Board Member Buck expressed appreciation for the quality of the design and programming. At his request, Mr. Thompson addressed questions about the calculations used to determine the amount of space provided for parking, including spaces for employees of the hotel, retail stores, Lake Oswego Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 5 October 17, 2017 and apartment operations. Mr. Lazenby noted that Staff could provide the Board with more information about how the proposed parking compares with the City's requirements. Member Buck asked about parking for electric vehicles, and Mr. Thompson advised that power would be provided for some stalls in the apartment area. Member Buck indicated that such facilities should also be provided for the public parking because of the public funding partnership. In response to additional questions from Member Buck, Mr. Thompson indicated that: (1) The project would be built to all applicable codes relevant to seismic resilience. (2) The team continues to review green building features, including rainwater harvesting and selection of materials; they intend for the project to be sensitive to LEED practices. (3) Incorporating of public art into the project had not yet been discussed, but his team would note this for follow-up. Ms. Sturgeon indicated that the goal was to include public art, in keeping with the idea of this as a gateway to the city. In response to Member Buck's inquiries about plans for age restrictions on the apartments, she confirmed that tenants would be limited to those age 55 and older. The restriction was to serve as a differentiator, she advised; the need for it was market driven, a result of the large number of apartments being constructed in the Wizer Block project and the high level of demand for 55-and- older housing. The apartments planned for the North Anchor Project would include many amenities that would not be offered in a regular apartment building. Member Buck indicated that he wished the age restriction was not part of the project. Board Member O'Neill complimented the design team for offering a major upgrade to this part of the city. He asked if the 1:1 ratio for the hotel parking was regarded as a very high standard. Mr. Thompson confirmed this, given that hotel guests typically use ride sharing or alternative ground transportation that does not require parking. He noted that related analysis was underway. On the other hand, the team recognized that Lake Oswego's parking standard for restaurants was definitely higher than in many cities; they were working hard to analyze and manage the costs of building the parking for this project. This analysis was also being applied to the employee parking question, where they were mindful of the need to avoid parking impacts on neighborhoods. Member LaMotte noted the importance of achieving balance between parking needs, impacts to businesses and neighborhoods, and the high cost of below-grade parking. Responding to Board Member Gudman's inquiries, Mr. Thompson stated that the design would comply with the City's 15% landscape requirement. Member Gudman asked about a projected timeframe for the Board to receive a development agreement for consideration. Following brief discussion, Mr. Thompson indicated that this could be expected by year end. Chair Studebaker applauded the efforts of the design team. Mr. Lazenby discussed two related items that would be presented to City Council at a later time: (1) vacation of a portion of 1st Street; and (2) a decision on the State Street special setback in terms of the needed bike lane and design direction for the building on State Street that is part of this project. 7. ADJOURNMENT Chair Studebaker adjourned the Board meeting at 4:01 p.m. Lake Oswego Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 5 October 17, 2017 Respectfully submitted, Anne-Marie Simpson, Recording Secretary APPROVED BY THE LAKE OSWEGO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ON Kent Studebaker, Chair Lake Oswego Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 5 October 17, 2017 ATTACHMENT 2 O�`A Ey s� LAKE OSWEGO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING H MINUTES V elismiti C November 7, 2017 OREG . 13. CALL TO ORDER Chair Studebaker called the Lake Oswego Redevelopment Agency (LORA) meeting to order at 8:41 p.m., following the regular City Council meeting on November 7, 2017, in the City Council Chambers, 380 A Avenue. Present: Chair Studebaker and Board Members Kohlhoff, Buck, Manz, Gudman, and LaMotte Excused: Board Member O'Neill Staff Present: Scott Lazenby, Executive Director; David Powell, LORA Counsel; Anne- Marie Simpson, Recording Secretary 14. BOARD BUSINESS 14.1 September 19, 2017, Special Meeting Minutes Report and Attachment Chair Studebaker moved to approve minutes as written. Board Member Gudman seconded the motion. A voice vote was held, and the motion passed, with Chair Studebaker and Board Members Kohlhoff, Buck, Manz, Gudman, and LaMotte voting `aye'. (6-0) 14.2 Short Term Lease of Property at 366 3rd Street Mr. Lazenby reported that PHK Development had requested use of this space, soon to be vacated by LexiDog. The development company would use it as a leasing office for the Windward project, as is, on a short-term basis. The City would use a standard leasing agreement, similar to the ones negotiated with certain tenants in the North Anchor Project area. The City would receive a modest amount of rent and the developer would have a nearby leasing office for the short term. Mr. Lazenby requested Board approval of this lease. Lake Oswego Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 2 November 7, 2017 Chair Studebaker moved to approve the leasing on a short-term basis of the property at 366 3rd Street to The Windward. Board Member Gudman seconded the motion. A voice vote was held, and the motion passed. with Chair Studebaker and Board Members Kohlhoff, Buck, Manz, Gudman, and LaMotte voting `aye'. (6-0) Following up on his suggestion about dealing more efficiently with minor matters of this type, Mr. Lazenby noted that Council could consider limited delegation of authority under certain circumstances. 15. ADJOURNMENT Chair Studebaker adjourned the LORA Board meeting at 8:43 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Anne-Marie Simpson, Recording Secretary APPROVED BY THE LAKE OSWEGO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ON: Kent Studebaker, Chair Lake Oswego Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 2 November 7, 2017 14.1 D REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY REPORT TIO r o eGo\- TO: Kent Studebaker, Chair Members of the Redevelopment Agency Scott Lazenby, Executive Director FROM: Sidaro Sin, Development Project Manager Redevelopment Agency SUBJECT: Eighth Amendment to the Block 137 Project Development Agreement DATE: December 12, 2017 MEETING DATE: December 19, 2017 SUGGESTED MOTION Move to authorize the Executive Director of the Lake Oswego Redevelopment Agency to sign the Eighth Amendment to the Block 137 Project Development Agreement with Evergreen Block 137 Joint Venture LLC (the assignee of Evergreen Group LLC), correcting an omission from the Sixth Amendment. INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND On August 13, 2013, the Lake Oswego Redevelopment Agency (LORA) Board approved the Block 137 Project Development Agreement. Since then, there have been seven amendments to the agreement. DISCUSSION The original version of the Development Agreement described the project as including a Housing Component, Retail Component and a Parking Component. Section 3.4 of the agreement provided that LORA would pay building development and permit fees attributable to the project "including construction of the initial tenant improvements in the Retail Component." Total LORA permit payments are capped at $5.2 million. On November 21, 2014, the parties entered into a Sixth Amendment to the original Development Agreement to effect a number of changes following the City development review process, including adding a Commercial Component to the Project. However, the parties neglected to amend Section 3.4 of the agreement to provide that permit fees would be paid by LORA for the initial tenant improvements for the Commercial Component. 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us Page 2 This amendment would correct that omission. There are adequate funds within the LORA payment cap to cover the permit fees for the Commercial Component. RECOMMENDATION Authorize the Executive Director of LORA to sign the Eighth Amendment to the Block 137 Project Development Agreement with Evergreen Block 137 Joint Venture LLC, correcting an omission from the Sixth Amendment. ATTACHMENT 1. Eighth Amendment to the Block 137 Project Development Agreement 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us ATTACHMENT 1 EIGHTH AMENDMENT TO BLOCK 137 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT EFFECTIVE DATE: , 2017 BETWEEN: Lake Oswego Redevelopment Agency, the duly authorized and acting urban renewal agency of the City of Lake Oswego, Oregon ("LORA") AND: Evergreen Block 137 Joint Venture LLC, A Delaware limited liability company ("Developer") RECITALS A. LORA and Developer entered into a Block 137 Project Development Agreement dated August 13, 2013, as amended by the First Amendment to Block 137 Project Development Agreement dated December 5, 2013, the Second Amendment to Block 137 Project Development Agreement dated February 6, 2014,the Third Amendment to Block 137 Project Development Agreement dated April 10, 2014, the Fourth Amendment to Block 137 Project Development Agreement dated June 9, 2014, the Fifth Amendment to Block 137 Project Development Agreement dated September 15, 2014, the Sixth Amendment to Block 137 Project Development Agreement dated November 21, 2014, and the Seventh Amendment to Block 137 Development Agreement dated October 7, 2015 (collectively, the "Development Agreement"). B. At the time the original, unamended,version of the Development Agreement was signed,the Project included a housing component, retail component and parking component. Accordingly,Section 3.4 of the Development Agreement was drafted to provide that the LORA Permit Payments would include building development and permit fees, "including construction of the initial tenant improvements in the Retail Component." C. On November 21, 2014 the parties entered into a Sixth Amendment to the original Development Agreement to effect a number of changes following the City development review process, including adding a Commercial Component to the Project. However, the parties neglected to amend Section 3.4 of the agreement to provide that permit fees would be paid for the initial tenant improvements for the Commercial Component as well as the Retail Component. D. The parties desire to amend Section 3.4 of the Development Agreement to correct this oversight, on the terms and conditions set forth in this Eighth Amendment to Block 137 Project Agreement (this "Eighth Amendment"). EIGHTH AMENDMENT TO BLOCK 137 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Page I 1 AGREEMENT NOW,THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual benefits to be realized by the following amendment to the Development Agreement, the parties agree as follows. 1. Section 3.4 of the Development Agreement is modified as shown below. Double- Underlining and bold indicates added language: 3.4 LORA Payment of Fees and Charges LORA will pay, when due to the City, or will reimburse to the Developer if Developer has paid before the first LORA Permit Payment is due, the building development and permit fees that are attributable to the Project development and construction, including construction of the initial tenant improvements in the Retail Component and the Commercial Component (collectively, the "LORA Permit Payments"). The first LORA Permit Payment is contingent on Developer's construction lender or equity partner being prepared to fund the Project, subject only to ordinary construction loan or equity funding closing conditions, and further contingent on satisfaction of all contingencies stated in section 5.4. The first LORA Permit Payment will be paid from the escrow established to close the Developer's funding or financing at Closing, unless Final Approval of all land use approvals and entitlements required for the Project occurs after Closing, in which case the first LORA Permit Payment will be due not less than five (5) Business Days following Final Approval. LORA acknowledges and agrees that someone other than Developer may own the Retail Component at the time the LORA Permit Payments due on account of initial tenant improvements are required to be paid and that LORA shall still be required to make such LORA Permit Payments. The total LORA Permit Payments will not exceed the Permit Payment Cap. If, following LORA's payment of the LORA Permit Payments, for any reason the City determines a refund of System Development Charges, or building development or permit fees, attributable to the Project construction is due,the refund will be paid to LORA. Developer hereby assigns to LORA any rights or claims to a refund of the System Development Charges and building development and permit fees as it may have. Any refund of System Development Charges and building development and permit fees will reduce the total LORA Permit Payment made on a dollar for dollar basis. 2. Effective Date. This Eighth Amendment is effective on the date first set forth above. 3. Complete Agreement. This Eighth Amendment is the complete agreement among the parties with respect to the subject covered by this Eighth Amendment and it supersedes any prior oral agreements on the same subjects. EIGHTH AMENDMENT TO BLOCK 137 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Page 12 4. Effect on Development Agreement. Except as amended by this Eighth Amendment, the Development Agreement remains in full force and effect. 5. Counterparts. This Eighth Amendment may be executed and delivered in multiple counterparts, which together shall constitute one single binding and enforceable agreement. Delivery of an executed copy of this Eighth Amendment by facsimile or email shall be sufficient to form a binding agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties have entered into this Eighth Amendment. DEVELOPER: EVERGREEN BLOCK 137 JOINT VENTURE LLC, a Delaware limited liability company By: Evergreen Group, LLC, an Oregon limited liability company Its: Manager By: PHK Evergreen LLC, an Oregon limited liability company Its: Manager By: PHK Enterprises LLC, an Oregon limited liability company Its: Member By: Patrick H. Kessi, Member [Signatures Continued on Following Page] EIGHTH AMENDMENT TO BLOCK 137 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Page 13 LORA: LAKE OSWEGO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, the duly authorized and acting urban renewal agency of the City of Lake Oswego, Oregon By: Scott Lazenby, LORA Executive Director Approved as to form: David Powell, Attorney for LORA EIGHTH AMENDMENT TO BLOCK 137 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Page 14 15.1 o�to s� REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY REPORT °REGo� TO: Kent Studebaker, Chair Members of the Redevelopment Agency FROM: Jordan Wheeler, Deputy City Manager SUBJECT: CIVIC CENTER CONCEPT DESIGN AND FLOOR PLAN DATE: December 8, 2017 MEETING DATE: December 19, 2017 ACTION Receive an update on the Civic Center concept design and floor plan and approve the concept for pricing. Because the concept design will be presented to the community on Thursday, December 14, the attachments to this staff report will be added on December 15. INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND On December 14, the proposed conceptual design rendering will be presented to the community. The concept was developed based on the public's preferences and their input on the overall site plan, building massing options, and sample imagery of buildings that feature design elements that are consistent with the Lake Oswego style. The purpose of this study session is to share the conceptual design and proposed floor plan with the LORA Board and receive the Board's approval for proceeding with the cost development for the concept. The result of the pricing for the concept is planned to be presented to the Board on February 6, 2018. DISCUSSION The Civic Center concept design is based on the two-story, one building scheme that features a centralized public reception and lobby space, large community room/ emergency operations center, retail/non-profit tenant spaces, and new offices for City Hall and Police/911 functions. The option to combine the future Police and City Hall buildings with an attractive centralized reception and lobby corridor emerged as the preferred scheme when the site plan options and 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us Page 2 features were presented to the community and LORA Board (see September 19 LORA Board Staff Report). The advantages of a single civic center building include the opportunity to locate all public counters and functions on a single floor that would share an attractive reception and lobby area, having a secure connection for the police operations to the municipal court, and making more efficient use of space and floor layouts with the community room/EOC, city council chambers, and police reception area. Attachment 2 illustrates an example of how that central reception space could look and function. Conceptual Design The conceptual design is not the building's final design, but a rendering that begins to show the application of fenestration and material opportunities to the building's massing. The massing was developed based on the public's input and feedback on different roof form options. This massing concept highlights the central circulation space with a large gable roof form that spans the length of that central area and is also partly driven by a design that will best help accomplish the sustainability goals for the project. The lifted shed roof design will help allow for an abundance of natural light to permeate throughout the building while also providing the greatest opportunity for southern facing solar panels. Other design elements include columns, distinguishing the council chambers and community room from the rest of the building, and using materials such as stone and wood that speak to the permanence of the community's city hall. On the south side of the building, the gable roof over the central circulation space will again be the prominent feature, but the back entrance is also envisioned to have an attractive promenade that can also be integrated with a garage level elevator lobby and stairway. Floor Plan and Building Program Features City staff have been working with the architects to develop a space needs program and floor plan that best serves the public, modernizes the workplace environment, and makes the best use of space on the constrained site. In total, the building is approximately 72,000 square feet, which includes: • City Hall Program: 33,600 • Police/911 Facility Program: 23,300 sf • Shared Community Room/Emergency Operations Center: 2,500 sf • Public Lobby Area: 6,000 sf • Arts + Booktique: 4,700 sf The City Hall program includes all current city hall department functions, city council chambers, municipal court and several more conference rooms that what exists today. The program does not include much space for future growth as we don't anticipate significant population of service demand increases for Lake Oswego, but the work areas are being designed in a way that allows for flexibility and changes in priorities. Office sizes and employee workspaces have been 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us Page 3 sized appropriately to account for the changing needs and use of offices, and the inclusion of flexible spaces such as quiet work rooms and collaboration areas are modern workplace amenities that reflect the changing nature of how work is performed. 1St Floor For convenience for the public, the first floor of the civic center will feature the public counters and departments that interact the most with community members and customers. This includes the public counters and staff offices for planning, building, and engineering, utility billing, municipal court, police records and reception, and the citizen information center. The central reception area is envisioned to include shared seating areas, an attractive open stairway to the second floor, and a clearly defined and convenient access from the lower level parking via stairs and a public elevator. The large community meeting room/emergency operations center will be a prominent space on the first floor at the front of the building near the main entrance. This room will be stacked below the Council Chambers. The tenant spaces for the Arts Council and Booktique will also be on the first floor on the Police side of the building. 2nd Floor The second floor of the Civic Center will house the administrative services departments, conference rooms, council chambers, and employee amenities (break room, showers/lockers). Adjacent to the Council Chambers will be a Council workroom/executive session room. The program also includes a shared fitness room for Police and City Hall staff and a 2nd floor outdoor space that will help bring in natural light to the central reception area. In addition to the 1st floor police records entry and the connection to the municipal court, the second floor will also have an access point to the Police and 911 dispatch side of the building. RECOMMENDATION Receive an update on the Civic Center concept design and floor plan and approve the conceptual design for pricing. Attachments 1. Conceptual Renderings 2. Interior Reception Area Concept 3. Floor Plan 503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us LAKE OSWEGO CIVIC CENTER CONCEPTUAL DESIGN .... , , ,.r y41r, ' . _ ..-• 11.),t4 , , t N tot .t . ... , .1. .4„,. i • _ .. 1,---„,,tb--,:, _________ ___ ?* �?' , _ .... 1 A 1p 11.* LII 1 i ' ili . .. ••• / ' All ___,..., - ego . .. ____ _ _ ,_ _ 1 ......- -- -,-,-.5:1..: .4, ,._ l' : --- 1:11114---4-11 _.,_,_-_„:___..-----_-=--->---..„-_,------ ----------:" I\ / „II hilin I . ___ ., III . . ... _.:: 1 1 1 i . , • MI I 111 ' T 1 s'.:Li II . I . 41 I „.,......... _ 1. _ , , _ _.......„, IN. A \ - Lek: >swe ., II_ _ .- Illf M11� �aA - - III -- III C� - - , H Z - Iki,I ' i r ----- ,10 fM K ., ill I . IIIl'I'llii' '''''(I I :74 .--r=:I " - 1 I 1 rr" , I , J, - i1 ;y 1 ,� 1! 1 ;\ I III .iii • AIkililirtii IJ l Y 1 I IF'Jal it i..11l fI i /,. f, *N 4 , e'y• • ' I' � � �1' r . -, a , ,. s!. 441 \., \ i i' . '''''''''' ' 1 ibk Akk ' ., _ .,i I/ In `�► Iqk . I " i ..7....Nsr NI ., , i _70.,, , .., ._.,.. ..„. , 0.. 7ip, ;.ii , ,*, :. N - . n 1 , !" @ . \ j•: s. ". ..„... _,. 0 __. . .. ,,,., ., ,4: .. k _ 7, _\ AV_\ -• -• a. V 11V.,_---:-."-:-..I 0 0 irri .? U ._:._: • ilk No A L _I (- u 666..... Alltitir ' / . j , A I dfl' �r. • / / / / 1 F / . 1 I A C I 1 _1„. k., 1 L _ L J. 1 L li 1 L-\L LLLI_LA i) ' t , \ ` STHTREET / 1 -(---- --- ------H.\ rl -- LJ LJ LJ LJ LJ 1 LJ LJ y LJ LJ LJ LJ )'..s.''' P.' T ,_ I H # # 11 1 :[ +[ Lc- - ilMli E C = ` 7 1 !* I -rn Z • C CC I 0' 1 rn \L IZI fl.: 1 ' 1 • I :e- i 1\i'j----- \s.....s........_ 41 I . o 1 —_ I ' iir I 5} `- 3RTREET 1 - �`--- -' -N 1 , l I I I I I I T I i , T L—PACT-LI -I E� g• II' -�l�, , 1---Y-1 _ crIJ I� I f c- t3:- t7.- E r ir t r-T-7 r-T-7 ' I 1 t COMMUNITY BOOKTIQUE H+ HJ +H J'TEL I o E 1 .Rp. 1v= ARTS eL I rj El ' I I _ I ....ice _ KCAnCrva I I . N INt6-R1 'g .---u<" { L_JL_J L_ """°" ,..---1 `T-77=—': I/ r - _ ®� ��5., .... = POLICE L ` i• . JI V II_,,;,..1',:--;_.7._[■ry[ xim tx — I� au ET WET �naE�e Jf� +'n F �IIIIL AElf6 I -g L4i�'S•frta� F •Iu"'- 7W0 i �ll �� I Q -`�f�\ �---• 4} F l9[JIEkS(YbEI `�I �I Q; M+F 9 _—_ k; —_—_—_—H gT� X11- I1I1II1J1H11 U -� 1 _ _ __ I , Ilk1T111111 1 L I 1 I 1 -TlaF-m-Noi I r - -� -+- S '-47'. EDI ,. aE -+ - •' -� I _ 1 I me,e. DEM • ' I GI ' Cr_.*_._,.. I 1- t< L__L_J L_JL_11-3 [__ F( I -,1 L_911,4 I o I . 1 . 1 I • I • I I J 1 s n1 I Eye,- I - L ‘--1-7:177:-/—.4x I'-- p.. _�—— j II _ __ - — — — i 1 �1 � r I�}S0 I 1i —I-—-—-— ,�mayy .y T- 6. eLLE : -—- - - IA •- --- . OFFICER INEHBILE I F I +-H � _ - i�l1J l IPA I' J '1 Po CE IBUIII.LuIING 1&0 I - 1 �.� :L'1 , Willa I w �� . . k -� LPA J 7 1 _ _ "� ';' ' - - Elillba!lE 1E1,1 7 1 INSW.SlUe- H .. I . 1 . _ _ f_ ,_ L.....,0 'fes H +1 I a1 H H EI I I . I .' I -I 'NA MON I N '''..__'0,_= -,-I__' L—_L— i.,—,--J-1 a _ ./M911. HLAI I 44 ---- 1.`J I I • +,i. 1St Floor H W �ti — --- • W 1! -------NM M -------- -------- --- _. ...In uv_. r Y......Axa ............. PING.FELL — ~ H � — 5 I J J H II 11 = Imi Fit r— 11 I I----1- - I H y lfl H r LI r rEt� F-_�i' �NT.Ir._ wxw ♦ P 0 _ �-+ 1 1 I'-= I ti'I 1_ FIIFE9B r __ A r F __ LI �"''4-'' ~ 41 Lam!_ ._ • • C� / \ I I I11+—.d,..,I µ — \i U . D U��{ I \ —= fl d ,,-� �aeaeYe.IEu J.F } L�J__J L_�_J l 4 r C7 I rlr-flr,rl asp l i c..:.6 L' Cs G: AlltlaT�u"m `. _- • 4 _ • L""] i "' °' ''� E ti i v _— ra�l.iceer %M EFre eirolowE ,N 'T. I'] 1 :7 I `•.i .* BaFFEE • i.oeer .MM Fi 11 J_l�f 3�lIIl —! 3 rr1ti I+ a emwL, R1 1,. i _-•••• r _ j .-..,-, D.L. L.1.L _-/ ',_ , • i f h..n c.r l --1 � r ,... r '—"SUPPORT ..�"f•� L/\_1 �'J V IJ'--'' fCM1fl. I. I i syy' _ff , SEWER&LKM Iri IIIIIIIIIIIIIII 471 ._� i i •.,a j•,..7,17,..,11,.....7_ -'I a►r�n 'i�ER �'��l „� -a aF " HONE PAM. YIYIIF7L, M7Rdl J_ �!� -� i 5 0.1,61-ray a ,•. •u MOMRERUEAxT ccmr_oa I _unm ow r 1. I——IT—1 I——1——1 I. i t 1 I I Y4' I I — ! 1 • __ IT-1 as 1i � � ° \// m,loEr1 6EATwa ' M HP! i 1 * NAG Ktsp" �.k I—,eAIM ` � J , I — 1 � . LY' I I r I I r I I II _ TRAFFICS 711►MIMl''l ` f .AT F FA,fcn ik,R6L• 111111 II """"°r" !NICE R +� 1 e ANfE BE MEANT SE#aEMT NE MEMO ' f ' I III II '� V 11' – W r--- 1COPY+. 1 Ir r-,-1---1 _ Ve�yY, �''- - 1 °E'ETLE y :. uEurEHA,1T I 1 I bx I xccs {II1 c o-~1 _4, R tom]—' � ' I I 9 lg. �W... w . I , •, —rte iii 11.1 il I� sih. L--}- L h ' �7ECTT.E 9. L I �� I I ��� POLICE 1 — —} §TORME ""°' POLICE CITY . � �_� �I� F< ' 1 ( )—A I [{�] 1F��1{ f " 'i'.n - 1 1 1 e ' {O1lNER 4 I I I\.f R 1 \E \ / �I s�-.cr.rx P. • .. I_———— Fa1EhdKA -I- . H .8 ✓� — I_....1"-.L4_""=.4.__ 1.�- '- ....:Nd H -Iice - - I M _ e H I- Irn.l .. • • • • f • H H �� li // \- —1 i • • 1 • • \ I ! QQ.Ir'rti rs rt rs I t F —i — 2nd Floor