HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Item - 2001-10-16 - Number 7.3 - 7.3
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 10/16/01
AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY
MEETING DATE: October 16, 2001
SUBJECT: Planning Commission's Recommendation to Approve
Amendments to LOC 48.20.535(4), Special Street Setbacks
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Move to approve LU 99-0020 and direct staff to prepare findings and finalize ordinance 2302 for
adoption.
EST. FISCAL ATTACHMENTS: NOTICED DATE:
IMPACT: Council Report dated October 4, 2001
October 16, 2001 Ordinance no. 2302
STAFF COST: (B) Planning Commission
Findings & Conclusion, Resolution no.: n/a
BUDGETED: June 11, 2001
Y N (C) Planning Commission
Minutes, May 30, 2001 Previous Council consideration:
(D) Staff Report dated
FUNDING SOURCE: May 11, 2001 (Exhibits Work Session-July 24, 2001
for this report are
available at the Planning
Dept.)
(El) Special Street
Setback Map
(F1) Draft Ordinance 2302
(F2) Frequently Asked
Questions & Graphic
Examples of Special
Street Setbacks Applied
(F3) Before &After Matrix
(including Deletion,
Modification, Addition
and No Change List)
COM NITY DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANT CITY CITY NAGER
DIRECT? MANAGER
20 (0/ ock
Signoff/ ate Signoff/date Signoff/date
L:\Case Files\1999\LU 99-0020-special street setbacks\City Concil\cover memo LU 99-0020.doc
002
``1
4 Of LAKE 0,4,,
430
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
OREGON COUNCIL REPORT
TO: Douglas J. Schmitz, City Manager
FROM: Sidaro Sin, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Planning Commission's Recommendation to Approve Amendments to LOC
48.20.535(4), Special Street Setbacks
DATE: October 1, 2001
ACTION:
The action before the City Council is to consider a recommendation made by the Planning
Commission at its May 30, 2001 meeting to approve LU 99-0020 and direct staff to prepare
findings and finalize Ordinance 2302 for adoption.
The City of Lake Oswego is requesting a Zoning Code text amendment to:
I. Update the roadways that are subject to the Special Street Setback Code Section. This
would result in removal of the special street setback on those roadways where right-of-way
widths have been determined to be adequate, and an increase in the special street setback for
some roadways due to future planned improvements.
2. Clarify the Purpose and Method of Measurement for LOC 48.20.535(4), Special Street
Setbacks, to ensure that it encompasses the need to anticipate all types of planned
transportation improvements and provide for a simplified method of measurement.
The proposed amendments are identified in Exhibit F1.
BACKGROUND:
On May 30, 2001, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to review this application.
Measure 56 notices were sent to those properties fronting on roadways for which the special street
setback is proposed to be expanded.
Council Report LU 99-0020 003 Page 1 of 6
Staff received approximately 13 phone calls requesting a clarification of the proposed amendments
and how they would affect individual properties. Staff discussed the issues raised by the citizen
callers. No additional issues were raised. In addition, at the public hearing, two people requested
information on how these proposed amendments affected their property. These questions were
addressed at the hearing. There were no further issues and the Planning Commission recommended
approval of this application to the City Council.
The proposed amendments are intended to update a section of the code that has been relatively
untouched since 1961.
The purpose of the Special Street Setback list is to ensure:
1. That new structures on a property are placed in areas where they would not interfere with
possible expanded acquisition of right-of-way width; and
2. Any new structures or surface improvements are set back far enough from the future right-
of-way so they would remain in compliance with the zone's required front yard setbacks
after the additional right-of-way was obtained.
Please refer to Exhibit F2, which provides examples of the application of the setbacks. In the four
examples, R-7.5 zoning, with a front yard setback of 25 feet and road right-of-way width of 40 feet
(20 feet from centerline on each side), is used for illustration purposes.
• Exhibit F2, Example 1 illustrates a typical street without the application of the special street
setback.
• Exhibit F2, Example 2 illustrates a roadway with the application of the special street
setback.
• Exhibit F2, Example 3 illustrates the placement of a newly constructed home on a roadway
that initially did not have the special setbacks, but now does.
• Exhibit F2, Example 4 illustrates the result from removal of the special street setback, which
functionally results in a reduction of the front yard setback.
Exhibit F2 also provides a summary of frequently asked questions regarding special street setbacks.
Applying the special street setback does not constitute a"taking" of property because the property
owner is still allowed to develop the parcel for its intended use based on the zoning of the parcel
and may use the area in the special street setback so long there are no structures placed in the
setback. The special street setback is similar to other required building setbacks (front, side and
rear yard setbacks) that are contained in the Zoning Code. Building setbacks are used to promote
adequate light, air, aesthetics and general public welfare. Similarly, special street setbacks promote
the public interest by providing a setback along rights-of-way which may be expanded in the future,
so that if the right-of-way is expanded, an adequate front yard setback will be preserved.
Another concern that the Council had was how additional right-of-way was acquired. As a point of
clarification, a distinction must be made between"rights-of-way" and "setbacks". A road right-of-
way is distinguished from a setback area because the property owner does not have the control of
the area which is subject to the right-of-way easement/dedication, whereas, the property owner
typically has use of the setback area as long as it is kept free of structures. Right-of-way is obtained
through two methods: 1) Exactions, which mitigate negative impacts of development and are
Council Report LU 99-0020 004 Page 2 of 6
1
imposed through a land use decision in the form of a condition of approval, or 2) City acquisition.
These methods of obtaining rights-of-way are discussed below:
1) Exactions: Right-of-way dedication is sometimes obtained by the City as a requirement of a
land use action, where a proposed development negatively impacts the surrounding street system.
For example, if a property owner wanted to partition their parcel into two lots, as a condition of
approval, the City would require that the property owner dedicate a certain amount of land along the
total roadway frontage as a means of mitigating the additional burdens to the street system created
by the development. The amount of dedication is based on the existing right-of-way and the impact
on the street system resulting from the development. The burden of proof is on the City to
demonstrate the "rough proportionality" correlation between the City's requirement to dedicate
additional right-of-way and the development proposal's level of impact on the street system. It is
common practice now to examine these exactions with minor partitions, subdivisions, planned
developments, commercial or multifamily land use developments.
2) City Acquisition: On some occasions the City may have the opportunity to acquire additional
right-of-way from property owners, either in title or by easement/dedication. An example of this
occurring is when a roadway has been identified for numerous transportation improvements based
on increased traffic volumes caused by one or more developments. Most of the right-of-way may
already be dedicated through exactions, but the necessary expanded right-of-way width may not be
fully dedicated. The City may opt to acquire the necessary right-of-way by title or
dedication/easement to make the necessary improvements.
For those parcels where the special street setback is being removed or reduced, such removal or
reduction of the special street setback is not a"vacation of the right-of-way". Removal or reduction
of the special street setback is akin to reduction of a building setback, i.e., front, side, or rear year.
It does not "vacate"the easement/dedication for public use of the right-of-way. When the special
street setback is removed, the easement/dedication of the existing right-of-way width is not affected,
and the parcel's front yard setback is measured from the edge of the existing right-of-way.
DISCUSSION:
The current Special Street Setback Code Section identifies 74 roadways that require special
setbacks. All functional classifications of streets are represented in this list. This section requires
updating because some streets on the list have been vacated, some have been fully improved, others
have undergone a change in functional classification and some of the written descriptions are tied to
obsolete City limit lines. Furthermore, the list is arranged in unrelated, generally alphabetical
blocks, which makes finding a particular street difficult.
The current Code language promotes flexible street standards, which emphasize neighborhood
livability. The policy language found under LOC 42.03.050, the General Standards for Local
Residential Streets lends itself to less stringent right-of-way requirements than past language, which
required 50-foot of right-of-way for a local street.
Due to changes in policy, plans and practices, the proposed amendments are required in order to
maintain an applicable list of streets with additional right-of-way needs and Code language that is
applicable to today's needs.
Council Report LU 99-0020 0 0 5 Page 3 of 6
The Public Facilities Plan (PFP), Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) and Transportation System Plan
(TSP) are all examples of plans that the Special Street Setbacks affect. Several of the streets
referred to in the 1961 version of the Special Street Setback Code Section are no longer relevant, as
the City limit has changed. Many more streets are not included as a result of the continued growth
of the City. The above plans include additional streets, which need to be included in the Special
Street Setback Code Section in order to accommodate future growth and maintain transportation
services at acceptable levels.
Amendments for Roadways Subject to Special Street Setbacks
As noted previously, the first area suggested for amendment is to update the roadways that are
subject to the Special Street Setback Code Section. Four lists: Deletion, Modification, Addition and
No Change (Exhibit F3 and identified in Exhibit El Map), have been developed from the original
list of 74 roadways. The attached lists in Exhibit F3 have been formatted to provide a snapshot of
each street; what it needs (or doesn't), and the reason(s)why it is changing or is not changing. The
Engineering staff obtained each street's existing right-of-way width from tax maps, then evaluated
each street's ability to accommodate anticipated improvements, given its present functional
classification and construction projects identified in the 20-year TSP. Extensive field work was
necessary to produce the recommendations in the lists. All of the proposed amendments are
consistent with the needs or proposals in either the PFP, CIP or TSP.
Summary of amendments:
• Deletion List consists of 44 roadways that are recommended for removal from the Special
Street Setback Code Section. They are primarily local streets with adequate rights-of-way.
• Modification List identifies 19 roadways whose descriptions should be re-worded or whose
special street setback should be modified. In most cases, the recommendation is for a
reduction in the special street setback.
• Addition List identifies 11 roadways including deficient rights-of-way the City has annexed,
or could annex because they are within the Urban Growth Boundary(UGB).
• No Change List identifies 14 roadways that are on the existing Special Street Setback List,
with no changes proposed to them.
The final number of roadways that would be subject to the Special Street Setback Code Section is
44.
Text Amendments for Purpose and Method of Measurement
The second area of amendment is text amendments to clarify: 1) The purpose of the special street
setback requirement and 2) The methodology used to ascertain the required right-of-way.
1) The current"purpose" statement, LOC 48.20.535(4), states, "Due to present or anticipated traffic
volumes, the following setbacks are established." This statement does not fully reflect the entire
uses of streets. Collector and arterial streets have traditionally served other functions: pedestrian
and bike facilities, desirable streetscape amenities, and alternative modes of travel. The special
street setback purpose statement should reflect the broader scope of these collector and arterial
streets. Staff would recommend that this "purpose statement"be broadened to include pedestrian
and bike facilities, as well as the need for streetscape amenities. The new proposed "purpose"
statement would read as follows:
Council Report LU 99-0020 Page 4 of 6
006
"Purpose. To preserve an obstruction-free area along public rights-of-way in anticipation of
future street improvements, such as additional lanes, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, transit
facilities, drainage management improvements, lighting, and street landscaping."
2) The current methodology used to ascertain the required special street setback is confusing and
does not reflect how it is actually determined in practice. The Code currently states that"Setbacks
are measured perpendicular from the centerline of the proposed total right of way which is the
common property line between abuttingproperties prior to any road dedication." Not in all cases is
the common property line between abutting properties the centerline of the dedicated right-of-way.
Requiring a search of the creation of the adjacent parcels to determine whether the dedication for
the right-of-way was equally given, or whether it was given all from one parcel, is unnecessary and
counterproductive to the purpose of the special street setback.
By taking the measurement from the established centerline of the right-of-way, the special street
setback width can be applied in an equal manner to the adjacent parcels abutting a right-of-way.
This change would conform to current practice: Whenever a property owner applies for some kind
of land use approval, the special street setback list is consulted for applicability. If the site's
frontage street is listed, the "special street setback" dimension is found. Typically, this dimension is
measured from the center of the right-of-way and a reference line is identified on the parcel. The
reference line is called the "special street setback line" and it represents the edge of the desired half
width of the right-of-way. The Zoning Code's front yard setback (or street side-yard setback in the
case of corner lots) is then measured from this reference line. This is illustrated in Exhibit F2,
Example 2.
Staff recommends that the methodology of establishing the line from which the special street
setback is measured -- centerline of the right-of-way v. common boundary line --be changed, to
follow current practices. The proposed amendments are described in Exhibit Fl.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt Ordinance 2302.
EXHIBITS
A. Notice of Appeal [No current exhibits reserved for hearing use]
B. Planning Commission Findings and Conclusion, June 11, 2001
C. Planning Commission Minutes, May 30, 2001
D. LU 99-0020 Planning Department's Staff Report Dated May 11, 2001 (Exhibits for
this report are available at the Planning Depailiiient)
E. GRAPHICS
El.Special Street Setback Map
Council Report LU 99-0020 07 Page 5 of 6
F. Written Materials
F1. Draft Ordinance 2302
F2. Frequently Asked Questions and Graphic Examples of Special Street
Setbacks Applied
F3. Before and After Matrix (including Deletion, Modification, Addition and No
Change list)
G. Letters -None
L:\Case Files\l 999\LU 99-0020-special street setbacks\City Council\Council Report LU 99-0020.doc
Council Report LU 99-0020 08
Page 6 of 6
1 BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION
2 OF THE
3 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
4
5
6 A REQUEST FOR A ZONING CODE TEXT ) LU 99-0020 - 1422
7 AMENDMENT TO LOC 48.20.535(4), ) (CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO)
8 SPECIAL STREET SETBACKS ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & ORDER
9
10 NATURE OF APPLICATION
11
12 A Legislative Zoning Code Text Amendment to LOC 48.20.535(4), Special Street Setbacks. This
13 amendment will update the list of roadways in the City that would be subject to the special street
14 setbacks requirement.
15
16 HEARINGS
17
18 The Planning Commission held a public hearing and considered this application at its meeting of
19 May 30, 2001.
20
21 CRITERIA AND STANDARDS
22
23 A. City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan:
24
25 Goal 1: Citizen Involvement Policies 5, 10
26
27 Goal 2: Land Use
28 Section 1: Land Use Policy 4(d)
29 Section 2: Community Design &Aesthetics Polices 1(d), 4
30
31 Goal 12: Transportation
32 Subgoal 1: Major Street System, Policies 1(a), 7
33 Subgoal 2: Inter-Governmental Coordination, Policy 1(e)
34 Subgoal 6: Walking, Policy 4
35 Subgoal 7: Bicycling, Policy 1
36
37 B. Metro Urban Growth Functional Plan
38 Title 6 —Regional Accessibility
39
40 C. Statewide Planning Goals
41 Goal 1 —Citizen Involvement
42 Goal 2 —Land Use Planning
43 Goal 12 —Transportation
EXHIBIT B
009
LU 99-0020 (1422) PAGE 1
1
2 D. City of Lake Oswego Development Standards:
3 LOC 49.16.010 Purpose
4 LOC 49.20.115 Major Development
5 LOC 49.22.200 Burden of Proof
6 LOC 49.36.000-.710 Application Procedures
7 LOC 49.44.900-.920 Review of Major Development Applications
8 and Appeals
9 LOC 49.46 Hearings before a Hearing Body
to LOC 49.60.1500(2) Legislative Decision Defined
11 LOC 49.60.1510 Required Notice to DLCD
12
13 CONCLUSION
14
15 The Planning Commission concludes that LU 99-0020 is in compliance with all applicable
16 criteria.
17
18 FINDINGS AND REASONS
19
20 The Planning Commission incorporates the staff report, dated May 11, 2001, on LU 99-0020
21 (with all exhibits attached thereto) as support for its decision. The Commission adopts by
22 reference its oral deliberations on this matter.
23
24 ORDER
25
26 IT IS ORDERED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION of the City of Lake Oswego that:
27
28 1. The Planning Commission recommends that LU 99-0020 be approved by the City
29 Council.
30
31 I CERTIFY THAT THIS ORDER was presented to and APPROVED by the Planning
32 Commission of the City of Lake Oswego.
33
34
35 DATED this 11th day of June 2001.
36
37
38
39
40 Daniel Vizzini, Acting Chair
41 Planning Commission
42
43
44 Iris Treinen
45 Senior Secretary
• - 010
LU 99-0020 (1422) PAGE 2
1
2 ATTEST:
3
4 PRELIMINARY DECISION - May 30, 2001
5
6 AYES: Edwards, Groznik, Johnson, Vizzini, Waring
7 NOES: None
8 ABSTAIN: None
9 ABSENT: Beebe, Sandblast
10
11 ADOPTION OF FINDINGS AND ORDER - June 11, 2001
12
13 AYES: Edwards, Groznik, Johnson, Vizzini
14 NOES: None
15 ABSTAIN: None
16 ABSENT: Waring
17 RECUSED: Sandblast, Webster
18
oil
LU 99-0020 (1422) PAGE 3
012
ippi3DiwED
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
Lt
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
May 30, 2001
\�OREGON�
CALL TO ORDER
Acting Chair Daniel Vizzini called the Planning Commission meeting of Monday, May
30, 2001 to order at 6:33 p.m. in the Council Chamber of City Hall, at 380 "A" Avenue,
Lake Oswego, Oregon.
II. ROLL CALL
Members present were Acting Chair Vizzini and Commissioners Ray Edwards, Frank
Groznik, James Johnson and David Waring. Chair William Beebe and Commissioner
Kenneth Sandblast were excused.
Staff present were Jane Heisler, Community Planning Manager; Robert Galante,
Director, Lake Oswego Redevelopment Agency; Sidaro Sin, Associate Planner; Evan
Boone, Deputy City Attorney and Iris Treinen, Senior Secretary.
III. CITIZEN COMMENT - Regarding Issues Not On the Agenda
None.
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner Edwards moved to approve the Minutes of April 23, 2001.
Commissioner Waring seconded the motion and it passed with Commissioners
Edwards and Waring voting yes. Acting Chair Vizzini and Commissioners Groznik and
Johnson recused themselves. There were no votes against.
V. GENERAL PLANNING— WORK SESSION
Update on Redevelopment Activity
Robert Galante, Redevelopment Agency Director, reported the progress of
redevelopment on Blocks 136 and 138 and Millennium Park. He announced that an
undisclosed retail tenant had agreed to lease the ground floor of the retail/office building
facing A Avenue from Block 136 and that Windermere Realtors had leased the upper
floor. He noted that the remainder of the block would feature town homes. He advised
that a traffic diverter had been installed to discourage traffic from flowing into nearby
City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission - 013 Page 1 of 15
Minutes of May 30,2001 EXHIBIT C
residential areas at the request of the adjacent neighborhood association. He showed
illustrations and building elevations for Block 138. He pointed out two structures that
would face the park and he advised that it was possible that the high local demand for
restaurants might mean that both buildings would include a restaurant. He pointed out
the pattern of retail uses at ground level and one or two levels of office uses above the
retail. He advised that the four-level parking structure would be fairly hidden behind
other buildings. He also advised that Downtown Design Standards called for English
Tudor, American Rustic and Arts and Crafts design styles, but did not require exact
historic reproductions. He clarified that the purpose of redevelopment was to establish
vitality and a sense of place downtown and the design was to focus on the streetscape
and storefronts. He explained the garage would accommodate 336 parking spaces and
its floor levels and ceiling heights were planned to provide access for delivery vehicles
and pedestrian access to the adjacent retail and office uses. He noted that the below
grade level was for employee parking, the two middle levels would serve the general
public and retail customers and the upper level would serve the office use. He advised
that he was to meet with neighborhood residents to discuss the project and would then
participate in a preapplication conference with the staff. He anticipated the proposal
would be ready for Development Review Commission review in the fall of 2001.
Mr. Galante noted that although some residents had initially felt that there was an excess
of paving at Millennium Park, use of the Park showed that even more paved area would
have been useful there. He pointed out a parcel of land that the City did not yet own
where the original plan had shown a grand staircase down to the lake from First Street.
He explained that construction of the staircase would require the City to acquire a
second railroad crossing, but the railroad was not inclined to agree to a crossing because
they anticipated a future time when they would need to install two tracks to
accommodate passenger traffic. He said the City had hired an attorney to negotiate
crossing agreements. He clarified that the Union Pacific Railroad owned the tracks and
leased them to the Northern and Western Railroad. He advised that the City had
previously purchased two segments of track and a pedestrian/park easement within the
corridor; however, part of the easement had been subsequently classified as a "wetland
edge" that could not be disturbed, which meant the walkway had to be located closer to
the railroad tracks. He related that the City owned a crossing at Third Street and had
also purchased a tract of developable land (for up to 24 lots) that extended into the water
at Third Street. He explained that the purchase had been intended to protect the public
view of Lakewood Bay and provide for access for emergency services. He anticipated
that an extension of the Park would be constructed in the area of some existing garages
serving an adjacent condominium project after an underground parking structure was
built that would also the condominiums. He also anticipated the Park's tree grove
would be expanded, basalt walls would be extended, and a handicapped ramp would
provide access to the lower plaza.
Mr. Galante anticipated that improvement of a segment of First Street between A and B
Avenues would begin in August 2001. He said the City intended to encourage ground
level retail along the street, which would feature brick buildings, sidewalks and streets
City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission 014 Page 2 of 15
Minutes of May 30,2001
and a pedestrian orientation. He noted there was to be a mid-block pedestrian crossing.
He said the City was preparing to focus its redevelopment efforts on the blocks across A
Avenue from Blocks 136, 137 and 138 and the Foothills Road area. He clarified for the
Commissioners that a green park would be planted on top of the underground parking
structure at the park, and that the original plan for Lake Plaza had been changed after
public comments indicated citizens desire to maintain a walking path there. He also
clarified that the Redevelopment Agency's top priorities at Millennium Park were to
obtain a grade crossing, then to build the walkway and handicapped ramp in late 2001 or
early 2002.
Mr. Galante shared with the Commissioners that Michael Wheeler, Associate Planner,
was leaving his position after nearly 15 years of employment with the City. He
encouraged any Commission members who had the opportunity to work with Mr.
Wheeler to give him a call and thank him for his services.
VI. PUBLIC HEARING
LU 99-0020, a request by the City of Lake Oswego for a Zoning Code Text amendment
to LOC 48.20.535(4), Special Street Setbacks (SSS). This amendment will update the
list of roadways in the City that would be subject to the special street setbacks
requirement. Staff Coordinator was Sidaro Sin, Associate Planner.
Acting Chair Vizzini opened the public hearing and explained the procedures and time
limits to be followed. He asked the Commissioners to report exparte contacts, biases or
conflicts of interest related to the application. None were reported. No one challenged
any Commissioner's right to hear the application.
Sidaro Sin, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. He said the City was
requesting the Zoning Code Text Amendment to the Special Street Setback section of
the code in order to update roadways where the Special Setback requirements were to
apply and to clarify the preamble of that section regarding the purpose and methodology
in which to ascertain the required right of way. He advised that few changes had been
made to the Special Street Setback section since 1961 and the proposed changes would
make it more consistent with the Transportation System Plan (TSP), City limit
boundaries, the Capital Improvement Plan and the Public Facilities Plan. He said the
Special Street Setback ensured that new structures were placed in areas that would not
interfere with future expanded us of the right of way and that any property
improvements would be set back far enough from the required right of way to ensure
they were in compliance with the zone's required front yard setback after additional
right of way was dedicated or acquired. He clarified that changes in streets and street
functional classification and references to obsolete City limits required the changes. If
additional right of way were shown, the City would either acquire it or obtain it as a
condition of approval for land partitions or development. He noted that the City
proposed to add 11 roadways to the SSS requirement to accommodate future
improvements - including bike and pedestrian lanes— and modify it along 18 roadways.
City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission 015 Page 3 of 15
Minutes of May 30, 2001
He pointed out that most of the changes indicated right of way reductions that typically
were approximately five feet. He said 45 roadways would be deleted form the SSS
listing because they currently featured adequate right of way for planned future
improvements. He noted no change was proposed for 14 roadways on the list.
Mr. Sin said the text amendments proposed to broaden the purpose of the SSS
requirement to indicate that public rights of way were to preserve an obstruction-free
area so they could accommodate future street improvements. He said the amendments
clarified that the reference line was to be established by measuring from the centerline
of the right of way. He noted the current methodology referenced a common property
line between abutting properties prior to any road dedication. He said that did not apply
to many circumstances the City encountered. He advised the application had met the
burden of proof and complied with all applicable criteria in the Comprehensive Plan.
He recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the
application.
Commissioner Groznik noted that portions of Carman Road would be treated differently
if the proposal were adopted. Mr. Sin explained that some sections of Carman Road
already included adequate right of way. He clarified that the width of the right of way
was tied to a street's functional classification. He noted that the centerline of most
streets was known, but in some areas, such as a section of Boones Ferry Road, the
centerline had been changed over time, so staff was recommending that it be 50 feet
from the centerline at this time until the Boones Ferry Road Corridor Study was
completed. The Boones Ferry Road Corridor Study would supersede the 50 foot SSS
required and it would also locate the centerline and determine what the appropriate
right-of-way should be.
Proponents
None.
Opponents
None.
Neither For Nor Against
John D. Klosterman, 5605 Washington Court, Lake Oswego, 97035, asked how the
proposal would impact his property value. He explained he owned a substandard sized
lot along Washington Court and he was not certain where the centerline of the roadway
was located. He wondered if the proposal would mean that his front yard would be
reduced.
Mr. Sin advised that Washington Court was identified as a part of the improvement
area, and the proposal would enlarge the existing 40-foot wide right of way to 50 feet
there. He noted the additional 10 feet would come from the frontage of properties along
City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission 0-16 Page 4 of 15
Minutes of May 30,2001
Washington Court (generally, 5 feet from each side). He also advised that the City
proposed to improve streets to the City's minimum standard paved area of 20 feet wide.
He noted that since a large portion of Washington Court was still in the County, that
would not happen until the City annexed the area. Mr. Klosterman explained that his
property was within the City and he understood that the City planned to improve the
roadway this summer.
Jane Heisler, Community Planning Manager, explained that if he planned to build a
structure on his lot he would need to measure 25 feet from the roadway centerline to
find his front boundary and then measure the zone's required front yard setback from
that point. Mr. Klosterman indicated he desired more specific information regarding
how the amendment would impact his lot.
Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney, advised that property owners could request a
variance from the front yard setback requirement in order to provide sufficient space for
a single family dwelling. Mr. Klosterman stressed that he did not want any reduction in
his front yard. He asked if the City could establish exactly where the centerline was
located in front of his property. Ms. Heisler confirmed that City staff would accomplish
that.
Marianna O'Brien, Barette Properties, PO Box 906, Lake Oswego, 97034, stated
that she owned that Lake Grove Shopping Center at Bryant and Boones Ferry Road.
She asked what the City planned for those roadways. The staff explained that the
Boones Ferry Road Corridor was currently being studied and the City's proposal for
changes in the SSS would not impact the roadway along her property per se, because no
changes to Bryant Road were being proposed. However, the Boones Ferry Road
Corridor Study would dictate what improvements are made on Boones Ferry Road.
Acting Chair Vizzini closed the public hearing and opened deliberations.
Deliberations
Commissioner Edwards moved to recommend that City Council approve LU 99-
0020. Commissioner Edwards seconded the motion and it passed with Acting Chair
Vizzini and Commissioners Edwards, Groznik, Johnson and Waring voting yes. There
were no votes against. Acting Chair Vizzini announced the final vote on LU 99-0020
would be held on June 11, 2001.
LU 01-0010, a request by the City of Lake Oswego for an amendment to the City's
Urban Service Boundary (USB) to bring the subject properties into the City's USB and
apply a Comprehensive Plan designation of General Commercial District (GC) to Tax
Map/Lot 21E18BC00100 and Industrial Park District (IP) to the railroad right-of-way,
Tax Map/Lot 21E18(Index)00300. The parcels are located along the north side of
Boones Ferry Road between Jean Way and 63rd Avenue. The railroad right-of-way
City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission 017 Page 5 of 15
Minutes of May 30, 2001
618
�LAKE p
7 \ STAFF REPORT
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
_pREGO PLANNING DIVISION
APPLICANTS FILE NO
City of Lake Oswego LU 99-0020
PROPERTY OWNERS STAFF
N/A Sidaro Sin
LEGAL DESCRIPTION DATE OF REPORT
Transportation Right-of-Way May 11, 2001
LOCATION DATE OF HEARING
City-wide May 30, 2001
COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION ZONING DESIGNATION
N/A N/A
NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION
All
I. APPLICANT'S REQUEST
The City of Lake Oswego is requesting a Zoning Code text amendment to:
1. Clarify the preamble for LOC 48.20.535(4) Special Street Setbacks
2. Update the Special Street Setback List
The proposed amendments are identified in Exhibit Fl.
II. RECOMMENDATION
This application has met the burden of proof that the proposed Zoning Code text
amendment complies with all applicable criteria. Staff recommends that the Planning
Commission recommend approval of LU 99-0020 to the City Council.
EXHIBIT D
019 LU 99-0020
Page 1 of 13
III. 120-DAY DECISION DATE N/A
IV. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
A. City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan:
Goal 1: Citizen Involvement Policies 5, 10
Goal 2: Land Use
Section 1: Land Use Policy 4(d)
Section 2: Community Design & Aesthetics Polices 1(d), 4
Goal 12: Transportation
Subgoal 1: Major Street System, Policies 1(a), 7
Subgoal 2: Inter-Governmental Coordination, Policy 1(e)
Subgoal 6: Walking, Policy 4
Subgoal 7: Bicycling, Policy 1
B. Metro Urban Growth Functional Plan
Title 6 —Regional Accessibility
C. Statewide Planning Goals
Goal 1 — Citizen Involvement
Goal 2 —Land Use Planning
Goal 12 — Transportation
D. City of Lake Oswego Development Standards:
LOC 49.16.010 Purpose
LOC 49.20.115 Major Development
LOC 49.22.200 Burden of Proof
LOC 49.36.000-.710 Application Procedures
LOC 49.44.900-.920 Review of Major Development
Applications and Appeals
LOC 49.46 Hearings before a Hearing Body
LOC 49.60.1500(2) Legislative Decision Defined
LOC 49.60.1510 Required Notice to DLCD
LU 99-0020
020 Page 2of 13
V. FINDINGS
A. Background:
The proposed amendments are intended to update a section of the code that
has been relatively untouched since 1961.
The purpose of the special street setback list has been to ensure:
1. That new structures on a property were placed in areas where they would
not interfere with the future expanded use of the right-of-way; and
2. Any new structures or surface improvements were set back far enough
from the future right-of-way so they would remain in compliance with the
zone's required front yard setbacks after the additional right-of-way was
dedicated.
The current Special Street Setback Section identifies 74 streets that require
special setbacks (Exhibit F2). All functional classifications of streets are
represented in this list. The list is arranged in unrelated, generally
alphabetical blocks, which makes finding a particular street difficult. This
section requires updating because some streets on the list have been vacated,
some have been fully improved, others have undergone a change in functional
classification and some of the written descriptions are tied to obsolete City
limit lines.
There are two areas of amendments proposed for the Special Street Setback
Section: 1) Street right-of-way requirements; and 2) Text amendments to
clarify the purpose of this section and the methodology used to ascertain the
required right-of-way. The proposed amendments are identified in Exhibit F l.
Discussion
Due to changes in policy, plans and practices these amendments are required
in order to maintain an applicable list of streets with additional right-of-way
needs and Code language that is applicable to today's needs.
The policy language found under LOC 42.03.050, the General Standards for
Local Residential Street (Exhibit F3), lends itself to less stringent right-of-way
requirements than past language, which required 50-foot of right-of-way for a
local street. The current Code language promotes flexible street standards
which emphasizes neighborhood livability.
The Public Facilities Plan, Capital Improvements Plan and Transportation
System Plan (TSP) are all examples of plans that the Special Street Setbacks
affect. Several of the streets referred to in the 1961 version of the Special
street setback Section are no longer relevant, as the City limit has changed.
Many more streets are not included as a result of the continued growth of the
City. The above plans include additional streets, which need to be included in
•
021 LU 99-0020
Page 3 of 13
the Special Street Setback Section in order to accommodate future growth and
maintain transportation services at acceptable levels.
As noted previously, the first area suggested for amendment is street right-of-
way requirements. Four lists: Deletion, Modification, Addition and No
Change (Exhibit F4 and Exhibit El Map), have been developed from the
original list of 74 streets. The attached list has been formatted to provide you
with a snapshot of each street, what it needs (or doesn't), and the reason(s)
why. The Engineering staff obtained each street's existing right-of-way width
from tax maps, then evaluated each street's ability to accommodate
anticipated improvements, given its present functional classification and
construction projects identified in the 20-year TSP. Extensive field work was
necessary to produce the recommendations in the lists.
The deletion list is a compilation of streets recommended for removal from
the Special Street Setback Section. They are primarily local streets with
adequate rights-of-way. The modification list is a compilation of streets
whose descriptions should be re-worded, or whose special street setback
should be modified. In most cases, the recommendation is for a reduction in
the special street setback. The addition list includes deficient rights-of-way
the City has annexed, or could annex because they are within the Urban
Growth Boundary(UGB). The No Change list identifies roadways that are on
the existing Special Street Setback List, with no changes proposed to them.
The second area of amendment is text amendments to clarify the purpose of
the special street setback requirement and the methodology used to ascertain
the required right-of-way.
LOC 48.20.535(4) states, "Due to present or anticipated traffic volumes, the
following setbacks are established." This statement no longer adequately
reflects the reason why there are special street setbacks. This statement
should reflect the broader scope of current policies which promote
neighborhood friendly streets and alternative modes of travel. Staff would
recommend that this "purpose statement"be broadened to include pedestrian
and bike facilities, as well as the room needed to install desirable streetscape
amenities.
In addition, the method to determine the required right-of-way setback is no
longer applicable to all situations. Whenever a property owner applies for
some kind of land use approval, the list is consulted for applicability. If the
site's frontage street is listed, the "special street setback" dimension is found
at the end of its name. Typically, this dimension is measured from the center
of the right-of-way and a reference line is identified on the parcel. The
reference line is called the"special street setback line" and it represents the
edge of the desired half right-of-way. The Zoning Code's front yard setback
022 LU 99-0020
Page 4 of 13
(or street side-yard setback in the case of corner lots) is then measured from
this reference line.
Unfortunately, this method is unreliable in many ways. This method fails to
deliver a rational product under certain circumstances. For example, when a
right-of-way evolved by the platting of two "unequal halves" (Pilkington
Road, Exhibit F5), the problem is exacerbated. The Code directs you to take a
measurement from "the common property line between abutting properties
prior to any road dedication." This can mean a substantial exaction of right-
of-way from a lot abutting the "narrow half', but none from its counterpart on
the other side of the road. The Code is not sensitive to the fact that the
neighborhood's structures were placed equidistant from the edges of the right-
of-way. Strict adherence to the Code would upset the historic and
symmetrical development pattern by taking a disproportionate strip of right-
of-way from one side.
Another quandary with the current methodology is that it is not sensitive to
the fact that a legal centerline can shift over time, as in the case of Boones
Ferry Road (Exhibit F6), and that adjacent development has occurred with
reliance on the new centerline. In addition, it does not recognize that
improvements can be significantly offset from a centerline, regardless of how
"centerline" is defined. This has a significant bearing on where strips of
additional right-of-way should be acquired.
Based on the above problems with the current methodology, staff has
recommended that a new method of measurement for the special street
setback requirement be followed.
B. Compliance with Criteria for Approval:
As per LOC 49.22.200, the applicant shall bear the burden of proof that the
proposal complies with all applicable review criteria. Adequate evidence has
been provided to enable staff to perform a thorough evaluation to determine
compliance with applicable criteria, listed on page 2 of this report.
A. CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
POLICIES
GOAL 1: CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT
Policies 5 and 10
5. Seek citizen input through service organizations, interest groups
and individuals, as well as through neighborhood organizations.
023 LU 99-0020
Page 5 of 13
10. Provide opportunities for citizens to be involved in the planning
process, including data collection, plan preparation, adoption,
implementation, evaluation and revision.
Findings: This application addresses policies 5 and 10 above.
Pursuant to the requirements of a legislative process, announcements for the
proposed Zoning Code text amendments have been provided to all
Neighborhood Associations. In addition, notices pursuant to Measure 56
requirements have been provided to all property owners which may be
affected by this legislative action.
Citizens, interest groups, and neighborhood association will have an
opportunity to participate in the review of the proposed amendment during the
City's public hearing processes.
Conclusion: The application complies with Goal 1, Citizen Involvement
Policies 5 and 10.
GOAL 2: LAND USE PLANNING
Section 1, Land Use, Policy 4(d)
Section 2, Community Design and Aesthetics, Policies 1(d) & 4
4. Require land use regulations to:
d. Provide for necessary public facilities and services.
Findings: The City's Special Street Setback section of the Zoning Code has
been relatively untouched since 1961. This section requires updating because
some streets on the list have been vacated, some have been fully improved,
others have undergone a change in functional classification and some of the
written descriptions are tied to obsolete City limit lines.
The purpose of the special street setback list is to ensure:
• That new structures on a property are placed in areas where they
would not interfere with the future expanded use of the right-of-way;
and
• Any new structures or surface improvements are set back far enough
from the future right-of-way so they will remain in compliance with
the zone's required front yard setbacks after the additional right-of-
way was dedicated.
By updating this section of the Zoning Code, the City is establishing and
preserving an obstruction free area along public rights-of-way in anticipation
of future street improvements, such as additional lanes, pedestrian and bicycle
024 LU 99-0020
Page 6 of 13
facilities, transit facilities, drainage management improvements, lighting and
street landscaping.
Those rights-of-way that have been added to the list of Special Street Setbacks
have been added because they have been identified for improvements in either
the City's Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), Transportation System Plan
(TSP), or have been identified as not meeting the City's minimum standards
for urban services such, as not have a minimum of 20-feet of pavement for a
roadway. The funding source for many of these improvements have yet to be
identified.
The City would make findings and require dedication of these additional
rights-of-way when they are proportional to the land development. These
exactions would be required for minor partitions, subdivisions, planned
developments, commercial or multifamily land use decisions. On occasion,
these exactions could be required for lot line adjustments, if the adjustment
resulted in creating additional buildable lands.
Conclusion: The application complies with Goal 2, Section 1, Policy 4(d).
1. Enact and maintain regulations and standards which require:
d. Measures to foster a safe and interesting transit and pedestrian
environment.
Findings: The minimum right-of-way standards found in the City's Special
Street Setback regulation establishes an obstruction free area in which facility
improvements can occur. These improvements include transportation
facilities such as bike/pedestrian lanes, transit facilities, lighting and street
landscaping. All of these improvements enhance the security and aesthetic
quality of roadways.
Conclusion: The application complies with Goal 2, Section 2, Policy 1(d).
4. Ensure that both public and private development enhance the
aesthetic quality of the community.
Findings: The Special Street Setback Section establishes unobstructed rights-
of-way in which transportation improvements are anticipated.
As previously noted, the City would require developers to provide transit
improvements to City standards that are proportional to a development. These
transportation improvements could include street landscaping, bike lanes,
sidewalks and lighting, all of which serve to enhance the aesthetic quality of
the community.
025 LU 99-0020
Page 7 of 13
Public improvements are subject to the same design and improvements
standards as a private developer. In cases where additional right-of-way is
required and no private development has been proposed, the City may opt to
make public improvements and acquire the additional right-of-way, depending
on such factors as public need, timing and funding.
Conclusion: The application complies with Goal 2, Section , Policy 4.
GOAL 12: TRANSPORTATION
Subgoal 1: Major Street System, Policies 1(a), 7
Subgoal 2: Inter-Governmental Coordination, Policy 1(e)
Subgoal 6: Walking, Policy 4
Subgoal 7: Bicycling, Policy 1
Subgoal 1: Major Street System
1. The arterial and major collector street network shall be designed
and maintained to service level "E" during peak hours. The
design of the roadway system shall also take into consideration:
a. Balancing roadway size and scale with the need to provide
efficient and safe transportation for all modes of travel,
including bike,pedestrian and transit.
Findings: In 1998, the City adopted its TSP. Within the TSP a system of
hierarchical street classifications was developed with local streets being the
smallest, least intensive roadways and major arterials being the widest and
most intensively used roadways. Within these classifications, street
improvements have been identified as appropriate in relation to the
classification of the roadway. These improvements are anticipated to be
implemented as the street system is developed over time. In addition to road
classification, another element of the TSP is the Streets Public Facilities Plan.
The state administrative rules for public facilities planning requires
communities to provide a list of short, mid and long range projects that it
foresees for all modes of transportation, estimated costs of these projects,
approximate locations and possible funding sources.
The Special Street Setback regulation takes into consideration specific
roadways that have been identified in the TSP for additional right-of-way
acquisition. These additional rights-of-way are directly related to and support
the Streets Public Facilities Plan of the TSP. The ultimate result of
implementing the Special Street Setback Section and Streets Public Facilities
Plan of the TSP is a logical, hierarchical comprehensive transportation system
that enhances the aesthetic and functional qualities of the City's roadways.
026 LU 99-0020
Page 8 of 13
Conclusion: The application complies with Goal 12, Subgoal 1, Policy 1(a).
7. Streets designated as Regional Streets on the Regional
Transportation Plan, shall be designed with consideration of the
following when reconstruction or retrofitting occurs:
a. Promoting community livability by balancing all modes of
transportation;
b. Relating the street to the function and character of
surrounding land uses; and
c. Controlling access to improve safety, function and appearance
of streets and adjacent land uses.
Findings: On August 10, 2000, the Metro Council adopted the 2000 Regional
Transportation Plan (2000 RTP). The 2000 TRP has been submitted to the
Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission for
acknowledgement (a decision of compliance is expected by Summer of 2001).
The 2000 TRP Regional Street Design System Map identifies portions of
State Street (Highway 43), portions of Boones Ferry Road, Kruse Way and
Country Club Road as "Regional Streets. The objective of the Regional Street
design is to support local implementation of regional street design concepts in
local transportation system plans.
The City's TSP takes the above considerations into account, as discussed in
Goal 12, Subgoal 1, Policy 1(a).
Conclusion: The application complies with Goal 12, Subgoal 1, Policy 7.
Subgoal 2: Inter-Governmental Coordination, Policy 1(e)
1. Lake Oswego shall develop a Comprehensive Transportation
System (TSP) in conjunction with Clackamas County and
adjacent counties where appropriate, the State of Oregon, Tri-
Met, and Metro for the area within the City's Urban Services
Boundary. The Comprehensive Transportation System Plan
shall:
e. Describe public transportation services and identify service
inadequacies.
Findings: As previously discussed under Goal 12, Subgoal 1, Policy 1(a), an
element of the•TSP is the Streets Public Facilities Plan, which specifically
addresses this criterion.
Conclusion: The application complies with the Goal 12, Subgoal 2, Policy
1(e).
027 LU 99-0020
Page 9 of 13
Subgoal 6: Walking, Policy 4
4. The City shall make the pedestrian environment safe, convenient,
attractive and accessible for all users through:
a. Planning and developing a network of continuous sidewalks,
pathways, and crossing improvements that are accessible per
the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA).
b. Providing adequate and safe street crossing opportunities for
pedestrians, and
c. Improving street amenities (e.g., landscaping, pedestrian-scale
street lighting, benches and shelters) for pedestrian,
particularly near transit centers, town centers, main streets,
employment centers, and transit corridors serving the primary
transit network.
Findings: As previously discussed in this staff report, the Special Street
Setback Section provides the opportunity to develop safe, convenient and
aesthetically sensitive pedestrian facilities.
Conclusion: The application complies with Goal 12, Subgoal 6, Policy
4.
Subgoal 7: Bicycling, Policy 1
1. Integrate bicycle access needs into planning, design, construction
and maintenance of all transportation projects.
Findings: As previously discussed in this staff report, the Special Street
Setback Section provides the opportunity to develop safe and convenient
bicycling facilities.
Conclusion: The application complies with Goal 12, Subgoal 7, Policy
1.
B. CONSISTENCY WITH METRO'S URBAN GROWTH
FUNCTIONAL PLAN
The Metro Urban Growth Functional Plan was approved November 21, 1996
by the Metro Council, and became effective February 19, 1997. The purpose
of the plan is to implement the Regional Urban Growth Goals and Objectives
(RUGGO), including the 2040 Growth Concept. The Functional Plan must be
028 LU 99-0020
Page 10 of 13
addressed when Comprehensive Plan Map Amendments are proposed through
the quasi-judicial or legislative processes.
The following identifies how the application complies with the relevant
portions of the Metro Functional Plan.
Title 6 —Regional Accessibility.
This title recognizes the link between mode split, levels of congestion, street
design and connectivity in creating a transportation system that works and
supports the desired land use concept. The title is intended to establish an
interconnected road system in undeveloped areas to reduce trips and
encourage alternative modes of travel. The inclusion of these special street
setbacks on these rights-of-way will provide for additional road improvements
and provide additional opportunities for transportation mode choices, thereby
supporting the intent of this Title.
C. CONSISTENCY WITH STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS
Goal 1 -Citizen Involvement
Pursuant to the requirements of a legislative process, announcements for the
proposed Zoning Code text amendments have been provided to all
Neighborhood Associations. In addition, notices pursuant to Measure 56
requirements have been provided to all property owners which may be
affected by this legislative action.
Public hearings will be held before the Planning Commission and City
Council. Notice has been provided consistent with City requirements.
Adequate opportunities have been made available for citizen involvement
with regard to this application for amendment of the City of Lake Oswego's
Comprehensive Plan.
Goal 2 - Land Use Planning
This application provides the required information and responses to the
applicable approval standards for a Zoning Code text amendment and
therefore is consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 2. Furthermore, the
application has been coordinated with the applicable jurisdictions and
agencies as required by Goal 2.
Goal 12 - Transportation
This application provides the required information and positive responses to
the applicable acknowledged Plan policies relative to transportation facilities.
The application therefore is consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 12 and
implementing administrative rules.
02 9 LU 99-0020
Page 11 of13
D. LAKE OSWEGO DEVELOPMENT CODE PROCEDURAL
REQUIREMENTS
LOC 49.16.010 Purpose
LOC 49.20.115 Major Development
LOC 49.22.200 Burden of Proof
LOC 49.36.000-.710 Application Procedures
LOC 49.44.900-.920 Review of Major Development
Applications and Appeals
LOC 49.46 Hearings before a Hearing Body
LOC 49.60.1500 (2) Legislative Decision Defined
LOC 49.60.1510 Required Notice to DLCD
Findings: The application has been submitted, noticed and reviewed in
accordance with the City of Lake Oswego Development Code. The record
indicates that the application complies with all of the above applicable
procedural requirements.
Conclusion: The application process conforms to all applicable procedural
requirements, as stated above.
VI. CONCLUSION
Based upon the materials and findings presented in this report, staff concludes that
this application has met the burden of proof that the proposed Zoning Code Text
Amendment complies with all applicable criteria.
VII. RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of LU 99-
0020 to the City Council.
EXHIBITS
A. Notice of Appeal [No current exhibits reserved for hearing use]
B. Findings and Conclusions [No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use]
C. Minutes [No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use]
D. Staff Reports [No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use]
E. GRAPHICS
El. Amended Right-Of-Way Requirements for Special Street Setbacks
Map
03 0 LU 99-0020
Page 12 of13
F. Written Materials
Fl. Draft of LOC 48.20.535(4), Special Street Setback
F2. Existing Special Street Setback Section
F3. LOC 42.03.050, Local Residential Street-General Standards
F4. Before and After Change Matrix with Description
F5. Pilkington Road Right-Of-Way Example
F6. Boones Ferry Road Right-Of-Way Example
G. Letters
None
Date of Application Submittal: February 1, 2001
Date Determined to be Complete: N/A
State Mandated 120 Day Rule: N/A
L:\Case Files\2001\LU 01-0003 Hill Top-ROAD-USB\Planning Commission\LU01-0003 Staff Report 4-11-01 doc
331 LU 99-0020
Page 13 of 13
el 2
\ u 1 ...._... .
r , j„,„..,i, ______77.771.20 mor---1 . \__1_,J ; ill ‘i ,_ , r‘: ,
,7,. .4 \, ......1.0
CITY OF
���I: 0' o. __:.1, PORTLAND // °UN ) "
pi
o
a fit. , 41 ._
.II 1 m
LE IN Ili a le W 0-I:- ... llf_/.4\1 ' . ' ' -i ,
* ,
:. lik ., •,... ' * - .. -al D :_., ,
All
� \ 'r ll � 11im
)..--44/
1� l 1 a• hlllllplll ' ; �l ■r �` � s �� � � � " � �' � �-'�� � ' � � � ��Illllllllllllllll�
v •• o • �'um°l,Ill�Lmmll�,
- ��� oo�� m i i�am „i '= .
at -tear.,,„„„........
I - �`► - I��•.1 0 •� _,
r f��1'i , 7 �_ ovI r li I-MI
7...M.11'PH-__ . %(--*„. � -:-_- ---c4-,- i41;16- :'''''' ::: ‘1 :_;
•� IPI N.
'-''-dAy- '
lillak 10.--17,0,000°' - - -
O .41111A1
.-. ,..
hi m i (( frf,., ,f ,; /(Sai r l:.-.i.--,W1=-rozil 0.,,iij , q� • _
i:--- r-,A41:10-- - ----7=-- !)-11*-- -.10.0•Alormir- - . __. ..:-;,. _,, .,.-,..:. I -..--- /: - : ,------\\ 1:__:\
/Ft xaslim __ _._rir„ :. , irtio,-,74_Lia
ilwinril -rril
�f
io .____
le/, of i -.. 1. 1 - ,;a*.y. , .7__::. , _ .... .1,,. , ., 1
,,,.c.,..—,
''''''' ,' .
/*, Iraqi :. ,:: v ri 7__,<, 1 q ,,„,,
''''''''' '''''' ' -..)C\-\\--s''-1 I 1 I I I:s\-I:
�� D 6 C17'Y OF 1J4%E OSWEGO
-_--_ �� � JJEni 'f�((�I \ SPECW,+TREETSETBACIGS
i 1 -U 99-0020
Inside City Limits: Outside City Limits.
CITY OF
III -, . VERGROVE !1 .; Modify Modify Setback
1 . ( �� Add Setback yea Setback
- 1 •••••.•• _ _ NO LTan9• ' No Change
BY
-`1 runrn
, g o �I - - Urban
EXHIBIT E-1
.• \ �� MilFS -1,13
30th day= **/**/**
ORDINANCE NO. 2302
CASE NO. LU 99-0020
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
REGARDING SPECIAL STREET SETBACKS; AMENDING THE LAKE
OSWEGO CITY CODE, SECTION 48.20.535(4) (SPECIAL STREET SETBACKS).
WHEREAS, a notice of public hearing for consideration of this Ordinance was duly given
in the manner required by law, including notice to affected property owners pursuant to
Measure 56; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held before the Lake Oswego City Council on July 17,
2001 to review the Planning Commission's recommendation to approve application LU 99-
0020, a request by the City of Lake Oswego for a Zoning Code Text Amendment to LOC
48.20.535(4), Special Street Setbacks; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did deliberate, adopt findings of fact and
conclusions, and make the following recommendations to the City Council of the City of
Lake Oswego.
The Planning Commission recommends that LU 99-0020 be approved by the City Council.
WHEREAS, notice of a public hearing for consideration of this Ordinance was duly given
in the manner required by law; and
The City of Lake Oswego ordains as follows:
Section 1. The City Council hereby adopts the Findings and Conclusions (LU 99-0020)
attached as Exhibit "A".
Section 2. Amendments to LOC 48.20.535(4)
Section 48.20.535(4) is hereby amended by deleting the text shown by strikeout and adding
the new text shown in Bold Italics:
Section 48.20.535(4) Special Street Setbacks.
to prese o ticipxated t ff' yolumme, t roilowing speciz -setbacks are
established. Setbacks a
total right of way which is the common preperty line between abutting properties prior to
any road dedication.
Bickner St from Hemlock St to Cedar St. 25
Canal Circle 25'
Egan Way
Ordinance No.2302 035 EXHIBIT F-1
Page 1 of 6
r C+ T2 +Da + T kerr y 25'
Lake Front Rd 25'
Lords Ln from Bryant R 25'
25'
T T, J Fe to Bryant-mod(south from
railroad r/w) 50'
Lake Haven Dr from Bernard St to Canal Cirelc 25'
25'
25'
Oakridge Rd from Quarry Rd te-Bonaire Ave 25'
Pine Valley Rd 25'
Ridgccrcst Dr from Uplands D. to Cres:Dr 25'
Ridgeway Rd 25'
Summit Dr yak V B a + T >`r+ .,a 25'
Troon Rd 25'
Westward Ho Rd
?51
C+ T C+to Dom. ;rl,
r/w line)
Bergis Rd r 11 c+ + to ffe D 30'
Cornell St to Skylands Dr 25'
Blue Heron Rd 20'
Cedar Rd 25'
Chapin Rd to south-Cityii" tss 25'
Cornell St from Larch St to Bergis-Rd 30'
Overlook Dr 30'
25'
30'
ate
rl Tl f T.eet p T n +n 1\ 25'
Y �
D' 7 25'
iDd Ddt. L2n A.lv 30'
J
r Rd ( 1 t, r to Fe 30'
Glen Have D r + D a + W + T' _ 30'
"G" Ave from 2nd St to 7th St (north frem north r/w
20'
Cit l mits 30'
J
'�
Ferry Rd 30'
Lake View 131 c +�T'r to T Mt Bl.,a 30'
T ve S i orrr-Bee D d+ Upper Dr 30'
Upper
Lanewood St through +� ' fDo glas �;r"le 25'
Lee St from Larc
30'
Laurel c+ m s St+ Lr ll - - ct 30'
terminus 25'
Ordinance No. 2302 036
Page 2 of 6
nakr;dge n a f.eF Quarry n a t n eeues Ferry Rd 30'
Palisades Terrace Rd from South Shore Blvd to Terrace
Dr 25'
Parrish St from Hemlock St to McVey Ave (west from
cast r/w line) 50'
Quarry n a f,,.,, B e es Ferry u a t„ G_.,lewood St .nd
.ter•sie t„ Ca „ Dr 30'
RosewoodSt from Booties Fe, Pilkingten Dd 30'
Rosewood St from Pillcington Rd to Tualatin St 25'
Reese Rd from Boones Ferry Rd to Upper Dr 30'
Royce Way adjacent to Wcstridge School site,both
sides 30'
6th St from Ellis Ave to Evergreen Rd 25'
Sunset Dr from Bryant Rd to Reese Rd 25'
Terrace Dr from Oak Terrace to Palisades Terrace Rd 25'
Tualatin St from Lower Dr to Lake View Blvd 25'
Twin Fir D a f em Bones Ferry Rd to Upper Dr 30'
Wembley Park Rd from Twin Fir Rd to Country Club
30'
Willow Ln from Boones Ferry Rd to P-i4kington Rd 30'
t R f om Boones Ferry R t„ T ..lie Vie,<, Blvd 40!
Bryant Rd from Lake View Blvd to Childs Rd 30'
"C" Ave from State St alley to-Country Club Rd 30'
Chandler Road from Iron Mountain Blvd to 10th St 30'
Foothills Rd 30'
Oak Street from State St to McVcy Ave 30'
Oak St from McVey Ave west 25'
McVey Ave from State St to Kilkenny 401
Pilkingten Rd from Boones Ferry R t„ south City
limits 30'
Entire length of South Shore Blvd 404
Upper Dr from Iron Mountain Blvd to west City limits 30'
West Bay Rd from South Shore Blvd to Bryant Rd 30'
Boones ,;thi., City limits 401
State St from north to south City limits 50'
Carman Dr north and east of Kruse Way 30'
Carman Dr south and west of Kruse Way 40!
a) Purpose. To preserve an obstruction free area along public rights-of-way in
anticipation of future street improvements, such as additional lanes,pedestrian and
bicycle facilities, transit facilities, drainage management improvements, lighting, and
street landscaping.
b) Establishment. A "special street setback reference line"is hereby established
for the streets identified in subsection (e), below. On these streets, required yards shall
be measured from the special street setback reference line.
Ordinance No. 2302 037
Page 3 of 6
. 1
c) Method of measurement. The reference line shall be established by measuring
the prescribed distance from the center of the right-of-way or as described in the
special street setback requirement.
d) Priority of other plans. Special street setbacks are minimums. If a greater
amount of additional right-of-way is warranted by improvements identified in a traffic
impact study, corridor study, or transportation system plan, then the greater amount
shall prevail.
e) The special street setbacks set forth LOC 48.20.535(4)(J) shall not be reduced.
fl Special Street Setback List
Affected Street From To Special Setback
Bangy Rd. South of Alyssa 30 feet
Terrace
Bergis Rd. Cornell St. Stafford Rd. 30 feet
Bergis Rd. Cornell St. Skylands Dr. _25 feet
Boones Ferry Road Mercantile Dr. West Sunset Dr. 50', but will be
superceded by the
City Council's
adoption of a
corridor study
Bonita Rd. 30 feet
Bryant Rd. Boones Ferry Rd. Lake View Blvd. 40 feet
Bryant Rd. Lake View Blvd. Childs Rd. 30 feet
Burma Rd. 25 feet
"C"Ave State St. alley Country Club Rd. 30 feet
Carman Drive North and east of 30 feet
Kruse Way
Carman Drive South and west of 40 feet
Kruse Way
Cornell St. Larch St. Bergis Rd. 30 feet
Egan Way East/west leg only 20 feet
Fielding Rd. 20 feet
Firwood Road 30 feet between
Boones Ferry Rd.
and Waluga Dr.;
20' west of Waluga
Dr.
Gassner Ln 20 feet
Inverurie Rd. North of 20 feet
Washington Ct.
Knaus Rd.from Country Club Rd. North City Limits 30 feet
Lake Grove Ave 20 feet
Lake View Blvd. Bryant Rd. Iron Mt. Blvd. 25 feet
Ordinance No. 2302 0 3 v
Page 4 of 6
Lamont Way 20 feet
Lanewood St. Through south leg 20 feet
of Douglas Circle
Laurel St. Dyer St. Hallinan St. 30 feet
Lower Dr. 20 feet
McVey Avenue State Street South Shore Blvd. 40 feet
Madrona St Boones Ferry Bryant Rd. (south 50 feet
from railroad r/w)
North Shore Rd. Abutting the 30'measured from
railroad right-of-way the south line of the
railroad right-of-
way
Oakridge Rd. Quarry Rd. Bonaire Ave. _25 feet
Oakridge Rd. Quarry Rd. Boones Ferry Rd. _30 feet
Overlook Dr. 30 feet
Pilkington Road South of Rosewood Special street
St setback line shall be
measured 30'from
the east line of
Rosewood Plat
Quarry Rd. Boones Ferry Rd. Galewood St. and 30 feet
extension to
Carman Dr.
Reese Rd. Boones Ferry Rd. Upper Drive _30 feet
Rosewood St. Pilkington Rd. Tualatin St. 25 feet
South Shore Blvd. 40 feet
Stafford Rd South Shore Blvd south City limits 40 feet
State Street _50 feet
Summit Dr. Lake View Blvd. Ridgewood Rd 20 feet
Sunset Dr. 20 feet
Tualatin St. 20 feet
Twin Fir Rd. Boones Ferry Rd. Upper Dr. _30 feet
Upper Dr. Iron Mt. Blvd. _ City limits 25 feet
Waluga Dr. South of Firwood Rd 20 feet
West Sunset Dr. West of Lake Grove 20 feet
Design District
Boundary
(Ord. No. 1851, Sec. 1; 11-16-82. Ord. No. 2044, Sec. 1; 11-19-91.)
Ordinance No. 2302 03 9
Page 5 of 6
Read by title only at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego
held on day of , 2001.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
EXCUSED:
Judie Hammerstad, Mayor
Dated:
ATTEST: Kristi Hitchcock, City Recorder
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
David D. Powell
City Attorney
L:\Case Files\1999\LU 99-0020-special street setbacks\Sid\Draft ORD LU99-0020 doc
040
Ordinance No. 2302
Page 6 of 6
``�{p4 LAKE Os'y
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
a
COUNCIL REPORT
OREGO$
TO: Douglas J. Schmitz, City Manager
FROM: Sidaro Sin, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Frequently Asked Questions for Special Street Setback Code and Examples
of Special Street Setbacks
DATE: October 1, 2001
What are Special Street Setbacks?
A Special Street Setback (SSS) is a specified distance from the centerline of certain City roadways
specified in the Zoning code, from which setbacks for proposed development are to be measured.
The SSS list in the Zoning Code allows a property owner to locate their new structure or
addition outside of the area needed for future planned improvements identified on the City's
Public Facilities Plan for Transportation.
What is the Purpose of the Special Street Setback?
The SSS is a transportation and land use planning tool used to preserve an obstruction-free area
along public rights-of-way in anticipation of future street improvements, such as additional lanes,
pedestrian and bicycle facilities, transit facilities, drainage management improvements, lighting, and
street landscaping.
Why are Amendments Being Proposed?
This section of the Code has not been updated since 1961, therefore, the list of streets has not been
updated to take into consideration expansion of the City limits (additional roadways), vacation of
some roadways and roadway improvements that have been completed so that an SSS is no longer
needed. The current list does not reflect these changes.
These amendments will also provide consistency between the SSS and the City's Transportation
System Plan (TSP), Capital Improvement Plan (CEP) and Public Facilities Plan (PFP).
How is the Special Street Setback Code Applied?
Whenever a property owner applies for a land use application, the Special Street Setback list is
consulted for applicability. If the street the site is located on is listed, then the special street setback
dimension is found and applied. The dimension is measured from the center of the right-of-way and
a reference line is identified on the parcel. The reference line represents the edge of the desired
future half right-of-way. The zoning district's front yard setback (or street side-yard setback in the
case of corner lots) is then measured from this reference line. This is illustrated in Example 2.
FAQ for Special Street Setback Page I
041
EXHIBIT F•2
Example 1. WITHOUT SPECIAL STREET SETBACK
• Existing ROW 40 feet (20 feet each side from Centerline).
• R-7.5 Zoning, required front yard setback of 25 feet from property line.
• Right-of-way defined; a general term denoting land, property, or interest therein, usually in a
strip, acquired for or devoted to public facilities improvements such as roadways, sidewalks,
utilities etc....
•
' 40'
Existing ROW•
•
•
I I I
I \
House
House 20' --04— 20'
1 _ . _ . _ . _ . _ . _ . _ . •. _ . _ — • _ . � . _ . _ . _ . _ . _ . _ . _ . _ .I
•
t
House House
I I I
_
. I
t
4, / j 25'
25' I Front
Front i Yard
Yard setback
setback
Note: Drawing is not to scale
FAQ for Special Street Setback Page 2
04 2
Example 2. WITH SPECIAL STREET SETBACK
• 30 feet, Special Street Setback from Center Line.
• 60 feet total right-of-way required based on street classification or proposed improvements
• Reference line is also known as the special street setback line and it represents the edge of
the possible right-of-way. The underlying zone's front yard setback is measured from this
line.
• Results in 10 additional feet in the front yard setback for total of 35 feet, based on R-7.5
front yard setback of 25 feet.
Reference Line .4 Reference Line
1 °Pi row r 40' 1
Y/
1 • Existing ROW • 1
•
I — •
— • — • — — • — • — • — — I 20' —�i� 20' 1
I \ � j I
j House
House � 1
I 60' i I
1 / Total Special Setback f i
•
•
I IInimumew. I
\ I House
30' I 30
House r
Special Special A......
Street Street
Setback Setback •
I %/ I
. J Req'd I
Req'd i • 25' .
5' Front
Front Yard
Yard setback
setback Results in 10 additional feet
for front yard setback for a
total of 35 feet.
Note: Drawing is not to scale
FAQ for Special Street Setback 043 Page 3
Example 3. NEW CONSTRUCTION WITH SPECIAL
STREET SETBACK (Applied on established roadway)
• Example of where a new home would be placed on a road with Special Street Setbacks
_K Home that existed before application of Special Street Setback (25' total front yard
setback from 40' ROW)
wima Home required to be constructed with Special Street Setback (35' total front yard
setback from 40' ROW)
• R-7.5 Zoning, required front yard setback of 25 feet from property line.
• Existing ROW 40 feet (20 feet each side from Centerline).
• 30' Special Setback Requirement (60' total for Right-of-way [ROW])
• Results:
o Existing home has a total front yard setback of 25'
o Newly constructed home a front yard setback of 35'
However, when the improvements are made:
• Existing house will have a total front yard setback of 15' resulting in non-
conformance with the front yard setback
• New house will have a total front yard setback of 25', meeting the front yard setback
requirement
Note. Drawing is not to scale
I 25' 25'
Front 4 40' ' Front
1 i Yard Existing ROW Yard I
• setback setback
I 4 ► I 44 ► I
j
■ i �y8- •"'ti
1
I I • 1
I
I 60' I
Total Special Setback ' • . -
# ########### Required ►######### I
I#► #J# ►# 44 30' 4 — 30' ►�
I 25' I 25' I
Front I Front
Yard Yard
setback setback
FAQ for Special Street Setback 0 44 Page 4
BEFORE & AFTER AMENDMENT SUMMARY
Special Street Setbacks
"Remove Special Setback"=Setback reverts back to front yard setback as required by underlying zone
"No Change"= Remains on Special Street Setback list with no change to description or setback requirement
Yellow Highlight=Modification of either Special Street Setback requirement or change of street description
existing
Special New Special
Existing Street Description Setback New Street Description Setback
1) Aspen St from Lee St to Parrish St(south from south
r/w line) 30' Remove Special Setback
2) Bergis Rd from Cornell St to Skylands Dr 25' No Change
3) Bergis Rd from Cornell St to Stafford Rd 30' No Change
4) Bickner St from Hemlock St to Cedar St 25' Remove Special Setback
5) Blue Heron Rd 20' Remove Special Setback
50',but will be
superceded by the
adoption of the
Boones Ferry Rd-Mercantile Dr Boones Ferry
6) Boones Ferry Rd within City Limits 40' to West Sunset Dr Corridor Study
7) Bryant Rd from Boones Ferry Rd to Lake View Blvd 40' No Change
8) Bryant Rd from Lake View Blvd to Childs Rd 30' No Change
9) "C"Ave from State St alley to Country Club Rd 30' No Change
10) Carman Dr north and east of Kruse Way 30' Remove Special Setback
11) Carman Dr south and west of Kruse Way 40' Remove Special Setback
12) Canal Circle 25' Remove Special Setback
13) Cedar Rd 25' Remove Special Setback
14) Chandler Rd from Iron Mountain Blvd to 10th St 30' Remove Special Setback
15) Chapin Rd to south City limits 25' Remove Special Setback
16) Cornell St from Larch St to Bergis Rd 30' No Change
Egan Way(east/west leg only,
17) Egan Way 25' delete north/south leg) 20'
18) Ellis Ave from Lake Forest Dr to 6th St 25' Remove Special Setback
19) Fernwood Dr from South Shore Dr to Treetop Ln 30' Remove Special Setback
20) Fernwood Dr from Treetop Ln to Marjorie Ave 25' Remove Special Setback
21) Fir Ridge Rd from Twin Fir Rd to Wembley Park Rd 25' Remove Special Setback
30' between
Boones Ferry
Rd and
Waluga Dr;
20'west of
22) Firwood Rd from Boones Ferry Rd to Bonaire Ave 30' Firwood Rd Waluga Dr
047
MatrixBeforeAfter.xls EXHIBIT F•3 Page 1
23) Foothills Rd 30' Remove Special Setback
24) "G"Ave from 2nd St to 7th St(north from north r/w
line) 20' Remove Special Setback
25) Glen Haven Rd from Greentree Rd to West View Rd 30' Remove Special Setback
26) Greentree Rd from Glen Haven to Fernwood Dr 30' Remove Special Setback
27) Haven St from Bryant Rd to Lake Haven Dr 25' Remove Special Setback
28) Knaus Rd from Country Club Rd to north City limits 30' Knaus Rd
29) Lake Forest Dr east through Washington Ct to
Boones Ferry Rd 30' Remove Special Setback
30) Lake Front Rd 25' Remove Special Setback
31) Lake Grove St from Reese Rd to Upper Dr 30' Lake Grove Ave 20'
32) Lake Haven Dr from Bernard St to Canal Circle 25' Remove Special Setback
Lake View Blvd from Bryant Rd
33) Lake View Blvd from Bryant Rd to Summit Dr 25' to Iron Mountain Blvd 25'
34) Lake View Blvd from Summit Dr to Iron Mountain
Blvd 30' Remove Special Setback
35) Lamont Way 25' Lamont Way 20'
Lane Wood St through south
36) Lanewood St through south leg of Douglas Circle 25' leg of Douglas Circle 20'
37) Laurel St from Dyer St to Hallinan St 30' No Change
38) Lee St from Larch St to Aspen St(east from east
r/w line) 30' Remove Special Setback
39) Lords Ln from Bryant Rd to Lake Haven Dr 25' Remove Special Setback
Lower Dr from Boones Ferry to
40) Lower Dr from Boones Ferry to Bryant Rd (south Bryant Rd (south from railroad
from railroad r/w) 50' r/w) 20'
Stafford Rd from South Shore
41) McVey Ave from Kilkenny to south City limits 30' Blvd 40'
McVey Ave from State St to
42) McVey Ave from State St to Kilkenny 40' South Shore Blvd
30' measured
from the south
line of the
North Shore Rd abutting the railroad right-
43) North Shore Rd from its terminus east to State St 25' railroad right-of-way of-way
44) Oakridge Rd from Quarry Rd to Bonaire Ave 25' Oakridge Rd 25'
45) Oakridge Rd from Quarry Rd to Boones Ferry Rd 30' No Change
46) Oak St from McVey Ave west 25' Remove Special Setback
47) Oak St from State St to McVey Ave 30' Remove Special Setback
48) Oak Terrace from Palisades Terrace to its west
terminus 25' Remove Special Setback
49) Overlook Dr 30' No Change
50) Palisades Terrace Rd from South Shore Blvd to
Terrace Dr 25' Remove Special Setback
51) Parrish St from Hemlock St to McVey Ave(west
from east r/w line) 50' Remove Special Setback
*48
MatrixBeforeAfter.xls Page 2
30' measured
from the east
line of
52) Pilkington Rd from Boones Ferry Rd to south City Pilkington Rd south of Rosewood
limits 30' Rosewood St Plat
53) Pine Valley Rd 25' Remove Special Setback
54) Quarry Rd from Boones Ferry Rd to Galewood St
and extension to Carman Dr 30' No Change
55) Reese Rd from Boones Ferry Rd to Upper Dr 30' No Change
56) Ridgecrest Dr from Uplands Dr to Crest Dr 25' Remove Special Setback
57) Ridgeway Rd 25' Remove Special Setback
58) Rosewood St from Boones Ferry Rd to Pilkington
Rd 30' Remove Special Setback
59) Rosewood St from Pilkington Rd to Tualatin St 25' No Change
60) Royce Way adjacent to Westridge School site, both
sides 30' Remove Special Setback
61) 6th St from Ellis Ave to Evergreen Rd 25' Remove Special Setback
62) South Shore Blvd (Entire Length) 40' South Shore Blvd
63) State St from north to south City limits 50' No Change
64) Summit Dr from Lake View Blvd to Iron Mountain Summit Dr between Lakeview
Blvd 25' Blvd and Ridgewood Rd 20'
65) Sunset Dr from Bryant Rd to Reese Rd 25' Sunset Dr 20'
66) Terrace Dr from Oak Terrace to Palisades Terrace
Rd 25' Remove Special Setback
67) Troon Rd 25' Remove Special Setback
68) Tualatin St from Lower Dr to Lake View Blvd 25' Tualatin St 20'
69) Twin Fir Rd from Boones Ferry Rd to Upper Dr 30' No Change
Upper Dr from Iron Mountain
70) Upper Dr from Iron Mountain Blvd to west City limits 30' Blvd to west City limits 25'
71) Wembley Park Rd from Twin Fir Rd to Country Club
Dr 30' Remove Special Setback
72) West Bay Rd from South Shore Blvd to Bryant RD 30' Remove Special Setback
73) Westward Ho Rd 25' Remove Special Setback
74) Willow Ln from Boones Ferry Rd to Pilkington Rd 30' Remove Special Setback
p:/casefi les/1999/I u99-0020/MatrixBeforeAfter.xl s
049
MatrixBeforeAfter.xls Page 3
050
DELETION (44)
SPECIAL STREET SETBACKS
1) Aspen St. from Lee St. to Parrish St. (south from south r/w line)
Functional classification: Local Street
Inadequacies: No pedestrian accommodation
Improvement Plans: Frontage property is city-owned, and slated for a new reservoir.
Roadway and sidewalk improvements will be designed in concert with reservoir land use
application.
Comment: Not needed on special street setback list, as city controls adjacent property.
2) Bickner Street from Hemlock to Cedar
Functional classification: Local Street
Inadequacies: Narrow lane, no pedestrian accommodation
Improvement Plans: None
Comment: Very low traffic volume. Existing street is short and provides access to only
three lots. It is more appropriately considered an alley. The neighborhood is established
and has limited redevelopment potential. Adjacent street system adequately gridded.
3) Blue Heron Road
Functional classification: Local Street
Improvement Plans: None
Inadequacies: No pedestrian accommodation
Comment: Existing 40' ROW adequate for any anticipated improvements
4) Carman Drive north and east of Kruse Way
5) Carman Drive south and west of Kruse Way
Functional Classification: Major Collector between I-5 and Fosberg Road
Neighborhood Collector between Fosberg Rd and Touchstone
Comments: Adequate right of way and necessary improvements are underway or
completed.
6) Canal Circle
Functional classification: Local Street
Inadequacies: No pedestrian accommodation
Improvement Plans: None
Comment: Existing 40' ROW adequate for any anticipated improvements
7) Cedar Road
Functional classification: Local Street
Inadequacies: No pedestrian accommodation
Improvement Plans: None
Comment: Existing 40' ROW adequate for any anticipated improvements
8) Chandler Road from Iron Mountain Boulevard to 10th Street
Functional classification: Local Street
Inadequacies: Gaps in sidewalk/pathway system
Improvement Plans: Added shoulder pathway
Comment: Existing 60' ROW is adequate for anticipated improvements.
Deletion, Special Street Setbacks 05 1 Page 1
Planning Commission Public Hearing,May 30,2001
9) Chapin Road to south City Limits
Functional classification: Local Street
Inadequacies: No pedestrian accommodation
Improvement Plans: None
Comment: Existing 46' ROW adequate for any anticipated improvements
10) Egan Way
Functional Classification: Local Street
Comment: Delete only the north/south leg of Egan Way
11) Ellis Avenue from Lake Forest Drive to Sixth Street
Functional classification: Local Street
Inadequacies: No pedestrian accommodation
Improvement Plans: None
Comment: Existing 40' ROW adequate for any anticipated improvements
12) Fernwood Drive from South Shore Boulevard to Tree Top Lane
Functional classification: Neighborhood Collector
Inadequacies: Gaps in pathway/sidewalk system
Improvement Plans: Added sidewalk
Comment: Existing 50' ROW is adequate for anticipated improvements
13) Fernwood Drive from Treetop Lane to Marjorie Avenue
Functional classification: Neighborhood Collector
Inadequacies: No pedestrian accommodation
Improvement Plans: Added sidewalk
Comment: Existing 50' ROW already meets requirement
14) Fir Ridge Road from Twin Fir Road to Wembley Park Road
Functional classification: Local Street
Inadequacies: No pedestrian accommodation
Improvement Plans: None
Comment: Existing 40' ROW adequate for any anticipated improvements
15) Foothills Road
Functional classification: Local Street (industrial)
Inadequacies: Gaps in sidewalk system
Improvement Plans: None
Comments: Existing ROW is adequate for any anticipated improvements.
16) "G" Avenue from 2"d Street to 7th Street (north from north right of way line)
Functional classification: Local Street
Inadequacies: No pedestrian accommodation
Improvement Plans: None
Comment: Adopted First Addition Neighborhood Plan requires keeping G Avenue at its
original platted dimension, thereby eliminating a potential for widening the right of way.
The FAN Plan has been codified.
Deletion, Special Street Setbacks 0 5 2 Page 2
Planning Commission Public Hearing,May 30,2001
17) Glen Haven Road from Greentree Road to West View Road
Functional classification: Local Street
Inadequacies: No pedestrian accommodation
Improvement Plans: None
Comment: Existing 40' ROW adequate for any anticipated improvements
18) Greentree Road from Glen Haven Road to Fernwood Drive
Functional classification: Neighborhood Collector
Inadequacies: Large gaps in sidewalk system
Improvement Plans: Added shoulder pathway, fill in sidewalk gaps
Comment: Existing 50' ROW adequate for any anticipated improvements
19) Haven Street from Bryant Road to Lake Haven Drive
Functional classification: Local Street
Inadequacies: No pedestrian accommodation
Improvement Plans: None
Comment: Existing 40' ROW adequate for any anticipated improvements. Unimproved
western stub (connecting to Bryant) has been vacated since adoption of this list.
20) Lake Forest Drive east through Washington Court to Boones Ferry Road
Functional classification: Neighborhood Collector
Inadequacies: No pedestrian accommodation
Improvement Plans: Westbound left turn lane on Lake Forest Drive at Carman Drive
Comment: Incorrect, confusing nomenclature; this road does not connect to Boones Ferry
Road. Anticipated improvements at the intersection with Carman Drive have not been
designed, and existing homes in the vicinity of intersection improvements appear to have
adequate setbacks.
21) Lake Front Road
Functional classification: Local Street
Inadequacies: No pedestrian accommodation, narrow lanes, limited on-street parking,
constrained turnaround
Improvement Plans: None
Comment: Existing 30' ROW adequate for minor widening. Topographic restraints
prevent significant road expansion. Many lot owners have obtained variances to front
setback requirements for new construction and remodeling.
22) Lake Haven Drive from Bernard Street to Canal Circle
Functional classification: Local Street
Inadequacies: No pedestrian accommodation
Improvement Plans: None
Comment: Existing 40' ROW adequate for any anticipated improvements
23) Lakeview Boulevard from Summit Drive to Iron Mountain Boulevard
Functional classification: Neighborhood Collector
Inadequacies: No pedestrian accommodation, narrow lanes, impaired sight distance on
curves
Improvement Plans: Shoulder pathway between Twin Fir Road and Iron Mountain
Boulevard
Comment: Existing 40' ROW adequate for anticipated improvements
Deletion, Special Street Setbacks 653 Page 3
Planning Commission Public Hearing,May 30, 2001
24) Lee Street from Larch Street to Aspen Street(east from east right of way
line)
Functional classification: Local Street
Inadequacies: No pedestrian accommodation
Improvement Plans: None
Comment: Very short segment, north end of street is unimproved and platted over a cliff,
south end serves as driveway to two homes. Existing 40' right of way is adequate.
25) Lords Lane from Bryant Road to Lake Haven Drive
Functional classification: Local Street
Inadequacies: No pedestrian accommodation
Improvement Plans: None
Comment: Existing 40' ROW adequate for any anticipated improvements
26) North Shore Rd. from its terminus east to State St.
Functional Classification: Local Street
Comment: Delete that portion of North Shore Rd. between Cabana Ln. and State St.
27) Oak Street from McVey Avenue west
Functional classification: Local Street
Inadequacies: Corrected since list was adopted
Improvement Plans: None
Comment: West end partially vacated since list was adopted; remaining segment is 60'
ROW and has been improved with development.
28) Oak Street from State Street to McVey Avenue
Functional classification: Local Street
Inadequacies: No pedestrian accommodation
Improvement Plans: None
Comment: Erroneous inclusion existing ROW already satisfies requirement
29) Oak Terrace from Palisades Terrace to its west terminus
Functional classification: Local Street
Inadequacies: No pedestrian accommodation
Improvement Plans: None
Comment: Two-lane dead-end serving six lots. Roadway benched-in along a cliff through
recently acquired nature reserve. No improvements envisioned.
30) Palisades Terrace from South Shore Boulevard to Terrace Drive
Functional classification: Local Street
Inadequacies: Discontinuous sidewalks
Improvement Plans: None
Comment: Existing 40' ROW adequate for any anticipated improvements.
31) Parrish Street from Hemlock Street to McVey Avenue (west from east right
of way line)
Functional classification: Local Street
Inadequacies: None
Improvement Plans: None
Deletion, Special Street Setbacks 0 54 Page 4
Planning Commission Public Hearing,May 30,2001
Comment: Adjacent property has been redeveloped with variances to setback
requirements. Curbing and sidewalk improvements have been completed in existing
ROW.
32) Pine Valley Road
Functional classification: Local Street
Inadequacies: No pedestrian accommodation
Improvement Plans: None
Comment: Existing 40' ROW adequate for any anticipated improvements
33) Ridgecrest Drive from Uplands Drive to Crest Drive
Functional classification: Local Street
Inadequacies: Narrow pavement,no pedestrian accommodation
Improvement Plans: None
Comment: This is a low volume, 200- foot long street. A pathway could be
constructed in the existing 30-foot ROW.
34) Ridgeway Road
Functional classification: Local Street
Inadequacies: No pedestrian accommodation
Improvement Plans: None
Comment: Existing 40' ROW adequate for any anticipated improvements
35) Rosewood Street from Boones Ferry Road to Pilkington Road
Functional classification: Local Street
Inadequacies: No pedestrian accommodation, no turnaround.
Improvement Plans: None
Comment: This street was dead-ended when Boones Ferry Road was widened. Existing
right of way is adequate except for a turnaround at the west terminus, which could be
obtained as a condition of redevelopment.
36) Royce Way adjacent to Westridge School site, both sides
Functional classification: Neighborhood Collector
Inadequacies: No pedestrian accommodation
Improvement Plans: Shared roadway bike lane
Comment: Obsolete setback requirement; all required right of way has been obtained.
37) 6th Street from Ellis Avenue to Evergreen Road
Functional classification: Local Street
Inadequacies: No pedestrian accommodation, narrow lanes
Improvement Plans: None
Comment: Existing 50' ROW adequate
38) Summit Dr. from Lakeview Blvd to Iron Mt. Blvd.
Functional Classification: Local Street
Comment: Delete that portion between Ridgewood Rd. and Iron Mt. Blvd.
39) Terrace Drive from Oak Terrace to Palisades Terrace Road
Functional classification: Local Street
Inadequacies: Discontinuous sidewalk nortlf enone on south side
Deletion, Special Street Setbacks Page 5
Planning Commission Public Hearing,May 30, 2001
Improvement Plans: None
Comment: Existing right of way adequate
40) Troon Road
Functional classification: Local Street
Inadequacies: No pedestrian accommodation
Improvement Plans: None
Comment: Existing 40' ROW adequate for any anticipated improvements
41) Wembley Park Road from Twin Fir Road to Country Club Drive
Functional classification: Local Street
Inadequacies: Lack of pedestrian access to elementary school corrected since list was
adopted
Improvement Plans: Added shoulder pathway
Comments: Pathway successfully constructed in existing 50' ROW, 1999
42) West Bay Road from South Shore Boulevard to Bryant Road
Functional classification: Local Street
Inadequacies: No pedestrian accommodation
Improvement Plans: None
Comment: This street was once envisioned as a fully improved through street, but
became the subject of a traffic calming diversion project. Existing 50' ROW (west end)
and 40' ROW (east end) are adequate.
43) Willow Lane from Boones Ferry Road to Pilkington Road
Functional classification: Local Street (industrial)
Inadequacies: Corrected since list was adopted
Improvement Plans: None
Comments: Extra right of way has been acquired and street fully improved, 1993-94
44) Westward Ho Road
Functional classification: Local Street
Improvement Plans: None
Inadequacies: No pedestrian accommodation
Comment: Existing 40' ROW adequate for any anticipated improvements
L:\Case Files\1999\LU 99-0020-special street setbacks\Sid\deletionsList.doc
Deletion, Special Street Setbacks 056 Page 6
Planning Commission Public Hearing,May 30, 2001
NO CHANGE 04)
Special Street Setback
STREET DESCRIPTION SPECIAL STREET Total
SETBACK(From Center Right-of-
line of Roadway) way
Required
1) Bergis Rd. from Cornell St. to Stafford Rd. 30' 60'
2) Bergis Rd. from Cornell St. to Skylands Dr. 25' 50'
3) Bryant Rd. from Boones Ferry Rd. to Lake 40' 80'
View Blvd.
4) Bryant Rd. from Lake View Blvd. To Childs 30' 60'
Rd
5) "C" Ave. from State St. to alley to Country 30' 60'
Club Rd.
6) Cornell St. from Larch St. to Bergis Rd. 30' 60'
7) Laurel St. from Dyer St. to Hallinan St 30' 60'
8) Oakridge Rd. from Quarry Rd. to Boones 30' 60'
Ferry Rd.
9) Overlook Dr. 30' 60'
10) Quarry Rd. from Boones Ferry Rd. to 30' 60'
Galewood St. and extension to Carman Dr.
11) Reese Rd. from Boones Ferry Rd. to Upper 30' 60'
Dr.
12) State St. from north to south City limits 50' 100'
13) Twin Fir Rd. from Boones Ferry Rd. to 30' 60'
Upper Dr.
14) Rosewood St. from Pilkington Rd. to 25' 50'
Tualatin St.
No Change, Special Street Setback 057 Page 1
City Council Public Hearing October 16, 2001
058
MODIFICATION (19)
Special Street Setbacks
1) Boones Ferry Road within City limits
Functional Classification: Major arterial between I-5 and Country Club Road; minor
arterial between Country Club Road and north city limits.
Inadequacies: Center left turn lanes needed in certain areas, no bike lanes over majority
of corridor, areas with no sidewalks or substandard sidewalks.
Improvement Plans: Lane widening and bike lanes in the Kruse Way to Madrona
corridor, intersection improvements at various locations, bike lanes from Country Club
Road to north city limits.
Comment: Existing ROW varies from 60' to over 80' (near major intersections). The
section between the Tualatin city limits and Madrona Street have been widened, and the
necessary right of way or easements have been acquired.
The City is engaged in a corridor study for the section between Madrona Street and
Mercantile Drive. The study will have specific right of way recommendations that will,
upon adoption by the City Council, become the special street setbacks for that section.
Until that study is finalized and adopted however, it would be prudent to have an interim
method in place. Staff anticipates that the ultimate improvements will consist of five
lanes with bike paths, landscape strips and 8-foot sidewalks. These street improvements
will require a 94'-100' ROW.
The section of Boones Ferry Road between Country Club Road and the north city limits
is a minor arterial and should retain its special street setback designation of 40 feet.
Recommended Modification:
1) Increase the special street setback from 40' to 50'for the section between West
Sunset Drive and Mercantile Drive, with a proviso that this dimension will be superseded
by the Council's adoption of a corridor study for the affected area.
2) Egan Way
Functional Classification: Local street
Inadequacies: narrow pavement, no pedestrian accommodation
Improvement Plans: None
Comment: North/south leg has adequate ROW. East/west leg has inadequate ROW for
possible future widening or pedestrian improvements, but the special street setback is
excessive.
Recommended Modification:
1) Re-describe as: Egan Way—east/west leg
2) Reduce the special street setback from 25' to 20'
059
Modification List, Special Street Setbacks Page 1
City Council Public Hearing,October 16,2001
3) Firwood Road from Boones Ferry Road to Bonaire Avenue
Functional classification: Local street
Inadequacies: Narrow pavement, no pedestrian accommodations.
Improvement Plans: Bike lanes between Boones Ferry Road and Waluga Drive
Comment: The existing special street setback of 30' should be retained for the section of
roadway between Boones Ferry Road and Waluga Drive to permit the future bike lanes to
meander among the significant trees along this street. West of Waluga Drive, a standard
40' ROW will be adequate.
Recommended Modification:
1) Re-describe as Firwood Road
2) Reduce the special street as follows: Between Boones Ferry Road and
Waluga Drive, 30'. West of Waluga Drive, 20'.
4) Knaus Rd. from Country Club Rd. to north City limits
Functional Classification: Neighborhood Collector
Comment: Delete the description of Knaus Rd. (i.e. "from Country club Rd. to north
City limits"
Recommended Modification: New description, Knaus Rd.
5) Lakeview Boulevard from Bryant Road To Summit Drive
Functional Classification: Neighborhood Collector
Inadequacies: Narrow pavement, limited sight distance on curves, poor pedestrian
accommodation through the curves at the east end.
Improvement Plans: A pathway has been constructed along the westerly two-thirds of this
segment. The TSP calls for completing the path through the curves to the east.
Comment: Topographic constraints will force the construction of transportation
improvements to occur in the narrowest possible right of way, especially through the
curves at the east end. Even so, slope easements or limited right of way acquisition could
become necessary because the road is not centered in the right of way. Proposed pathway
improvements will run to Iron Mountain Boulevard. The area is built-out, with little
potential for redevelopment or building additions that would jeopardize required right of
way acquisition.
Recommended Modification:
1) Re-describe as Lakeview Boulevard from Bryant Road to Iron Mountain
Boulevard.
6) Lake Grove Street from Reese Road to Upper Drive
Functional Classification: Local Street
Inadequacies: Spotty improvements, right of way varies from 30' to 50'.
Improvement Plans: Shared bike lanes (implying minor road widening), pathway on one
side.
060
Modification List, Special Street Setbacks Page 2
City Council Public Hearing, October 16,2001
Comment: Road/sidewalk improvements have been completed at the west end, which is
zoned for commercial and high density uses. Anticipated improvements could fit in a 40'
ROW through the lower density zoning.
Recommended Modification:
1) Re-describe as Lake Grove Avenue
2) Reduce the special street setback from 30' to 20'.
7) Lamont Way
Functional Classification: Local Street
Inadequacies: Narrow lanes, no accommodations for the pedestrian
Improvement Plans: None
Comment: The majority of the right of way is 30' wide. Unconnected, irregular
dedications have occurred along the frontage of small developments. Lamont Springs
Natural Area has a long frontage on the north side. A church is located midblock on the
south side. The existing special street setback is excessive to accommodate modest
pedestrian improvements.
Recommended Modification:
1) Reduce the special street setback from 25'to 20'.
8) Lanewood Street through south leg of Douglas Circle
Functional Classification: Local street
Inadequacies: Narrow pavement, poor pedestrian accommodation.
Improvement Plans: Added shoulder pathway, presumably along the south side of
Lanewood and connecting through onto the south side of the Douglas Circle loop.
Comment: Lanewood street is a hodgepodge of varying ROW width. Douglas Circle's
ROW is 30' wide. Two lanes and a pathway can be constructed in a standard 40' ROW.
Recommended Modification:
1) Reduce the special street setback from 25 to 20'.
9) Lower Drive from Boones Ferry Road to Bryant Road (south from railroad
right of way)
Functional Classification: Local Street
Inadequacies: Narrow pavement, no pedestrian accommodations.
Improvement Plans: None
Comment: Since this code was drafted, Rosewood was been dead-ended at Boones Ferry
Road, eliminating its potential of being a through street.
Recommended Modification:
1) Reduce the special street setback from 25 to 20'.
10) McVey Ave from Kilkenny to south City limits
Functional Classification: Minor Arterial
Comments: McVey redescribed as Stafford Rd from South Shore Blvd.
Modification List, Special Street Setbacks Page 3
City Council Public Hearing, October 16, 2001
11) McVey Ave from State Street to Kilkenny
Functional Classification: Minor Arterial
Comment: Revise description, McVey only goes to South Shore Blvd.
Recommended Modification: New Description, McVey Ave from State Street to South
Shore Boulevard.
12) North Shore road from its terminus east to State Street
Functional Classification: Local Street
Inadequacies: Narrow pavement, no accommodations for the pedestrian
Improvement Plans: None
Comment: The right of way is adequate except for a narrow section along the railroad
right of way.
Recommended Modification:
1) Re-describe as North Shore Road abutting the railroad right of way.
2) Redescribe the special street setback as 30'measured from the south line of
the railroad right of way.
13) Oakridge Road from Quarry Road to Bonaire Avenue
Functional Classification: Neighborhood Collector
Inadequacies: Narrow pavement, poor accommodations for pedestrians
Improvement Plans: Bike lanes between Boones Ferry and Quarry
Comment: The functional classification has been expanded to include the section
between Quarry Road and Waluga Drive. If sidewalks or meandering paths are required
as a condition of redevelopment or infill, the existing 30 and 40' ROW will be
inadequate.
Recommended Modification:
1) Re-describe as Oakridge Road
14) Pilkington Road from Boones Ferry Road to south City limits (entire length)
Functional classification: Major Collector
Inadequacies: Lacking bike lanes/ sidewalks in many areas.
Improvement plans: Intersection improvements (add left turn lanes) at Jean Road and
Childs Road, add bike lanes and sidewalks.
Comment: Potential additional right of way must be preserved free of structures,
especially on the east side north of Jean Road. There is sufficient right of way between
Boones Ferry Road and Rosewood Street. The existing 30' special street setback has
proven to be effective. The description should be modified to remove the reference to the
city limits, as this is a moving target, and the City's planning efforts extend into the
unincorporated area up to Childs Road.
Secondly, this right of way is comprised of two "unequal halves," which has led to
different interpretations of where the centerline is located for the purpose of establishing
062
Modification List, Special Street Setbacks Page 4
City Council Public Hearing, October 16, 2001
a setback reference line. Is it the arithmetic split of the existing right of way or is it the
line where abutting plats meet in the right of way? After taking into consideration past
practice, historic development patterns, and the need to have proper intersection
alignments in the future, staff finds that the special street setback line should be measured
from the east line of Rosewood plat.
Recommended Modification:
1) Re-describe as Pilkington Road south of Rosewood Street
2) Prescribe that the special street setback line shall be measured as 30' from the
east line of Rosewood plat.
15) South Shore Boulevard (Entire length)
Functional Classification: Major Collector
Inadequacies: Lack of separated bike and pedestrian facilities.
Improvement Plans: Intersection improvements (left turn lanes) at Westview Drive and
Fernwood Drive, add pathway on south side, bike lanes on both sides.
Comment: Anticipated improvements and extremely variable topographic conditions
warrant keeping the existing 40' special street setback. The description should be
modified to begin with the street name.
Recommended Modification:
1) Re-describe as South Shore Boulevard
16) Summit Drive from Lakeview Boulevard to Iron Mountain Boulevard
Functional Classification: Local Street
Inadequacies: Narrow lanes, poor sight distance around curves, no pedestrian
accommodation.
Improvement Plans: None
Comment: The existing right of way varies between 30' and 40'. The inadequate area is
limited to the section of roadway between Lakeview Boulevard and Ridgewood Road.
Recommended Modification:
1) Re-describe as Summit Drive between Lakeview Boulevard and Ridgewood
Road.
2) Modify the special street setback from 25' to 20'.
17) Sunset Drive from Bryant Road to Reese Road
Functional Classification: Local street
Improvement Plans: None
Comment: The ROW varies from 30' to 40'. Full width street improvements have been
accomplished at the east end along the Lake Grove Presbyterian Church properties. The
improvements fit in a 40' ROW. The description does not need to cite the intersection
streets at each end.
Recommended Modification:
1) Re-describe as Sunset Drive.
2) Modify the special street setback from 25' to 20'.
46 3
Modification List, Special Street Setbacks Page 5
City Council Public Hearing,October 16,2001
18) Tualatin Street from Lower Drive to Lakeview Boulevard
Functional Classification: Local street
Inadequacies: Narrow lanes, no pedestrian accommodation
Improvement Plans: None
Comment: Anticipated improvements could fit in a 40' ROW. The description does not
need to cite the intersecting streets at each end.
Recommended Modification:
1) Re-describe as Tualatin Street
2) Reduce the special street setback from 25'to 20'.
19) Upper Drive from Iron Mountain Boulevard to west City limits
Functional Classification: Neighborhood collector between Bryant Road and Iron
Mountain Boulevard; local street west of Bryant Road.
Inadequacies: Narrow lanes, gaps in pathway system, no bike lanes
Improvement Plans: Shared roadway bike lane between Twin Fir Road and the Iron
Mountain Boulevard/Lakeview Boulevard/Upper Drive traffic circle. Add shoulder
pathway between Reese Road and Bryant Road. Install traffic signal at Upper/Bryant
intersection.
Comment: Existing 30' ROW is too narrow for anticipated improvements. Existing
special street setback of 30 feet, however, is excessive.
1) Reduce the special street setback from 30' to 25'.
L\Case Files\1999\LU 99-0020-special street setbacks\Sid\modificationsList.doc
064
Modification List, Special Street Setbacks Page 6
City Council Public Hearing, October 16,2001
ADD LIST (11)
Special Street Setback
Special
Setback
Required Total Special Anticipated Improvements
Total Existing (from Street Setback based on Transportation
Street Description Right-of-way centerline) Required System Plan (TSP)
Complete curbing in missing
1) Bangy Rd, south of Alyssa sections, add bike and pedestrian
Terrace 40' 30' 60' facilities
Pavement widening, drainage,
varies, primarily bike and pedestrian
2) Bonita Rd 40' 30' 60' improvements
Pavement widening, drainage,
40'-50', offset bike and pedestrian
3) Burma Rd legal centerline 25' 50' improvements
Shoulder, drainage, pedestrian
4) Fielding Rd 30' 20' 40' improvements
varies,
substandard on Pedestrian and drainage
5) Gassner Ln west side 20' 40' improvements
6) Inverurie Rd, north of Shoulder, drainage, pedestrian
Washington Ct 30' 20' 40' improvements
Shoulder, drainage, pedestrian
7) Madrona St 30' 20' 40' improvements
Capacity improvements, added
lanes at intersections, bike lanes,
8) Stafford Rd varies 40'-80' 40' 80' sidewalks
9) Waluga Dr, south of Firwood Shoulder, drainage, pedestrian
Rd 30' 20' 40' improvements
10) Washington Ct, west of Pavement widening to minimum
Lake Forest Blvd and Boones varies, typically standards (20'), drainage swales,
Ferry Rd 40' 25' 50' sidewalks or pathways
11) West Sunset,west of Lake Shoulder, drainage, pedestrian
Grove Design District Boundary 30' 20' 40' improvements
p:/casefiles/1999/1u-99-0020/AdditonMatrix.xls
065