HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Item - 2002-02-05 - Number 7.4 - 7.4
02/05/02
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY
MEETING DATE: February 5, 2002
SUBJECT: Planning Commission Deliberations Regarding Density
Guidelines, ZC 7-98 (A)
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve ZC 7-98(A), Density Guidelines and direct staff to
prepare Findings, Conclusions and Order and finalize Ordinance 2309.
EST. FISCAL ATTACHMENTS: PUBLISHED NOTICES
IMPACT: • January 28, 2002 (Date):
Heisler Staff Repot't January 3, 2002
BUDGETED:
Ordinance No. 2309
Y N
Previous Council
FUNDING SOURCE: consideration:
September 15, 1998, Study
Session January 8, 2002,
Testimony taken at hearing on
January 15, 2002.
10
4
DEPT. DIR TOR ASSISTANT CITY CITY M NAGER
MANAGER
Signoff/date Signoff/date Signoff date
L:\Case Files\1998\ZC 7-98/2001 Activity/Council Cover Memo-Feb.5,2002 delib rations.doc
13i
1{O(LAKE O,fwF
c.
, CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
COUNCIL REPORT
OREGO$
TO: Douglas J. Schmitz, City Manaer
FROM: Jane Heisler, Project Plann
SUBJECT: ZC 7-98, Density Guidelines, Ac ditional Information Requested by
Council
DATE: January 28, 2002
ACTION:
This report provides an updated list of exhibits, additional written testimony submitted since the
January 15, 2002 City Council meeting and additional information requested by Council in
preparation for its deliberations on ZC 7-98, scheduled for February 5, 2002. The minutes of the
January 8, 2002 Study Session on Density Guidelines are found in Exhibit F-6. Exhibit F-7
contains a memo from David Powell, dated January 31, 2002, as requested by Councilor
Hoffman after the hearing on January 15, 2002.
DISCUSSION:
1. Exhibits submitted at the January 15, 2002 hearing are attached, from Exhibit E-2 to E-4
and Exhibits G-3-6 to G-3-18.
2. Additional written testimony submitted between January 16—January 29, 2002 is
attached in Exhibits G-3-19 to G-3-25.
3. Additional information requested by the Council:
a) Revised Metro Exception Language: See lExhibit F-8, Memo from Stephan
Lashbrook, Community Development Director, dated January 30, 2002.
b) Review of Metro's Enforcement Authority or Non-compliance with Urban
Growth Management Functional Plan. See Exhibit F-9, Memo from David D.
Powell, City Attorney, dated January 31, 2002.
c) Ordinance 2309. The Council requested that staff provide two versions of the
Density Guidelines Draft Ordinance. Attac ted is Exhibit F-10, which applies
Page 1 of 2,Council Supplemental Memo for 1-28-02 Deliberations on Density Guidelines 13.S
minimum densities to subdivisions only, aLid Exhibit F-11, which applies
minimum densities to partitions and subdivisions.
P/casefiles/1998/zc 7-98/Council Supp memo 1-28-02
13 4
Page 2 of 2,Council Supplemental Memo for 1-28-02 Deliberations onbensity Guidelines
DRAFT1
of characteristics on page 61 was consistent with the subcommittee's intent and DLCD's
direction. Mayor Hammerstad said that the subcommit ee looked at this list as a goal statement
and the statement on page 49 as a mission statement. Sh emphasized that they were not
regulatory statements.
Councilor Hoffman reiterated that he saw a tension bet een DLCD's direction and the Steering
Committee's discussion of its vision for the future. Mr. owell pointed out that DLCD's letter
did not oppose the idea of celebrating the idea of the neig borhood's single-family nature and
desiring to preserve it. He explained that DLCD objected to regulatory provisions that made that
harder or impossible to achieve. He concurred that the T sk Force did not see the character
statement as violating DLCD's direction; it was a statement declaring the neighborhood's
aspirations.
Mayor Hammerstad recalled that DLCD wanted the neighborhood plan to allow for any type of
housing. She indicated that the lack of that allowance was what DLCD based its objections on.
She spoke to leaving the statement in, citing the numerous compromises by the patient
neighborhood, which was been willing to work these issues through. Councilor Hoffman
concurred that the plan was a good piece of work.
Mr. Powell referenced a sentence on page 66 and several olicies under Goal 10, which stated a
goal of encouraging the maintenance of single-family resi ential uses as the predominant land
use, as long as other housing types were not unduly exclu ed. He held that that was consistent
with the neighborhood character statement.
Councilor Rohde asked if RAM 9 (page 91) was the only reference to the parking problems in
the area. Mr. Sin noted that it was also addressed under ajor issues in regulation 6. Doug
Schmitz, City Manager, indicated that this was a compr mise between making a policy versus a
recommended action measure (RAM). Mr. Sin confirme that the neighborhood did this before
the subcommittee formation.
Mayor Hammerstad mentioned the public hearing on Felruary 5.
3.4 Planning Commission Recommendation for App oval of Density Guidelines (ZC 7-98)
Jane Heisler, Community Planning Manager, reviewed the history of the density guidelines,
starting in 1996 with the adoption by Metro of its Urban rowth Management Functional Plan
that required all cities and counties to change their Comprehensive Plans and Zoning Codes to
meet the Functional Plan requirements. She mentioned th t many of those requirements did
result in more efficient use of urban land, the infrastructure, transportation system and open space
as a preventative against the expansion of the urban growth boundary.
Ms. Heisler mentioned the City Council's 1997 adoption Of regulating language for R-3 and R-5
zones, which the proposed amendment deleted because it pplied to lots created by subdivision
or by partition. She explained that later Metro explained t at the minimum that the City had to
do to meet its requirements was apply the guidelines to su divisions, which the proposed
amendment did.
Ms. Heisler noted that the second proposal in 1999 to apply the guidelines to the rest of the
residential zones including applying minimum density to any proposed lot with a minimum of a
half acre size. She recalled that Council asked staff to melt with Metro to discuss the City's
options and a possible exception; Metro did not find an exception feasible because the City could
not meet its density targets within the city limits.
Ms. Heisler indicated that this proposal, heard by the Plan ing Commission on November 14,
2001, did what Council requested by justifying application of the guidelines to subdivisions. She
noted the Planning Commission findings (Exhibit A, page 115 — 116). She reviewed the
arguments that the Commission heard during public testim ny. She summarized the
Commission's response to the testimony as the City was tr ing to do its part in terms of regional 1 3 5
goals, and that long-range planning involved looking at th future.
City Council Study Session Minutes
January 8, 2002 EXHIBIT F-6
Ms. Heisler mentioned that staff originally proposed not including the R-2, R-0 and DD zones
because those three zones based the maximum number o units on floor area ratio rather than on
minimum lot sizes. She explained that staff put them bac in when Metro argued that the City
was not dealing with all its residential zones. She obsery d that doing so was also more in
keeping with the Council's direction to apply the minimu density requirements to subdivisions.
Ms. Heisler mentioned the Commission's concern that a property owner could circumvent the
minimum density requirements through a series of partitions over more than one calendar year.
She discussed the Commission's solution of requiring a `future development plan,' by which the
City would not lose the opportunity for minimum density n the entire parcel.
Ms. Heisler used an overhead projector graphic to demonstrate how the future development plan
worked. She described a scenario of a person applying to partition into two lots, land that was
four times the minimum lot size. The person would draw up a future development plan that
showed how the parcel could be developed at minimum dnsity over time; the City would record
the notice of the future development plan so that any prop rty owner would know about it as well
as the City, and both could use it as a guide for future dev lopment.
Ms. Heisler described another scenario of a property own r with a lot with an existing house on
it who wanted to partition it into two lots and build anoth r house; he/she had to locate the house
on the second lot in such a manner that it would not precl de the future partitioning of the
remaining lot.
Councilor Turchi asked if this requirement precluded a p operty owner with two acres of land
from partitioning his/her property to give half to his/her c ildren to build a house on and use the
other half to build his/her dream house, nestled in the tree in the center of the property. Ms.
Heisler agreed that there was a potential for this requirem nt to impose a size restriction and a
location restriction on homes, even if the property was not ever subdivided.
Mr. Vizzini concurred, arguing that the zone itself established the restriction because it
determined how many lots could occupy the space, as well as the building envelope through
setbacks.
Ms. Heisler confirmed to Councilor Turchi that a person building on Lot 2 would have to pick
out which of the potentially available lots he/she would put his/her house on. She concurred that
a dream house could not be located in the woods in the center of the property.
Councilor Turchi commented that this was different frorri his general notion of minimum
density, which has been that it was not a big deal, as a pers n could partition his/her property into
three lots. He pointed out that this proposal allowed the p rtitioning into three lots but then
required building on the property as though it were a subdi ision. Mr. Vizzini stated that a
person had to build in keeping with the zone.
Mr. Vizzini described the friction as arising from saying, on one hand, that the property owner
needed to plat his/her property according to the zone requirements, and on the other, that he/she
could not build on multiples of the lots once they were platted, because that meant building
incompatibly with the zone. He argued that trying to put a,building that normally fit on an R-10
zone in an R-5 zone raised neighborhood compatibility issues. He commented that he heard
concern about the idea that people could not build across lots, once they were platted, and that
this proposal required the building envelope to fit within a ingle lot on the plat.
Councilor Turchi said that he understood that intellectually but he had a problem with the larger
pieces of land in Forest Highlands. He observed that many]Forest Highlands property owners
only wanted to partition their land to build a second house On it; they did not want to subdivide.
He argued that this requirement did not allow them to partition their property and use it as though
it were a one-acre lot.
Mayor Hammerstad referenced the Atherton Heights development on Derby Street. She
pointed out that the developer did cluster the houses towar s the front of the five acres, thus
13 fi
City Council Study Session Minutes
January 8, 2002
leaving the back land for future development, which was 4 good decision in light of preserving
the urban growth boundary. She held that it would have been a better decision if it had been a
rule.
Mr. Vizzini mentioned another possibility of not dividing the property but simply placing a
secondary structure on the acreage.
Councilor Turchi commented that he supported the urban growth boundary and Lake Oswego
taking its fair share of growth and development in the Portland metro area but he wanted to be
sure that he understood the ramifications of the proposal.
Ms. Heisler concluded that the language stating 'two lots meant that her idea of building a
secondary dwelling unit within the square footage of the home or as an accessory structure would
not work.
Mr.Powell discussed the concern of the Forest Highland roperty owners, who were not as
interested in building secondary dwelling units on the sane lot, as they were in partitioning the
land and giving half of it to their children. He observed t at clearly the Council had a difficult
choice. The Council could either go strictly with Metro's minimum requirements and allow the
opportunity for serial partitions to get around the minimu density requirement or it could use
the Commission's ingenious solution of requiring a shado plat for partitions.
Mayor Hammerstad held that, from a practical standpoint, the market would drive the issue.
She argued that property owners would put the maximum dumber of dwelling units possible on
the land in order to achieve the maximum profit in the long run. She pointed out that Lake
Oswego was already developing at more than 80% density.
Councilor McPeak observed that one reason why the Council let this subject simmer as long as
it has was because of its lack of welcome by possibly the majority of the Council. She concurred
that the Council overall supported the concept of the urban growth boundary, which she did not
want to expand more rapidly than necessary. She stated that she would wait to be convinced that
this was a good idea.
Councilor McPeak argued that if they made this change f r the small number of likely serial
partitions, they would be adding to a controversial solutio . She described the idea as `difficult
to defend.' She said that she found it hard to support the i ea at this time. She held that, in
trying to achieve this perfectly efficient use of land, the Cc'uncil could harm its chances of
achieving a good but not perfect use of land.
Councilor McPeak stated that if Metro did not ask this of the Council, then she was not yet
convinced that they should ask it of themselves. She held :hat the gains were small and the
negatives were large.
Ms. Heisler put up a graphic showing what other commun ties have done. She noted that some
cities have achieved 50% minimum density because they ere so close to meeting their targets
while others have included partitions because they could n t meet their targets if they restricted it
to subdivisions.
Mr. Lashbrook presented the research staff did per Counc'l's request this morning. He reported
that there were four jurisdictions still pending before Metr on compliance with this issue: Lake
Oswego, Oregon City, Durham and Multnomah County. e indicated that Oregon City was still
working on it, Durham asked for an extension because it di not want to do it, and Multnomah
County was doing it through a participatory process with it cities.
Ms. Heisler clarified that Multnomah County did not provide urban services; therefore, it used
an intergovernmental agreement process with its cities to achieve compliance, which it needed to
finish.
Mr. Lashbrook reviewed the three questions he asked of iidividuals at each of the cities,
including whether they applied it to land partitions and whether they had a method of phasing it
City Council Study Session Minutes
January 8, 2002
in. He noted that, while most of the cities were already d ing more than the minimum Metro
requirements, they were not all doing them the same.
Councilor Schoen concurred with Councilor McPeak's c mments. He commented that he had
come in with the understanding that the City would not a ply minimum density to partitions. He
stated that he could not support the proposal. He spoke t doing what Metro required the City to
do, which would be an easier sell. He recalled that the nu ber of developable parcels in the city
were not enough to create a battle over partitions versus future development plans for partitions.
Mayor Hammerstad commented that if this provision was going to be a fatal flaw in the support
of the ordinance, then the Council wanted to see an ordinance with this part deleted.
Councilor Hoffman asked what problem the City was trying to solve with the future
development plan. Mr. Lashbrook summarized the com ents of Mr. Johnson and Mr.
Sandblast, the two Planning Commissioners most strong] supporting the future development
plan. He indicated that these two gentlemen have been ar and the business long enough to have
seen developers using a series of partitions to get around ubdivision requirements. He
mentioned a scenario of a developer asking for a two-lot partition on December 30 and another
two-lot partition two weeks later.
Mr. Vizzini clarified that the Commission thought it unfa r to allow two different standards for
identical properties abutting each other. He noted that on coming under the subdivision
requirements had one set of standards while the other coming under a series of partitions had
another set of standards, which reeked of unfair applicatio of the requirements.
Mr. Vizzini indicated that he did not see this as an issue f Metro compliance but rather as a
logical extension of the zoning map. He argued that the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map
established a given area of town for development at a certin density level, which also achieved
neighborhood compatibility.
Mr. Vizzini pointed out that this proposal did not apply t all partitions but only those that met
the four times the minimum lot size requirement. He emp asized that they were not talking
about small lots dividable into two to three parcels but onl lots large enough to divide into four
or more parcels. He mentioned that this issue was person 1 to him because of the situation on the
large parcel in back of his house, in which the property o ner built a large house that was
incompatible with the neighborhood and proposed dividin*the property in two and building a
second incompatible house.
Mr. Vizzini cited the development behind his house as an example of the problem that could
result from serial partitioning. He conceded that looking the situation in terms of an owner
wanting to give his/her children a piece of the property waS one way to look at it. He argued that
another way was to see that serial partitioning allowed the opportunity for incompatible
developments that were at odds with the underlying zone and the Comprehensive Plan.
Mayor Hammerstad described a scenario, using the graphic, in which a property owner
demolished a little house on his/her land and built a big hose under the County standards. Then
the owner wanted to annex into the City and subdivide, which presented a problem because of
the house location. She held that this was happening along the major streets, especially in Forest
Highlands, where a huge house took up a large amount of land and made it almost impossible to
put in development compatible with the neighborhood.
Mayor Hammerstad argued that they could prevent this senario by using the shadow platting,
so that they knew where the house could go. She spoke of,doing an intergovernmental agreement
with the County with respect to the minimum density requirements for the region.
Mayor Hammerstad concurred with Councilor Turchi t at for these examples, the market was
not working. Councilor McPeak referenced the Mayor's arlier comment that market forces
supported the concept. She argued that zoning was suppos d to put ultimate limits on the use of
t
City Council Study Session Minutes
January 8, 2002
13b
i
the land but not force people towards a limit. She held th t minimum density did force people
with respect to the use of the land, while zoning simply 1 'd out the boundaries.
Councilor Hoffman disagreed, contending that zoning w s a forced use of the land, regulations
that came into existence because the market was not wor *rig. Councilor McPeak clarified that
she was speaking of a single piece of property. She point d out that zoning allowed a property
owner to divide a large piece of property up into a certain number of pieces but it did not force
the property owner to divide it.
Mayor Hammerstad conceded the point but argued that inimum density did not force
anything either. Councilor McPeak disagreed, arguing t at a shadow plat prohibited a property
owner from building a big house. She said that zoning cu ently allowed a person to have one
house on a big piece of land. She contended that the shad w plat added another restriction on the
land use by saying that the property owner could not buil a big house on that piece of land.
Mr. Vizzini pointed out that the restriction was what was allowed in the zone. Councilor
McPeak reiterated that zoning was not intended to force t at, rather it limited a lot to a certain
size under the zoning and allowed the property owner to uild up to whatever the zone allowed.
Councilor Hoffman agreed, commenting that zoning fored the size of the building as well as
the type of development. Councilor McPeak argued that this went beyond that.
Mr. Vizzini pointed out that the Mayor's scenario used an undivided lot with the dream house
built on the back of the lot; then the owner came into the City in order to divide the lot. He
described the situation as a `grandfathered situation,' in asking the question of what did the
minimum density rule require of the property owner when he/she came into the city to divide the
land.
Mr. Vizzini mentioned his and Ms. Heisler's search throw h the exceptions to see if, under this
circumstance, the owner could divide the remaining prope y into fewer lots than otherwise
would be required under the zone. He noted that the locat on and size of the house precluded the
full subdivision of the land per the zone requirements bec use there was not enough room to
meet the setback requirements.
Mr. Vizzini pointed out that there was a loophole in the way the ordinance was written, which
could be codified by adding an exception under Sec 48.57.15: in cases where there was a pre-
existing structure and insufficient land to meet the minimum requirement, then one divided the
land up to the maximum extent possible under the zone.
Councilor Schoen asked if the reality was that people would develop to the County standards
before annexing to the city. He argued that this put an unnecessary restriction on the use of the
land.
Councilor McPeak asked if the City could put a timing r ulation that prohibited partitions
closer than one year apart. Mr. Powell noted that Metro u ed the state law definitions of
partitions and subdivisions. He conceded that there might be some opportunity for the City to
make that kind of a regulation, as long as it used the same erminology and applied it at least to
subdivisions. He indicated that Metro would not prohibit the City from applying it to partitions
beyond the definition of subdivision.
Mr. Vizzini argued that this was not about restricting the 4se of someone's property; only a
partition or subdivision of the property triggered this provision. He held that a person could
develop a dream house on his/her property at any time under the current rules and these proposed
rules. He described this as an issue about land subdivision based on the zone, and not about
development.
Councilor Rohde described how one could get around the minimum density requirement under
the Mayor's scenario by using a lot line adjustment. Mr. Sin concurred that there were loopholes
people could use to get around the rules. 1
City Council Study Session Minutes
January 8, 2002
1 3:+
--------- --------
Councilor McPeak mentioned that there were some pro erty owners who were families in
which the senior members of the family owned a big piec of land, which served as their
retirement nest egg or which they could give to their chil en. She held that a partition was their
route. She argued that the City limited their use of their p operty by allowing a partition into two
lots but not allowing them to use the property as they wis ed; instead, they had to site houses in a
way that fit in with the ultimate use of the land in the futu e. She reiterated that she saw that as a
big restriction. Mr. Vizzini concurred that it was.
Councilor Rohde held that a property owner could do that, under the scenario he just suggested.
Mr. Vizzini said that the issue for him was what tools did they have in place to realize the
Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Map that flowed front it. He asked how to address the
demand in the community to protect neighborhood character without the tools in place to do so.
He argued that the most essential tool was the zone. 1
Mr. Vizzini spoke of the incompatibilities that resulted fr m not following the zone. He asked
why they went through the effort of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map if they did not use
it as a blueprint for development. He argued that this wasliabout developing the tools to ensure
that the City used the Plan and Map as a blueprint.
Councilor McPeak observed that Mr. Vizzini spoke of ensuring it while she spoke of allowing
it.
Mr. Vizzini argued that a similar tool was street connectivity. The City required developers to
go through that in order to ensure that they developed in a manner that was in keeping with the
goals and blueprint for the community. He contended that, without the blueprint, they would see
the hodge-podge development of East Portland.
Mr. Vizzini concurred with Councilor Graham that the ompatibility question was an issue.
Mayor Hammerstad agreed, pointing out that allowing t o houses on a 1.5-acre piece of land
in an R-7.5 zone, which were larger than what was allowe in an R-15 zone, eliminated the
zoning pattern.
Councilor Schoen said that he was looking for the simplest requirement. He held that creating a
situation in which people had to figure out how to get around the requirement was an unhealthy
way to develop land. He reiterated that if Metro required a minimum density requirement, then
they should do what Metro required.
Mayor Hammerstad noted the public hearing on January 15 and the deliberation and decision
on February 5. She indicated that they would leave the record open for a week and a half for
written comments.
Councilor Rohde asked staff to provide a colored map sh wing the large pieces of land within
the City's urban services boundary. He held that that info ation made it clear why Forest
Highlands became so upset over this issue, considering tha its R-20 County zone translated to an
R-7.5 zone in the city. Ms. Heisler presented a map showi g that information. She concurred
that Forest Highlands was the neighborhood outside the cq limits most impacted by these
guidelines.
Councilor Turchi asked if the piecemeal annexation and evelopment in the Forest Highlands
area resulted in inefficient engineering of City services, perhaps having to go around County land
and costing the taxpayers money. Ms. Heisler indicated nO, noting that provision of services was
primarily 'pay as you go.' Mr. Lashbrook clarified that if all that land had been in the city 30
years ago, the City could have provided the services more efficiently, as the land was
topographically challenging.
Mayor Hammerstad mentioned the exceptions to minimum density requirements (page 120).
She discussed her concern about the effect on development of density transfers for publicly
owned open space. She commented that the City has purchased a significant amount of open
City Council Study Session Minutes
January 8, 2002 1 4 0
I
_I
space in the Stafford area or it might purchase open space in other areas. She pointed out that a
density transfer for the open space meant developing the rest of the area as multi-family.
Mayor Hammerstad mentioned an upcoming Metro sub ommittee that would be looking at
taking open space out of the inventory of developable lan , which she wanted to sit on. She
wondered if they could state in the ordinance that publicl owned open space was not subject to
density transfer. She pointed out that, with a movement of the urban growth boundary, the
productivity of Stafford came in at a certain number of un'ts without the consideration of open
space; that number became Lake Oswego's target, which t could not meet with density transfers
for open space.
Mayor Hammerstad spoke of two lines of defense: getting on the committee and exempting
publicly owned open space from density transfers. Conn ilor Schoen asked if that would
include watersheds and sensitive lands. He observed that y the time they took everything out of
Stafford, there was not as much developable land left as e eryone thought. Mr. Powell indicated
that he did not think that it would hurt anything to add it i . Mayor Hammerstad asked staff to
do so.
Councilor Graham questioned whether Metro would disallow Lake Oswego superceding its
rules when it came down to the final crunch. Mayor Hammerstad pointed out that open space
was a value that Metro was looking for within the urban growth boundary.
Councilor Schoen asked if Metro would require density tiansfer for sensitive lands. Mayor
Hammerstad indicated that Metro did not require it but t e City has taken it out.
Councilor Hoffman indicated that his only concern with the ordinance was the future
development plan. He said that he understood that people were trying to ensure that any
development was consistent with the zone, which was wh} zoning was a planning tool; if the
City believed that R-7.5 was the right zone in an area, then it should not allow someone to split a
20,000 square foot lot into two 10,000 square foot lots. He noted that they were trying to get
development that matched the neighborhood.
Ms. Heisler indicated to Councilor McPeak that the map showing the actual number of acres
affected by the ordinance has changed, and staff would pr vide the Council with an updated map.
Mayor Hammerstad requested colored maps for the pack ts, including an updated
unincorporated area map.
4. OTHER BUSINESS
Mr. Lashbrook introduced Denny Egner, the new Long 12ange Planning Manager.
Mr. Vizzini thanked the Council for the opportunity to speak.
Mayor Hammerstad asked the Council to allow a reduction in the testimony time limits for
minimum density from 10 minutes for neighborhood associations and 5 minutes for individuals
to 5 minutes and three minutes respectively.
Councilor Rohde disagreed with reducing it.
Councilor Turchi moved to reduce the testimony time limits to 5 minutes for neighborhood
associations and 3 minutes for individuals. Councilor Schoen seconded the motion.
Mayor Hammerstad explained that by restricting the testimony to those time limits and leaving
the record open for written comment, she hoped to move things along in an expeditious manner.
Councilor Hoffman concurred with Councilor Rohde tha they should not reduce the time
limits. He pointed out that this was the only chance for the e people to speak and it was an
important issue to some. Mr. Lashbrook suggested allowi g those who felt cut off by the time
limits to speak again at the end. He observed that not many stuck around. Councilor Hoffman
said that was fine.
City Council Study Session Minutes
January 8, 2002 14 1
Mr. Vizzini mentioned that Mayor Katz of Portland, upo hearing the same testimony for the
fifth time, would ask for a show of hands from the audien a in support of the comments and then
ask that folks not take up additional time stating what has already been stated. He concurred that
there was a civic engagement issue but held that the Coun it also did not need to listen to the
same thing repeatedly.
Councilor Turchi withdrew his motion.
5. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Hammerstad adjourned the meeting at 8:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Roby Christie
City ecorder
APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
ON
Judie Hammerstad, Mayor
II
City Council Study Session Minutes .,. __
January 8, 2002 14 N
1�Oi� TAKE pswfCp City Attorney's Office
Ar
ar tii
Memorandum
°REGON
To: Judie Hammerstad, Mayor
Members of Lake Oswego City Council
Douglas Schmitz, City Manager
From: David D. Powell, City Attorney,jr
Subject: 1987 Amendment to Comprehensive Plan Map and Text for Forest Highlands
Area
Date: January 31, 2002
At the January 15, 2002 public hearing on the proposed inimum density requirements, there
was testimony concerning the city's reasoning when the c rrent zoning designations were
established in the Forest Highlands area. Councilor Hof an has asked that the following
attached documents be distributed to the Council and ma e part of the record:
• February 4, 1987 Findings, Conclusions and Orde of the City Council (PA 7-85-420)
• November 24, 1986 Findings, Conclusions and O er of the Planning Commission(PA
7-85-351)
• September 13, 1985 Staff Report (PA 7-85)
You will note from the findings that a Forest Highlands Panning Subcommittee developed an
initial proposed plan for the area. This plan called for residential areas that gradually increased
in density from the center(R-15) to the perimeter(R-0) o the area. High density areas were
located as close to arterial streets as possible.
The Planning Commission had received opposition testim ny that there should be less extreme
(R-0 and R-15) designations, that there should be as low a density as possible in the center of the
area, and that the densities of other areas of the city shoul be increased, allowing Forest
Highlands to remain low density. Staff then worked with he neighborhood association to try to
develop a plan that would achieve more of a consensus among residents of the area.
The resulting plan, which the City Council adopted,was viewed by the Council as "a reasonable
compromise of the desires of the existing residents and property owners to have a neighborhood
that maintains its social and physical fabric as it grows to its ultimate density while at the same
time presenting a reasonable development potential and fulfilling state mandated residential 1 4 3
density requirements."1
Council Findings, 3 EXHIBIT F-7
g �P•
- I
Memorandum
1987 Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Forest Highlands)
January 31, 2002
Page 2
The Council found that the proposed density was consistent with the platted development pattern
in the "adjacent surrounding areas." 2 It also found that, by grouping residential densities and
providing a decreasing density gradient while moving away from arterial streets, the plan "will
maintain and strengthen the low density single-family residential area which is developing in the
interior of this area."3
The plan was also found to meet the requirements of Go l 10 (provide for housing needs) and the
Metropolitan Housing Rule. The maximum planned den ity possible for residential development
in the area was found to be 6.3 dwelling units per net developable acre. Combining this with the
rest of the city resulted in an overall city density of 9.94 tp 10.04 dwelling units per net
developable acre.4
In approving the plan, the Council balanced the policies c f the existing version of the
Comprehensive Plan, which included(paraphrased):
• Maintaining the overall average residential density within the Urban Services Area
(Overall Density Policy—General Policy I)
• Allocating residential densities based upon land suitability and public facilities capacity,
while applying the Growth Management Policies in a manner which assures reasonable
opportunities for residential development to occur at maximum permitted plan densities
(Overall Density Policy—General Policy II)
• Assuring residential density is appropriately related to site conditions, surrounding uses,
capacity of public facilities and overall Growth Management Policies; Providing for
medium to high density designations to meet the needs for such housing. (Residential
Density Policies— General Policies I and IV)
• Encouraging a range of housing types; Encourage the provision of low to moderate cost
housing to meet the city's fair share of local and r gional needs. (Housing Choice
Policies—General Policies I and II)
There was also a Residential Density Policy (General Poliy III) that provided for maintaining
substantially developed single-family residential neighbor:ioods at existing density designations.
However, implicit in the findings is the conclusion that Forest Highlands was not considered to
be"substantially developed."
The Council also deleted from the Comprehensive Plan a l olicy that required the city to maintain
a semi-rural and low density land use in Forest Highlands end allow no urban development as
long as the "future urbanizable" designation applied to thOrea.5 The Council found that the
area had become urban land, rather than "urbanizable land,' for Goal 14 purposes.6 The Council
2 Council Findings,p. 19
s Council Findings,p. 9
a Council Findings,p. 14
sResidential Neighborhood Policies—General Policy I ct
Council Findings,p. 17 l
Memorandum
1987 Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Forest Highlancs)
January 31, 2002
Page3
noted that the area was adjacent to and surrounded on three sides by the City of Lake Oswego,
that all urban services except sanitary sewer were being rovided to the area, that there were 500
persons living there and that 43 acres were developed with structures on lots of less than 3/4 of an
acre. The Council concluded that the area was committe to urban level uses, and that the lack
of sanitary sewers, which were available upon annexatio , was the only constraint to further
development.'
'Id. 145
146
•
1 BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL
2 OF THE CITY 0 LAKE OSWEGO
3 A Request for Approval of a )
Text and Map Amendment to the ) PA 7-85-420
4 Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan )
(Forest Highlands) ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER
5 Nature of Application
6 To amend the Comprehensive Plan map and text for the Forest
7 Highlands "Future Urbanizable Area" which includes approximately
8 246 acres .
Hearings
10 The Planning Commission held ublic hearings and considered
11 this application at its meetings o September 23, 1985, October
12 28, 1985, December 9, 1985 and Mar h 10, 1986 and by its Order PA
13 7-85-351 _recommended approval . The City Council considered this
14 application on the record made bef re the Planning Commission at
15 the Council ' s January 20, 1987 mee ing .
Criteria
O 16
The request under considerati n is a geographic amendment , a
O 17
0 legislative change regulated by LO 56 .135, 56.157 and 56.158.
3 18
O Applicable requirements and provis ons of the Comprehensive Plan,
a 19
LCDC Goals and administrative rule , regional planning policies
i 20
a and City Codes were considered .
21
Findings and Reasons
22
Three staff reports were written on the Forest Highlands
23 planning issue . Those are identified as the September 13 , 1985 ,
24 February 27, 1986 and January 12 , 1987 staff reports . The
25 original land use proposal (Exhibit L) contained in the September
26
1 - FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER i q'rl
Page
1 13, 1985 staff report was not acc-pted by the Planning Commission
2 at their October 28 meeting .
3 The verbal and written testi ony made to the Planning
4 Commission at the September 23 an' October 28, 1985 meetings was
5 mainly in opposition to that orig nal plan. The identity of or
6 ability to provide public facilities was never raised as a serious
issue . The Forest Highlands planing subcommittee ' s main theme in
7
$ developing the plan was to try an• allocate high density areas as
close to arterial streets as possible on suitable, undeveloped
Q
land . Located in the interior of the study area were low density
10
residential areas that gradually ' ncreased in density from the
11
center (R-15 ) to the perimeter (R 0) . Much of the testimony
12
against the Exhibit L plan was th- t the multiple family
13
designations along the arterials ere too high in density ,
14
included too much land and were 1•cated within the interior of the
15
planning area . Also, it was suggested that the density range not
z16 be so extreme , there be less R-0 and R-15 designations , thus
� W
' 0 17 creating a more even distribution .f residential units . This
- o
'N 18 would result in more land allocated for R-7 . 5 and R-5
0
) a 19 residential designations . Many persons living in the Country
_ z 20 Commons subdivision within the City ( zoned R-15 ) , and not within
21 the area under consideration, favo ed having as low a density as
22 possible in the center of the stud area abutting the
23 subdivision . There also was testi ony that the density of other
24 residential areas of the City coul be increased allowing Forest
25 Highlands to maintain a lower areal-wide density. Based on the
26 above comments , the Planning Commi sion requested that staff work
2 - FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER
Page 1 4
1 with the neighborhood association in adjusting the Plan map to
2 develop a better consensus of res dents in favor of the plan .
3 Between the months of Octobe 1985 and March 1986,
4 adjustments to the map were made oy City staff and the Forest
5 Highlands planning subcommittee that addressed many of the
6 neighborhood concerns expressed a the first two meetings .
7 The Planning Commission recommended adoption of Attachment A
8 and the associated text amendment at their March 10, 1986
meeting. This plan represents a easonable compromise of the
desires of the existing residents and property owners to have a
10
neighborhood that maintains its s cial and physical fabric as it
11
grows to its ultimate density while at the same time presenting a
12
reasonable development potential a d fulfilling state mandated
13
residential density requirements . The City Council relies upon
14
the evidence referenced in the sta f report dated January 12 , 1987
15 as evidentiary support for the fin ings and reasons contained in
16 this order , which adopts the Planning Commission recommendation
i W
° 17 without modification.
°
18 This amendment was originally initiated as a major plan
19 amendment pursuant to LOC 56. 150. During the consideration of
W20 this amendment the City Code was a ended to create a new type of
21 comprehensive plan amendment , the eographic amendment. LOC
A
22 56. 135, 56. 157 , 56. 158 . Those Cod amendments became effective
23 October 17, 1986 . The effect of the change in classification' was
24 to reduce the number of criteria that needed to be addressed in
25 this proceeding without changing the remaining criteria . Due to
'26 this reduction it is not considered necessary by the Council to
Pale 3 - FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER 1 4 `'
1 have the public hearing reopened to address the remaining
2 unamended criteria again .
3 The following findings and re= sons support the conclusion
4 that the proposed geographic amend ent conforms to, or better
5 implements, Plan policies for the •articular uses involved , as
6 required by LOC 56.158( 1 ) .
7 Urban Service Boundary Policy
8 General Policy
"III. The City will manage a d phase urban growth within the
Urban Services Boundary, with a logical planned extension of
10
basic services.
11
The amendment conforms to, or better implements this policy
12
by carrying out the planning exerc se required . This amendment is
13
the first step in managing the dev-lopment of the Forest Highlands
14
area to urban levels . The density designations chosen have been
15 selected because they satisfy the other applicable legal
16 requirements . Basic services are vailable and will be extended
17 upon annexation the the City. Thi amendment is a result of the
3 18 review required by this plan polic . Specific Policy 2 for
19 General Policy III can be amended y deleting the second paragraph
z 20 because it has been fulfilled , as an the entire Specific Policy 3
it
21 for that same general policy.
22 Overall Density Policy
23 General Policy
24 "I . The Comprehensive Plan w it maintain the overall,
25 average residential density o , the Urban Service Area within
26 the capacity of planned basic public facilities systems,
Page 4 - FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDE' 1 J
•
1 including at least water, sewer, streets, drainage and public
2 safety.
3 II. Residential densities and land use intensities will be
4 allocated on the basis of land suitability and public
5 facilities capacity. In the adoption of Plan amendments or
6 implementing regulations and ordinances the City will apply
7 the Growth Management Policies in a manner which assures
8 reasonable opportunities for residential development to occur
at maximum permitted Plan densities subject to compliance
with the zoning and development codes, development standards,
10
and with the applicable provi ions of OAR Division 01 through
11
20. "
12
Residential Density Policies
13
General Policy
14
"I. The City will assure tha residential density is
15 appropriately related to site conditions, surrounding land
16 uses, and capacity of public facilities, ( especially
17 streets) , and overal Growth M- nagement policies on density.
18 Density will be limited in areas identified as
19 potentially hazardous in acco dance with the actual degree of
• 20 hazard.
21 III. Substantially developed single-family residential
22 neighborhoods will be maintained at existing density
23 designations .
24 IV. The City will provide for medium to high density
25 designations to meet needs for such housing, in accordance
26 with Growth Management policie- . "
5 - FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER 151
Page
--- -- ------
Housing Choice Policies
2 General Policy
3 "I . The City will encourage he provision of a range of
4 housing types to meet the nee,•s of various lifestyles and
5' family types.
6 II. The City will encourage he provision of low to moderate
cost housing to meet Lake Osw-go' s fair share of local and
7
8 regional needs . "
The amendment conforms to, or better implements the above
stated policies by providing residential density designations
10
consistent with state mandated req ' irements that can be supported
11
by existing or planned public facilities and that reflect the
12
suitability of the area for specif c designations . The record
13
contains evidence that a thorough _ nalysis of necessary public
14
facilities was performed and that ,he physical features of the
1
0 15 area were taken into consideration in arriving at the density
16 designations assigned . When combining the density calculations of
Q
° 17 the area with the density calculations for the remainder of the
5 18 City, the result is an overall residential density of 9 . 94 to
19 10. 04 dwelling units per acre net uildable, depending on
W20 assumptions used . This calculatio takes into consideration the
it 21 October , 1986 Comprehensive Plan a endment to the Willamette
22 Riverfront Subarea . Approximately 50 acres of this area has been
23 designated R-0/General Commercial . The Plan amendment for the
24 subarea ( PA 06-86-02-283 ) requires the allocation of sufficient
25 land to provide the reasonable opp rtunity for the development of
26 a minimum of 500 dwelling units at the R-0 designation. The
Page 6 - FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER 1 5
1
overall densityfor buildable lanes in the City
y prior to this and
2 the Willamette Riverfront Subarea amendment was 10. 2 dwelling
3 units per net buildable acre .
4 The City Engineering Departm-nt has studied the area and
5 concluded that gravity-fed sewer lines are feasible and that
6 existing sewer lines and treatment facilities can accommodate
7 additional sewerage generated by projected development . It has
8 also been found that additional st.rm water from the study area
can be accommodated . An adequate •omestic water system presently
exists in the area and can accommodate projected development .
10
Police protection can be provided ith little increase in staffing
11
and physical facilities . Fire projection is currently provided to
12
the area by the City through a con ' ract with the Lake Grove Fire
13
h District . •
14
Whenever possible , high density residential districts were
15
located on lots greater than 3/4 of an acre . Alternately, lot
0 16
O clusters that could qualify as redevelopable were used . High
O 17
density designations were not placed on the steep and narrow
0 18 stream corridors , such as the one s.uthwest of Goodall Road , and
• 19 they were generally located on more moderate slopes . The most
W20 critical public facility issue rega ding this planning effort is
c 21 street capacity . The amendment loc; tes high density residential
22 areas either abutting Boones Ferry, an arterial street , or very
23 close to it . Arterial streets have the capacity to accommodate
24 the traffic generated by the R-3 an: R-5 density designations . By
25 decreasing density on the property furthest away from the
26 arterials the traffic impacts will .e minimized . As the area
Page 7 - FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER 1 5 3
1 develops street improvements will be required to satisfy City
2 requirements in LOC Cpt . 44 and 4• . There is no present need for
3 upgraded streets and City standar•s will not allow development
4 unless adequate access exists . B providing a range of density
5 from R-3 through R-10 the opportunity for a variety of housing
6 options which can vary with style :nd cost has been provided .
Social Resources Policies
7
8 General Policies
"III . The City will encourag- participation of citizens in
the development of the future community, so residents can
10
feel that they are members of the community. "
11
This policy has been implemen ed through the extensive
12
planning process, coordination wit Forest Highlands Neighborhood
13
Association and public hearing pro ess which has led to this Plan
14 °
amendment .
3 . 15
"V. The City will strengthen neighborhood identity, through
16Jo
public decisions which provid for neighborhood boundaries ,
0 17 social centers, residential p ivacy, pedestrian circulation
: W
18 and protection from disruptiv land uses and traffic. "
19 While this policy, by its ter s , may appear to be applicable
W20 to this amendment , it is not . A r=view of the specific policies
ix 21 for this general policy results in the conclusion that the intent
22 of this policy is directed at the ereservation of neighborhoods
23 through events which occur at the lime of development and by
24 encouraging the involvement of nei.hborhood organizations and
25 citizen groups in that effort . To the limited extent this policy
26 may he applicable the amendment , b grouping residential densities
8 - FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDE•, 154
Page
1 and providing a decreasing density gradiant while moving away from
2 the arterial streets , will maintain and strengthen the low density
3 single-family residential area which is developing in the interior
4 of this area .
5 Residential Neighborhood Policies
6 General Policy :
"The City will :
7
8 I . Maintain a semi-rural character and low-density
single-family land use in the Forest Highlands neighborhood
and allow no urban development or extension of City services
10
as long as Future Urbanizable designation applies. "
11
General Policy
12
"II . Actively preserve natur•= 1 resources, particularly
13
wooded areas, streams and str-am banks, views and wildlife
14
habitat. "
1. 15
The amendment conforms to, or better implements, the
16 Residential Neighborhood Policies , by removing the Forest
17 Highlands neighborhood from the Future Urbanizable designation .
18 The amendment proposes reside tial plan designations which
19 were determined after taking into - ccount for the character of the
Li
• 20 landform, the neighborhood and the obligation of the City to
( 21 provide housing opportunities . The amendment responds to a
22 schedule agreed to by LCDC through the Comprehensive Plan
23 acknowledgment process . The City will continue to require
24 preservation of natural resources throughout the Forest Highlands
25 area as those lands are annexed and developed pursuant to the
26 City ' s Codes .
15
9 - FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER
Pale
1 Statewide Planning Goals and Regi.nal Planning Policies
2 The following findings and reasons support the conclusion
3 that the proposed amendment is co sistent with the applicable
4 Statewide Planning Goals or regio al plan policies, as required by
5 LOC 56 .158 ( 2 ) .
6 Goal 1- Develop a citizen involvement program that insures the
opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases
7
8 of the planning process .
City staff has been wor ing with the neighborhood
a
association for Forest ighlands to develop this plan
10
since June of 1984 . Details of that involvement are
11
described in the initial Forest Highlands staff report
12 •
of September 13 , 1985 .
13
Goal 2- Establish a land use pl-nning process and policy
14
framework as a basis fo' all decisions and actions
? 0 15 related to use of land =nd to assure an adequate
; 6-
, 0 16 factual base for such d-cisions and actions .
: °
; ° 17 The City of Lake Oswego has an acknowledged Land Use
. o
' N 18 Plan that provides a framework by which land use issues
; o
. W
54 19 regarding the study are= have been defined and
cw
- z 20 decisions made to resolve those issues . An adequate
J D
Q
it 21 factual base for the st dy area has been developed
22 through this planning process . Adequate notice of
23 neighborhood meetings a d public hearings was provided
24 in advance to allow aff-cted persons reasonable time to
25 review and comment on t e Plan amendment .
26
10 - 'FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORD R 15 U
Page
1 Goal 3- To preserve and maintain agricultural lands .
2 Not applicable, all land is within the Metropolitan
3 Urban Growth Boundary a d is available for urban uses .
4 Goal 4- To conserve forest lands for forest uses .
5 The investigation by th- staff of the area and the
6 Comprehensive Plan iden ify small groves of trees which
provide for forest uses . The conservation of these
7
8 forest lands for forest uses will occur at the time of
actual development . If the property is annexed to the
City for development th-se forest uses will be
10
protected through appli ation of the City ' s Plan
11
policies relating to na ural resources protection and
12
residential site design plus the planned development
13
0 provisions of the Zonin Code which must be used for
14
developments of over 20 units and provides for flexible
15
lotting patterns to pro ect natural resources .
0 16 Goal 5- Conserve open space and protect natural and scenic
° 17 resources .
W
18 As explained on page 6 of the February 27 staff report ,
19 significant natural features in the study area were
w20 considered in the plann ng process . As annexations are
21 approved, development proposals are automatically
22 reviewed on a site-by-s to basis . This development
23 review process involves the application of Development
24 Standards (LOC Cpt . 49 ) that were acknowledged as being
25 consistent with Goal 5 - nd conserve open space and
26 protect identified natu al and scenic resources .
11 - FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORD;R 15t
Page
1 Goal 6- Maintain and improve t e quality of air, water and land
2 resources of the State.
3 The City of Lake Osweg• presently has an environmental
4 management program to aintain the quality of air ,
5 water and land that ha been acknowledged by the State
6 as in compliance with t is Goal . As annexations in the
study area occur , the City will apply the same program
7
to the annexed lands . he only environmental problems
8
that occur in the area _ re isolated septic system
a
failures . As city sewe' services are extended to
10
Forest Highlands, after annexation, isolated septic
11
system breakdowns can b- prevented from becoming a
12
generalized public heal h problem. This amendment does
13
not allow development a increased densities without
14 first the property beine annexed and then rezoned to a
15
City zone designation. Sewers must be provided for all
6 16 new development , pursua t to City standards .
0 17 Goal 7- Protect life, property rom natural disasters and
y18 hazards .
0
a 19 Natural hazards in the .: rea are lands subject to
z 20 slumping and erosion . he severity of those hazards is
a
21 usually proportional to the degree of slope found from
22 site to site. The more severe slopes , 24 - 50% , were
23 mostly found along stre m channel ravines . Those
24 ravines were avoided in locating high density
residential districts t at cause the most disturbance
25
to land . As annexation are approved and development
26
12 - FINDINGS , CONCLUSIONS AND ORD R 15
Page
-------------
1 proposals are consider -d, the City automatically
2 reviews project propos- ls on a site-by-site basis .
3 This review process in olves the application of
4 Development Standards , acknowledged to be in compliance
5 with this Goal , that t oroughly address any possibility
6 for severe erosion or -lumping .
Goal 8- Satisfy the recreationa1 needs of the citizens of the
8 state and visitors .
This Plan amendment ha - no impact on the interests
promoted by Goal 8. ie City of Lake Oswego presently
10
owns 3 acres of park 1.:nd along the Iron Mountain Creek
11
and had planned for th- acquisition of 10 more acres at
12
a particular site west of the Knauss/Country Commons
13
intersection . The Cit presently does not want to
14
acquire the above site but will consider acquiring at
o : 15
38 least 10 acres of park land in the area as
z
�
0 16 opportunities arise . . s lands are annexed and
J W
to 17 developed in the Lake Oswego area, the City also
.- c
33 18 requires that at least 15 - 20% of a given residential
W o
Zw
oa 19 site be left in open space for passive or active
W20 recreational use , or t at a fee be paid toward
< 21 acquisition of an equi alent amount of open space .
Yimprove
Goal 9- Diversif and 'he economy of the State.
23 As annexations are approved , new dwelling units built
24 and associated infrastructure constructed, employment
25 opportunities in the construction field will be
26 sustained, if not incr:ased .
13 - FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORIER 1 5 .i
Page
1 Goal 10 and the Metropolitan Housi g Rule - Provide housing needs
2 of citizens of the stat - .
3 The maximum planned den-ity possible for residential
4 development in the stud, area is 6 . 3 dwelling units per
5 net buildable acre . Wh-n the number of dwelling units
6 and net developable acr-age in the study area are
combined with the remai der of the City, the results
7
8 are an overall City den. ity of 9. 94 - 10. 04 dwelling
units/net buildable acr- depending on the assumptions
used . Those assumption. are explained in the January
10
12 , 1987 staff report . This calculation takes into
11
consideration the Octob:r 1986 Plan amendment for the
12
Willamette River Subare.: . Fifty acres of this area
13
. have been redesignated -0/General Commercial . The
14
Plan amendment for the ..ubarea ( PA 06-86-02-383 )
0 15 requires that any ODPS for the site designate
' � 16 sufficient land to prov de the reasonable opportunity
17 for the development of . minimum of 500 dwelling units
18 at the R-0 density. Th: high density districts
19 adjacent to Boones Ferr Road are located on gentle to
w20 moderate slopes where m itiple family structures can be
a
ix 21 constructed, thus creat ' ng the potential for affordable
22 housing. When the prop=rty is annexed and City zones
23 are designated 100% of he residential land will be
24 available for attached -ingle-family/multiple family
25 housing units thereby c.mplying with the 50/50 split
26 requirement of the Metr.politan Housing Rule .
14 - FINDINGS , CONCLUSIONS AND ORDaR 1 6 +,
Page
1 Goal 11- Plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient
2 arrangement of public f= cilities and services as a
3 framework for urban and rural development.
4 The City Engineering De•artment has studied the problem
5 of providing sewer main- to the area and has concluded
6 that gravity feed lines are feasible and that existing
sewer lines and treatme t facilities can accommodate
7
8 additional sewerage generated by projected
development . The area s designated by the Metro " 208"
a
Waste Water Treatment P an for service by the City ' s
10
Tryon Creek plant . It as also been concluded after
11
study that additional storm water from the study area
12
can be accommodated . A adequate domestic water system
13
presently exists in the area that can accommodate
14
projected development . The City coordinated with the
15 affected school distric ' and received no indication
0 16 that the schools in the area cannot accommodate the
0 17 projected population increase in the study area .
18 Police protection can h: provided with little increase
19 in staffing and physica facilities . Fire protection
W
i 20 is currently provided t. the area by the City through a
>
14 21 contract with the Lake grove Fire District . General
22 municipal services such as library, planning and zoning
23 control and ' general adm ' nistration will be expanded ,
24 within budget limitatio s , as the area is annexed to
25 the City. This plan am=ndment creates no immediate
26
15 - FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDDR 161
Page
impact on City service-- because the property is located
2 outside the City.
3 Goal 12- Provide and encourage - safe and convenient and
4 economic transportatio system.
5 The proposed land use •lan was developed with the above
6 goal in mind. Citizens in the study area felt that
higher density residential development districts should
7
abut arterial or collec or streets, or at least be
8
nearby. The plan provi•es for a density increase from
the central portion of he neighborhood to the
10
perimeter . This reduce_ the potential vehicle trips
11
generated in the center of the study area . The
12
existing street system ill need to be improved
13
involving street wideniig and realignment after
14
annexation and development occurs. This is required by
2 : 15
; g City standards . This i - a normal practice providing
z
_ 0 16 appropriate street impr•vements to urbanizing -
areas as
q W
50 17 land is annexed and dev=loped.
'N 18 Goal 13- Conserve Energy
L o
t W
rc 19 One of the guidelines for the energy goal is "combine
- z 20 increasing density gradi -nts along high capacity
3 Q
21 transportation corridors to achieve greater energy
22 efficiency" . The above !uideline was seriously
23 considered and implement-d as stated above in the Goal
24 12 narrative .
Goal 14- Provide for an orderly, : fficient transition from rural
25
to urban land use.
26
16 - FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDE" lb ;
Page
•
1 Policies relating to t is goal have been developed and
2 are incorporated in th- Comprehensive Plan and will be
3 implemented through th- Zoning Code and Development
4 Code .
5 The land is located wi hin the Metropolitan Urban
6 Growth Boundary, there ore, the seven conversion
factors for rural land do not apply. While the City ' s
7
8 Plan calls this area " uture urbanizable" the property
is in fact urban land . nd not urbanizable land for Goal
Q
14 purposes . The property is directly adjacent to and
10
surrounded on three sines by the City of Lake Oswego.
11
All urban services exc:pt sanitary sewer all presently
12
provided to the area . The level of existing
13
h development includes 510 persons living in the 246 acre
14
area . Forty-three of •hese acres are developed with
I
0 15 structures on lots of ess than 3/4 of an acre . The
° 16 area is committed to u ban level uses and the only
c�
° 17 constraint to further •evelopment is the lack of
°
18 sanitary sewers , which are readily available upon
19 annexation to the City. The four conversion factors
z20 for urbanizable land are not applicable .
a
it 21 Other City Code Criteria
22 The following findings and re- sons support the conclusion
23 that the requirements of LOC 56. 15: ( 3) , (4) , ( 5 ) and (6 ) are met
24 by this amendment .
25
26 163
17 - FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORD R
Page
----------
1
The City Engineering staff h- s studied the Forest Highlands
2 area and concluded that gravity f:ed sewer lines are feasible and
3 that existing sewer lines and tre- tment facilities can accommodate
4 sewerage generated by projected d=velopment . It has also been
5 found that additional storm water from the study area can he
6 accommodated . An adequate domestic water system presently exists
7 in the area and can accommodate projected development . Police
g protection can be provided with little increase in staffing and
a physical facilities . Fire protection is currently provided to the
70 area by the City through a contract with the Lake Grove Fire
District . Arterial streets can ac ommodate the traffic generated
11
by projected development in the ar-a and will be upgraded as
12
development occurs through the Cit, ' s development process .
13
Whenever possible, high densi y residential districts were
14
located on lots greater than 3/4 o an acre . Alternatively, lot
De 15
; 2 clusters that could qualify as red-velopable were used . The steep
, 6 16
CW and narrow stream corridors and hiTh density districts were
J Q
50 17
_ o located on more moderate slopes . ' atural hazards in the area are
- o
0 18 lands subject to slumping and eros on. The severity of those
. 0
' w
3 ‹ 19 hazards is usually proportional to the degree of slope found from
, w 20 site to site . The more severe slopes , 24 to 50% , were found
>
21 primarily along stream channel rav nes . Those ravines were
22 avoided in locating high density residential districts that cause
23 the most disturbance to the land . As annexations are approved and
24 development proposals are consider=d, the City will review
25 development proposals . This revie involves the application of
26
Page
18 - FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORD2R 164
1 development standards which addres_ the possibility of severe
2 erosion or slumping.
3 Buffering requirements are ma .e at the time the land is
4 developed. The general terrain ano tree cover of the Forest
5 Highlands area offers considerable opportunities for buffering at
6 the time of actual development . T, e requirements of the R-3 and
R-5 zones call for setbacks to allow buffering adjacent to less
8 intense development and the City ' s Development Standards require
buffering for all major developmen s .
The proposed density is consi -tent with the platted
10
development pattern in the adjacen surrounding areas . The
11
existing parcel and lot pattern fo nd in the area includes rural
12
parcels that were made large enougi to accommodate wells and
13
septic systems or at least septic _ystems . Some of the parcels
14
are at least 1/2 acre in size and :3% of the study area includes
I
3 15 lots with areas that exceed 3/4 ac e . The more urban type of
T
• 16 residential development will incluse lots that range in size from
D• 17 10, 000 square feet to 3, 375 sq. ft The area closest to the
• 18 Country Commons subdivision ( zoned R-15 ) has been given an R-10,
• 19 or 10, 000 square foot designation , which is consistent with
L20 Country Commons . The area closest to the Boones Ferry commercial
• 21 and high density residential areas have been given R-3 and R-5
22 designations .
23 The topography in the area wi 1 make it possible to protect
24 privacy on adjoining property, bot within and adjacent to the
25 property. Most of the study area as moderate slopes which
26 provide topographic site design opportunities for buffering new
Page 19 - FINDINGS , CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER 16r)
1 residential development . Through the application of the City ' s
2 Zoning and Development Standards , coupled with the topography of
3 the area, residents will be afforded privacy as the area is
4 developed.
5 CONCLUSION
6 The proposed geographic amend lent , PA 7-85, is in compliance
with the requirements of LOC 56. 151 .
ORDER
8
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED by the City Council of the City of Lake
Oswego that PA 7-85 be approved as follows :
10
1 . The Comprehensive Plan Map be amended as identified on
11
•
Attachment A.
12
2 . Amend the Comprehensive Plan text as follows :
13
A. Residential Neighbor ood Policies section regarding the
14
Forest Highlands Neighborhood, page 86 :
15
Delete General Polio I .
0 16 "I . Maintain a semi rural character and low-density
c�
)0 17 single family land u -e in the Forest Highlands
0
' N 18 neighborhood and allow no urban development or extensio
, o
19 of City services as ong as Future Urbanizable
W 20 designation applies .
ir 21 Renumber General Pol cy II to General Policy I .
22 Delete Specific Policies 1 and 2 for General Policy I .
23 "1 . Maintain existi g low-density ( R-20 or lower )
24
residential land use "
25 "2 . Limit extension, of sewer into the area to provide
26 for imminent dangers to public health and safety, until
20 - FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER
Page 1 6
1 such time as the Fut re Urbanizable designation is
2 changed to Immediate Growth. If sewer extension into
3 Forest Highlands is equired while Future Urbanizable
4 applies, the provisi.n of sewers and other public
5 facilities will be p anned to avoid causing the forced
6
subdivision of large parcels as a result of relatively
7
8 high assessments . "
Renumber Specific Po icies for General Policy II to
Specific Policies fo General Policy I .
10
B. Amend the map on Pag= 12 entitled "Lake Oswego Urban
11
Service Area" to rem•ve the identification of Forest
12
Highlands as a Futur= Urbanizable Area.
13
h C. Delete the third par- graph of Specific Policy 2 and .all
14
of Specific Policy 3 for Urban Service Boundary General
15
Policy III, p. 15.
S16 This order was presented to and approved by the City Council of
17 the City of Lake Oswego.
1111
18 Dated this day of February, 1987.
y VV U"
" 19
a
y 20 William E. Young, Mayor
a
a 21 Vote at the Council meeting
of January 20, 1987
22
AYES : Young, Durham, Fawcett , Holman, Sinclair , Waggoner , Waller
23
NOES :
24 ABSTAIN :
25 EXCUSED : -
26 Doc . No. 790C
16r
Page
21 - FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDE -
168
1
•
SI .. ,
.
Q
IMP
ILI
i, , Z
L • 4 X
NiI 1. ( •
1 1
0
'Ill
cso 'r1) -..
. *L.., ..t.: ..i,: - — —
if4:::- • • _
;I:.——•::: C:.'i.::-....:.:s...:.'. *:. .1 i iii.::::.ii;::.
— •
iipl .. ....../ •••••,,....0 • • ,. .:".a.
3 ... ,
:11
1
:; • r
.1- I a
' — 1 • '��-T
t ot
ry . •i
. .
/6 1 ; I Acrp j1 CI::.1-;1 1 ,� --1 , ‘; ... ,... i.‘., ,......%.....t.•.t i •
.
1 4.
I 00. .
woo P'um. ri-....;t,...1k
\_ 1 1i:1.3 I.i i f•' e
i •
.,11 1• 'a••1 a:i- I,. ;
. -vi.-
I . ,
-.. N :mg/ „II *7
iI . • I % ik . en.: . \
....•.
-.
14
i , �. I\ i. .rut,...1,� ,
/ i /111P . term. . A '• • i •
-1%'.? -Egiri 7:.*:.:.7.-.k.,i .
1 •1
III I 1 I,I Vi't .. i.....',:..: " .1 • :.. 1. ....
. ... -.7.....7.-JritgrAlti .
CI -
attachment A � ' )
16 ;d
Findings , Conclusions and Order PA 7-85-4 ?0
1 i' 0
!. BEFORE THE PLANNTN( COMMISSION
2 OF TH I•,
3 CITY OF LAKE I SWh UO
5 A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A) PA 7-85-351 , FOREST HIGHLANDS
6 TEXT AND MAP AMENDMENT TO )
7 THE LAKE OSWEGO ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & ORDER
8 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
9
10 NAT'UHE flF' APPLICATION
11 '1'o r mend i--he Comprehensive Plan map an text for He Forest Highlands
12 "Future Urbanizable Area" which includ-s approximately 246 acres .
13 HEARINGS
14 The Planning commission held public he- rings and considered this
15 application at its meetings of September 23 , 1985 , October 28 , 1985
16 December 9 , 1985 and March 10 , 1986 .
17 CRITERIA
18 The request under consideration is a g ographic amendment , a
19 legislative chanye regulated by LOC 56 135 , 56 . 157 and 56 . 158 .
20 Applicable requirements and provisions of the Comprehensive Plan , LCDC
21 Goals , regional planning policies and lity Codes were considered . The
22 following criteria were found by the P anning Commission to be most
23 relevant to this aecision :
24
25
26 COUNCIL EXHIBIT
PAGE 1 PA 7-85-351
PP•
GSFM/Mw : kh/661z
171
1 LOC 56
2
3 LOC 56 . 158 Criseria & Standards for
4 Geouraphic Amendments
5
6 Comprehensive Policies
7 Urban Service Boundary Polici:s , pages 10-16 ; General Policy
8 III , Specific Policies 2 and
9 Overall Density Policy, pages 19-21; General Policies I and
10 II
11 Residential Neighborhood Policies , pages 86-91 ; General
12 Policy I , Specific Policies 1 and 2 ; and, General Policy II
13
14 METRO Housing Rule
15 Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2 , 5 , 6, ' ,8 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14
16 FINDINGS AND REASONS
17 Two staff reports were written on the F .rest Highlands planning
18 issue . Those are identified as the Sep ember 13 , 1985 and the
19 February 27 , 1986 staff reports. The land use proposal (Exhibit L )
20 contained in the September 13 , 1985 sta f report was not accepted by
21 the Planning Commission at their Octobe 28 meeting. Following the
22 consideration of public testimony at th- March 10 , 1986 public
23 hearing, the Planning Commission accept -d Exhibit 4 with the following
24 change: the area between Verte and Red ood Courts designated R-5 be
25 changed to R-7 . 5 . Attachment A to this document reflects the
26 designations accepted by the Planning Commission on March 10, 1986 .
PAGE 2 PA 7-85-351
GSFM/MW : kh/661z
17
r
1 The Planning Commission incorporated the History and Background
2 section of the September 13 , 1985 staff report and the February 27 ,
3 1986 staff report as support for its decision to approve the plan map
4 identified as Attachment A and the associated text amendments at their
5 March 10 , 1986 meeting . This plan represents a
0
7 reasonable compromise between compliance: with the Metro Housing Rule,
8 Goal 10 and the desire of the existing esidents to have a
9 neighborhood that maintains its social -nd physical fabric as it grows
10 to its ultimate density. The Planning Iommission also incorporates
11 the following evidence associated with the September 13 , 1985 report
12 as support for its decision : Exhibits
13 JJJJ ; and , the minutes of the Planning commission meetings of
14 September 23 , 1985 , October 28 , 1985, December 9 , 1985 and March 10 ,
15 1986 .
16
17 The initial land use plan identified as Exhibit L included the
18 complete range of Plan designations for residential uses : R-0 , R-3 ,
19 R-5 , R-7 . 5 , R-10 and R-15 . Those resid-ntial districts represent the
20 following density ranges : R-0 , 52 dwelling units/acre ; R-3 ,
21 ( 12 . 9 du/ac ) ; R-5 (8 . 7 du/ac ) ; R-7 . 5 (5 . 8 c3u/ac) ; R-10 (4 .3 du/ac ) ;
22 and , R-15 ( 2 . 9 du/ac ) .
23
24
25
26
PAGE 3 • PA 7-85-351
GSFM/MW : kh/661z1►33
'- ..3
1 The initial plan (Exhibit L) proposal a lowed for some 1 ,014 dwelling
2 units, 400 of which would be located in R-0 and R-3 zones and
3 comprised of 17 acres . The R-0 and R-3 zones were mainly located on
4 kho perimeter of the study area with the exception of the one high
5 density zone located northeast of the h gh school , and another on
6 Atwater Road . The initial plan allowed for an ultimate residential
7 density of 7 . 8 dwelling units per net b ildable acre .
8
9 The verbal and written testimony made t• the Planning Commission at
10 the September 23 and October 28 , 1985 m-etings was mainly in
11 opposition to the Exhibit L plan . The orest Highlands planning
12 subcommittee 's main theme in developing the first plan, was to try and
13 allocate high density zones as close. to arterial streets as possible
14 on suitable, undeveloped land . Located in the interior of the study
15 area were low density residential zones that gradually increased in
16 density from the center (R-15 ) to the perimeter (R-0 ) . Much of the
17 testimony against the Exhibit L plan was that the multiple family
18 zones along the arterials were too high in density; included too much
19 land ; and, were located within the interior of the planning area.
20 Also, it was suggested that the densit range not be so extreme, there
21 be less R-0 and R-15 designations , thu creating a more even
22 distribution of residential units . Th ' s would result in more land
23 allocated for R-7 . 5 and R-5 residentia designations. Many
24
25
26
PAGE 4 PA 7-85-351
GSFt4/MW : kh/661z 174
1 persons living in the Country Commons s bdivision within the City
2 ( zoned R-15 ) , and not within the area a e under consideration, favored
3 having as low a density as possible in he center of the study area
4 abutting the subdivision . There also w=s testimony that other
5 residential areas of the City could be increased in density, allowing
6 Forest Highlands to maintain a lower ar-a-wide density . Based on the
7 above comments , the Planning Commission requested that staff work with
8 the neighborhood association in adjusting the Plan map to develop a
9 better consensus of residents in favor of the plan .
10
11 Between the months of October 1985 and March 1986 , adjustments to the
12 map were made by City staff and the Forest Highlands planning
13 subcommittee that addressed many of the neighborhood concerns
14 expressed at the first two meetings . he result of that work is
15 represented by the plan map, Attachmen A, accepted by the Planning
16 Commission March 10 , 1986 .
17
18 The following information substantiate - a conclusion that the proposed
19 geographic amendment conforms to, or batter implements , Plan policies
20 for the particular uses involved, as r:gired by LOC 56 . 158 ( 1 ) .
21
22
23
24
25
26
PAGE 5 PA 7-85-351
GSFM/MW : kh/661z 1P(J
� - 5
1 Urban Service Boundary Policy
2
3 General Policy
4
5 "III . The City will manage a d phase urban growth within the
6 Urban Services Boundary, with = logical planned extension of
7 basic services .
8
9 Specific Policies
10
11 2 . Within five years from the date of approval , the FUTURE
12 URBANIZABLE designation will b- reviewed by the City to
13 determine whether it remains a•propriate or should be changed to
14 IMMEDIATE GROWTH. Redesignation would be for an entire area to
15 avoid piecemeal development .
16
17 3 . The City will initiate review of the Forest Highlands Future
18 Urbanizable area in the fiscal year 1983-84 according to the
19 schedule submitted to LCDC . Any redesignations would be for tle
20 entire area , or a logical subsection thereof, to avoid piecemeal
21 development . Redesignations ill not alter the City ' s
22 compliance with METRO housing goals contained in OAR 660-07-035 . "
23
24
25
26
PAGE 6 PA 7-85-35]
GSFM/MW : kh/661z 17 b
-6
•
•
1 The amendment conforms to, or better implements the Urban Service
2 Boundary Policies by achieving the revisions envisioned by those
3 policies . 'rhe amendment is a result of the review prompted by the
4 policies .
5
6 Overall Density Policy
7
8 General Policy
9
10 " I . The Comprehensive Plan wil maintain the overall , average
11 residential density of the Urb.n Service Area within the
12 capacity of planned basic public facilities systems, including
13 at least water , sewer , streets drainage and public safety.
14
15 II . Residential densities . nd land use intensities will be
16 allocated on the basis of land suitability and public facilities
17 capacity . In the adoption of elan amendments or implementing
18 regulations and ordinances the City will apply the Growth
19 Management Policies in a manner which assures reasonable
20 opportunities for residential ievelopment to occur at maximum
21 permitted Plan densities subje• t to compliance with the zoning
22 and development codes , develop ent standards , and with the
23 applicable provisions of OAR D ' vision 01 through 20 . "
24
25
26
PAGE 7 PA 7-85-351
GSFM/MW : kh/661z 1
1 - 7
•
1 The amendment conforms to, or bet •er implements the Overall Density
2 Policy by providing residential d=nnity designations that can be
3 supported by existing or planned ..ublic facilities and that reflect
4 the suitability of the area for specific designations . When combinin
5 the proposed density calculations of the plan area with the density
6 calculations for the remainder of the city, the result is an overall
7 city density of 9. 6 dwelling unit. per acre. This calculation does
8 not take into consideration a rec-nt (October 1986 ) Comprehensive Pie
9 amendment to the cement plant por ion of the Willamette Industrial
10 Area . Approximately 50 acres of this area has been designated
11 R-0/General Commercial . The Pla amendment for the cement plant ( PA
12 06-86-02-283 ) provides the oppor unity for the development of a
13 minimum of 500 dwelling units . 'his additional density will increas
14 the overall density considerably closer to the goal of 10 dwelling
15 units per acre city-wide .
16
17 The City Engineering Department as studied the area and concluded
18 that gravity-fed sewer lines are feasible and that existing sewer
19 lines and treatment facilities c:n accommodate additional sewerage
20 generated by projected developme t. It has also been found that
21 additional storm water from the - turfy area can be accommodated . An
22 adequate domestic water system presently exists in the area and can
23 accommodate projected development . Police protection can be provide
24 with little increase in staffin• and physical facilities . Fire
25
26
Page
8 PA 7-85-351
GSFM/MW :kh/661z
1
•
1 protection is currently provided to the area by the City through a
2 contract with the Lake Grove Fire District .
3
4 Whenever possible, high density residential districts were located on
5 lots greater than 3/4 of an acre . Alternately, lot clusters that
6 could qualify as redevelopable were u ed . The steep and narrow stream
7 corridors such as the one southwest oI Goodall Road were avoided, and
8 high density districts were, for the the most part , located on more
9 moderate slopes . The most critical p blic facility issue regarding
10 this planning effort is street capaci y. The Forest Highlands
11 neighborhood group chose to locate hi•h density residential areas
12 either abutting Boones Ferry, an arte ial street , or very close to
13 it . Arterial streets can easily acco modate the traffic generated by
. 14 the R-3 and R-5 high density zones . •
15
16 Residential Neighborhood Policies
17
18 General Policy :
19
20 "The City will :
21
22 I . Maintain a semi-rural chara ter and low-density single
23 family land use in the Forest H ghlands neighbor-hood and allow
24 no urban development or extension of City services as long as
25 Future Urbanizable designation .applies . "
26
PAGE 9 PA 7-85-351
GSFM/MW :kh/661z 17 `i
I -
1 Specific Policies
2
3 "The City will, in cooperation with Clackamas County :
4
5 1 . Maintain existing low-densiti (R-20 or lower ) residential
6 land use .
7
8 2 . Limit extensions of sewer into the area to provide for
9 imminent dangers to public health and safety , until such
10 time as the Future Urbanizable designation is changed to
11 Immediate Growth. If sewer extension into Forest Highlands
12 is required while Future Urbanizable applies , the provision
13 of sewers and other public facilities will be planned to
14 avoid causing the forced sub-division of large parcels as a
15 result of relatively high assessments . "
16
17 General Policy
18
19 " II . Actively preserve natural resources , particularly wooded
20 areas, streams and stream banks , views and wildlife habitat . "
21
22 The amendment conforms to, or better implements the Residential
23 Neighborhood Policies , by removing the Forest ,Highlands neighborhood
24 from the Future Urbanizable designation .
25
26 The amendment proposes residential plan designations which account for
PAGE 10 PA 7-85-351
GSFM/MW : kh/661z 1 U U
1-�
1 the character of the landform, the neighborhood and the obligation of
2 the City to provide housing opportunities . The amendment responds to
3 a schedule agreed to by LCDC through he Comprehensive Plan
4 acknowledgement process . The City wi 1 continue to require
5 preservation of natural resources throughout the Forest Highlands area
6 as those lands are annexed and fall under the City 's Codes . •
7
8 Goals
9
10 The following information substantiates a conclusion that the proposed
11 amendment is consistent with any applicable Statewide Planning Goals
12 or regional plan policies , as required by LOC 56 . 158 ( 2 ) .
13
14 Goal 1- Develop a citizen involvement program that insures the
15 opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the
16 planning process .
17
18 City staff has been working with the neighborhood
19 association for Forest Highlands to develop this plan since
20 June of 1984 . Details of th- t involvement are described in
21 the initial Forest Highlands staff report of September 13 ,
22 1985 .
23
24
25
26
PAGE 11 PA 7-85-351
GSFI!!/MW : kh/661z 18 1 " 11
1 Goal 2- Establish a land use -planning process and policy framework
2 as a basis for all decisions . nd actions related to use of
3 land and to assure an adequat: factual base for such
4 decisions and actions.
5
6 The City of Lake Oswego has a State acknowledged Land Use
7 Plan that provides a framewor . by which land use problems
8 regarding the study area have been defined and decisions
9 made to resolve those problem- . An adequate factual base
10 for the study area has been developed over the last 20
11 months . Adequate notice of n:ighborhood meetings and the
12 Planning Commission hearings as provided in advance to
13 allow affected persons reason-ble time to review the Plan
14 amendment .
15
16 Goals 3 and 4 regarding the p, eservation of farm and forest
17 land are not applicable to the Forest Highlands
18 area. Forest Highlands is in- ide the Lake Oswego Urban
19 Growth Boundary and as such i- considered available for
20 urban uses according to Goal 4 "Urbanization" .
21
22 Goal 5- Conserve open space and protect natural and scenic
23 resources .
24
25
26 As explained on page 6 of the February 27 staff report ,
significant Natural Features ' n the study area were
PAGE 12 PA 7-85-351
GSFM/MW : kh/661z 18
1 considered in the planning process . As annexations are
2 approved, development proposals are automatically reviewed
3 on a site by site basis . This development review process
4 involves the application of "evelopment Standards (Chapter 49
5 of LOC ) that were designed to conserve open space and to
6 protect identified natural and scenic resources .
7
8 Goal 6- Maintain and improve the qualify of air , water and land
9 resources of the State.
10
11 The City of Lake Oswego pres-ntly has an environmental
12 management program to maintain the quality of air, water and
13 land that has been acknowledted by the State as in
14 compliance with this Goal . •s annexations in the study area
15 occur , the City will apply t e same program to the annexed
16 lands . The only environment.: ) problems that occur in the
17 area are isolated septic system failures . As city sewer
18 services are extended to Forest Highlands , isolated septic
19 system breakdowns can be pre ented from becoming a
20 generalized public health problem .
21
22 Goal 7- Protect life, property from atural disasters and hazards .
23
24 Natural hazards in the area - re lands subject to slumping
25 and erosion . The severity o : those hazards is usually
26 proportional to the degree of slope found from site to
site . The more severe slope , 24 - 50% , were mostly found
PAGE 13 PA 7-85-351
GSFM/Mw kh,'661 z
1 along stream channel ravines Those ravines were avoided in
2 locating high density reside ' tial districts that cause the
3 most disturbance to land. A-. annexations are approved and
4 development proposals are colsidered, the City automatically
5 reviews project proposals on a site by site basis . This
6 review process involves the .application of Development
7 Standards that thoroughly ad.;ress any possibility for severe
8 erosion or slumping .
9
10 Goal 8- Satisfy the recreational neeJs of the citizens of the state
11 and visitors.
12
13 The City of Lake Oswego presently owns 3 acres of park land
14 along the Iron Mountain Cree and had planned for the
15 acquisition of 10 more acres at a particular site west of
16 the Knauss/Country Commons i tersection. The City presently
17 does not want to acquire the above site but will consider
18 acquiring at least 10 acres .f park land in the area as
19 opportunities arise . As lanes are annexed and developed in
20 the Lake Oswego area, the Ci y also requires that at least
21 15 - 20% of a given residential site be left in open space
22 for passive or active recrea ional use, or that a fee be
23 paid toward acquisition of al equivalent amount of open
24 space .
25
26
PAGE 14 • PA 7-85-351 184
GSFM/MW : kh/661z 1-1
1 Goal 9- Diversify and improve the e. onomy of the State.
2
3 As annexations are approved new dwelling units built and
4 associated infrastructure constructed, employment
5 opportunities in the constr ction field will be sustained,
6 if not increased.
7
8 Goal 10 and the Regional Housing Goal - Provide housing needs of
9 citizens of the state.
10
11 The maximum planned density possible for residential
12 development in the study ar-a is 6. 3 dwelling units per net
13 acre. When the numbers of welling units and net
14 developable acreage in the study area are combined with the
15 remainder of the City, the results are an overall City
16 density of 9. 6 dwelling units/net acre. This calculation
17 does not take into consideration a recent Plan amendment
18 (October 1986 ) to the cement plant portion of the Willamette
19 Industrial area . Approximately 50 acres of this are has
20 been redesignated R-0/General Commercial . The Plan
21 amendment for the cement p ant ( PA 06-86-02-383 ) provides
22 the opportunity for the de elopment of a minimum of 500
23 dwelling units. This addi .ional density will increase the
24 overall density considerab y closer to the goal of 10
25 dwelling units per acre ci .y-wide. The high density
26
Page
15 PA 7-85-351
GSFM/MW :kh/661 z
18
J
- /s
1 districts adjacent to Boones Ferry road are located on
2 gentle to moderate slopes wh- re multiple family structures
3 can be constructed, thus cre- ting the potential for
4 affordable housing .
5
6 Goal 11- Plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient
7 arrangement of public facilities and services as a framework
8 for urban and rural development .
9
10 The City of Lake Oswego has been requested by the State of
11 Oregon to begin land use and public facility planning for
12 the Forest Highlands area s• that annexation requests can be
13 considered in the coming ye- rs with some assurance that the
14 City can provide services . Forest Highlands residents will
15 also have a better idea of hat residential densities can
16 occur in given parts of the study area as annexations are
17 approved . The City Engineering Department has studied the
18 problem of providing sewer ains to the area and has
19 concluded that gravity feed lines are feasible and that
20 existing sewer lines and tr=atment facilities can
21 accommodate additional sewerage generated by projected
22 development . It has also b=en found that additional storm
23 water from the study area c- n be accommodated . An adequate
24 domestic water system preseitly exists in the area that can
25 accommodate projected development . Schools in the area can
26 accommodate the projected population increase in the study
PAGE 16 PA 7-85-351
GSFM/MW :kh/661z 186
/_I
1 area. Police protection can be provided with little
2 increase in staffing and phy-ical facilities . Fire
3 protection is currently provided to the area by the City
4 through a contract with the ake Grove Fire District .
5
6 Goal 12 -Provide and encourage a saf - and convenient and economic
7 transportation system.
8
9 The proposed land use plan w.: s developed with the above goal
10 in mind . Citizens in the st dy area felt that higher
11 density residential development districts should abut
12 arterial or collector street- , or at least be nearby. The
13 plan provides for a density increase from the central
14 portion of the neighborhood o the perimeter . This reduces
15 - the potential vehicle trips venerated in the center of the
16 study area . The existing st eet system will need to be
17 improved involving street wiJening and realignment as
18 development occurs . Traffic control devices such as stop
19 signs and traffic lights at ertain intersections may also
20 need to be provided as plann-d development occurs . This is
21 a normal practice providing .appropriate street improvements
22 to urbanizing areas as land s annexed and developed .
23
.24
25
26
PAGE 17 PA 7-85-351
GSFM/MW: kh/661z 18 (
1 Goal 13 -Conserve Energy
2
3 One of the guidelines for ' he energy goal is "combine
4 increasing density gradients along high capacity
5 transportation corridors to achieve greater energy
6 efficiency" . The above gu deline was seriously considered
7 and implemented as stated above in the Goal 12 narrative.
8
9
10 Goal 14 -Provide for an orderly, e ficient transition from rural to
11 urban land use.
12
13 Policies relating to this .oal hr--ive been developed and are
14 incorporated in the Compre ensive Plan and will be
15 implemented through the Zo ing Code and Development Code .
16
17 The Plan amendments are consistent w ' th the applicable statewide
18 planning goals 1 , 2 , 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11 , 12 , 3, 14, and the Metro Regional
19 Housing Rule (OAR 660-07-035) .
20
21 The following information substantiates a conclusion that public
22 facilities have capacity and are available to serve the proposed
23 change or can be made available, as required by LOC 56. 158 ( 3 ) .
24
25 The City Engineering staff has revie ed the Forest Highlands area and
26 concluded that gravity feed sewer lines are feasible and that existing
Page
18 PA 7=85-351
GSFM/MW :kh/661z 1
1—!b
1 sewer lines and treatment facilities can accommodate sewerage
2 generated by projected development. It has also been found that
3 additional storm water from the stud, area can be accommodated. An
4 adequate domestic water system prese tly exists in the area and can
5 accommodate projected development . 'olice protection can be provided
6 with little increase in staffing and physical facilities . Fire
7 protection is currently provided to he area by the City through a
8 contract with the Lake Grove Fire Di _ trict. Arterial Streets can
9 accommodate the traffic generated by projected development in the area
10 and will be upgraded as development occurs through the City' s
11 development process .
12
13 The following information substantia es a conclusion that the physical
14 constraints within the site have bee evaluated to determine if uses
15 consistent with the Plan designation s ) can physically be accommodated
16 on the site, as required by LOC 56. 1 •8 (4) .
17
18 Whenever possible, high density residential districts were located on
19 lots greater than 3/4 of an acre. A ternatively, lot clusters that
20 could qualify as redevelopable were used. The steep and narrow stream
21 corridors and high density districts were located on more moderate
22 slopes . Natural hazards in the area are lands subject to slumping and
23 erosion. The severity of those hazards is usually proportional to the
24 degree of slope found from site to s te. -The more severe slopes, 24
25 to 50%, were found primarily along s ream channel ravines . Those
26 ravines were avoided in locating hig ' density residential districts
Page
19 PA 7-85-351
GSFM/MW:kh/661z
18
1 that cause the most disturbance to the land. As annexations are
2 approved and development proposals are considered, the City will
3 review development proposals . This re iew involves the application of
4 development standards which address th- possibility of severe erosion
5 or slumping .
6
7 The following information substantiate, a conclusion that areas
8 designated R-3 and R-5 can be buffered from adjoining residential
9 areas in a manner which protects the p ivacy of adjoining uses , as
10 required by LOC 56 .158 ( 5 ) .
11
12 Buffering requirements are made at the time the land is developed .
13 The general terrain and tree cover of the Forest Highlands area offers
14 considerable opportunities for bufferi g at the time of actual
15 development . The requirements of the r-3 and R-5 zones call for
16 setbacks to allow buffering adjacent t• less intense development and
17 the City 's Development Standards require buffering for all major
18 developments .
19
20 The following information substantiate- a conclusion that , for R-7 . 5
21 and R-10 designations, the proposed de sity is consistent with the
22 platted development pattern in the sur ounding area or that the
23 topography in the area will make it po-sible to protect privacy on
24 adjoining property, both within and adjacent to the property, as
25 required by LOC 56 .158 ( 6 ) .
26
PAGE 20 PA 7-85-351
GSFM/MW : kh/661z 19
ZG
1 The proposed density is consistent wi h the platted development
2 pattern in the surrounding area . The existing parcel and lot pattern
3 found in the area includes rural parcels that were made large enough
4 to accommodate wells and septic syste s or at least septic systems .
5 Some of the parcels are at least 1/2 : cre in size and 83% of the study
6 area includes lots with areas that ex eed 3/4 acre . The more urban
7 type of residential development will include lots that range in size
8 from 10, 000 square feet to 3, 375 sq. ft. The area closest to the
9 Country Commons subdivision ( zoned R-I5 ) has been given a R-10, or
10 10, 000 square foot designation, which is consistent with Country
11 Commons .
12
13 The topography in the area will make it possible to protect privacy on
14 adjoining property, both within and a• jacent to the property. Most of
15 the study area has moderate slopes which provide topographic site
16 design opportunities for buffering ne residential development are
17 available. Through the application of the City' s Zoning and
18 Development Standards, coupled with tie topography of the area ,
19 residents will be afforded privacy as the area is developed.
20
21 CONCLUSION
22 The proposed geographic amendment , P• 7-85, is in compliance with LOC
23 Chapter 56, of the Comprehensive Plan, Statewide Planning Goals and
24 regional plan policies .
25
26
Page
21 PA 7-85-351
GSFM/MW :kh/661z 1 J 1
•
t - 2-I
1 ORDER
2 IT IS RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION of the City of Lake
3 Oswego that , PA 7-85-351 be recommende• for approval to the Council as
4 follows :
5
6 1 . The Comprehensive Plan Map be :mended as identified on
7 Attachment A . ,
8
9 2 . Amend the Comprehensive Plan t-xt as follows :
10
11 A. Residential Neighborhood Policies section regarding the
12 Forest Highlands Neighbo hood, page 86 :
13
14 Delete General Policy I .
15
16 "I . Maintain a semi-rur.: l character and low-density
17 single family land use i the Forest Highlands
18 neighborhood and allow no urban development or extension
19 of City services as long as Future Urbanizable
20 designation applies .
21
22 Renumber General Policy I to General Policy I .
23
24 Delete Specific Policies 1 and 2 for General Policy I .
25
26 "1 . Maintain existing low-density (R-20 or lower )
residential land use . "
PAGE 22 PA 7-85-351
19
GSFM/MW: kh/661z / —� !`
"2 . Limit extensions of -ewer into the area to provide
for imminent dangers to p blic health and safety, until
such time as the Future Urbanizable designation is
changed to Immediate Grow.h. If sewer extension into
i Forest Highlands is requi , ed while Future Urbanizable
i applies, the provision of sewers and other public
7 facilities will be planne.; to avoid causing the forced
3 subdivision of large parc:is as a result of relatively
high assessments . "
10
11 Renumber Specific Policies: for General Policy II to
12 Specific Policies for General Policy I .
13
14 B. Amend the map on Page 12 ntitled "Lake Oswego Urban
15 Service Area" to remove t e identification of Forest
16 Highlands as a Future Urb;nizable Area.
17 DATED this a`' day of November , 198 . .
18
19
20
21
22
23 Adrianne Brockman, Chairman
24 Planning Commission
25
26
PAGE 23 PA 7-85-351
GSFM/MW:kh/661z 19
r- 2.3
1
2
3
Kduttm./114(tt-
5 Karen Scott, Secretary
6
7 ATTEST: VOTE AT THE MEETING OF MARCH 10, 1986
8 AYES: Brockman, Burton, Rodrigues, Weisser, Robinette, Rosencrantz
9 NOES : None
10 ABSTAIN: None
11 ABSENT: Wexler
12
13
14 VOTE AT THE MEETING OF NOVEMBER 10, 1986 :
15
16 AYES : Burton, Robinette, Brockman
17 NOES : None
18 ABSTAIN: Ross
19 ABSENT : Wexler, Rodrigues
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
PAGE 24 PA 7-85-351 194
GSFM/MW:kh/661z 1— Z7
STAFF REPORT
September 13 , 1 : 85
FILE NO. PA 7-85
APPLICANT City of Lake Oswego
REQUEST
To amend the Comprehensive Plan map and ext for the Forest Highlands
"Future Urbanizable Area" including 246 - cres .
The map amendment involves replacing the present Plan designation of
"Future Urbanizable" with Plan Designati•ns for " Immediate Growth"
that will allow for residential develope ent ranging from 2 .9 to 52
dwelling units per acre. The map amendm=nt will also involve the
deletion of the map designation for a Park originally located west of
the Knaus/Country Commons intersection . Lastly, the above map
amendments will necessitate the deletion of specific Comprehensive
Plan Policy 3 on page 15 , General Policy I and Specific Policies 1
and 2 on page 60 of the Comprehensive Plan text .
LOCATION
Forest Highlands "Future Urbanizable Area" in-cludes the 246 acres
shown on Exhibits A and B. The area is generally located north of
Country Club Road , west of Boca Ratan Dirve, East of Boones Ferry
Road and South of the Clackamas County North boundary.
NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION Forest Highlands
APPLICABLE CRITERIA
LOC 56 . 155
Certain Comprehensive Plan Policies of the :
Growth Management Policy Element
Community Resource Policy Element
Natural Resource Policy Element
Open Space Land Use Policy Ele ent
Land Use Activities Policy Element
, METRO Housing Rule
Statewide Planning Goals 1 , 2, 5 , • , 7 , 8 ,
10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14
HISTORY & BACKGROUND
As land use designations were being consi.ered and adopoted for areas
inside the Lake Oswego City limits and Ur•an Service Boundary in the
COUNCIL EXHIBIT
195 20PP.
2 1
Staff Report/Forest Highlands
September 11, 1985
Page 2
late 70 ' s , Forest Highlands residents were surveyed to determine
their preference for Plan designations for their area. The majority
of the property owners in the Forest Highlands area favored
maintenance of its rural character and opposed annexation to the
City, provision of new services and resi.,ential development at urban
densities . The results indicated that 9 ;% of the survey respondents
did not need sewers and 7% did. As a re-.ult of the above survey, the
City Council adopted a Comprehensive Pia ! land use designation called
"Future Urbanizable" . The purpose of th= designation is to maintain
the existing level of development for an area until such time as
urban services may be available or neede' and a new redesignation for
immediate growth is applied. The "Futurr Urbanizable" land use
designation was applied to portions of t e Forest Highland area
identified on Exhibit A. Specific Polic 2 under the General Policy
III titled "Manage and Phase Urban Growt " (pg . 14 ) stated:
"Generally, urban services and facilities would not be
provided singly to FUTURE URBANIZ ; ABLE areas , especially
where the effect would be to forcr development . The
City will give lower priority to ;provision of or
planning for public facilities fo such areas in its
Capital Improvements Program.
Within five years from the date o approval , the FUTURE
URBANIZABLE designation will be rrviewed by the City to
determine whether it remains appropriate or should be
changed to IMMEDIATE GROWTH. Redesignation would be for
an entire area to avoid piecemeal development . "
In January of 1984 , the Comprehensive Pl.: n was amended to include the
following Policy to comply with LCDC Acknowledgement Order .
"The City will initiate review of the Forest Highlands
ubanizable area in the fiscal yea 1983-84 according to
the schedule submitted to the Lane Conservation and
Development Commission ( LCDC ) . Aty redesignations would
be for the entire area , or a logical subsection thereof ,
to avoid piecemeal development. •edesignations will not
alter the City ' s compliance with IETRO Housing Goals
contain in OAR 660-07-035 . "
In early 1984 , City staff contacted the orest Highlands Neighborhood
Association to begin the process of nevi-w as required in the LCDC
Zcknowledgement Order . The Forest Highlands Neighborhood Association
again surveyed the neighborhood resident. in April of 1984
( Exhibit C ) . Results of that survey werr basically the same as the
1977 neighborhood survey. Most of the rrsidents of the area desired
a R-20 zone designation ( lot size minimu of 20 , 000 sq . ft . ) . On
June 21st of 1984 , the planning staff attended a Forest Highlands
meeting and briefly explained that the C ty was required by the State
of Oregon to develop a land use plan for the Forest Highlands area
and City Planning staff wanted the residents of the area to
participate in the plannning effort . Thr citizens agreed that more
meetings were needed to resolve the resioential density issue .
196
2- 2-
Staff Report/Forest Highlands
September 11 , 1985
Page 3
At a Forest Highlands Neighborhood meeting held October 2 , 1984 , the
members met with the intention of voting to confirm the results of
the April ' 84 ' survey which showed a majority preference for R-20
zoning. A motion was made to recommend that the City of Lake Oswego
adopt a R-20 Plan designation for all of the area . Amendments were
made to the motion recommending that a variety of higher residential
density designations be adopted in different parts of the subject
area . Because of the complexity of the motion, the neighborhood
committee concluded with a resolution that City staff make available
a map to Forest Highland residents and they depict their preferred
density. It was also resolved that the planning staff invest time in
developing an inventory of ownership, population and natural
characteristics for the whole unincorporated Forest Highlands area
( Exhibits D,B ) .
At the March 26 , 1985 Neighborhood Association meeting, City staff
presented results of the inventory work in map form. Staff also
presented nine scenarios showing different locations for high density
residential zones and the results of the owner survey for residential
densities . Staff described verbally what were the ramifications of
the above Plan maps in terms of 20 year •opulation projections and
the kinds of structures allowed in R-5 , --3 and R-0 residential
districts . The meeting attendants asked questions relating to the
'map inventory information and the Plan scenarios . No decisions were
made regarding what scenario was preferred by the majority of the
attendants or the neighborhood board ( Exhibits G, H) . However , a
neighborhood planning subcommittee was organized and they
subsequently developed a Plan for land use in the area .
In the Spring of 1985 , the planning subcommittee developed a Plan
identified as Option A and submitted it to City staff for review.
City staff considered the map proposal and made its own proposal
called Option B. At the May 30 , 1985 neighborhood meeting, the
neighborhood subcommittee offered a seco d map for attendants to
consider identified as Option C. Approximately 80 residents attended
the meeting. After hours of discussion regarding the ramifications
of the three map options , the majority of the attendants voted to
allow members of the neighborhood subcom ittee to represent them in
developing, with the City staff, a new map incorporating the more
desirable aspects of map Option C ( the subcommittee map) and map
Option B (City staff proposal ) . In addition to the above vote , a
majority 'of the attendants voted on the following condition:
The City undertake a study of the impacts of the traffic
volumes that could be generated by ultimate development at
planned residential densities . Based on the study, a Plan be
developed for road improvements , pathways and new streets .
( see Exhibits I , J, K ) .
During the Summer months , City staff and the Forest Highlands
planning subcommittee members worked together and developed one map
that was accepted by the subcommittee in late July 1985 . That map
19'I
2- 3
Staff Report/Forest Highlands
September 11 , 1985
Page 4
was brought to City Hall by a representa • ive of the subcommittee on
July 31 , 1985 with a note stating accept-nce. Exhibit L is a small
copy of the map that was finally accepte• . A large scale map will be
available for review at the public heari g .
STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION
The Forest Highlands Future Urbanizable - rea is semi-rural in nature
and consists of 246 acres . West of the -tudy area is Boones Ferry
Road , Lake Oswego High School and urban ses associated with Mountain
Park such as Town Square and Parkridge Condominium. By contrast, low
density residential development occurs e-st of the study area beyond
which is Tryon Creek State Park .
Like adjacent land uses , Forest Highland- area can be described as a
landscape of contrast; with moderate sloes mostly ranging between
5-24% , stream channels with steep ravine- and others almost flat with
slowly moving waters . Vegetation in the area includes groves of
second growth Douglas Firs , Oregon White Oak , Ash and other tree
species . Some of the most significant vegetation includes a fir
grove about 5 acres in area south of Amb=r Place and numerous ravines
that include a mix of conifer and deciduous trees . There are also
orchards and open fields used for hay production and grazing .
Some 195 dwellings are scattered throughout the area at an average
density of one dwelling/1 . 26 acres . Som= 500 persons presently live
in the 246 acre area. A total of 43 acr=s have already been
developed with residential structures on lots of 3/4 of an acre or
less . Most of the "developed lots" are zither south of Atwater Road
and west of Goodall Road. Roads in the _ rea are typical of rural
county roads having minimum widths and d ainage facilities . A
domestic water system presently exists i the area . A sanitary sewer
system has not been constructed in the a ea and the existing
structures are on individual septic syst-ms .
INVENTORY PROCEDURE
Ownership and Population Information
City staff developed a property map -howing lot lines , dwelling
locations , common ownership of abutt ' ng lots, area of lots , lots
that are 3/4 of an acre or smaller w ' th a dwelling, the boundary
of the urbanizable area, and the Lak= Oswego city limits
( Exhibit M) . Information to develop this map was collected from
assessor maps and computer printouts . With the above map, staff
developed the gross and net buildabl= acreage of the "Future
Urbanizable Area" . The "Future Urba izable Area" will
subsequently be referred to as study area .
It was determined that there are 246 acres in the study area .
After subtracting 43 acres of developed land area ( lots 3/4 of an
acre or smaller with a dwelling ) , 2 acres of City owned land
198
Staff Report/Forest Highlands
September 11 , 1985
Page 5
( outside of stream corridors ) , 10 ac es for future City park (s )
( not yet located ) , and 15 acres of 1 :nd area in stream corridors,
the remaining area for future reside tial development totaled 176
acres .
To determine the amount of land that would be used for future
residential and collector streets , t e subtotal of 176 acres was
multiplied by 20% to get 35 acres . n subtracting 35 acres from
the 176 acre subtotal , the net buildable acreage of the study
area was determined to be 141 acres . An acreage adjustment was
then made to the above net figure of 141 because 2 . 44 acres of
land along Boones Ferry Road conside ed "developed" was
reclassified as suitable for redevelopment . The 2 . 44
redevelopment acreage was rounded of and plugged back into the
net buildable acreage figure theoret cally making the final net
acreage 143 . As seen on the Plan ma:? table ( page 6 of this
report ) , a 2 acre discrepancy exists between the net acreage on
the ownership map and the net acreagr of the Plan map. The cause
of the decrepancy has not been found and does not have impact on
the overall results .
In developing the above property map it was also determined that
there are approximately 195 existing dwelling units in the study
area . Based on the household population figure of 2 . 63 used by
Portland State University Population Center , it was estimated
that 514 people presently live in the study area .
Natural Features
City staff developed a topographical analysis map showing the
following ranges of slope: 0-4% fla ' , 5%-11% gentle, 12%-24%
moderate, 25%-50% severe, 50% and mode ( Exhibit N) . It was
determined from the LOPRI Report that most of the soils in the
study area are Kenton Silt Loam, Cor elius Silt Loam and Cascade
Silt Loam. The Cascade and Corneliu- Silt Loams are found on
slopes of 2-12% with moderate erosio , potential and moderate to
severe landslide potential . The Kenton Silt Loam soils are found
on slopes of 12%-20% and have severe erosion potential and severe
potential for landslide according to the LOPRI Report .
A natural features map was also deve oped showing the locations
of Distinctive Natural Areas , draina' e corridors, and known
wetlands ( Exhibit 0) .
Infrastructure
City staff developed four maps showi g existing streets , street
right-of-way widths and classifications ( Exhibit P ) ; existing and
potential sewer and water lines ( Exh ' bits Q, R) ; and , existing
and potential storm water systems ( Exhibit S ) . These exhibits
have map scale of 1" = 200 ' and will be available for review at
the public hearing.
19
2— .5
Staff Report/Forest Highlands
September 11 , 1985
Page 6
DATA ANALYSIS PROCEDURE
This described information on the property map, slope map, natural
features map and four infrastructure maps was studied through the map
overlay process to determine how the different sets of features in
the study area relate to one another .
The above overlay process of analyzing data maps in different
combinations over a light table ( Exhibit B) was done to solve the
major planning problem of finding locations physically suitable for
high density residential development that will have minimal visual
and traffic related impacts on existing neighborhoods . Existing
neighborhoods in this planning analysis context were defined as
clusters of lots 3/4 acre or less with existing dwellings .
GENERAL CRITERIA USED IN DEVELOPING PLAN MAP
A. Density
Based on the attached State of Oregon rule regarding the LCDC
Housing Goal , Lake Oswego ' s general Land Use Plan must maintain
an overall density of ten or more dwelling units per net
buildable acre . Presently, the City Plan allows for 8 ,002
dwelling units that can be developed on 785 acres of vacant
buildable and vacant committed lands . The above figures
translate to a density of 10 . 2 dwelling units/net acre . In
developing the Forest Highlands Plan, staff used the above data
recently printed in the Comprehensive Plan Supporting
Documentation (Volume II ) to incorporate the number of dwelling
units planned for and buildable acreage figures generated from
the proposed Forest Highlands land use map. The 15 acres of
stream corridor in the study area was used in the calculation of
the net buildable acreage to determine the maximum number of
dwellings . That figure as seen on the following Plan map data
table was determined to be 1 , 014 dwelling units .
Zone Du/Ac Gross Buildable NET AREAS Number Percent of
District Land Area Less 20% Dwelling Total Land
Streets Units Area
R-0 52 7 . 14 5 . 71 297 2 .9%
R-3 12 . 9 10 . 51 8 . 4 108 4 . 3%
R-5 8 .7 7 5 . 6 49 2 . 8%
67 .51 - ( 10 ac . )
R-7 . 5 5. 8 57 . 51 (Park ) 46 267 23 . 4%
R-10 4 . 3 55 .79 44 . 63 192 22 .7%
R-15 2 .9 43 . 42 34 . 73 101 17 . 7%
181 .37 145 . 07 1014 74%*
74% of Total Total Net Total No.
2 . 46 ac . Area Developable Dwelling Units
Acreage
* The remaining 26% of total land area is discussed on page 5 under
Ownership and Population Information .
2uri z" (o
Staff Report/Forest Highlands
September 11 , 1985
Page 7
Land area in stream corridors is gi en a transferrable density
status when separate parcels are de eloped and, as such, staff
determined that the stream corridor factor of 15 acres could be
used in determining the total number of possible dwelling units .
Because construction is not allowed in stream corridors , staff
determined that the 15 acre stream •orridor factor could be
subtracted from the planned total n=t developable acreage of 145
to get 130 acres . When the above s udy area dwelling unit and
net developable acreage factors of 1 ,014 du and 130 acres are
plugged into the overall City densi y formula, the following
equation develops .
8 ,002 du . + 1 ,014 du . = 9 ,036 du . = 9 . 88 du ./net ac .
785 ac . + 130 ac. = 915 ac .
The maximum density for residential development on buildable ,
undeveloped land in the study area could ultimately be 7 . 8
dwelling units/acre.
B. Compatibility
One of the main criteria in locating the residential districts
that allow for multiple family structures (R-0, R-3 , R-5
districts ) was to prevent disruption of existing residential
patterns . City staff considers the land use district density
range R-15 to R-7 . 5 relatively compatible with the land use and
lot patterns presently in the area ainly because dwelling
structure types allowed in those districts will be consistent
with existing dwelling structures . However , residential
structure types allowed in the R-0 , R-3 and R-5 zones can have a
negative impact on an existing neighborhood with low-density
single family dwellings .
In locating the above high density districts , staff first
determined where large clusters of developed lots ( lots three
quarters of an acre or less with a d elling) presently
occurred. Staff then avoided locating high density districts
adjacent to developed residential areas when practical . If
complete avoidance couldn 't be achieved staff considered
terrain, lot configurations and line. 1 interface to mitigate the
impacts of locating high density districts adjacant to existing
neighborhoods .
C. Suitability •
High density residential districts w enever possible were
located on larger lots that were con- idered undeveloped or
clusters of developed lots that coul• be redeveloped .
2ui 2_ 7
Staff Report/Forest Highlands
September 11 , 1985
Page 8
The steep and narrow stream corridors such as the one southwest
of Goodall Road were avoided and hi•h density districts were ,
for the most part, located on more oderate slopes of 12-24% .
Slopes of 12-24% have less potential for hillside slumpage and
severe erosion than on the steep 25 50% slopes .
The only exception to the above statement are the proposed R-5
and R-3 districts south of Atwater -oad . A stream corridor and
slopes ranging from 12-50% occur in those district areas . An
adjustment to the above problem could be made by eradicting the
R-3 and R-5 districts and redesignating all the 13 acre area
south of Atwater and west of proposed the R-3 parcel to R-5 .
D. Areas With Significant Natural Features
There are five Distinctive Natural A eas (DNA) in the study
area . They are identified on the mai• exhibit and described as
follows in the Comprehensive Plan.
DNA 15 - Springs west of the Atwater Lane right-of-way
DNA 17 - Wooded ravine along Iron Mt. Creek
DNA 28 - Specimen Firs west of Gooda 1 Road
DNA 34 - Douglas Fir grove east of R-dwood Court
DNA 43 - Fir grove south of Ambler Curt
The hydrology map, Exhibit T, identities several locations in
the study area as wetlands . None of the high density districts
are in areas of identified wetlands . The stream corridors were
delineated, identified with letters - E, and the area of each
has been calculated as shown on Exhi•its N, 0 and U . The above
described stream corridors include a total area of 15 acres .
The City 's Conservancy Commission ha . in the past expressed
concern that high intensity or densi y land use districts not
overlay identified Distinctive Natur.: 1 Areas and Stream
Corridors . There are also many sect ons of the Comprehensive
Plan Natural Resource element that specifically address the need
to protect stream and woodland featu es . General Policy II of
the Open Space Element reads as follows :
"The City will regulate the use of lands so
designated in accordance with t e policies set forth
in the NATURAL RESOURCES ELEMEN , in order to
preserve essential natural resorces and processes ,
avoid natural hazards and damag:s and to preserve
significant natural features in the community. "
In light of the above stated Conservancy Commission concerns and
Open Space Policy, City staff with the help of the Forest
Highlands subcommittee did not locate R-0 to R-3 districts where
Stream Corridor and/or Distinctive Na'. ural Areas occur . The only
exceptions to the above rule are the •-3 and R-5 districts south
of Atwater Road and the 2 . 3 acre R-3 • istrict west of Verte
2uti
g
Staff Report/Forest Highlands
September 11 , 1985
Page 9
Court . The natural area upon which the Atwater R-3 and R-5
district encroaches is DNA 17 consisting of the Iron Mountain
Creek wooded ravine . The Country Club Road R-3 district
completely includes DNA 34 which is a 2 acre fir grove .
E . Accessability to Critical Public Facilities
Most of the proposed high density districts have frontage on
Boones Ferry Road or Country Club Road . Those roads are
identified in the Comprehensive Plan either as arterial or
collector streets . Some acreage has been identified for high
density residential south of Atwater . Because of the need for
more East/West collector streets in the study area and because of
the projected traffic volumes on Atwater , there is a possibility
that it may be reclassified as a collector street in the future .
The 5 . 5 acre block of land northeast of Lake Oswego High School
is only 700 feet from Boones Ferry and 600 feet from Goodall
Road, a collector street .
CRITERIA FOR PLAN AMENDMENTS ( LOC 56 . 155 )
1 . The Amendment conforms to or better implements Plan policies for
particular uses involved.
Staff construes the expression "particular use involved" to mean
land in the study area that will be used in the future for urban
purposes . Because the study area is a semi-rural area in low
density residential use, it has been an underlying assumption by
the Forest Highlands residents and City staff that any changes
in the area land use will only involve an increase in
residential densities and not use-changes . As such, the scope
of discussion here is narrowed to the Urban Growth Management
Element involving Urban Service Boundary and Overall Density
Policies in the Comprehensive Plan . Urban Service Boundary
General Policy 3 states that :
"the City will manage and phase urban growth within
the Urban Service Boundary, with a logical planned
extension of basic services . To establish priorities
for the phased extension of services , the City will
identify areas within the Urban Servic Boundary as
follows :
1 ) Lands suitable for near future development
( Immediate Growth) ;
2 ) Lands in long range growth areas ( FUTURE
URBANIZABLE ) . "
The above general policy was adopted in 1978 .
203
z- 4
Staff Report/Forest Highlands
September 11, 1985
Page 10
The following is a specific implementing •olicy adopted in 1978 that
addresses how the City should reconsider suture urbanizable land
designations.
"Within five years from the date of =pproval , the FUTURE
URBANIZABLE designation will be revi-wed by the City to
determine whether it remains appropr ' ate or should be
changed to Immediate Growth. Redesi•nation would be for
an entire area to avoid piecemeal de elopment . "
The Plan was amended on January 17 , 1984 o read as follows :
"The City will initiate review of th- Forest Highlands
Future Urbanizable area in the fiscal year 1983-84
according to the schedule submitted o LCDC. Any
redesignations would be for the enti e area, or a logical
subsection thereof , to avoid piecemea1 development .
Redesignations will not alter the City 's compliance with
METRO housing goals contained in OAR 660-07-035 . "
Presently, land in the subject "future uri•anizable area" cannot be
annexed to the City unless a health bazar• occurred from failing
septic systems or a land use Plan for the area is adopted with urban
residential districts . City staff have been answering inquiries from
land owners in Forest Highlands over the last five years involving
the possibility of annexation and sewer line extensions (Exhibit W) .
New growth has occurred in the northwest sector of the city and is
assumed to continue in the northerly direction .
The following are Comprehensive Plan "Overall Density" General
Policies that were also considered in planning for the study area :
GENERAL POLICIES:
I . The Comprehensive Plan will maintain the overall,
average residential density of the Urban Service Area
within the capacity of planned basic public facilities
systems , including at least water , sewer streets , drainage
and public safety.
II . Residential densities and land use intensities will
be allocated on the basis of land suitability and public
facilities capacity.
Specific policies to carry out the above are on pages 18 and 18a of
the Comprehensive Plan.
The City planning staff have worked with the Forest Highlands
Neighborhood to adopt a land use plan that will accommodate future
growth for residential development at urban densities averaging 7 . 8
dwelling units/acre . This results in an overall City planned density
for vacant land of 9 . 88 du/ac . Based on the above cited
Comprehensive Plan policy, State Land Use Goal 10 , and recent growth
2U 2-
Staff Report/Forest Highlands
September 11 , 1985
Page 11
trends , staff considers the proposed Plan map and text amendments
measures to implement the above cited Comprehensive Plan policies and
are in compliance with other Plan Element policies . Discussion
regarding compliance with other parts of the Plan will follow.
2. Conclude the amendments is consistent with any applicable
Statewide Planning Goals or regional policies.
Statewide Planning Goals applicable to this proposal are: Goals
1, 2, 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 10 , 12, 13 , 14 .
The METRO REGIONAL Housing goal contained in OAR 660-07-035 is
also applicable to the proposed Plan Amendments . The METRO
HOUSING REGIONAL goal requires , among other things , that the
buildable lands inventory for Lake Oswego provide for an overall
average on developable land of ten dwelling units per net acre ,
and the single/multi unit mix be about 50/50 .
Goal 1 states : "Develop a citizen involvement program
that insures the opportunity for citizens to be involved
in all phases of the planning process . "
As seen on pages 1 - 3 of this report , the above goal has been
implemented up to the time this report was written .
Goal 2 states : "Establish a land use planning process and
policy framework as a basis for all decisions and actions
related to use of land and to assure an adequate factual base
for such decisions and actions .
The City of Lake Oswego has a State acknowledged Land Use Plan
that provides a framework by which land use problems regarding
the study area have been defined and decisions to resolve those
problems made . An adequate factual base for the study area has
been developed over the last year . Adequate notice of
neighborhood meetings and the present public hearing was given
in advance to allow affected persons reasonable time to review
the Plan amendment ( Exhibit AA) .
Goal 5 states : "Conserve open space and protect natural
and scenic resources . "
As explained on page 8 of this report, significant Natural
Features in the study area were considered in the planning
process . As annexations are approved, development proposals are
automatically reviewed on a site by site basis . This
development review process involves the application of
Development Standards that were designed to conserve open space
and to protect identified the natura_ and scenic resources .
205
2- i t
l -
Staff Report/Forest Highlands
September 11 , 1985
Page 12
Goal 6 states : "Maintain and improve the quality of
air , water and land resources of she State . "
The City of Lake Oswego presently h.s an environmental
management program to maintain the •uality of air , water and
land that has been acknowledged by .he State as in compliance
with this Goal . As annexations in •he study area occur, this
City will apply the same program to the annexed lands . The only
environmental problems that occur i the area are isolated
septic system failures . As city se er services are extended to
Forest Highlands , isolated septic s stem breakdowns can be
prevented from becoming a generalized public health problem.
Goal 7 states : "Protect life , property from natural
disasters and hazards . "
In analyzing the natural resources o the subject area , staff
found that the more generalized natural hazards in the area are
lands subject to slipping and erosio . The severity of those
hazards is usually proportional to t e degree of slope found
from site to site . The more severe _lopes , 24 - 50% , were
mostly found along stream channel ra ines . In most cases , those
ravines were avoided in locating hig density residential
districts that cause the most distur •ance to land. The only
exception to that rule is explained ' rider "Suitability" on
page 7 of this report . As annexatio s are approved and
development proposals are considered the City automatically
reviews project proposals on a site oy site basis . This review
process involves the application of 'Development Standards that
thoroughly address any possibility for severe erosion or
slumping .
Goal 8 states : "Satisfy the recreational needs of the
citizens of the state and visitors "
The City of Lake Oswego presently ow s 3 acres of park land
along the Iron Mountain Creek and ha- planned for the
acquisition of 10 more acres at a pa •ticular site west of the
Knauss/Country Commons intersection. The City presently does
not want to acquire the above site b t will consider acquiring
at least 10 acres of park land in th= area as opportunities
arise. As lands are annexed and dev=loped in the Lake Oswego
area, the City also requires that at least 15 - 20% of a given
residential site be left in open spa•e for passive or active
recreational use.
Goal 9 states : "Diversify and improve the economy of
the State . "
As annexations are approved, new dwel ing units built and
associated infrastructure constructed, employment opportunities
in the construction field will be sus' ained , if not increased .
1.,,
Z- 1Z
-------- - --- --- -
Staff Report/Forest Highlands
September 11, 1985
Page
Goal 10 states : "Provide housing needs of citizens of
the State. "
Based on the Plan Map Table on page 6 of this report, it is
possible that 45% of the dwelling units that can be provided in
the study area will be provided wit in multiple dwelling unit
structures . The maximum density po•sible for residential
development in the study area could be 7 . 8 dwelling units/acre .
When the study area dwelling units . nd net developable acreage
factors are plugged into the overal City density formula , 9 . 88
dwelling units/net acre results . C ty staff recognizes that
this number is . 12 units per acre b: low the Goal 10 rule
requiring that planning for 10 unit-/acre be maintained;
however , other Plan amendments in t e near future involving the
East End Commercial area may increa-e the overall planned
density figure of 9 .88 up to the to get density of 10 du/net
acre . Except for the proposed Atwa •er location, the high
density districts adjacent to Boone- Ferry road are on gentle to
moderate slopes that can be more ea-ily developed at less
expense, thus creating the potentia for affordable housing .
Goal 11 states : "Plan and develo• a timely, orderly and
efficient arrangement of public f-cilities and services as a
framework for urban and rural dev-lopments . "
Since 1978 , the City of Lake Oswego has not considered the
Forest Highlands area as urbanizable . The City of Lake Oswego
has been requested by the State of Oregon to begin to do land
use and public facility planning for the Forest Highlands area
so that annexation requests can be considered in the coming
years with some assurance that the City can provide services .
Forest Highlands residents will also have a better idea of what
residential densities can occur in g ' ven parts of the study area
as annexations are approved . The Ci y Engineering Department
has studied the problem of providing sewer mains to the area and
has concluded that gravity feed line- are feasible and that
existing sewer lines and treatment facilities can accommodate
future volumes generated by projecte. development. An adequate
domestic water system presently exis s in the area that can
accommodate projected development . .chools in the area can
accommodate the projected population increase in the study
area . Police protection can be prov ded with little increase in
staffing and physical facilities . F re protection is currently
provided to the area by the City through a contract with the
Lake Grove Fire District .
Goal 12 states : "Provide and enco rage a safe and
convenient and economic transportauion system. "
The proposed land use plan was developed with the above goal in
mind. Citizens in the study area fe t that higher density
residential development districts should abut arterial or
2ur
---------------- - --
Staff Report/Forest Highlands
September 11 , 1985
Page 14
collector streets or at least be near them (see pages 8 , 9 of
this report for more details ) . Also, the citizens of Forest
Highlands requested that the City sponsor a traffic study for
the area after a land use Plan is adopted . The study will
provide needed information to develop a transportation plan
based on the adopted land use Plan. The City has submitted a
grant application to LCDC to more fully develop the
transportation plan .
Goal 13 states : "Conserve energy. "
One of the guidelines for this goal is "combine increasing
density gradients along high capacity transportation corridors
to achieve greater energy efficiency" . The above guideline was
seriously considered and implemented as stated above in the Goal
12 narrative . As stated in Goal 10 and based on the Plan map,
45% of all the dwelling units that can be built in the study
area could be within multiple family structures which are more
energy efficient regarding loss of space heat .
Goal 14 states: "Provide for an orderly efficient transition
from rural to urban land use. "
Policies relating to the above goal have been developed and
compliance with those policies is addressed under criteria item
1 on pages 9 and 10 of this report .
Compliance with the METRO Regional Housing Goal has been
discussed above under Goal 10 .
3 . Determine that public facilities have capacity and are available
to serve the proposed change. Particular impacts on existing
and projected traffic flows and access on street capacity and
sight distance.
The above considerations have been addressed regarding
compliance with Goals 11 and 12 on pages 13 , 14 of this report .
4 . Evaluate the physical constraints within the site to determine
if uses consistent with Plan designation can physically be
accommodated on the site.
The above consideration has been addressed under Goal 7 on page
12 and under the Suitability Criteria ' C ' page 7 .
5 . For residential Plan amendments to R-0, R-3 or R-5 , the
Commission will determine that ( 1 ) , ( 2 ) , ( 3 ) and (4 ) are met and
that;
a. The area can be buffered from adjoining R-7 .5 , R-10
and R-15 residential areas in a manner which protects
the privacy of adjoining uses. Buffering techniques may
include a site plan showing a perimeter density of no
2O •
Staff Report/Forest Highlands
September 11 , 1985
Page 15
more than 25% increase over the density allowed in the
Plan for the adjacent lots . Pres -rvation of natural
features or natural hazards on th- site will be balanced
against the need to provide perim-ter compatibility.
The above criteria cannot at this t me be fully addressed in the
detail that is called for above. T is is not a site specific
Plan map change . This is a general zed Plan map amendment
involving 246 acres most of which iiclude diverse terrain,
conifer and deciduous trees . In lo' ations where high density
districts have been proposed, the e isting terrain and tree
groves provide site buffering opportunities as land is proposed
for development ( Exhibits N, 0) .
b. The area is within one block of an arterial or located on
a collector with capacity to hand e additional traffic .
The high density districts on the w=st end of the study area are
all either abutting Boones Ferery Road or located at least 700
feet from either Goodall Road or Bones Ferry Road . As stated
in "Accessibility to Critical Facil ' ties" section of this report
(pages 8 ,9 ) , there are R-3 and R-5 igh density districts
located on Atwater Road. Atwater i- not presently classified as
a collector street but City staff p esently consider Atwater
Road a likely candidate for reclass ' fication as a collector
because of the need for more major past/West connections in the
study area and increasing traffic volumes as adjoining land
develops . The Forest Highlands Sub ommittee was very aware of
the need to locate high density districts near collector or
arterial streets . The Subcommittee and neighborhood meeting
attendants also stated their concern for traffic impact
generated by development and recommended that the City of Lake
Oswego sponsor a traffic study and develop a public facility
plan for new streets , street improve ents and pathways .
c. The area is within reasonable alking distance of a
transit stop as determined by recent surveys conducted
by a reputable source such as the ri-County
Metropolitan Transportation Distri t. The Commission
shall use a distance of approxiate y 750 feet unless
recent studies show otherwise.
The proposed high density districts :butting Boones Ferry Road
are within 750 ' from the Monroe Park ay/Boones Ferry
Intersection where a bus stop is loc•:ted. The High Density
District northeast of the high schoo is some 1 ,250 ' from the
Monroe Parkway/Boones Ferry Road intersection. The Atwater Road
high density districts are some 1, 250 ' from the bus stop at the
Iron Mountain Blvd ./Country Club intersection. As development
occurs and density increases in the •. tudy area , it can be
reasonably expected that changes in transit service to the area
will be made .
•
7 /' `I
ti
2- (5
Staff Report/Forest Highlands
September 11 , 1985
Page 16
d . The area is within reasonable walking distance of
commercial or industrial zones. 'he Commission will use
750' unless recent studies suppor ■ another number .
The proposed high density districts abutting Boones Ferry Road
range in distance of 100 to 900 ' fr.m the Town Square Commercial
Center . The High Density District ortheast of the high school
is some 1 ,400 ' from the Town Square Commercial Center . The
Atwater Road high density districts are about 3/5 ' s of a mile
from the commercial district ( EC) at the East end of Lake
Oswego. Because of the size of the study area and the uniform
nature of the land use in the area, not all of the high density
districts can be logically located ithin 750 ' of commercial and
industrial zones .
6 . For residential amendments to R-7 .5 , R-10 or R-15 , the
Commission will determine that (1 ) , ( 2 ) , ( 3 ) and (4 ) are met and
that ;
a. The proposed density is consis ent with the platted
development pattern in the surroun•ing area; or ,
The above criteria is not applicable to the proposed land use
Plan. The existing parcel and lot p= ttern found in the area
includes rural parcels that were mad- large enough to
accommodate wells and septic systems or at least septic
systems . Some of the parcels are at least 1/2 acre in size and
83% of the study area includes lots ith areas that exceed 3/4
acre . The more urban type of reside tial development will
include lots that range in size from 1/3 of an acre to 3 , 375 sq.
ft .
b. The topography in the area wil make it possible to
protect privacy on adjoining prope ty both within and
adjacent to the property. (Ord. N• . 1874 , Sec. 3 ;
10-4-83 ) .
The above standard cannot be fully a';dressed at this time in the
detail called for above . This is no, a site specific Plan map
change . This is a generalized Plan ap amendment involving 246
acres most of which includes moderat: terrain with slopes
ranging from 10 - 24% . Most of the -.tudy area has moderate
slopes and topographic site design o•portunities for buffering
new residential development.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the proposed Plan text amendments and
Plan map amendments except for the R-3 an. R-5 districts south of
Atwater . Staff recommends the Planning C.mmission members consider
2 o
z— /to
Staff Report/Forest Highlands
September 11, 1985
Page 17
adjusting the Plan designation in that a ea by removing the R-3
district and redesignating all of the 13 acre area south of Atwater
and West of the parcel proposed for R-3 ' o R-5 . Staff recognizes
that this is not consistent with the fee ings of the neighborhood
subcommittee , but feels that this recomm:ndation better reflects the
suitability of the areas in question for high density housing.
EXHIBITS
A Forest Highlands "Future Urbanizabl= " Area ( Study Area )
B Vicinity Map and General Discussion of Land Use Planning Process
C Results of April 1984 Survey (Not a ■tacked, will be available at
the Public Hearing)
Ci Letter Explaining Survey
D Newspaper Preview Story for October 2 , 1984 Neighborhood
Association Meeting
E October 2 , 1984 Forest Highlands Neighborhood Meeting Notice
F Letter from Mr . Ward Regarding Plan District Preference
G March 26 , 1985 Forest Highlands Neighborhood Meeting Notice
H March 26 , 1985 Lake Oswego Review Editorial
I May 17 , 1985 Letter from Preston & Elizabeth Orem
J May 30 , 1985 Neighborhood Meeting Notice
K Newspaper Accounts of May 30 , 1985 Forests Highlands
Neighborhood Meeting
L Small Copy of Proposed Land Use Plan for Forest Highlands Study
Area
M Large 1" = 200 ' Property Work Map (will be available at the
public hearing )
N Large 1" = 200 ' Topographical Analysis Work Map (will be
available at the public hearing )
O Large 1 " = 200 ' Natural Features Wor Map (aerial photo/will be
available at the public hearing )
P Large 1" = 200 ' Street Right-of-Way :nd Classification Map (will
be available at the public hearing )
Q Large 1" = 200 ' Existing and Potenti: 1 Sewer System Map ( will be
available at the public hearing)
R Large 1" = 200 ' Existing and Potenti•: 1 Water System Map ( will be
available at the public hearing )
S Large 1 " = 200 ' Existing and Potenti.; l Stormwater System Map
(will be available at the public hea ing)
T Lake Oswego Hydrology Map
U Stream Corridor Area Calculation (August 7 , 1985 )
✓ June 18 , 1985 Letter from Einar Nard.:hl
W May 4 , 1984 Letter from Sandi Young, Planning Director , to Jeff
Jones Responding to Annexation Inquiry
X August 15 , 1985 Newspaper Preview of September 23 , 1985 Planning
Commission Public Hearing
Y September 13 , 1985 Letter from Chest=r Gillihan, Director of
Administrative Services of Lake Oswego School District
Z Notice and Narrative of Forest Highl-nds Comprehensive Plan
Amendments to LCDC
211
Z- 19
Staff Report/Forest Highlands
September 11 , 1985
Page 18 -
AA . Original Notice of September 23 , 19 :5 Public Hearing to All
Affected Persons in Forest Highland- Area Mailed September 6 ,
1985
BB Clackamas County Utility Line and F-cility Standards
3380P/GSFM/mas
•
2I �;
8
•
EXHIBIT ADDENDUM SHEET
FOR FOREST HIGHLANDS STAFF rEPORT (PA 7-85 )
EXHIBITS
CC Letter from John and Jeanette Lor z
DD Letter from Robert Westgate
EE Small Map Showing Existing Dwelli gs , Abbutting Lots in Common
Ownership, Developed Lots [ Lots 3 4 ac . or less with
dwelling ( s ) ]
FF Small Map Showing Staff Recommend: d Change of Proposed Plan
Map ( Exhibit L)
G G Letrevr . , ►is 1 -1-5 ser t: 3 Zrd ) S S
H 14 Lett ev -Rrom Lctv-r1 Er 51-ciin Cciikoro � vier r,ese�,-�trc Nlv I\ord ka.\] e,�sonsJ
I Z ��rJCet - `xf t Z3�
Let -� �o�w1.o-CI-41 nel Srt 2 i S `
J J Letter Wi I t i a,,,,,, 23 rd S .
•
3393P
213
2114
•
111-1, iffj\iEsaT
CITY OF LAKE CSWEGO
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 23, 1985
The Planning Commission meeting of September 23, 1985 was called to order by
Chairman Adrianne Brockman at 7:30 p.m. Commissioners present were Adrianne
Brockman, Jeanne Robinette, and John Weisser. Comissioner Wexler arrived at 8:30
p.m. Chairman Larry Rosencrantz and Commissioners Thomas Rodrigues, and Elizabeth
Ross were excused. Staff present were City Planner Gary Miniszewski, Assistant
City Attorney Sandra Duffy, and Secretary, Kristi Hitchcock.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of September 9 and August 26, 1985 were considered under 'Other
Business".
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Chairman Brockman explained the legislative hearing procedures and ex parte contact
rules.
PA 7-85 - A Comprehensive Plan map amendment and Comprehensive Plan text amndments
involving the Forest Highlands Neighborhood outside the City limits and within the
Urban Service Boundary. Map amendment involves:
- replacing the present Plan designation of 'Future Urbanizable' with •
"Immediate Growth", allowing for residential development ranging from 2.9
to 52 dwelling units per acre
- deletion of the map designation for a park located west of the
Knaus/Country Commons intersection.
The text amendments are to delete specific Comprehensive Plan Policy 3 on page 15,
General Policy I and Specific Policies 1 and 2 on page 60 of the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Miniszewski presented the staff report. He gave the background of the
Comprehensive Planning process for the Forest Highlands area. He discussed map
designations and the reasons behind those designations. Staff recommended approval
of the plan for the Forest Highlands area (Exhibit L) with an amendment to the map
(Exhibit FF) , changing the designation for that portion of land from R-3 and R-5 to
R-7.5 because of the Distinctive Natural Area and stream corridor located on the
property.
Tim McNamara, Chairman of the Forest Highlands Neighborhood Association and the
subcommittee working on this Comprehensive Plan, spoke. He discussed the
background and work sessions which went into the plan for Forest Highlands before
the Planning Commission hearing.
COUNCIL EXHIBIT
zip
3-
C
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 23, -1985
Katherine Stager, 13197 SW Thoma Road, represented residents of the Thoma Road
area. She submitted a letter (Exhibit GG) signed by approximately 30 residents of
the area. She said the Thoma Road area had not been well represented at the
neighborhood meetings or' on the subcommittee studying plan designations. She said
that the R-0 designations for Thoma Road (Exhibit L) were not appropriate adjacent
to the large lots on Thoma Road. She said that the multifamily zones had been
disproportionately designed, and that some of the burden should be shared by other
areas of the Forest Highlands neighborhood. Ms. Stager asked that there be a
buffer placed between single family residential and multifamily zones. She asked
that the interiors of lots be zoned with a higher density rather than the exterior
lots. She asked that some of the R-3 zones should be moved to the interior of the
Forest Highlands area. Ms. Stager answered questions for the Planning Commission.
Ms. Stager said that there was only one meeting at which a final vote was taken on
the final plan.. She said that there was no opportunity for viewing of the plan at
City Hall or at the library. She maintained that there was never a vote of the
whole neighborhood on the plan because it was changed after the neighborhood
meeting by staff. In answer to a question from Commissioner Robinette, Ms. Stager
said that 20,000 square feet was a good average of the lot sizes on Thoma Road.
Jim Morris, Thoma Road, was concerned about the possibility of four story
structures being built to the rear of his lot and next door to his home. He said
there should be a buffer zone provided between his larger single family lot and
such large structures. He asked how high multifamily structures were allowed in
the R-3 and R-0 zones. He also asked how the property behind the high school would
be accessed and if so would they be using Thoma Road.
Mr. Miniszewski said there is a street (Hazel Road) which accesses the property
from Goodall Road. It is the public right-of-way for that property and it could be
improved. He said there could be row houses with one or two stories in the R-3
zones. He said one of the considerations for zoning that property was the drop in
terrain. The Commission requested staff to bring a chart showing heights allowable
in each zone the the next hearing held on Forest Highlands.
Mr. Morris said he would like to go on record as being against the R-3 zoning based
on there not being a clear definition of the heights of the building and opposing
the R-0 zoning at the corner of Knaus and Boones Ferry and at the corner of Knaus
and Thoma Road.
Mr. Miniszewski read the height requirements for the R-0, R-3, and R-5 zones.
There was discussion of the access to the area behind the high school. He said
traffic patterns, right-of-ways, and existing roads had been taken into
consideration in the planning for the area.
Larry Epstein, 1020 SW Taylor Street, Suite 370, Portland, spoke representing the
properties of Nordahls, Petersons, and Burketts in the 13700 block of Knaus Road.
He said that Mr. Nordahl and the other two property owners own 6.5 acres of
property. They would like the Nordahl property to be zoned for a higher density,
preferably R-5. He said that he had contacted the Petersons and Burketts on the
request of Mr. Nordahl to find out their feelings about the zoning and that these
two property owners had agreed with Mr. Nordahl and asked that their names be added
to the representation. Mr. Epstein said that Mr. Nordahl felt he had not had an
opportunity to achieve their goals through the neighborhood association planning
-2-
21b
.
3 - Z
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 23, 1985
process. Mr. Epstein said that raising the density of this parcel would help
achieve the 10 units per acre required under Goal 10, and achieve the 50/50 mix of
medium to low density developments. He said that Mr. Nordahl's property is better
suited to higher density than other areas designated R-5 on the proposed plan.
Chairman Brockman declared a short recess. The meeting reconvened at 9:03 p.m.
with continued testimony. Chairman Brockman said that the next meeting on the
Forest Highlands Comprehensive Plan was tentatively set for October 28, and that it
would be advertized in the newspaper.
Carl Swett, 13485 SW Atwater Lane, added further history of the planning process
for Forest Highlands. He said he was a member of the planning subcommittee. He
said that Mr. NOrdahl had the opportunity to participate in the planning of the
area. He said that notices had been sent to all property owners of meetings and
that Mr. Nordahl had been present at some of those meetings. Mr. Swett said he
owns 172.5 feet contiguous to Mr. Nordahl's property. He said there is a
Distinctive Natural Area on the south portion of Mr. Nordahl's property. He said
that lower density would be preferable as it is in keeping with the character of
the area.
Eugene Briggs, 13520 SW Knaus, said that much work has been done in planning the
area. He said that no plan can be acceptable to everyone in the neighborhood. Mr.
Briggs asked the Planning Commission to accept the staff report because it as good
a plan as can be developed. He said that densities should be compatible with
existing uses and also should be planned for the types of roads available.
James Chaney, 610 SW Atwater Road, read a prepared statement (Exhibit II) . They
are opposed to future urbanization because their home is on over one acre, is on
steep terrain (25-50%), has many trees, wetlands, springs, creekbed, and wildlife.
Zoning their property R-10 will be an unfair hardship on them because of increased
traffic and the costs of sewer lines. Sewer easements could endanger their home,
and change the value of the land. He submitted the letter for the record.
Mike Fahey, 1300 SW Forest Meadows Way, 1300 SW Forest Meadows Way, said he has
been a resident of this area for about ten years. He has worked with the
Neighborhood Association during the planning for Country Commons. He said 52 units
per acre in any part of Forest Highlands is unacceptable. Mr. Fahey said that
other areas of the City which are already high in density should be rezoned for the
higher (52 units per acre) density. He asked that density be assigned by
compatibility.
Bill Hedlund, 900 SW Atwater Road, said he was the former chairman of Forest
Highlands Neighborhood Association. Mr. Hedlund submitted a letter in support of
the recommendation for the area (Exhibit JJ) . He supports staff's recommendation
to amend the area zoned R-3 to R-7.5, but would like to further amend it for an
R-10 designation. He said that this particular piece of property should be
preserved in its natural state. Mr. Hedlund said the whole area from Knaus Road
over on the southeast should be zoned R-10.
Rick Cherry, 14051 SW Goodall Road, was concerned that high density development
would require improvements to Goodall Road and the residents would have to pay for
those improvements. Mr. Cherry said that he had the impression that it was not
that easy to be part of the neighborhood subcommittee. He said it was not
necessary to have a buffer for Country Commons and the Planning Commission should
transfer some of the high density elsewhere in the neighborhood. 2 17
-3- 3_ 3
.
•
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 23, 1985
Jeannete Lortz, 13379 SW Thoma Road, said th-t traffic problems exiting Thoma Road
to Knaus and Knaus to Boones Ferry have not •-en addressed. She said these are
dangerous intersections when the traffic is eavy. She said that she objected to
the high density all being assigned to the oma Road area. Ms. Lortz was
concerned that high school traffic added to eavier traffic from high density
development could affect both Thoma and Haze Roads.
•
Kathy Jones, 12831 SW 22nd Avenue (Alto Park, said that all of the neighborhood
will be affected if very high density is all. ed on Thoma Road. She said it would
be better to spread the density throughout th- Forest Highlands area.
Marjorie Briggs, 13520 SW Knaus Road, asked i secondary units were counted in the
ten unit per acre calculation. Commissioner '-obinette said that they are not all
counted and included in the density. Mr. Miniszewski said that secondary units
were not taken into consideration in the density calculation. Ms. Briggs asked if
additional roads or road widening would be ne essary if the scenario presented went
into effect. Mr. Miniszewski said that the C'ty has requested a grant from LCDC to
do transportation planning for the Forest Hig lands area. He said that the amount
of land necessary for roads had been consider-d in the determination for net
buildable area, but that road locations could only be determined at the time of a
transportation study or actual development pr•posal.
Cliff Conrad, 13221 SW Knaus Road, said he ha• attended every meeting of the Forest
Highlands Neighborhood Association for the 1--t three years, and that some of the
testimony heard now has been heard at many of the prior meetings. Mr. Conrad said
the committee had taken care and attempted to designate land the best way
' possible. He recommended that the Planning •mmission accept the plan as presented
by staff.
Helen Turk, 13840 Verte Court, said that all hose lots are R-10, and she cannot
see putting high density (R-3) in the middle of them.
John Copenhagon, 13660 Shireva, commented tha he feels LCDC does not know what is.
best for this community. He said the City wa• responsible for dispensing LCDC's
rulings. Because this is one of the last are•: of Lake Oswego with a rural
environment, it should be allowed to remain -•- it is without altering the nature of
the area. He said that higher density should be located in other areas of the city.
Joan Jennings, 13090 SW Knaus Road, said she -greed with Mr. Drake. She was
concerned that traffic increases would be cau•.ed by high density residential
development. She asked that the area stay si gle family rsidential.
No one else spoke. Commissioner Wexler thanked all the residents for coming to the
meeting, and asked that they continue their iiput to the Planning Commission.
Chairman Brockman thanked all those present fur attending, and reminded them the
next hearing would be held on October 28.
OTHER BUSINESS
Findings, Conclusions and Order
The Commission approved signing of findin.s for CU 5-85, Oswego Country Club.
-4- 216
•
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 23,' 1985
Minutes
The Planning Commission approved the minutes of August 27 and September 9, 1985
as written. d
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned by chairman Brockman at 10:15 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Kri ti Hitchcock
Secretary
324z
-5-
3- 5
2 U
-------- - --- -- - ------ -----
' 1J is
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 28 , 1985
The Planning Commission meeting of October 28 , 1985 was called to
order by Chairman Larry Rosencrantz at 7 : 40 p.m . . Commissioners
present were Chairman Rosencrantz, Adrianner Brockman, Jeanne
Robinette, Thomas Rodrigues , and John Weisser . Commissioners
Elizabeth Ross and Mel Wexler were excused . Staff present were City
Planner Gary Miniszewski, Assistant City Attorney Sandra Duffy, and
Secretary Kristi Hitchcock .
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of September 23 , 1985 and October 14 , 1985 were
considered for approval after completion of the public hearing. The
minutes of September 23 , 1985 were approved as written, with
Commissioners Weisser , Brockman, and Robinette voting in favor .
Chairman Rosencrantz and Commissioner Rodrigues abstained . A second
vote will be necessary to verify this 3-0-2 vote .
The minutes of October 14 , 1985 will be considered at the Planning
Commission ' s next meeting , November 13 , 1985 .
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS -
Commissioner Brockman said she had received a communication relevant
to the public hearing on PA 7-85 which she had given to staff to be
entered into the record at the appropriate time .
PUBLIC HEARINGS
PA 7-85 - A continuation of a hearing on a Comprehensive Plan map
amendment and Comprehensive Plan text amendments involving the
Forest Highlands Neighborhood - outside :he Urban Service Boundary.
Mr . Miniszewski addressed the issues raised by the Planning
Commission at the September 23 , 1985 meeting . He submitted further
exhibits for the record:
Exhibit MMMM Letter from Marjorie Briggs
Exhibit NNNN Letter from Leonard Murphy
Exhibit 0000 Letter from Leonard Murphy
Exhibit PPPP Letter from Einar M. Nordahl
Exhibit QQQQ Letter from Larry Epstein
Exhibit RRRR Map from Larry Epstein
Mr . Miniszewski said that he had posted on the bulletin board a
chart showing heights allowed in different zones ( Exhibit SSSS ) , the
plan map for the area (Exhibit L) , and Exhibit FF, amendment to the
plan map.
COUNCIL EXHIBIT
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 28 , 1985
The following people testified about he proposed plan for Forest
Highlands :
Helen A. Turk - 13840 Verte Court
Ron Wagner - 13333 Fox Run
Carl R. Swett - 13485 SW Atwater lane
E. Nordahl
Larry Epstein - 1020 SW Taylor Street , Portland
Tim McNamara - 1375 SW Atwater
Katheryn Stager - 13197 SW Thoma "oad
Burton Goodrich - 1030 SW Timberl ne Drive
Jim Marrs - Thoma Road
Gerie Leslie - 13301 Knaus Road
Marjorie Briggs - Knaus Road
Larry McCort - 13052 SW Knaus
Tom Cunningham - Thoma Road
Cliff Conrad - 13221 Knaus
Ron Stager - Thoma Road
John Carter - Atwater Lane
Dick Sptiznass - 1340 Country Com ons
Chris Staff
Issues that were raised in testimony ere :
- High density should not be co fined to the few areas
designated . That density should be shared among the entire
Forest Highlands area; perhaps by raising density from R-15
to R-10 , R-10 to R-7 . 5 , etc . , thus allowing the lowering of
density from R-0 and R-3 in other areas , particularly Thoma
Road.
- That higher density along Country Club Road might be
preferred by those owners , and that they should be surveyed
to determine their preferences .
- That the density should be raised for Mr . Nordahl ' s property
because of the large size of t e parcel , and because there
are no structures on the parcel which would be affected by
higher density . It was also b ought up that Mr . Nordahl 's
property was not steeply slope. , and that neighboring homes
to the north would be buffered by the stream corridor
separating the two properties .
- That a plan allowing for ten u its per acre was required for
all vacant residential propert inside the City Urban
Service Boundary by the LCDC.
- That perhaps other more approp fate areas of the City could
increase in density, allowing sorest Highlands to maintain a
lower density for their neighborhood plan .
-2-
2 .:
L�/- Z
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 28 , 1985
- That Portland and Multnomah County zones adjacent to Lake
Oswego in this area are much larger ( R-40 ) than those
planned for Forest Highlands .
1 - That another Planning Subcommittee be formed having better
geographical representation a d that they redraft work to
develop another neighborhood •lan in the next three months .
No one else spoke and Chairman Rosenc antz closed the public
hearing. The Commission expressed co cern that there were residents
of Forest Highlands who felt they had not been represented in the -
planning process . It was suggested teat perhaps the neighborhood
should get together one more time wit the steering committee to
determine if there could be consensus for the plan for the areas,
with revisions to the plan map if nec:ssary.
Following discussion , Commissioner We sser moved to have one more
hearing on PA 7-85 on December 9 , 198 " , that the committee that
produced this plan meet with the neighborhood one last time to see
if there are some final adjustments , -nd to see if they can obtain
any additional consensus on those final adjustments .
OTHER BUSINESS -
It was moved , seconded, and passed unanimously to set the hearing
date for CU 4-85 ( combined park and fire training facility) for
November 13 , 1985 at 7 : 30 p.m.
Minutes
The minutes of September 23 , 1985 ere approved as written .
Commissioners Brockman, Rodrigues , and Weisser voted in favor .
Chairman Rosencrantz and Commissio er Robinette abstained as
they had not been present at that eeting. A second vote will
be held on November 13 , 1985 to ve ify this vote .
There was no quorum of those prese t to approve the minutes of
October 14 , 1985 , and approval of Jlose minutes was deferred to
the November 13 meeting .
Findings
CI 1-85 findings were approved for signature , but a second vote
will be needed as there were not four members present who were
present at the hearing on October 4 , 1985 .
DA 1-85 , DA 2-85 , and DA 3-85 will be considered at the next
meeting , November 13 , 1985 .
-J-
2 3
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 28 , 1985
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to conduct , Chairman Rosencrantz
adjourned the meeting at 10 : 20 p. m.
Respectfully Submitted ,
/ , r
Kris Hitchcock
Secretary
360z
-4-
r-r- • /- d
• 11 V I
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 9, 1985
The Planning Commission meeting of December 9, 1985 was called to
order by Chairman Larry Rosencrantz at 6: 45 p .m. . Commissioners
present were Chairman Rosencrantz , Adrianne Brockman, Jeanne
Robinette , and Thomas Rodrigues . Mel Wexler was excused. John
Weisser arrived at 7: 40 p.m. Staff present were Topaz Faulkner
Planning Director , Assistant City Attorney Sandra Duffy, City
Planners Gary Miniszewski and Lori Mastrantonio, and Secretary
Kristi Hitchcock .
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of October 28 , 1985 were approved as written . This was
the second vote necessary to verify tha first 3-0 vote taken on
November 13 , 1985 . The minutes of October 14 , 1985 were approved as
written . This was the second vote necessary to verify the first 3-0
vote taken on November 13 , 1985 .
Approval of the November 13 , 1985 meeting minutes was deferred to
the next Planning Commission meeting.
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS - None
PUBLIC HEARINGS
PA 8-85 and ZC 11-85 - A request to consider Comprehensive Plan map
and Zone map amendment from R-7. 5 to R-0 for a lot including 28, 000
square feet . The applicant is Marlene Deaton, representing William
Buckley . The property is located on lake Grove Avenue , more
specifically described as Tax Lot 1800 of Tax Map 2 lE 8CA .
Mr . Miniszewski presented the staff report . Staff recommended
approval of the Plan and Zone map amendments ; however , they
requested that the Planning Commission change the zone to R-3
instead of R-0. This would allow no more than the proposed four
two-unit structures . Mr . Miniszewski answered questions for
Commissioners regarding funding for street improvements to Lake
Grove Avenue and how the use could be compatible with adjacent
single family residences .
Proponents
Marlene Deaton , 1850 SW Egan Way , Lake Oswego spoke in behalf of the
application. She gave a brief history of the application and
introduced Kathry Parvin, attorney representing the project .
Kathy Parvin , 3690 Lakeview Boulevard, Lake Oswego, said that the
application complied with State LCDC planning goals , with Lake
Oswego Comprehensive Plan policies , and that there is a public need
for multifamily housing in Lake Oswego .
COUNCIL EXHIBIT '`
5
pP. fi /b ,
(-.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 9, 1985
Ms . Parvin said that the proposed uni s will be within walking
distance of shopping and a bus stop. There are sidewalks , and the
applicant will put in the sidewalk in front of the project. She
said that visual impacts should be no much more than for single
family structures , as there would be our two-unit structures with
the parking below each. Only one uni . will be directly visible from
Lake Grove Avenue .
Ms . Parvin said that staff ' s recommen• ed modification from R-0 to
R-3 was acceptable to the applicant. She said this will better
buffer the neighborhood from further ' ultifamily development because
of the step down from the R-0 zoning •n the west. She said that
there will be a buffer between this d -velopment and the single
family residences , and that landscapi g will be provided.
In response to a question from Commissioner Robinette , Ms . Deaton
said that each unit will be approximately 1 , 296 square feet
including parking .
Opponent:
The following people testified in oppo - ition to PA 8-85 and ZC 11 85 :
Bud Hovell , Chair, Lake Grove Neig borhood Association
Andre Bjornskov, 3884 Lake Grove
John L. Palo 4181 Sunset Drive
Donna Shackelford 3930 Lake Grove Z-B
Nick Seagrave 3407 Lake Grove
Harold Malagon 1614 . SW Reese
Louise Emerson 1793 • Cardinal Drive
Matt Finnigan 7700 Upper Drive
Lynne Wiedel 3930 Lake Grove 1-C
Concerns raised in testimony surroundi . g the proposed map amendment
were as follows :
- Lack of need for multifamily h•using
- Residential Density Policy #3 .f the Comprehensive Plan
- Increased traffic
- Increased noise due to close p oximity to other residential
single family homes
- Possible drainage problems ( th - re was testimony that the
drainage from this area curren ly is running of into single
family residential lots on Sunset Drive )
- Plan policies promoting the upkeep of existing neighborhoods
- Possible "domino effect" of multifamily zoning along Lake
Grove Avenue
- Visual impact to the neighborho.d
- Closeness of the proposed multi amily to existing single
family residential homes
-2- 2 6
a
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 9, 1985
Rebuttal
Kathy Parvin said that R-3 zoning makes sense because of closeness
to the commercial area . It will allow the area to be revitalized.
She said that there are already apartments adjacent to this site .
Ms . Parvin said that the drainage is adequate. She said that there
will be additional parking spaces at the rear of the units which
should meet the needs of visitors . She said the advantage of
multifamily is that in the design the developer is required to
buffer the use from adjacent neighbors and to put in landscaping .
That would not be necessary for single family homes .
No one else spoke and Chairman Rosencrantz closed the public
hearing . Commissioner Brockman said she opposed approval of
rezoning this property to R- 0 or R-3 because it does not better
implement Plan policies . She said it does not conform to the
Comprehensive Plan in the following ways :
1 ) Preservation of existing neighborhoods
2) Promoting rehabilitation
3 ) Services do not have capacity
a ) Lake Grove Avenue does not have the capacity because it
is narrow.
b) Drainage is not adequate
Commissioner Brockman said that the curve in Lake Grove Avenue would
be a natural dividing line and buffer for the intense development .
Changes in zoning should occur for entire planning areas and not
isolated properties and should be made when the review of the
Comprehensive Plan occurs ( in about three years ) . .
Commissioner Robinette disagreed. She said that the applicant ' s
zone and Plan amendments should be approved for the following
reasons :
1 ) The conceptual site plan shows that it is possible to comply
with siting requirements for multifamily structures .
2 ) The site is opposite commercial and multifamily uses , unlike
other properties further east of Lake Grove Avenue which are
opposite single family dwellings .
Commissioner Robinette said some conditions should be placed on an
approval such as maximum of two stories and that the drainage be
handled by impermeable roadways , etc .
She said that one of her main reasons for being in favor of the zone
change was that this property is in transition and the site probably
would not develop as single family .
Chairman Rosencrantz said that suitability of the site was not
enough reason for changing the zone designation . There need to be
compelling reasons backed by strong evidence . He said the
Residential Density Policies are most relevant to this decision .-3- 2 •)�„r
5- 3
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 9 , 1985
That policy says that substantially developed single family
residential neighborhoods will be maintained at existing density
designations .
r
Commissioner Rodrigues said that the Comprehensive Plan was drawn up
the way the neighborhood existed, and that changes over time were
not taken into account . He said that R-3 zoning should draw a line
separating multifamily development from the existing single family
development .
Commissioner Weisser said he felt the request was reasonable because
there is already multifamily and commercial uses adjacent to the
site .
Commissioner Brockman moved for denial of PA 8-85 based on her
reasoning given during discussion ( see page 3 ) . The motion was
seconded by Chairman Rosencrantz , and was defeated 2-3 .
Commissioner Brockman and Chairman Rosencrantz voted in favor of
denial , and Commissioners Robinette , Weisser and Rodrigues voted in
opposition .
Commissioner Robinette moved for approval of PA 8-85 , modified from
R-0 to R-3, with the conditions that the request be modified from
R-0 to R-3 , that there be a maximum of 8 units , and that buildings
be limited to a maximum of two stories . The. Planning Commission
recommended that the site needs special attention paid to drainage
at the Development Review Board level . The motion was seconded by
Commissioner Weisser and passed 3-2 , with Commissioners Robinette ,
Rodrigues and Weisser voting in favor and Chairman Rosencrantz and
Commissioner Brockman voting in opposition.
Commissioner Robinette moved for approval of ZC 11-85 with the
conditions that the request be modified from R-0 to R-3 , that there
be a maximum of 8 units , and that buildings be limited to a maximum
of two stories . The Planning Commission recommended that the site
needs special attention paid to drainage at the Development Review
Board level . The motion was seconded by Commissioner Weisser and
passed 3- 2 with Commissioners Weisser , Rodrigues and/
voting in favor and Chairman Rosencrantz and Commissioner Brockman
voting in opposition .
li-
PA 7-85 - Continuation of a public hearing on the Forest Highlands
neighborhood outside the City limits and within the Urban Service
Boundary . Chairman Rosencrantz said that the Planning Commission
had asked that the neighborhood association work toward a compromise
which would better distribute density throughout Forest Highlands .
Ms . Faulkner, Planning Director, said that since she was new to her
position with Lake Oswego , Gary Miniszewski would give the staff
report on Forest Highlands .
2 v b
-4-
S- T
r
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 9, 1985
Mr . Miniszewski gave a history of the planning process to date on a
Comprehensive Plan for Forest Highlands . He gave the Planning
Commission copies of new exhibits received since the last hearing.
S
Cliff Conrad, Forest Highlands Neighborhood Association, said that
at the association ' s meeting December 4, three maps had been
discussed and voted upon ( Exhibits L, GG, and DD ) . He said that the
first vote of the association was close, so a second vote was taken
eliminating the map which had received the fewest votes
( Exhibit DD ) . The next vote was split 51 to :!s=ttf::
voeforEhibitDD . Heaidtatt thispointthe felt that
I an impass had been reached and that the consensus was that the
! ! differences should be resolved by the Planning Commission and
I1 Planning Department staff . The reason for the impasse was there was
i no consensus on distribution of higher densities . He answered
j questions for the Commission on rationale behind different
designations and the Committee ' s feelings on the designations .
I
,
Kathryn Stager commented on the committee ' s reasoning . ( Due to the
fact that she spoke from the audience , the exact testimony was not
recorded at a volume loud enough to transcribe. )
Mr . Conrad said that other areas of the City could be designated for
'i higher density, relieving the pressure on the Forest Highlands area
for higher density . He said that the R-0 and R-3 designations for
the Shaw property were not acceptable to anyone, but that if the R- 0
designation were taken away from this property it would radically
affect the densities for the entire area .
Ms . Stager explained why the density had been moved from the High
School to this property, and the reasoning behind densities along
Boones Ferry and Country Club Roads .
Mr . Conrad reiterated his comments about the vote of the
association , and the request that the Planning Commission and staff
find a compromise .
Ms . Faulkner commended Forest Highlands Neighborhood Association on
their efforts to develop a plan for their neighborhood, and
recommended that staff look at the information provided by them and
see if there is anything else than can be suggested to resolve the
density issue with particular emphasis on the Shaw property .
Perhaps there are other areas of the city where the density could be
redistributed. .
Consensus of the Planning Commission was that staff should look at
the plans for Forest Highlands and determine if there was a way to
better distribute density . Commissioner Robinette said that the
Planning Commission should make a tentative decision with guidance
to staff as to what the Commission would like to see on the map .
• -5- 2 ici
5- S
•
Ir r- •
•
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 9, 1985
Members of the audience stated they had no notification of the
hearings held on the proposed Plan amendment, including this
meeting. Mr . Miniszewski said that everyone in the Forest Highlands
neighborhood had been notified of all neetings . He said that on
) Thursday, December 5, notices went out to all those within 300 ' of
the planning area . Mr . Miniszewski said that since this is a Plan
( amendment, it will go to the City Coun il , and that everyone would
; have an opportunity to speak.
Chairman Rosencrantz said that the Pla ping Commission felt that all
, persons affected by the proposed Plan = mendment should have an
opportunity to speak . Ms . Duffy, Assi : tant City Attorney, said that
all those persons legally required to •e notified by Lake Oswego
City Code had been notified. This is • legislative hearing, and
individual notification is not require . ; only notices in the
Inewspaper .
Following discussion in which the Plan ing Commission consensus was
i that everyone should have the opportun ty to testify, Commissioner
Brockman moved to hold one last public hearing on PA 7-85 on a map
developed by staff . Chairman Rosencra tz added that staff send
I public notice to all interested partie : and those within 300 ' within
the outside perimeter of the planning - rea . Commissioner Brockman
Idisagreed that individual notice was n = eded as it was very
expensive , difficult to determine mail ng lists from tax rolls , and
it is noticed in the legal section of he Oswego Review. She
accepted the amendment .
The Alto Park Water District represent- tive asked to be notified of
hearings .
Commissioner Robinette said that the P anning Commission should give
staff a policy decision as to whether • his area should be required
to have the density ( 10 units per acre or whether the Commission
should recommend that City Planning st= ff research the possibility
of putting the density elsewhere in La a Oswego . Chairman
Rosencrantz said that he felt staff sh. uld attempt to work with what
the neighborhood has come up with in t e form of a map , and to give
the Planning Commission a specific con•ept to review. He said that
each of the Commissioners could give a policy statement directing
staff in their review of the plan for orest Highlands .
Chairman Rosencrantz restated the moti •n :
To have staff try to condense the naps for the best resolution
as planning professionals with the input of the neighborhood
received to date and have that information available for a last
public hearing, at which time the Planning Commission will make
a final decision . Notice is to include all those within 300 ' of
the planning area .
Commissioner Weisser seconded the motion and it passed uninamously .
-6-
2,} ()
5— lc,
r
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 9, 1985
PA 9-85 and ZC 12-85 - A request by D. Parr Corporation for approval
of a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and Zone Map Amendment from
R-0 and R-7 . 5 residential to Neighborhood Commercial ( NC) for
property located south of Oak, north of Laurel and west of McVey
Streets (Tax Lot 6700 of Tax Map 2 lE 10CA and Tax Lot 100 of Tax
Map 2 lE 10CC.
Ms . Mastrantonio presented the staff report. Staff recommended
approval of the proposed zone and Comprehensive Plan map changes .
She answered questions for Commissioners .
Proponents
Dave Parr , 10375 SW Trapper Terrace, Beaverton, spoke in behalf of
the application . He said that Mr . Graham ( SP??? ) , the owner of the
adjacent property zoned future NC had indicated he might be amenable
to changing that property ' s zoning to residential because the
location of the property was not suitable for commercial
development . He explained his method for determining trip
generation and said he had used the Trip Generation Manual
recommended by the City Traffic Coordinator, Jerry Baker .
Opponents
Virginia Lacy , 1659 Oak Street , said that commercial use of the
• currently residentially zoned portion of the property would add
noise and pollution to the residential zone in which she lives
behind this property. She asked the Commission to deny the
application .
Bill Carson , 1669 Oak , said his major concerns were with traffic ,
noise, and the school bus stop at the corner of McVey. He asked
what use was planned for the northwest corner of the site . He asked
that this area not be allowed to be used as a service area . Mr .
Carson asked that traffic not be increased on Oak Street .
W. F . Pierce , 1599 Oak Street, said that if he could be assured no
access or egress would be allowed to Oak Street and that a buffer
zone would be put between the commercial area and the residential
area , he would not oppose this project . He said he was concerned
about limited sight distance on the corner of Oak and McVey.
Ms . Mastrantonio indicated that the City received a phone call in
support of the proposed zone changes from Dave Brady, Scottsdale ,
Arizona , owner of Tax Lot 900, Tax Map 2 lE l0CD .
Rebuttal
Dave Parr said they would agree to not access Oak Street . He said
they had no objection to buffering Oak . He said that- as part of the
improvement of the site , they were required to do a street
realignment of Oak and McVey to 90° , which would be paid for by
the developers . He said they would agree to no use of Tax Lot 100
as a service area ( this was the lot which Mr . Carson had requested23 �
not be used as a service area ) .
-7- - �
.. I
• PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 9, 1985
No one else spoke and Chairman Rosencrantz closed the public
hearing. The Commission discussed cr teria for allowing Plan and
zone changes . Following a consensus . hat the Plan change should be
denied because it did not comply with Comprehensive Plan
requirements , Commissioner Robinette . oved for denial of PA 9-85 for
the following reasons :
1 . It does not comply with the Comprehensive Plan policy of
preserving neighborhoods .
2. It does not better implement • Ian policies as there is a
need for R-0 (multifamily) residential zoning.
3 . There is already land zoned c •mmercial in the neighborhood
commercial center adequate to contain 20, 000 square feet of
commercial space . ( Commissioner Robinette referred to
Volume II of the Comprehensive Plan. )
4 . A 40 ' high building will negatively impact the neighborhood.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Weisser and passed.
'unanimously with Commissioners Weisser , Robinette , Brockman , and
Rodrigues and Chairman Rosencrantz all voting in favor .
• GENERAL PLANNING - None •
OTHER BUSINESS - Findings , Conclusions and Order
The Commission approved signature .f the following findings :
DA 1-85 , Transit Standard Amen•ment
DA 2-85, Amendment to Minor De elopment Procedures
DA 3-85 , Notice requirements f. r. Class I Variance
Applications
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to con.uct , Chairman Rosencrantz
adjourned the meeting at 11 : 00 p.m.
Resp: ctfully Submitted,
Kris Hitchcock
Secr= tary
0424z
-8-
23
5-- $.
•
opiroI
-�
u �J
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 10 , 1986
The Planning Commission meeting of March 10 , 1986 was called to
order by Chairman Larry Rosencrantz at 7 : 30 p.m. . Commissioners
present were Chairman Rosencrantz, Adrianne Brockman, Jeanne
Robinette, Greg Burton, Thomas Rodrigues, and John Weisser. Mel
Wexler was excused . Staff present were Topaz Faulkner Planning
Director , Assistant City Attorney Sandra Duffy, City Planners Gary
Miniszewski and Lori Mastrantonio, and Secretary Kristi Hitchcock .
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of January 27 , 1986 were approved as written .
Commissioner Brockman moved for approval, Commissioner Weisser
seconded the motion , and it passed with Commissioners Weisser ,
Brockman, Robinette, Rodrigues _ and Chairman Rosencrantz voting in
favor . Commissioner Burton abstained.
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS - None
PUBLIC HEARINGS
•
1°"""4 .w� �b . YA Y� , �r 1 ��� • iay zn J '� _... .'.E C�n- Q
Ms . Faulkner said that there have been three previous Planning
Commission hearings on Forest Highlands, September 13, October 28 ,
and December 9 . She said that at the December 9 meeting three plans
had been presented and the Commission had directed staff to work
with the information received from the neighborhood, condense those
maps and to bring back a map for a final hearing at which the
decision on the plan for the neighborhood would be made. Since the
December 9 hearing, staff has worked with the Forest Highlands
subcommittee in designing the map densities . She said that
densities have been lowered in the area, eliminating the R-0 zone
entirely. She said that a meeting was held with DLCD, and they were
informed that 9 . 6 units per acre would occur from the densities
assigned.
Mr . Miniszewski presented the staff report , giving a brief history
of planning of the area and the final outcome of those plans . He
showed areas of stream corridors , Distinctive Natural Areas ,
locations of existing homes and the proposed densities for the area
on overlay maps . He said that since the last meeting,
December 9 , 1985, the R-0 densities had been dropped and the highest
density now planned in the area is R-3 . He discussed distribution
of densities throughout the area, saying that the highest densities
were planned along arterial streets (Boones Ferry and Country Club ) .
COUNCIL EXHIBIT
io•C e.vtn Puts
stet m1�vl "1PP i( 2���
4 - J
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 10 , 1986
- That secondary dwelling units were not counted in the
overall density.
- Residents of the properties in Multnomah County outside
these boundaries have a zoning of R-40 . This is
incompatible with densities proposed at R-7 . 5 and R-10 along
the borders of the R-40 properties .
Following testimony, Chairman Rosencrantz closed the public portion
of the hearing. He declared a five minute recess. The meeting
resumed at 9 : 25 p.m. Commissioner Brockman moved for the adoption
of the plan as proposed by staff, except changing the R-5 density on
Country Club between Verte and Redwood Courts to R-7 . 5 . She said
that she had reservations that LCDC would accept less than 10 units
per acre and that land eligible to count in that density must be
vacant, residentially developable land.
Commission Robinette agreed with the mction . She said that Lake
Oswego should insist that LCDC allow the count of secondary dwelling
units to be included in the overall density.
Commissioner Burton seconded the motion. Commissioner Weisser asked
staff ' s reasoning behind the proposed zoning of R-10 for the
property between Country Commons and the R-7 . 5 area . Mr .
Miniszewski said that there was a definite dividing line ( a stream
corridor ) between those two areas and that the neighborhood
committee had backed this density. Commissioner Weisser moved to
amend the motion , changing the density of the R-10 area between
Country Commons and the R-7 . 5 density from R-10 to R-7 . 5 . There was
no second to the amendment motion. Commissioner Brockman 's motion
passed unanimously, with Commissioners Brockman, Burton, Rodrigues ,
Robinette, Weisser , and Chairman Rosencrantz voting in favor .
ZC 20-84 - Remand from the City Council of an application requesting
a Zone Text Amendment changing the Floor Area Ratio from . 30 to . 38
depending on the amount of commercial retail use versus nonretail
use for specific properties between Kruse Way, Kruse Way Place, and
Boones Ferry Road.
Ms . Mastrantonio presented the staff report . She said that the City
Council had modified PA 19-84 , ( the corresponding Plan Amendment ) ;
thus , the Zone Change request, ZC 20-84 , had been remanded to the
Planning Commission. Staff recommended that the following
conditions be applied to an approval of the request :
•
-3-
4- 3
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 10 , 1986
No one else spoke and Chairman Rosencrantz closed the public hearing
to public testimony and opened it for Commission discussion.
Several Commissioners asked about conditions placed on the zone
change and if they should be noted in the text amendment.
Ms . Duffy said that the Commission cou_d make a tentative decision .
and that the City Attorney ' s Office would establish the procedure
for implementing that decision.
Commissioner Brockman proposed the following language :
2 . That the lot coverage requirement for building and parking
areas not exceed 70% and the setback for the buildings and
parking shall be at least 20 feet from the property lines ,
except on Kruse Way where the setback shall be at least
30 feet to maintain the character of Kruse Way .
The Commission agreed with Commissioner Brockman ' s proposal .
Ms . Mastrantonio said that Clackamas County requires 30 foot
setbacks from Kruse Way, with parking allowed within that setback in
certain cases . Staff has recommended that there be 20 foot setbacks
for this site. There are no setbacks required for any other sites
for that zone along the north side of Kruse Way.
Mr . James said they have no desire to place buildings anywhere near
Kruse Way, but that this area is needed for parking for the
buildings . The only other solution for parking is to place a
parking structure on the site .
The Commission discussed pro rata share and if the wording of the
text amendment adequately insured any changes in ownership of the
property in the agreement . Commissioner Weisser said that pro rata
share should be eliminated from the text amendment. The rest of the
Commission disagreed .
Commissioner Robinette said that the right-in, right-out access on
Kruse Way was included in an approval of this project, and that she
thought it would work if another lane is added .
Commissioner Brockman said that if access is allowed to Kruse Way
she would vote against approval . She felt that access would cause
traffic problems on Kruse Way.
Commissioner Burton said that he would like to see conditions to the
text amendments incorporated in the text of the zoning code. He
said a setback and lot coverage requirements should be incorporated
into the zoning text.
-5- 235
6 - 5
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 10 , 1986
Ms . Faulkner said that time limits for testimony would be listed on
the agenda. Chairman Rosencrantz said that he felt three minutes
were adequate for testimony from individuals and that seven minutes
is adequate for representative of a group. It was requested that a
timer be provided to help those testifying keep within the limits .
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to conduct , Chairman Rosencrantz
adjourned the meeting at 10 : 45 p.m. p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Kris Hitchcock
Secretary
•
621z •
-7- 2 .��`i
CITY OF LAK : OSWEGO
PLANNING DEPARTMENT ' TAFF REPORT •
APPLICANT City of Lake Oswego FILE NO. PA 7-85
DATE: February 27, 1986
LOCATION
Forest Highlands "Future Urbanizable Area" i cludes the 246 acres generally located
north of Country Club Road, west of Boca Rat-n Dirve, East of Boones Ferry Road and
South of the Clackamas County North boundary.
NEIGHBORHOOD Forest Highlands
REQUEST
To amend the Comprehensive Plan map and text or the Forest Highlands "Future
Urbanizable Area" including 246 acres.
The map amendment involves replacing the pres-nt Plan designation of "Future
Urbanizable" with Plan Designations for "Imme•iate Growth" that will allow for
residential developement ranging from 4.3 to 12.9 dwelling units per acre. The map
amendment will also involve the deletion of t e map designation for a Park
originally located west of the Knaus/Country lommons intersection. Lastly, the
above map amendments will necessitate the deletion of specific Comprehensive Plan
Policy 3 on page 15, General Policy I and Spei. ific Policies 1 and 2 on page 86 of
the Comprehensive Plan text.
•
APPLICABLE CRITERIA
LOC 56.155
Certain Comprehensive Plan Policies of th::
Growth Management Policy Element
Community Resource Policy Element
Natural Resource Policy Element
Open Space Land Use Policy Element
Land Use Activities Policy Element
METRO Housing Rule COUNCIL EXHIBIT
Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8,
10, 11, 12, 13, 14
t3gP•
BACKGROUND
The Planning Commission has held three public earings regarding potential Plan
amendments. Those hearings were held Septembe. 23, 1985, October 28, 1985 and
December 9, 1985. The minutes of those meetin.s are included as Exhibits 1, 2 and
3.
At the December 9 meeting, the Planning Coirmis-ion requested that staff condense
the formerly presented plan proposals for the •est resolution of the planning
problem based on input of the neighborhood. C' ty staff worked with the 2 3
neighborhood association subcommittee and othe s to develop this plan. Staff, and
r?- 1
Staff Report - PA 7-85
February 27, 1986
Page 2
neighborhood representatives , consider this pla posposal an improvement over
previously proposed maps because:
1. The proposal represents a reduction in d-nsity from 7.8 du/acre to 6.3
du/acre in average density planned for t e neighborhood.
2. The proposed plan represents a more stri t reliance on the concept of
locating multiple family residential dis ricts adjacent to arterial streets.
3. The density range for residential densit. districts is less extreme. The
range has changed from 52 du/acre - 2.7 ,•u/acre to 12.9 du/acre -
4.3 du/acre. The R-0 high density distr ct is not incorporated in this
plan.
4. The proposed plan more readily conforms io criteria set forth in the
following report.
STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION
The "Forest Highlands Future Urbanizable area", )ereafter referred to as the study
area, consists of 246 acres and is semi-rural in nature. West of the study area is
Boones Ferry Road, Lake Oswego High School and udban uses associated with Mountain
Park such as Town Square and Parkridge Condomini m. By contrast, low density
residential development occurs east of the study area, beyond which is Tryon Creek
State Park.
Like adjacent land uses, Forest Highlands area c-n be described as a landscape of
contrast; with moderate slopes mostly ranging be ween 5-24%, stream channels with
either steep ravines and or flat swales. Vegetation in the area includes groves of
second growth Douglas Firs, Oregon White Oak, As and other tree species. Some of
the most significant vegetation includes a fir grove about 5 acres in area south of
Amber Place and numerous ravines that include a 'x of conifer and deciduous
trees. There are also orchards and open fields used for hay production and grazing.
Some 195 dwellings are scattered throughout the a ea at an average density of one
dwelling/1.26 acres with some 500 current residen s. A total of 43 acres have
already been developed with residential structure- on lots of 3/4 of an acre or
less. Most of the developed lots are either sout of Atwater Road or west of
Goodall Road. Roads in the area are typical rural county roads having minimum
widths and drainage facilities. A domestic water system presently exists in the
area. A sanitary sewer system has not Peen const ucted and the existing structures
are on individual septic systems.
INVENTORY PROCEDURE
Ownership and Population Information
City staff developed a property map showing lot lines, dwelling locations,
common ownership of abutting lots, area of loss that are 3/4 of an acre or
smaller with a dwelling, the boundary of the 'rbanizable area, and the Lake
Oswego city limits. The information base was collected from assessor maps and
computer printouts. With the above map, staff developed the gross and net
buildable acreage of the study area.
23
•
Staff Report - PA 7-85
February 27, 1986
Page 3
The inventory shows it was also determined t at there are 43 acres of developed
land area (lots 3/4 of an acre or smaller wi h a dwelling) , 2 acres of City
owned land (outside of stream corridors) , 10 acres for future City park(s) (not
yet located) , and 15 acres of land area in s ream corridors.
In creating the above property map, it was also determined that there are
approximately 195 existing dwelling units in the study area. Based on the
household population figure of 2.63 used by 'ortland State University
Population Center, it was estimated that 514 people presently live in the study
area.
Natural Features
City staff developed a topographical analysi. map showing the following ranges
of slope: 0-4% flat, 5%-11% gentle, 12%-24% moderate, 25%-50% severe, 50% and
more. It was determined from the LOPRI Repot that most of the soils in the
study area are Kenton Silt Loam, Cornelius S It Loam and Cascade Silt Loam.
The Cascade and Cornelius Silt Loams are found on slopes of 2-12% with moderate
erosion potential and moderate to severe landslide potential. The Kenton Silt
Loam soils are found on slopes of 12%-20% an. have severe erosion potential and
'severe potential for landslide according to .he LOPRI Report.
A natural features map was also developed showing the locations of Distinctive
Natural Areas, drainage corridors, and known wetlands.
Infrastructure
City staff developed four maps at a 1" = 200' scale showing existing streets,
street right-of-way widths and classifications; existing and potential sewer
and water lines; and, existing and potential torm water systems.
DATA ANALYSIS PROCEDURE
The above described information on the property m=p, slope map, natural features
map and four infrastructure maps was studied thro gh the map overlay process to
determine how the different sets of features in t e study area relate to one
another.
The overlay process involving the analysis of dat= maps in different combinations
over a light table was done to solve the major planning problem of finding
locations physically suitable for high density re..idential development that will
have minimal visual and traffic related impacts of existing neighborhoods.
Existing neighborhoods in this planning analysis context were defined as clusters
of lots 3/4 acre or less with existing dwellings.
GENERAL CRITERIA USED IN DEVELOPING PLAN MAP •
A. Density
Based on the attached State of Oregon rule re•arding the LCDC Housing Goal,
Lake Oswego's general Land Use Plan must main.ain an overall density of ten or
more dwelling units per net vacant buildable .cre. Presently, the City Plan
allows for 8,022 dwelling units that can be d=veloped on 785 acres of vacant
buildable and vacant committed lands. The above figures translate to a density 23
'7- 3
•
•
•
Staff Report - PA 7-85
February 27, 1986
Page 4
of 10.2 dwelling units/net acre. In developing the Forest Highlands Plan,
staff used the above data recently printed i, the Comprehensive Plan Supporting
Documentation (Volume II) to incorporate the number of dwelling units planned
for and buildable acreage figures generated rom the proposed Forest Highlands
land use map. The 15 acres of stream corridor in the study area was included
in the calculation of the net buildable acreage to determine the maximum number
of dwellings in the study area. The mathematical breakdown on the following
paged as developed to determine the net deve opable acreage and the total
number of dwellings possible.
2'-i !i
Staff Report - PA 7-85
February 27, 1986
Page 5
A. The gross area of 246 acres less the City owned land (3.34 Acres)
and the developed land defined as lots less than .75 acre with a
dwelling and not identified as redevelopaole (41.05 acres) = 201.61
acres.
B. Determination of net developable area and total number of dwelling
units possible.
PLAN GROSS ACRES NET DEVELOPABLE DU/AC TOTAL NO. OF
DISTRICT BY ZONE AREA LESS STREETS DWELLINGS
POSSIBLE
R-0 -0- -0- -0- -0-
R-3 2.5 2.5 12.9 32
R-5 10.54 8.43 8.7 73
R-7. 146.76
less 20 ac pk 136.76 109.4 5.8 635
R-10 44.76 35.8 4.3 154
-15 -0- -0- -0- -0-
• 156 894
C. The ultimate net acreage less stream corridors not in City
ownership (15 acres - 1.34 acres = 13.66 acres)
156 net ac - 13.66 ac in stream corridor = 142 acres
Land area in stream corridors is given a transferrable density status when
separate parcels are developed and, as such, staff determined that the stream
corridor factor of 15 acres could be used in determining the total number of
possible dwelling units of 894. Because construction is not allowed in stream
corridors, staff determined that the stream corridor factor (13.66) could be
subtracted from the planned total net developable acreage of 156 to get 142
acres. When the total possible dwelling unit and net
developable acreage factors of 894 du and 142 acres are plugged into the
overall City density formula, the following equation and density develops.
894 du + 8022 du = 8916 = 9.61 du/ac
142 ac 785 ac 927
The maximum density for residential development on buildable, undeveloped land
in the study area could ultimately be 6.3 dwelling units/acre as seen below: .
894 du/ac = 6.3 dwelling units / acre
142 net acres
2,1
Staff Report - PA 7-85
February 27, 1986
Page 6
B. Compatibility
City staff considers the land use district density range R-15 to R-7.5
relatively compatible with the land use an. lot patterns presently in the
area. The low density single family dwellings allowed in those districts
will be consistent with existing the homes.
One of the main criteria in siting the residential districts that allow for
multiple family structures (R-3 and R-5 dis ricts) was to prevent disruption
of existing residential patterns. Staff fi st determined the location of
large clusters of developed lots (lots thre- quarters of an acre or less with
a dwelling), and staff then avoided placing high density districts adjacent to
them. When the criteria could not be met, -taff considered terrain, lot
configurations and lineal interface to mitisate the impacts of locating the
higher density districts adjacent to existi g neighborhoods.
C. Suitability
Whenever possible high density residential Districts were located on lots
greater than 3/4 of an acre. Alternatively lot clusters that could qualify
as redevelopable were used.
The steep and narrow stream corridors such •:s the one southwest of Goodall
Road were avoided and high density district% were, for the most part, located
on more moderate slopes of 12-24%. Slopes of 12-24% have less potential for
hillside slumpage and severe erosion than o ' the steep 25-50% slopes.
D. Areas With Significant Natural Features
There are five Distinctive Natural Areas (D A) in the study area. They are
identified on the map exhibit and described as follows in the Comprehensive
Plan.
DNA 15 - Springs west of the Atwater Lane r'ght-of-way
DNA 17 - Wooded ravine along Iron Mt. Creek
DNA 28 - Specimen Firs west of Goodall Road
DNA 34 - Douglas Fir grove east of Redwood bourt
DNA 43 - Fir grove south of Ambler Court
The hydrology map identifies several locati•' s in the study area as wetlands.
None of the high density districts are in areas of identified wetlands. The
stream corridors were delineated, and the ar-a of each has been calculated
totalling 15 acres.
The City's Conservancy Commission has in the past expressed concern that high
density land use districts not overlay identified Distinctive Natural Areas
and Stream Corridors. There are also many s-ctions of the Comprehensive Plan
Natural Resource element that specifically a•dress the need to protect stream
and woodland features. General Policy II of the Open Space Element reads as
follows:
2 4 •
7- 1
•
Staff Report - PA 7-85
February 27, 1986
Page 7
"The City will regulate the use of lands so designated in
accordance with the policies set forth in the NATURAL
RESOURCES ELEMENT, in order to preserve essential natural
resources and processes, avoid natural hazards and damages
and to preserve significant natural features in the
community."
In light of the above stated Conservancy Commission concerns and Open Space
Policy, City staff with the help of the Forest Highlands subcommittee did not
locate R-3 and R-5 districts where Stream Corridor and/or Distinctive Natural
Areas occur.
The only exceptions to the above rule is the 2.3 acre R-5 district west of
Verte Court. Staff considers the R-5 district appropriate because this
district provides design options allowing clustering of dwellings, which could
reduce the number of trees that must be cut.
E. Accessability to Critical Public Facilities
The proposed high density districts have frontage on, or are adjacent to,
Boones Ferry Road or Country Club Road. Those roads are identified in the
Comprehensive Plan as arterial streets. The 5.5 acre block of land northeast
of Lake Oswego High School is only .700 feet from Boones Ferry and 600 feet from
Goodall Road, a collector street. This subject is discussed further on
page 14 under Goal 11.
CRITERIA FOR PLAN AMENDMENTS (LOC 56.155)
1. The Amendment conforms to or better implements Plan policies for particular
uses involved.
Staff construes the expression "particular use involved" to mean land in the
study area that will ue used in the future for urban purposes. Because it is a
semi-rural area in low density residential use, it has been an underlying
assumption by the Forest Highlands residents and City staff that any changes in
the area land use will only involve an increase inresidential densities and not
use-changes. As such, the scope of discussion here is narrowed to the Urban
Growth Management Element involving Urban Service Boundary and Overall Density
Policies in the Comprehensive Plan. Urban Service Boundary General Policy 3
states that:
"The City will manage and phase urban growth within the Urban
Service Boundary, with a logical planned extension of basic
services. To establish priorities for the phased extension of
services, the City will identify areas within the Urban Servic
Boundary as follows:
1) Lands suitable for near future development (Immediate
Growth);
2) Lands in long range growth areas (FUTURE URBANIZABLE) . " 24 3
The above general policy was adopted in 1978.
7-
Staff Report - PA 7-85
February 27, 1986
Page 8
The following is a specific implementing policy adopted in 1978 that addresses how
the City should reconsider future urbanizable 1 d designations.
"Within five years from the date of ai•proval, the FUTURE
URBANIZABLE designation will be revie ed by the City to
determine whether it remains appropri-te or should be changed
to Immediate Growth. Redesignation would be for an entire
area to avoid piecemeal development. "
The Plan was amended on January 17, 1984 to read as follows:
"The City will initiate review of the For-st Highlands Future
Urbanizable area in the fiscal year 1983-:4 according to the
schedule submitted to LCDC. Any redesign•=tions would be for the
entire area, or a logical subsection ther-of, to avoid piecemeal
development. Redesignations will not alt-r the City's compliance
with METRO housing goals contained in OAR 660-07-035. "
Presently, land in the subject "future urbanizab e area" cannot be annexed to the
City unless a health hazard occurred from failin', septic systems or a land use Plan
for the area is adopted with urban residential d stricts. City staff have been
answering inquiries from land owners in Forest H ghlands over the last five years
involving the possibility of annexation and sewe. line extensions. New growth has
occurred in the northwest sector of the city and is assumed to continue in the
northerly direction.
The following are Comprehensive Plan "Overall De ,sity" General Policies that were
also considered in planning for the study area:
GENERAL POLICIES:
I. The Comprehensive Plan will maintain th= overall, average residential
density of the Urban Service Area within th= capacity of planned basic public
facilities systems, including at least wate , sewer streets, drainage and
public safety.
II. Residential densities and land use intensities will be allocated on the
basis of land suitability and public facili ies capacity.
Specific policies to carry out the above are on •ages 20 and 21 of the
Comprehensive Plan.
The City planning staff have worked with the Forest Highlands Neighborhood to adopt
a land use plan that will accommodate future grow h for residential development at
urban densities averaging 6.3 dwelling units/acre. This results in an overall City
planned density for vacant land of 9.6 du/ac. Ba-ed on the above cited
Comprehensive Plan policy, State Land Use Goal 10 and recent growth trends, staff
considers the proposed Forest Highlands Plan map =nd text amendments as measures to
implement the above cited Comprehensive Plan poli ies. Staff considered these
measures in compliance with other Plan Element policies. Discussion regarding
compliance with other parts of the Plan will foll•w.
II %1
1)- IC
Staff Report - PA 7-85
February 27, 1986
Page 9
2. Conclude the amendments is consistent with •: y applicable Statewide Planning
Goals or regional policies.
Statewide Planning Goals applicable to this proposal are: Goals 1, 2, 5, 6,
7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14.
The METRO REGIONAL Housing goal contained i OAR 660-07-035 is also applicable
to the proposed Plan Amendments. The METRO HOUSING REGIONAL goal requires,
among other things, that the buildable land•. inventory for Lake Oswego provide
for an overall average on developable land •f ten dwelling units per net acre,
and the single/multi unit mix be about 50/50.
Goal 1 states: "Develop a citizen involvement program that insures the
opportunity for citizens to be involved in .11 phases of the planning process."
City staff have been working with the neig •orhood association for Forest
Highlands to develop this plan since June of 1984. Details of that
involvement are described in the initial Forest Highlands staff report of
September 13, 1985 (Exhibit 5) .
Goal 2 states: "Establish a land use planning process and policy framework as
a basis for all decisions and actions relat=d to use of land and to assure an
adequate factual base for such decisions an• actions.
The City of Lake Oswego has a State acknowledged Land Use Plan that provides a
framework by which land use problems regard'ng the study area have been
defined and decisions made to resolve those problems. An adequate factual
base for the study area has been developed over the last 20 months. Adequate
notice of neighborhood meetings and the pre-ent public hearing has been
provided in advance to allow affected perso s reasonable time to review the
Plan amendment.
Goal 5 states: "Conserve open space and protect natural and scenic resources."
As explained on page 3 of this report, si• ificant Natural Features in the
study area were considered in the planning •rocess. As annexations are
approved, development proposals are automatically reviewed on a site by site
basis. This development review process involves the application of
Development Standards that were designed to onserve open space and to protect
identified natural and scenic resources.
Goal 6 states: "Maintain and improve the quality of air, water and land
resources of the State."
The City of Lake Oswego presently has an environmental management program to
maintain the quality of air, water and land hat has been acknowledged by the
State as in compliance with this Goal. As a nexations in the study area
occur, this City will apply the same program to the annexed lands. The only
environmental problems that occur in the are: are isolated septic system
failures. As city sewer services are extend-d to Forest Highlands, isolated
septic system breakdowns can be prevented from becoming a generalized public
health problem.
24i
7- 9
Staff Report - PA 7-85
February 27, 1986
Page 10
Goal 7 states: "Protect life, property fr•m natural disasters and hazards."
In analyzing the natural resources of the -ubject area, staff found that the
more generalized natural hazards in the ar=a are lands subject to slumping and
erosion. The severity of those hazards is sually proportional to the degree
of slope found from site to site. The mor- severe slopes, 24 - 50%, were
mostly found along stream channel ravines. Those ravines were avoided in
locating high density residential districts that cause the most disturbance to
land. As annexations are approved and development proposals are considered,
the City automatically reviews project proposals on a site by site basis.
This review process involves the applicatio of Development Standards that
thoroughly address any possibility for seve e erosion or slumping.
Goal 8 states: "Satisfy the recreational n-eds of the citizens of the state
and visitor ."
The City of Lake Oswego presently owns 3 ac es of park land along the Iron
Mountain Creek and has planned for the acqu sition of 10 more acres at a
particular site west of the Knauss/Country lommons intersection. The City
presently does not want to acquire the abov site but will consider acquiring
at least 10 acres of park land in the area . s opportunities arise. As lands
are annexed and developed in the Lake Oswego area, the City also requires that
at least 15 - 20% of a given residential sire be left in open space for
passive or active recreational use.
Goal 9 states: "Diversify and improve the :conomy of the State."
As annexations are approved, new dwelling units built and associated
infrastructure constructed, employment opportunities in the construction field
will be sustained, if not increased.
Goal 10 states: "Provide housing needs of •itizens of the State."
The maximum density possible for residentia development in the study area
could be 9.6 dwelling units/acre. When the study area dwelling units and net
developable acreage factors are plugged int. the overall City density formula,
.63 dwelling units/net acre results. City staff recognizes that this number
is .40 units per acre below the Goal 10 rul- requiring that planning for 10
units/acre be maintained; however, other Pla' amendments in the near future
involving East End Reaevelopment may increase the overall planned density
figure of 9.6 up to the target density of 10 du/net acre. The high density
districts adjacent to Boones Ferry road are in gentle to moderate slopes that
can be more easily developed at less expense, thus creating the potential for
affordable housing.
Goal 11 states: "Plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement
of public facilities and services as a frame ork for urban and rural
developments."
2{1
jp
Staff Report - PA 7-85
February 27, 1986
Page 11
The City of Lake Oswego has been requested •y the State of Oregon to begin to
do land use and public facility planning fo the Forest Highlands area so that
annexation requests can be considered in the coming years with some assurance
that the City can provide services. Forest Highlands residents will also have
a better idea of what residential densities can occur in given parts of the
study area as annexations are approved. Th= City Engineering Department has
studied the problem of providing sewer main-• to the area and has concluded
that gravity feed lines are feasible and th-t existing sewer lines and
treatment facilities can accommodate future volumes generated by projected
development. An adequate domestic water sy-tem presently exists in the area
that can accommodate projected development. Schools in the area can
accommodate the projected population increa-e in the study area. Police
protection can be provided with little incr=ase in staffing and physical
facilities. Fire protection is currently p ovided to the area by the City
through a contract with the Lake Grove Fire District.
Goal 12 states: "Provide and encourage a s-fe and convenient and economic
transportation system."
The proposed land use plan was developed wits the above goal in mind.
Citizens in the study area felt that higher .ensity residential development
districts should abut arterial or collector -treets or at least be near them.
Also, the citizens of Forest Highlands reque-ted that the City sponsor a
traffic study for the area after a land use 'lan is adopted. The study will
provide needed information to develop a trap-portation plan based on the
adopted land use Plan.
Goal 13 states: "Conserve energy. "
One of the guidelines for this goal is "comb ne increasing density gradients
along high capacity transportation corridors to achieve greater energy
efficiency". The above guideline was seriou•.ly considered and implemented as
stated above in the Goal 12 narrative.
Goal 14 states: "Provide for an orderly eff cient transition from rural to
urban land use. "
Policies relating to the above goal have bee , developed and compliance with
those policies is addressed under criteria i'em 1 on pages 7 and $ of this
report.
Compliance with the METRO Regional Housing Goal has been discussed above under
Goal 10.
3. Determine that public facilities have capaci• and are available to serve the
proposed change. Particular impacts on exis ing and projected traffic flows
and access on street capacity and sight dist-, ce.
The above considerations have been addressed regarding compliance with Goals
11 and 12 on pages L12_, di of this report.
4. Evaluate the physical constraints within the site to determine if uses 2 4'',
consistent with Plan designation can physically be accommodated on the site.
. - 1/
Staff Report - PA 7-85
February 27, 1986
Page 12
The above consideration has been addressed under Goal 7 on page 1C and under
the Suitability Criteria 'C' page Ce_.
5. For residential Plan amendments to R-0, R-3 or R-5, the Commission will
determine that (1), (2), (3) and (4) are met and that;
a. The area designated R-3 or R-5 can be buffered from adjoining R-7.5, R-10
and R-15 residential areas in a manner which protects the privacy of adjoining
uses. Buffering techniques may include a site plan showing a perimeter
density of no more than 25% increase over the density allowed in the Plan for
the adjacent lots. Preservation of natural features or natural hazards on the
site will be balanced against the need to provide perimeter compatibility.
The above criteria cannot at this time be fully addressed in the detail that
is called for above. This is not a site specific Plan map change. This is a
generalized Plan map amendment involving 246 acres most of which include
diverse terrain, conifer and deciduous trees. In locations where high density
districts lave been proposed, the existing terrain and tree groves provide
site buffering opportunities as land is proposed for development.
b. The area is within one block of an arterial or located on a collector
with capacity to handle additional traffic.
The high density districts on the west end of the study area are all either
abutting Boones Ferery Road or located at least 700 feet from either Goodall
Road or Boones Ferry Road. There is one 2.31 acre R-5 district located
directly on Country Club Road. The Forest Highlands Subcommittee was very
aware of the need to locate high density districts near collector or arterial
streets. The Subcommittee and those attending neighborhood meetings also
stated their concern for traffic impact generated by development. They
recommended that the City of Lake Oswego sponsor a traffic study and develop a
public facility plan for new streets, street improvements and pathways.
c. The area is within reasonable walking distance of a transit stop as
determined by recent surveys conducted by a reputable source such as the
Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District. The Commission shall use a
distance of approxiately 750 feet unless recent studies show otherwise.
The proposed high density districts abutting Boones Ferry Road are within 750'
from the Monroe Parkway/Boones Ferry Intersection where a bus stop is
located. The High Density District northeast of the high school is some
1,250' from the Monroe Parkway/Boones Ferry Road intersection. The 2.31 acre
R-5 district along Country Club Road is about 1/2 mile from a bus stop. As
development occurs and density increases in the study area, it can be
reasonably expected that changes in transit service to the area will be made
making bus stops more accessible.
d. The area is within reasonable walking distance of commercial or
industrial zones. The Commission will use 750' unless recent studies support
another number.
24 -‘
r7 .,
/"
Staff Report - PA 7-85
February 27, 1986
Page 13
Because of the size of the study area and t - uniform nature of the land use
in the area, not all of the high density di tricts can be logically located
within 750' of commercial and industrial zo es. The proposed high density
districts abutting Boones Ferry Road range 'n distance of 100 to 900' from the
Town Square Commercial Center. The High De sity District northeast of the
high school is some 1,400' from the Town Sq are Commercial Center. The
Country Club high density district is about one mile from Town Center.
6. For residential amendments to R-7.5, R-10 o R-15, the Commission will
determine that (1), (2), (3) and (4) are me and that;
a. The proposed density is consistent with the platted development pattern in
the surrounding area; or,
The above criteria is not applicable to the proposed land use Plan. The
existing parcel and lot pattern found in th= area includes rural parcels that
were made large enough to accommodate wells and septic systems or at least
septic systems. Some of the parcels are at least 1/2 acre in size and 83% of
the study area includes lots with areas tha exceed 3/4 acre. The more urban
type of residential development will includ= lots that range in size from
10,000 square feet to 3,375 sq. ft.
b. The topography in the area will make it possible to protect privacy on
adjoining property both within and adjacent to the property. (Ord. No. 1874,
Sec. 3; 10-4-83) .
The above standard cannot be fully addresses at this time in the detail called
for above. This is not a site specific Pla map change. This is a
generalized Plan map amendment involving 24. acres most of which includes
moderate terrain with slopes ranging from 10 - 24%. Most of the study area
has moderate slopes and topographic site de ign opportunities for buffering
new residential development are available.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the proposed Plan t-xt amendments and Plan map
amendment identified as Exhibit 1.
EXHIBITS
1 December 9, 1985 Planning Commission Minutes
2 October 28, 1985 Planning Commission Minutes
3 September 23, 1985 Planning Commission Minutes
4 Map Proposal
5 September, 1985 Staff Report
24
595z/GSFM/mas
7 - /3
2 j !I
0
1
+p4 LAKE OSj,
ar COMMUNITY • EVELOPMENT
MEMO ANDUM
OREGON
TO: Doug Schmitz, City Manager
FROM: Stephan Lashbrook, Community Develop ent Director
SUBJECT: Exceptions to Metro's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan requirements
DATE: January 30, 2002
At the City Council's recent public hearing on minimum ul ensities, questions were raised about the
process of seeking an exception to Metro's Functional Pl. requirements for density and dwelling unit
targets.
The Metro Council just adopted changes to its exception •tandards on January 24. Those changes can
be found in Section 3.07.860 of the attached Ordinance o. 01-925E). The new Metro Ordinance
sets an annual time to for filing exception requests, durinLI the month of March each year. The part of
the new Ordinance that is applicable to dwelling unit targets can be found in subsection 3.07.860(B)(2)
and includes the following required findings that must be ade for the Metro Council to approve an
exception:
(a) The city or county has completed analysis of capacity for dwelling units and jobs required
by subsections 3.07.150A, B, and C;
(b) It is not possible to achieve the targets due to topographic or other physical constraints, an
existing development pattern that precludes ac ievement of the 2040 Growth Concept, or
protection of environmentally sensitive land; a d
(c) This exception and other exceptions to the targets will not render the targets unachievable
region-wide.
Subsection 3.07.860(B)(1) of Metro's new Ordinance con'.ins what may be a more strict set of criteria
for other types of exceptions, including exceptions to the i inimum density standards. It states:
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection the Council may grant an exception if it
finds:
(a) it is not possible to achieve the requirement due to topographic or other physical
constraints or an existing development pattern;
(b) this exception and likely similar exceptions wil not render the objective of the requirement
unachievable region-wide;
(c) the exception will not reduce the ability of anot' er city or county to comply with the
requirement; and
(d) the city or county has adopted other measures ore appropriate for the city or county to
achieve the intended result of the requirement.
l
Attachment: Metro Ordinance No. 01-925E
EXHIBIT F-8
Functional Plan Exceptions 1/30/02
Exhibit A to Ordinanc: No. 01-925E
January 24, 2101
Amend sections 3.07.810 to 3.07.860 of Title 8 of the rban Growth Management Functional
Plan as follows:
3.07.810 Compliance with the Functional Plan
A. The purpose of this section is to establish a process for determining whether city or
county comprehensive plans and land use regu ations comply with requirements of the
Urban Growth Management Functional Plan. he Council intends the process to be
efficient and cost-effective and to provide an o.portunity for the Metro Council to
interpret the requirements of its functional pla . Where the terms "compliance" and
"comply" appear in this title, the terms shall h. e the meaning given to "substantial
compliance" in 3.07.1010(rrr).
B. Cities and counties shall amend their cornpreh:nsive plans and land use regulations to
comply with the functional plan within two ye.rs after its acknowledgement by the Land
Conservation and Development Commission, .r after such other date specified in the
functional plan. The Executive Officer shall notify cities and counties of the compliance
date.
C. Notwithstanding subsection A of this section, cities and counties shall amend their
comprehensive plans and land use regulations to comply with sections 3.07.310 to
3.07.340 of Title 3 of the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan by January 31,
2000, and with the requirements in sections 3.0 .710 to 3.07.760 of Title 7 of the Urban
Growth Management Functional Plan by Janua 18, 2003.
D. Cities and counties that amend their comprehe sive plans or land use regulations after the
effective date of the functional plan shall make the amendments in compliance with the
functional plan. The Executive Officer shall no ify cities and counties of the effective
date.
E. Cities and counties whose comprehensive plan- and land use regulations do not yet
comply with a functional plan requirement ado sited or amended prior to December 12,
1997, shall make land use decisions consistent ith that requirement. If the functional
plan requirement was adopted or amended by t e Metro Council after December 12,
1997, cities and counties whose comprehensive plans and land use regulations do not yet
comply with the requirement shall, after one ye;r following acknowledgment of the
requirement, make land use decisions consiste t with that requirement. The Executive
Officer shall notify cities and counties of the da e upon which functional plan
requirements become applicable to land use decisions at least 120 days before that date.
The notice shall specify which functional plan r-quirements become applicable to land
use decisions in each city and county. For the . rposes of this subsection, "land use
decision" shall have the meaning of that term a• defined in ORS 197.015(10).
Page 1 of 5 - Exhibit A to Ordinance No. 01-925E _ ^/ r .,
\7 4 3 7\01-925E ExA cln oom "J
OGC/RPB/kvw(01/24/02)
F. An amendment to a city or county comprehensive plan or land use regulation shall be
deemed to comply with the functional plan if no appeal to the Land Use Board of
Appeals is made within the 21-day period set forth in ORS 197.830(9), or if the
amendment is acknowledged in periodic revie pursuant to ORS 197.633 or 197.644. If
an appeal is made and the amendment is affirm-d, the amendment shall be deemed to
comply with the functional plan upon the final Decision on appeal. Once the amendment
is deemed to comply with the functional plan, t e functional plan shall no longer apply to
land use decisions made in conformance with t I e amendment.
G. An amendment to a city or county comprehensi e plan or land use regulation shall be
deemed to comply with the functional plan as p ovided in subsection F only if the city or
county provided notice to the Executive Office as required by section 3.07.820(A).
3.07.820 Compliance Review by The Executive officer
A. At least 45 days prior to the first evidentiary he.ring on an amendment to a
comprehensive plan or land use regulation whi I a city or county must submit to the
Department of Land Conservation and Develop ent pursuant to ORS 197.610(1) or
OAR 660-025-0130(1), the city or county shall .ubmit the proposed amendment to the
Executive Officer. The Executive Officer shall review the proposed amendment for
compliance with the functional plan. The Exec I tive Officer may request, and if so the
city or county shall submit, an analysis of comp iance of the amendment with the
functional plan. If the Executive Officer submi is comments on the proposed amendment
to the city or county, the comment shall include analysis and conclusions on compliance
and a recommendation with specific revisions to the proposed amendment, if any, that
would bring it into compliance with functional •Ian requirements. The Executive Officer
shall send a copy of its analysis and recommend.tion to those persons who have
requested a copy.
B. If the Executive Officer concludes that the proposed amendment does not comply with
the functional plan, the Executive Officer shall .dvise the city or county that it may
(1) revise the proposed amendment as recommei ded in the Executive Officer's analysis;
(2) seek an extension of time, pursuant to sectio 1 3.07.850, to bring the proposed
amendment into compliance with the functional islan; or(3) seek review of the
noncompliance by MPAC and the Metro Council, pursuant to sections 3.07.830 and
3.07.840.
3.07.830 Review of Compliance by Metropolitan I'olicy Advisory Committee
A. A city or county may seek review of the Executi e Officer's conclusion of
noncompliance under section 3.07.820B by MP .,C and the Metro Council. The city or
county shall file an application for MPAC revie on a form provided for that purpose by
the Executive Officer. Upon receipt of a compl: ed application, the Executive Officer
shall set the matter on the MPAC agenda and no ify those persons who request
notification of MPAC reviews.
Page 2 of 5 - Exhibit A to Ordinance No. 01-925E
\7 4 7 7\01-925E ExA cln 001 2
OGGRPB/kvw(01124102) J J
B. The Executive Officer may seek review of city or county compliance with a functional
plan requirement by MPAC and the Metro Cou 1 cil after the deadline for compliance with
that requirement. The Executive Officer shall le an application for MPAC review on
the form described in subsection A and shall set the matter on the MPAC agenda. The
Executive Officer shall notify the city or county and those persons who request
notification of MPAC reviews.
C. MPAC may hold a public hearing on the issue o f compliance. If MPAC holds a hearing,
any person may testify. MPAC shall attempt to resolve any apparent or potential
inconsistency between the proposed amendmen 1 and the functional plan. MPAC shall
prepare a report to the Metro Council that sets forth reasons for the inconsistency. The
Executive Officer shall send a copy of the repo to the city or county and those persons
who request a copy.
3.07.840 Review by Metro Council
A. Upon receipt of a report from MPAC under sect on 3.07.830, the Executive Officer shall
set the matter for a public hearing before the M= ro Council and notify the city or county
and those persons who request notification of Council reviews.
B. A person who requested a copy under section 3.1I7.820A may seek review by the Metro
Council of an Executive Officer conclusion of compliance of a proposed amendment with
the functional plan. The person shall file an app ;cation for Council review on a form
provided for that purpose by the Executive Officer. The Executive Officer shall set the
matter for a public hearing before the Council a d notify the city or county, the
Department of Land Conservation and Develop ent and those persons who request
notification of Council reviews.
C. The Council shall hold a public hearing on the atter within 90 days after receipt of a
report from MPAC under subsection A or withi 90 days after the filing of a complete
application under subsection B. Any person ma testify at the hearing. The Council
shall issue an order of compliance or noncompli.nce with its analysis and conclusion and
send a copy to the city or county, MPAC, the De.artment of Land Conservation and
Development and those persons who participate* in the proceeding.
D. If the Council finds that the proposed amendme t does not comply with the functional
plan, the Council shall advise the city or county !hat it may(1) revise and adopt the
proposed amendment as recommended in the Co ncil order; (2) seek an extension of
time, pursuant to section 3.07.850, to bring the p oposed amendment into compliance
with the functional plan; or(3) seek an exceptio from the functional plan, pursuant to
section 3.07.860. If the Council determines that .n amendment of the functional plan is
necessary to resolve the noncompliance, the Cou cil shall include that determination in
its order.
Page 3 of 5 - Exhibit A to Ordinance No. 01-925E
i\7 4 3 7\01-925E ExA cln 001 w
OGC/RPB/kvw(01/24/02) 2 r-
��
E. The city or county or a person who participated in the proceeding may seek review of the
Council's order as a land use decision describe. in ORS 197.015(10)(a)(A).
3.07.850 Extension of Compliance Deadline
A. A city or county may seek an extension of time for compliance with the functional plan.
The city or county shall file an application for a extension on a form provided for that
purpose by the Executive Officer. Upon receipt of an application, the Executive Officer
shall set the matter for a public hearing before tie Metro Council and shall notify the city
or county, MPAC, the Department of Land Con.ervation and Development and those
persons who request notification of applications for extensions.
B. The Metro Council shall hold a public hearing uo consider the extension. Any person
may testify at the hearing. The Council may gra it an extension if it finds that: (1) the city
or county is making progress toward accomplis ent of its compliance work program; or
(2) there is good cause for failure to meet the deadline for compliance.
C. The Metro Council may establish terms and con.itions for the extension in order to
ensure that compliance is achieved in a timely . Rd orderly fashion and that land use
decisions made by the city or county during the :xtension do not undermine the ability of
the city or county to achieve the purposes of the i unctional plan requirement or of the
region to achieve the 2040 Growth Concept. A term or condition must relate to the
requirement of the functional plan to which the I ouncil grants the extension. The
Council shall incorporate the terms and conditio s into its order on the extension. The
Council shall not grant more than two extension.. of time to a city or a county. The
Council shall not grant an extension of time for I ore than one year.
D. The Metro Council shall issue an order with its •onclusion and analysis and send a copy
to the city or county, MPAC, the Department of and Conservation and Development
and those persons who participated in the procee.ing. The city or county or a person
who participated in the proceeding may seek rev ew of the Council's order as a land use
decision described in ORS 197.015(10)(a)(A).
3.07.860 Exception from Compliance
A. A city or county may seek an exception from co pliance with a functional plan
requirement by filing an application on a form provided for that purpose by the Executive
Officer. An application for an exception to the r:quirement in subsection 3.07.150D to
increase dwelling unit and job capacity to the tar:ets set forth in Table 3.07-1 must be
filed between March 1 and March 31 of each cal:ndar year in order to allow the Metro
Council to consider the application concurrently ith other such applications. Upon
receipt of an application, the Executive Officer s I all set the matter for a public hearing
before the Metro Council and shall notify MPAC, the Department of Land Conservation
and Development and those persons who request notification of requests for exceptions.
Page 4 of 5 - Exhibit A to Ordinance No. 01-925E 11
\7 4 3 7\01-925E ExA cln 001 2 V t�
OGC/RPB/kvw(01/24(02)
B. The Metro Council shall hold a public hearing to determine whether the exception meets
the following criteria:
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection, the Council may grant an
exception if it finds:
(a) it is not possible to achieve the requi'ement due to topographic or other
physical constraints or an existing development pattern;
(b) this exception and likely similar exceptions will not render the objective of the
requirement unachievable region-wide;
(c) the exception will not reduce the abi ity of another city or county to comply
with the requirement; and
(d) the city or county has adopted other easures more appropriate for the city or
county to achieve the intended result of he requirement.
(2) The Council may grant an exception to the equirement in subsection 3.07.150D to
increase dwelling unit and job capacity to the tal gets set forth in Table 3.07-1 if it finds:
(a) the city or county has completed the .nalysis of capacity for dwelling units
and jobs required by subsections 3.07.1 '0A, B and C;
(b) it is not possible to achieve the targe s due to topographic or other physical
constraints, an existing development pat ern that precludes achievement of the
2040 Growth Concept, or protection of:nvironmentally sensitive land; and
(c) this exception and other exceptions t. the targets will not render the targets
unachievable region-wide.
C. The Council may establish terms and condition• for the exception in order to ensure that
it does not undermine the ability of the region t• achieve the 2040 Growth Concept. A
term or condition must relate to the requirement of the functional plan to which the
Council grants the exception. The Council shal incorporate the terms and conditions into
its order on the exception.
D. The Council shall issue an order with its conclu.ion and analysis and send a copy to the
city or county, MPAC, the Department of Land onservation and those persons who
have requested a copy of the order. The city or ounty or a person who participated in
the proceeding may seek review of the Council'. order as a land use decision described in
ORS 197.015(10)(a)(A).
Page 5 of 5 - Exhibit A to Ordinance No. 01-925E , 2 5 U
\7 4 3 7\01-925E ExA cln 001 `
OGC/RPB/Icvw(01(24/02)
L�l+O`LAKE pswECp City Attorney's Office
Memorandum
OREGO$
To: Judie Hammerstad, Mayor
Members of Lake Oswego City Council
Doug Schmitz, City Manager
From: David D. Powell, City Attorney
Subject: Metro Enforcement Authority (Minimum Density)
Date: January 31, 2002
BACKGROUND
The Council has asked for information as to Metro's enforcement authority relating to
compliance with the Functional Plan requirements to adopt minimum density standards.
DISCUSSION
Enforcement Proceedings. The December 2001 amendments to Metro's Urban Growth
Management Functional Plan included the addition of an enforcement process.' The Metro
Council may initiate enforcement proceedings if a city or county has failed to meet a deadline or
other terms of an extension that has been granted for Functional Plan compliance. (Enforcement
proceedings may also be commenced if a jurisdiction has engaged in a"pattern or practice" of
decision making that is inconsistent with the Functional Plan or ordinances that implement the
plan.) A public hearing before the Metro Council would be set within 90 days of the Metro
Executive Officer's determination that there is "good cause" to believe a violation has occurred.
Notice of the hearing would be published in the newspaper, as well as being sent to the local
jurisdiction, MPAC (Metro Policy Advisory Committee), DLCD (the Department of Land
Conservation and Development), and any person who requests notice. The Executive Officer is
required to publish a report and a recommendation at least 14 days before the hearing. If the
Metro Council concludes that the local jurisdiction has violated the Functional Plan, it can issue
an order that "directs changes in the city or county ordinances necessary to remedy the pattern or
practice."2 Copies of the order are sent to the jurisdiction, MPAC and DLCD.
Compliance Report and Certification. Metro's code also requires the Executive Officer to
submit an annual report to the Metro Council on compliance by cities and counties with the
4
' 3.07.870 EXHIBIT F-q
2 3.07.870(E)
Memorandum
Metro Enforcement Authority (Minimum Density)
January 31, 2001
Page 2
Functional Plan.3 The report must explain each instanc of noncompliance and recommend
action that would bring the city or county into complia ce with the Functional Plan. Metro then
must schedule a public hearing on the report.4 All citie. and counties and DLCD are notified of
the hearing. Following the hearing, the Metro Council nters a"compliance order."
Enforcement of Orders. The Functional Plan does not Is ecify how Metro would enforce a
"compliance order" or an order resulting from enforce ent proceedings. There are a number of
considerations:
• Mandamus. Where public bodies or officers ref se to perform an act specifically required
by law, a"beneficially interested party"may ap;ily to the Circuit Court for a"writ of
mandamus."5 The writ amounts to an order oft e court directing the public officials to
perform the required act. The court has discreti•i to award attorney fees and costs to the
prevailing party. In addition, if the court finds hat the public officers were "without just
excuse" for failing to perform the duty, it may fne each public officer up to $500 at the
time it issues the writ. After the writ has been i•sued, obedience may be enforced"in
such manner as the court or judge thereof shall •irect."6 The courts have broad authority
to enforce their orders. Remedies could include further financial penalties to the
jurisdiction or the responsible public officials.
• Citation for Ordinance Violation. State law pro ides that violation of any ordinance, rule
or regulation adopted by Metro shall be punisha o le by a fine of not more than $500 or by
imprisonment for not more than 30 days or bot .8 The Urban Growth Functional Plan is
a portion of the Metro Code, and is arguably en forceable through the citation process. It
seems obvious, however, that this provision is a med at more traditional code
enforcement activities, and that its use for Func'final Plan enforcement is extremely
unlikely.
• Transportation Funding. The Functional Plan formerly gave Metro authority to reduce
regional transportation funding and funding priorities as a penalty for non-compliance.9
However, the December 2001 amendments to t e Functional Plan deleted this provision.
LUBA Appeal. It is possible that Metro or another pa 'y could appeal any final land use decision
that is inconsistent with functional plan requirements. ' party must have appeared before the
local government orally or in writing to be eligible to p-tition the Land Use Board of Appeals
s 3.07.880
4 The report and public hearing concern not only instances of non'ompliance,but also should address the Metro Executive
Officer's evaluation of the implementation of the Urban Growth I anagement Functional Plan and its effectiveness in helping
achieve the 2040 Growth Concept. 3.07.880(A),(B).
s ORS 34.105—34.240.
6 ORS 34.140(2)
Technically incarceration is among the remedies available for re usal to obey the orders of a court,although this seems
unlikely in the context of this discussion.
8 ORS 268.990
9 former 3.07.860(B)
Memorandum
Metro Enforcement Authority (Minimum Density)
January 31, 2001
Page 3
(LUBA) for review of a decision. However, a decision , of to adopt a legislative amendment or a
new land use regulation is not appealable except where 4 t is "necessary to address the
requirements of a new or amended goal, rule or statute.' 10 Arguably the Functional Plan is not a
goal, rule or statute. Furthermore, Metro or another pa y would have difficulty invoking
LUBA's jurisdiction where a local government simply ailed to act. There would be no
"decision"to appeal.
A..1 in: Functional Plan Re•uirements Directl to Lo al Decisions. The Functional Plan, as
recently amended, states that "cities or counties whose somprehensive plans and land use
regulations do not yet comply with a functional plan re uirement adopted or amended prior to
December 12, 1997 shall make land use decisions consi.tent with that requirement."11 As result,
any land use decision made contrary to such a requirem-nt could be appealed to LUBA. The
minimum density requirements of the Functional Plan ere adopted prior to December 12, 1997.
However, the section including the above quoted langu.ge specifies that"land use decision"has
the meaning as defined in ORS 197.015(10). That defi ition specifically excludes "limited land
use decisions." 12 "Limited land use decisions" include the approval or denial of subdivisions.13
Therefore, in the absence of a city minimum density ore inance, the Functional Plan minimum
density requirements would not directly apply as decision criteria for subdivisions.
CONCLUSION
Although recent Metro Urban Growth Functional Plan .mendments have included new
procedures for enforcement orders and compliance ord:i s, it nevertheless appears that, as before,
the most effective way to enforce an order requiring adoption of minimum density standards
would be through the mandamus process.
1°ORS 197.620(1)
3.07.810(E). The same section also states: "If the functional pla requirement was adopted or amended by the Metro
Council after December 12, 1997,cities and counties whose comp ehensive plans and land use regulations do not yet comply
with the requirement shall, after one year following acknowledgm;nt of the requirement,make land use decisions consistent
with that requirement."
12 ORS 197.015(10)(b)(C).
13 ORS 197.015(12)(a). - 25
. - 260
d ft - subdivisions mi
ORDINANCE 2309
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
AMENDING LOC CHAPTER 48 (ZONING CODE), TO ADD NEW PROVISIONS
RELATING TO MINIMUM DENSITY APPLICABLE TO SUBDIVISION PRPOSALS
IN ALL RESIDENTIAL ZONES WITHIN THE CITY IN COMPLIANCE WITH
METRO'S URBAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONAL PLAN.
The City of Lake Oswego ordains as follows:
The Lake Oswego Code is hereby amended by deleting the text shown by strikeout and adding
the new text shown in redline/underline.
Section 1. Article 48.04.132 is hereby amended to read as follows:
Residential—High Density R-0, R-2, R-5, WR Zones
48.04.132 Minimum Density
When lots arc created through a partition or subdivision, a minimum density of 80% of
the maximum density permitted by the Zone is required on parcels of one half acre or larger in
the R 3 and R 5 zones. For ptposcs of this section, the number of lots required shall be
determined b,.ruult:plying the „-, m density e cl„sive nti ll„ allowable densit„
transfer, by .8. The-Fesult shah be rounded up for any product with a fraction of.5 or gr atcr and
rounded down for any product with a fraction of less than .5.
48.04.132 Minimum Density
1. When subdivisions are proposed in the R-0 Zone, a minimum density of 20 lots per acre
is required. When subdivisions are proposed in the R-2 Zone, a minimum density of 12 lots per
acre is required. For purposes of this section, this number is computed by multiplying the net
developable acreage by either 20 or 12 per the applicable zone The result shall rounded up for
any product with a fraction of.5 or greater and rounded down for any product with a fraction of
less than .5. The requirements of this subsection are subject to the exceptions contained in LOC
48.20.517.
2. When subdivisions are proposed in the R-3, R-5, or WR Zones, a minimum density of
80% of the maximum allowed by the zone is required. For purposes of this subsection, the
number of lots required shall be determined by dividing the net developable square footage by
the minimum lot size per unit required in the underlying zone, and multiplying this number by .8.
The result shall be rounded up for any product with a fraction of.5 or greater and rounded down
for any product with a fraction of less than .5. The requirements of this subsection are subject to
the exceptions contained in LOC 48.20.517.
Section 2. A new Section 48.05.027 is hereby added to read as follows:
48.05.027 Minimum Density: R-6 Zone
When subdivisions are proposed in the R-6 Zone, a minimum density of 80% of the
maximum allowed by the zone is required. For purposes of this section, the number of lots z 61
required shall be determined by dividing the net developable square footage by the minimum lot
Page 1 of 6,Draft Ordinance 2309—Density Guidelines, Applicable to Subdivisions Only EXHIBIT F-10
size per unit required by the underlying zone, and multiplying this number by .8. The result shall
be rounded up for any product with a fraction of.5 or greater and rounded down for any product
with a fraction of less than .5. The requirements of this section are subject to the exceptions
contained in LOC 48.20.517.
Section 3. A new Section 48.06.207 is hereby added to read as follows:
48.06.207 Minimum Density: R-7.5, R-10, R-15 Zones
When subdivisions are proposed in the R-7.5, R-10, or R-15 Zones, a minimum density
of 80% of the maximum allowed by the zone is required. For purposes of this section, the
number of lots required shall be determined by dividing the net developable square footage by
the minimum lot size per unit required in the underlying zone, and multiplying this number by .8.
The result shall be rounded up for any product with a fraction of.5 or greater and rounded down
for any product with a fraction of less than .5. The requirements of this section are subject to the
exceptions contained in LOC 48.20.517.
Section 4. A new Section 48.08.257 is hereby added to read as follows:
48.08.257 Minimum Density: DD Zone
When subdivisions are proposed in the DD Zone for the purposes of single family
development, a minimum density of 5 lots per acre is required. When subdivisions are proposed
for the purposes of constructing duplex development in the DD Zone, a minimum density of 10
units per acre is required. When subdivisions are proposed for the purpose of constructing multi-
family development in the DD Zone a minimum density of 14 units per acre is required. For
purposes of this section, the density is computed by multiplying the net developable acreage by
either 5, 10 or 14 per the applicable type of developmen . The result shall be rounded up for any
product with a fraction of.5 or greater and rounded dow for any product with a fraction of less
than .5.
Section 5. A new Section 48.09.020 is hereby added I read as follows:
48.09.020 Town Home Residential (R-2.5)
a)iv). When subdivisions are proposed in the R-2.5 zo i e, a minimum density of 80% of the
maximum allowed by the zone is required. For purpose. of this subsection, the number of lots
required shall be determined by dividing the net develo sable square footage by the minimum lot
size per unit required in the underlying zone, and multiplying this number by .8. The result shall
be rounded up for any product with a fraction of.5 or grater and rounded down for any product
with a fraction of less than .5. The requirements of this .ubsection are subject to the exceptions
contained in LOC 48.20.517.
Section 6. A new Section 48.20.517 is hereby added i i read as follows:
48.20.517 Exceptions to the Minimum Density Require! ent for all zones:
1. The minimum density requirements are ot applicable to sites identified on the
City's Historic Landmark Designation list.
2. The minimum density requirements are ot applicable to publicly owned open
space lands.
Page 2 of 6, Draft Ordinance 2309—Density Guidelines, Ap ilicable to Subdivisions Only 2 6 L
3. The number of lots required by the minimum density provisions may be reduced
as necessary in any of the following circumstances:
a) Where the most appropriate design and location for a storm water detention or
water quality facility is above ground and outside a required open space, or
b) Where in order to comply with the minimum density requirement it would be
necessary to develop in a flood plain, or
c) Where an RC tree grove is designated on the site and preservation of more than
50% minimum protection area required by the Sensitive Lands Ordinance would preclude
development such that the minimum number of lots could not be developed, or
d) Where topographic, natural resources and/or soil constraints exist on site, to the
extent that an applicant can demonstrate that compliance with LODS 16.005, Hillside Protection
Standard, LOC 48.17, Sensitive Lands Districts, or other soil constraints regulated by the City's
Codes or the State of Oregon Uniform Building Code, would preclude development such that the
minimum number of lots could not be developed.
e) Where the total number of residential dwelling units resulting from the
development will be at least 80% of the maximum number permitted in the zone. For the R-0,
R-2 zones, the minimum lots per acre and methodology specified in 48.04.132 shall be used for
calculating minimum density. For the DD zone, the minimum lots per acre and methodology
specified in 48.08.257 shall be used for calculating minimum density.
f) Where the location of an existing dwelling is such that the applicant can
demonstrate that Zoning Code requirements can not be met if the minimum required number of
lots is developed.
Section 7. Article 48.08.280 is hereby deleted as follows:
I. Except as provided in subsection 2. of this section, this section explains the
method for computation of the number of units allowed for each site in the DD, WR, R 0, R 3,
R 5, R 7.5, R 10 and R 15 zones, except in mixed use zones.
a. Compute the area of Net Developable Acre by subtracting from gross
acreage (at 43,560 sq. ft. per acre) of residentially designated land the area required for street
right of way. For-public stfcets,-use the actual-acreage if known er 20%of the gross acreage. For
private streets, use actual acreage if known or 40 foot right of way.
b. For all residential zencs-except the R 0 zone if there arc existing dwellings
amount equal to the minimum lot ar a per unit required in the zone. For the R 0 zone subtract an
area amount equal to 1.2 times the floor area for the existing dwellings.
c. Compute the area-of Density Transfer Acre by adding together the area of
i. Arca within the floodway and the floodway fringe as shown on U.
S. Army Corps of Engineers' flood maps.
ii. Arca over 25% slope.
iii. Ar a in known landslide areas er in ar as shown to have potential
for severe or moderate landslide hazard.
iv. Arca in public open space and parks.
Page 3 of 6, Draft Ordinance 2309—Density Guidelines, Applicable to Subdivisions Only
265
d. Subtract the area of the Density T ansfer Acre from the difference
obtained after performing the calculation desci4bed in . ec ien 1.b.,or if-there are no existing
dwellings on the site that will remain, from the area oft e Net Developable Acre.
c. For zones, other than the R 0 zon , calculate the base number of units by
dividing the result of the calculation from subsection 1.s. by the minimum lot area per unit
allowed in the zone. For the R 0 zone, there is no base n mber of units. The base allowable FAR
is 1.2 times the result of the calculation from subsection 1.d..
f. The ar a of the Density Transfer cre may be added to the area of Net
Developable Acre for the purpose of density calculation to the extent that the applicant has
demonstrated by site specific information (in specified c+ses by an engineer's report) that the
-- L' • - - - ••
base number of units or FAR is calculated pursuant to s .bsection 1.e., less any units which
cannot be placed due to failure to-comply with the requi ements of the Development Standards.
g. To determine the total number of nits or FAR-a'llowee-on the sit ,z-Ito
h. The hearing body will review the above-ealoulations-as-pfft-ef-the-heaning
ring
process on the application. LOC 48.01.130(1)(b , :.!:. ! . . : :.!Z. . .
(Ord. No. 2088, Enacted,03/03/94; Ord. No. 2148, Am nded, 07/22/97)
Section 8. Article 48.02.015 is hereby deleted as foil I ws:
48.02.015 Definitions.
Density Transfer Acre/Acreage. The transfer of allowab e density from one portion of
zoned lands or as otherwise provided in LOC 48.08.280.
Section 9. Section 48.18 is hereby amended as folio s:
LOC 48.18 Planned Development Overlay
LOC 48.18.470. Purpose, Applicability.
2. Use of the Planned Development Overla, (PD) is allowed in any zone for
subdivision proposals. classified as major development pursuant to LOC 49.20.115. Use of the
PD Overlay is required in any zone for a residential d- - .. -- - . . .. . . ! : - . - .
four or more acres that is-classified as a major develop lent pursuant to the-terms of LOC
/19.20.115
48.18.476 [50.17.015] Authorization
1. In considering an application for a PD 0 erlay, the heat-body reviewing
authority shall apply the height, Floor Area Ratio (FAR lot coverage, use, open space and
Page 4 of 6, Draft Ordinance 2309—Density Guidelines, Apilicable to Subdivisions Only 2 6 Li
density requirements of the underlying zone and, if appli able, the setback requirements of LOC
48.04.150(5). The FAR and lot coverage requirements ay be applied with reference to the total
area of the project as a whole and not on a lot by lot basi..
2. Except for the special setback requirements of LOC 48.04.150(5), the heaping-body
reviewing authority may grant exceptions to the lot size, lot dimension and front and rear setback
requirements of the underlying zone if the applicant de onstrates that the proposed PD provides
the same or a better sense of privacy, appropriate scale a d open space as a PD designed in
compliance with the standard or standards to which an e ception is sought. In making this
determination, the hearing, body reviewing authority ma consider:
a. Whether the applicant has reserved or dedica ed more than the minimum amount of
open space required by the Park and Open Space Development Standard.
b. Whether the requested exception allows the lots to be designed in a manner that
provides better access to common open space areas fro within and/or outside the PD, better
protects views, allows better solar access, maintains or i proves relationships between
structures, maintains or improves privacy and/or improves pedestrian or bicycle access to
surrounding neighborhoods.
c. Whether the requested exception will allow . more attractive streetscape through use
of meandering streets, access through alleys or shared d .veways, provision of median plantings,
or other pedestrian amenities.
d. Whether the requested exception will enhan.e or better protect a significant natural
feature on the site, such as a wetland, a tree or tree grovi, or a stream corridor.
e. Whether the requested exception will provide better linkage with adjacent
neighborhoods, parks and open space areas, pathways, a d natural features.
f. Whether the requested exception will allow d e development to be designed more
compatibly with the topography and/or physical limitations of the site.
3. If the proposed PD is part of an approved ODPS as described in LOC Article 49.26,
requirements of the ODPS approval regarding arrangem-nt of uses, open space and resource
conservation and provision of public services, will be considered when reviewing the
considerations in subsection (1) for the PD.
4. Except as required by LOC 48.04.150(5), the •- :.-• reviewing authority may grant
exceptions to the minimum side yard setbacks of the un s erlying zone, without the necessity of
meeting the requirements of LOC 48.24.650 to 48.24.6'0 (variances) if the requirements of
48.18.476 are met, and:
a. Proposed lot sizes are less than the minimu i size required by the underlying zone, or
b. Lesser setbacks are necessary to provide adds tional tree preservation or protection of
abutting natural areas.
(Ord. No. 2027, Sec. 1; 4-02-91. Ord. No. 2063, Sea. 2; 08-18-92. Ord. No. 2148, Amended,
07/22/97)
48.18.485 [50.17.025] Expiration, Revocation
If 15% of the structural construction of the planned development has not occurred within three
years of the date of the order granting approval for the 'D Overlay or if development has
occurred in violation of the approval granted, the Plann ng Commission reviewing authority may
initiate a review of the Planned Development Overlay to determine whether or not its
continuation in whole or in part is in the public interest. The reviewing
authority may decide that the Planned Development Ov-rlay is to be removed and the plan or
plat be resubmitted and made to conform to the require' ents of the underlying zone, that the
Page 5 of 6,Draft Ordinance 2309—Density Guidelines, Asplicable to Subdivisions Only
approval be retained, or that the approval be modified in any manner consistent with laws in
effect at that time.
(Ord. No. 1851, Sec. 1; 11-16-82.)
The Development Code is hereby amended by deleting the text shown by strikeout and
adding the new text shown in underline:
Section 10. Section 49.16 is hereby amended as follows:
Definitions: 49.16.015.
Density Transfer Acre/Acreage. Potentially hazardous or resource areas within which
development may occur or from which density may be transferred to buildable portions of the
site, only after it has been demonstrated by the applicant that development can occur in
compliance with criteria established by this Code, inducing the Development Standards.
Density Transfer Acre includes the following:
a. Area within the floodway and the floodway fringe as shown on U.S. Army Corp of
Engineers flood maps,
b. Area of over 25% slope,
c. Area in known landslide areas or in areas shown to have potential for severe or moderate
landslide hazard,
d. Area in the RC or RP Districts, pursuant to LOC 48.17.115,stream buffer areas of major
stream corridors, wetlands and Distinctive Natural Areas,
e. Area in public open space and parks.
Procedure for site by site density determination is defined by LOC 48.08.280.
Section 11. Section 49.20 is hereby amended as follows:
LOC 49.20.105(2)(j) Ministerial Development
2. Ministerial developments include:
j. Future Development Plans, pursuant to LOC 48.20.518.
LOC 49.20.110(2)(g) Minor Development.
2. "Minor development includes:
g. subdivisions (with or without a Planned Development overlay) , including
subdivisions which require one or more Class 1 Zoning Code or Class 1
Development Code Variances.
LOC 49.20.115 (2)(f) Major Development .
2. Major development includes:
f. Planned Developments (PD)
case files/1998/ZC 7-98/2001 Activity/Ordinance 2309 including subdivisions only.doc.
266
Page 6 of 6, Draft Ordinance 2309—Density Guidelines, Applicable to Subdivisions Only w
araltillto ' thOSIOlitailttnattitiOnS;
ORDINANCE 2319
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF T E CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
AMENDING LOC CHAPTER 48 (ZONING CODE) TO ADD NEW PROVISIONS
RELATING TO MINIMUM DENSITY APPLICAB E TO ALL LAND DIVISION
PROPOSALS INALL RESIDENTIAL ZONES WIT IN THE CITY IN COMPLIANCE
WITH METRO'S URBAN GROWTH MANAGE :NT FUNCTIONAL PLAN.
The City of Lake Oswego ordains as follows:
The Lake Oswego Code is hereby amended by deleting ti e text shown by strikeout and adding
the new text shown in redline/underline.
Section 1. Article 48.04.132 is hereb amended to re. s as follows:
Residential—High Density R-0, R-2, R-5, WR Zones
48.04.132 Minimum Density
-- - --
48.04.132 Minimum Density
1. When subdivisions or sartitions are .ro.osed in the R-0 Zone a minimum densit of 20
lots .er acre is resuired. When subdivisions or sartition. are .ro.osed in the R-2 Zone a
minimum densit of 12 lots .er acre is re.uired. For su noses of this section this number is
comsuted b muftis! in. the net develo sable acres.e b either 20 or 12 ser the as•licable zone.
The result shall rounded us for an sroduct with a fraction of.5 or .reater and rounded down for
an sroduct with a fraction of less than .5. The re•uire ents of this subsection are sub'ect to the
exceptions contained in LOC 48.20.517.
2. When subdivisions or sartitions are .ro.osed in he R-3 R-5 or WR Zones a minimum
densit of 80% of the maximum allowed b the zone is lesuired. For su loses of this
subsection the number of lots res uired shall be determi ed b dividin. the net develo sable
s•uare foota•e b the minimum lot size .er unit re.uire. in the underl in. zone and multi.l in
this number b .8. The result shall be rounded us for an, sroduct with a fraction of.5 or :rester
and rounded down for an sroduct with a fraction of les• than .5. The re•uirements of this
subsection are sub'ect to the exceptions contained in LO 48.20.517.
Section 2. A new Section 48.05.027 is hereb added t I read as follows:
48.05.027 Minimum Density: R-6 Zone
When sartitions or subdivisions are .ro.osed in he R-6 Zone a minimum densit of
80% of the maximum allowed b the zone is res uired. I or su soses of this section the number
of lots re.uired shall be determined b dividin. the net .evelo sable s.ware foota.e b the 2 6 7
Page 1 of 6,Draft Ordinance 2309—Density Guidelines,Applicabl to Subdivisions and Partitions EXHIBIT F-11
minimum lot size per unit required by the underlying zon-, and multiplying this number by .8.
The result shall be rounded up for any product with a fray tion of.5 or greater and rounded down
for any product with a fraction of less than .5. The requi lements of this section are subject to the
exceptions contained in LOC 48.20.517.
Section 3. A new Section 48.06.207 is hereby added t i read as follows:
48.06.207 Minimum Density: R-7.5,R-10, R-15 Zones
When subdivisions or partitions are proposed in t e R-7.5, R-10, or R-15 Zones, a
minimum density of 80% is required. For purposes of thi. section, the number of lots required
shall be determined by dividing the net developable squar- footage by the minimum lot size per
unit required in the underlying zone, and multiplying this umber by .8. The result shall be
rounded up for any product with a fraction of.5 or greate i and rounded down for any product with
a fraction of less than .5. The requirements of this sectio are subject to the exceptions contained
in LOC 48.20.517.
Section 4. A new Section 48.08.257 is hereby added t I read as follows:
48.08.257 Minimum Density: DD Zone
When subdivisions or partitions are proposed in he DD Zone for the purposes of single
family development, a minimum density of 5 lots per ac e is required. When subdivisions or
partitions are proposed for the purposes of constructing 'uplex development in the DD Zone, a
minimum density of 10 units per acre is required. Whe subdivisions or partitions are proposed
for the purpose of constructing multi-family developme tin the DD Zone a minimum density of
14 units per acre is required. For purposes of this sectio , the density is computed by
multiplying the net developable acreage by either 5, 10 or 14 per the applicable type of
development. The result shall be rounded up for any product with a fraction of.5 or greater and
rounded down for any product with a fraction of less th.n .5.
Section 5. A new Section 48.09.020 is hereby added 'o read as follows:
48.09.020 Town Home Residential (R-2.5)
a)iv). When subdivisions or partitions are proposed in the R-2.5 zone, a minimum density of
80% of the maximum allowed by the zone is required. or purposes of this subsection, the
number of lots required shall be determined by dividing the net developable square footage by
the minimum lot size per unit required in the underlyin I zone, and multiplying this number by .8.
The result shall be rounded up for any product with a friction of .5 or greater and rounded down
for any product with a fraction of less than .5. The req irements of this subsection are subject to
the exceptions contained in LOC 48.20.517.
Section 6. A new Section 48.20.517 is hereby added o read as follows:
48.20.517 Exceptions to the Minimum Density Require ment for all zones:
1. The minimum density requirements are ot applicable to sites identified on the
City's Historic Landmark Designation list.
2. The minimum density requirements are ot applicable to publicly owned open
space lands.
Page 2 of 6,Draft Ordinance 2309—Density Guidelines,ApplicaI le to Subdivisions and Partitions 2 6 6
3. The number of lots required by the mini m density provisions may be reduced
as necessary in any of the following circumstances:
a) Where the most appropriate design and to ation for a storm water detention or
water quality facility is above ground and outside a requii ed open space, or
b) Where in order to comply with the minim m density requirement it would be
necessary to develop in a flood plain, or
c) Where an RC tree grove is designated on he site and preservation of more than
50% minimum protection area required by the Sensitive ands Ordinance would preclude
development such that the minimum number of lots cou • not be developed, or
d) Where topographic, natural resources an. or soil constraints exist on site, to the
extent that an applicant can demonstrate that complianc: with LODS 16.005, Hillside Protection
Standard,LOC 48.17, Sensitive Lands Districts, or othe soil constraints regulated by the City's
Codes or the State of Oregon Uniform Building Code w o uld preclude development such that the
minimum number of lots could not be developed.
e) Where the total number of residential dwelling units resulting from the
development will be at least 80% of the maximum number permitted in the zone. For the R-0,
R-2 zones, the minimum lots per acre and methodology .pecified in 48.04.132 shall be used for
calculating minimum density. For the DD zone, the mi 'mum lots per acre and methodology
specified in 48.08.257 shall be used for calculating mini um density.
f) Where the location of an existing dwelli • is such that the applicant can
demonstrate that Zoning Code requirements can not be et if the minimum required number of
lots is developed.
Section 7. Article 48.08.280 is hereby deleted as folio s:
1. Except as provided in subsection 2. of th s section, this section explains the
method for computation of the number of units allowed I :r each site in the DD, WR, R 0, R 3,
R 5, R 7.5, R 10 and R 15 zones, except in mixed use zones.
a. Compute the area of Net Develo s+ble Acre by subtracting from gross
acreage (at 43,560 sq. ft. per acre) of residentially desig ,ated land the area required for street
right of way. For public streets, use the actual acreage i i known or 20% of the gross acreage. For
private streets, use actual acreage if known or 40 foot ri:ht of way.
b. For all residential zones except t c R 0 zone if there are existing dwellings
on the site that will Tema-if as a past of the dcvclepmeat, su i : t€rent the ar-ea calculated in A, an area
amount equal to the minimum lot area per unit required 'n the zone. For the R 0 zone subtract an
area amount equal to 1.2 times the floor area for the exiting dwellings.
c. Compute the area of Density Tra sfer Acre by adding together the area of
S. Army Corps of Engineers' flood maps.
ii. Area over 25% slope.
iii. Area in known landslide I reas or in areas shown to have potential
for severe or moderate landslide hazard.
iv. Area in public open spac and parks.
Page 3 of 6,Draft Ordinance 2309—Density Guidelines,Applicab e to Subdivisions and Partitions 2 6 71
d. Subtract the ar a of the Density Transfer Acre from the difference
obtained after performing the calculation described in subsection 1.b., or if there are no existing
dwellings on the site that will remain, from the area of the Net Developable Acre.
c. For zones, other than the R 0 zone, calculate the base number of units by
dividing the result of the calculation from subsection 1.d. by the minimum let area per unit
allowed in the zone. For the R 0 zone, there is no base number of units. The base allowable FAR
is 1.2 times the result of the calculation-from subsection 1.d..
f. The area of the Density Transfer Acre may be added to the area of Net
Developable Acre for the purpose of density calculation to the extent that the applicant has
demonstrated by site specific information (in specified cases by an engineer's report) that the
requirements of the Development Standards will be met for all units proposed to be built. The
number of units allocated to the Density Transfer Acreage is computed in the same manner as the
base number of units or FAR is calculated pursuant to sibsection 1.e., less any units which
cannot be placed due to failure to comply with the�cquivements of the Development Standards.
g. To determine the total number of units or FAR allowed on the site, add to
the result of the calculation in subsection 1.e. the result of the calculation in subsection 1.f..
h. The hearing body will review the above calculations as part of the hearing
process on the application. LOC 48.04.130(1)(b), 48.06.205(1)(b) and 48.08.255(3)(b)provide
the facts presented by the applicant demonstrate that the resulting density can occur within
2. LOC 18,04.'25, 48.04.130(2), 18.06.195, 18.06.205(2), 18.08.215, LOC Article
18.17. and Development Standard 21, the Residential ,
for density bonuses under specified circumstances. The maximum number of units will net
(Ord. No. 2088, Enacted, 03/03/94; Ord. No. 2148, Amended, 07/22/97)
Section 8. Article 48.02.015 is hereby deleted as follows:
48.02.015 Definitions.
Density Transfer Acre/Acreage. The transfer of allowable density from one portion of
zoned lands or as otherwise provided in LOC 48.08.280.
Section 9. Section 48.18 is hereby amended as follows:
LOC 48.18 Planned Development Overlay
LOC 48.18.470. Purpose, Applicability.
2. Use of the Planned Development Overlay (PD) is allowed in any zone for
subdivision proposals. classified as major development pursuant to LOC 49.20.115. Use of the
PD Overlay is required in any zone for-a residential development preposal of 20 or more units or
four or more acres that is cl
19.20.115
48.18.476 [50.17.015] Authorization
1. In considering an application for a PD Overlay, the reviewing
authority shall apply the height, Floor Area Ratio (FAR), lot coverage, use, open space and
Page 4 of 6,Draft Ordinance 2309—Density Guidelines,Applicable to Subdivisions and Partitions 2 7 0
density requirements of the underlying zone and, if applicable, the setback requirements of LOC
48.04.150(5). The FAR and lot coverage requirements may be applied with reference to the total
area of the project as a whole and not on a lot by lot bas's.
2. Except for the special setback requirements of LOC 48.04.150(5), the hearing-body
reviewing authority may grant exceptions to the lot size, lot dimension and front and rear setback
requirements of the underlying zone if the applicant demonstrates that the proposed PD provides
the same or a better sense of privacy, appropriate scale and open space as a PD designed in
compliance with the standard or standards to which an exception is sought. In making this
determination, the he gbody reviewing authority may consider:
a. Whether the applicant has reserved or dedicated more than the minimum amount of
open space required by the Park and Open Space Development Standard.
b. Whether the requested exception allows the lots to be designed in a manner that
provides better access to common open space areas from within and/or outside the PD, better
protects views, allows better solar access, maintains or improves relationships between
structures, maintains or improves privacy and/or improves pedestrian or bicycle access to
surrounding neighborhoods.
c. Whether the requested exception will allow a more attractive streetscape through use
of meandering streets, access through alleys or shared driveways, provision of median plantings,
or other pedestrian amenities.
d. Whether the requested exception will enhance or better protect a significant natural
feature on the site, such as a wetland, a tree or tree grove, or a stream corridor.
e. Whether the requested exception will provide better linkage with adjacent
neighborhoods, parks and open space areas, pathways, and natural features.
f. Whether the requested exception will allow the development to be designed more
compatibly with the topography and/or physical limitations of the site.
3. If the proposed PD is part of an approved ODPS as described in LOC Article 49.26,
requirements of the ODPS approval regarding arrangement of uses, open space and resource
conservation and provision of public services, will be considered when reviewing the
considerations in subsection (1) for the PD.
4. Except as required by LOC 48.04.150(5), the heafing-bedy reviewing authority may grant
exceptions to the minimum side yard setbacks of the underlying zone, without the necessity of
meeting the requirements of LOC 48.24.650 to 48.24.690 (variances) if the requirements of
48.18.476 are met, and:
a. Proposed lot sizes are less than the minimum size required by the underlying zone, or
b. Lesser setbacks are necessary to provide additional tree preservation or protection of
abutting natural areas.
(Ord. No. 2027, Sec. 1; 4-02-91. Ord. No. 2063, Sec. 2; 08-18-92. Ord. No. 2148, Amended,
07/22/97)
48.18.485 [50.17.025] Expiration, Revocation
If 15% of the structural construction of the planned development has not occurred within three
years of the date of the order granting approval for the PD Overlay or if development has
occurred in violation of the approval granted, the reviewing authority may
initiate a review of the Planned Development Overlay to determine whether or not its
continuation in whole or in part is in the public interest. The reviewing
authority may decide that the Planned Development Overlay is to be removed and the plan or
plat be resubmitted and made to conform to the requirements of the underlying zone, that the
Page 5 of 6,Draft Ordinance 2309—Density Guidelines,Applicab e to Subdivisions and Partitions 2 ( j
approval be retained, or that the approval be modified in any manner consistent with laws in
effect at that time.
(Ord. No. 1851, Sec. 1; 11-16-82.)
The Development Code is hereby amended by deleting the text shown by strikeout and
adding the new text shown in underline:
Section 10. Section 49.16 is hereby amended as follows:
Definitions: 49.16.015.
Density Transfer Acre/Acreage. Potentially hazardous or resource areas within which
development may occur or from which density may be transferred to buildable portions of the
site, only after it has been demonstrated by the applicant that development can occur in
compliance with criteria established by this Code, including the Development Standards.
Density Transfer Acre includes the following:
a. Area within the floodway and the floodway fringe as shown on U.S. Army Corp of
Engineers flood maps,
b. Area of over 25% slope,
c. Area in known landslide areas or in areas shown to have potential for severe or moderate
landslide hazard,
d. Area in the RC or RP Districts, pursuant to LOC 48.17.115,stream buffer areas of major
stream corridors, wetlands and Distinctive Natural Areas,
e. Area in public open space and parks.
Procedure for site by site density determination is defined by LOC 18.08.280.
Section 11. Section 49.20 is hereby amended as follows:
LOC 49.20.105(2)(j) Ministerial Development
2. Ministerial developments include:
j. Future Development Plans, pursuant to LOC 48.20.518.
LOC 49.20.110(2)(g) Minor Development.
2. "Minor development includes:
g. subdivisions (with or without a Planned Development overlay) , including
subdivisions which require one or more Class 1 Zoning Code or Class 1
Development Code Variances.
LOC 49.20.115 (2)(f) Major Development .
2. Major development includes:
case files/1998/ZC 7-98/2001 Activity/Ordinance 2309 including subdivisions and partitions.
Page 6 of 6,Draft Ordinance 2309—Density Guidelines,Applicable to Subdivisions and Partitions 2 :;
Additional Exhibit. ZC 7-98
Exhibit#
• Heisler memo, explanation of map E-2
• Map, Parcels subject to minimum density if subdivided E-3
• Min/Max Lots per acre in Zoning Distric us E-4
• E-mail from Laura Rybowiak, 1/14/02 G-3-6
• E-mail from Celia and Richard Kilsby, 1/i 5/02 G-3-7
• E-mail from Chris Roth, 1/09/02 G-3-8
• Letter from Kevin Mead, 1/09/02 G-3-9
• Letter from John P. Bosshardt and Diana M. Petty, 1/15/02 G-3-10
• Letter from Lynora Saunders, 1/15/02 G-3-11
• Letter from Anan Ramymond, 1/15/12 G-3-12
• Letter from Mary Peaslee, 1/14/02 G-3-13
• Letter from Tim and Shelley Platt, 1/15/0 G-3-14
• Letter from Gregory and Vasiliki Nadol, /15/02 G-3-15
• Letter from Karen Thomas, 1/15/02 G-3-16
• Letter from Joanne Balkovie, 1/15/02 G-3-17
• Letter from Dianne Brouhard, 1/15/02 G-3-18
• Letter from Henry Germond, 1/18/02 G-3-19
• Letter from John P. Hutchinson, 1/28/02 G-3-20
• Letter from Alice Schlenker, 1/24/02 G-3-21
• Letter from Kathryn and Ron Stager, 1/2!/02 G-3-22
• Letter from Daniel G. Vizzini, 1/29/02 G-3-23
• E-mail from Bea Hedlund, 1/28/02 G-3-24
• E-mail from Jack Smith, 1/28/02 G-3-25
274
p4 LAKE ps
,„c CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
<r11,1► �1
Memorandum
OREGO$
TO: City Council
FROM: Jane Heisler, Project Pl. •� ; !i
SUBJECT: ZC 7-98(A) Explanation of Attached Map of Parcels within USB that may
be Subdividable
DATE: January 11, 2002
At the January 8, 2002 Council Study Session on Density Guidelines, staff indicated that a map
showing all parcels in the R-7.5, R-10 and R-15 zones that are four or more times larger than the
minimum required lot size, would be provided. The attached map illustrates lots fitting this
criteria. What the Council should note, is that many of these lots could be eliminated or reduced
in size for the following reasons:
- Reductions to minimum lot requirements due to steep slopes, natural resources, flood
plains or historic landmark status.
- Reductions in lots eligible for subdividing, if street construction necessary to provide
access to allow full development results in smaller lot size
- Existing structures on a parcel are retained, resulting in subtraction of that parcel from
the total lot area needed for a subdivision.
A lot by lot analysis would be needed to make a these determination. The mapped lot
information is summarized in the table below:
Parcels Outside
Parcels within City Limits City/Within tJSB Total
Zone Acres Lots Acres Lots Acres Lots
R-7.5 102 83 194 165 296 248
R-10 141 98 127 95 268 193
R-15 113 47 32 15 145 62
Total 356 228 353 275 709 503
EXHIBIT E-2
Page 1 of 3 EXHIBIT E-3
Council Report ZC 7-98(A)Density Guidelines
276
�� -_- --- -- -- - "" -.. . - -t- _ v` :i, I' = w. i _ R` _ - fix` ,��•=
' � H1 �f ��>?� ' ' - P ��' ,
r + 4 ', ,Y �n1.yt' �'uu`� _ jam.h: v • V • - .
f ,.- ,Z -- - �. �99�7".5 �> �i ` Y, 1 ��t \� �-r 1, ., 1 _ `,�'+ _ A ,
♦ � '1 `r(v`f'� t � d `V Ay���i5' .-`'i.y 'T o t .-,•.I V f-- � ,t . _ ..0'. `FJ y?I� I'IY� LSD i_/�` ( i� 'e' = "
4.
CG j' 111 ��
▪ 1.ti
� XY
�..�,/�r, B ,“Ar <p "�� ,, �� I r,F { aorTO MINIMUM DENSITY
�'s',,% �,; - �'�'cv ; _ • L IF SUBDIVIDED
F` 4 s yt 1 A\ 9pppp
� `r. � � `: I � ? i� � _,�_ gyp
' ,r` ,-- ► I'7�,,,...,o• I,,, 1.,,-,,,,,,,,,At,,. 1, .„,, .,�� n __ 1q.__4• p f3 1� fI_. > eqR
1' V ' .',] �,.�{ ,'a'!F- ��It,< i a► t'� - .� Y 'f_�J•= '`( y p.tp A/
Sir / -- . - ✓ �� [J _ �� v y, „II< -t i�'. �! 7}:.�' ��+ _ w.mna«so-eam
j - - zy,-IL—^�"'.� �' ,� ii 1 ` r. )2,
Air...
r �` -y , -. fay"'' *► �, "'
A (
▪ I j; %0 2'�1 _ 1;:. � re., - "'�.'� ' �, �� t \ 1B Resource
_ ''fi ■ s��� 4 rr I��% .- i 111,1
,�,t / {- r� _ , �� Steep S�opee
City Limits
�/� !� �_ „�',� 4� v� t '�� /�'' u se .
� -- _ 'I i "/-, • I 1 ', �, _ ' .�_ � f.._, � BOUIIdar (use)
��= '! T*'_ rf r .�n�j� ,� _. '� �I �T \ o soo +000 soo zoao aro a000 Fees
_ _
• ' ▪ - !' \ C .cam'- ./ "r `'.> - ..' 1G -• .I .1 r i
- - te`�� 1 t ?' 1„
` ir��� - 1' FS �r.•�. ewe `I , r-
, .._ 1 NI ..,,r, .,- .J r,„, •'"LX,r' t ,) 4 ".,5{',.. , , g„ ,,..,1 -1-,, .I,'t-."S ‘ ri.,,, ;, / ,_ •,r
....„
,,, -,,,, - _, ,,,,,, ..e, ..1 „,,,,,--, ..,,, J.,, ,,,,,k, , i .,, "ENTFE-'[P 7 ,-' , ' "„!,,, „irs.,* ,-, ], , . -
i C'' �, �Q1 ; . � IBERG w -'1 ''_it'' r • 'i:
. - _ • 'c.i0
Ai •ilk ' . , ,
e
/Y „', Z`!./ �I'� 1 •1 I_ _ . 1,,{J 4� 'I �� �r y'ay�- i = 1 ^
I �j► �73 • r , . _��
`'1
Cl/6
Minimum/Maximum Lots Per Acre in Zoning Districts
R-0 R-2 R-2.5 DD R-3 R-5 R-7.5 R-10 R-15
SF Dupl. MF
20/24 12/14 14/17 5/7 10/12 14/17 10/12 8/6 4/5 3/4 2/2
C5/460/107011 4K-/ •5,7
' • 260
Heisler, Jane
From: Thomas, Joshua
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2002 3:28 PM
To: Heisler, Jane
Subject: FW: Density
Jane-
Robyn suggested I forward you this email regarding density guidelines to
be added to the record. I already responded to her message.
Josh Thomas
Citizen Information Coordinator
City of Lake Oswego
(503)635-0257
(503) 317-5007 cell
(503) 699-6594 fax
jthomas@ci.oswego.or.us
Original Message
From: Ibowiak@netscape.net [mailto:lrybowiak@netscape.net]
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2002 9:44 AM
To: cic@ci.oswego.or.us
Subject: Density
I think there should be flexibility in the density requirements to allow
for larger lots or one house per multiple lots because too much land i
paved over. Concentrating all the development allows for pollutants to
be concentrated, overloading the green spaces. A patchwork of low-
medium-and high-density within each neighborhood would cover all
concerns. I live in Forest Highlands. We have high density in the
condos of Red Fox Hills, medium density in the single-family dwelling.
and low denisity around Knaus. There's a smattering of open spaces as
well as TCSP. The some of the streets are too wide and it would be ice
to see their width reduced by half-- give everyone a little deeper
property, increase property values, decrease road maintenance expe ses
and expand monies received in the tax base. [Affected homeowners ould
pay a levy.]
Laura Rybowiak
761 Briercliff Lane
Your favorite stores, helpful shopping tools and great gift ideas.
Experience the convenience of buying online with Shop@Netscape!
http://shopnow.netscape.com/
Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Mail account today at
http://webmail.netscape.com/
2 5 i
EXHIBIT G-3-6
i
MI , 2 .
Christie, Robyn
From: KingSis2@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 2:58 PM
To: council@ci.oswego.or.us
Subject: Forced Minimum Density Meeting Tonight
Reference: ZC7-98
Dear Council Members:
You will be discussing forced minimum density this eve ing for the third time in recent months.
Twice before Lake Oswego neighborhoods have attend:d council meetings and stated to you
they disagree with forcing density.
We encourage council to direct staff to put their time int. working with Metro for an exception to
forced density. Metro has exceptions available to areas hat have livability issues with forcing
density requirements.At the very least, refrain from app oval until the Neighborhood Preservation
Act appears on the May ballet. The results may further -how council their constituencies'feelings
on livability in Lake Oswego.
Richard and Celia Kilsby
503/697-5369
2-iJ
EXHIBIT G-3 7
284
-- - - - -
Schultz, Shirley
From: cckgroup [cckgroup@aracnet.com]
Sent: Wednesday,January 09, 2002 4:40 PM
To: sschultz@ci.oswego.or.us
Subject: Minimum Density
January 3, 2002 _
0 2,
5
Mayor Hammerstad and City Council
380 A Avenue
Lake Oswego, Or 97034
Dear Mayor Hammerstad and Councilors:
SUBJECT: Density Guidelines (ZC7-98)
At LONAC's meeting November 3, 2001, the subject of the Minimum Density
Ordinance was discussed at length. There was unanimous approval of a
motion requesting that Council table further action until a community
wide discussion regarding this ordinance occurs.
LONAC's reasoning is as follows, even though the primary effect of this
ordinance will be in only one neighborhood, the ultimate effect will be
community wide. A discussion of minimum density in Lake Oswego will
have considerable effect on how Lake Oswego looks for many years to
come. Will we retain our village look or take on a much denser urban
form? That issue is critical to people in Lake Oswego.
A change in the way density is allocated is a major issue that many
groups should have a part in deciding. Many of those interested groups
don't understand that the Minimum Density Ordinance is close to
passage. Even though setting this ordinance aside will slow its
eventual resolution, that time could be well spent in discussion with
the community.
Council should take the time and make the effort to include a more
diverse group of citizens in this decision.
Sincerely,
Christine Roth
Acting Chair
2 8 :-
J
EXHIBIT G-3-8
1
------- - - -
-- 2 8
RECEIVED
JAN 0 9 2002
To: City Council Members: CITY OF LAKE OSWEEGO
The City Planning commission recently approved text amendments to ale Lake Oswego Zoning Code(LOC Chapter 48)to require
minimum lot density to be achieved when land is subdivided in any resdential zone. The council has cited that the City of Lake
Oswego is accountable for full adoption of Metro's regional 20/40 ewide plan regardless of already averaging significant
(Metro's Term)compliance in meeting it's minimum density and emp oyment targets(July, 1998 3rd component of Title I review).
In spite of repeated widespread opposition by 90%of all citizens in L. e Oswego as evidenced by documented testimony,
conunentary,media review,neighborhood association quorum voting, .tc.,the commission is once again pushing the council for
adoption of minimum density zoning.
If adopted,this measure will put minimum density infill as the primary _oal in future development of our community. This
dramatically compromises the integrity and livability of our community and it also diminishes the original planning concepts behind
the Lake Oswego Comprehensive plan. I will not go into all of the reas.'us as they have been articulated again and again throughout
this debate.
Since the planning staff and commission refer to the 20/40 Metro planni g regulations and requirements as the backbone for this
amendment,I would like to point out documents and commentary from etro that appear to be major conflicts with the staff and
commissions recommendations. I do not believe there is any ambiguity these documents.
1°`—I have provided a copy of the first two pages of the City of Lake O.tvego Council Report dated Feb.
12th, 1999 regarding plan text amendments for compliance with Mel o 20/40 functional plan. The
document states the following:
The overall principles embodied in these documents in lude encouraging a compact urban form in specific Design
Type areas including Town Centers,Employment Cen'ers,Main Streets,Regional Centers,Transit Corridors, etc..
An additional intent of focusing development in these IP esign Type areas, is to enable established neighborhoods
outside of Design Type areas to develop at ,xisting Comprehensive Plan densities rather
than requiring amendments to the Compre ensive plan to intensify densities and uses.
Please note that the previous statement from t e Council Report is not reflected in the existing
ZC 7-98 (Minimum Density Zoning Admentm t) that is subject to your review and approval.
This is a major overlap of Metro and the Ci of Lake Oswego planning process, instead, the
zoning change blankets the entire city of L.O. ,nd does not appropriately use the design type
nomenclature/planning process as the founda 'on for minimum density planning?
In this way,the bulk of additional units that iu isdiction are required to provide to meet
targeted dwellings units for 2017 will be hoc ted in Design Type areas. It is up to local
jurisdictions to determine precise boundaries of the Des.NI Type designations.
Several 20/40 design types are contained within the L.O Urban Service Boundary, including two Town Centers
(downtown and Lake Grove),one Employment Center(it e Kruse corridor),two Main Streets (A Ave. between State
and 10th St. and Boones Ferry between Kruse Way and est Sunset)and several transit corridors(all of Boones
Ferry Rd., A Ave.,Country Club(this is now considered a right-away to right-away transit corridor and not subject
to the same design type classification per BurkeNaloneb °uncil),Kruse Way and Hwy 43 (State St.). The
remainder of lands in the Lake Oswego Urb:n Services Boundary is to be Aplignated as an
Inner Neighborhood. Per the Metro Functional ' an,Title 1, Section 3, cities are obligatedfo amend their
Comp. Plans to include these 20/40 Growth Concept Des gn Type descriptions and boundaries ((Exhibit D)1).
2:1 r
in
EXHIBIT G-3-9
- ------------- ---
Page 2
There is no ambiguity in the above City Council report as it cl: ly spells out Metro not requiring minimum
density zoning revisions to include Inner Neighborhood are, •only Design Type areas. Please note that I
have validation by Metro regarding their interpretation of this guage as being accurate.
Any adoption of the existing Density Guideline amendment is . ongly discouraged but if adopted in it's current format then
the neighborhood associations,community members and co tuents will interpret councils adoption as an aggressive/
excessive move which goes well beyond what Metro is request ig. Metro has recognized that proper planning should not
force retrofitting inner neighborhoods to conform with minim .. density infill that will severely impact character, services,
preservation, schools. Planning in these areas should confo to the existing neighborhoods thus the reasoning for
requiring cities to designate Design Types from Inner Neighbo oods!
2 nd.—Staff and the Planning Commission has unknowingly o willfully disregarded the May 10, 1999
letter from Mary Weber,Manager Community Develop ent to the Growth Management Services
Director at Metro. The letter clearly defines the Metro ode definition applying the minimum
density requirement of Title 1 of the Functional Plan.
Section 3.07.1010(p)(Title 10—See Attached)define development application as"an application for a land use
decision,limited land decision including expedited lan 'divisions,but excluding partitions as defined in ORS
92.010(7)and ministerial decisions such as a building .- lit". The ORS defines partitioned land as land that is
divided into two or three parcels of land within a Galen year,but this does not include land resulting from the
recording of subdivision.
The staff and planning commission's inclusion and ref-rencing to partitions also being subjected to some type of
minimum density is once again a single minded inte • elation and clearly not what Metro is requiring. A question
of why Metro excludes partitions from the minimum d-nsity zoning requirements but the L.O.Planning
Commission includes them is something I'm bewilder-• by?? Metro is commonly used as the shield to defend this
unpopular amendment. Any reference regardless of to is and conditions for including partitions along with
subdivisions is outside of Metro's request/definition an• would not fall under Metro's shield but now fall squarely
on the shoulders of the planning commission and couna 1 over extension of Metro's requirements. Again, I would
urge you to not adopt this amendment but if so then stri e any reference to partitions from the document and exclude
inner neighborhoods from the amendment.
My father once told me..."son,look out for your family first be :use it makes your decisions about what to do much easier".
I would ask you to take care of your immediate and extended f. ly(neighbors/community/constituents)first by listening to
the repeated requests to not adopt this type of amendment. Our oncern is"Quality of Life" and Lake Oswego offers none
better! Please help us preserve the quality of life for our imm=•'ate&extended family in this great city. We have shown
that we can accommodate growth,meet our density requirement-and maintain livability. This amendment sets a tone for
moving away from the tract in favor of compromising all that ha•been accomplished to date.
Thank you for our time and consideration of this important issu.,
R. evin M ad
Citizen of Lake Oswego
28 '
Mead, Kevin
From: Raymond Valone [valoner@metro.•st.or.us]
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 12:21 P
To: kevin.mead@spcorp.com
Subject: Interpretation of LO Report
Kevin,
This email is in response to your request to revie and comment on the first two pages of a Lake
Oswego memo sent to Douglas Schmitz from Ja e Heisler and dated February 12, 1999. The
'Discussion'section on pages 1 and 2is;anaccu -te-assessment/summary of Metro's
Functional Plan requirements regarding design t pes.
If you have any other questions, contact me at a•eve email address or by phone at 503-797-
1808.
Ray Valone
Senior Regional Planner
Metro Growth Management Services
503-797-1808
Ij
My3
� ,. 28 ,
`It.
0o,L�.tos,,.% CITY N F LAKE OSWEGO
er " CO CIL REPORT
\ .,__-___-!---7..c.o.
•
TO: Douglas J. Schmitz, City Manager
FROM: Jane Heisler, Project Planner
SUBJECT: Planning Commission Recommen•ation on PA 6-98,
Comprehensive Plan Text Amend r ents for Compliance with Metro
2040 Functional Plan Requirement. for Design Types
DATE: February 12, 1999
ACTION:
Approve, deny or modify Planning Commission recomm-ndations regarding:
A. Comprehensive Plan Text amendments to add Comprehensive Plan
policies related to Metro Functional Plan D-sign Types applicable to the
City of Lake Oswego (Exhibit D)1);
B. Comprehensive Plan definitions for Design Types (Exhibit D)1);
C. Comprehensive Plan Figures indicating m-pped locations of these Design
Types (Exhibit D)2 ).
BACKGROUND:
The Planning Commission met on October 12, 1998 in ork Session and on January
11, 1999 for a public hearing to discuss PA 6-98. No citi•ens testified at the public
hearing. The above changes are required by the Metro •040 Urban Growth
Management Functional Plan, Title 1. In its initial compli:nce schedule to Metro, the
City agreed to complete these requirements by Decemb=r, 1998. Having not met this
deadline, a subsequent compliance schedule was submi i ed indicating March, 1999 as
a potential Council adoption date.
'N;t_. -'
Urban Growth Management Concept: The Urban Growt Management Functional
Plan was adopted by Metro Council in November, 1996 to implement the Regional
Urban Growth Goals and Objectives (RUGGO) and the etro 2040 Growth
- - 85
2iu
----------
r. )
Page 2
PA 6-98, Council Report
Concept. The overall principles embodied in these documents include
encouraging a compact urban form in specific De-ign Type areas including Town
• Centers, Employment Centers, Main Streets, Re.ional Centers, Transit Corridors
etc. '14APk
t. 00/ d. e d a •e - igra -0e—r-as o develop a
- • •:e ensive;Tlan densities rather4ha requiping M ents $he
r1s ►e#�larioftiasfji taiae - r,•pis way, the bulk of
-,atiditiObarunits'tha junsdict on are requi ed o pr•vi•a to meet targeted dwellings
units for 2017 will be located in Design Type area-. Region-wide the resulting
compact urban form is designed to accommodate approximately 720,000
additional residents and 350,000 additional jobs o er 40 years region-wide. This
compact form is to be served by multiple modes o transportation, maintain a clear
distinction between urban and rural lands and red ce urban sprawl. It is up to
local jurisdictions to determine precise boundaries of the Design Type
designations and provide descriptions in their resp-ctive Comprehensive Plans.
Proposed definitions appear in Exhibit D)1). Proposed mapped boundaries
appear in Exhibit D)2).
Several 2040 Design Types are contained within t e Lake Oswego Urban Service
• Boundary, including two Town Centers (downtown and Lake Grove), one Employment
Center (the Kruse corridor), two Main Streets (A A enue between State and 10th Street
and Boones Ferry between Kruse Way and West -unset) and several transit corridors
(all of Boones Ferry Road, A Avenue, C.ou. Kruse Way, and Highway 43 (State
Street). The remainder of lands in the Lake Oswe.o Urban Services Boundary is to be
designated as an Inner Neighborhood. Per the Me ro Functional Plan, Title 1, Section
3, cities are obligated to amend their tomprehensi e Plans to include these 2040
Growth Concept Design Type descriptions and bou daries (Exhibit D)1) "consistent with
the general locations shown on the 2040 GE* Au • •• - • '' -p" (Exhibit D)3)). Exhibit
D)3) also summarizes Metro's definitions of each D-sign Type area.
Metro representatives have indicated that for Town enters, Employment Areas and
Inner Neighborhoods, precise boundaries must be apped. For Main Streets and
Transit Corridors, a particular segment of the roadw=y may be depicted without
specifying parcels.
Through the Lake Grove and First Addition Neighbo hood Plan processes, discussion
has taken place about the boundaries of Town Cent-rs. Both neighborhoods have
indicated in the past that Town Centers should incluoe commercially zoned lands and
adjacent high density multi-family residential lands. xhibit D)2) illustrates the proposed
Lake Oswego Main Streets and Town Center and th- proposed Lake Grove Main Street
and Town Center area. The Comprehensive Plan d=signations encompassed within
these areas allow a variety of retail, offices and servi es as well as housing, which
meets the intent and purpose of these Design Type .efinitions.
- • 86
- 291
`�° LAIC[ps'YEG
NITICE OF
J PLANNING CO MISSION DECISION
°R[GO" Date Mailed: December 19, 2001
Application: Density Guidelines
Applicant: City of Lake Oswego
File No.: ZC 7-98
Nature of Application:
A request for Legislative text amendments to the L. - Oswego Zoning Code (LOC Chapter 48)
to:
1) Require a minimum lot density be achieved whin land is subdivided in any residential zone
and
2) Amend the minimum density text currently in th- Zoning Code for R-3 and R-5 zones so
that it only applies to subdivision development d
3) Ensure that series partitions do not result in dens ties that are less than the minimum
required density in the zone.
Date of Decision: December 10, 2001
Description of Decision:
The Planning Commission has recommended approval .f ZC 7-98 to the City Council.
How to Obtain Further Information: Please contact ane Heisler, Project Planner at 503/697-7422.
Final decisions on this application are made by the City ouncil, which meets the first and third
Tuesdays of each month. The Council sets its agendas, ., d notifies affected parties of public
hearing dates. To obtain further information regarding t I e Council hearing you can contact the
City Recorder's Office at(503) 675-3984 or write to:
Robyn Christie, City Reco'der
Lake Oswego City Hall
P.O. Box 369
380 "A" Avenue
Lake Oswego, OR 97034
29
. PAGE 1/
A N D U
` � •oat It`Fax Note 7671 DM)24/o Peps
MI, i ET 7° - Fri m
_ j CoJpevt. Co. t.. 1-.C.t7
ri Phone• Phon*II .
' Date: May 10, 1999 Fax !Fax« —
To: Elaine Wilkerson, Director
Growth Management Services Dope -lit
From: Mary A. Weber, Manager
Community Development
Re: Functional Plan Definition ofDevel•pnent Application
A question has arisen that pertains to the Metro Code d!finition of'development application" and
applying the minimum density requirements.in Title 1 if - Functional Plan. Metro Code
' Section 3.07.1010(p)(Title 10)defines development a••llcatlon as 'an application for a land use
decision, limited land decision including expedited la • •'ivisions, b - ; ;.� •efined in
ORS 92.010 (7)and ministerial decisions such as a bu I.ing pe he ORS defines partitioned land
as land that is divided into two or three parcels of land thin a calendar year, but this does not Include
land resulting from the recording of a subdivision or co •ominium plat.
The term development application comes into play in M tro Code Section 3.07.120A(Title 1).
Section A outlines the methods to increase calculated parity. This section directs cities and counties
to apply a minimum density standard to ail zones allows ig residential use. It also states that a
development application,Including a subdivision, may it be approved unless the development will
result in the building of 80 percent or more of the maxi m number of dwelling units per net acre
permitted by the zoning designation.
. The Code language suggests that if the site were recen i partitioned and the proposed development
was at a density less than the minimum required by the'z•ne that the City could approve the
development application. When MTAC drafted the Cods, ere was lilcety discussion about .
encouraging inftil development, making It"easier" to devel•p these sites and the difficulty of applying
minimum densities to small parcels. This'exciusion In e + ode provides local flexibility in applying the 2f.
minimum densityrequirement and removes what might : burdensome r '
g regulation on small lot intilt
development. This provision also seems consistent wi a ether Metro Code requirement,
Section 3:07.1208, which prohibits local governments f om •rohibiting partitioning of parcels two or -
more times the minimum lot size of the development e. '°;r
Paulette Copp9rstone'was enlisted to search through e M AC minutes to find any references
pertaining to this issue. In the minutes of the October , 19 meeting of MTAC Jim Jacks of Tualatin, - s,
initiated a discussion about defining development apt' don The Committee discussed this issue and ,
the issue of partitioning. John Fregonese,the Chair of TA*, added that It'would be good to exempt '- •
partitions from minimum density standards.' A copy of he m,•ting minutes is attached. Also attached
is a time sequence of Title 10 changes'dating from ,ber 2• to November 21, 1996 that show the �,,.
evolution of the definition of development application. j
<t.
MAW/S(
1:lpmba muNry_devalopment1aharo\developmernt eppttcatlon dlsa,n9}on.dcc 4
---ce: Tom Coffee, City of Lake Oswego-wiAttachrnen g
„
A _ 2 9 i
Il '�' M I s.
•
.+ f u��+ i qi�, 3�, vet f r s'b"�,
.r ,,.L,"1Z t .M..h rKc .aL�'1.4-,,,4,1.a . ;
- 2 4
January 15, 2001
Lake Oswego City Council Pr r r TV F D
City Hall
Lake Oswego, OR JAN 1 5 2002
Cn Y OE Li-ki<f:OSWEGU
Dear Councilors :
The undersigned are opposed tp the proposed zoning
amendment which would require minimum density development.
Sincerely,
John P. B sshardt
, ,
4r,.,4. _L-tryv 1 ,' l Ciana M. etty
658 Boca atan Dr.
Lake Oswe o, OR 97034
EXHIBIT G-3-10
- - - 2;iJ
� .
�{� ~
' � a �
/
1 15 02
To: Mayor Judie Hammerstad and L.Q. City Council
We must come to grips with the Status Growth Mandate NOW .. . and not wait
for a crisis to a mergelll The state 's 20 year land use law was good years
ago. . .but, is no longer appropriate today. This forced Density Ordinance
will coerce local communities to sabotage their ecological and human health,
and this will trash our holistic environment and livability.
In addition, our freedom to choose will be severely compromised. What are
people saying about GROWTH in their neighborhoods and the region? (From
Let's Talk, Discussion Guide, p.20, 2001-2002)
"POPULATION GROWTH was the major reason people gave as why they felt
the area and their neighborhood would get worse in the next 20 years."
"Respondents were VERY CONCERNED about air and water pollution and
STRONGLY SUPPORT spending public parks money to buy property along
streams to protect fish and wildlife habitat."
The only way to combat the above distress is to challenge the State 's
20 year Land Use Law. Banning this core policy will, indeed, give local
communities the FREEDOM to create their own neighborhood plans. We must
respect these rights! After all, we pay heavy property taxes and have
earned the right to achieve what we want for each neighborhood.
PLEASE. .. WE URGE YOU NOT TO ADOPT THE DENSITY GUIDELINESIII
A VERY CONCERNED CITIZEN,
Lynora Saunders
da4tig24)
13790 SW Knaus Road
Lake Oswego, OR 97034
Tel. (503) 636-1169
" 636-1360
EXHIBIT G-3-11
.. Jr
2 9 6
1
Anan Raymond, Chairperson
Forest Highlands Neighborho d Association
729 Atwater Roa�
Lake Oswego, OR 97034
503-697-8125
To: Judie Hammerstad, Mayor
Jack Hoffman, Ellie McPeak, Gay Graha , Karl Rhode, Bill Schoen, John Turchi, City
Council Members
City of Lake Oswego
380 "A" Avenue
Lake Oswego, OR 97034
// c/o _
Subject: ZC 7-98, A proposed amendment to the City of Lake Oswego zoning code
requiring minimum density zoning
Dear City Council
I am Anan Raymond, Chairperson of the Forest Highlane s Neighborhood Association. I live at 729
Atwater Road, where my family has lived for the past 33 years. The City Council, has a decision to
make. Will the City Council vote to amend the zoning cede to require a minimum lot density for all
subdivisions and partitions in Lake Oswego?
As the elected Chairperson of the Forest Highland Neighborhood association I want you to know that
the vast majority of the residents are strongly opposed to the minimum density zoning. We respectfully
request that the City Council deny the amendment
Tonight you will hear from many neighbors. You will h.ar what you already know, a universal
objection to minimum density zoning. These will range rom impassioned pleas, to cooly rationale
arguments. We want to protect the natural environment, maintain character of our neighborhoods,
control overly dense development in a low density neighborhoods, and uphold our personal property
rights. All of these arguments are valid. We urge you to I eed them. We are your constituents. We are
your neighbors.
Infill
Minimum density zoning will violate Goal 10 of the L. - Oswego Comprehensive Plan. The Planning
Commission and Staff report are wrong. Minimum den ;ty zoning will severely impact the character of
the existing Forest Highlands Neighborhood. Presently, Forest Highlands is characterized by large lots
with one or two, sometimes three houses per acre. Plus, there are several multiple-acre lots with only
one house on them. Much of Forest Highland was pla ed and developed in the County at zone R-20.
Today, the basic problem is infill and the City's zoning of R-7.5 and R-10. As large lots are subdivided
and partitioned, minimum density zoning forces the pac ing of five houses onto an acre parcel while the
neighboring parcel contains only one or two houses per cre.
EXHIBIT G-3-12
The city recognizes the challenges posed by infill. The Mayor, Council, Planning Commission, City
Planning staff have sponsored workshops, meetings, cou tless phone calls and an "Infill Task Force"
and to tackle this thorny issue. We applaud the city in thi. effort, and we thank you. We hope the Infill
Task Force and City can solve the problem of giant hous=s dwarfing tiny lots, and giant houses looming
over moderately sized houses next door. But we await a oroduct and an enforceable plan.
But now, today, in Lake Oswego, the 4000 square foot house is a reality. While we don't necessarily
object to 4000 square foot houses, we strongly object to 000 square foot houses towering just 10 feet
away from the property line and from each other. Minim m density zoning will ensure that this
happens. Under the present zoning, developers have the option of putting one, or two houses on an
available acre. With minimum density zoning the develo.er will be required to pack five houses into
each available acre of Forest Highlands. And those house. are just as likely to be 4000 square feet.
A minimum density zoning rule may make sense when d;veloping large parcels of vacant land, such as
Stafford. But it makes no sense as a strategy to infill est. .lished neighborhoods like Forest Highlands.
The resulting mishmash would destroy the neighborhood character and violate Goal 10 of the Lake
Oswego Comprehensive plan. Rather than adopting the inimum density zoning amendment, we
recommend that the City work with Metro. Write a zoni g amendment that applies minimum density
zoning only to parcels of land larger than 10 acres, whic I have not been developed, and do not occur
within existing neighborhoods.
Natural resources
With its low residential density, the Lake Oswego Comp tehensive Plan has labeled Forest Highlands a
"Distinctive Natural Area." It contains critical headwate s for the Tryon Creek. The riparian wetlands
and large groves of old trees create a natural environment that provides irreplaceable wildlife links to
Tryon Creek State Park and habitat for endangered steelh-ad trout.
Minimum density zoning will undermine violate Goal 5 .f the Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan which
strives to preserve sensitive natural areas. Minimum den.ity zoning will accelerate the loss of open
space and the destruction of natural resources because p.rtions of Forest Highlands have yet to be
annexed by the City, and thus the City's sensitive land or.inances don't apply. To meet the minimum
lot density requirement a developer will level the land an. destroy sensitive natural areas, and then
annex to the city, avoiding the sensitive lands ordinances that normally prevent this. Presently a
developer has the option to build one or two houses on a :cre parcel and preserve far more open
space and natural habitat. We request that the City resolv- this problem before it adopts a minimum
density zoning rule which will simply exacerbate it.
Density Transfer
The presently proposed "density transfer"provisions of inimum density amendment fails to account
for Goal 10 of the Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan. Coal 10 calls for protecting the character of
existing neighborhoods, and the maintenance of low ho sing density in areas that are currently
developed at low density and where sensitive natural resources occur. If a sensitive natural area
occurs in a parcel up for development, density transfer w 11 move the density slated for that location and
add it to another place on the parcel. This piles density .1 to density. The result could be multiple
family units crammed onto the buildable portion of a par el. Townhouses intermingled among the
300
present single family homes on large lots will destroy the existing character of the Forest Highlands
Neighborhood. On November 9, 1998, the Lake Oswego Planning Commission cautioned against
jeopardizing Goal 10. They suggested removing lands containing sensitive natural resources from the
equation that determines "net developable acreage" in the minimum density zoning amendment. Don't
use lands containing sensitive natural resources as a"ba " for density transfer. We request that the city
work with Metro to write a zoning amendment that imple ents this recommendation.
Partitions
The present Planning Commission recommends a zoning amendment that makes partitions, as well as
subdivisions, subject to minimum density zoning. This i• an aggressive and overreaching act by the city.
It is a clear violation of Metro's rules on the topic. Indee., in recognition of the character-destroying
effects of infill, Metro specifically excluded partitions from its minimum density mandate. If the City
includes partitions in the minimum density amendment, i takes away basic property rights. What
happens when the owner of a home on a large lot wants t I build a house for their mother-in-law? Well,
they won't be able to do it. We request that the City dele e the inclusion of partitions in a minimum
density zoning amendment.
Metro and Lake Oswego
The City of Lake Oswego has done an outstanding job i complying with many Metro goals. Since
1990 the city has achieved more than 90 percent of the d;nsity allowed by zoning. This has been
accomplished without a minimum density zoning rule. ill the city adopt an unnecessary zoning
amendment that will damage existing neighborhoods in o efiance of its citizens? We hope not. The City
must listen and heed the concerns of its neighborhoods a d citizens. Who's the boss? Metro or Lake
Oswego? The City must show strength and leadership. the City must convince Metro that the
preservation of existing neighborhoods and the natural e i vironment is more important than minimum
density zoning.
Lake Oswego should explain to Metro that instead of the proposed minimum lot density rule it will take
the more constructive action we have suggested: 1) App y minimum density zoning only to
undeveloped areas that don't have existing neighborhoo o s. 2) Let the infill task force do its work and
create enforceable infill standards. 3) Work with the Co my to apply the city's sensitive land
ordinances to parcels within the urban service boundary, 4) Remove sensitive lands for the net
developable acreage equation. Don't use these lands as a bank for density transfer. 5) Delete partitions
from any minimum lot density rule.
We respectfully request that the City Council turn down he zoning amendment requiring minimum lot
density. Thank you for the opportunity comment on thi proposal.
Sincerely,
Anan Raymond, Chairperson
Forest Highlands Neighborhood Association
3 0 i
January 14, 2002
Lake Oswego City Council
Re. Proposed Planning Code Revision/Density
City Council:
I was very disappointed to learn about the pl. 'ng committee's recommendation
to you regarding what was once called"minimum de sity zoning". I haven't kept up
with the politics enough to know what they call it no ' , but in essence it is the same issue
that was raised several years ago. The same except le new proposal is even worse than
the last edition, in that they have removed the except on for minor partitions.
I was chair of the Forest Highlands Neighbor N ood Association/CPO during the
time when we attempted to create a neighborhood p1. in conjunction with the city. That
effort was derailed over precisely this issue. If I le. ed anything over the two years we
labored over a Plan, it is that there is no citizen supp o rt for mandatory density
requirements in Forest Highlands. I have to wonder by the city is continuing to pursue
this, under these circumstances. The city council sh• Id reflect the values of the
residents of Lake Oswego, even if that means standi • up against Metro "requirements".
One of the ironies of the whole Neighborhoo u Plan exercise was the realization of
just how small the gain is to the city, and the region . a whole, by"infilling"the
remaining developable land in Forest Highlands at" aximum"zoned density, compared
to what the neighborhood requested. The city gained only a few dozen dwelling units.
Unfortunately,the price of that gain was the loss of c aracter and"livability"of an entire
neighborhood.
If I could, I would like to make one more poi t, which was sadly lost when the
Forest Highlands Neighborhood Plan fell apart. As uch as I personally hate to see
increased density in our neighborhood,that was not y primary objection to "minimum
density"then,nor is it now. My primary objection is that THE CITY DOES NOT HAVE
SAFEGUARDS IN PLACE NOW TO ENSURE T • T NEW DEVELOPMENT DOES
NOT REDUCE THE LIVABILITY OF NEIGHBO' OODS IN WHICH IT OCCURS.
I believe you are putting the cart before the horse in f+nsidering requiring development
at maximum density, when the record clearly shows . inability to cope with
development even at lower densities. Forest Highl. •s provides a perfect example.
Since the failure of our neighborhood plan, roughly 11 acres of land in the heart of our
neighborhood has been developed. As feared,the na al resources on those 10 acres
were completely neglected or destroyed: lovely old •ee groves were cleared; streams
were redirected and covered over. Throughout our n.ighborhood planning effort, one of
our key goals was to ensure that the city did not allo developers to take advantage of the
lack of protections for natural resources under the C I ty. And yet,that is precisely
what happened: developers clear the land, remove" .ndrances"to development, and
THEN annex to the city so they can develop at highe i densities. Another example: the
EXHIBIT G-3-13
planning committee and staff like to say that improvements in infrastructure will come
with development. Not in our neighborhood! Another of the issues the neighborhood
has been concerned about for years is the safety of pedestrians in a neighborhood with no
sidewalks, pathways, and inadequate roads. One of the concerns about infill is that it
further increases the burden on an already inadequate system. Well, five years and 10
acres of new development later,we do not have one inch of new pathway/sidewalk in the
neighborhood, and we do not have one additional road or connection. There is an
additional 5 acres of development pending(the land as been cleared), which will simply
continue the trend. No roadway connections, despite the acknowledged need for them,
no pathway or sidewalk along the"neighborhood col ectors"which children walk to and
from school on.
The residents of Forest Highlands are not nai e. We recognize the expense
involved in major improvement like installing walki g paths. We would simply ask,
however,that when you are aware of a neighborhood with serious transportation
infrastructure deficiencies,that you be realistic with s. I look around the neighborhood,
see new and pending development covering over 15 .cres, and wonder just exactly how
the planners kept a straight face when they assured u• pathways would come with
development.
Please do not accept the Planning Committee s proposal regarding development at
"maximum"density. Please back up: work with the ounty to provide safeguards for
natural resources in areas of potential infill; re-exam ne the transportation needs, in
particular the need for pedestrian pathways (on or o the road), in neighborhoods that are
struggling now. Do these things first, before you co .ider changing the density
requirements for new development. And finally, gai the confidence of the
neighborhoods that will be affected by decisions you I ake by listening to their concerns.
Sincere ,
2
Mary P..aslee
13131 4 aus Road
Lake O'wego, OR 97034
3 'i ��
• 1' 4e;--(2:4
S-L Plo
(m- 000/61 C
LA- 1 OJ ie_cy) OiQe3y c)Josicl-yAk-A)
"71:71 ---"Let
i.../1 I( 6,./i
\cx,-;074,\ 12 vkoteA cl cLe pie(' . fvk uPdv
5 /k7 ( /2 (1)„
. - .1.4)1A".. fl
305
EXHIBIT G-3-14
January 15, 2002
To Lake Oswego City Council:
We oppose the minimum density zoning amendments pr•i•osed by Lake Oswego's planning
commission. Minimum density zoning will drastically . d negatively alter the character and
appearance of our neighborhood (Country Commons/Fo -st Highlands). It will also
detrimentally affect Tryon Creek State Park, which borde s our neighborhood.
To begin, minimum density zoning in our neighborhood ill not only adversely affect
development of still undeveloped land tracts, but will als• curtail the manner in which already
developed lots are subdivided in the future. Moreover, etro's density goal of 10 lots per acre
has already been achieved, and in fact, exceeded in Lake I swego, where average density is 10.4
lots per acre. The zoning amendments will, therefore, ha e no impact on Lake Oswego's
compliance with Metro's density aims. Furthermore,the is roposed zoning amendments will
unnecessarily usurp Lake Oswego residents' property rig is by forcing them to develop in accord
with minimum zoning density. Finally,traffic will incre..e in lower density neighborhoods, as will
the number of people and houses. The maintenance of to er density in the Country Commons/
Forest Highlands neighborhood is particularly critical be6ause of its proximity to Tryon Creek
State Park. Tryon is home to coyotes, countless species •f birds, and endangered species of fish.
Zoning changes in Country Commons/Forest Hills will her tax the park's inhabitants and
fragile ecosystem.
Minimum density zoning may be effective in areas of already high density. However, this
amendment will drastically and unnecessarily change the haracter and appearance of a lower
density neighborhood, such as ours. Consequently, we st ongly urge Lake Oswego City Council
NOT to adopt the proposed zoning amendments.
Respectfully, /
/ itillit/tA k •1\"4
A,3,,,n 4k ,
Gregory S. Nadol and Vasiliki A. Nadol
13339 Atwater Lane
Lake Oswego, OR 97034
I, r
EXHIBIT G-3-15
b4-ke Co&-t.t •
,tope.(2) c4.9 ulAkoe Lie c:fx- ° ' ti`�t
slAA- is
&OD8 4-(( 12,0,awl . I ot,QrK at4-e 14--ru ae cr 14-4 .
v- /S��-e' v Jtet, Pa40 -i-e , V�t i I� ck tc":h"--ems r Z •�cv ;+..r..l
w, -
n oL 4 e t ceS47in okkR • • 4.4 "�-�,� 41 b Air
,nd I de&te-a4teI t vab l,` 7 .k.e, a crvv.od 4--e
5i14 Sr es fr�� , w�. c o-
'to F -a1Ps t - vri prrrft e✓li
4-et? 11214-6,71 4 het' good . eLP rA-
014-00-c- oge _AA-614.e Cr141 feje.i "6 I;e.cd_ iteir4.661464.4 t
Zox.ir u-a, v3 G_o-f wept;
.
(3'62I Scv .c9od4(( 41
Cq 05cu eior
'S-a - Gig - q7rti
3v �+
EXHIBIT G-3-16
I-
My father bought land and built his home here in Laic: Oswego in 1923. I was born here
and grew up here. I attended school here before ther: was even'one high school in
Lake Oswego. My husband and I are retired here and have lived in our home on Knaus
Road for over. Cyears. I think you could say we hav- a vested interest in this
town....and it is not, like too many others, based on h 1 w much money we can rip out of
it.
This used to be one of the nicest towns in Oregon. I ave had to stand by and watch the
beauty of Lake Oswego and the quality of life here be'i g steadily destroyed by
overdevelopment and poor planning. Our roads are so congested with traffic that there is
virtual gridlock many hours of the day. Our schools . e overcrowded. The land is
overburdened with huge homes built on tiny lots and e see the results in mudslides and
property damage when the land gets saturated in the r.:ins. I see the sad results of
overdevelopment all around me, elderly people literall taxed out of there homes, more
crime, less and less livable neighborhoods ....and yet our only response is to build more
monstrous mansions on ridiculously small lots and cr. in more stores.
I realize that growth is inevitable. But to allow our gr a wth to be determined by greedy
developers and city planners who seem to want to t Lake Oswego into downtown
Portland is irresponsible if not downright criminal. If'evelopment continues based on
how much money a few people can make from destro ing our beautiful community....
We, who used to be proud to live here, will all lose.
3
EXHIBIT G-3-17
Diane Brouhard 6 0 Atwater Road
ke Oswego OR 97034
5 3-636-1075
E all: broahard@hevanet-com
F : 503-210-0342
January 15,2002
City Council
Lake Oswego,Oregon 97034
Dear City Council,
I urge you not to pass the Planning Commission's density guidelines,Z 7-98(A)commonly called"minimum density".
I have lived in the Forest Highlands neighborhood since 1983. This nei: borhood is unique in Lake Oswego for its large
tracts of land and"out in the country"feel.
Passage of these density guidelines would hit Forest Highlands proba•ly harder than any other neighborhood in Lake
Oswego. These mandated"build to the max"density requirements wo Id totally and completely change the character of
our neighborhood. We would, without a doubt, lose the neighborh.•• quality that attracted most of us here in the first
place.
Lake Oswego already complies with the overall density requireme t imposed upon us by Metro. The Planning
Commission's density guidelines are unneeded and unwanted.
Please vote not to accept minimum density for Lake Oswego.
Respectfully, (11171'44lAr)
Diane Brouhard
620 Atwater Rd
Lake Oswego
3s3
EXHIBIT G-3-18
C 7- 8'64 )
FrF -111Fr
JAN 1 8 2002
Last Tuesday, 15 January 2002, Lake Oswego City Coin _. d iirlbV inst the
proposed zoning amendment intended to increase housing density which was mandated
by Metro.
Proposed by the Planning Commission, some City Counci ors had difficulty understanding
how it would work. Going farther than Metro wanted, th- Planning Commission added
"partition" of smaller lots.
Beside the amendment going farther than necessary, testi ony and the debate that followed
highlighted some serious flaws in Lake Oswego's zoning. For example: one neighborhood
was zoned for 7,500 sq ft lots when most of the lots were •nly 6,000 sq ft.. In another neigh-
borhood zoned for 10,000 sq ft, the lots are mostly over 1•,000 to well over 20,000 sq ft. Yet
another neighborhood zoned for 7,500 sq ft consists of to is mostly over 30,000 sq ft.
We need to get our house in order first.
At stake are homeowners' investments in their property a d the neighborhood character. Also
at stake is our faith and trust in government to do the righ thing.
In the larger view, it seems wrong for the Legislature to farce growth by requiring a 20 year
supply of buildable lots based on a projection from the las' 5 years building record. That is
blind extrapolation and , by any statistical method, patentl un-sound.
The use of the last 5 years of building records fails to take into account changes in population
growth rate (we are not growing as fast now), changes in he economy, sustainability of our
quality of life, and the costs of infrastructure (highways, s hools, etc.) which everyone must
pay for, and the effects on our environment.
We wonder if Metro doesn't base its forecasts on demand but simply forecasts supply. Since
most homes are built on speculation, builders seem to be hoping that"if you build it, they
will come".
We desperately need wise, thoughtful leadership and a concerned, enlightened electorate.
Henry Germond
Lake Oswego, OR
,-r�. - •�•.rise-v✓
Z24 / Q i /1,17k1 Imo'
3i. 5
EXHIBIT G-3-19
John P. Hutchison
VEr
13746 Cameo Ct.
� �
Lake Oswego, Or. JAN 2 8.2002
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
Dear City Council Members, Dept,of Planning&Devel�pmbnt
Thank you for the opportunity to express my o pinion retarding the density
guidelines, ZC 7-98 (A). I attended the meeting on J. uary 15 but was unable to stay
until my testimony could be heard. I am vehemently opposed to the minimum density
guidelines and encourage the Council to not adopt the planning commission
recommendations.
I am a resident of Forest Highlands and have • - •n since 1993. The area, as you
know, has been under close scrutiny by the City for some time now. As you also know,
each time this issue has arisen, the residents of Forest 'ghlands have strongly opposed
the minimum density guidelines. The guidelines will not help control density. Rather, it
will mandate the way a property owner must build ou i their property(if they so desire).
We will no longer be allowed to choose the way we t to develop our land. For
instance, if we own an acre of land we will not be abl:to build two houses on it, which
for the most part, would work within the character of he neighborhood. We would be
forced to divide the land so that as many as 4 or 5 ho es could eventually be built on the
property. This strategy and mandate does not fit the •l aracter of the neighborhood.
Currently, there are somewhere near 450 hous ng units within the Forest
Highlands area. If the minimum density guidelines we e fully enacted to the R7.5 zoning
approximately 750 units could be built in the area. That increase would completely
destroy the underlying infrastructure of the neighborhood. Consider the effect on our
schools alone. How would Forest Hills Elementary, L: e Oswego Junior High or Lake
Oswego High School function with this kind of increa e in student population? Since
Forest Highlands has traditionally been a"family area" could you imagine the problems
associated with this kind of population increase in this immediate area? This doesn't
begin to mention the issues with roads, sidewalks(cu ently there are very few) and
increased traffic hazards. In short, it just doesn't mak: sense to retrofit Forest Highlands
to the minimum density guidelines proposed by Metro.
In reviewing the current zoning for Forest Hit ands it seems a better approach
would be to reclassify the area to R15. This would re- It in a potential 250 additional
units(totaling @ 670) within the Forest Highlands ar- just 100 units shy of density
requirements, but much more in character with the exi• ing neighborhood. Interestingly,
if you review one of the developed areas (within Fores Highlands), Country Commons, I
think you will see the wisdom of the rezoning suggesti•n. This area has been built out
for years and completely falls within the city. Every house(or near everyone) is built on
a lot 15,000 square feet or more. It's the best model fo r the City Council to use, since it
falls within the city(not in unincorporated land) and is ompletely built out. It
characterizes the Forest Highlands community, with 1. ge homes situated on large lots. If
the City Council would rezone the area to a similar st. dard of R15 I believe you would
be protecting the vital interests of the Forest Highland ommunity.
'i1 '1
EXHIBIT G-3-20
RiFccirvFD
JAN 2 8 2002
January 24, 2002 CITY OF LAKE 05W EGO
TO: LAKE OSWEGO CITY COUNCIL/LAKE OS EGO REVIEW
Subject: Metro Mandated Density Rules
The Lake Oswego City Council has choices in finali.ing "Density Guidelines".
1. IT WOULD BE PRACTICAL AND PRUDE T FOR LAKE OSWEGO TO
PURSUE AN EXCEPTION TO THE METRO DENSITY REQUIREMENTS.
THIS IS AN OPTION TO RECONSIDER. 'his would preserve the character of
our community and our neighborhoods. Over the years we have built out and
built up with homes, apartments, townhouses and row houses and small
businesses in many areas of our community to meet our communities obligations
to secure a livable future and to meet our land use density obligations . Thirty-
five thousand people were planned to live her:. And up to 50,000 if we annexed
land. We have done our fair share and met the Metro objective of 35,000.
2. All of Westlake, Kruse Way, the redevelopme t of downtown Lake Oswego,
Oswego Pointe (once a cement plant and industrial area), Village on the Lake
were built to zoned and designed to meet the •ensity and transportation standards.
The issue before the Lake Oswego City Council reg• o ing Metro Density Rules has been
ongoing since at least 1982....20 years.
And 20 years ago, Lake Oswego had the planning too s and the land to determine how it
wanted to grown and how it should grow. The Comp ehensive plan created with major
input from citizens was a total participatory process. Over the years both the
Comprehensive Plan and the zoning codes and development standards have been revised
with citizen input to meet state and metro land use m.ndates. WE HAVE BEEN GREAT
PARTNERS. And we have had a great planning sta f,and commissions , who always
kept the quality of life vision front and center in the d-cision making process.
Back in 1982 both, then county Commissioner Darle e Hooley. and I, a Lake Oswego
City Councilor, became very much involved in the 1. guage challenge to keep a hand in
creating a framework plan that reflected our commun'ty's cultures in Clackamas County.
The argument around the table week after week...wa- local control regarding specifics of
land use planning and zoning. Density was an issue lack then. And each community
identified how much density its land could sustain, • • how we could meet statewide
planning goals.
Then Metro was born by the voters. Our current Mayer, Judie Hammeerstad played a
key role in this process and worked for years as a Co I ty Commissioner again struggling
for a regional land uses plan that made density and tr.! sportation sense to our Clackamas
County communities. Throughout the 80's and then he 90's we in Lake Oswego local
government testified and verified our density numbe . to Metro. We reiterated our
planning and zoning would meet or exceed the densit requirements.
3 + �%
EXHIBIT G-3-21
The framework plan, visionary process...every hum. endeavor to plan right in the
Metro region has been debated. And Lake Oswego as there day after day,week after
week.
The newly proposed Lake Oswego Zoning Code Amendments are without merit or
necessity.
The process as written will be CONFOUNDING A I' SUBJECTIVE TO
IMPLEMENT. WE could very well have piecemeal i edevelopment IN
NEIGHBORHOODS. My read on the text language I s that it is oddball with regards to
`partitioning' and creating `subdivisions ` in our neig l borhoods in the future.
Citizens who own a home or dwelling in Lake Osweg• should ask many
more questions of the City As proposed, the methodology for greater DENSITY IN
LAKE OSWEGO is CHILLING. The deadline to res.and to the current legislative text
amendments is January 29.
Most important however, is the question of WHY? Y SHOULD LAKE OSWEGO
ADOPT THIS NEW ZONING AMENDMENT AT ' L? We've been counting AND
MEETING our density and unit's obligations accordi i g to APPROVED PLANS AND
ZONING CODES.
There are numerous BLANK CANVASSES of land aiting for METRO'S creativity and
ingenuity to meet the next 20-year growth projections throughout the Portland
Metropolitan area. Already , they are planning for a -w Damascus city for example.
To go down this road and adopt the Zoning amendments, the overlay map concept,the
Future Development Plan concept and the Authorizati s n by"reviewing authority"
concept, will surely destroy, within a very short time, our mature and well planned
community. What is your VISION? That is the queston to be answered by those who
will make this final decision.
Alice Schlenker
Former Mayor
2 320
Rircpf_ ED
January 29, 2002
JAN2 92102
CITY OF LAKE O•WEGO
To: Lake Oswego City Council
Re: Minim density requirements
We are opposed to the proposed minim n density requirements and
the R7. 5 designation for much of the Fore:t Highlands Neighborhood.
We believe both would ultimately work aga nst What the city wants
to accomplish.
If owners were unable to sell just o e or two lots, they would
choose to do nothing. At the time they e ' entually had to sell, the
property could be purchased by a develope who would cut it into
7. 5 lots. These small lots, next to larg -r developed lots, would
result in a mish-mash of development.
The designation for the ,Forest Hight=: nds Neighborhood should be
30, 000 or 15,000 square foot lots. The p oposed zoning map shows a
few 7. 5 lots scattered in other neighborhoods and a huge chunk colored
green in our neighborhood, appearing to b- more than all the other
areas combined.
At the time the last master plan ( ov-rlay) was approved, the City
Planning Department was trying to impose = n R7. 5 designation on all of
the Forest Highlands Neighborhood. After months of stress and
negotiation, a new Planning Director took an objective look and found
the goals were being met by infilling and new construction of town-
houses, condos and apartments. This is s ill continuing. We found
that the majority of people working in the City Planning Department
do not live in the city and do not seem to understand the individual
neighborhoods.
Please don't destroy what we are all trying to achieve - a good
stable neighborhood. We have lived here ' or 45 years, some of our
neighbors for 50 and 60 years. Many year . ago we did a survey-dfi all
neighborhoods, and found we had the longest permanent residents,
averaging 17 years. At the same time, Mo .ntain Park averaged 3 to
4 years.
As neighbors we know and watch out for each other. Our survey
also found we had the lowest crime rate o , all neighborhoods.
Please don't tamper with success!
Thank you for your consideration.
Kathryn Stager
X_9ez-4( -6/Z7"-I
Ron Stager
13197 S.W. Thoma Road
Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034
,J
EXHIBIT G-3-2.2
Daniel G. Vizzini
13830 Verte Court.Lake Oswego,Oregon 97034.503-636-5607.vizzini@pcez.com
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Judie Hammerstad
Councilor Gay Graham p F c r T AT 1F D
Councilor Jack Hoffman
Councilor Ellie McPeak JAN 2 G �.
Councilor Carl Rodhe
Councilor Bill Schoen CITY OF LAKE VSvvLAV
Councilor John Turchi
FR: Dan Vizzini
13830 Verte Court
RE: Density Guidelines for Lake Oswego
DT: January 29, 2002
On February 5th, you will deliberate and vote on Density Guidelines. Your final decision must take into
consideration the aspirations and concerns of the entire community. It must be based on the long-term
health and wellbeing of the entire community. In doing so, you must clearly explain the need for these
rules for the entire community. And once your vote is recorded, you must commit to a set of follow-up
measures that strengthen the growth management tools for all of Lake Oswego.
I do not wish to diminish the issues and concerns of property owners from the rural areas of Forest
Highlands and Lake Grove. Their arguments in opposition to the proposal are valuable. Their
observations about the appropriateness of existing zoning designations need to be considered. Their
desire to perpetuate a rural pattern of development is understandable, as is their desire for urban levels of
public services.
However, the rural areas of Lake Grove and Forest Highlands are not representative of Lake Oswego.
Public policy for Lake Oswego should be informed by,but not dominated by the concerns of selected
areas of the community. Most of the other, developed neighborhoods in Lake Oswego face a
substantially different problem. In these neighborhoods, vacant or under-utilized lots are being
redeveloped in ways that are wholly inconsistent with the underlying zone or the character of neighboring
property. The problem has become so widespread that you commissioned an In-Fill Task Force last year.
In these neighborhoods, density guidelines represent a necessary tool for protecting neighborhood
character and livability.
We have heard plenty about Density Guidelines from those most animated to oppose it. I respectfully
offer a broader view based on my volunteer position as the chairman of the Planning Commission.
• Density Guidelines are intended to make sure that new developments comply with the safeguards
provided by City land use zoning regulations. These regulations are critical to protecting the
character of existing developed neighborhoods. They also ensure that emerging neighborhoods
develop in predictable and organized patterns.
3 3
• Density Guidelines do not require that divided land be developed. It is perfectly legal for someone to
comply with the Density Guidelines and still limit development to one or two structur
EXHIBIT G-3-23
Letter to the Lake Oswego City Council
RE: Density Guidelines
January 29, 2002—Page Two
• Density Guidelines are necessary because voluntary adherence to the zoning code has failed to protect
established neighborhoods from inappropriate in-fill development. Voluntary compliance has failed
to generate the types and volumes of development contemplated in the Comprehensive Plan, further
frustrating the City's ability to provide a stable level of essential public services.
• Density Guidelines are needed now because in-fill development continues unabated. They are needed
without delay because emerging, under-developed areas are building out in an inefficient manner that
will eventually increase the costs of community services;costs that will be born by the entire
community.
• Density Guidelines are imposed on partitions as well as subdivisions because to do otherwise would
be unfair and inequitable. If they are not applied to both partitions and subdivisions, the resulting
loophole will undermine City efforts to protect developed neighborhoods and guide the development
of emerging areas.
• Density Guidelines provide specific exemptions for dealing with sensitive natural resources,existing
houses, and other factors that might prevent property division at the 80% density level.
Finally, it is important to keep in mind that Density Guidelines do not exist in a vacuum. They are
necessary to strengthen our zoning regulations. The zoning regulations work in concert with our
Comprehensive Plan and Community Development Code to protect the quality of life in Lake Oswego.
All three tools need to be strengthened and refined.
To this end, you should pursue a comprehensive growth management strategy that strengthens and
coordinates all three land use tools.
1. Adopt Density Guidelines as recommended by the Planning Commission.
2. Implement recommendations that result from the work of the In-Fill Task Force, particularly related
to building design standards.
3. Extend the principles of the In-Fill Task Force to the entire city.
4. Fully fund the development and implementation of neighborhood plans.
5. Negotiate an agreement with Clackamas County regarding land use planning and development review
in unincorporated areas that are located within the urban services boundary.
6. Begin a public education process to prepare the community for the upcoming periodic review of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Density Guidelines are important to the future of Lake Oswego. But they are only a part of a much larger
strategy. The City Council must lead the community by placing Density Guidelines in its proper context,
as an important part of a comprehensive set of policies and actions to protect the quality of life in Lake
Oswego.
3 i4
Christie, Robyn
From: Heisler, Jane
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 4:23 PM
To: Christie, Robyn
Subject: FW: OPPOSITION TO ADOPTION OF MINIMUM DENSITY RULES
Original Message
From: Bea Hedlund Jmailto:beahedlund(a earthlinl<.netl
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 10:17 PM
To: Heisler, Jane
Cc: Mike Smith
Subject: OPPOSITION TO ADOPTION OF MINIMUM DENSITY RULES
City of Lake Oswego Mayor and Council:
As a trustee for my mother, Judith S. Hedlund, and for my deceased father, William H. Hedlund's
Estate which jointly owns a four plus acre property and home at 900 S.W. Atwater Road in the
unincorporated area of Forest Highlands, I wish to OPPOSE the adoption of Metro's 80%
minimum density rule without the partitioning exception which has been created despite being in
contradistinction to Metro's specific exclusion.
Where there is no harm; there is no foul since, on average over the last number of years, the
natural forces of the zoning and the development choices made have resulted in nearly a 90%
build out without the need for such a restrictive requirement. Not only do we oppose this new
unnecessary and unfair restriction on our property rights on a philosophic basis, but after studying
many aspects of the application of this rule in different cases, it is not that simple and, in some
instances, may be counter productive to good development policy and may tie the hands of not
only the property owner but the City if they were to determine that in some instances it is not
appropriate for a particular property vis a vis the surrounding neighborhood and the
circumstances of a particular property.
Your predecessor Councils heard the people and did not see fit to capitulate to the wishes of an
agency whose necessity and role is problematical and whose existence has been seriously
questioned. I do not think 1973's Senate Bill 100 enabling legislation contemplated governing
bodies ignoring citizen input which is the road you may be heading down hiding behind the notion
that it is a "requirement"of Metro to adopt this.
Some on the Council recently suggested, as I heard it, that the opinion of those outside the strict
limits of the City's boundaries perhaps do not have a full right to be heard. I take exception to
that. My mother and father bought their property from Paul Murphy of the Ladd Estate Co in
1938. My mother still resides in her house built in 1940. They have paid property taxes
supporting Lake Oswego Schools and other services for over 60 years!! My mother and her
family have a very strong and established right to comment on something that may well
determine the destiny of the property in a few years.
The fact that zoning affects a property has been a given for many years. The process of working
out the overlay zoning of the Comprehensive Plan affecting the unincorporated area of Forest
Highlands, primarily in the 80's, was a reasonable process. Some revisit to the specifics of the
Plan might be appropriate. However, the burden of minimum density is unreasonable and too
restrictive. Properties with natural features such as my Mother's are already regulated to an
appropriate degree. It should be the property owner who primarily decides what they want to do
with their property and what is an appropriate way to develop, if developed any further, given
what the zoning and reasonable rules might allow not the whim or broad brush notion of some
"Johnny come lately"administrator of a perhaps to be abolished agency which has no real good
understanding of the micro factors affecting a particular property in the vast area it is supposed 3 J
to oversee.
EXHIBIT G-3-24
The overlay zoning in Forest Highlands, which calls for a dramatic increase in density,will
probably over time significantly contribute to the continued increase in density of the a Lake
Oswego urban area within the urban growth boundary as established without the minimum
density requirement of Metro. If, in your wisdom, you were to adopt such a rule; it is imperative
that it not allow partitioning to be a part of it. Partitioning is a long and firmly established process
and right which should not be interfered with in this way. Metro is right on that.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit a statement of opinion on this issue.
Sincerely yours,
John H. Hedlund
240 S.W. Birdshill Loop
Portland, Oregon 97219
503-636-7529; 422-9421
3 • 6
From: Jack Smith [mailto:jacksmith48@attbi.com]
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 11:45 AM
To: Heisler, Jane
Subject: Minimum Density Comment for the Record
Jane, thank you for the impromptu visit with me last Friday that helped with some of the issues
that I am struggling with regarding dad's land. The office secretary advised that you are collecting
comment on the minimum density proposal to be voted on 5 Feb 2002. So could you please see
to it that my following comment is entered in the record.
Regards, Jack (Mike)Smith
To the City Council of Lake Oswego:
Ladies and Gentlemen of the Council, I would like to enter this comment on the subject of the
proposed minimum density ordnance in the record, and respectfully request that you take it into
consideration as you vote on this important measure.
My name is Jack Michael Smith and I am the Personal Representative for the Estate of Jack E.
Smith. Dad died last year leaving a 4 acre parcel of land that he purchased from the Oregon Iron
and Steel Company in 1943. This property is at 860 Atwater Road, Lake Oswego, OR, 97034. It
is in Clackamas County, but contiguous to the City. In due course we look forward to annexing to
the City. The property has significant environmental value as it is partially timbered with
magnificent old trees and covers a segment of the largest tributary to Tryon Creek, and is a mere
400 feet from Tryon Creek State Park.
While I have some empathy for the desire to implement Metro's scheme for efficient use of
buildable land, I stand with my Forest Highland neighbors in OPPOSITION to this measure. I will
not even attempt to provide novel rationale as you have no doubt heard it all. My opposition
simply stems from the principle that minimum density regulation is an unnecessary governmental
intrusion into private decision-making. Our appraiser has indicated that land subdivided into
smaller lots will bring the highest price on the open market. The free market will therefore
accomplish over time the same goal, without this objectionable measure.At least I would hope
you see fit to restore opportunity for partitioning if you must impose the minimum density rule on
us. Even Metro allows that! As a related matter, the present R 7.5 zoning overlay probably should
be changed to increase lot size in order to preserve the existing character of the neighborhood.
Respectfully,
JACK MICHAEL SMITH
3 ,,7
EXHIBIT G-3.25