HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - 2010-03-09 Special LAKE OSWEGO
AGENDA CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
Centennial 1910-2010 CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING 380 A Avenue
PO Box 369
Lake Oswego,OR 97034
REVISED
503-675-3984
Tuesday, March 9, 2010 www.ci.oswego.or.us
6:30 p.m.
Council Chambers, 380 A Avenue
Contact: Robyn Christie, City Recorder Also published on the internet at:
Email: rchristie@ci.oswego.or.us www.ci.oswego.or.us
Phone: 503-675-3984
The meeting location is accessible to persons with disabilities. To request accommodations, please contact
Public Affairs at 503-635-0236, 48 hours before the meeting.
Page#
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. PRESENTATIONS
3.1 Community Survey (Draft Survey to be provided at meeting)
3.2 Update of the City's Water Conservation Program
3.3 Planning Commission Infill Recommendations
3.4 Street Maintenance Fee Discussion
4. ADJOURNMENT
CABLE VIEWERS: This meeting will be televised on Channel 28. The meeting will
be rebroadcast at the following times on Channel 28:
Wednesday 2:30 a.m.
Friday 7:00 p.m.
Saturday 3:00 p.m.
Sunday 7:00 1.m.
Watch Council meetings live wherever you are via live streaming video at
mms://www.ci.oswego.or.us/live
Jack Hoffman, Mayor • Roger Hennagin, Councilor • Kristin Johnson, Councilor
Donna Jordan, Councilor • Sally Moncrieff, Councilor • Mary Olson, Councilor • Bill Tierney, Councilor
03/04/2010
- ' � ;; .� 2007
r
!, ' .
• Water Management and Conservation Plan(WMCP)
committee organized.Draft plan created.
Council Presentation Frcitl r e15 e - �l
March 9,2010 l•itr ' `7., "t • Hired a full time coordinator
. '' {' ly 1 t '" • Completed draft WMCP/Curtailment Plan
x ^ • �!;' • Reviewed and approved by Oregon Water Resources
Department January 2008
• WMCP:Approved by Council May 6,2008
• Curtailment Ordinance:Approved by Council September
Lake Oswego Water Conservation 16,2008
II Program a1*.
Jilitwirl
Why do we need to Conserve? Key Elements:
Regional/Statewide issues Commercial/Residential Audits
• State requirements • Commercial Audits
• Com etin interests
P 9 Portland Temple' Kruse Way Offices Buildings'Red Fox
• Rapidly growing population Hills HOA, Maryswoods,Bryant Elementary School,
*
• Demands on Infrastructure • •i,"' Waluga Jr.High school
• Climate issues • Residential Audits
• Interior:36 - iiii
• Diminishing fish runs/habitat • Exterior:109
• Non-point source pollutant - • Top twenty Residential Users:4-
mitigation �i
• No increases in water '
sources
IIIIIIIIIIMIIMI II. WMCPRequlrement
Lake Oswego Issues Key Elements:
Public Outreach
• Aging Infrastructure ;s
• Literature: . `,
• Water Treatment Plant Upgrades ii • Kiosk at Front desk 1st floor
• State Mandates -°- • Literature given at all HOA
• Water Management and Conservation presentations,Special events,
Plan , ° •MW classes and workshops
• Installation brochure given with
• Tigard/Lake Oswego Partnership / each rain sensor
• Water Rights perfections ,, 1 • New water management Brochure
! to be left with homeowner at every
• Non Point Source Pollution(Irrigation audit.
run-off) • By request
1
03/04/2010
Key Elements: Key Elements:
Public Outreach-Classes/Presentations Incentives
• Presentations:HOAs,Neighborhood
Associations,Civic Organizations,City Events • Toilet/Urinal Rebates got
• Residential Classes:Rain Sensor Installation, Slit
• Rain Sensors c`°y,■'
Irrigation Management
• Lake Oswego School District Classes: Shower Heads
Facility Water Management and Assessment, • Aerators {
Mad Science presentation for elementary school
• Regional Classes:Metro Multi Family f �
• Leak Detection tablets
Housing Association Conference,Oregon • Shower Timers
Landscape Construction Association"Water Lear ),
Grow Green." • Watering Gages
• National Classes:Irrigation Association
Landscape Irrigation Auditor,Irrigation Principles
for Water Conservation s .
Key Elements: Key Elements:
Public Outreach Customer Services
• Publications: ,A • Leak Detection
• Brochures,messaging on water bills,
Conservation Quarterly,WEB site • Meter Testing/Replacement
notifications and updates
Sees • Consultations:rainwater harvesting,plant/tree
selection/care,appliances/equipment
• Videos/Media: recommendations,irrigation scheduling etc.
• PSAs,City videos(Audit,Using watering
gauges)Regional Water Provider Videos • Water Usage Q&A
http://www.ci.oswecio.or.us/wtp/conservation.htm
http://www.conserveh2o.org/
Key Elements: Key Elements:
NationaVRegional Involvement Water Conservation Projects
• EPA: Water Sense Partner,Policy • City Restroom Fixture Replacement:
review MOM • Completed July 2009
• Irrigation Association:Instructor,policy 14v • Replacement of old/inefficient bathroom fixtures in all
and research reviews,contributor City Parks and Public buildings
• AWWA:PNW Conservation Section w 97 toilets-16 Flushometers—30 Urinals—75
Member ; ; Faucets
• Regional Water Providers Consortium
Member
-111
03/04/2010
Savings By Building Westlake Weather Site
http://www.ci.oswego.or.us/weather/
Bldng Feb.09 Feb.010 Units saved %Saved
ACC 46 CCF 40 CCF 6 14 - CI
.• ,
City Hall 92 86 6 7 .-
WEB 33 27 6 18 - _Q El
cm
Library 46 39 7 16 -��e�'e.•m..k : yL
Main Fire St. 72 41 31 43 C2
S.Shore Fire 29 15 14 49 -"- `;_i.: —
Westlake Fire 31 26 5 16
Jean Rd Fire 26 21 5 19 w r-
i\m„:1-„,,,,,,
Golf(office) 8 6 2 25
Total Savings: 82 CCF(61,336 gallons) m�tiamr -
Overall Reduction of water usage:23% - -_ _=a.- - .._.. ..
Key Elements: Tracking
Water Conservation Projects
• Weather Station Installations:Golf • Aerators:556
Course and Westlake Fire Station.
• Shower heads:314
• Will provide real-time weather data for MI- • Toilets:269
operation of City irrigation systems.
• Rain Sensors:98
• Data will also be available on the web • Residential Audits(Exterior): 109
site to assist public with irrigation , -r • Residential Audits(Interior):36
scheduling
-I,'
• Commercial Audits(Exterior-1)(Interior—2)
I • Data will assist in managing Storm (Int./Ext. 3)
water issues by correlating rainfall with
stream flows later,-
Golf Course Weather Site Added Programs
http://www.ci.oswego or.us/weather/ Incentives/Rebates
-7 1 ®CIra CI • Toilet Rebates` --
J
- CI CI • Washing Machine Rebates` - ;,,
•
Rotary Sprinkler Incentives
-4. am Commercial Spray down nozzles` f•
• Additional Give aways:
r '"`=^ • Hose Nozzles
• Timers(Tracked) n
•
• Soil Moisture Probe(Tracked) 0
a
WMCP Requirement
3
03/04/2010
Future Projects Parks Maintenance
II Water Conservation Practices
Automatic Meter reads for City Facilities:
• Evaluate the feasibility and cost to develop a small • Routine Practices
initial"pilot"program.Allow the City to examine the
benefits and potential difficulties associated with an • Recent Enhancements
eventual transition into automated meter reads.
Staff Classes: • Future Challenges
• Educating and updating staff and City departments
on the Water Conservation program and its goals;
the principles of water management and how it
may affect their various endeavors.
Reclaim Water Usage
Routine Practices
• Possible use of treated effluent from
Tryon Creek facility for use as Cultural Practices
irrigation water on Foothills Park, ` Mulch landscape beds to retain
Roehr Park and George Rogers ` moisture.
Park. - Apply wetting agents to allow for
better water penetration on turf.
• Benefits:
•Removes three large turf areas from = Use drought tolerant plants.
potable water use.(4-6 million gallons = Aerate large turf areas for better
annually) plant health and water penetration.
•Urinals/toilets will operate on it as well
•System can be sized to add other area - Install tree bubblers to efficiently
customers as well establish new trees.
•Reduction of temperature sensitive off load
into the Willamette
traliZa
Weather Station Grid Routine Practices (cont.)
• Additional 4 to 6 weather
stations: - Irrigation System Improvements
'i yy
• Storm water management 1 l 1
benefits ° Initiated an automated/computerized
• Surface water quality �* s irrigation system(1991).
,) a, Installed water efficient fixtures during
• Accurate City Water construction of Millennium Plaza,
management of athletic fields
and parks F Foothills Park,and Hazelia Field.
• Real-time weather data for ' - - = Upgrade and retro-fit irrigation systems
neighbor hoods-irrigation ! as funding is available in parks and
management/Smart beautification sites.
controllers -
Install drip irrigation systems where
• Curtailment trigger monitoring applicable in parks and beautification
envakter
sites.
4
03/04/2010
Routine Practices (cont.)I
Recent Enhancements (cont.)
Irrigation Design Improvements
• Developed standardized irrigation
Irrigation System Monitoring
Two staff are now certified irrigation auditors and
back-flow testers(2oog).
Using part-time staffto check irrigation systems in
specifications for use in all City street medians to ensure they are working
projects(1991-92).(Revisions made toI
effectively.
specifications Sept.soog).
"Water Use Practices&Conservation Plan"
• Coordinate with the Planning Dept. JDraft)
to review proposed landscape Developed a plan for Parks&Recreation Water Use,
design plans(1997-98). conservation practices,and drought response.Still in
draft form.
tf
—11
Parks&Recreation
Recent Enhancements "Water Use Practices&Conservation Plan"(draft)
Cultural Practices Plan Components
• Testing"Eco-Lawns"for durability and possible use in parks.
• Water Use Practices
• Increased drought tolerant plantings in street medians.
• Water Conservation Action Plan
• Reduced watering time in the following areas in zoo9: • Planting Standards for Beautification
• Established park landscaped areas by 50%.
Sites
Fairways,tees and driving range at the Golf Course by 33%.
West End Building lawn by 60%. • Drought Response Plan
Reduced watering at two large turf areas to test turf response(i.e.
Pilkington Park,Rivergrove ElementarySchool athletic field).
Plan to be completed and presented to
City Council late spring/early summer 2010
Recent Enhancements (cont.) Future Park Maintenance Challenges
Irrigation System&Facility Upgrades Replace outdated irrigation components
• Retro-fitted toilets,sinks and urinals at • Replace irrigation clocks with clocks compatible
parks and three facilities. with existing automated control system.
•
• Upgraded irrigation heads/nozzles during Replace leaky valves system wide.
annual system tune-ups. • Install additional flow meters.
• Replace inefficient irrigation heads.
• Installed 5 flow meters in parks to better
monitor water use.
Update existing equipment to improve efficiency
Assisted Engineering staff to install weather
stations at Golf Course and Westlake Park. •
Purchase an hydraulic aerator allowing for
Currently upgrading irrigation system at increased versatility in parks and facilities.
George Rogers Park.
tP
03/04/2010
Future Park Maintenance Challenges(cont)
Working through the Challenges:
Upgrade existing Dark irrigation systems
The Issue:
• Upgrade old irrigation systems in parks
and connect to the automated system Water Usage Tracking:
(i.e.Neighborhood parks,water reservoirs, • Unable to accurately evaluate effectiveness of individual
beautification sites,and Golf Course) incentives
• Management of assets impaired
• Connect existing park irrigation system
to newly installed weather stations for The Response:
more efficient operation. New Water usage tracking report tailored to Conservation
Manual data retrieval
Budgeted for Audit to confirm accuracy of Billing,meter reads
etc water
Working through the Challenges:
Other Challenges:
• Unaccounted for water loss:(Data or leaks?)
The issue: • Large turf area Audits:
Limited/inaccurate baseline data:
• Stand alone controllers:
• Difficulty Evaluating progress
• Affects Reports to State • Street medians:
• Management of assets impaired • Parks restroom facilities:Individual meters
The response: • Consistent use of Irrigation and landscape specifications
• Working with affected departments to gather information • Web site redesign
• Manual reads by staff where possible
• Historical evaluations of usage data
Working through the Challenges:
Other Challenges:
The Issue: •
Two Month Billing Cycles:
Inconsistent/inaccurate Meter Reads: Limits control for emergency measures;extended time
between when a problem is identified and when it began.
Difficulty defining Usage Patterns Cost to customers
Reduction of revenue collection
• Management of assets impaired • Enforceable well defined water wasting code
The Response: • CCF vs.Gallons;Difficult for customers to comprehend
• Historical data where available • Outdoor water conservation incentives for large
• Notification to billing when inaccuracies are discovered properties
• Meter tests and changes
11112M
03/04/2010
Kevin McCaleb
LAKE`rt i Water Conservation Specialist
CIC,CLIA,CID,CGIA
503-675-3747
kmccaleb@ci.oswego.or.us
Questions?
water
--- 111111
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
LAKE OSWEGO
Centennial 1910-2010
380 A Avenue
PO Box 369
Lake Oswego,OR 97034
COUNCIL REPORT 503-675-3984
www.ci.oswego.or.us
TO: Jack Hoffman, Mayor
Members of the City Council
Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager
FROM: Denny Egner, AICP, Assistant Planning Director
SUBJECT: Infill Study Session — LU 08-0053
DATE: March 1, 2010
ACTION
No Council action is proposed for the March 9, 2009 study session.
INTRODUCTION
On April 6, 2010, the City Council is scheduled to open a public hearing on a comprehensive plan policy
amendment and series of code amendments that promote compatibility between infill development and
surrounding neighborhoods. At the March 9, 2009 study session, staff will provide a summary of the City's
existing infill code requirements and a description of the proposed code and policy amendments. This
report provides an overview of the background leading up to the April 6 hearing and a brief discussion of
key issues.
BACKGROUND
On February 22, 2010, the Planning Commission adopted its findings in support of the proposed code and
policy changes. The adoption followed more than a year of work sessions and hearings. The
timeline/history for the City's work related to infill development follows:
2000-2002 Infill Task Force is appointed and works on proposals to make infill compatible.
2003 Infill related code amendments are adopted by the City Council and incorporated into the
community development code.
2005-2008 Infill Task Force is reformed and expanded. They are charged with evaluating the 2003
amendments and making recommendations for improvement.
2008-2009 Planning Commission opens public hearing and holds work sessions.
2010 Planning Commission approves package of infill related changes.
9
Page 2
DISCUSSION
The proposed policy and code amendments not only address ways to make infill development compatible
but they also adjust a number of problems that have been identified with the 2003 code amendments.
Summaries of the proposed amendments are attached. The proposed code and policy amendments will be
provided to the Council as part of the April 6 packet. The April 6 packet will include the Planning
Commission staff report and findings and a discussion of applicable comprehensive plan policies and legal
requirements.
Key issues that have addressed by the Infill Task Force and the Planning Commission include:
Design Review—The Infill Task Force recommended (by a split vote) that the City adopt a policy to develop
a design review process for single family homes. As envisioned, a design review board would review and
approve house designs for any house over a certain size threshold (e.g. any two-story home or any home
larger than 3,000 sq. ft.). The Planning Commission voted against creation of a new design review process.
Staff expects that design review will be a subject of public testimony on April 6.
House Size— In 2003, the infill standards established new floor area limits that tied the maximum square
footage of the house to the lot size (e.g. on a 10,000 sq. ft. lot in the R-10 zone, a house can be no greater
than 4,000 sq. ft. in size). The Infill Task Force proposed changing the way house size was calculated but
did not propose reducing overall house size. The Planning Commission recommended reducing house size
by approximately 5%.
Side-to-Side Compatibility—The Infill Task Force and the Planning Commission both recommended a new
"side yard plane" requirement that pushes the upper story and roof of a house toward the center of the
lot.
RID Review—The 2003 infill amendments included adoption of the Residential Infill Design (RID) Review
process. This process allows administrative review of alternative designs that may not fully satisfy code
requirements. For approval, findings must be made that the development will be compatible with the
surrounding neighborhood. Neighborhood representatives have expressed concern that the process has
been used to build larger houses than would not otherwise be allowed. As a result, the Infill Task Force
and the Planning Commission recommended significant changes to the RID process that limits its use.
Nonconforming Structures—The Infill Task Force and Planning Commission have recommended that
nonconforming structure provisions be revised to allow reconstruction and remodeling of nonconforming
dwellings regardless of the amount of investment in the structure.
Sloped Lots—The Infill Task Force recommended that new sloped lot standards be adopted for steeply
sloped lots to allow building heights to reach 45 feet. Current standards are 35 feet on sloped lots. The
Planning Commission voted against the change.
10
Page 3
ALTERNATIVES & FISCAL IMPACT
No alternatives are proposed at this time. The package of code and policy amendments being brought
forward to the April 6 public hearing is a recommendation of the Planning Commission.
Fiscal impact is minimal. The code and policy amendments modify the Comprehensive Plan and
Community Development Code and do not direct the City to initiate new projects or programs. Some of
the code amendments result in simplification of code provisions. Some of the code amendments result in
more complex requirements that may require additional time for staff review. It is expected that the time
savings of simplification will balance out the time needed for the more complex provisions.
RECOMMENDATION
No recommendation is provided for the study session.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Summary of Infill Code Amendments
2. Summary of Infill Policy Amendments
Reviewed y:
Department Di
Alex D. Mclnt re
City Manager
11
ATTACHMENT 1
SUMMARY OF INFILL CODE AMENDMENTS - ORDINANCE NO 2524
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION - MARCH 9, 2010
Unless otherwise noted, the Planning Commission has recommended that the City
Council adopt the proposed code amendments described in this summary. These
amendments were initially developed by the Infill Task Force and in some cases they
have been modified by the Planning Commission. The Task Force was originally formed
in 2001 and produced a set of recommendations that were codified in 2003. The Task
Force was reconvened in 2005 to evaluate the 2003 code amendments, make
refinements, and address issues that were not resolved by the 2001 group. The Task
Force recommendations were presented to the Planning Commission in the fall of 2008.
The Commission recommended approval of the amendments in January 2010.
The summary below describes the proposed code changes by topic area. Each
description is followed by a listing of the code sections that are proposed to be
amended.
1. Comprehensive Plan Amendments— Neighborhood Planning/Design Review
Issues: Incompatible houses sizes; City-wide code standards that don't always fit
the unique characteristics of neighborhoods.
Proposals: Two Comprehensive Plan text amendments were proposed. One
recommends using overlay zones to implement neighborhood plans and protect
neighborhood character. The second (not recommended by the Planning
Commission) proposes instituting a design review process for single family,
duplex, and attached dwellings. See Attachment 2 -the Summary of Infill Policy
Amendments for more details.
2. Lot Coverage and Maximum Floor Area
Issues: Maximum floor area and lot coverage tables result in abrupt step
changes; floor area calculations sometimes result in inequities (garages and high
ceilings are exempt).
Proposals:
■ Adjusts lot coverage to eliminate the abrupt step change in coverage based
on house height. Provides more flexibility and slightly greater lot coverage
in order to encourage lower scaled houses.
■ The maximum floor area ratio is one method the City uses to limit house size
and tie the floor area to the area of the lot. The proposal revises the
maximum floor area scale to eliminate abrupt step changes in house size
based on lot size. A formula is proposed. The Planning Commission
recommended a 5% reduction in maximum floor area.
■ Amends maximum floor area standards to include garages. The changes do
not address room height or volume.
Summary of Infill Code Amendments(Ordinance No. 2524, LU 08-0053)
1
13
• Current code allows a bonus in lot coverage and floor area when the garage
is located to the rear of the primary structure. The proposal defines "to the
rear of the primary structure" as at least 20 feet behind the front.
• Amends the code to limit the bonus in lot coverage and floor area for
detached garages in the First Addition Neighborhood. The original intent, to
break up massing, is being subverted through the construction of multiple
garages.
Maximum Floor Area—Garage Issue
Two houses with exactly the same size and bulk. Garages
are currently exempt from maximum floor area.
Garage
Meets Maximum Floor Exceeds Maximum Floor Area
Area — large garage —small garage
Section 2 - Lot Coverage and Floor Area—Sections to be amended:
50.08.040 Lot Coverage - R-7.5, R-10, and R-15
50.07.035 Lot Coverage - R-6
50.06.040 Lot Coverage - R-0, R-2, R-3, R-5, and WR
50.08.042 FAR - R-7.5, R-10, and R-15
50.07.037 FAR - R-6
50.06.035 FAR - R-0, R-2, R-3, R-5, and WR
3. Structure Design and Setback Planes i : '` "" '; • "
Issues: Tall houses close to the property • f , '" *►-'
line can be incompatible. Tall houses on
M _ ,
corner lots can overpower the streetscape. ,i
Current wall plane standards need more ' ,
flexibility. Er I '4
Proposals: _
• Applies the existing front setback plane .
concept to corner lots and side yards to _
push the mass and bulk to the center of the
lot.
• Creates a menu of design options from Setback Plane:The roof must fit behind
which applicants might choose to reduce the plane established by the lines.
the actual and perceived scale of neighbor-
Summary of Infill Code Amendments(Ordinance No. 2524, LU 08-0053)
2
14
facing side elevations. Options include wall plane limitations, off-sets, porches,
and landscaping.
Section 3 -Structure Design —Sections to be amended:
50.22.025 Special Yard Requirements
50.06.050-060 R-0, R-2, R-3, R-5, and WR
50.07.040 R-6
50.08.045 R-7.5, R-10 and R-15
4. Yard Setbacks
Issues: Houses are too close to the street on corner lots in the R-7.5 zone. Side
yards are too narrow in the First Addition when two abutting lots both have five-
foot setbacks.
Proposals:
• Provides a minimum 15-foot setback for corner lots in the R-7.5 zone.
• Provides a minimum 7.5-foot setback for side yards in the R-6 zone.
Section 4 -Yard Setbacks—Sections to be amended:
50.08.030 R-7.5
50.08.025 R-6
5. Sloped Lots
Issues: Provide greater flexibility on steeply sloped lots.
Proposals:
• Makes a distinction between sloped lots and steeply sloped lots (a steep
slope is one with an average slope of 25%).
• On lots with sloping topography, provides up to a four-foot increase in height
on the downslope portion of the lot to allow for more floor area at a single
level.
• Adjusts how the front setback plane is measured for slopping lots. For
downslope lots, the base height is measured from the street centerline. For
upslope lots, the front setback plane follows a 6:12 slope or the actual slope
within the building envelope, whichever is greater.
• Allows an 18-foot minimum setback on steeply sloped lots.
• Establishes the front setback plane based on
the average slope of the land on steeplys
sloped lots. '�1t
• On steeply sloped lots, allows an increase in dA'
height from 35 feet to as much as 45 feet, n �fi ` ' -
provided certain conditions and design
standards are met. (Note: The Planning
Commission did not recommend Council
adoption of this increase in height.)
Summary of Infill Code Amendments(Ordinance No. 2524, LU 08-0053)
3
15
Section 5 - Sloped Lots—Sections to be amended:
50.02 Definitions
50.06.050-060 R-0, R-2, R-3, R-5, and WR
50.07.030-040 R-6
50.08.030-045 R-7.5, R-10 and R-15
6. RID Review
Issues: The Residential Infill Design (RID) Review process has been used for too
wide a range of design adjustments. A very limited number of neighbors receive
notice of the review process.
Proposals:
• Limits application of the current
Residential Infill Design (RID) process. If m ✓sfk
approved, the RID process could no longer 1
be used for adjusting lot coverage, "`' '' .��� 4 --1111141L
maximum floor area, and height.
w,
• The Planning Commission recommended ' LL
that the RID process follow the same " �`1 r n
noticing procedures as the variance )Il �' ! °
process. I _
• Makes requested adjustments to the
maximum floor area a variance process
rather than a RID process.
Section 6 - RID Review—Sections to be amended:
50.81.010 Notice of Minor Development Application
50.72.020 Residential Infill Design Review Standards
50.68.015 Classification of Variances
7. Planned Developments
Issues: Setbacks in Planned Developments are sometimes less than what is
required by the zoning in the surrounding neighborhood.
Proposal: Establish a minimum separation distance between structures in
Planned Developments.
Section 7— Planned Developments—Sections to be amended:
50.17.015 Authorization
8. Variances
Issues: Some code requirements discourage the remodeling of existing
structures by making it too difficult to modify existing dwellings. In some
situations, the Class 1 variance process can be used to reduce side yards to less
than five feet.
Proposals:
Summary of Infill Code Amendments(Ordinance No. 2524, LU 08-0053)
4
16
■ Allows variances for continuation of nonconforming building walls as long as
the house does not grow larger than allowed in the zone.
■ Allows for variances to preserve trees.
■ Allows for variances for minor remodeling projects.
■ Allows for Class 1 variances where survey errors have resulted in
nonconforming homes.
■ Requires Class 2 rather than Class 1 variances for reductions in side yard
setbacks that are reduced to less than five feet.
Section 8 -Variances—Sections to be amended:
50.68.015 Classification of Variances
9. Miscellaneous Code Provisions
Issues: Remodeling projects require additional flexibility.
Proposal:
■ Allows for reconstruction of nonconforming houses after fire or other
destruction.
■ Allows increases in roof pitch for nonconforming structures where the height
limit of the zone is not exceeded and no additional living space is created as a
result.
■ Allows a 2.5% lot area exception and a dimensional standard exception of up
to six inches.
Section 9 - Miscellaneous Code Provisions -Sections to be amended:
50.70.020 Nonconforming Structures
50.70.005 Nonconforming Structures
50.79.010 Ministerial Development Classification
10. Duplexes and Single Family Attached
Issues: Infill standards don't apply to duplexes and attached single family units.
Proposal:
■ Applies infill standards to duplex and single family attached housing.
■ Provides greater flexibility in meeting garage standards.
Section 10- Duplex and Single Family Attached - Sections to be amended:
50.06.065 R-0, R-2, R-3, R-5, and WR - Garage Appearance
50.07.047 R-6 - Garage Appearance
50.08.055 R-7.5, R-10 and R-15 - Garage Appearance
11. Flag Lots/Serial Partitions.
Issues: Flag lots are isolated from the surrounding neighborhood. Greater
flexibility for some types of flag lot development is needed.
Proposal:
■ Requires the front of the lot to be the side from which access is taken.
Summary of Infill Code Amendments(Ordinance No. 2524, LU 08-0053)
5
17
■ Requires a "connecting lane" with houses fronting on the lane.
■ Sets standards for the "connecting lane."
■ Changes setbacks to provide more flexibility.
■ Requires a five-foot setback from the access drive to existing house on
parent parcel.
■ Requires a 10-foot setback from the access drive with at least 20 feet for a
parking area.
■ Requires street connectivity for properties of 1.75 acres or greater.
Section 11 - Flag Lots/Serial Partitions -Sections to be amended:
50.68.015 Classification of Variances
50.20.020-030 Flag Lot Standards
50.57.020 Standards for Construction
50.60.005-035 Street Connectivity
Summary of Infill Code Amendments(Ordinance No. 2524, LU 08-0053)
6
18
ATTACHMENT 2
SUMMARY OF INFILL POLICY AMENDMENTS - ORDINANCE NO 2523
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION - MARCH 9, 2010
One Comprehensive Plan policy amendment addressing neighborhood planning has
been recommended by the Planning Commission. The Commission did not recommend
an amendment regarding a new design review program. This summary provides
information on both policies.
Neighborhood Plan Implementation Policy
(Recommended by the Planning Commission)
The proposed change is a simple insertion of text into an existing policy to make it clear
that new neighborhood zones or overlay zones are an appropriate means of
implementing neighborhood plans. New text is shown in underline, below.
Comprehensive Plan Goal 2(Land Use Planning)Section 1, Policy 18
18. Develop and adopt specific Neighborhood Plans and implementing measures
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as the means to enhance neighborhood
livability and achieve desired neighborhood character. If appropriate,
implementation may be accomplished through creation of a new zoning district
or a new overlay zone. A Neighborhood Association may request the Planning
Commission and City Council to initiate Neighborhood Plan Map and text
amendments at any time, without fee, upon finding that the proposed changes
are in the public's interest and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Design Review Policy
(Not Recommended by the Planning Commission)
The Infill Task Force proposed a second policy that would direct the City to create a
residential design review process to assure that new residential development (single
family, duplex, and attached housing) fit in to the community. New text is shown in
underline, below.
Comprehensive Plan Goal 2 (Land Use Planning)Section 2 Policy 6
6. Establish a design review process for residential development to ensure that new
and remodeled structures are compatible with the character and scale of
development planned for the surrounding neighborhood.
Summary of Infill Policy Amendments(Ordinance No. 2523, LU 08-0053)
Page 1
19
The purpose of residential design review is to assure that any new or remodeled single
family home or duplex fits well within the neighborhood in which it is located. Design
review is intended to assure that development is appropriate in terms of size and scale,
the relationship to neighbors, and the relationship to the street.
The proposed policy for design review was supported by the majority of the Infill Task
Force members (vote was 8 in favor and 5 against). The issue was discussed extensively
and Task Force members generally agreed that the success of a design review process
would be dependent on the following items:
■ The thresholds that would require a house to be subject to design review
(size/height/need for a variance).
■ The complexity, length, and cost of the process.
■ The criteria for judging the compatibility of a structure.
One of the key issues addressed by the task force was house size and whether new
houses in Lake Oswego are too large. After discussion and review, the Task Force
concluded that compatibility was not simply a matter of size; it was more often an issue
of design. Big houses can be compatible if designed properly and small houses can be
incompatible if poorly designed. For this reason, the Task Force recommended that the
City pursue a design review program for new and remodeled homes in the City.
To better explain how a design review process might work, the following alternatives
were developed. The alternatives include a number of different thresholds for
triggering design review, including house size, height, yard width, and percent of
maximum lot coverage or maximum floor area. The simplest version sets a 5,000 square
foot size threshold for design review. The threshold could be set higher or lower
depending on community desires. If a lower threshold was established, more houses
would go through the process. In doing research, staff found that some California
communities trigger design review on any home that is taller than one-story.
Residential Design Review
Alternatives
What are some alternative thresholds for what would trigger design review?
■ Houses/duplexes over 5,000 sq. ft. in floor area (including the area of the garage).
Basements shall be included in the sq. ft. total if considered a story.
■ Houses/duplexes that exceed the base height requirement of the zone. The use of
the six-foot height exception for roof features would require design review.
Exceptions to the front and side setback planes would not trigger design review
provided they do not exceed the base height requirement for the zone. Chimneys
would be exempt, but all other height exceptions would trigger design review.
■ Houses/duplexes that exceed 80% of the allowed maximum floor area or 90% of the
allowed lot coverage on a site. This requires design review for the homes that are
Summary of Infill Policy Amendments(Ordinance No. 2523, LU 08-0053)
Page 2
20
beginning to push the upper range of floor area and lot coverage limits in the zones.
Based on data collected from August of 2003 to July of 2005, these design review
thresholds would capture about half of all new single family development. A higher
percentage would be captured in the First Addition Neighborhood.
Floor Area and Lot Coverage (8-03 to 7-05)
Number of Single Family Projects
R-6 R-7.5 R-10 R-15
Floor Area 6of8 > 80% 14of28 > 80% 27of40 > 80% 8of19 > 80%
Lot Coverage 6 of 8 > 95% 16 of 28 > 90% 19 of 40 > 90% 7 of 19 > 90%
The following table provides a comparison of 80% and 90% maximum floor area
thresholds.
Size Trigger Examples 90%and 80%of Maximum Floor Area
Zone Lot Area for Maximum floor 90% of maximum — 80% of maximum —
Example area allowed by DR required on DR required on
code these house sizes these house sizes
R-7.5 7,500 sq ft _ 4,225 sq ft 3,803 sq ft 3,380 sq ft
R-7.5 10,000 sq ft 4,850 sq ft 4,365 sq ft 3,880 sq ft
R-10 10,000 sq ft 5,000 sq ft 4,500 sq ft 4,000 sq ft
R-10 15,000 sq ft 6,250 sq ft 5,625 sq ft** 5,000 sq ft
R-15 15,000 sq ft 6,350 sq ft 5,715 sq ft** 5,080 sq ft*
** 5,000 sq ft limit would trigger DR
■ Houses/duplexes with floor area greater than 2,500 sq. ft. when on lots that are:
o Less than the minimum lot size of the base zone, including lots within
Planned Developments.
o Less than 60 feet in width at the front building line.
■ Houses/duplexes with side yards less than the minimum listed in the base zone or
where the total side yard dimensions are less than totals listed below:
Lot Conditions Total of Both Side Yards
Less than 65 feet wide 15 feet
66-100 feet wide 20 feet
More than 101 feet wide 30 feet
(Note: These thresholds were not tested.)
■ Additions to houses/duplexes that cause any of the thresholds listed above to be
exceeded.
Summary of Infill Policy Amendments(Ordinance No. 2523, LU 08-0053)
Page 3
21
What are some alternatives for the proposed review process/procedure?
■ Establish a five member Residential Design Board (RDB) to make decisions on houses
projects that go through design review. The Board should be made up of four design
professionals and one at-large citizen. All should reside within the urban services
boundary of the City.
■ The Residential Design Board should follow a process similar to the current RID
process where the Board will make a decision and then provide notice of the
decision. Notice will be sent to all properties within 100 feet plus additional
properties so that no less than 20 properties are notified. Hearings would occur only
if requested within a certain time period following the issuance of the notice.
■ An application to RDB would require a site plan, floor plans, building elevations, an
analysis of surrounding development, and a list of building materials. The plans
submitted may be preliminary concept plans, but must be of sufficient detail to
allow design review and to allow development of final plans that conform with the
preliminary plans. The RDB would not review plans for compliance with the building
code. Conflicts resulting from building department review of the plans would need
to go back to the RDB or be resolved through a new process to address minor
changes in plans.
■ The fees should cover the cost of the process. Design review may be combined with
other processes such as variance requests. In such cases, the fees may be reduced.
■ Approval criteria should require conformance with design guidelines that are
developed as part of a design handbook and any specific design guidelines that are
developed for an individual neighborhood. Design guidelines are considered
essential for the success of the design review process.
Summary of Infill Policy Amendments(Ordinance No. 2523, LU 08-0053)
Page 4
22
Review Process—Flow Chart
ApproximateTiming
Pre-application Screening with Staff --
I
Pre-application Conference 15 days
■ Neighborhood Association notice
Application Submitted
15-30 days
I
Application Deemed Complete
30-45 days
I
Review and Preliminary Decision by DRB 15 days
I
Notice of Preliminary Decision 7 days
■ Surrounding properties
I
Decision Final if Hearing Not Requested— 30 days
Hearing Scheduled if Requested
I --
Notice of Hearing 15 days
1
Hearing before DRB
1
Notice of Decision—Opportunity for Appeal to City
Council
Summary of Infill Policy Amendments(Ordinance No. 2523, LU 08-0053)
Page 5
23