The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda Item - 2010-12-17 - Number 8.1 - 8. 1 y 5F LAKE 05vv jii L,'UyL,Oa vv UGi> Centennial 191(7-2010 380 A Avenue a PO Box 369 Lake O5 vego,OR 97034 IOW COUNCIL REPORT 5036753984 www.ci.oswego.or.u5 TO: JacR HmTman, Mayor Members of the City O3una Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager FROM: Laura Weigel, Associate Planner Planning and Building Department SOB,EUT: La Re urovc R-7.57R-1U Uvci lay District Pudlic Hearing- ordinance 2558 (EU 10-U040) uiTE: December 17, 2010 ACTION Hola a public hearing aria tentatively appr avC EU 1U-UU4U and one of the two recommended versions of Ordinance 1558, which ale code Change, to implement the CaRe drove Neighbor nova Plan by establishing the Cake drove Overlay District. INTRODUCTION The Planning Commission held a public hearing on September 13, 2010. i he Commission recommended adoption at two at the seven proposed code changes proposed by the Cake Grove ii eighborhood Association. ihei' Findings Conclusion and Uraer were adopted on Oci.aber 11, 2010. The neighborhood association r ecvrrrrreenaea tvvo codcc provisions one ot them diner ent than the Planning Commission recommendation. The City Council held a study session on this matter on November 30, 2010. BACKGROUND The LaRe Urove Neighbor hood Plan was adopted 5y the CiLy Council in 1998. From 2000 to the present, the neighborhood a..).wciatiorii has been aaareing the need to implement the plan the through the adoption of code provisions. Please see the aetailea timeline provided in the ,tatt report tar the study session (Exhibit D-4). DISCUSSION This section discusses the character ot the Cake Grove neighborhood and the overlay provisions that are recommended by the Planning Commission and the neighbor hood association Lo help maintain the neighborhood character. Feb 1, 2011 113 Page 2 Lake urove Neighborhood Character The code concepts were generated from the neighborhood character statement, which follows: Dense vegetation and lar ge trees define the scale and character of this neighbor hood sepur ate one lot from its neighbor, and mast buildings from the street. rouses are set within this landscape, instead of defining it. Many uppeur3rcluaea una privutc frvrn other-buildings. H000ses of irony differ entsi[es, heights, U0shape3 fit this neighbor hood because the vegetation diminishes the visibility and score of the buildings. Aaaitionally, the Code provisiuns seeR to implement several ot the goals and policies identified in the neighborhood plan including: Goal 10_ Policy 6: Ensure all new residential development, including secondary dwellings and homes Being substantially remodeled, contributes to the positive design character and qualities of CaKE rove' existing residential neighborhood. This shall Be accomplished through the application or design compatibility standards, vvhich include: • 5iLE of paved areas • Appropriate setbacR3, buffering and screening • Preservation of mature canopy and other landscape reatures 1. side yard setaa1.k I., R-7.5 Current Code: Requires that portions of structures less than irs ft in 11.ight must have a 5 Toot minimum side yard setbacR and a total combined width of 15 feet. Structures greater than io ft rE.iuire lU Tuut minimum on each side. Pr000, d LFianke— Requires that FA7rtirb ot structures less than 18 feet in height mast have a 10 feet minimum side yard 3cthaci. Neighborhood Reason: Increased setbacks increase the distance 6�tvveen homes and increase privacy between neighbors. Plarinin commission recommendation: The Commission recommended adopting 10-foot side yard setbacR3 in the roc-f.5 portion of the CaRe brave Overlay District based on its findings that an increased side yard aEtoacR vvill Help maintain the neighborhood character ot CaRe trove as described in the Cake Grove Neighborhood Plan. Implications to Flag Lots Inc l.oundii raised a gac3tiorl about the relationship between the proposed 1U' side yard setbacR and flag lot standards of cut_ 5U.LU. L..unJI wanted to Rnovv it the Tlag iot standards provided ally tlexibility in adjusting the side yard setback, if the access lane r�quirments resulted in narrowing oT the potential building envelope on the tront (non-flag lot) parcel. The answer is no. I Pfe flag lot provisions currently am riot provide an opportunity tor reducing the proposed 10' side yard setback. However, it should noted that property ovvners have other opportunities to request a reduction it] side yard setbacks through a variancc or REaidcntial Inrili Deign (RID) process. 114 Feb 1, 2011 Page 3 - - . 2. Driveway Turnarounds: Current Code: Driveway tarnaioand materials are not specified. - - -- : urivevvay tUrnaroa..as ,Hall 6e constructed oat of pervious motel ials, sack as pervious pave.3 ana gra33 paving. Planning Commission recommendation: The commission recommended adopting a requirement for "green" driveway turnarounds because there are no city-wide standards addressing driveway turnarounds dira Because the Commission found that this requirement will help maintain the neighborhood character of LaRe Grove as aescri6ea in the Cake Grove Neighhorhooa Plan. NciRPibo.Plooa Rational rvi aruppinA thus NI Ovisivn: IT OE City l.oal.cil agopts the pi oposeedi hardscape definition below, the driveway turnarouna provision is no longer necessary. Recommended By the NGigfBorhooa A33ociati;,n, But riot rec:,mmenaeaa By the Planning commission. 3. Hardscape Maximum of 50% carient code: No maximum percentage of hardscape is defined. Ile Commission recommended that the City consider whether Pia a3cape limitation3 Shlooia Be City vviae, aria tnas aniturmly appliea. A an.itorm definition cuald Be developed/addressed in connection with the Comprehei.3ive Pla., update. Also, the Commission recommended that a proposed restriction should have widespread neighborhood support to justify additional restrictions on development within a neighborhood overlay district. Based on the pahiic testimony. the Commission tuana that the proposea hdrascdpe provision dues not Have 3arricient ne gM6orfuoa support. Neighborrlood Association recomme,-.aation: Inc neigR6orRooa vv7ul3 stir iiRe to see the Miarascape limitation included in the overlay. They believe it will OE helpful i., aecreai..g the amount or gray infrastructure in the neighborhood, increasing storm water filtration, and protecting neignoorrlooa character. i Be neighburnuoa associatioii aid Change its recommendea detinitioir of hardscape to he the same aerinition tlat is i..ciaaea i.. the t.ienmorrie Overlay (see belovv) to aaareess the council aid commission's concern about Fla two different aerinitions or Pllarascape in the Coac. The public testimony that was received at the Planning commission nea.i.,g was prima.iiy oppt.,sea to any new regulations in the neighborhood and was not specific to hardscape. Ha.a,cape Definition based on City Council Study session hearing and Planning Commission Hearing. (Now t.rt cAnd 33mcZ.fe-li.. tivn a3 cnmo ie ara cape e Inl Ion : Feb 1, 2011 115 Page 4 No more than 5uio of a lot Shall be covered vvith any of the r011ovving elements: structures, patios, paving or impervious vvalks, novvever, pervious declZs and natural-appearing constructed ponds shall not be included within this limitation. Where a paved area cortLains mixed non-plane and plant elements, only the non-plant portions at the area shall be included within this limitation, (See LOC Appendix 50.08B.02U-A tar illustrations at nata;ai-appeeai ing constructed ponds and paved areas with mixed nary plant aria plant cicmcnt3.) ALTERNATIVES & FISL.AL IIVii4 ..I 1) Adopt the Planning Commission recommendation to establish a Lake urove neighborhood uverlay DisiriLl inciading ihe tallowing: a. R-/.5 side yard setbacks increased 1a 10 tee. minimam on both sides. b. Driveway turnarounds shall be constructed oat at pervious materials, such as perviaas pavers and grass paving. 2) Adopt the lveignoornoua A3sociation recommendation to establish a La Re brave Overlay District including the follovving: a. R-7.5 side yard setbacks increased to lu feet minimum on both sides. b. Limit. to hardscape to 50%of each lot. 3) Adopt a modified version of ihe recommended Overlay District. 4) Do riot establish an Overlay District. Fi3cal impact is minimal. I he overlay does not reyauire thie City to initiate nevv projects or programs. The Lode amcndmcnt3 do re3oult in more wmFIen rey'uirernents that may require additional time for statt review. RECOMMENDATION Starr recommends that the City Coancii move to tentatively approve LU 10-0040 and direct statt io return the final version er Ordinance /553 (the neighborhood associatian recommendation) including findings, concluzion and order on March 1, zu11. Reviewed by: Depar n , e r / Alex City Ma ger EXHIBITS A. Draft Ordinances 116 Feb 1, 2011 Page 5 A-1 Draft Ordinance z558, dated August, 24, zuiu (not inclaaud, 5uper3eded P5y A-1,1 Draft Ordinance 2558, dated October 19, zuiu A-2 Neighborhood Association Proposed Ordinance B. Fiiiainga aria LVnClUak,ns -I Apvi ovca Planning Commission Findings_ Conclusions Ft urder, September, 2010 C. Minutes C-1 Planning Commission Minutes, May 1z, zuuu C-2 Planning Commission Minutes, May 24, 2010 Planning Commission Minutes, September 13, 2010 D. 5taff Mc, .,raFi as/Rewarta D-1 Work session v11 May 1Z, ZUUtS (3tcaTT TERM aatea May s_ 2008) D-2 Work session on May 24, zuiu (starT memo Elated May 13, 2010) D-3 Planning Commission Public nearing on September 13, 2010 (starr Report Elated August 20, 2010) D-4 city council study Session on November 30, 2010 (Stott Report dated November zz, Zulu) E. uraphics E-1 Map of rake trove R-f.s/R-lu uverlay District Boundaries F. Written Materials F-1 Cake Grove NeigFiEorFiaod Survey, March 2009 U. Cuttura h-1 ratter rrorn ry aria Leslie Hasson, dated September 1, 2010 u-z retter from Allard aria lanna Conger, dated Septern3er 1. 2010 G-3 Letter from visa and Dwight scrIvva6, receives 5eptem6er 3, lulu G-4 Leer tram Bert Guarrasi, dated September 4, Zulu 6-5 Cotter from Phillip and Lanni Arakelian, dated september J, Zulu G b Leettei from VaIie and Sasan Arakelian, dated September 9, 2010 c3-i Letter troth Ea Bachman dated September 8, 2010 U-8 Letter rrom Bill aria Rimrerley Lee acted September 8, 2010 v y retter rrom Bill aria Kimberley Cee, aatea Septembei 8. 2010 u-1u retter from Bill acid Kimberley Coe, aatca September 8. 2010 G-11 Letter from Bill and Kimberley tee, datea September 8, 2010 G-12 Cerrer from Bill and Kimberley Lee, dated september 8, zuiu G-13 Letter from Brent dna Kimm Wall, dated September 8, 2ui0 t3-14 Letter Tom Doane Hottinger dated September 8, 2010 u-15 [Etter Trom I7litcrlell Elli3an aatea September 8. 2010 U It7 retter from MarIZ FranIZen, dated September 8, Zulu G-17 Letter from Dreg creitz, dated September 9, zuiu 6-18 Leiser from Jerry Jones, dated September u, Zulu G-19 Letter tram Jessica Lee, dated September 9, 2010 c3-2u Letter troth Howell and Leta Lee, dated September 9, 2010 Feb 1, 2011 117 Page 6 (.3-21 Lcttcr Jufin and Burry IV1ErcEp, CratEa sEptc5e, 1U, 2u1U LI-2z statement from Daniel Work, suf5 ittua RlovErnrer 30, 2010 G-23 E-Mail from Robert and Sharon Borgford, dated rlovember 56, zUau 118 Feb 1, 2011 UKAFT 10/19/10 DRAFT uRDINANCE Nu. 2558 [FLANNIwu COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIuN] Aw ORDINANCE or THE LAKE OSWEGO CITY COUNCIL AMENDING CHAPTER 50 OF THE LAKE uSWEuu COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE TO ADD NEW ARTICLE 5u.u8C LAKE GROVE R-7.5/R-1U OVERLAY DISTRICT;AND ADOPTING FINDINGS Lu iu- 0040. The City of Lake Oswego ordains as tallows: Section 1 Section 50.05.005 of the Lake Oswego Code is hereoy«<..ended ny adding n, �� text ahuw„ i„ buld and underlined type as follows: Section 50.05.005 Zun;ng District! The City is divided into the ing totting 1.zig„atiol,s: Residential Map.Designation Residential— Low Density R-15 Residential— Low Density R-10 Rc iaentiu]— Deuaity R-7.5 Residential— Mediu„ Dei,sity(FAN) R-6 Residential— Medium Density R-5 'Residential— High Density R-3 Residential— High D.nsity(WLu) R-2.5 I Ree iaeutial— High Density R-2 Residential— High Density R-0 Waterfront Cabanas w R Design Di6t,ivt(Old Tow..) DD 'Mired Residential/Giiri�xneicial Map 1)siignation Residential— High Da.sity(wLu) R-2.5/W w LG Onice Uol,u„ereial/Town/ Homc VC/R-2.5 Residential W LCi Office Commercial /Neighborhood OC/NC C ouunercial :! Commercial ;:: • Map Designation . Neighborhood Com,,,eicial NC General Commercial GC Highway Commercial HC Offiee Campus OC East End (Jeuet al Commercial EC Campus Institutional t,I Campus Research& Development Mixd Comme.cc MC EXHIBIT A-1.1 Ordinance No. 2558 LU 3.0-0040 Page 1 of Feb 1, 2011 119 DRAFT l U71971 U Industrial Map Designation Industrial It.aust,ial Park iP Public use Map Designation Public Function PP Overlays Map Designation Planned Development PD Resout cc Consul vatiou RC Resource Protection RP w c, Grccuv ay _ trM Neighborhood Overlay Glenmoi i is R-15 civet lay District GO Lake Grove R-7.5/R-10 Overlay District 1.GO Section 2, A new Article 50.08C is hereby added to the Lake Oswego Community Development Code, Chapter 50 to [cad as follows; Article 5U.08(: Lake Crove R-7.5/K-1U Overlay District 50.uat.,.uu5 The purpose of the overlay is to ensure that develep.,,ent iL,the uvc,itly District promotes the unique character of the Lake Grove Neighn3n117,7d. 50.08C.01U Applicability. This a,bole applies to lands zoned R-7.5 or R-i 0 within the Lake Grave uve,ray DiStr;ct, as shown e, LOC Appendix 50.08C.010-A. 5U.1.18C.U15 Relationship to Other Standards. 1 o the extent that any requirement of this Article imposes a regulation relating to the-,antc, i„atter as a. ,egulation in LUC Article 50.08 this Article shall prevail, // // // Ordinance No. 2558 Page 2 of 4 120 Feb 1, 2011 DRAFT I/19/10 50.08C.020 Yard S�tba;k�. 1. The yard�etba�ks within the Lake Grove Overlay District shall be as fellows: Lake Glut, Vvcrlay District Yard SGtba�ks. f rimary and Accessory Structures 44 ' Primary Stra;tares Accessory Structures Sid Yard V Adjacent I Front to a Rear Zane i Y ,F � treet Other Side Yards Yard Side a dear s � Pertion� ! of Portions of �, ; Struetare Structures �. tr ct[t 5� < 18 feet 18 feet in tructure 8 �1Ei#het Ins in height height o0 feet . felt In height #teig 0;f t artery E and collector R- 25 -_ 15!feet feet side 10 feet, i e 7.5 felt.; .on local 10 f�et� 10 tt 30 feet 1t3;feet, rear'., 15 feet,real" ..' Z0'fe t on s arterral ' and collectors ` R - 2 : ' 15feetW> 1 feet, Aida 10 feet*• ..on'local ,fi`? 10 feet 15 feet 30 feet I feet; rear . 1 feet. *Different than�'v.Gs.v.3 All other provi�i�„3 of LOB 50.08,030 are appii .n lo. S�.t;�n 50.08C.025 D1 noway Tu.narounds Dr;ve y ti,rua,eu„a3 snail ne ce„str�,�tea nut et Pe'�;eu, ,,,ater;als such as pervious pavers any grass paving. (See LOC Appendix 5u.uuC.u3u-A ter ;11�ISt,atien of`arive '7y�tuitiarviulds and Ot iu;ned tintF15,..apc a,ia giee,i,�ape). Section 3. Tne Late U�wege Cel�u,�un;ty Deveiopl„en, Co Te Chapter 50 Appendix is hereby amended by aaaiug the Lake Grove Overlay Distriet a,np as show„ an attached Exhibit A(LOC Appendix 50.0L.010-A). // Scciiau 4. The Lake Oswego C'>3,r,munity Development Code Chapter 50 Appendix is hereby am ,�oea by adding photographs of driveways with mixed hardscape and greenscape u5 LvC Apt enaix 50.08C.O30-A_ as follows: U, • a;Lmi ,%Ne. 2558 Page 3 of 4 Feb 1, 2011 121 DRAFT 10/19/l0 LUC Appendix 50.08C.030-A Illushadiort of driveway turnarounds an3 of mixed hardscape and greellscupe). Sectin,t 5. The provisions of this orairtau,ee are severable. If any portion of this ordinance is fur any reason held to be invalid_ such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this of dinaa�ee. Enacrcd at the meeting of the Lake Oswego City Council of the City of Lakc vsw;g,,h;ra 7,11 tnc day of , 2010. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAtN: Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor Dated: ATTEST: Robyn Christi;, L;ty Record;, APPROVED AS Tv FORM: David D. Powell ity Attorney Ordinance No. 2558 Pace 4 of 4 122 Feb 1, 2011 DRAFT 11/19/10 NEIGHBORHOOD PROPOSA[ DRAFT ORDINANCE No. 2558 Aiv ercliiNANCE OF THE LAKE OSWEGO CITY COUNCIL AMENDING CHAPTER 50 OF THE LAKE OSWEGI! CrlivtwiUNiiY DEVELOPMENT CODE TO ADD NEW ARTICLE 50.08C LAKE GROVE R-7.5 /R-10 fVr,Kt✓AY DiS i RICT, AMEND LOC 50.17.015 RELATING TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS_AND ADOPTING rliNutty 3 LU i0-0040. The City Of Lake Oswego ordains as follows: Section 1. Section 50.05.005 Zoning Districts. Section 50.05.005 Zoning Districts The City is divided into the following zoning designations: Residential Map Designation Residential— Low Density R-15 Residential— Low Density R-t f� Residential— Low Density i-i.5 Residential— Medium Density(FAN) Residential Medium Density R-D Residential— High Density R-3 Residential— High Density (wL.G) R-2.5 Residential— High Density R-z Residential— High Density R-0 Waterfront Cabanas WR uesign u st :ct(Old Town) DD Mixed`Residential/Commercial Map Designation Residential— H;gh Density(WLG) R-2.5/W WLG Offee Commercial/Town/Home OC/R-2.5 Residential WLG Office Co<<<<<<ereial/Neighborhood OC/NC Cos , e.cial Commercial w Map Designation Neighborhood Commercial NC General Commercial GC Highway Commercial 1-EC Office Campus OC East End General Commercial Er` Campus Institutional %1 Campus Research&Developiuent Crc&v Mixed Commerce Mom. EXHIBIT A-2 Ordinance No. 2558 Cu 1U-UU$U pub? 1 'f 4 Feb 1, 2011 123 DRAFT 11/19/10 Industrial Map Designation Industrial Industrial Park it Public Use Map Designation rublic r unction P1' Overlays : : Map Designation rianned Development PD Resource Conservation RC Resource Protection RP Willamette River Greenvvay GM Neighborhood Overlays! tilenmorrie R-15 Overlay District GO Lake Grove R-7.5/R-10 Overlay District G. Scztion 2. A new Article 50.08C i,hereby added to the Lake Oswego Ct,mmunity Development Code, Charter 50 to read as follows Article 50.08C Lake Grove R-7.5/R-10 Overlay District 5v.v8C.0v5 rurpose. The purpose of the overlay is to ensure that development in the Overlay District promotes the unique character of the Lake Grove Neighburl1uod. 5v.uaC.11111 Appucanitity. This article applies to lands zoned R-7.5 or R-10 within the Lake Grove Overlay District, as shown o,n LOC Appendix 50.08C.010-A. 50.08C.015 Rctatiansnip to vtner Standards. To the extent that any requirement of this Atticle imposes a regulation relating to the same matter as regtdatioo it, LOC Article 50.08_ this Article shall prevail. // /1 /I Ordinance Nu. 2538 Page 2 of 4 124 Feb 1, 2011 DRAFT 117197-10 �0.08C.020 card setbacks. 1. i he yard setbacks within the Like Gr ve Overlay Dist iet shall be as f�ll�w;; Lake Grove Overlay District Yard Setba�k�. tPrnrnary and Acces ory ; J Structures. o Primary Structures AccessoryStructre , , .V, ,� Side 4!r Yard Front to Q Rear Zc �Y rsi Strut, ;,' Other Side Yards Yard Si and' e rds �' 1 Portions ` ' of Portions of stractares atructures> strUGtUrSS 18 feet 18 feet in Structures< 18 18 feet in '. in height heigrh 30 feet feet in height height 2 fit x orl erSc x and collec r R- 2 t 1 feet 5;feet sid 10 feet,side r.o feet r o loc l i'u fees i'u n �0 reef 1 3.teet, real' 15•f et,rear 0 feet on :% .arterialm and collector, R- 25 15 feet ri; 'ltl feet, side I'u 1eet on local= 0 feet 15 feet 30 feet 15 fleet, rear. virierea than 50.08.030 2. All other subsections of HOC��.08.0�0 are applicable. Section 50.08C.025 Limitation on Certain Eleiii nts 1. Nu mar than 5O%�f a lit shall be covered with any of she folio elements: stru�tttre �excl 'ding decks that all.,w water t�drip th ,,.gh-tits:,joints), patios, paving, impervious walks, gravel, sandset a.es and s:,nilar ground c v7rings. Natural-appearing constructed p.nds shall n,t be included within this limitation. where a pavea area corta�ned nixed non-t,l�Jnt and elant elements, only the noi�- plant portions of the area shall be included within this limitation. Section 3. The lake Oswego Community Develupn�ent Code Chapter 50 Appendix is hereby amended by adding the Lake Grove Overlay 'District snap as shown �n attached Exhibit A (LOC Appendix 50.00.010-A). Section .. the take Oswego Commu,.;ty Devel�r,ment C�de Chapter 50 Appendix is hereby umei1ded by adding the Lake Grove t lardscape Appendix, shown oelow as u ppend x 50.D8C.030 A: Ordi„«J"c;Ni„ 2558. • rage 3 oi'4 Feb 1, 2011 125 DRAFT 11/19/10 1,0C Appendix 50.0SC.05-A Lake OtTIYe_Hardscape Examples of combination of hardscape d greensc pe Wse of Interlocking pavers) Combination of nardscape and greenscupc Section 5. The provisions of this ordinance a,e severable. If any portion of this ordinance is for any reason need to ne invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. Enacted at the u,ceming of the Lake Oswego City Council of the Cit, of Lake Osweg,7, held on the day of , 2010. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor Dated: ATTEST: Robyn Christie, City Recorder APPROVED AS TO FORM: David ii. rowel' City Attorney Ordinance No. 25.8 Page 4 of 4 126 Feb 1, 2011 EXHIBIT A APPENDIX 501.08C -C11(1 LAKE GROVE FI-7.,JIRI-10 CIVERLAIi DISTRICT cp a IJal�l a Grove R-7.5/R1CI Overlay Di!iricit N `` �� 1[ yam/ )„ \ ,,I \iG: r i e. d gy qr .i,r� ""'''i ' 5 sa f$ % � • , x \I _ - og -• �. _ riu `� pe . ro - 3 8 ._ p s wri ` *vv1:74 B 6 s �.. m ,�. _ / ra*/, --I � }. Ems-- �— _ � `\ > r •'�1 \_`� ,ems., �+^ :. �9[[ �h, cr-�/' ! 5 -� y� �` ., - / E h - ...Iasi'_- (�' -._,i. 5`'4 L�- -- �s V Y� Y E _-- ..V ,� �. ;�,". 5 _ f § E Wo. F` K 95 f v�v�i'sm ,� �r \y ors // gr II/ s e .. ae� s£S -e c ?s soar-▪1$� f.>�,.� tr-' F�:. „zg° aE, m - t - k //�, �.?.`Y` 4 a".S'�� - • .. 'zr y a s€ y - vo:a. fak_,. � sX�- -/;- y, ,7f .;s S ^a ,R •s�,,_ • _ s s -k',: � ;:�"G rvA, § 1,_ 9±` . :.m' -:s c y --- 1.._ J 6'o;s� � a i ry 1hkEr ,r § // _ ,w+� K.4 e .pn ¢E m eS `6 '.u. ;_•. _ ...Y. vsn ,+ ''" ias 3.- 4h'v7E�3 4 ' + '"� --_ 1 n s L x SAW e� ? a r °w , easy - - 6 -" .dP _,+�, m �vnaucn PARK - "''.., 3;ss'"a ., -a �`` n▪ -t� r> u r �' s- -_. F f- -- - --_ , - „o. vawn, - " t"J -, �, �, c+ f ',: F _ �y (• ` , -�� e ag`f a b 33 t l a e L 1skp- ,L A'ia _ `. ga ,, i•` �, a_3 '§t t 'y V. a ", s e g" fi e.cm' t,�•%.a,+ _ a „ ,„.,..7, . --- M.�p '{ � `V y.-Y x g 146 La Ka J e g, i Y \ s, v�p � R75$ ,. �§ §Y � �� 5 • • , .K%5x.• �� .emN_ ,/— a = €E ns w -_ i & A 3 $ �_ £ mo i ' 377, 4 8 °+o �t scnnecea cq Ems �$sV R'• +c'� 'a, "u'w° arrr ��,�p 'ro +. .` s- -s � � --•,,8.'a, N'esl DeJu i 'x:�s:§-ts s.s 1 o >�,.9 , , •--- .c.� e-_. 6.�.a g sR a Lake drove ' 9/a is a ve laY i osbicY • `rr t 2� A � 3 a s _ 'S 1 ^I § nu o =1 -- f7 84 � � 'P a � t' `'agaL' mD � r 4sr - -- .'a _ e" - ' ' ati' ibq _ 'oA a a 5 4S^ �, : 'g _ r� t ° . _ X„, l�. - _o¢ • s L. a a � ,. b - �r P.F �{ , i' ‘ ei. E ,'v;ti9, r" ar — `�i sa,. "a -- '`' , ?- a me - _1, i . 8� e —' A >.o ._g, aa. k; ,.e ,, a b � 1. . e I� . t,'f s- t _ q 1i :e , -- , - .�/ , .-- - -.w a x 7' wo i „ e eso . _§ '�--r �V1xo "'°_ %a./� H� N y 128 Feb 1, 2011 1 I;Erukt I Fit PLANNING COMMISSION0' 2 OF THE APP 3 CITY Or LAKE OSwEc7O 4 n A REQUEST FOR A LEGISLATIVE TEXT ) Lu 10-0040 - I i43 AMENDMEN I I U I HE COMMUNITY ) (CiTY OF LAKE vSvvEuu & 8 uEvELUPMIEN I CODE 10 INCLUDE ) Lake Glove Neighborhood) 9 LAKE GRuvE uvER[AY DIS I RIC I , ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & ORDER 10 11 iz NATURE OF APPLICATION u 14 A legislative text amendment to the Like Oswego Community Development Code (Code) to 15 ii Jude a mew section to the Community Development Code, Article 50.OSC, the Lake Grove R- 16 7.5/R-1u Overlay District, aria to amend LOU 5U.1 /.U15. I he amendment is proposed 5y the 17 city or Cake usvvegu, at trle reyaest or the Lake drove Neighborhood Association. I Fie LaRCe 18 Grove Neignborhooa Association vvorKea will city or Cake Oswego Starr to propose the teAt 19 amendments. LV 21 HEARINGS 23 i he commission held a publi , hearing and considered this application at its meeting tit: 24 September 13, 2010. LJ 26 CRI I ERIA AND STANDARDS 27 28 A. City ut Cake usvveuo CO iure5ensive Plan 29 Goal 2: Land Use Planning 30 Section 1 Land use Poli,ies and Regulations. Policy 45 and 24 31 Section 2 (:ommanity uesign and Aesthetiw, Policy 1 32 33 Special District Plans Lake Grove Neighbornooa Pian » Goal 2: Land Use Planning: Residential Goal and Policy 3 Goal 1U: Hoasing: Goal and Policy 1, 3 37 38 B. Mctr„ urban urowth Plaraucment franctonal Plan 39 I itle 1: A000i l imuaatioi i or Groovvth 40 41 U. ureqon Statewide Planning Goals 42 Guai i s CitiLCM involvement 43 uoai 2: Land Use Planning 44 4) D. Lake Oswego Development Code Procedural Requirements 4s LOC 50.01.010 Purpose 4i LOU 50.75 Legislative Decisions 48 LOU 50./b.uub Legislative Decisions Defined 49 LOU 5u.75.u1 u Criteria for a Legislative Decisiun 50 Cuc 5u.75.015 Reyoired l otice to DLuD EXHIBIT B-1 LU 10-0040 LU 10-0040 PAGE Feb 1, 2011 129 1 Cvu 5u.75.u20 Planning commission Recommendation Reuuired LOC 50.75.025 City Council Review and Decision LOC 50.75.030 Effective Date of Legislative Decision 5 CUNCLuSluN 6 7 l Fie cdmmissi�n recurrlrrlends that the city council adept tvvo cif:the seven proposed pruvisiuns 8 in Cu 1 u-0040, ror tie Cake trove overlay District: 9 1. Reuairement for"green" driveway turnarounds; and 11 2. A 16-foot side yard setback in tie rc-7.5 zone portion or the CaRe urove uveriay District. 12 13 The Commission concludes that its recommendation to adopt the above two provisi0r ,4 proposed in LU 10-0040 are in compliance with all applicable criteria. ID 16 I he Commission does not recommend: 17 18 H. /Adoption yr tree Tullovving provisions in LaKe Grove Overlay District: 19 20 i. A 30-foot front yard setback in tie R-1 i zone (currently 25-root). 21 ii. Cot coverage limitations (vvnici reflect the lot coverage limitations prior to the 22. recent Community Development uoae Intili Amendment, ura. No. 2524). 23 iii. No more than 5u% or tie lot can ie covered in iardscape (no ‘7orent limits). 24 Iv. Sul3mittal vT a nun-6lndlriy plariti iy and 6pTTeririy plan rur revievv 6y tMe (sty 25 required for new development (no current requirements). 26 g. A te„t amendment to the Planned Develupr re rt Section (EL. ..; 5u.1 7.u1 5) t0 27 prevent e„ceptions to the yard Setback rcyuirerrlents vrr the perimeter or planned 28 development lots af3utting R- i u and R-7.5 zones. 29 30 FINDINGS AND REASONS Sr _z.. I he Uumrr,ission incorporates the start repurt, dated Aayust 20, 2010; on LU 10-0040(with all �3 eAhlbits attached thereto) as sappart tar its decision, supplemented by the turther findings gird 34 cunclusiuns set Turth herein. In the event vT any inconsistency between the sapplementary 35 matte, herein and the start neport, the matter herein controls. I 0 tie eAtent they are consistent 36 with the approval granted ierein, the commission adopts ry reference its oral aeli6eratiuns on 37 this matter. ,u . s Fullvvviny are the sapplementary findings and conclusions oot this Commission: 40 41 1. I he c..;omi. ission does nut recommend adoptir ry the 3u-toot trust yard set6acR ton the R- 42 l u zone portion or the Cake urove Neiyiborhooa, or the lot %over aye lli r ntatvns (vvhiOh reflect 4s the lot coverage limitations prior to the recent community Development uoae Infill 44 Ar tier rdmerrts) because: 7.3 A. I here is a lack of evidence that the standards in the recently adopted Infill 46 Amendments and additional code changes since 1998 regarding front yard setback and 47 at,eetscape standards does not accomplish the goal oT the protecting neighborhood Character; 48 and eu IV-VV4V hHhtL 130 Feb 1, 2011 B. These provisions would not maRe enougn or an impact to warrant aaainy anutner 2 layer or CumpleAity tu the Code. 3 4 2. I nu commission dues nut recommend adoptiriy the prupused hardscape rnaximom 5 provision oecause: 6 A. The Commission recommends Mat tne city snuuld rsiacr vvf9etfier Mardscape s limitatiur rs should be city-wide, and thus uniformly appliea, particularly in ligrit of Mu update to 9 the Cumprerensive Plan as part ut periudic review that is currently underway before adopting a 10 airrerent aerie iitivr of"hardscape" Tr om that recently adupted as part of the Glerimorrie Overlay 11 District (Euu Artiile 5u.u813), ana 12 13 U. Inc cummission recom r rer ras that a propused restriction should have 14 wiaespreaa neignbornooa support to justiry aaaitiui ial restrictiun5 un development thruayh a 15 restriction within a neigritorflood overlay aistrict. uasea on tne public testimony, the 16 Commission finds that the proposed hardscape provision aoes not ha.o sutriciunt ii iyrMornuua t/ support. us 3. The Commission does not recommena adopting tPle proposed planting ana buneriny rj plan submittal requirement because the proposal neither includes any stanaaras or 20 requirements as to what that the plantirry arid buttering plan should include, nor are plants 21 prupused irr the planting aria buneriny plan actually required to be planted (nothing but plan 22 submittal is required). cummissiun dues not rccummend aduptiny Code provisions that 23 nave no regulatory impact. 24 zD 4. The Commission does not recommend adopting tne proposed profitition or an 2c exceptiun tu the yard setback requirement on the perimeter of Planned Development lots z7 abattiny R-10 and R-7.5 tones because the pre upusal is in cunflict with the purpose of the 28 Planned Develupme rt regulations. 29 30 5. I r1e commission recommends aaopting tPlo requirement for "green" arIvevvay 5 r turnarounds (no current requirements) Because Mere are no city-wide stanaaras addressing .7z driveway turnarounds al id the Commission finds that this requirement will help maintain the .)3 r ieiyhbur hwd Char after ut Cake Gruve as described in the Lake Grove Neighborhood Plan. 34 35 b. I ne Curnrnisslun recommends aauptiny the requirement for the 10-fuut side yard 36 setback requirement r tnu R-r.5 purtiur r ur the LaRe uruve Overlay Dist ict (currently the R-/.5 37 zone requires a "comtinea total" or 15-foot side yard setback) Because the uommisslurr rinds o that increasing the side yard setbacR will rleip maintain tne neigntorhood cflaracter ur E Re _17 Grove as described inn the Lake Grove Neighborhood Plan. 40 41 ORDER 42 43 i 1 IS REuul01MENDED gY I Fit PLRNI71II71u uu171l ll SION ur tn city of LaRe Osvveyo that the 44 Lake Oswego Community Development uoae Be amonaea to mad a ncvv section, Article 4D 50.08C, Cake Grove R-7,5/R-10 Overlay District, as set forth on Exhibit A, attacrlea. z6 47 1 uER I IFY I RA I I RIS ORDER vvas presented to and APPROVED by the Planning 48 c.omrmriSsion oT the City oT Lake Osvveyo. 49 �17 Dr LU 10-0040 PHuc a Feb 1, 2011 131 I DA I ED this 25th day of October zu I u. 2 3 4 5 Jon Gustdf,on /s/ 6 Jun Guatdfaun Chdir 7 Pldnning Cnmmiasion 9 ATiESi: 10 11 Iris McCdleb / / 12 Iris McCdleb 13 Administ.rddive Support 14 15 16 PRttIIVIINARY utc;ISIuN - Suptem5er 13, ZU1U 17 1s AYES: Glisson, Jonnson, Jones 15 NOES: Gastafson, Paretchan L0 ABSTAIN: None 21 REuuSE: None 22 EXuuSED: None 23 ABSENT: N�n� 24 25 ADuPTIuN uF FINDIN,S AND uRu R - uctorfur z5, zu1u 26 , AYES: Glisson, Gastafson, Jones, Paretchan Ws NOES: None 29 ABSTAIN: NunC 30 REuuSE: 171%7MG 31 EXuuSED: Jonnson 32 ABSENT: None Co 100-004u PAGE 4 132 Feb 1, 2011 VLANE os.- City of Lake Oswego Al Planning COin iaiSSiOi Minutes 0 ,, rov \ May 12, 2008 APP OREGOIg I. CALL TO ORDER V;CZ cna,. Julia 61,33u.. La11C71 tliC Nanning Con ijiis iott tneetiiig of Monday, May 12, LUUtS to order at. 6:UU p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, ut ii "A-' Avw.ut., Lake Oswego, O.7.go... II. ROLL CALL IVIelnbe.a }.tio.,.0 WC.0 V..; Lna.. 7ulta 1i1t55vtt attd CVuuiuiiSSirniCis Adttuiitie titouktitaii, Mary OISc.t, 11ili4 StewaiL and Alison WebsLet. Cornrnissioner Scot Siegel was excused. Start piesellt welt Dennis Egiier, Long Range Planning Ma.-agv-; Luu.0 we;gei, Neighborhood. Plan.ie;, iv... tiooi,e, Deputy City Attoiiiey atld nits lteittCil. Ad.11uu31.zlt.VC Supp7nt. EI. CITIZEN COMMENT None. IV. MINUTES Commi55iv..ei tiro 1 mepvei Lu approve the Minutes of March 24, 2008. oinII11SS• ebster seconded the ...vtivrl and .t t,inddcU 4:u. L'.v .utt55iooct Vlaou V. PLANNING COMMISSION— wv .N. SESSION Lakc GI V VG 1Neigllbur hood nun implementation (PP 117-00.18)—Check-In Luuru wcigel, iVcighourfioog riau u t, kma 1ra Juttrres, Chair of the Lake Uruve impiu i iitatiuir Committee, tepvned to the Planning Co.nm.ss,00. l)thc, l_orr.....ttt c members present we.e Sill wu..d a..d tSa.k)a.ft 'Leon. Mr. 7c1titcs icpcitcd that the L.vl..u..tt%Z. was d.scuSsilig typea of pctelltial tegulauOus die)/ would fashion into overlay wide language in implement the Lake Grove Neighborhood Y1.... f n;, list ir..,lurt t K-/.� setbacks, Floor Are. Katio (rAK); ncignt, laildsc_.Nlitg atld butter tng. nee p1OLe L1urt, limiting Y1arIr1cu llevelc1tlteuts (whir h allowed smaller lots); buffering the neighborhood against cotiliIlereial encroachment; a neighborhood dk3.g.. .1/4,,v.;vv piv.Jc31; ;iieica5vd teat down fees; hove to i...wu.Ergc .i....vdil.ug; aria fOw to Vtgaiuze and Schedule EAHIBIT C-1 LU 10-0040 City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission \ inures of May 12,2075 Page 1 of 6 Feb 1, 2011 133 aeverpei/n;;ghboinood meetings. M.t. Jet'tties said Re hoped the Committee would be able to ptese-tti Lhe neighborhood with proposed code chat addressed the loss of pr;vu,y the area was exper;encins new development A:suited in si„allUi iota vvitn largo homes httd lOs eI MC neighboihood's green buffet. He said he hoped they could drat'. the overlay code by tall. Ms. Weigel asked the Loil,tnissioo,teis tor ideas and guidance. During the ensuing discussion; Mr. Jeftries stressed that the Cenlnl;ttee wanted to 111 111ta;n the "Sc;luaea ;nataetel of the 11e;gnbolnooa because they saw theta large ',meets being pal1IL10iiCd 11110 SinallC1 lots; 1'AK was int:teasing; and they were losing greenscape. Co111miss, ,11 f Brockman said they al,,uld oc avvELr; tnat tne, L1ty vvas wnsiaefiug a Louutiutitty lJevelO,piiiCiit CodC (ell-) update that would eliminate the lot depth reyuirernent when lots were created. Mr. Jetiries anticipated that the Coihn,;tt;e would ,naK; the 0vC1lay code Cono;Sterit vv;tn the City's decision to allow or Clot allow gatage alga to be included in the 1~AK calculation. Ms. Weigel clarified that the neiative and positive labels written. on Milli depictions in the Cominun;t.v Development uepait,itCtit 1V entrtattauiit dated lVlay 5, LUU25 vvZit stalt nOtatiOus and did not reflect the CoirltrtiLLce's opinion. She eontjiiiied that they had the consultant's analysis of examples of n.1f 11 done n, L001 t� refer to. Vice Cita„ ul:s3 ,11 wanted to K11ow ;T all staKel,uldef 111tcre5t5 we,e tepieeseiited. [vie. Jett,ie5 ,eporteed that the neighborhood association had invited local builders to serve on the Committee_ arid the diversity of inembe.. n;p nad ,e.,ultea ;11 l;vely debate. 1V15. we;`ei reported tnat she and Mi. J`,gum Itad towed the neighborhood with Current planning stall and solicited their ideas. Mr. Egrier advised the Com,nitte; t., proposed regulations ;n the vve,lay ;ode to tnose that a(laresSca u„iyue aspects of the „Cignbe,nood and o11e4 any ,e:,oiiiiiie,tdatioiis regatdillg citywide changes separately. M . Weigel said the "next steps" were tO further refine the list of co„c;pt3 tnat „ugnt be regulated and "check 111' a a„1 vvltn tne 1'lt[n„1i, Lotnit,t»iott beeiore they picseiire(71 the ove,lay Ceneepts to the laigct licighborhood tot teeaback. Lvwwuuity llcvelopment Lo Arueendiuei is (YY Ulf-UUfl2) Update on proposed text amendments to the, Lake USvvego UOd; (LUC), .ptec 30 tLounuun.lty IJCvCloplu;nt Lode)_ Claiifyntg, COttectnig atld updating sec y S. The Comm;sstoners Cor,t:nuea tne11 i.Aalni,tatiori of the • .'il 4_ 1UU8 Loiiunuiiity Deveiop111c11t lleparttnent Staff Report: UDC Update, . <et 2. l'liey wanted to better understand what development would be allowed i v;r0,,1ne„tat 711;s. Stall eAp1$;nca th-rt a Kewufw r1otect:ou (K.f') llistt'ict ected a water iesoutCe aild a Resource Uonsetvatiott (KU) Disuict piOLeectea - upland tree grove. They sa;d the p.oposea changes would ensure the vv;tn the tree grove tnat typically to►lowed a sitcalli Cv„i371 was not diswt,ne 'i hotel the '.elated Kt' District. 'l hey clarified that the presence off a resource :' trio overlay served as a '`red flag ; vv" tnat the,; ,esouices H the area. Ho ', a 3e.c11ttst vvOula lat;1 eAa,nn,C the dist11et hull Closeely to determine ;t tne1e at y was a iesouice to be protected and delineate its boundaries so it could be prate' • from the development on that pa.cel. Staff _1;a tne ovate, lesoureC bouttdaty ld be T,rr-the1 ptoteet;d by a buffet attd 30% of the tree glove had to be protected truiii L.;L, of L he tJ�rcbv Yla— Commission Minutes of May 12,2008 Psge Z of 6 134 Feb 1, 2011 city Ut Cake Oswego fOle Planning commission Minutes N59 10 (v� May 24, 2010 i. VALL i uKoEr� Chair Philip Stewart called the Planning commission meeting or iviay 24, 2010, to order at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber of City Hall at 380 "A" Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon. II. RuLL LALL iviemrers present vvere chair vPSifp Stevvart, vlOu Unair Julie t;lisson (arrived at 7:4u p.m.) and L,ommissioners Adrianne brocRman, ,ion t;ustarson, Russil Jones ana Ly e Paretchan. Commissioner Jim Johnson was excused. Mayor Jack Roffman, Council Liaison Bill Tierney and Councilor Sally Moncrieff participated in part of the meeting. voests included Jonathan Snell and Pao! Lyons, Starr present vvere Debra Anareades, Senior Planner; Sidaro Sii i_ Senior Planner: Laura vveigel, Neignborhood Planner; Evan i cone, Depot), city Attorney and l,-is IGIcualer, Administrative Support. III, CI 11LEN COMMEN I Done. IV. uuu171L.IL OPCJA i E Councilors Tierney and Moncrieff reported that the Bud• committee nad just recommended a budget that would fond the Comprehen ye Plan update process. It allocated 1.5 tall time employees (F I E) neighborhood . ners to that process. V. ivullu i ES Tile vote on trite Minutes or April 12, zu e as postponed until the newt ,II_ctli,g. VI. PRESENTATIONS Housing Paul Lyons was p. at a group at interested citicens that had been examining housing choices. He g. . - a slide presentation and discussed demographics, market trends, and types of h•. ing projects that tilled the need for smaller homes on smaller lots. Re advises at good design coola make small spaces work in vvalRarie "eco-districts." I he oulo IooR to omer jurisdictions to rind the appropriate planning twls for the larger -'oR, but in the short run it could simplify the code relatea to seconaary avvelling units. City of Laku Oswcgo Commission EARS! i L-L Minures of May 27, 20 10 LU 10-0040 Pmgu 1 of 6 Feb 1, 2011 135 VII. vvuRK SESSION rr 07 0015 LaRc urovc wei,.,hborhd Plan Irnwlernentati rt. An update and discussion on the proposed provisions in the overlay zone, Jonathan Snell, Chair of the Lake Grove Neighborhood Association, introduced me overlay col icept . He advised that the character of Lake Grove was doe to its vegetation mid trees. Eats were being partitioned and small houses were being replaced by large houses. I he neighborhood had adopted its neighborhood plan in 1998. A neighborhood- committee had been rashiei'illy the implementation overlay, As part of Mat process they has surveyed the entire „eighhorhood a..a vela open n heases. I he survey response rate was 1e/o. i flirty-rive people had been present to vote on the overlay concepts at an association meeting in March zu-id. At that meeting a motion had been made from the floor to require a more detailed landscaping plan than the board's versions required. Mr. Si cell referred to it as the "Landscaping Grouping Proposal." He clarified it was not endorsed by the board. Mr. Snell summarLea the key concepts. I he overlay increased the tront ya,d setbacR requirement in R-1 u and the side yard sethacR in R-7.5. The n ieiyhbei hoed aid riot accept the increased lot coverage the inriil amendments allowed and vvould Reep the previous lot coverage requirement. The overlay requires Planned Developments to meet the setbacks required iii the overlay. The overlay required a developer to submit a landscaping plan, bat it did i lot specify what had to be in the plan or make the developer actually install it. He explained that the neighborhood just vvanted to be able to talk to the developer al5oat la' iy and orrer suggestions al id help. i hey knevv they could not enrorce the plan. The overlay seta harascape limit of 50 ro et the lot, but the definition, "hardscape," still has to be worRea out. It would not be exactly the same as the definition Glenmorrie used. The neighborhood wanted developers to use pervious soflace in the City-required driveway turnarounds. Mr, Snell acknowledged mat me overlay would not chat ige the tree id of replacing small older houses with larger ones, but he believed it might affect that trend a bit. He thanked the neighborhood residents who had helped rashiienn the overlay. Pla..nrrrg r.rr.rr;;><vrr FeeanZ.VK During the ensuing discussion, Mr. Snell confirmed that the overlay did not contain requirements ror landscaping and the association! was avvare they could 'et en orce the landscape plan they required the developer to submit. Ile anticipates the association would continue to discuss that issue, He explained that the Implementation t,ommittee had decided to increase front setbacks by five feet after they looked at houses in the neighborhood and observed that even large houses fit better when they were set back Trom the street a little bit more. The uommissioi iers cautioned that might address how the house looked from the street, but it could have unintended ided adverse affects of pushing the house too close to the i ieighhcrs; toeing the first ricer back so the stricture would be taller and intrude on the neighbors' privacy; and decrease the tleAibility to shift an addition a bit to save a tree. They advised against relying on the variance process to save trees. I he Commissioners then discussed the hardscape limit. !Rey noted that side-Iooadii ig garages created the need for more hardscape. The Planning Commission might consider vvhether to address side-loading garages citywide at some point iii the future. Ucmmissiener Paretchai i related that she had found it vvas herd to find pervious pavers. She suggested the term should he better defined and predicts that fit the definition should be identified. t,ommissioner bustarson suggested it vvoula he better for City of Lakes Osvvegu Planning�g Commission Minutes of May 24, 2010 Pages 3 of 6 136 Feb 1, 2011 the comrrlanity it uienmorrie and EaRe urove and the other neighborhoods had a similar hardscape provision. commissioner Paretchan sayyested that the Planning commission consider adopting a cityvvide hardscape definition instead er cestomiLiny it for each neighborhood. ;she suggested the neighborhood consider a requirement to pat plants in front of a driveway turnaround if they were concerned about tne visual impact. Vice Chair Glisson recalled a church in Waluya that pet in pervious paving that looked IiRe asphalt. Ms. Weiyel recalled the committee had considered repairing green peerciious pavers. She claritied they were concerned about both drainage and aesthetics, Tne commissioners advised tne neiyf ornooa that tne purpose UT a manned Development tPu) was to oiler the rlexibility to protect resources and allow good design that fit the neighborhood. By forcing a PD to nave the same size setbacRs as the anderlyiny Lone would riot do that. Ms. Weiyel recalled the neighborhood had initially talked about not allowing any PDs at all, then compromised on the setback provision. commissioner BrocRman supported the overlay because the neighborhood had yone rorward vvitn it in good taith. commissioner uastafson encouraged the neighborhood to come rip vvith landscaping requirements raffle, than jest require a plan that could nut be enforced. The Planning Commission took a short break and then reconvened the meeting for public comments. Public Go►n►►►e►Yta Joy Prideaax, 15500 I win fir Road, distributed, "EaRe Grove Neighborhood Poll Response, I roe canopy & Landscape," a sammar y of tive neighborhood polls. On the hacR cr the av%errrent she had printed her "Landscape uroaping Alternative" proposal. She [Jointed vet pull reseits snovvea that the majority or respondents soppvrtea preserving tne tree canopy aria landscaping, het the Implementation committee vvas riot recommending that Rind or regulation. one nerd it was needed because developers, not property owners, were building most of the new houses. Vice chair Glisson had noticed that developers were landscaping the homes they were marketing. Ms. Prideaux explained she wanted to encourage them to save mature trees and native plants. commissioner Jones suggested limiting the percentage of trees that could be cat on a lot tv 5U%. bill vvard, 43u-I upper Drive, a member or the association board, the Implementation Committee, and the Native Plant Society of Oregon, indicated ne did not relieve government should repaire a property owner to plant a certain set of plants. Michael BacR, 3155 Edyemont Road, an Association board member, reported the Implementation committee had considered nameroas proposals for landscaping regeirerirents. FIE indicated he could support stronger landscaping requirements it the ievel or support in the neighborhood vvas greater, bet only 35 people had participated, se he aid not want to impose them. He advised the neighborhood could save a lot .t trees by removing invasives and restoring riparian areas. chair Stewart asked the neighborhood to try to achieve consensus. Commissioner (astarson vvanted the neighborhood to be more anitied about their vision. Ms. Weiyel reported the airrerence or opinion in the neighborhood aboat landscaping and battering requirements had challenges the pi cress rcr many months. She hoped that the bard and committee would talk about what they heard rrom the Planning commission and resolve the issue. If they could not do that, she hoped they would move rorward with the City of LAka Oswego Planning Commiaaivn Minatess of May 24, 2010 Page 4 or n Feb 1, 2011 137 overlay vvitnont addressing landscaping and buffering. She clay itied tor Commissioner Parutcfiai i mat tne survey response rate had Dui 12.5% al is all tibU n'vascn'vlds and businesses In me neigno rnvva Mad Deen sai'4eyea and Invited 'cm tie meetings, bat There had not been a nign turnout at tie meetings. I Me committee had talRed about going dour to door, but decided that was not feasible. Thirty-rive members Mad attended the meeting when the vote was conducted. The result of the vote on the Landscaping Vroaping Alternative was 3U:3:2. vili. PutbClu RtAKINt.S / VVUNK SESSION LU 08-u56u — Expansion or West LaRe vu ove Design District. H rcMucst or Cornpiehensive Plan map and Zoning text and map amendments from Randy Re-ves and Ken Sandblast, Planning Resources. Continued from February 2z, zulu. StafT recommended removing the case thorn the agenda, bat keeping it o-en antil the applicant vvgs ready a,id asKea tor a nearing date. Arta' the applicant . Emitted their information start vvcald cvntinae to vvoi R vvitn them, 5Cnedaie a near.'g and send oat another notice or nearing. LU 08-0052 Ordinance 2525 — Communit Develo. nt Code — General Rvabekeeping arid Minor PuIiuv Amendments. Amend •nts (Chapter 5u) Tor tie purpose of clarityiny, correcting, tool matting, updating se vi is and discussing minor pOliOy cnanges. Continued review of ordinance 2b25 — , tachmeiit B (dated Aayast 8, 2uu8). uoi itirinea Trm May 1 u. 1U 10. Chair Stewart opened tie nearing. Ms. Andre-.es, aistribnted the start report (see Planning and Building Services Department •ppiemental Report #4 dated May 14, 2010). The Commissioners examined E bit F-4 titled, "Fire Dept. Access and Alternate Methods.' The Commissioners •-nerally accepted changing LOC 50.58,015 un-Site uircalatiun — Driveways and Fi - Access Roads, Standards for Approval, (3) ❑rivevvay Glades to say that it the yr.+e exceeded 15% the File Marshal may regaiie alternate metnods Tor Tire snppres' on. I he discussed commissioner Paietchan's concern mat Section o0.4 r.0u5 anascapiny, Screening and Battering, Applicability, went too far. one suggested emoving the part of the balloted list atter "industrial development." She and Vic- hair Glisson observed tnere were areas or the city vvitn no curbs or planting strip w'eie it would be oat of character to require a specific spacing at street trees along th ight-ot-way. Commissioner Brockman suggested applying it vvhen there were no tr^-s in the trooiit yard. Mr. Boone advised a tree was considered a "street tree' even IT vvas nut in the light-ar-vvay it its canoopy was oovei the right-at-way. Re clarified that staff had been interpreting the 7..05E as saying the street tree requirement ap ied even it a partition that crated an additional lot did not create a street. That -as why they adaea tne outlet, "land divisions." Re clarified tnat miaer the current co.- an institutional or commercial use in an existing building could expand its Narking 4 wlthoat any requitement to plant street trees, so staff had added a bullet to addre that. I he Commissioners agreed to take more time to think this through and con- It vvith the staff, ommissioner Brockman moves to continue Cu 08-0052 (uidinance 2525) to Jane 14, 2010. Commissioner Gustafson seconaed tne motion and it passed b.u. City of Lake Osw,7g„ Planning C�mmi.5si n Minutes Af May 24. 2010 Page o of 6 138 Feb 1, 2011 air.) City A LaRe 05vve9v 104 Planning commission Minutes 9 00 . 14I P 1 iPS, P;4114:: Septevii5er 13, ZU1U 1. mmr, CALC tU ORDER Chair Jou Gustafson relied the Planning Commission meeting of September 13, 2010, to Order at 6:30 p n the Coal ollarribei a of City Ha at 380 'A"Avenue; LaKe Oswego, CA-egon. 2. ROCL CALL Members present vveie Choi; Jr tiL-4*tai$ul 1, Vide Chair Lynne Paretchan, dnd commissioners Julia +.,Aitoni Jim ;Johnson and Rtissall Jones. Staff present were Ot5Di Andreadeeni Hdur; Denise Frisbee, Director, Planning and Building S¼ Lo Dupartei it; sKIMIZI FPnt..k .ttnit I;ou. Natrirri Resouruea Planner; Sidaio Sin, Senior Planner; Laura vvelgel, Asi,ociate tHanner; Evaii9000 . Deputy City Attorney ai id Janice Rey,rolda, Administrative Support, 3. COUNCIL UPDATE Denise Frisbee reported that the (...00noil waa abccit t prove the Biour lea Furry d Phase'2 cunsuiting annuacL arid was consicering appointing an adviaory comm. e. ha aaid they would alao atody a epart about Lake 0:-.,vvego deriloyraphirs,' 4. CITIZEN COMMENT 5. MINUTES 5.1 Col r iFitibior ler Johlison moved to adopt the Minetes of Joiy 12, 2010. Commissioner zECeinduci tito T,Rotior; and ;t passed5'.0. 6. WORK SESSIONS (1 of 2) 6.1 LU 1 0-0043 —Amendments.te Sensitive Lands Overla 'Zoning Rules. A ro,ineot from the City of Cake Oswegof&maket--.A. aurielidirlenc,. LC/ the Eurrsitive Lands driabrer of the Community Development Code to, alk oe additional LOOS in resource areas nrIcitT specific oirocirristandea, and to define ',erns. Staff Report Junna,Papaettimiuu, Natural Resources Planner, presented the Septebr 2, 2010, sjaff rviallOfiraCtiii. She 6Apiaiild that the Coo c ad reenntly aouepted ;tin Seeond took ask owe recornmendatuns and dire- tea stna aff to pi oriel ride-s that would make th i Itiv lrid code ier io understand and more flex;bio for pi;operty R7„,letroii 10-51A). The set uf chalige s.aff wa an;ref lily proposing were City of L.Re 0$vve-ijo Planning Coiiimi5aicri Minute- of Septemb=r 13, 2010 puge 1 of 8 Page 1 of 8 EXHIBIT C-3 Feb 1, 2011 Cu1 U-CPUZIO 139 e the ere5reet, 'fixee." it elm ified .5/1 I I tCrl{IS MI id described what kinds Cif develeprirente ... were exempt from being reviewed uncle, the eeesitive feeds 7.75d7r beeauee they had de ,/ . minimoe impacts. The pruposed amendments mane IL clear-3r what kinds of : develepet vvere already FAEpt arid added mere exempt uees includir ig a 500 bd,:,,r°: addition LO an existing structure; eOu sq. rt. or 197yv develeceneet, feereng: :',',id ertifity,..'es. Staff err...reused to use the Departnient of State Lards Oct.;) reerinition, tch." TrieS would permit the City te r.7.k th rest,. to help determine if e water ehannel wa "MOrt-.• jurisdictional ditch" dial.would 110I, be regulated by the eerisiti v7.; land. eedee- he peepeeed uho5gE5 ulai iti, a that the "leesoorce Protection RP) District" s composeu of both a stream or wetlaree aed it, e,seeiated beffei, ad that the 'es r e uctiun setback' w ee d different type of setback that Lee owner could landscape as e'-i.y eished affeF zureetree,tien, A le e.ihibitien cer he'bieide and pesticide Lree hau seen deleted because tnat was not a land use matter. ,,e,' ,....'' Dun',ig the questioning peried, M . Papeerthirrilou clid reel the 500 sq. ft. limit on adnitions was also the Ilene in the iveto eleael coaticoa rfVtro COI reidered that de illinirtris impact). She clarified that it limited the size of the, uterine i-iot the eiee er the 5tru.C..triFF; abovethe feetprint. She clarified that the pop ci etarearde were more stringent than fithe model code yvher, they 5p&Td that ari dein.' up to 50e eq, ft, vvas only ellewed O, tri .pliiiialy eticicture. However, they ere more gerterees thae the ,,edel ,..,,de bencuse they ailluvved 7.1 101 U 1 ailituunt ..• to 200 sq. ft ) of new develepreent. Tile rationale for tar was that 200 sq. ft. eold elle— e mere., fenetienal develepieluet. Cemeriesiener Juries asked the Cs iniseioners to eurre'Ller increasing the limit on agoitions se evveei 5' would have" or use of their pi uperty He also questioned whether the proposed fencing stance!,ei that required a 2 se, 7, L.:peeing for wildlife page every 100 treet was practical. C. ll missionel Johnson recielled that Kinit.i of requirement was not encommon in other jurictions, M5. PZIPETEIthirr1;074 k+Vnfirr 1, .t1 that there vveie unprotected riper le eireas in the City; she explained where the "Top ef Bank' vv71. ard she old'ified that,„..'"- etre.eri butter was 25 Lo 30 feet Jri either side of a stream. She agreed vete cf,' mieeteeee Peretehan that the vgMtatk7)11 previlul I [elated to utility ties .., needed to oi,ir'clarified. COm ' siceier Juee5 eked vvhy uric of the two vesicles re the City Cuulicil resolution herd read left out a statement that said the City wee cecerre-ritted te the pereeples of fffness with respect to private property. Staff planned ro review the Council minute. te 00 ind eut, 7. PUBLIC HEARING 7.1 !` LU 10-0040 (,Ordinanue 2558) —Lake Grove Neigfloorneotti Plan Implementation. A request by the City ef Lake Owego for creation of i [reef evecley eerie for the R.- Jo and ' R-10 zoned areas within the boundaries of the Lake t.. reevelNI,7,.-inboilitio,d Ass.-Jt.,iati5n, and a teAt amelicift!unt t,77 the Planned Development secijuii (50. i t,015) unair Gustafson opened the public hearing and outlined the ripplio1E eriteiie end proeedure. Wheel aked, itor le of the eorturassioners .-reciaren a conflict Or interest. Staff Repurt ..i Laura Weigel, Asseciete Planner presenten the scant report, dated August 20, 2010. She 7Aplai lEd teat the neiehrEurfreed association pi()posed the overlay &bile in older to protect is unique ileigiiberreood character. The e„erle.,y Jeered eely apply to its Nye luvvest deity residential unee al id ft tequired a nonur change to inc Pith ineu Development kPD) section. She said that c,, ar7.-ilyhboitood ,.teerillg 7..liti rrrittr7,-. helped fashien the overlay. She exprairted that they Fled etarieo vete fifteen ideas and then City or CaKe 7..,swego Fia ,nin, C,, ,mlsio,n 57Oures of Se.),temb,.r 13,2010 rittge4 or o Page 2 of 8 EXHIBIT C-3 140 LU 10Feb 1, 2011 narrowed the list to the sax proposed concepts and the PD code amendment based on the iesults SOivey, two uP .13 hOlase's and an association vote. She pointed oui that the overlay increasea required s;de yard setbacks i r7.4` r toniakumOre room.;for vegetation between nooses and that it deoreaseu lot coverage sightly in order to keep the limit at what it wuis before the uity adopted the Irhil odu.. M . Weigel iriclicated that the amendments limited hardscape to no more than 5010 of a lot and Specified wh-at mien rents were cur isidered hardsoape. She explained that because tne neighborhood was ',Ail iceirTcd ribuut me5thetion as well as the aiiieut it of viecra surface, yavel was considered hardscape and driveway turnarounds had to he made of :--i geeprviuc sarfaiJe, The overlay required a developer of a 6ingle-farridy house to submit a planting and ouffr,eing plan art the boildg permit applicator] -The requested PD uode change would mean that PD yard sotbacks czuld not be redorett when abuttirg fR-7.5 or R-10. Stan recorrmaMded app- al of all the proposed cii-al gas elseept the planting and duffering pion requirement and the PD text amendment. The pia,rting and bon-feting plan legerirenient was ut tent LA oeable. it regaired the applicant re submit a plan, nut offered 67, goidanceo1 h0 00hOr what te pipit and did nut lequiro aotoal planting. Staff did net recommend the PD amendment because it was not consistent with tho puipOS ,3f PD which is to allow greaterflexibility or developmer rt. Staff ocririted out Mat unless wvi:3 poprtea ocoiiibinua to 7.4 47.- a Larger piece ot property, the Hai it Choi" waa the only parcel in the neighborhood that was large enough to be developed as a PD, but development there would be uonstrailied by protected reeocrces. in response to a question from the tuomrnissioners during the ensuing ditcusalori, Mr. Boyne advised that d building oeirilit was required to build a structure over .450 sq. ft. or airy srlfait Orru that required electilcal servioe vi plumbing. Ms. Weigel coniii med that the proposal weak] return tne rot coverage standard to whiff it was before the Infill cede waS adopted. She explained that most neighborhood lots did Out have 501iiii; or more hardscape, brit auFT-re ald tclese if they iii5talle-d a poor or paved a large purtioir of the front driveway. She irithuated mat nienmorrie's planting provisions were enforceable bOdrakt.te their Oilay provided guidelines about what anu how much to plant, however Lake Grove had not been able to agree or how stringent the planting and buffering iecufrements'neuld be, Public Comments Bili Lee. 40500ipper Drive, explained that he was both a resident and a builder/developer. He opposed the overlay, He said that did trot make Sat ibe tO increase aetbaoks, that it would "take" ',tore; [Jlopurty. He owned a lot urr Twin Fir where there was a 45-foot setback and ne woura !lave to piece the structere 4U reet Flack after the Gity widened the right-ut-way there airoiher i5 feet, Inal was like losing 15 feet of Ia property. He Said the hardoape Iiirrit did not make sense either, epeeially on a larger lot, he mad a lot of harescape in his backyard where, people driving by uvula 110t See it. He advised that a lot of hards.;ape was required in order to set a LVSTa- or three-car garage further back on a lot, H advised that requiring terriurcenda to be peraious surface was riot practical, It was expensive to install and many residents would likelyet rrialtri-tailt it indaquatly act t vvuald 10ok iCay. He said tticiL die 50iVt7Y I MPUT[..;.,e was riot adequate representation, ;Michael Book. 31o5 Edge7ionit Ruad; s-57.T.C1 on the Luke Neighboihvod sociariun board. He explained that the neighborhood recognized that the character of the ere wan duetto itn grtjuricicovnr arid shrubs :7&.; well as its tree canopy, but, they could oct reach a coimmonity conserraus abut hitow to quantify arid i..odify landscaping and buffering requirements. He opined that it ;;vould be better if a C;ty,.7i00 7.747 addressed this issue, He. u/tplained the proposed equiremet it ie obn planting City of Lake Oswego rlanning Commission Militias of Septemoer to Page 3 of 8 Page 3 of 8 EXHIBIT C-3 Feb 1, 2011 LU 10-0040 141 and buffering plan simply created a point of contact between en owner/developer and the neighborhood so they could talk about it. When asked if the iteighberhoon would be able tonlrti7naraetr older the crirrei it otii7e. Mr Eck explained the current trend was to make tile house the dominant part of ciaFerel. He add the ammil ehenges the neighborhood warite5 wtoold help brit rg the house ano lot into better balance. Daniei Woke 2o55 Brooksiee Road, a member of trle neighborhood planning committee id a men fiber of the assuZiatiOi I board, explairted that the overlay was the result of healthy debates, comprorne 1d trying to involve tho rest of the r reighborhood using the survey and soliciting public comments. He ciarifin tno goal ot the overlay was not to oliange thert ; hboritur,d, brit to ehalige the dty ode; so it reflected the T d iity of the existing neighborhood. He pointed out that fow heir tea the, aeighberhocid v., re. rt3 CibSe as tell feet apart, but the cuirent City code allowed Mak, the overlay increases setbackstbckstu retlect ieality. Mi. Wok MI•plaiiiFd that under the ureitodo OuvrIP,15 Could l; potentially cover the entire lot with gravel or asphalt. He said the overlay 67t 0 50% limit that more accurately reflected the existing neighbonlood John Dengel, 3505 Upper Drive, objected to the overlay He agreed with Bill LeZ's testimony. He indicated the neiyhborhuou shourd not move rorwara with an overlay, Uspolly af-tr thu,u had beer, suoh a lovv re3pun5e to the survey. He anticipated it would reduce the value of his property. He and his wife Oit7n7d two bailde7b1E lot7 and planned to build their dream home. r7icrlael r7aplati, r rake Grove Avenue, questioned whether the comnrittee had fully eorisidered the irripiroatioris of the provision, "The Planting and Boffer Plan shahre received arid ieviewed by the City Manager.' He indicated that no people might consiner a grass and stone walkway aesthetically attractive, but some seniors could not safely walk ter r that kind GI vvalkvvay. He advised that itinie CalOulatiurls ireeded tu be • ` done to ensure that tne result of applying the 50% ireFdaiocipe hitun a 7,5U0 sq. tt. lot with a Clouse and modest patio, deck, driveway and sidewalk was realistic. Ho reasoned that stiiCE:the hardscape limit did not dittereiltiate heieen Ceine-story house anci taller nouae oieated an noetieto incentivebUii5 bigger house s lie asked the Planning Commission to care-why consider applicability, wood the r ew regulation;.3 only apply to new CunstiuCtiCiri 0 would they apply when air owner did things likerewile a house? Vathe Arakeliari, 3000 Brookside Road, spore on reraif ci nimseir and his brother. They owned thee propertiesii the neighborhood. They Ikea ,A'bat had beer happening tuere, including the new houses that had beon btiiht thore. He assored those trzrho might sopport the ovei lay just to protect the parcel the Horn. 01cc was on. that tile aunt Ciub was doing well and wOuld otgu away. nu 5ubmittrd ifl ei irrogh is enorigh" lettei signed by all 22 neighbors he mad talked to, He contrasted that response rote with the r Assocratichi survey response. He estimated that more people were against the eve,lay than were feir it. HE hsd reUeivEd app i Oval to partition ore of his prepertes into three rots. me warted tilem to be "grandratherea in" so the overlay did not apply_ Hu suggested that someone who wanted the overlay code could just put a similar restriction I hiallEI deed instead. He asked the Plan,rino Cior7riliia5luri I 174 ti) 1.7.11a ge the current code. not otock. 3155 Edger r ront Rcrad, had set ved un ti treisliboihd Sociatlun board and on its plaiiiiiiig Committee. She testified that me committee naa done its work while keeping two goals it,the Lake Grove Neighborhood Plan ,n mind that called for involving citizens and preserving the livability and aesthetic character of the nelghboTheo.d. They had oon5der ed theleperous-sions on both existillg aid litT-AN resider its. They had vetted the overlay concepts with the neightiorkrited association and narrowed them EiCt0id11y. City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes of September 0, 4.0117; Page 4 of 8 Page 4 of 8 EXHIBIT C-3 142 LU lCFeb 1, 2011 They used ii,7,reaaed setbacks and decreased hardsoape to preserve the character or the neighborhooe arid buffer existing homos f,on. nu— huin.c-iis. They vvanted to leave ...one rfoom for olairting and (hopefully) native growth. Committee member u hod diverso ii points of view but worked things riot She regretted it ai. disappointed ireighbois had i. nut uume forward sodhler to provide input at doard, committee or ..eighboi hood i, Fl ItiFig- . J. B. Mercep. 3705 Upper Drive, recalled that the City rd taken a p..ritior, ef his property just before the Supreme Court ruled that was not ttliowed in Dolan v. City 7if Tigard, Flo asked 4 the ha.dsoare limit vvuuld apply te church prupeFiy lie equated the Ei-i/D. survey ; resort...se rare to a response oy one out of eight PL.inning Co rirrilssioner s, ii Ed Gehricr, 4850 Upper Drive, was opposed to re..coniirg property at Boones Ferry Road/Upper Drive for commercial use. Chair Gustafson explair red that we not vvithiri it tho isgude of the hearing or proposed r'fl the overlay. Delluerations Chair Gustafson clod the peblir hearing, He annum iced a rive-minute break and therearter reconvened tne T-71- etiriu for deliberatior is, Commissior ie. Johnson observed that Lake Grove Neighbor noon Plan policies hat" huom it. thu Conipiehenive Plan ir rue 1998 3.,,,-ME-p7)11Cy CTiebetu had already oceuireu. Now toe ii:ranning t...zn,miaitli, had the responsibility to recornmeod the pi eoosed oodo that in iplerner itec the Plan ili they found it vvas Cunsister It with we Plan. He believed that vi7hat the neighborhood proposed was the miiiiirru... i Mt.., a1 y IC do that. He supported the staff ;iecommuodation, Commissioner Glisson icosomed that neighborhood offorris tc codify the plan had been going on fur years so there had been many opportunities for inpcit. Cumnrissioner Junes agreed the proposed ohaliges were riliniiiiai, He supported ton-ft sid u yard setbacks beause Me believed five-rot autbeloks vvere ton Sorrell. 1 , Vice Chair Parutchan reuelled the number of people who hat, testified they did hot support the proposal and questioned whether it vvaii. vvirdt tire greater rioighhornood i wanted. he ietcalted the Commissioners had spent a lot of rir ru wor ki.ig or. lot 1 coverage and weight sta.Ads in the infill crude before *":,s,iii." Cuuncil aCtopted it. She vyas reluctar it in allow a neighborhood to revert baok to the previous standards without an acmel it of what difference that would maRe. She r7c,d11,,,d that the rotinp ale.for the hardscare proviaimis was. related to aesthetics, but we provisions did net oonsider whether or not it would be visible well ba,k oil a-fenced ior. She agreed with testimony that uallud for calculating what the results of the 50iii riartirspe limii. could look like. Vice Chair Paretcrlan also indicated that the City should onlisider adopting a citywide i, definition cf arid linlit un haidscape tgravel did not count) rather than allovving each r riergrioornood to use a different dFfirritiun and limit. She chi riot favor prescribing "weer." driveway tun rarounds because mixed media driving areas posed maintenance and drainage issues and were actually more expensive to rUiiC3 and maintai,, than other types. Sire sain me Planrjng Cc...misstion had rut yet addiesped the issue or side- ,. loading garages, which tended to require more pavement ii Chair Gustaf reasoned treat if rake r... rove wa..ted differ Fi it standards than those that ii l-id been adopted.fer the etitil E City, there should cc overnivholHrig or riuur LA 1 kai14.1rieCrs '' support in the neighborhood, He was trunbled by the proposed definition, "hardscape,” l-i.r, i:Igrcii with staff that the Planning Commission should not recolumend tire plaiting and buffer-lag plan .equiriument or the PD change. He utietrirldr-rud whether the overlay would nave tree desired results. He recalled that Lake Gnove liked their one-story rtuu5u5, bat during bull discussions me c omniissiuners h2c, observed that increasing City of Lake Oswego Fanning k-7-ommssion Writhes or eptemrter I 6,2010 Page 5 of a Page 5 of 8 EXHIBIT C-3 Feb 1, 2011 LU 10-0040 143 setbacks pushed houses highei. i...„ommiaaioriel= Glri iecalled they hod also examined lot coverage during Infill discussions • The k., 119iS ;7.,na'.3 ;..,.7,.,60.;dr-cd out7..r.iiiimIldil the 7v7iFi8j/ with MdjustirtEhib. The _ majority oi'Commissioners either favored or could accept ;-;. erg the front setback at ?h feet instead at increasing it to 30 feet iii the R-I0. To increase it would impact bucRyards, The neighborhood -anted to preserve the cot:tent feel of the t leighboi hood and curient Luning was25 feet. Staff confirmed the setback change, would iiot affe7t flaw lots becauae they were 5abject to special flag lot st.,-;incierds (_ f„ral5ioner ii.AlaaieFi indicated she oal agree LV increase the side yard setback in the N-7.5 zome ai-iethor TM/ end a half Tt-5- 7.zatt-..7 tt tt reflected the character of the lti neighborhood. Commissioner Johnson agreed. Cliei. Gostafson ,IV-,'A i.,k7ii7. 7117d that it i, vvorild I enit lit mole sKinily i looses un 50-foot wide luL.S. il The COMmibbiuriErs recalled they had worked with Dennit Egrii MI lut c7CivragU dorilly irifiii Ciisc.u5i.7)11 . They pointed !JUL that many oi the exarnpies they had stadiea were Lake GT,..\/, tuts and that the Infill code had changed since the Lart. Grove Neignburrlood Plan was adoated and iztai rent lefill regolatitgis i night help the '.. ViE.ghbtmhuud achieve its plan policies. Comiiiisaioi lei Glissuit greed with testimony that the hordsc'4ipe Ilinit might riot be .!! apprepriate in nome circumstances, She believed there i night be other ways to hide the view of narascape ono she anticipated the City would 7.owcicli a cityvvide approach to hardscape doling the Comprehensive Ran opdate process as a aristuiriability Friearlio., She ilidi6atod that ulei imerrie might have already looked ',;.it lrovv their 50'17-, nardscape limit affected their large lots but ;t waa a oeuiple" iSte: thrt involved hOvv it would apply to different sizes of Itft . did hOW it affecter drainage Vide Chair ParetLhan vyai con,Eiried there YVEIT no findings to sal/port tile 50')/0 limii, Ms Weigel recalled that •", Glerimorrie had created its own definition of hardseape Leconae the City Council had IKT)L been ready to ureote Or re for the City. Chair Gustafson observed that the proposed ,:i definition wua a trge toile; because it Categorised reler7 :,,trirl gravel as hardscape. -The meaning OT "harascape" needed to be .,liTilif"1 ed hi order to determine what percentage was epplopriate. Ms Weigel clarified that the "driveway turnaroei id" iegulie.illitet it i.equii ed the tui nacuitti id • stub off the driveway tu be"green." The regniremerff wan intended to improve both aesthetics and perv;.6 .u..5.3. Corriirn,r Johfm, c,utiur,ed that driveway tuinarounds oonsumer yard area, uommissioner Jones iiv;5s; 7,7i1771"ii7d thzt m 'greei taifiaround that was composed of just pervious pavers wuuiu still lot* like a concrete area. Vice Chair Paiiti-hiii recalled testimony that questioned whether this lei:loiter-net-1i ? actually achiever, the goals of the neighborhood plan!, She sr,iggeted the hitill Lode iht achieve it. Col ill nissionet Glisson questioned wrietrieir the proposed hardaLape limit and having a "green' di=i ..veviimy tan lartioi id of payeiiii:yiiith grass in between achieved rile goals of we Plan. Commissioner Jahnliori iitived tai iecuiiiniend that tife. CACour cif flui.,approve rto ILI- 0040 because there was no evidence that curreFit cede reiquireniei its were not achieving the pelicies of the Lake GruverNeighbui hood Plan. Vice rj,itair Paretorlan seconded the ination arid discussion foliowea. Commissional Jr:hrii7ii i suggested that prupoilents who ieally believed tile Infill code wasrut achieving ff'fan policies could make their 7,E,Tzx to the L.,ity Coaneit He was ruled to believe it was, liAihen Cumillissioner Glisson . obseFved the Infill code did not give the neignbomood the 10-faot side yaid setbacks i they v;anted, Chair Gustafsaii obaeived the consenans was to agree to the larger , City of Lake Oswego Planning C'ornmission iyiinoies On oeprernaer 13., ZIMU Page 7 GT Page 6 of 8 EXHIBIT C-3 144 EU 10'Feb 1, 2011 5otbricks. 1. 47.,F11,71;,70i11Q1 Juiies held thEtt the Plaluiing Ci>inimission vvould be dui,ig disservice to Vie neighborhood if it turned down the ent vroposal. H mci.7-c;<TArcl reuIuendllI the requilionients fur 1u-eased freilt and s:de yard setbacks, the lot coverage limit the neign5ornood asiced ler, and peihmtps the "ureen'' driveway turlieroei id egoireilier it in order to help the neighborhood maintain its character. He suggested the has,dscape issue shooki bu a citywide dibUCISinri. He &green the infiii code should cohtrol Ltcovienage. noon JohnvnvvithdievvhftilVtit7i5 1-1c1 Chair Paretchan withnrew her second. Ms.Weigel and Mr, Boo, advised that the eodd could liot 11.0Tie p. tt.;f;‘. products to be used fur pervious dilveway turnarounds, but it could define the functions e Foti7,t ;rod toaecemplish to meet that standard. Staff would keep ic of fIldleriais LnaL triey thought would qualiry as "pervicez puver-.5 ' VLn Chair rE-tchrir warted 4 better definitieli. Me \Wye-il tuutiiud that yr aye! vvab. Lypicaiiv consigered to be pervious but C-C,Mi tUvUd to neon lir ler id that the Ciiy Council adupt LU t0-0040 (Ordintnce 2558) with the felleming neyv reguletiens: The R-7.5 side yard setback was to increase to 10 feet, L)iiveway turnarounds were to be'green." rir He clarified that the R-10 frunt yard setbaok yvcis tu rer idin 25 feet ab established in the col ret it COd and lot coverage was to remain as established in the. currently adopted Infill • eedo. Conninissiener Juhnsuli set-ended the iTictiur, anti aisuussion foliowed. •i Commissioner Glisson asked staff toeeii,iey tho Con,miesici iers' Fcrer[in,Endativn to 0Oflbde acitywide appicauh 10 "haroscape" sooner rather than later in the staff report to tho uocU. hi Gustefsen vva3 concerned that ail oveilay 4,0T IC t..C.il I tput,ed of only two requirements was not a meaningful enough lay sn . Cernmis5iener Jehnsen, it ab a pleoe tu begin arid he indicated that it wab to send it rorward than to keor se=nd ,g the pop & bur*tu the rieivhberhood, Glissoni indicated she uelieverri brat that the two new requirements, irk— the infill jlati could help tho neighborhood at,hitf,ve itS plan. Viczt..;hair Pareiehan also lia confluence in Ile intlit cede, She clarified she did ribt suppert the requirement fo' -oreiell" driveways. Vice Uhair Pareitotran nteved to amend the moilon by eLrnuriiifly Me requirement for drivevvay rim ounds, Com, ion ler Ulisboii secunded, TN e vete en the amendment was conducted and it failed Jeno5 and Johribun voted dgai n bt; Vice Chair Parewhan and Chair 7ustafson voted in favor. The vote Wd5 then conoucteu on me original motion and pud 3:2. Curnmisz3ivitr-,G1154_)11, JohonMid JUI47 voted in f-dvOr: Vine Onau Paretchan and Chair Go5tafSON V against. Chair Gbist<lfsen rani flip vote woold be conducted on Outubei 1 2717. WORK SESSION (2 of 21 8.1 PP 10-0007 —CeFmPruheo,rivePl11 (Pelt/die Revievv), R,ewiaive line of October •planning vvoikshobs. Sider° Sin, 1L Plannelitttaura Weigel, Asbouia,e Plnn , preerted Rani iiiiy and Building S epartmentiviemorandum dated September 1, 2010, The men listed the preipeied actioildred , proposed a fon let for the community 1ltings, and contained the pFvj %..,t tim,j;11Cy calid S7hrthile: Ortv; gull of the program City of matte Uswegt>Planning Commissis. Minutes or 5eptem5er Page 7 of e Page 7 of 8 EXHIBIT C-3 LU 10-0040 Feb 1, 2011 145 rageEXHIBIT C-3 8 of 8 146 LU 1°Feb 1, 2011 LAKE OS wEC = Community Development (goDt piiitment M e m o ra n d u m I V: CaRe Vsvve o Planning Commission FROM: Laura Weigel, Neightlorrlooa planner UA I E: May b, 2008 SUBJECT: Lake Grove Neighborhood Plan Implementation Committee BacRgrouna On may .iz`h, the Planning uommissiki, is so eauiea tor a t.heok-in Loin the LaRe Grove Neighborhood Association Plan Implementation committee about tne strategies they ale developing to implement their neighborhooa plan. s he plan was aaoptea ay the city in 198. Uver the coarse ot 18 meeti,iys, the implementation committee (with a slightly aifferent mare- op) ana rarmer City staff completed a tall at of the adopted plait. When current staff startea mactiny vvith the committee in November ot zuu I, tney had already decided to develop an overlay one to impiemei outstai rainy policies al id recommended action measures in the plan. Starr has met witn tne committee ni,is times to aate. Doriny the'hi St seven meetinys the committee worked to narrow the concepts they vvantea to 7,0n5iaer Tor inclusion ii the overlay cone. Now, the committee is in the process or rerining Mose iaeas to determine Me range or potential code changes to discuss with the neighborhood. In addition to the rneetiiigs, Several memhers ot luny range and cal rent planning staff went on a tour or the LaRe rove nCiyhoCrhoCd vvitfi the committee to understand how the neighborhood is aeveioping ana hove the overlay zoo ie could oe more ettectivC in maintainii ty Lake Grove's unique characteristics. I he Planning Commission requested that neighborhoods aeveloping implementation strategies checR-in with the Commission for teed6ack and guidance on potential iaeas throughout tie process. Lake Grove is the tirst neighborhood to checR-in with the Planning Commission because they are thu rorthest aiony in the process. This memo briefly outlines the overlay concepts currently undm dscaasion by the committee. I he committee will continue to meet and refine tRe iaeas until they are ready to present tMiem to the yenei al n ieiyhborhood for feedback. EXHIBIT D-1 LU 10-0040 Plaunning Commission 1 Lake Grove Nuighb7rh7od Plan Implementation Feb 1, 2011 147 Flie;g11r5u.nuua Cunc pt3 Tne ideas currently under discussion die intended to protect neighborhood character. LaRCe Grove neighborhood cnaracter was derinea in a paclZgrouna aocament created tor the initial imill development work in 2001 (See Attachment A.) i ne neighbornooa ;rlaraoter aasessment include, the tollowiny statement about the landscape of the neignBornood: Dense vegetation al id large trees detine the scale and character of(Lake Grove), sapai ate one lot rrom its neighbor, and separate mast buildings from the street. Houses are set vvitnin the landscape, instead oT defining it. Many appear secladea and private from otner Buildings. Flouses or many dirrerent siLcs nights, and shapes tit this neighborhood because the vegetation diminisnes the visibility and scale or tne bairdi�rgs. tile committee is considering an overlay Lone which would be applicable in the R-7.5 and R-10 Lai res. lode oo icepts being discussed include: i. Increase settfacRs to protect privacy and maintain secluded cnaracter. 2. Lower floor area ratios r;r-AR) to aeorease house si,.e. Larger houses regnire mole lot coverage, which can decrease the amount or vegetation between hoonses and encroach on neighbor's privacy. 3. Revise the baildirry height limitations to increase privacy. Taller houses onen have vvindovvs that looR dovvn into strraller hoase's windows and yards. 4. Ruaire Iandoca,iny and battering between properties and the street to protect privacy. 5. Develop more rigid ree-pre#cct on to increase privacy and because trees are large part of Lake l7rove's character. 6. Prohibit planned developments in tne neighborrtood. Planned developments rer its can decrease lot siLe without reducing the house size, tnererore development appeal a lucre rcre intense. 7. Establish more rigid Loire change criteria that farther limit the encroachment of cvrirmer%ial aeveiopi r rent in residential Lanes to maintain the residential character of the neignBornood. 8. Esta-Biisn-r es dsTaei n a _ae:SryrTT"�v�tor ail r rcvv development to ensure compatibility. 9. Increase the fees for tear downs in the neighborhood. Generally, to hoases being torn down are small and surrounded By vegetation. i he nevv nouses that replace them are much bigger and vegetation is removed. Some committee memBers reel that nigher tear- dovvr r Tees create a disii rcentive to tear downs. I u. co a as a means to dismal aye tear downs. l l. C.;nangcs to notification process a. Require neignborhood i rrcctin}.rs to oi,Gur attar N!e-applicdtior r meetings (requirement in rDC update i5 currently unaeravay). b. Neighborhood meeting dates should Be proposed on tnree dinerent day a at least three days apart and not held tu days prior to a City recogniLed noliday (tne three day separation proposal is ander consideration in t_,DC update). Gluetivn: Does tne Plann;ny C+V///IIR/JJ/Vn nave auy,dCaS (.Vlll:Cl/is of ye►►eral feedback far (he implementation committee as they,,vntinue diut..a. my these (,chit-ept ? Attachments: A. rreighborhoodsLAB, The University or uregon, June 13, 2001 Planning Commission 2 Lake Grove Neighborhood Plan Implementation 148 Feb 1, 2011 r1-2 7A w j r I—, rJ ;N-2- ared by: d neiuhnoth LAB gJAF-S, The Urliyty 171i 1.irtk7.6 ( 4 t) 346 - 3647 r'075 17,,LT Lpt. Feb 1, 2011 149 \N„ '"7 • IN,\ E- p J Wif ti racter LaildsLaye anTi targe tr,us define the scale and character of th ntihuhcd sparat= tot in= .iighbor.., End most oui1ding5 from the LrCL me set within this land scape, insi.ead of defining Maily dppa, ze,,,tuded ?and pit frnm other DUildings. Mi [Rally iTICFCI It anc7171,73 fit IiigrIbi.,1117.0d because of the vevetaiictil di iiiih tht Yiibitity te tn the Dmitaing . iop: .1,510 Lac e 7rovu_ middle: 468 5 Upper Drive, L,wur : 3660 Lake Grov,. 150 Feb 1, 2011 - ....... 1\ '7-. ' - . r..-.-3--) .-,) L1 ' - .N ia 1, 6: --F--.:),f, ; _ ,i:- ' '; rf'. '''''''.1': ill,AP. esi(Tieritia-1 Lots , I sQ'' . , ,,, --- ---- , n , -1-L---1,,=- ----+, ,1:-...riu ,, Jii.To 1 i ..1.):,,,„,1.,, y.,;,;s..,; .,„,,... ,f.t-7----, _ j r" .2 ''A.7.-..,:',17--51-7 ! T 1 I — 1----Th//"'' ',..., ''.11 A ,., --- ,,,,, /,,,.... .-:---t-4.--7.-Z,----,-T'. .,, , 1- ,....._:7r.„,,,,-,4- ,,.., 7 ( '''.; '. 1. 1 '..7 ''.-- '‘. ' — j,..... ..11‘-- .. ,,._ ,,,,,„,----„cy Edd '/4.7", --r-1-ri' If'^''''' .(, ,,,,). ' i \ L--::-"-,,"1..,:if,,,. ''),:1"."4'.--1>---"c„: ' . '<.e'Z'YT'''-'-'1-•`-'4`.,-:-`e-,:-.g'i `"' .:Z4'"4::'''' :'..`7.Y4.;'''''Ed""),Z,4;44,. / 0 U '.11.--''''''-' a"'''' ir #''''' ' \\ ' --%-...,.:- - $'', ,,,,.',.. f - • '' , '`Q..1.''::-L,'' '''''',, i.' -----7 ),,,,.." , ...4.4... --1:!`:1-•::1-----CL.:1-4-- ,:--.:--, ,,,'&4,2:11 :17‘.., :,:--,:::-tt-&='?':,.':".4:'``',"'N., ';--' -,--''''Ta, ) 1 1*--- ---4* '''''' '''' a"'''''''' ' 1 '''' ' ' ,k,'A''',kr.,\'''. •,...%:'':'" 4 ; /1'..-1 1 !j , ,',\,....,..,,--,-,1 ,--r-',:•--.1 t,',...12',''r''..1,'WI, ,y,7,77,1-'.1:':',--4%!'rt.:,:-4" ,1''''''''' ,'.;', E :'":>.5"---,'L'..-c-T-'i "—''TZ:^7,:t-\.\...-r ,,,,.-21.'ir.---i 1 1-1 1 ," ,r41- -0 =:::4,:";:-.,,,:r '` '1 J.,,,.,',,,---1.-- ,":1`t,,,,,,,:',...-::n', 1,-:•-'` ', : t71___„1. L.'1...-..!4,..,._„..in.---,L-1 ',-1.f--. 9.--,,, ,,•. ; ,s.,,,,, ,,,„,:,), ,,,,,,',,,2-1. ....,,,,,,, :,_„2,,=,;.1,,,,,,," 1 ..,, .... z,t -.,,,k,,,,.. ,,-- ,ot," ,),;,,,, ,..' 01,..:,„v ' :., '-`".1., Ei .,11.7d.„--.112.1,1, ,..:,,,vro> ) '-:7-J-,i,1 -i-73.:,L, //L1,,L:',.,-,r`z-r,`j'z'g,',)'(>;.,,.,LE,-,Y---:--,-,--1:',..1'1--,'r.,-";-i.-.,_.....-:!''/7,','-,7-/'.,-,.s,-',.7'-..--'-?--.:-'-----',-:,-/',,I-/.-',-2',1.'-1:-'/'-:2-:"'1A','5'"—•:-'-,',.,,,:-,;-"'<'I"'.=-:-„,7,/--`'2,.--".0:''-')----1-,.,-.._--/'%7''-./,",',..'4''--../-'Y,''-1,-.-.1,'7'''.....;";1,N-.•i/4.At.,.?.A,.-"4\-i-S)r-`-.'/N-..-.„.:-'4.---,W---:.-,..'-.,T-,-'7-,-,'. )( 0 /- - s )./ - \ / -).-\-,i-1 4, -- ..,....1 ,. c--,I --- \,„2.-,..',,, arum; There are four aifferuni ruE iype. in the Lal-ry„ Grove study -...T. The majur,V r. _1 4 ja„y ie .,,,. than 8„ vvr t.- C''' t i'' R,ztangular Lots fauna ne,n cul-de-sac.s. The .e. we L,s. I I srifuller through tits aiiird5 113 aGfe . ) d-, id 100-200' deep ( There are about 50 L. ig ' Rt..tatigalar Lvt , Thew1,7,t5 ,,,,u ty-p;,...-F.,11y 100-200, wide' una,zoo..d. uo,U-6-p (abt 172 1 acre),- . 'n1 - i r lots nave bean iv'some OT,Ermge.. , -, d4=de_cli 111/tru,aF7,1:!,Lit7Pf,6 :wit-17''tt:317i.v...., 'Yvw,71-r-.vlYrniii :j'47-14 ' UM. ii , Qut lend to be ab -fiu-ttl'Hu lc/ L'H -It717 t, i.u,, .t bin,ks yn, v-hout tne ri end 1 - iuvv ES v „ L./ ,betvveeff UPPei -dive '-'311( v if eigh,bcr,hov-d havu ri‘Iet"1-'-ne ''.7) ti,,r, flag Juts5 1Lot , typically esult of a curve in tne rue El Th,,„ are also e a,,,,ii,futihueb!r of Larger Irregu.010 _ _ uurriaTy. - Thy r,,,u u5vully 41 i •W..c.c. Ll (..„-;:":&yr7:1.z-'27:777;,, ,or mt."'t Thu negative ...,an,p/r;.5 o r go-nd in examples we anaryzeo eirl;fol nd On 7 cL'u''urfre7onsi,illaltlY,Pi7eurtoafrigloutslUi T/uht:.ne 151 ' Feb 1, 2011 ri,/,<.1 c.,... ( ,___1 T-7.] (L2) i„, ,.....„ Li •-• .... , - Drive - Fir 15601 Twin 1,1\1 9 Address: -1\\"'--- * 15601 Twin Fir 'arc'''.tec :r 4 s7 - torcn:,a.:8 o:Q. ft..a r onini : Lot ize: 9u .,,7,,, Jr , 1 is rioor An.,.. 2060 sq. f" Footprint: FAR: 0.24 rover v.1 i 31' Peak Heitat: ',4 .ctverage .7 -- ....,„,.„„,,,, r':"::''g41:::0, , ,:,,,,:::.4,,,,,,-„,;y:',•'.:,..,:,. ..0*,,....!..,,,,::.,?„;kj.cf:14.41it 4-,'.,-,,?...?...,0: 0.t.•.. ','''',',:,., :ii'F.'-''':',??'''N'''',-',:'; ''''':'Y.,:t'k.:::':',',-,;:,:a.,',.§iP..14:i4-3*'A:',',',5..'.''i-c'-.''',•••:N:..,4,,n. ;',.',E...:,,i.,,,;•.(',...,',_'.5.',.:,':.',.'.:::.,::•::?,,4_:-,-.. :;...:-,..::•:7,:, ,,,.,,ilm@p•N,...,.:.,;•.-•:....,,,,','‘...,:, ,:.'',,.,:s, .,:e., =:,:.,':.:',;--ST.'.,:s';•",,,.:h'-•:' .,,,,,,F,V4•R•4::'X..-.7.,'Afj:Itt4o,,.,_.::•,:',.:‘,..'-',',,,•,..:,,.,,:.',..,,:;', Nif•:k',.1D'",:•'''':•:1 1 ' .,0":,.-.. .,&..‘•,..",-:' ,.6t.•::: ''''-',: -.,,•.:,.,•:rA.,-,.:,,,,,.:,,,',-..,,....4., • ,,..,.4.,,,,,,,t,.,,,,,,,,,> .70..,14-,,,,.,,,,,,,,,,, • ,,,??,,,,,,,,,'...,..,:•:..,,.....,,,,,:•,,,,,,,,,e.,..:,..'.?4,4...',':.g,t,2,, ,,v,y,,•._•,,,,•,,,,..,..,,,,. li*rf....i4,,,H..„,,,,-4,....!,„:11',.,Y.--•,,,••:::•••:.:....' ,A.,4:-.-....••••;..,,,I,g1.-...,•.,t?4,.:,..: :,.;,.. ;-:-.?-=:-•.,...., •:::.-:,-:-.-,..,:•: 1:1,4,.., :.,.:•.:,,,,,i..;,,;iiii: ,!•,,,-,,,,,,„,-...,,,7,-A•4,40;,.,:j!..i-,,,,i.-:,:.,-..'..-...,':-.-:::.:4',-,N.,:,.',:] : , :'• A'..,-.',':;,:;:.":;... . 4..15'. , .. .:. .'. : ',1;S:':+:''.'"?1-'1''!'t:'" . :., .'''--• - ,` .'""'r.: -. :.,.,,,:-;..,.... :.:,i,S.'41.1.--.'-' ::!:,,:;',,r.k.:•:.:•::::g.f.Y-', .,.., - . - ,•Ift.F-9:.:.-::-,,,,alai-'''...--..:, .,.c,....:''A ' ••-,": . iitt-0-1-i.:''-', '.!':e'''''':;-• '::.--it-1.-`,4AV.:-::::::-.:-.,'a','''.:;;',:.:''.'A.:•A',-5:Ar---J, i,-..1n.;.', ii,"?,,:.,,:1.2,,,..,,-;.;:,,: .:It.,,,,,,.4,.,,,I,.g,::::',:::',.::::.f., wrirro)e., ,...,- — 1 ac, v . irom florin row &•' I 51317 i 1 win Triwri,n Fleiwr' \tew fr(Dm street 152 Feb 1, 2011 "Th,LA 0..1 -I ('01\\I I 1*-. LiN )ro) "--11©ru) I 7 3303 Lake Grove Avenue Bui ftling Facts Address: 3.10.) Laike Crove Arcri;recr: OEf Developer: Ed Buchman Wale I Zoning: R - Lot size: 13,280 sq, ft. r-loor Area: 1,5,60 Sq. fr. Footprinr: 2,230 sq. ft.. FAR: 0.1'5 LOVE-. 0.1/ ileighr: 21' Peak 7•S'Alverag, 3303 Lake G.o.e, TTorn street, MIddle' 3303 Lake Grove, view from corner Feb 1, 2011 153 77- ! ',„\\ 1:1 L..--• Lfi 3303 Lake Urove - Site ,.. lanning ,,v _,,,---N--r--- 4 / /// , ''---- --'-'—' -`"—'—,./ Floor Area Standards ,/---,, Floor Area: 1,980 q. fi.,. / 1 Lot Si : 13,280 4. ft. Covert: 0 .L1/_,...,/ z,/ , / //— ----- ---2-------,-- 4111Mip 7/// moor z / - ----- ,- ---___ - , ------7 --7---------__ _.._ , z - / ._,...,4 Tr__ . , SetbaLks Landscaping GmTage ia t Pack etbt 4u" wnile Twu tar ,e-. CLF illfUl clinz tr.e ifs truest the house is setbock about 5'0 . of tne nous, , one on each side. Sida .D.F.t b a dZz Ere•25 an 6 3 ', 154 Feb 1, 2011 3174 -I Circle (Jug Address: 3174 Douglas Circle Arcnirem arson rupAr‘..aire,.rs Developer: Blazer Deveicpment, mare Uffl unrier coli5ErUcrion honing: R Loc. 4tze: Jp7 rsq. Floc), Area: 4,330 sq. It, roorprini: Z-1L, sq. f FAR: 0.27 c•=r Yel ...“/ Height: 30' Peak ,LD'Ave rage Top:3174 Douglas Circle, view from street, Miriote:3174 Douglas Circle, view from east Feb 1, 2011 155" [! ,— , (.,-,-,., ,• , , ,,----, ,^-2,., I ,,,,--',, 3174 D oug las Circle t , chitecture i ...._____ -----------__, ....,/ zz 11 ' -----,../ ---._ Operopig maJsing T ... —r garage is anouL nalf of zhe rronL ol house broken inLo two masses, a :z fLoor street eievadon, equal in wid,h one-sLory porch-enLry and a garage. The I, zne porch and enLry. easL side wall it a sinste long lane,p though Lhere is sitnifIcan. fenestration, 156 Feb 1, 2011 ' ,Th /t--• /A\ W 1E-7 (Cc:,:':-.),./ (1—\-1) vii : — 1-'-\ 1\\I'-' \z:L-2,..i ''7,, ,,&,../ V L'-' Li . i t l.:2_,''.--2.7 l'''' i_iil ....-)'<.'r-,./' 1::.•.-/-1 3500 Upper Drive - Site Planning - ',)k-\-- 4), '\) Y// --________ --------- Floor Area stanaar ------- H.Uur Area: 2,240 sq. IA. , e Lot S1 : 18, / 10 sq. ft. / ,— FAR: 0.12 / ---7-----II Cover rige: 0.08 / -----; / ----------___ --- 7--, .--"--"---/fz 1--------- , ., / / /--- , r. ,- ,,' ---- ---------,-. . --z---.. ---____,---__ biEtbdiCRb LannCap;ng - \ Tne hc,u3c ;3 setback 80' from the front There are several. taige, maLore trees to.. Side seLbcks mu 11 . in frmit mf th,, Mr.pd .e. Feb 1, 2011 157 .1 A Iv; FL-7, - '77 t ZfLA 1:rac; \Y! !..z% N [izt .111 Flour Area Ratios Ftour Area::LoL Size Not 6..u00 3168 DouNta-s '311 Liougt,as 3174 DL.,3 J. 4.,LIUU 150cjj win Fir -J,LJUU 3500 UppeT .,UUU .io5u LaKe 71ove 330 LaK 1,0DU 10,UUU ID,UDO 20,000 25,000 Ecit si,Le ( Li. Pc7itivei - Negative Examples 1:5 FAR 158 Feb 1, 2011 I ,^% n./7 '=- ;1 !L-a 11-o. r\C • L., ....I e PlaT7nirity Isb-Lie Su._ - dry Landscaping I Ile character of Lake Grove is defined Py iarge trees and eve'vetatiuii vvitt hrreb,tEd withlr the [erad>tapt-. Lc s,7ccessful it-1U" dm-pirates or ettminates the 5u-r cunatig tat idst.d4-.)-e7 ptaLiirg giudtel emphasis. mi. the buiichrrg , A tree drd..narlue urdy help r educe.the ruuwu.cm ve%Etcr..4itnJ bettg 11111'67/Ya. Setbacks Pt1v Eaca have venerous front ;Ind side setbacks. All ne. ..aLive excr.rupt art. et Or near xsg zing Omits. S,toacrs should be reguLateci Hype dad dilnenicmz. e-ttec.rc --," t-yrr: Lkero. , grrtT;''./4 unggr,,, Feb 1, 2011 159 160 Feb 1, 2011 LAKE,OSWEGO Planning and Building Services Department jc Memorandum TO: Lake Oswego Planning Commission FKO101: Caura VV IyCl. Fleign5m hood Planner DATE: May 1 s, zu i u SUBJECT: vvorR Session - Proposed Lake Grove Neighborhood Overlay zone (PP 0r-0018) At the work session scrleaaied rut Play 14tt' tile LaRe t iuve ldeiyhwi hood Plan implementation uummittee will ptebent a piDposed overlay zone for the neighborhood. I he overlay zone is intended to help maintain the unique character ur the r teiyi6at humd and further implement the neigP16util1/47.7d plait. i Fie committee vvvald liRe tV di cubb the pi upused pt uvisibns in the rivet lay Lone and answei any specific questions or concerns rtum the Uummia5ion in preparation for the public hearing. BacRgruuna 1998 Lake Grove Neighborhood Plan adopted P5y laity Uuancil. zuuu-1u05 Nametvua plan items are implemented City-wide and the neighborhood continues work on plan implementation. zu05-zuuu Neiyh5-vt hood aaaociatiun identities neighborhood specific plan policies that still need implementation strategies. zuDi-zuu8 171eiyh6v1hvvd a5bociatiun, aluny with an implementation committee, and City statt work to develop an overlay zone for the R-r.5 and m-10 in the neighborhood to preserve the neiylfSuriumd CPiata7,tet identitiea in the plan. Oct. 2008 14 overlay zone provisions are presented to the assUCiatiGn for reed15acR. !Meeting advertised tn, ayR CO Kevievv direct mail and email, �5 attendees (88ts parcels in the neighborhood, including 6asinesses). Also, Planning Commission receives an update rrom thie committee on the status or plan impieme�ttatiun. Plann,ng C;rnrni55ion Wmrk S...i.n 05/24/10 tAlehtil I D-2 1 Lake GrUvC Neighborhood Plan Implementation (PP ur-nn 10) LU 10-0040 Feb 1, 2011 161 Feb. 2009 Survey sent (Exhibit F-1) to all Lake Grove residents asking for feedback on all concepts. Survey also posted 32.5 vro response rate. Jan. 2009 Based oil sarvey results, committee and LGNA board drop six provisions from consideration. IOlarcA 2010 end open hoase held to present survey results, revisions to provisions, and to vote on remaining eight provisions. 35 citizens voted. Key F ruvisiuns and Kesuunses • KCga TC "l u met minimam side yard set5acRs in the R-7.5. Agree 27, Disayree 5, Neutral 3 • Kegaire 30 teet minimum front yard setbacks in the R-10. Agree 24, Disagree 5, Neutral 6 • Do not allow the front yard setback exception Mat allows a reduction in setracR it ele alluttiny l9on'1ez nave a rEbuceb set5acR. Hyree 20. Disayree 8. Neutral - Gity u'u'uncil recently approved Irlcreasirly Iot CovCrayC as a result of the Intill I ask Force recommendation. The Lake Grove proposal is to keep the current city-wide lot coverage standard: CUT Gt7veraye t7ai taut eAceea 35'ro tug a primary structure -22 feet in height or 25% for a prima rry stractare - than 22 feet in height for the neighborhood rather than increase it. Hyree 31. Disayree 3, Iaeatral - Parcels Mat are developed as a 'planned development" shuala be regniiea to meet the LaRe rove Neighborhood Overlay setbacks. Agree 30, Disagree 3, Neutral 2 Establish a Ftarascape maximam at 50%. Agree 25, Disagree 6, Neutral 1 urivevvay ton iaruunas shall be constructed oat 'ut pervious materials sash as per vioas pavers, and grass paving. Agree 22, Disagree 11, Neutral 2 • Require a Planting and Buffering Plan when a building permit is required for any structure on Me site. Hyree 25, uisayree 5. Neutral 4 April 2010 Based on the neighborhood vote the Cage Grove neigPiburflooa association board decided t'u in7,Iuae ail the provisions listed above in the prupused LaRe Uruve overlay. Plarrning Commission vvorrc Session u5r.'+r 10 2 Lpkc Grove Nuighburhoud Plan Implumentatiun (PP 07-0018) 162 Feb 1, 2011 Dist;ussion All of the code concepts were generates rrom the neiyfl6urflaod character Statement: uen5e vcyctativn and large trees (7ietine the Shale and character at this neiyhborhuod, separate one lot from its neighbor, and most buildings from the street. Houses are set within this landscape, instead or defining it. Many appear seGiuded and private tram tither buildings. Houses at many aitterent sizes, neiyhta and Shapes tit this lieiyhborhood because the vegetation diminishes the visibility and scale of the buildings. Additionally, the code pruvi5iuns SeeR to implement many at the yvals and policies identiriea in the neignbarnaad plan, incladiny: Goal 10, Policy a: Ensure all new residential development, includiiiy secalloa4 avveliiny5 ana hame5 being substantially remodeled, contributes to the positive desiyn character and qualities of Lake Grove's existing residential neighborflooa. This shall be accomplisflea Througrl the applicatian ar 5e5ign campatlbility standards, vvilicfi include: • Helyht, bulk and lot coverage standards - Size of paved areas • Appropriate setbacks; battering and screening • Preservation of mature canopy and other landscape features rRuriJSED uvErclAY CuiaCE1,1-5 FUR R-7.5 & R-10 iN THE LAKE GROVE NEIc3RBORHooD SETBACKS Side yard betbaa in R-7,5 Current Code: —Requires that poRions of structures less than Its feet in fleiyRt must have a 5 foot minimum 5i5e yard 5et6aci and a total arrgined width of 15 teet. Stracture5 yreater than 18 teet require 10 feet minimum on each side. Proposed Change — Requires that portions of structures less than 13 reef ii height must have a 10 reef minimum side yard set170cR. Front yard setback in the R-10 Current Code: Requires a minimum z5 reef front yard 5etbacR in the R-1 u. PrapaSea Change: Requires a minimum 30 teet tront yard setback. Exception to the front yard setback Current Cade: 5U.ZZ.U10 allavv5 the tvllvwlny eAceptiall: It there are lawtal dwellings or detached ydrdyes (inciadiuuy dwellings or garages deemed lawful non-conrorming or through a variance approval), on both abutting lots with Trani yards aT ie55 Man the requires aeptfi far Ile Cane. the aunt yard tar the lot need not eAceed the dveraye tront yard at the abattiny dwellings andtor detached garages. f raposed Change: Do no allow the use of this exception. Neighborhood Reason: increased set 15aaR5 increase the betvveen names and inc.rease privacy between neighbors. larger trout yard setbacks allow the veyetatiun to define the streetscape, not the houses. Planning Commission vvorK session 05/24/10 3 Lake Gr7ve Neighborhood Plan Implementation (PP 07-0018) Feb 1, 2011 163 Starr commelitb: Starr ib concerned about having to administer the exception to the rront yard setback. It is an exception that is not rregaeiitiy area in Me neiyhhorhaaa and ib bo minor that it coals ISe averlooRed, Additionally, the exception vvab developed to increase compatibility and maintain the exibtiny character, therefore removing the exception may cause a house to look out of character in between the alsuttiny Moabeb Mat Miave decreased front yard setracRs. Lvt Uoveraye Current Code: Lot Coverage cannot e,.ceea 351/4 rur a prima ryy Stractare ALL teet in tleignt or z51/4 Tor a primary Stractare > than 12 teet in height for the neighborhood. Recommendation: City Council recently gave preliminary approval to a cflange in the city wide lot coverage standards, wflicll are sliyyfltly greater than the carrel it code for structures greater Man z3-z5 reet in height. I Ne reabon for the slight increase is to provide greater rleAi6ility for lot coverage (especially for sloped lots) and to create a sliding scale based on height. Proposed Code: rare grove vvants the lot coverage to Stay at current city code star wards and nut increase. Additionally, it lot coverage were to decrease city-wide below the carrent code stated above, Lake Grove wouia ilia acreasea lot coverage standards to override the rare grove overlay standards. NeicPfborhiooa Reason: Current standards allow an appropriate amount of lot coverage- increabiny coverage decreases vegetation and tree canopy. Planned Deviapmerita uarrent Code: I he Plant led Development Overlay code (5v. i i) aiiavvb Tor rleAi6ility in land development standards to encourage variety in iana development patterns. I he Planned Development Overlay standards can only 6e abed when: a) I he properly is greater than /5,000 square feet in size; b) An RC District or RP District or its associated barter is located on the property; c) A tree grove greater than 15.000 Sgaare Teet in bile exibtb on the property; or a) I hie property incladeb reboarceb identified as Class I or II Riparian uorridorb/VVildlite Habitat or Class A or B upland vvilaiire Ra6itat as mapped on Metro's Title 13 Regionally Significant Fish and vvildlite Habitat Inventory Map. Side yard setracR. Lan 6e reduced it certain requirements are met, including when Me propobed lot Moab are less than the minimum size required My Me ai derlyiny Lone; or leer setbacks are necessary to provide additional tree preservation or protection of abutting natural areas. Proposed Chaiiye: Require parcels that are developed as a planned development to meet the Lake Grove Neighborhood Overlay setracRb or the anaerlying coning, whichever is more stringent. IdeiyfNborhiood Reason: uorrently there are no parcels in the Lake Grove hoanaaries that coald be developed as a planned development eAcept the font Cia6 property. I he neighborhood is concerned Mat ;T redevelopment or the Hunt Clab were to occur in the future Mat it vvuaia be developed as a planned development which could result in Smaller lots with large houses that that would be out of cnaracter vvitN the neighborhood Planning Commission Work Session 'ooiz4i10 4 rare Grove Neiyhbrho5d Plan Implementation (PP 07-0018) 164 Feb 1, 2011 character. Reduced setflacRs decrease vegetation aria homes begin to detii le the space it isteaa or veyetation. Staff comments: Long range planning stun vvoula liRe to rime that IT the Mont Clufl site vvere developed it vvvald he ve , constrained due to historic resources and sensitive lands and the planned development overlay would be the likely tool used to creatively develop the property, including aiiowing reduced sethacks to protect the wetlands alga the tree grove. I hererore. start does not agree vvith this provision. 50% Hardscape Maximum Current t,ode: No maAimum percentage or hardscape is detilled. Proposed Change: No more than 50% ot the lot can be hardscaped. Hardscape includes structures, patios, retaining walls, paving, walRs and artiricially placed rucR or gravel. Sanaset pavers al la sill filar ground covering are also included the calculation. Neiun6orhood Reason: I o decrease the amount ot gray infrastructure in the neighborhood and to increase storm water filtration. Driveway I arnarounas: Current code: Driveway turnaround materials are specified. Proposed Change: Driveway turnarounds shall Ile constricted Out Or pelTious materials such perviOas pavers, and grass paving. Neiuhborhood Reason: Ldryer houses with large driveways are being built on smaller lots, which decreases the dense vegetation and tree canopy. Decreasing the visual impact or the huiit environment will help maintain I leighdorhood character. Planting and Buffering Plan Current Code: i here is no planting and flattering reyairemerlt. Propusea Change: Require a Plaritilly and Buttering Plan when a building permit is regaired tor any structure on the site. Neighborhood Reason: Planting and fluttering will enhance privacy and mitigate the visual impact or nevv development as well ds help control erosion. Staff comments: The details of the planting and fluttering plan col kept vvere discussed at length by floth the implementation committee and the hoard over d namber of months. Ditterent members had different views of what should be included and it was difficult for the groups to come to a consensus on how to proceed. Ultimately, the board decided to put rorl:h the concept stated a6Ove, which Only requires a plan; at does not require any specific plantiuiy. Nor does it require that the plan actually be installed, therefore it is not an impactful regulation. The board views the regulation as a "teachable" moment to encourage applicants to instali plantings alld 6utteriny, hat the regulation does not rgaire any planting or buttering. A number of the committee members were not pleased with the rival proposed C711 Icept, nor vvas One Or the LaRe drove neighflors who vvorKed on the plan) over the years. As a result; that citizen unexpectedly proposed a new concept during the second open house where these all of these concepts were voted on. The Lake drove resident asRed the Planning Currnrnissiun Wurk Session 05i i 10 5 Lake Grove Neiyhburhuud Plan In,plumuntatiun (PP 07-0018) Feb 1, 2011 165 audience to vote on a different provision which states, in part, that "New houses in Lake Grove will have (a minimum of) one contigaons landscape yroopin-y consisting or: -I dative tme. 1 medium height native shra° and 1 native law plant or ground cover." 11 were in tdvor, 3 were Hot. I be proposal and the results vvere discussed at the next board meeting. I he board decided to present the proposal to the Planning Commission and ask for direction as to how to proceed. Should the neighborhood include the citizen proposal in tRe overlay zone or sPlould tPle concept remain as originally presented r Statt recommended to the board and committee that they should agree to a concept prior to presenting to Planning Commission. Plovvever tPley are at an impasse and vvuald liRe iPle Planning uummission to provide guidance. Statt alsa agrees that the provision ds oriyiiially stated is not really regulatory or impactful because no plantings or buffering is actually required. Candia*;on The Lake Grove Neighborhood Plan implementation committee vvooid liRe respond to any questions tPle Lommissioi i may have in preparation Tor the public hearing and get directions oil now to proceed with the planting and buffering provision. EXhinits A. Notice of Appeal [No current exhibits; reserved Tor bearing use] B. t=indiny5, Conclusions and Order [No current exhibits; reserved Tor bearing use] C. minutes [No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use] D. Starr KGNortbi Mum orandams [No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use] E. CiraNfica [No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use] I-. Written IVlateriai5 F-1 CaRe Grove Neighborhood Survey G. Cotters [No current exhibit ; reerved for hearing use] rianning Commission Work S7.3,i,7n 05/24/10 Q Lakc Gvve Neighbahoud Plan Implementation (PP 07-0018) 166 Feb 1, 2011 STAFF REPORT CITY OF LAKE PLANNING & BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT APPLICANT: FILE NO: City of Lae uswego ror tr a Cu 1 u-uu4u Cake Grove Neighborhood Association PKuPEK I Y uWNERS: S I AFF: N/A Caura vveigei, Associate Planner LEGAL DESuRtP i lull: DATE OF REPORT: N/A August 2u, 2ulu LuuA i luN: DA I E OF REARING: R-7.5 & R-1U cone within the Lake Grove September 13, zulu Nciyh5or flood Association boundaries: See Hop, EAhirit E-1, uuMP. PLAN DESiUIIA i lull: ZONING DESIGNA I ION: N/A R-7.5 3 R 1u NEIGHBuKnuuu ASSuulA i Ion: REGUES I : Cake Grove Neighborhood Association Amendment to Me it k7r Lakes Oswego Community Development Code to include a new Lake Grove R-7.5/R-1 U Overlay Ui trict. I. AF'PLI:t;AN he city or Cage uswego is waking this applit7atiM for the Cake Grove Neighborhood Association to amend the text or the Cake Usvvey'v uk7iiiiiiraiiity Development Code (CUU) to include the Lake Grove R-7.5/R-1u overlay uistrict [Exhioit A-1]. IL APPLICABLE CRITERIA A. City-or-Cake UavvCyv Uuiiipieheiisive Flail Goal 2: Cal id Use Plan tiny Sect-ion'I rand use Policies al id Regulations, Policy 4b and 24 Section 2 uo DGsiy and Asthetics, Policy 1 Special District Plans Cake Grove Neighborhood Plan Goal 2: Land Use Planning: Residential Goal and Policy 3 Goal lu: Roushig: Goal and Policy 1,3 EXHIBI 1 D-3 LU 10-0040 Planning Coiimiiission Public Hearing I LU 10-0040 Hagasi ‘'u, z110 Feb 1, 2011 167 6. Metro Urban urovvth Management ranctiorral Pica/ I itle 1: Accui i ii i i0Clation oT Ul owth C. Oreyon Statewide Planning Goals Goal 1: Giticen Involvement Goal 2; Land Use Planning D. CaK% Oswego DGveloumment l:ode Procedai ai Reuairer r rents COU 5u.u"1.u1 u Poi pose COC 5u./5 Legislative Decisions LOC 50.75.005 Legislative Decisions Dolinea LUG 50.75.010 Criteria for a Legislative Decision LOU 50.75.015 Required Notice to DLCD LOU 50.15.02u Planning Uomrrrission Recommendation Required CUL; 5U.f5.U25 Uity Uoancll Review and Decision LOU du.f 5.03u Effective Uate or Legislative Decision III, . SUMMARY This report addresses the creation of a new Lake Grove Overlay District(rvevv Article CUC 5u.u8-i ) to implement the 1998 Cake Grove Neighborhood Plan. The concepts aaaressed in the Overlay District were developed by a oorrrrrrittee made op of Lake Grove neighborhood residents. The final version as lleen reviewed and approved by the CaRe Grove Neighborhood Association board. Staff proposes that the Planni,-ig l.omiiiission ie ommend most (bat not all) otthlese community Development Code amendments Tor adoption Ely the Ulty Lounoil. The Lake Grove Neighborhood Association proposes the following amendments: • An overlay district that vvouia add or Fifty sip parts of the underlying R-7.5/K 1U base gone within the Lake Grove Ideighhorhuod Asso:,iatie1 I roClndai ies (Exhibit E-1). l he district would be implemented through a new article in the l.ommonity Development Lode; and • A te. t amendment to the Planned Development section (50.17.015). I he amendment would prohihit eAceptions to the yard setback regairements on the perimeter of planned development lots at3atting the R-:lu aria R-i.5 �eniny. The purpose of the overlay is to ensure that rlevy residential development promotes the unique character or the Cake Grove INeighhorhooa. The Lake Grove Neighborhood Rssociation discussed overlay oorioept with the Planning Uarirmissiorr on May 12, 2008 (Exhibit D-1) and May 24, zu iu (Exhitfit D-z). The nevv regulations include: (See Ordinance, Exhibit A-1) 1. A 30-toot front yard setback in the R-10 (currently 25-Toot). 2. A 10-foot side yard sethacITs in the R-r.5 (currently oomoiried total or -lb-Toot). 3. Lot coverage limitations (which reflect the lot coverage iiiiritations prior to the recent Community Development Code infill amendments). 4. Requirements that no more than 5070 or the lot sari 6e covered in hardscape (no col ent lirr,its). 5. Req,,,irement3 Tor"green" arivevvay for naroands (no torrent regain en rents). 6. Reyaired planting and barreling plan submittal on new development (no current requirements). Planning Commission Pulslic gearing 2 LU 10-0040 August 20, 2010 168 Feb 1, 2011 7. There is also a text amendment to the Planned Development section (50. i 7.0 i 5) that does not permit exceptions to the yard setback requirements on the perimeter of planned development lots abattiny the R-10 and R-7.5 coning. It is proposed that the Planning Commission recommend I, 2, 3, 4, and 5 in Community Development Code amei tdmeriits for adoption by the City Council. Starr is recommending that the Play tniny commission reject amet!dt t lents b and 7, I he 6th amendment to submit a planti. a,id burrering plan, aces not iitclade any language as to vvnat that plan should include nor does it actually require the landscaping plan to be planted; thererore the regulation nab no impact nothing rut plan submittai is required). Aaaitionaiiy, the revolution vvill requuire extra start time to administer without providing any benefit to the neighborhood. I ne 7th amendment to prohibit exceptions to the yard setbacks is in conflict with the purpose of the planned development reyalatioi is vvhich are stated as tullows (50.17.005): /be pu,pose of the Planned Develuprrrerrt Overldy is to provide, for parcels of sufficient size, greater flexibility it developrr,errt at/and as compared to a standa,d subdivision, encuuiaye var,et-i„ the deveiop,,,entpattern of the COrr,rr,Clrrity, encourage Qevelopers to use a creative app-oacn rn Tana acvUToprrrcnt, ionserv- „aural laud Mani,US, tam-id-ate a aesi,able aesthetic and efficient use or open Space, C>}catc ptabl,C aria p,ivate Cv„rruvrr (pun SpaCES, and prOviae for flexibility and variety in the location or improvements on Tuts. if mese panTiC pvrpvscs are dcuarnplished, exceptions to certain zoning standards may be granted as proviaea op LUG 5a.17.a15. Additionally, it is important to consider the applicabiiity or these standards: use of the Planned Development uverlay (PD) is aiiovved ii i any L.one for subdivision proposals, except when the property is located in the R-7.5, R- 10, or R-15 .o11e, at least one or the tolluwiny circumstances mast exist: a. The property is greater than 75,000 square feet in size; b. AM Rc District or RP District or its associated batter is located on the property; G. A tree grove greater than 15,000 square feet in size exists oft the property; or d. ' he property includes resources identified as Class i or II Ripariat t Corridors/Wildlite habitat or t,iass A or 8 Upland Wildlire Habitat as mapped on Metro's Title 13 Regionally Significant Fish and Wildlife habitat Invento7 Map (adopted by Metro on September 29, 2005 and amended on December ts, zu05), see Evu Appendix 50.46,010. currently there aren't any parcels in the teiyhborhood larger than 75:000 square feet with the exception or the Hunt ulob, therefore creating one special provision It t the plat tned development code for one neighborhood and one property in that i ieiyhbornood Seei i is unnecessary and coald be easily overlooked. It also mattes the code more complex. 01. a PPEICA5rE ter-FRUVAL".. Rl APPLICABLE CRITERIA- LAKE OSWEGO COMPREHEIdaIVE PERN .uoal 2 Land use Planni" compliance vvith city EaRe Usvvegu Comprehensive Plan coal 2: Land Use Planning, Section 1, Eana Use Policies and Regulation, Policies 4b and C., and 2.4. Planni g Commission 3 ru 10-0070 August 20, 2010 Feb 1, 2011 169 PuEluIES 4. Nequii e la,id use mgalaticns to: Promote eompatlbility betwee„ deveieprnei,t ai,d 7Aist,rly and desired nuiyClbvrhood character; c. Provide for the implementation of neigrlborrlood plans. 24. uomprehcnsively evaluate proposed land use actions to determine the tull range of potential I egative impacts and require applicants to provide appropriate solutions prior to approval. rindings: I Pie CaKe Grove Overlay District code is consistent vvith and implements the Comprertensive Han Goal 2, rand use Planning, Section -I, rand use Pelieies and Regulation chapter because its regulations: ▪ Flair rtair r the neighborhood's existing mooning and plan density designation consistent witri thie Uity's o5jective of meeting the Metro housing allocation targets and implementation UT tile State's uooal 1 u. and the Metro Ransil rg Rule. • Are inta,aea tc ensure that resiaei itiai aeveiopmei rt occars in a way that is compatible wit toe unique character or the CaRe Grove Neighborhood. ▪ Implements the goal, policies and action step or Me Cake Grove Neiyiif5m11ooa Plan. canclasion: The Cake Grove Neighborhood Overlay District conforms to Lake uswego uomp,eiiensive Plan, veal 2, Policy 4b and c and 24. Goal 2 Land Use Planning, Section z Community design and Hestiletic� Compliance with CaRe uswego t omprehei'sive Plan, Goal 2 rand use Planrriny, Section 2: Community Design and Aesthetics, Policies la and b, and 4. rurluIES 1. Enact and maintain regulations and standards vviti'i regaire: a. New development to enhance the existing built environment in terms or size, scale, balk, color, material arid architectaral design. b. Ca,idscapingg. 4. Ensure that both public ai,a private development enhance the aesthetic quality of the community. Findings: The Cake Grove R-7.5/R-10 Overlay District code is consistent yvith and implements the comprehensive Plan Goal 2, Cand Use Planning, Section 2: Community Design and Aesthetics because its FEggalations: • uM,rorm to and are consistent vvlth the goals of this chapter to maintain and enhance appearance aria acsiyn quality. • Seek to further define the appearance and design quality er the Cake Grove neighborhood. • Enacts standards that reqaire new development to be consistent with the scale and style Ot existiny d velOvprrreiit and the desired character of the Cake Grove neighbor-food. Conclusion: I flu Cake umve 17-7.b/R-iu Overlay District code conforms to CaRe Osweyo Comprehensive Plan, Goal 2, Sectioi, 2: community DCsiy„ and Hestiletics, Policies 1a and b. and 4. Planning Commission rur�lic Rearing 4 LU 10-0040 Amgm,,t 20, 2010 170 Feb 1, 2011 SPECIAL DISTRICT PLANS CAKE GROVENEIGHBURHUUD PLAN Cake Grove Land Use: Residential Goal Compliance with Cake Grove Neighborhood Plan, Laird Use: Residential Goal, Policy 1 GOAL Maintain' and enhance the appearance and character of the residential areas of the Cake Grove ne gh5orhood. Pu ltiE3 1. Work to ensure that development occurs in a way that is compatible with Mu unique enar aCtC c1 the Cake Grove neighborhood. The CaRe Grove R-7.5/R-10 Overlay District code is consistent with and implements the CaRe Grove Neighhorhood Plan Can id use: Residential Goal becaase its regulations seek to ensure that nevv development is in scale vvith and supports the an dune character of the CaRe Grove l eighhorhood. Conclusion: The Cake Grove R-7.5/R-10 overlay District code conrorms to LaRe Grove Meignborhoad Plan Land Use: Residential Goal, Policy I. nUICSISTEICCY WI I r1 ME I RU'S URBAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONAL PLAN The Metro urban Growth Functional Plan was approved NovemUei Z1, 199b by the Metro Council, and became effective February -r 9, -r ea7. r he purpose or the plan is to implemen It the Regwr nal Urhar I Growth Goals and Objectives (RUGGO), including the 2040 Growth concept. i he Functional Plan mast be addressed when' Comprehensive Plan Map Amendments are proposed through the yuasi- juudicial or legislative processes. The rollovving responses address compliance with the Metro Functional Plan. Response: Title 1 — Reyairenrents for Housing and Employment Rccommodation. I his title re,wires changing local plans. it I iecessal yy, to increase permitted densities to assure sufficient capacity ror the zu4u Growth Concept. The CaRe Grove R-7.5/R-10 Over lay District is consistent with this title in that the district maintains ourren it Plan and Zoning Map densities within the neighborhood boundaries. Overall, the City or raRe Usvvego has round that the City's carrel It Coning designations when developed at aliowea densities are in substantial cOmpliancC vvith this title. Title 2 — Regional Parking Policy. r his title regulates the amount of parking permitted 5y use ror jurisdiction's in the Metro region. This title is not applicable to the code recommendations. Title 3---- Water uaality and Clvvd ManauemenIt Course'vatic'''. This title is not applicable to the code recommendations. Title 4— Retail in Employment and Industrial Areas. i his i itie does riot apply. Planning Commission Public Hearing 5 LU 10-0040 August 20, 2010 Feb 1, 2011 171 Title 5— Neighbor Cities and Rural Reserves defines Metro's policy regarding areas outside of the urban Giavvth Boundary. These codes vvoala apply within the Urban Growth Boandaryy; ti retore, this title aces not apply. Title 6— Regional Accessibility. TRis title recognises tnu iinR PSetween maae Split, levels ar congestion, street design and connectivity in creating a transportation system that works ana supports trle ausirea land use concept. This title does not apply. — - - . I his title is advls'uiyy only and recommends that local jurisdictions implement tools to tacilitate development or attarda6le housing. I his title does not apply. Title a, 9, ana 10 require compliance, purrormanou measures aria aetiniti0ns for implementation or the Functional Plan, and are not applicable. conclusion: The CaRe Grove R-7.5/R-10 Overlay District complies with the relevant titles or tne Metro Fan,,tianal Pian. uuMPLIANCE vviTR THE UREGUN TRANSPURTA I lull PLANNING RULE (CHAP I ER 66U, DIVISION 12) This State of Oregon Administrative Rule applies to amenaments to comprerlensive plans, runctional plans and land use regulations (OAR 660-12-060(1)). The rule is applicable because the application reyaests amendment of the City ct EaRe Oswego Community Development Code. OAR 5eu-1z-ubu(i) and (2) praviaes as rallavvs: (1) Amendments to comprenenuive pia ra„Ct;vnal plans a„d land 175c ,cyrrlat;v„s vvh;Ch significantly affect a transportation racii;ty snap a--ra,c Mat arravved laud rases we consistent with the identified function, capacity ana level or service yr ine roc,i;tom. Tn;- shall be aeea„iplished by either: (a) limiting allowed land uses to be consiute„t vv;Tn the plan tun Botts, Capacity and level at service of the transportation facility; rv) amending the TJh'rfl a„spvrtatra,I ystem F'la„)to prvviUe t,ar,spartatian facilities adequate to support Inc p,vpv5M1'lava"vises Cv„sistu„t vvith the,eq iic,,,e,6 of this division; (u) altering Tana use ae5;y„aT;v„s, de„.3..; v, ae5;g„ reyai,e,,rents to !educe demand for auramobile traver and meet travel need- in,vrzyn vtnern,'va'c-. (2) A land use ,cguldtian amendment significantly affects tne transportation raca;tp;rit: (a) unar,ges tne tc„ctio,, l classification of art existing or planned transportation racirity; (o) unaa„yyeu a -ta„CYa,CT implementing a trar,Ctio,ral Class;fiCatior, System; (c) allows types or levels orla„d i-es vvn;0n vvvvild,csult in levels of travel VI access which we inconsistent wim the runt,onol a55;ri%at;v„ ar a t,arrspvrtat,o,, tardily; yr (a) vvuula reduce the level of service of the facility below me 7T,;„;mun, acceptable level rc�crrt;riud;„ TSF"." Findinus/Conclusion: OAR 660-12--060(1) and (2) is not applicable i'Secauae Ole Lake Grove 17-7.57R- 10 overlay does not propose to c5ange land use designations or the functionai crassirication or streets. OREGuN STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS Goal 1, Citizen Involvement, ,oal z, rana Use Planning. The LaRe Greve R-7.57R-10 Overlay District complies with tIle above relevant ureyon Statevvide manning Goals as rallavvs: Planning Commission rubric nearing 6 LU 10-0040 /August 20, 2010 172 Feb 1, 2011 coal 1: Citi=en invoive1•1ent The Lake Grove R-7,5iI7- 1 u overlay District is in conformance to all proceaurai requirements of the Lake Oswego Zoning and Development bodes and as peen revlevvea to oc consistennt vvith the Citizen Involvement Goals of the City's acknowledged bompreRensive Plan. cival z: Cana Use Planning I he LaRe Grove R-7.5)R-1 u uveriay District Has been reviewed and determined tu be consistent vvitfl the City's acknovvludyed land use planning and policy frameworR. I his review has determined that there is a factual basis to approve the Lake ui vve R-7.5/R-1 U Overlay District in that it is consistent with all applicaole criteria. I he Plan Peas also been ccorainated with all applicable jurisdictions and agencies. LAKE uSvvt=uu uEVELUPNII_IN I CODE PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS Lub 50.01.010 Purpose Cub 5u.75 Ceylslative Decisions LOC 50.75.005 Legislative uecisions Defined LOC 50.75.1505 briteria for a Legislative Decision CUC 50.75.015 Required Notice to DLbD COL; 50.75.020 Planning Commission Recommendation Required Luu 50.75.025 City Council Review and Decision Lou 50.75.03u Effective Date of Legislative Decision The City of Lake Oswego has conformed to all procedural requirements, evidence of vvhich is contained in the iecard. 1%: .U.ICEt;LUbION/I G()1GIM 1#I.LIATIQN Staff flas found that Lu 1 u-0040, the LaRe Grove R-7.5/R-10 Overlay District conforms to all applicable decision-maRing criteria. Staff endorses five of the seven amendments proposed py the LaRe uruve R-,'.5/R-iU uverlay District and recommends the Planning Commission forward the following bommunity Development Code amendments to the City Council for approval. 1. 30-foot front yard setback in the R-10 (currently z5-foot) 2. 10-foot side yard semacRs in the R-7.5 (currently ccmpined tutai 0f 15-foot) 3. Lot coverage limitations (vvlbich reflect the lot coverage limitations prior to the recent Community Development bode infill amendments) 4. iao more tr1an 5U% cf the Iut Gan pe cuvered in i� hardscape (no current limits) 5. Requirements for"green" driveway tarriarounds (no current requirements) Staff does not endorse me otlber two amend�ents and does riot recommend forwarding them tu City Council for approval. 6. rcequired planting and ourreriny plan suorrlittal on new development (no current requirements) i. ' hem is also a text amendment to the Planned Development section (50.1 (.015) that does not permit exceptions to the yara setlacR reuuirements on the perimeter of planned development lots abutting the R- 10 and 17-7.5 zoning. Planning Commission Public Ned'ing 7 LU 10-0040 August 20, 2010 Feb 1, 2011 173 EXHIBITS A. urart urdlnari.,e, R-I urart ordinance zoo8, dated August, 24, 2010 B. Findings and Conelusions [No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use] C. minutes L I May r z, zUU8 t,-z May 24, zur D. Staff Memoranda/Reports D-1 VVoik Session on May 12, 2008 (staff memo dated May e, zuu8) 0-2 VVoik Session on May 24, 2010 (staff memo dated May 13, 2u1u) E. urapni,s E-1 Map Or Cake ui ove R-7.5117-1 U Uver lay Distr iut Boundai ies F. Written Materials [No current exhibits; i eservea fti Peal illy use] F-1 Lake Grove Neighborhood Survey u. l tmmrs [No uarient exhibits; reserved for hearing use] Planning Commission Public Hearing a LU 10-0040 August.20, 2010 174 Feb 1, 2011 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGu LAKE OSWEC(,) 380 A Avenue PO 6 569 rake Oswego, OR 7i0�w 503-675-3984 COUNCIL REPORT www.c„osweg�.� .a, TO: JaCK Horrman, Mayor Members at the City Council AIeA D. McIntyre, City Manager FROM: Laura Weigel Associate Planner Planning and Building Department SUBJECT: Lake Grove R-7.5/ R-10 Overlay District Study Session -- Ordinance 2558 (LU 10-0040) DATE: November L< L010 ACTION No council action is proposed for the November 30, 2010 3tuay 5e33ivn. INTRODULTIUN On December 14, 2010, the City Louncil is scheduled to hola a pul3li, Hearing on the LaKe urove R-7.5/R-10 Overlay District, On November 30 the Council is scheduled to Flold d study session regarding the overlay. Merriner3 the Lele urove Neighb„rhooa A33eciatioi i void pre3ent and explain the provisions ;minded in the drat'.overlay. This report provides an overview of the background leading up to the December 1401 hearing. BACKGROUND 1`.i`.it$ LIKE Grove Neighs ornooa Plan adapted by the City Council. 2000-2005 Numerous plan items are implemented City-wide and the neighborhood continues work on plan implementation. 2005-200b Neighborhood association identities neighborhood speLitic plan policies that still need implementation 3tratgi3. 2u07-20u8 Neignbarnooc asociation along with an implementation' committee and City statt worRC to develop an overlay zone for file R-7.5 and R-10 zonea arca3 vvitrlin the ncignhorhooa to preserve the neighborhood Lharacter identified in the plan, OL'.. 2008 14 overlay cone provisions are presented to the neighborhood association for feedback.Pie meeting was advertised through LO Review direct mail and email. 35 people attended (848 EXHIBIT D-4 CO -1U-UUrEU Feb 1, 2011 175 Page 2 mailers sent). Also, Planning commi3sivn receives an update rrom the committee on the status of plan implementation. reb. 2009 Survey sent to all Lake Grove residents asRii ig ror reeaoaRR on aii ,.oncepts. Survey also posted on-line.There was a 13 % response rare (approx 110 responses). J . liuy Based oir the survey resorts_ the committee and LGNA board drop six provisions from Coi isiaeration. March z01u lrrd Open horse held to present survey results revisions to provisions, and LO VOLE on remaining eight provisions. 35 citLe113 voted. April 2u1u Based on the neighborhood vole Lhe Lake Grove neighborhood association board decided to i �,lode ali the provisions listed a5eve in the proposed LaRe Grove Overlay. May 1u10 The Manning ng Commission held a work session and based on feedback to the neighborhood association a revv or the provisions were removed or altered. Sept. 2u10 The Plannitig commission held a pobliL. hearing and recommended adoption ut Lhe Iwo of the seven code provisions prcpc3ed oy tFie neigFi6orFi,,,,d association. The findings are included as (Exhibit B-1). DISCUSSiO1g This section discusses the character or the LaRe Grove i ieighbornood and thee overlay provisions that are recommended by the Planning Commission and the neighborhood associat ,,�� t„ help maintain the Lharacter, Lake Grove NeiKhborhood Character All or the code cuiicepts were generated trom the neighborhood character sLaterrrent, which follows: Dense vegetation and large trees Refine the scare aria character of tnis neighborhood, sr p-rutr one lot from its neighbor, ana most ouirdings j,om the.Jt,eet. Hou-r,-ere.yet within this lend3Lepe, instead of defining it. rvranr appear secluded end h,rivete from other buildings. Houses of many different sizes, height , end shapes fit this neiyhborhood beceuse the vegetation diminishes the visibility and stale of the buildings. Additionally the code provisions seek to implement many of Lhe goals and policies identified in the neighborhood pia., inciouaing: Goal 10, Poi.cy 6: Ensure all new resiaential development, including secondary dwellings acid homes being sobstanually remodeled, contributes to the positive design character and qualities or LaRe Grove's existing residential neighborhood. This shall be accomplished through the application of design compatibility standards, —Mich inJode: - Size of paved areas - Appropriate set5acRs, battering and screening • Preservation of mature canopy and other landscape features 176 Feb 1, 2011 Page 3 1. Side yard setback in R-7.5 Current Code: Requires tnat portions 7,r 3tracture3 Ie33 than 13 reet in height mast nave a 5 toot minimum side yard setback and a Loyal combined widih ot 15 teet. Structures greater than 13 feet require 10 reet iiiinimurn on Eacn side. Propusea change—Requires that portions ut structures less than 18 tee'. in height must have a 1u feet minimum 30e yni a 3cthach(. Neighborhood Reason: Increased set bacRs increase the distance between homes and increase privacy between neighl5,,r3. Aaaitienally, larger rant yard 3ethacR3 ailvvv OE vegetation to deetinee the streetscape, nut Lhe houses. Planning Commission recommenaation: Tnc Commi33 vn recOmmen33 aaupting the repo rement to the 10-toot side yard setback regairemenr in the R-7.5 portion of the Lake Grove Overlay District Because the CUMTi33i7,n rinds tnat ir1c casing the aide yard sctbacR will help maintain the neighborhood character of Lake Grove as described in the Lake Grove Neighlsornuca Plan, ReMITIrrlerlaea by the Planning Commission, but no longer supported by the Neighborhood Association: 2. Driveway Turnarounds: Car rent Code: Driveway turnarouna materials are not 3peciriea. Proposed Cnange: Drivevay tarnaroanas snail be constructed oot ot pervivas materials such pervious pavers, and grass paving. PianninK Commission recommendation: The Commission recommends adopting the requirement rpr "green" arivevvay tarnaronna3 hecau3e tnere are no city-vviac standai ds aadressing driveway Lurnarounds and the Commission finds Lhal Lhis requirement will help maintain the neigrMorneoa cnai actor or LaaRe Grove a3 ae3criSea in the Lal a Grove Neighborhood Plan. Neighborhood Rational tor dropping ibis provision: It the City council adopts Ole proppzed Rara3cape der nitivn 3Clovv, the arivevvay tag naroand provision is no longer necessary. Recommended by the Neighborhood Association, but not re;ommenaed By the Planning Commission. 3. Hardscape Maximum or 50% Current Cvac: Nu Ta„imnm percentage ut hat dscape is defined. Proposed Change: No more than 50% ut the lot can be bardscaped. nardscape includes structures, patios, retaining wails, paving, vvalR3 aria artiricially placed rocR or gravel. Sandset pavers and similar ground Feb 1, 2011 177 Page 4 • covering are al3o Included the Calculation. Planning Commission recommendation: The Commission recommends tFiat the city consider whether narascapc limltaation3 should 6e city-vviGE, aria thus uniformly applied. LaKe roveurovErs definition is different than Glenmorrie's recently adopted detinition (see Below). H uniform definition could Be aevelopea/aadre„ea in connection vvith the comprehensive Plan update. Also. the Commission recommends that d proposed restriction should have widespread neighborhood support to justify additional restrictions on development through a restriction within a neighborhood overlay district. Rased on the public testimony, the commission finds that the proposed hardscape provision does not have sufficient neighborhood support. Neighborhood rational for keeping this provision: The neighborhood would still like to see the hardscape limitation included in the overlay. They believe it will be helpful in decreasing the amount of gray infrastructure in the neighborhood aria to increasing storm vvater filtration aria protect neighborhood character. The neighborhood association does propose a less rigid definition of hardscape based on reea6acK from the Planning commission at the public Nearing, The Planning Commission and City Council adopted a similar code provision for the uienmorrie Overlay. Propo,ea Cha - - - — alter Pianninx Commission pubi a hearing. MO more than 50%of a lot shall be covered with any of the following elements: structures (e,.;.ha:rry aErku that allow water to drop through the jainw)* patios. paving, impervious walks, gravel, sandset pavers and similar ground covering3. Natural-appearing constructed ponds Shall riot 6e included within this limitation. Where a paved area contained mixed non-plant and plant elements, only the non-plant portions of the area ,Hall 6e included vvithin this limitation. ulenmorriee's Definition (tor reference) No more than 50% of a lot shall 6e covered vvith any or the tollovving elements: structures patios, paving or impervious walks. However, pervious Fleas and natural-appearing COri3tructed ponds hail not 6e included within this limitation. Where d paved area contains mixed non-plant and plant elements, only the non-plant portions or the area Shall 6e included vvithin this limitation. (See LOC Appendix 50.08B.0Z0-A for illustrations of natural-appearing constructed ponds and paved areas with mixed non-piant and plant elements.) *Bald italics highlight differences berween Lake Grove's definition and Glenmorrie's. ALTERNATIVES at FISCAL IMPALA- 1) Adopt the Planning Commission recommendation: a. R-7.5 side yard 5et6acK increased to 10 minimum on Guth sides. b. Driveway turnarounds shall De constructed out of pervious materials 3u09 pervious pavers, and grass paving. 2) Adopt the Neighborhood A33ociation recommendation: a. R-7.5 side yard setback increased to 10 minimum on both sides. 6. Limit to hardscape to 50% 3) Iao code provisions are adopted and there is no Lane grove neighlorhood overlay ai3trict. 178 Feb 1, 2011 Page 5 Fi5cai impact i, The overlay d:E, not direct the city to initiate new projects or programs. The coal± amendments do result in more complex requirements that may require additional time for staff review. RECuMMENDATIuN Nu recommendation i, provided for the ,tady sessloi i. Reviewed by: Department Director Alen D. McIntyre City Manager EXHIBITS A. Draft urai.1a.,ces A-1 Draft Ordinance 2558, dared August, 24, 2010 (not included, superseded by A-1.1) A-1.1 Draft Ordinance 2558 at October 19 2010 A-2 Neigliborrlood Association Proposed Ordinance B. Fiiiai.,6.ana CrileCi.I7iV115 B-1 Approved Planning Commission Findings, Conclusions order, Septernf3Er, 2010 C. Miiutco C-1 Planning commission Minutes, May 1L, LOOS C-2 Planning Commission Minutes May 24. 2010 C-3 Planning Commission Minutes, Septernl3er 13, 2010 D. Stall McmUlairda/Rcpuits D-1 Worn Session on May 1z, LOOS (staff MEMO dated May 5, 2008) D 2 WorR Session on May 24, 2010 (siatt nienia dated May 13, 2010) D-.3 Planning commission Pahlc Hearing (Stan Report dated Aaga,t 20_ 2010) E. GrapFlics E-1 Map or La Re Grove R-7.5/R-10 overlay District Boar,aarics F. Written Materials F-1 LaRe Grove Neignborflood Survey, March 2009 G. LEttcrs G-1 Letter from Barry and Leslie Hasson, dated September 1, 2010 G-2 Letter troll! Allard and -farina Conger dated September 1, 2010 Feb 1, 2011 179 Page u-3 Letter from Lisa and Dwight Scrlwal3, received Septemoe, 3, 2010 G-4 Letter trom Bert Gaar rabi dated September 4, 2010 li-5 Letter morn PrIWO aria Lenni Arakelian, dated Scptem6ei 9, 2010 G-6 Letter from Vahe and Susan Arakelian, dated September 9, 2010 G-7 Letter trom Ed BoLFirrran dated Septeiriber8 2010 8 Letter tromBill rind Ki 6erley Lee, dated Septemoei 8, 2010 G-9 Leuer trorn Bill and Kimberley Lee, dated September 8, 2010 G-10 Letter troll' Bill and Kimberley Lee, dated Septerrrber 8 2010 u-11 Letter from Bill and Kimile,ley Lee, dated Septem6e, 8, 2010 G-12 Letter tram Bill and Kimberley Lee, dated September 8, 2010 u-13 Letter rrri i i Brent aria Kimm wall, dated Septe 6er 8, 2010 G-14 Letter from Duane Fioffinger, dated September u, 2010 G-15 Letter tram Mitchell Ellibon. dated September 8, 2010 u-1b Letter rroi i i Mai K Fi anp(en, dated Septet i fiber 8, 2010 G-17 Letter from Greg Creitz, dated September �, 2010 G-18 Letter tram' Jerry Jane dated September 8. 2010 u-1y Letter rro Je33i,a Lee, anted Septe 6er 9, 2010 G-20 Leiser tram Howell and Leta Lee, dated September 9, L010 G-21 Letter trom John aria Batty MerLep, dated September 10 2010 180 Feb 1, 2011 0 ..,2jm. '!�'• mff� y �. Q ' 'a Jg ' R • 'Lake Grave F-A /RICI Overlay District o `" ta - (1;01 E . T' � ,.r.: r - s k N g J i$ . s ��, �~� ' i y eT� _- `" s Aot mf� s , « � P.W —�O 'dw ' $g� S r "af _ \ -___ P ' P c, . s % \ _-- <.:� d tea=c +;u 2,x �\-- t ;_ • ` \ k ' /�, w ' ?. 'g4 4@�E! °.. :L.,'" 0 s \ a( ,S .,� v x '5 L /�s +° .� s da Js° f k% ; e ! 3# S CG\ ` .` git " � _ 4,c $ 5 s s 4 , :� �,— e t 4 1 &} �e / _ s - r.. ti � ffr ,5 � , $� X� 1 i ^ � � A � j a o a' f yS a � � � x x `+- .e•v`e F Fu. rv - �w� -' lAhfitki ail 2.2' t. T. 1. ,@ Y y \'"" aux — :tir--x 9 . . -.wso : # a -a'' �:j" i $ ,' C nN /� � $ '� ;« ` _. e'a., e'w S��¢ , ° y J xImt 3 k '' t a k f h x . :y � ` ,�,Q1 `—y:�'y _ - ' %-liE L ,�' q 5 a ,� a `q \ 1ix yY ta", kk -- ` a k i - t r°° y € � /�" WA uGnPP.RK e. sm ' e � ,a � ' $ S9s tx�� ; ¢a� - e � w • g � . �a s_,', wnuw AR!. � E € u... § ' — &,, #€ro, 7 4, 3 ' < i tom -za '- qt 1>' $$ - - _r4 Tt tl w -e�‘' z w i x ' - -- >s a6a 'z - _ - •y (Alta ., .3.., 51_ L �, � to.4::1 ;� x smya f /p5 v $ s -4- ,.'.._ c5 x : q s •rP $ i " �, Qg via° I' f „a s x + 4 iax9' 'C-:" 1x a M a / � , $ ,3 ✓ a R7 i ; r A c gk e G t a 8 ax' t A• g ^i gs " tb 66 p w - vfW §M , ::: g •�._- s a � -3 G �vRd 5 may, S hb - --Y a .gyp k a�3 sn isun�fEu +`+ $ $ � � 4sx1 7 %'' ' � a ° a r € Li q ,4 t 1€ rb Y,1 ww _ , Q �_i 1:t.-- aaiv'A7- mK 4z _" xs _ .w'°.."', :�`5, _- � . ,� g Saxe awe,� iao �,�osr.,ctea„ sa'. ,s -' I. w.ve A �.,. �• _s, ,m �'�-� �� ::,,,:.;,:t4m r s v".",,,,,„T.-..:7, aw�,.e°,� � §� : �✓�C °Y � , ,.. � '��1� ass �� -- �� -:" Y 4 : ° �.s. eV � 7� ,., ' gg 4i x.,- x t11• 4n r8;;:" :��:" � 6 a a?Ka. F'., n_ ,~� .,,a "y ,.'x' ..,..rc. °r p'�I' ia,�i -- a k i��`6 x .. e p ...x . € e e l a�1°1= a fi t:-.x'et'i.,,—>tvlJ t ? EXHIBIT E-' _, IJU I C-004C 182 Feb 1, 2011 t a -F k ,,Lx '! e",;� tot r�l ti n r K Y q"h'' • Hello Lake GF oV� NEl hb�i . t� . viewed online ontne city-s-..bsite or at the library. it is mUdel d un the Ci ty's Cori,prehensive Plar•and includes goals, policies and WWr.;:ther y au.ve lived in•the neighborhood for 30 year,or 30 days recommended action measures related to: you ai e'awe ie of the features thattma•ke the Lake Grove neighbor, *Citizen rnvalvernenr hod such a great place cO live:the.al Hazing tree canopy ano aoan- *Open Spaces,Scenic and Histvric rzesources, cant,egetation,thz trails through Iron Mountain,the diversity anff iv ztural Resourc _ of house,-and our close proximity-Lc me iccar business distri7t eErarrnruie Develop rrrent orii,nerc.or Land s ds ' a„,ong others. 1,i faLt,you probably cFiose; o live in Lake urnve • •Hou ing/Resrdenticil Lands for borne or ail of these reasons.What you may 06:kilo*is that - �rvol, FilCiiitit5 end Servile, die.Lake Grove rNeighborhood Association tLGNA j iJ dedicated •irarr.00rLwion Goais to preservictg•and, • ' ., .. enhancing the quality Lake Grove rveighhornoon nssock._ti::n Boundary of life in . o:,;ne gh- l boyhood and works Qrks € � _ i _ hard tv r: aintain s the cnaracter oT the neighborhood r LGNA has been an 1 offrcai 1algf.Qaanood ,° r - association of(he • r � City of Lake Oswego r • srnee 297u.Livertri,. Y" ., years the association has accurriplished a - • +wts- " -,1. ..Fo f number or goal;.We +`k I1ut.the LJke Grove Jy _- Village Days; con i;eau- r A, , ntr .;lean-up days; ansl"tile.Sum n Fun. 'Fest.We tilso sponsor- '' ,<..- _ _ „ the hanging basket program, advocaiefs.)r good dt•velolament• Neiohbor5 Work Diliytri fitly L)ver the Years get parru ays r it,and participated in thL clevelopn,ent of tht.- Luke Grove Village Center Plan which was adopted inApril of On Plan I rn plei I mi itation zu8: have ueen at least three dirrarent connnnittees working on ilaen m lemen.ation since the lan was ado ted,Then;a,za �Ui`Ight�vrh��ci I'l�n � p - � 13 -os- zoo6 neighbors worked together to review the-plan in cieiailty One of our most in"lportant accoiliplishrnents was developinc a determine wnicn aspects or the plui,still,need to be imple liented neksi bo,hood plan that was adopted by the City of Lake Oswego Although a mQjoriiy of the policies were iuentified as irnplement City-Council:ri 1 9 _'r he LaKe urove Neighborhood Plan id:anii- ed, ,.ngaing or addressed in the Lake Grove Village'Ceriter Fran ties ways to preserve and enhance the neiynbornooa.for the • and deveioprr-.ent cocL recommendations,the review did result future. i-i,e fiL'an was developed over.several years by the neigh in mist of items of requiring'furtner actlon_This is what..W�e•a like Pompon with the assistance of City Staff and the,frill plan Lan be your heip;.v ith today, 2ooa. Neighborhood Character Study . • , . .,r a. +�.,• ,Or In 2001 the University of Oregon conducted a character assessment of the Lake iw r & R ,�. Grove neighborhood and concluded that'Tense vegetation and large trees k I .,r�;- define the scale and character of this neighborhoods separate one lot from its , . uok,"K , ' ° " neighbor,and most buildings fromthe street.Houses are set within this land- 41 , '. scape,instead of defining it.Many appear secluded aid private from other build- it-II': r "'77 :',,)I. . ,, - ' ;,rings.Houses.of many.differerit sizes heights,and shapes fit this neighborhood , *"' becapse the vegetation diminishes the visibility and scale of the buildings.'iThe i s ! r autsic�e„assessment ofthe neighborhood character re-affirmed the policies set ��t�G" � ��4 ,�`'" �. :� forth in the-neighborhood plan. "xto, 2-, .�..' Feb 1, 2011 183 zucli - Neiyhbor Mtsi u5 . treating New ity UevelciprnerL'Lo7e speciticallyforth r yy,,:� g iiipki iiei it the Plats ,.. .:�: • r�, N2t 1'lE7Qr cwC� a� ct �cdn5 tt� l in 7.wrl7 .,,.,o the neighborhood Uasociatiun decidEd that one way to irri lE:ment r � J Y p_ # t �, , sonie of the outstanding poi e.ies identified in the eduptcd plan ywoold rL tO create - 1 t . new development regulations in the form of an neighborhood overlay zvllc.ThE . ,,. ; t r. :.. �vCrlay zui ie would protect the c.Fiarat.ter of the neighborhood as identified in tRe , � , plan and r�.zonfir,�iedin Univer-icy of Oregon Charcuterstudy. - ,, ,3',: t , An overlay zone is a set of aevelopi,,eat r-galati„ns that are regoli Ed in additiovir " ' ki, "` to the underling zoning requirements.An u,,crlay Lv ulu,.Li Itc I11 P new regulation & d fili:.','‘i pN i not addressed in the under tying base zone or could make a crange to an existing s , reyuladiort.The overlay concepts currently under corisideration:wouia be apolice 5le to new r"i»gic family housing in the R 7.5(lot L.onrd to be a iiiimirnuiii of 7,50o square feet)and R z;zoia s(1,7,0ou s'quarefeet)witnin the Lake Grove Neighbor- hood boundaries. In late zoo7 neighbors formed a iveighbornood Pl,,a Ihiplementation Commit- tee i:o discuss puceiiiial development regulations to include in:tRe.rerlay 1.onc., Neig h5urs worked diligently to keep the overlay cue rcepts true to the original posh intent stated in the p apted plan. The final overlay Loncepts,ides iifieca in the atusvey, are the fe alt of ove, a year's worth of�dist`usfvrla ria uti atiVV ii and thoughtful analysis R y these dedicat,o n elghow,3. i he committee,with the assistance of City staff, studied tne existing zuning t,odc nd tracked the progress of the infiii Task Force lfo,...or<information urn the T¢ k Force_ please visit.Wwvv.ci.oswego.or jslplan[)and the other updates to the Com- munity Develup',ient Code that al e currently under discussion by the rlonn;n; Commission,Together staff'and the coif,i i,ittCe also toured the neighborhood. I ne committee analyzeo tile built environment toid nt1rythe5 tregulations that could protect the character of the neighbornood. i hey studied G><i,ting house Height;`,Floor area-ratios(lot size ill relationship to building square footage), set- bac:ks, lot size, lot coverage,driveway widi:hs, and dardscape(impervious surfaces ,och as the house,garage,:wallsdriveway5, patios,,.,etc,J. - - r he committee consists of seven rncrr,bcra who are all qrG rsidGit;,,f Lake Grove; Janet Huck inn Janzen, red Jeffries,Sara Perry, eiil vvarE,Dan Work,aiid Barba,-. Zeller.'Two own businesses in Eake Grove and one builds houses in tne ne gho,;r- hood.One grC,,.r up in the iiti jhborhood and is iiow raising a family of foorcnild,e,, the e.One has lived Cherie for Uver 3o years.The c6riiniiit .e'is diverseand repre- zr i it.a�iany parrpectiVaz. _ , The Heart of the 1998 Adopted Plan "Eighty=two percent of the 223 persons who responded to the neighborhood survey - . .,rat ,.. .i conducted by the Neighborhood Planning Steering Committee in s995 responded af- ` p� ` "� "'•i* tl.i firmatively that plan policies should be established to protect trees and other natural ' .. '"' t• resources because the"defining feature of the Lake,Grove Neighborhood is its name '" ' " . sake—the tree canopy that predominates throughout the area,,,", r b .*: t "Promote policies and,actions which support the viability of the Lake Grove t .,; ,. "ss , Commercial District and its abilityto provide goods and services to area residents and businesses in an innovative manner compatible with the character of the surrounding >t� A 0 -� residential neighborhood...arid establish a boundary beyond which the Lake Grove L it i �e r, , W Commercial District(now known as the Lake Grove Village Center)would not expand ,,"^ �,, ,--'v into the residential portion of the neighborhood." ; `,p - s . There are numerous policies aimed at preserving the livability and aesthetic quality of the Lake Grove's residential"areas,including .;using"design compatibility standards••.to ensure all new residential development, substantial remodeling,contributes to the positive design character of the neighborhood." 184 Feb 1, 2011 ':a,„' :;mow aE „!'a .'1,. Y. '4.� 1,4rn -4',0{�0.,4 3." °,1".'_ y "c v - '"` 'z 4 ^:w j;.^r €�i r,4i .a x os. - .,1 11 'li .., �-., `'4 i ab '",-- q f w�'� 4 �R s r xWr k.: 2't ,i k'# L, "s�{�., �d ��+I� t ,,e .;„ t ':s'� .F -'s4' x I at 4, as a ° ,Sli ;,,: 1 fit' „ +t` i fi ti�' .tip S r; ";,.z -'"a 2 5•; •m",,a , "� , -.1` arh x `k " ,t.,,., 'k.,,„t g ai a'.' ".A - .t, ,� xa "„ a' �..x.j0q 4', ak ',& AS4-. .; t s r ITN, , E_,y,.r .t ' L"+' _ t 7;A �a '+ t . _ � y; '�y,a;; �"d` a 6 :: k,�, ,� °Mj,��s�ti tr`�, m:n. lrf x� �'f '�;• # i .. , r 7 • " r + t5 a` x� r S -�..i d TO, ', ,taw ': - s' , x� `t e w,r r 1 �r^ ayyn � a 9 '�y ,� . "., ..."''; C .'°-. -y g'.—g.. Ird.tr w> ,i„,',N,iVn. i �..Vir.g?.1f'ail�i r4...i: _ti,'1g .`jadl "% ii t ..,<,. ..k.' `mow atliV v W52t's Happening Now? 1995-1998 ate vct:vb - . Lake Grove develops neighborhood plan through {n l c er 2Ooa the neighoorhood a„uJ tiers board held . . extensive neighborhood outreach. an open house fur all cake tarove neitgnuors to harr co. ,,,,,r€t...in " a,€a provide teeaback of the Overlay curnte,p-ts they developed to k 1998 . i"plerr exit the aaoptcd plan.AppruximaelY3o lieo,le etrended. City Council adopts neighborhood plan. esut the board nerds to h�a, fry, as n,arrypcople a ,posaible and , wants TO hear about•now you re,.l about the d,aa.:.That's y you • 2998- 006 are receiving this flyer and survey wti .iourfeen,bacK s-ery important! ' Your k� ighb es r eed Lo hear your r hough s in order to refine the : Numerous pion items are implemented city-wide and view-'cint beFore moving forward. neighbors continue to work on plan implementation.. Ideas as�� on everyone'.b ir if you would iikc to rC�eive a h ,„ie visitfi um One of your neigh- 2005-2006 City staff&neighborhood association out- ; hors CO ask questions and 5her,.ideas, plea3e cc,„taut Laura �' identify Weigel. the Neighborhood Planner from the City of , kz,QsY„ y', standing neighborhood specific:plan policies that assigfra to assist die neighborhood implement the adopted pin; need implementation strategies. Yvu tail Cur{ta�.L Laura at lweigelgL.i.uswLyo Or.us Or 503.675.3736 > a€€d she'll a€,anyG fuf a Lake Grove f ieiyhbof w srvw by. .. .. , 200 ! 2008 .,. . ., ._..,: m. . . _.. . ., Neighborhood association agrees to develop an ' what Hap pens Next? overlay zone for the neighborhood to continue plan implementation.Committee is formed and meets for .'After die survey reso(Ls dre compiled, the cOcic ,,ats wilt be.farthpr a year developing overlay;concepts. r.finEd by the Lake Grow Neighburhpud Association uoard ann i ' committee 5•—€ e of the Ida3 way evukve,aumeIieW ideas May October 2008 : emerge and/o:some ideas might be di upped from L.on5idef ativn, , Committee a•nd neighborhood association board t will depend on r v pres•e •nt overlay:concepts to full neighborhood at an Afteti the ideas are fur her refined there will be anotn.., ores, open house. huu'r`tor:LlfC emit G neiaah6oi hood tv hear the it�ea, -and provides . feedbsci agaff i. Ittt<Gie la:More reedback and the neighborhood w - °K A ,k °T,, want;tl, ldra-tvlth rretined die committee and board will -- °'� r'"'f .k' `.,:4 'a ?n. t Contrne;to...7�l5 ve keel the,aanvcpta pre_erttd can be approves � " R ' `^ C S i� �` ��:� 13 b vote b the ni.i rib ,i y y If L�� r�vvd�t a ycnc�al nelyhba✓rhvvd a�S'vufa- € �: x r z ,� y �' a €�� aat��=�ti+�� d 4ivn meetiny. the neighborhood votes to approve trig overlay, use �.. z.. 4,;��a,,;i" , ; r.,. Y4t�r'.,t ".i� 4' or Lake Os„Ye Planning will present the overlay to the City NEXT STEPS' • he neighborhood ass y -ing Cvinf f f ission and City Council who may aiso have ideas and recomnieadatio6,befof e the nnai uveriay is Neighbors revise overlay concepts:based pn adopted and enacted in the City's riin.uity d,v.,lopment code, survey results. a •l eighborhoo association holds second open house NOW is the time to GET Involved. $ to discuss revised overlay concepts. We need to hear tram you. Star( byCvi.ipleting oU.survey' Neighborhood association votes on overlay . „ ,� r oncepts to present to.Planning Cornmission and :c. 'ir : .oibl t� :, fly P z . ! City Council. (Qr16. to "iw three rree r :te a,.''•`"l Ca t.e Neighborhood association presents overlay concepts I rn err. : C ,8,a Testa st €�rants),. to the Planning Commission and City Council in work sessions and public hearings for revisions and approval. Lake�arove Overlay Zone is adopted by City Council - and becomes part of the Community Develo$merit Code: Feb 1, 2011 185^- a) i ►`r . ,. 39l1F.. .- - f •---: r- ... ..- - --- -- - -----:---''''''-'''"'-- ---'-'- 1 - - --IT -: - • -' -- - :...- ---iw ari.--: • r'> _ 0 -,, ._.,• . . ._ . r • , ,. r b dAssociationiea .-. • hkeov igo �o : s considering newdev l ,meant ryeguI ions . ........... .. . . .... . _ „....,......, ... .. . _.. ... ... .--- -.-.',----!:-'7"-•'-'-------------'- -------''''''-:: forthe n i b rihoo - - -'J';'---------f.::-;':,:.:',.: - -- - - - , , .. . . . .........., .,. ..:„.... .:., ... ..:... . ... . . 4,• ._ .. . .. , , .. ‘ _ ,.4°' a C 44** - - nu - ii ' "' - 4 r'' " , -::.. '. ..... . • - - . .; : -• .-.:2:...',;.::;:f.- :'-- iti.‘:,.:',•;;';''.....:', '--.' - .•.;:•'-'..e.';':'I'!--:'„,..4 ume---.,f,.. ,.„. .,:. .pRt..:, .:::. - 4) •. . . . . ---:.,,...,...;;:-:.:-.., --- ,.., ---,- --- - (.c2-1 c---, e:come,. ... .lc, t i: . . ., ,,,,, ,,, . ..H .., ... ........ . . . . . . . . . . ,. . . ... . . . . „ . .. .. . .. ....... .. . ' . . . •..• ..•..•... ....,.' " - ' . . . . - .:-. - . ' Get Iri l e d . .. ... _ ... ..:.. •..... ,___ __ . . ._ . ,............. . ., ...... .:. ... . , . ... ..,_ _, . _____ •....,,. • . ...., ...,....... . - -- •-' .'-'':: -:: - . -'. a riel"...'''' --- iu.. ..... r-- , •17.:- • - u sTa. a • , a) .. ... ....,,,.. . . ... .. •...,. ... . ... .:.. ..:. .... .„.. 0.:. ... • .. .: . . . _____ ,.......,.......:.... __ . ... . ... _ „ . _... ............::.•.. ._•,•... .......... ...•„.. .. „ .. ..„....•...: • •„•_.. . ....... ....... . i TI Leirtl tap l2tlere aFiearItapletiers TtECllerlay(la rcilptiIfynu feel that col ulclliker,orenfermetioethanisprovidadherepriortnansw:ir- CD iisthusnrve'lquestiens,pled Se•c lireSr. eelistlecawerFnintiresentatnan(www.ai.eeweic.cr.us/plarfneilt- t r.r.l tm)n rca ll Laura tgle ig el,t lei_If k r rht od F lens er at5u3.9;5.3 3 a a r email h er at lwergelgci.d swerc.<r.t s. GINEIIAl QUISTIONS F Ise c irate tterasponsettitmcstclaselbrelecisiiloura pin isn. N , fee iiv-i ci in the Lake 1-essthru_ 6etwanr Eetween Betweentr8 Eeterean Mirethrn Gn ve Neighborhood years 3&5 years 6 F le Tears i5 years sO A c i years oc years Chat Other: I was attracted tI the (Duality of =prazimity to a neighborhood by:(circle Trees,c rein the local ca rrrnercial Qaod all that apply) ertviccrrrrlent cuheu€s district Investment There are._...numt et-nf people livid: in my More than home. a a 3 4 5 5 Of those brine in the home_.aro tinder Mire than age of st o z 2 3 4 e D815H r 111 4NilARai NeigliI bard oar/Mori'tatemea t-Develcr desk:St]cdard5 to e n sure comi atitilit}I(Goa I:r o,Pa ticy 6). Ccncept:Lr.war Ma?imun,harise hei9lhts to mak. eew del ieicl1meet arere_canpaUl lewitheicler:lerirl- apmont.Lawariugthr c rise he he will decreesE the visual &ref larger he mes, na t, mast cases,Impact tl e ectu,1 square footage cfthe t omi. House Heights. Lcri:erHeight Limits in the f 7.5 zone from aF `--tern ly 5n mrmehat hlnutral Somewhat Strcml ly Plc Feld Here !hid Her= eettn z5fee[. A gree d gree C isag tee Disegre, or ratan Lower Height'Limits in the I nr curie from.r Stirnyiiy Somewhat Somewhat Strcngly fto P[EaseErosuale+Ioirnamnradadi Ire as for aur roc(rdsarclis laucante elk il lets vi OiEaflhraecift Neutral feet tc:8 feet. Agree Agree Disagree Disagree op]non •lertifici sto local Lahi Gras eres-aureola)If'IauwauhIti4 a lcfeuprla led on-IN pre jecl,g lea seIlravide De not allow ary excel thins ta the building ycurpFoss numb nor Email aciclre°:.11FIAt111YOUt height.(4urr n ecile.allowrsee htexieltrait Stron1lly Samewbat Somewhat Strcngly flu Neutral to: oaf":ornisa,d archi cu,urar-_veu es under A'gre.e I,tee -say„ee - C;Sagree optF:ier, certain r:i nditrens.J e I t .Architectural features such as cupolas,derrners,turrets,etc_. C!.nceint:e eStii the fence standards because fer ces are'.t retried n kit tl e ncighrbor`oc=•ii Sb erefa re,if f delltic ti e l Ca rl1 r11 o n to: they are built,they shouldn't cre.i._ :_..ei barriers. Fences* -If the fence is Wirt rn ten feet of i i public or private street it can't oe higher than. •3feetif solid air -Strongly Scmonvhat Somewhat- Sirceely NC: •4 feet if at least 5a(Yo a f the fence is p ermeat le Neutral o light and air A q tee A gree C rsa1 Fee Disagree op near, t-If the fence da esn't abr it a public om private street it can't t a higher than: •6 feet am I must step el-is in;if necessary)within co feet cfthe properly line where the lance strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strong if Ft Neural _intersects with a o!A he or,,y.;vate street to be no 1 gree Agree C isag tee Disac re n opinion -tallerthan the heights alri ve. 1 *When the teece is ahotting a comma rcial ll ni pa rtl the standard weold nit are.ly. Building F:armit Na tifict tie r Requitetl e ag elicant to nctify tl e _ adjacent icebbarswherabuildirg IItrcngly lomewhat tlnutrci 9ilrnewlat Stroll giyl I'r permitfa r ma rr than Sec sr'Are feet is tee gree 0 rsagrel Disagree Op inirn issued. *ll is noti§a tie n wouh I be a ca url esy,ee t a land usa mrtice. Please meil in the comp d survey cr yell can email it tc I aura Welel,Iweir r lCalei.oswege 03 y DESIGN STANDARDS Continued uo, e,,t•Trte.,roei.,tion is p,epo,iiv to prohibit PL-..,ed De.elopene�.te(PD's)nnitP n the rc,igl-b.,-hood 5oe,d..rie,I,eeaene PD's.an.welt lc,•c smaller iotsizes anu reuuceri setuacRs while accommodating the same sieeo r.omestnat are allowed on larger lute,andtnereror.,may de cut „t.horoaer wiNR the reiyhbortuod.Planned Developments are a type of developmen_that allows flexibility in the development standards as a mean,to en.e4,7... .., eriet, r]c--IapF.e,:t pattern-,p,erteet re,vePer,,ono pe„c;H,..p.r e.paee.In„rd.rt.,eee the PD nt..no..-d,,the pr.,p_ arty must be larger than 75,00o square feet or Piave a protecteu resource or its buner on tie site. Ple...e '.relc the re,pon.,c th..t„,o.t clv.cly,�tj,t,r.,.,r„pinion. Plann..d r).-..repne..,t: Prohibit Planned Developments witiin the Strong Somewhat Somewhat St cre!!; Ne Neutral neighlaa!hoo8 boo,,dar,ee. Agree Agree Disagree 7i5jt2rtee o Dion PRIVACY,INCLUDING BDFFE&&INi".AND SCREENING Neighborhood Plan Statement:Provide bufferiny and adequate separation of new buildings frcm existiny residences!Goal'o,Policy 3,, Co„e,pt:I1.1ePe.,,e,7et6.,eP,t„En..re..,.tic rLto,,ee bet-ten hoe7c,„„d inc.c,,,c(..i 1toey, Setbacks Ir.,run,5ide yard seth .1<from,_5rscfeei,m10 7.trc.jly Somewhat _ Somewhat Strongly No en. ln ,5:idel-theR7, gene. Ag-ee Agree �.e4.,rui Disagree Disagree opinion . Increase front yard setback mm c feet to 30 Strongly Somewhat Sr:rrow ,t St;ongl- N= fees in,he R.o zanies Agree Agree Agree Aisagree .,isugiee opinion Do e_t Jle-the front yard--_ept!a aode thrt stows a decrease in the front yarc setiack if Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Stra.sgly No a beta ecr,etore„ theek,.r,len, e Neutral y th�n erg•.. .,yrr= jis,.gree •ilsgrc, uplrior, standard. NAiueALKtsVuHCtS Neiynuornoou Pran Statement:Preserve Lace rarove's natural resources ana wooden cn�racte-iGoa1 51. C.,,,at,,:7ercnt code doc5 not s,:,.e,standard yoeerrsiny the maximum area of a lot that can be covered in hardscape,but the association Isp;oposinga new ttt...rari:e,e! ti:;ythe..:-wenterh:.ra,_ope..Iio-prior. I ta,t.,;, ..,,y:tcr;,,,.et.;,tr;cdc,.1,vevct.,ti.,n n0!cars stormwater run-off.The proposeu maximum amountalloweu is so/,wail would include ail impervious sulfates sucntle house,garage, ..jig,dr-e-..y,,p..tioo,leek,,7,.11c-6re,tc RI,e,,treli.en,k,led .aping 6.,0ldcrs,etc.,a ed water features. Ha,decup,M.,.i...em Na.,reg_latie gunerr,,-g the ma,:ie:cr Strong!; Some-het 5-e ' t... St!or Ne amotnt of j arcelthatcan he harescaped,The Neutral g y o Agree Agree Disagree Disagree opinion m.aln,ero ender can,ider coon ip Sv/o. Concept.Currently landscaping and buffering!linear banus of perma nentvegetation,prererat:iy consisting or native aria locally adapter spe- ie..),,r..,t rryeirel for r.e-,nyle tardy rona,r.g.The a„oc;oto„id..,op.,s/r;y t.,en3ct a LJ;clscapirry al,d Buttering code for the neighbor- noou in oruer to maintain tie wooued character ortne neigliorde_.a argil!rer_a,e Fri.-e�y.I,I he -iDrre;r.,.r D.1,.aer,the e.,ncpt i,g,,,a, there.ill 5e tnrrher dis.o,sions as to what the requirement would be. L-.217,e..Yiny&Bettcri.,9 E,,.,,t a I.,na.,c.,piny a„a ---_._ Strongly Somewhat comewrat Stlorc;ry Ilo botteri,igrcyuir rrient tor l,ew IEeutral single family housing. Agree Agree nisagree Disagree opinion C.,,.eF,t;f a driveway eyf esses to a street where vision clearance is a concern,the engi.eeri.iy rh ., rtfranaePo:tnsent „r, .,,,re.."! i.e..,,,,te.n.,r e ,a,"—Si S r y.,ires more p.,viny prod.h, remc,aaI of ,f h a vegetation.Therei ore,Lake carove proposes"turnarounds"oe year, ' � ,°, r� ,.r i�:r lRequrre drl✓mdy t,,rnaropnd be mF d2.[7( 51.r.,eql7 Se[ a-Y at Ser., h.t Str ,gfy N.. L l , .., e e Neutral . c ant , _e_., awn 7 V: t leek i ..y gr- Agra q ee __._ Driveway r urnarounu"s Let Ge- roge � 151 orr.-re cty lot t erage , „ = dtee rd it t d f_n_re rc,tly :H y .., an.lcr ccn vidc a.r.,r c.,rr r c v:..oc, Strongly 5„mewhat ,,,me h . Suva gly No cy„ �t��i Lot coverage can-ote..ee d 6'e e N.etroi , Agree Agree D=-_, DI..,. i=;r;:r __ ye ry,.r:,c.e a ,.ft n h.gh.or z59,. cRTh' ) it for a primary structu en than_Oftir ue. ' 0 ",. h..ghtr ! tlimfnatethe we square feet lot coverage Strongly Somewhat Se .a.h_t Str_-.1, i N., bonne Top e;de'e.,di., ra Neutra. g go ge:- Agee Agree Dnsagree Disa nee upi:nun itilkrIMEnL1AL ENCtrOACHMENTIN,v,IrvvLEFAMILYRESIDENrIALWNE Ne,'yhb,,,Donal Pt..,7 Sc,.te,r,r„t:Do r.,t e.pand the eastern,southeaster'boundary of tie Lain,Grove,...ommercial District as shown...see map coal 9,Policy:.1.co,.e.Ft:The regnant e.,de ve,,..rate,r.,;iaenti;.l trim.,,Tmcreial�,.c,-herx,5,61rak line is dome Below,Tye neighbor- hood wants to ensure that in tie future tBr Irne of ae,7,,,rr,.1;6e. .y,tr;c,„ to ensure that resiuential areas do n..t get r,,ond T„c„,rmercial areas. ........train!e,,.r....,,m „t Do not allow comm..cial_Dale,to�.paid beyond ic,eeNting b,endary. stroryl- ,o ewhat eeu.ral Somewha. $too,i- No .,yree g ...sayree r,lOs;''' upkIllor, I riAIVK YOu rare CON'PL.t r ING THESvnvEr: MAIL IT IN TODAYTO BECOME ELIGIBLE FOR A PRIZE! 188 Feb 1, 2011 AT[N: I.Lis rvicCaivrb and LuKv.u3vreg.City dirt lCil Lac USwego Planning Commission 380 A AvC„+uc 1JU Box 3b9 Lake tlsviegO_Ott:tilt'9/U34 Sunjectt Larte Oswego Proposed Land Use Regulation Nu.2558,File LU l.U-4104JJ Dear his M C0'11eb curd Thusc It Coutoi is Please accept this letter us a submittal of written 117.NtiCSt fur!mace, P i VIJerty fluid IE Lli.4 owiiCt.3 lri the. Lako c Liaypla'L.�IltL41it4a 3tX,ut the u(W pruin)sCCU pi.i.r}n,rt$ Uiniiii a Or'i CIz.‘C:lopni� t. ENOUGH H-! IS ENOIJ{JFI; I pu.ttrh ed out piupetty based uii the bui[diti CutdCs. It is untaii to C11raEr re them. Lake Oswego has dud '�e well with exrsiin curies not its spite ofthe[.tt.'liremeal uliuur ay are tryinF to iirtplenicnt ehaugc by taking away pitvate rights. 71he n ajoiity are Jim.pin active shine ihUEC tS a)Svlutel irtr need fora change of codes.A change in"pet inissible use oft piove:r ty I]eel_will aitect�y 3Ir ptt�I.►eity valfie bi=ea u usc it Te? mCI.S p11vatC liaity'S ri elit.�in tciuurtei or build i kc t these new Codes are allowed. It this prv}n"al passes t will Ect;uruureud trl all neighbors tO appeal tw the tax aasesSor vlr then kind val[ie sett] t. Oution Iuwar tcia assessment value du_to lower paper ty value due to ihese plU)used w iescrictaS. I feel conlident that the majority of pe 1C ii1 Lake GItivei'Uswcgu lees that it is the individual home owners right Cu do as they please with their pi ivate land as allowed by current codes and regulations. It as important to realii the existing bUilditrg. CodeS were in place when the partials were purchased and to patralize 11Otaie and land owners who relied oh these existing codes is a travesty. It an i uer was rtu satisfied with the existing codes they should have not purchased in the first place. Those who wait tliv cool;.4il.niigC t,ul l trl:,c ling:i,onipaiiy aril put 'u it stCtetiOim_tit then lilopert�}•'s to%uuiply with the InULrusch ii w sJoCliimaiiuc v.i `relay ld othei btrtlttg tCStriutiL7ri the ' Ernt. At ills, v'eiy iiivst inc Cit,v'Cuuiai.il atraiip7, ra t)ullvt Lll nllOw the c LCa:tcd to vote as iO tvilether Or Lint try puss the nc w t�rdiiutli>re, These proposed code changes are clearly a case of too mud! CiuvcrIInieiia interference with existing priva0 prOp,erty rights irliw tiiCU r Lit,Sigit: '� '- Date: Irkt Naiiie: r1P-r+7' 1"49T CJ?'''-1;" Addles: Lake OsvVego, Oregon Print Name: 5t.� � ' Auar:..3s: 5 \ �i✓V ^��l.t��g' , I.,alXe f.lsweeg:i,[7rei,o,i EXHIBIT G-1 LU 10-0040 Feb 1, 2011 189 A L rr: iris Mct'alet)and Lake Uswego City iJoulcell Lake Oswego Planning Commission 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 Siio t: i.,i13;usw,v.go res)poszu Land V:,e' tceguiatioa N .2558, File LUJ 1.0-0040 Dear his MCCaleb turd Those It Concerns hews:accept thi..;letter as a submittal of written request for notice. Ptop tty art(1 hvtue vvr11c1s'us the Luke Grove/�O '�Iswego;urea A,e{ft;epty'��1r.�4rn.cl .sboat the new proposes lnirl.n,rty icata tetivt, jrdJ,tti CC. tleV tvht„ittt. ENOUGH IS ENOUCEL 1 purchased our ptuperty hase.1 Ott the existing buildin�g; codes. It is unfair to change re them. Lake Oswego has done well with existing codes not in spite of them. .1'he local minority arc uyru, tO implement change by raking away private rights. the majority are not pro active srfi( dime is absolulet), no ttecU tor a change of codes.A change in"permissible use ut prupctty'°I leel will ditU tIy affect"propert value because it restricts private'patty's tights to roundel of build if these new codes are allowed. If this proposal passes I will recommend to all neighbors to appeal to the tat<isSesSor:on their land vain:�rf[Ld to petition lower tax Zis essrnent value duo to lower property value due w thesw proposed rt suictionS. I feel confident that the majority of people in Lake trove/Oswego'feel that it is the ;ad;v;duui home owners right to do as they,please with t .iir private ltutd as allowed oy current codes and regulations. It is important to realiv, the existing building,codes were in place when the partials vrcre purchasedmid to p4naii � home a�tt3 Imdowtiets who relied on these existing codes is a travcst It'curt O net was not satisfied with the .% ist.ing codes they should have not purchased in tiro first place. Those who wixirt ttio eodz ell e ca.simply can their title eziotiai and put a deed ,[ trr�tint, rut tllc'rr lrrarin:rt ' 'to Coutply p,irpti.sLa ncvr c r(l,rrAnCe ux tiny uthC builcltrrg rctiit tuna th4y_want. At the ',Ely most Inc city C"wurn,el u6411U surtxrigC u botllui tv 4211vw the alfectcd ertn,ens tv k)ts rxS to whether 0i uOt tv pus3 the new vldittAu�u. These proposed code changes are clearly a case of' too !Lunch C:overinttcnt interference with existing private property rights Colicc Stgu' - CC14 ' Print fNi,tr%: Lt.-+ -1,3 \ _. Address: 414, t YJ Ko [: .1 fte--Lc , L.ake Oswego,Oregon et4444/ Sign:T»». .a __. 1 Jute: 1 "/-Print Name: I VtYLA Auatess: (t!✓O _3 efreM 1,le C swcgo,Oregon EXHIBIT G-z (LU 10-0040) 190 Feb 1, 2011 RIZ'utt-,t.. AIN': rids 'MteCtlattieb and. 1,....a.!tie Oswetto City Conned ' -—tutizt,1 etit—u tt-ttlZitii" lea .ego Planning t„.,:tothittissiott . - Cilitttt „,..jt• ..,., . 38-0 A A.veiihe - t„tt in PO Wet 3.69 Lake CISWeg0, Gi'1,74.4....frtt 97074 . ittrtirtilit-tt un . ot Subint: it.„taity eitopoisti./...,:..mitta it,tie Ifteiit,Aii . Nfl..25:38, Filet 1aki 1 ii-Off4i1 ....... Dear Iris 1't,t1t.c.,Cailiitb ttatot Thatte it ConeterdS „., i.71..C..a.SQ''.:iczept this letter is a.sttbnitittal of wiritten rednutut,t. tor notitzitt. f..7;allij:home owiters.in'the, Lake.GrenitclOstttvego art .1re ocepty ct.mcctittetti n;bout ate new propti:itta.properity Itestrutttott CP illinaTIO.,.. Oi.,;. u.,:'.''',/''t'!10...paten.1,. ENOt...AllittntS tUNTAt Tilrillit itused our prora„titty bastctitt oit ht.. extctittu tuittinting tit „ 01,1C.S.,. ItIS tiarair tr...) ::',,hin"42..e.:. I:lien-A, La.ke 05-6,tego has clone wet; wl.t.n.e7ctstatg codes. not In smite of titer— rtitti4t local ":44...t;17.,,:..,i'ity ak.7. try2171.; it=7. .rr.ii.pk11.e.r.i 7:11.aftge by caking. toviltiy itifFttate itt„tttst 'Fre no:vitt:ay tite fao.. IA:o aci,v7R,"s,:1.7 .c.c, ?,.. :cre Is :lbsolute,13,, 30 cletiii i70.r a cilatige•ot ett'AC:; ,, 1..k. ilailge va Freilm.strable use,ai ip„7,:5“-„:',,,rty." Heel will .dirzetty: tiiit*ci."prittputitl,t .t/a.Itte because.lt reStrietS p.F'EV"ate p'LITty 3.right&to teat-ode" or ititt,..td if thtttse new codes are allowed, If this rO.00ii.,i,k..i:Jeti.d itte....ttgt.tbt,it's to :2.4j. ..) iiL) the Uzi< USSeSSOf Oil theil taild '',,!..".':':jit.4.:'!' al.tel i'....0 1..,..?'e41001.1.y)Wel t:fiX value aae.,0 1or prope(cy Vaille dile t 0..;',...!,te ,', p;"Op0.Std reMFletiOS., I feel conit.deut,tht tJ1:8.majority olitpeople ittLaktti.ft7itittattytttf ti)sitinetttit„tt.ieel that it .5.Ile indi‘:Adual home owners right to'do...,...t.„they f.;it.As,7,"with'Nit:It-pi; ate .i.a.o.d,as ailowed Ityy earcetti codes and retttationt, It is.irdportaut to realizte the existing tit:fitting codes were lit pitice when. tine ttartiant were purchased until to ocutatitt2 donut art1 littuttr,nityners tAttlitt tvitied ort these ettastnitt4 codea 'is r ttravetayt itittn owner ttutis not satisfied with the .itttisting eed4s they ,ff..,,hottitfitave not 01in:ha:sell tit tine fiz.st 7d,-,a e. t ttose tiA.thi) Warii.the code change can!unto ttt malt „tient „tut tat,t rtpktuty ...mn put u,i aLc• reSh';t7t,t.titith on their protteetyst to comply \Ai-1th the throrotiet. natty.oraintiace..4:;.7 4r1Y other building'restriction they;want itta the vel y most to cit.3t t:.:tto: tricti out Pt artai.ittge a D.:;',illot to tilittst,:ii'Inc.affected ettizet.t.t4 to cote as to -when:ton'ett not to pas s the new ofdittatice,.. Itteste pA)tioiet.1 cooe rdttaitizetuttate ciearty a ease of itte e.,ferLrnace-,',:v1.-tb exlsti.n.0 pi waie promi iy 101t..S, CO,ii.Ceni.el JeSifielii„, ..,., „... t;i.071: !' . .,:f:'.";. ../.,...-,,--L hint r',ittnt.et Ittitit::t„,tti, ,,..., ,.., it`stitIrPst- •-ttt t , t; 4' 12 t'' ,,t ttittt6t.„,A..,tt.. iitstOttafts-et.t.'tt'Y.,7 t t . . ......— . . _ ,_..41__......_..„.......1 ..i_ ;.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, . . .. „ ., ,,..,., „... .. . , Prim Mullet ..t.t..„,tint`tkttit.tcti hit .t nu>ct tionci..ailt-,•,) ,t on . t .„ it.......„„,........... Address- - intl) 1...,41..EC (..)'S'';',.. W., (.ire .:(111. . . . , .. .. „.....„. ,,:”...-..,„..,.... EXHIBIT G-3 LU 10-0040 Feb 1, 2011 191 Ctflr , LIU ATTN: 1.'ris Me(a'iteb and take'it lswegu Cay Cii LaK1,11-.4tut.f;,•ng eLake .inu A Avetitte PC.) Box 369 Liake Oswega, Oregon 9 i034 S,tinizzt: Lthit.ce tt,/,,i.vzgu. t,p,ty.i.-d .Land Uire kegolirlirtir Nee 255s, Fe ittrtj li140044) Dear Ms. McCaleb and Staff/City Council: Please accept.thin itzficr as a'Attunitial of written request for notice. Propetiyandhottie urvireks ilk the Luke lt.:Lroyrrittswege,area, are deeply concerned about the new ploptisctti property restriction ordinance on.developtrient P:INIOGC171 is ENOtiCift: I purchased out property based existing building codes. It arrfitLT to el if gthein. 031;1144;k7/ 1160 tix7ye vve h With ri eooe tC I ire tireat /ilk-0171V tityttE4 to riaptemcnt change by taitt fig Way at tvUte rghis. The majority ale not pirtt active sire there is-abSolutely no need tor a change of codes, A change “peirni.isiblet use of popert I feel ili dItuetlyattuçcrty ,elde-bete it tLiets r,:bie party's.fIznis tr.> tetitt7idei tyrrild it:these ifew edifes are atinwen. !f dinti ojinfiai tit:asses I WdI recoatiticha to LII neJibOrs to 1:1.31,tetit o1.22e.tax itSSeSSUt Ott Ct.Cil land valueai to peturrnd lower tax ussessIneat value due id lOwCr propetty :value tide to these proposed restrictions. I feel confident that the inatwity of people i uhe (Iitoiiel Oswego reel tLat it IN 17Aglit 10 ritir with t ktt.7".te ft.0,0\t,,/e71 7urrent ct:tnes atat.cegalatioti.s. it is ;ifipottaui:to rea;iint cories tt-t2cre n ItattelS. 20t."', tt'ho . . trt',.'",,T,St.Li. If an owner -tatas..not HnntltIlt.r ottistinp cedes Illey sintaid Ltn,/e oot j.nactistecti it': tU"bt. r.k7STI` tiThf". ":',77,',V vo,o. ;',:t ro: , arc.' k tf: , EXHIBIT G-4 .1u-0040 • 192 Feb 1, 2011 ATTN: Iris McCaleb and Lake k.:,:micir.-To Ci.ty Coancil Lake Oswego Planning Commission A Avenue PO Bo t,t 309 Lake Osvvego, Oiegoit 9iUi4 ty pr. , L&ç7b-iirt,g0 friepi„ 7.4 uoicet: Lae,Oseirz!gc, nut/! Laud Use Regulation No,. 2558, Elk LU I 0-6040 Dear iris MeCaleb and itgisr, itecns l'Iea3e accept this letter ,S St:alAM]. tv.in at ticTtiCg, My startle is Phillip Arakeliaa oat- s bl;At peoperttes t 28:l5 Lppei 1k, 000 I Dokstde Rd, aiid I 5/80 Twin fig .ta, w itt,..c iNic:',ZINe Siuce eat ly• I 960. 0n family and many iftv7. 1`ty anti horne owncis IU die Lake Crove/C)swego area are deeply concerned mot the flew tit opused propetty restriction ordinance on develoeiii, LiNt,fl'CI.4 FNOI OH' • . 1 - - •based - -1" - ;':7) „ FUES out propel the ta=1, ng pain. nig Ltufai! ip change them. Lake Oswego has dPrie exi5Oog codes ki,T.Pt in spite of then. Tile local minority are tiyin4 ohylement en:int.-4e oy taking awny I valeIgh . 'Ow majortt:e are not pi'Dae1vcSfils7Z, thee is tibsotutely nee di a change of codes. A change e LIU, u -.8 of poverty"I feel diteetly affect property value becaose `it iestfitti F Royale pativ's Lights to remodel or build a these new er,des aIk vv ea. If this provKisza [rasa-es I will recommend to all neighbors to tlf-7pe, 1 t Pie iax assessor 451P thei'a latul value°and La petition low - tss.essnieirt,,,,taue Unit tri IUWCL property 1,,aide due tro f:Ftese veo--;Tiosed ieArietloh:5. i feet eth If;dent that thc ntajolity of pCupk' u Lake Grover Oswego tee that it is me individual tonne ovvueis ii to do as they please with their,prtvatc land Es aiioeu by current codes and regulations. it is important to -eaiLc the ckistaa.r, building coue , were place when the partIais aiere Fat enatica tu Ad I atZ iñvCfS who relied on tie 7,-,iStrng codes a travesty. !Can 4uCi was inn aushc with die existing codes they situat7 navetrot puleild.,Sd ill the first place. Those mitt want the code change can simply' call their line eiaripany and pat a dee7. testriction on then propertys to comply with the prortised cc ce o hulfttinn restrictim they wa.iit, At me y'ciy most the city conned eo,da baito, iu allow thz.affected cities for Iri,Ac..!US to vinether UL 110 p4Ss ordinance. These proposeA code ehar,ges ae cicarty a case 0f to mach ,:..;oveiuncnt interference whim existing pri-vate k.:OtfCrfrfie.d resiient, Sign; „ ri a eit J.Niathe: ail I *** Lake 7(ai-sweg ., Oregon „ . Sign: i)ate: 21.7Lut Narne: fxdthe.;3: ."1 I Gr,;.tt,4,7,./13 77, itHtt-tc EXI1113i L1-5 ED lti-OU40 Feb 1, 2011 193 'ECEiVEr ArrN: iris MeCaleb aitd 1_,FikT„US'vvt'gri.City Council f,akci "°,71/egT) Planning ComnassioLL 380 A Avenue PO tso.,, .56v k,f077110 Y:u-;fjih/ Uw Lake us,Nego. Uteoun 91(134 Sobjet: Lake Oswego Propazie,d. Laura Cie= REgulatioti 2.5:7;8, Fife LAI I 0-0040 OcaL' tick 171.eCaleb and 1 hose h Concerns Hetse ri.CZ".i.ixt this iertei as a subinittai of written request ftir L:-Lotiec. Nly hcane. ;3 Veit'. Ar.-&ei.inu ohT fathitys own pnopes-des at 2;,,!,5,5 UpperOL 3Ciaio 6ksitie KC1, u 15/80 Twinii i<a. We have lived here since early 1.960_ Out-.fianLily ah7.1 htany proiLeity u id home owilegs in the Lake CiLoveR.kivt,Cgt-L acetify C"Ot leer!geld aboul: the new ploprised property restrictiriLL , rairraace 011 dcvelopuiei fiiNOCCiti tS ENOUGH; I.purchased.:3-at. papeity based on trie existitio out[ding codes. It is unfair to change them. Lake kis nas doile well wtli exislilLg codes not in spit c of theiLL. The local ity aee tyiLL ,m intpIretaUnt change by taking n-wa- niajnrity ate airfl pfu uCiive Siriee there is ahsohacl rd lOr a hat 0.1 COaC.S. A elanige In!pet unssible use of property"I feet with.aiLe,,tty tiffeCi" piocy value beeause it restricts private party's tetiLodvi Lit nil i] these new.,iodes cse allowed. If this propi,sai. pnssesI N;11 U111111ella to all neighbors' to appeal to the t SI ,LL then Paha value and teL peritufe, lower tax asseSnrueld value due to lovei evert -,:tiL_Le One to tficse led rastriCtirtils. feel confident that th . L,a,tjarlly of people LIJ i.ake (;f1,3vel Oswego teel that it the individual lathie i4ni to do as they please %vitt, di a pri vaLe land as allowzo 'by current coact.;ad reLtuiLatio.ns. It Is impoL taut in rtalize the existing haildihg cones Were iii place the partials wei4 imt chased and to penalize none owners milio relied Fc,,LL mese existint, codes is a LraveSiy. if an owneri,vas it sftLisilzt NI'Ott the eX;Sull° zogrs they stiouid have not. purchased ir, the first iLirtee. ! OS T A.fla) want the code change can iri i1 Meal°tatty 7_,%.11iliaity and pat a deed resit iction on their property's try Conply Jtit tit inOpoSed ordinance or any other L est,..ctitAt they want. At the very ffimi: LiAC Cicy COMICil could tararigti.La mum tio ail()',iftuekffeCtCZI citi2zus nilit$M to whether or Lint to iLas.t, the he oidittatlea. rLcs sea cod atiali..geS are clearly a case of too ru,,teit (iovcI,LI ilterre-LVib:-V, with eXiStAug pit vate pwpei ty rights Slow Date: • *11 Pritu. Name; Arial ess: a, é I ake Oswe oc,„ Orecton Date. I ik k EAMIBU G-ia LU 10-UU41.1 194 Feb 1, 2011 /Tflf' Ftr;:10rjrrgeVD74U-I VED Al k N: 11.1$mcLateo d.t7rd Lake Oswego City COutic.:11 Cit' u5,,,,ego Planning Cornrnissiun of 1C1 LjS gtj u A A veu.q..0.7, URy PO Box 309 Lake Owego,Oregon 97034 Sidaivi4; Uzsitke klurF,ug,0 Proposed Land usz- Z;"58,Fat IX 10-004U Dear Iris McCaleb and'those It Coneetits Please accept this lettet i sutkuittat ut wiltteu request for notice 1)toperty ai iiovYLBT-iai11 the Lake Grove/Oswego area ace de-714yzd about the itew piatypesed pioperty 4.estiotio)p.utrritta-7-cice on development. tiNia.)1.7.61-1( ..t.NULJG11; ii)uiehaszd our property basedv theitug ottilding codes. It is aritait to ellktn.!_Y,C the-11. Lake 05weg.has done well with existing eodesuutiu f them. The local minority are trying to impientent changt- oy tat-7(1.g away private r1ghts I he itiacintity ptoy aLtivo,8LuCe there is absolutely no need tor a ehattge of oodes. A change in 'permissible use or poverty I met win ditectly affect_properiv value nectitic it i*„..,tricts vri ate party's rights to rethodelor butilU it these liCw UGC1C-..71 mtio allowed. If this pivpmsai passes I vYti..1 tt.-.7coptiattetto to ail iieighbors to appeal to the taat 4issosso,t mu their land value atiU to jetwoi lower ta aNessitteutt vaiue 0(1447,to lower property ValliC Uta:tu tricDr., pki.VOSed. ,.estriations. I.feel confident that the major:ay mr iOyICLt.Lake Grove/Oswego reel tiled 1tI'S WIC v'.ir•TREal h71,Lo-z= ers right to do as they plcd6c with melt x.,,;vatz land as allowed by ioscrtationa. itia important to realize the erNistutk6 ouiiftiag were in place when fhb- tiads *vele puicItaseli and to LAaJIZe home and 1,4110.ow.tiab vvriu Oil these existing codes is a travesty. It au owatel vyam uKit satifi.c:1 with the exiNtiug codes trizy shr.ptil i-iot purchased in the first place. Those who want the code change a.= uffil their. title company ty.DE put a rtueti c»i their property's to comply with the pimpu5ou ITL-.‘v ordinance or any uthet htelrz5b-ictiott tney want. At the very most the city council eotrio arrange a ballot 1.0 aiThw .1.1717/?, ttcJzitizeits to voite a.itovvriz-„the or not to pass the new Vidillailre. here cm/e enatt:6os ate ao,L'ely a case of too luut7h OCiiuOitinterference with eXt sting pr'vace propeiy ttg1lts / 7, m Na..-.te- 7-2 ,a.f). LTC A:7//?, ," i';14 4 ij Oswego, Oregon Date: Pni,t t..akk".", tc.,SWeg07 Oregon EXmfbli LU tu-N4o Feb 1, 2011 195 tut.: ATTN: iris MeCaleb and LakiT,Os Uty Councit Lake Oswego Planning Commission io, t 380 A Avenue tok,,V Of Lake Oswego PO Box LickTiswiTtgruI,0.1,4Ama 9/034 JL vErve titD S Divd: LKIllalvt7;gtrt Ygnpuzord Loud Use Regulation Igo, 1,558,trilu Lru u-4)040 Dear Iris!Niter,.oi floc It iiIN Pleas z a. ..u.pt this 1, tti.ti munttai cii wiittma.1,c4wst,tb/ Property and home owneruL tn Laic.e ui.v.-/uswtgu alea ale deeply concerned about the rf fa* 1J7,5 vtop..rty trntiui viTuance cru development. ENOUGH IS mNutiutt; Ipaiznase7d.k7411T11 upei ty based ou titut.exisung building codes, it tr3 ctizaige.trii. Lake'Il,. .we•gtohas duae well with existing codes not st i mew, 'he ioeal iuiuciiLy ale tryiti to implement change by takiiig away yrivrinT, iffls. Inc maw'hy are not pro active since there is upb.,..Atit.,dy urki jeUti xoa tun gc, feoris. A alge "permissible usu..of propu7' i fcct it d'nuctty atfoct pi. ,perty Vthue because it lets:trat-atS private Fart •s t;&,tits t,, 1,-.411i)014,1 OILLIki i MUSE new Ccif arg itUrWed. if this proposal 1iTi! will lutetatiatUnd tu U avighbols 11.3 elli)petil to the tax assessor on their land value and to pet tovvm ition ei tax assessment value due to ower propeity ,Ltle dae to mesc piukrused restrictions. 1 feel confident that the i4unitj 111.,vike Giov et Oswego reel that it IS the Lrtatito‘Ltri 5 lit4lit to do as they pIC:ix,C, with tut.'„u"pCviiw land as allowed by eatteat cEyTes aad Legulations. It is auptli tam to realize the existing building codes were in place when the partials were purchased and to penalize horn._ laLZ uyy/17.4s wrIE,Lehal Ent these existing codes is a tia,fest.,ifi nt satistico with ate eNistiog codes tbCy pwctiased u tne gest pine. 'those wito waut the 7„,,de emaigen uupiy ii11 thc t1ti7 hiz put d it,stiiMik771xvu tlkuif trivverty' to Cirmipty with the rpose3 Jew oidinunee Or any other buitdiug tyTtStllutiOn they Wcutt. AL the very most t e city council could arrange a ballot tu. allow the affected citizens to vote as to whether or snot to Fit,3„..; in: iwoidniftiicz. 1 nese pinpbsed e-ride chaages Luc cloudy a CMC of too much Government interference Alr Lin vxisiaig prxvate propcuty nghts Craictlited LesideLLt„, nIttt iNizanz, Address: t , UE1(7 Ogtreti OlegOn • It°10 tt I , I0 I '0 Date: rut manic: ? t Address: "-A 4:- taKe USwO, Uieguul Atiltti ti-l3 LC 10-0040 196 Feb 1, 2011 Ai!- ATTN: h huann auO LX 05w'rgu city Criuncil Lake Oswego 1-tanning ..n5k71 FL IRON 5'09 1,,;PS qProl 'sw-q Lake Uwru Oiugati 97034 Subjcet: Laike ONwego Proposed Land Use Regui.ti . ittik LU Itf-tnierli la/5 Me-L.:Web d 11rysc It Ounceins 1Jt to lettelaS a ..ratlituttai Ot wtittieU itiNtteSt 1T.}r TiOtiCe. fpaty aue nrnAle tal the Lac vdkAvvCgO at ea are deeply concerned about the pi uptiScd p 1,7,7pC1ty tuan icata ordinance on development _ Er,rutiUtt tzs tmit....Jutt; i purchased Our property based on the exiAing nutail torhaiige thew, Lake Oswego has done well ,:th Irng .ot u sFiL Of tneiu, The local minority are tryintl charig,T, b, tak4 away pivte Light, Ltc majority are not pro act x eeci tu ug ulckyats. A change Ili -E.p.:A-ciLES511JL u.5Z 1/4731 pit.7:ivertvI R7- 1 vvd.I ducedy affect property value because it restricts pLivitz putys LigEtsturv7.412ociet ri build if these uCw codes ice allowed. If this proposal passes I will ICCULIuuiiid 10 all neighbors to appeal to the tax assessor out,thcii land vtiut7., anti to petition lower tax assessment valuz dr—t7lo 1,...,7perty.,..we due tu tricse puutposeU stritaitfitis. i fcei ck7t,ficeut that toe ity or pwplC ni Lake cirover uswego feet that it iS huniU OwilCiS tight tu a they pieuse with their private land as allowed by curium crydes and regulations. It is important to realize,thz cst 1d. weru place when the 1,,aMaLi srve17., hdcaid tt cIc ttomc. Fwd.land uvvitets who ietied On to r;Si: CuriCS ;3,tr.traveMy. Itcul Owizei vvaz, iiOt satistie With die eKislitig Codes they should have..itut ytnetiftSed in th4 th St place. nittri Want the eo.TIZ Change ain 5nuIy tMli titEir titlti Cut upauy and put..a deed esti ietit7uOn Wein pruperty's to Wimp!), with die r liri3ti71)SoR new ordinance or any other building resuictimi they want. At the very most the city council could arrange a ball,—t allow the affected citizens to vote as t ietn t to ibrz,,s tne These psufxiSua code changes ate clearly a case of too much 6overnment interference with existing private property rights Concerned lieS4lent_ Sign Date: hi int Name: Ackhi=ss: t . Lake Oswel4,0, Oregum liiur r Name: vtr, t/4 "--$1' $.- Lake Cli‘kreo., Oregon EU 10-0,1U l• - Feb 1, 2011 197 fLi AT" : his MeCaleb and Lake Oswego City C;owicil La OSweg;Ca Plautang Commission Avenue380A t p YCJ 1io ,S J �t. �s rW l Eta go Lam Jew 1 t u, ,w�xa ' ;.1'-7i. Subject: Lake Uswega Frupesed Laud UNP Regulation No.2558,File LU 10-0040 his Nu:Caleb and itiv,e it Lasatc:Gau 34c`, r.`a n a.1 t t1ae ls:lea a. u yea ax al l v waitt ai.tcdluc.st?crt az:xttCc. Property and home owners in the Lake Grroveit vvv v caz dcc.lrly CuaceLued about to s}c,e+v i i.frlyd.rsf;'tt.},racay rty viaixi uzCa u.0 C1 r�clv.riaa€i ttt. ENOUGH IS E OUuh;1 purc11ased oua—t'vla-rty naird aatA tiro a%ritstaaag 13uiiii �c-tides. it i UtLI 13 tV'lrtl[at3gre tltGxua. LaKC U'awG a.r tkka Cs une well wanbaii.7., Id 6111g CU 'es t in spite;of the$87. 1 tie lest trsiniu ity are uyiri to impleuiG t 1haiigTe by° taking away rivate rights. The majority are not pro active since there is absolutely no need for a change of codes, TA. ahan c xse i azacos3a % ca�� 4/fpav}zert l r�. l wvlll du`wtly �i T it irxvrl1Elt' ailaa l rcria,,sc at td yt ict.,--,i lattvcrtC pccaity'5 to &'1t6 tO tviiav G1 31 bualC1 st trb..:c,new evt1Cs:,a% allowed].. It this ploi*drSaxl paSSez,I will i mmecid to all€reignbors toappeal, to alit tag:a.Sscssri then land value and to petition lower tax assessment value due to lower property value due to these proposed e trictt rr15. e r xira. aie- hint tie;ilie vtaty to �'`'i4191 sss LaK ` 17arfV4f vx,Cr, tot! Mat it is ti3c iai3fvsflual hot LIU OvvanCaa tra CIO as ttKGy please with situ 1.aivate hula tiai ftlitivveZ by EMI codes taxi iegulatiorts. lt is iaitt.t'f7:ricuet hi lezdize the ex$ tttt h ildia: ;cones were hi place when the partials were purchased and to penalize home and land owners who relied on t e3 itiaissz. v:.�rCfiaa as a tzg'£vesty.if caaz rracir VV ttidt;.autasEico wan EittL- they si@@r��va.��dct nave out¢1xtui�.:rlcxS�cE axa�L91C lag5t lapay� j. �jt * ¢ �q� g j j t h..is a i'!ho YY C:dtl thz mde e ang0.e eau sim t Lai{,thc; Ldtii'i<�.1&a Ik)an a ail 1fct lZ dccd a ttix eiazt otx tl-3c.it FtZ.3laCrt.y'a tir ly vvitfl titicgtavl.al) l rieW Ulf i.LxSaaR4Z vs i ily °trim' httildiit ..teSu tction they vain& At the vet sear t the iadta u airy at crulC1 rzsaeutPZ a ballot to allow the affected Citizens to vote is to whether or than to pass the new r,iiIiinatuce. 'these pi oputi4d et t'le etlimigub cud~Clew ly a Case et toe ►uucti (j veiiurtei t ilttretelei.:ice avLt11 existing private properij rights Concerned L s dent, Uatz L�CiCTIC,s rf �` E ? m iac,7.. 'ir« khe:;sa t. w fi a S1�."$F ,� '�+&;�;.., �� a �` "w w Adds e m + ._._ . �_. a —__ , t a; e l.1:s w-ee :o, .)a tgoni FXHIl3l I Li-1 LU 10-31)40 198 Feb 1, 2011 A I irchS Make iI LAKE USwEgU.City counuii VE0) Lai(.tJgeloatiluitg Ji5U A A venut-. . PO Box 3-59 cAry ()Qvvegc Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 of Lake „:rftfilLrriy° 0J0Duin Subject: Lake Oswego Proposed Lana useKtk L ,.11411G LU Iii-trU4t1 Dew MuCaith and Those It Concerns Please accept this le ubiaittziI Ot WItitECia request tor notice. hoputy and route u4iivi iu tiaZ Lake talove/Oswegri atea ait deeply concerned about the new proposed property restriction ordinance on development ENOUGH is aNtitiuti; puruha.sed OUT property based m the existing building codes. It is unfair to change them. Lake Oswego has done well with ex‘Lsifmg codes not in . tteof them. I no. ibi.771 ionto-nitj tFyi.oz-k1 irriplearrrut ellarigt7; by taklurs V ) yiivt Iits. 1.11a inajoigty ate riot y u tivc StarTe there rzr.a0z,plutely a0 Hyatt tot a elteirige OfudeS. A Change iii-pettarsmble uSe ot ploperty' I teel will directly attect plopei ty value because it testi lets private party's rishus to remodel or build if these new codes are allowed. If this proposal pa,ses I will recommend to all neighbors to iippeal to the. tax -tssessor on their land value and ti7f tietaktt 1/11;1'71 ttigE tI5SC51,11C4111 ViTlit.14w 7.6.1,174.).T1 lvi 11,1.JVCrty V'-A114C doe.t tnescpxOcAJ LeATtetious. I mei couttacut that th majUnty V.Jt pti-uvle Lit Lake Gr•ovet(iswegu t1 that it is the individual home owners right to do as they pleaSe with their private laud as allowed by ettrz-et c.,)des and regulations. It is important to reahze the existing building codes were in place vvric:althe iartirti5 vyt.,vkT.,plao.,nasza au to peoatize non_ic e.41.1::11 Iu no,elied on these emstiuor codes -lb a travesty. It au owner waa tout :ratistteri 'with the emstilig coTtes they should have not purchased in the lir& place. ThUse who wain the lalUe change ui suupiy eat then tine eokupaity aria put a cl. eci restriction an their property's to comply with the proposed new ordinance or any ether boiulog,,sfrietionthc, cult, Ikt triZ v,.74 most th,eLly eoI cldtm(-14.1.ge a ballot to allow the tweeted citizy..41s to vote as to whotrk7,ir Oi ut tn prz.,s me; itcvv.0171.flitritt7A:., Floyysed coat criarws Jl a or to interFereerce ,,v:th CA:Estifig pas v..atZ o.uverty ghts Concerned esy;derit-, Sign ' ?ran Name: k Address: L Lakr US gk's,OaUgunt sjgn itsk l'it/iJ : - L ' - -- ? LA Name: 1.2 11,e: Ad&uss- "'°:A v Lake;OsvwcrF., Uregriii • EU 10-0040 Feb 1, 2011 199 A I I N bi MOzuld Lake uswegb city Couneil za6UAAvue 1-4..? him 309 Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 --EVetOpnit; Subject: Lake Oswego Proposed Lana Us.. Kegut..Go..Nar,, hs58, t LU tu-UOLIC/ Deal his tee and lflosc It at this !ek'. aS asubnuttai of wLit-teu te.fuest:tin notice. ty.2ita mute L7wuctSLU ttl '1,8Xe tituyeiOawUp arTu eaC Ueepty CauCetuud about the new ptupETNuti plupclty icStriCtkm ritammiCe on development PAULA:di IS ENULICTI-I: 1.1)11m:1iased Ow poperty Fad.oil the existing building codes. It is unfair to change them.Lake Oswego has done well with ex;stia-s codeiibt nsFitc.of than. Thc tuZ-41 ito.3101,L6ty, tyi1 '41 ;LITIkauCut Cilcutgc.. tai6uj-awca-,-yytiyalZ- LithiSInc majrnity:aie Hot piu autivt,- thett-, is,ahaeultitely tit? tieeu tiTn chauguOtcoUes. A change ut"pei uussinie tise of pi uperty" I tml wilt d*reetly atteetilropea ay value because it restritAS private partv's rights to remodel ot build if these new codes are allowed. if this proposal Ft-anscs wJ1 ',cox...a...Lend to all neighbors to;Teal to the tax asseasoz on mei. train vmucrd itt7 fri,ti 6%7.11 ItVV4 tL-a. ..71.6V+,71,71. 71.1.Collt V alLuz quu.to IL/win p xt7rtiu1ty V1u U tti ittZ:4C puyuLc1 lest le:tit/us. I feet coutictuid that the majuiity ut peuple it Lak Cilove/ Oswego feel that ii is the individual home rivvilet-s right tO do as they please with theii private land as allowed by cu.,.. 111_codes and regulations. It is important to realize the existing building codes were in trio Fart14.13 V.V 1,l11,71-1t4-4aZd CUL('t07,1.00,ualikTe nee andowns wn, terted these cAistiug codes a liav5ty. IIzrri ovviaZk WM.; nut 6E164;61 with the erAIL-6 they ShOuid have nut puti,lletsyd in the tust Wise whoa wain me*:; alaugC Cau Sultry 0111 tifeu COI apuctiq strict put u deed restriction on their property's ID cunifify with the proposed new rialmaneru Ztily (Jain DuLIOuq they want. Jkt the very most the coy council could arrange a ballot to allow me artectai eiti,ctis to 'a,a7.,te tij leVarotnCi nOt t47.1 /AL'S the new Lit Iit1 . Tricsv.,iit.„71.7or sea,V,OCK.,chc a cl.ely a cast of tkr.a Lia./a.Ch uo en .ent interference with CAitnig pi iv att piuytItyi'gots LiCCtticd , Sign: „ Date: Punt Name:Name: Adorcss: • A = L.; _LIK USvv'ep, OLUgUnt fite: ratait Name: Ad3ress: y Lakc ustvet"4c thegtat.a. tAllIt511 U-14 EU 1U-UU4U 200 Feb 1, 2011 Al-UN: Iris i c-Capeb and Lake Oswego City Council Lake uswegca l'lE utili commission 380 A Avenue PO Box.369 butijrc.t: LAKE O ar ws Fiupriavel Land Uwe;Kegulatio i Nu. 25 g, File LU 19-0040 .E.3a..:u Icy> t'V C4: g ra r Tr'&fv e it€saaeeaUS Please Treeept this lztte k Uha,,ittat Cyf w.kmtte 1.4,91.1z; t xC➢k raotice. Property and home owners in the Lake Grovel swe o area are deeply eoa�,e aae€i aanow t to ; n,v, Picrl.ycseu loot lr+wa.t• re„,ti--ctiorl iartiarataah vaa v%l rt✓taaceaat, ENOUGH IS ENOUGH; I purchased our property based on the e Astins cod .,, it s uiSsxrz vtlaaxg%. nv aaa I . Lake Otwv ,v ilxai, 'vCil vvttll as t.ec cvLlcs n yt ;II Spate CFI thr,li a. the Iu .al xux.czvaxxt °air teyi.ig tat xitipleiuent f'llatige by taking.away pravElie.ii,phts. the inajui iy ate fan privy active sineC dleic is absolutely no need tor a change of codes..change in "permissible use ofpropert "I feel will directly affect_property value because 'it restricts private i"a a rights.t[y remodel or oualet iftrie.e mzw,w cuaeF,are cxlii,-., L. if t{lxa v1,1Av:zt passes I +read teCt aaanientl to all ueignt)Ois tO atiyeal tL the tech azuieNwilr aria then lattE value and to peticirm lower tax assessment value due to lower property value due to these proposed i—estrictaon , I feel t-a.;n dent that the majority of people in Ike Grovel O eg feel mat at is I1L indiv iotiat tKF46PG VMYax6JA3 ax at to at, .4s they c• e vaa$!c zl.xe1a` luawate land aaz":clluwCO by Lull-cut Curtis ariCd acgulataisus_ It is important to aetlhze the Cxiscixi bualClaxr codes weae dit. placc when the partials were purchased and to penalize home and land owners who relied on these exlsting codes is a travesty. Ilan owner was:tot sat;sfie with the 4 t hng codas they glucxla htzwe d'rt t I,xaa rolica3eG aaa me fla.it iyl aZ.v:... Those who want the code change can simply call their title company and put a deed so.�ti;cf..ZTY.a tlix;ar FrotArrtj 3 tq✓ v0u ply wail; trio„• t1rU.1aitlitwL c✓a tam), othari bexxlC3xax iestrictacrn thEy vvaaxt. At the axac,St the city council ceanU aalunge a bal.aot to allow the Wfecten citizens to vote as to w Cthcx uc not to pass the new artdzswa Ce. l"lcse, p'se✓prer CF sy ■liexx %a c a,laalp rs Ut iyT dm)axaast 1 36,wZa:aa;cent hits tcaGnee,, wat[I, existing g pit vtte pn uperty a:a l3a s Uunceli;xea to SiCleut rraIit t`dcaaats _ a r r a. l . .address s v ,,: ° , , .._ z Lake Cllwe, o, a eio xxx l mac: _,. 3gieaat F2tTra . i � l„`'f'"l F��*t �a,cm�'�� L, ,,. z t'i tlaes�: ....�_�. ''±°'_ . a�� '�•; �''J .,.,..-f-. Lake Oswego, Oregon XFill l..I C3-13 LU 10-0040 Feb 1, 2011 201 ATIN: Iris McCaleb ad Lake,A7.,13..T,,gra,City C'enueit Lake Oswego Planning Commissioil, 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Laitt;kis wf7...,go, uregon 9/0.34 SuDject: Lakv Uswygo Proposed Land Use Regulution. 174LT. hb513., rite Liu 11i-00441 lieu ills lvict.:4.1en and 1 bose,It Concerns l'IN,Q..."Z cii7Zr..pt this.1A7;tti d'S a Suthilittai 17.4 wtiusni request for notice. Property and hum,orsin tne LaKc'UN verflUSweg0 ait74.are deeply concerned aboat th 11.1c,IT pi.v.paieCt pitdperty lestriutiun utclioanue tin development , EINOutoil in iliNtiti 1,141; 1 pUtitialaSIA1 riulTulaperty bused on the existing building ode;. it i, anitlii to-711cutgi.I.HICLii. L4i..;Obvvgi,/ his dUtiC well with existing codes not in sviAC. z.,r tnein. hc I local 11111K/1 ny WC uyissg to implement change by taking Lway ptiy ate iip.:.i,,. t'ne if laiority are not pro active since thee is absolntely ne iikt tor a Z,Illaugv Of 7%.7?& .. A change • , 4,1 ,,, 1.,...,,,Lglo.alt %, 1131, 7.f pi miii.A.IL I ftrii W d itt I kr4-1,tty nrCe tl t71 erty value because it rUNI,riCtS k Ya yarty- lights t LentoI cl ok build it these new cues ate allowed. If this proposal SS .s i wilt scOuissituufld iri all neighbors to areal to the tax assessor on Wen land value ,anci lower to petit:on tax asse.;sment wclue dae tu 5 a.pi kipcuty value Une tO these proposed i est.:et:oils. I TrA,7i%-trnititifilt that the isiajUtity tt mpie in Lake Cro vet Oswego feel that it is the itaiv;acal huuw 0,,, ,,Lip. to do as they please with their private land as allowed by current codes and regulations. t is__important to .eali-iz tno c.Nisling onitrfing coals writ in place when the partinlz w.-e.e, patehasou.,:nd to.1"Zillta4c; tiOnie auE land nwileis who i el icd DI L. tries. CA II stia ig,....00.E. is„T,.1,avesty.it ail UW.Littl NatES 1101. Natished with the existing codes they shoind nave nut puretrased in the him isiacc. I 11,767,, vi,rii,7 vv4Z4.1.11t triz eo& change oti-. sitnph call ttie tide co:iLpaiy and pin a deed iestLiction un then plopurty z to 07Ysispiy with the istOpOScti tie wall-ranee or any other building resolution they want. At the very most the city council could arrange a ballot to allow the affected citizens to vote as to whethe or not to t.,, S tric Liz, zndiiinnec. i hese proposed code changes are clearly a case of too much'Government interfnenco with existing private property rights Concerned re iden , Sign Date- ,i'=-/ i 7 . +---1 - ........ 1 ?lint Name: 1 ', ; ,I,,,,,,:' r 1,-,-.r Y.) Aaili es ii: ..,. ‘ ,' r 0 i ,I,-, ";,'' , , V r.' „ Lattr uswegn, Olet,,un Sign: Date: Ili int a:Lille: Ad M MSS: , Lake Oswego.. Oregon Em-1161i G-14 LO 104104U 202 Feb 1, 2011 mcCalcb&1d Lak t,,)swege C.:;ty council - 4 Lake Oswego Planning Comtnis.r:r,ia • ar=e4T:ne PU BuA 389 ' r Lake Oswego,Oregon 97034 r Der4, Subject: Lake Oswego Proposed Lanu Use Reguiatit.. io. 1b LU Iti-‘,11410 Wit.:Web w 1hose It Com:tuns tfecsTipt tiliS lette utimaittat nr wilften re...inest for noilee. •L_ Ly ▪ it'. tn Lai.trivreiO3wego attc.-aacUeeply%A.yuceined about the LLW pivpDsea.pluperty LeStrietioit Oidinalice uudeveloptuera, 1.7"....NrJUtxti 1-INULAil1: I pui Chased Our pirpei- based oh the existing buitaiiig codes, ti is unfair to elaulge ...elm Lake(Jswette has done well with existing codes not Jn spite of trin. The local minority are trynigto iFleJt eh b, tkrg rvatet isk7t.Fakf-aZtivC. aSs,..atla,,./tutij,lie ua...,-ed i chnc t7,,,OrslUS., A ctiang u pt,..,1,7(r)y'- te‘,..71 vvdt utteCi. °pet Cy viiitie (10.7ULLISe re5L11-3C-LS at LYC lights uo •LYI build if these new codes are allowed. If this proposal passes f will recommend to all neighbors to appeal to the tax assess°,o the 1w- ,a value atad 1.4.7,vw,....1. tot • WDiv',Teitat, C7117ft,tt7J 1,71 wita feakitAti anio Uu to rics,; I rev7,1v-crilliacut that the illajoiity of people m Lake Iiiovei Llswe6,0 tee that it is die indi v iduai hune uwuei iiht to du as they please. voids then private land as allowed by current codes and reguIatkmsTtt is important to realize the existing bildi.g codes were in place vvhe,..the yartIals rr ere Furch4..i'ed d toift,tial:ex5;11.7.ittL,J.,aairl Oiwt.17,1- Stitir, aca1'1.3 a tty. ii ovillei IN 35 EtUt r1witri th "(T,44.,71stuq COth.5 14.1R-4'y StIcnitiU rav [Fa putZiluzed itt the fitSt ihuu wtiU vvbalt th. AT.Zaz altzigi:Caul SitillAy Ltd! toriti put a debt lesci;cajun Oil tiluit pi Opus iy"..." tu eUitiply with the rhuposed. flew 7...vidiliaLpue el any Other building restriction they want. At the very most the city council could arrange a ballot to tinny, mi.. airleaCa to vote CIX4, to hthe 1711 lUt to pElaS trbT.,Lii744 ry a EA iaLicr..,. Thesr„proposed code changes are clearly a case of too much (loverrrrne.t intertere,nce with • tg rate in.v.p...74-ty ffighto Concerned.resident, -t- 14. Piuit C'f't "; Dfr..te• Print Name: Addiess: _ Lake Ctsvvego, Oregon EXHIBIT G-15 LU 10-0040 Feb 1, 2011 203 1FC ATI N: his IVIcCen and Lae Usweao City Council itettr Lake(iSwego etaitning commission uf 380 A Avenue y PO Box 369 Lake O.; 9 ti.).54 Subject: Lake Osview7= r ea L0 us,r Ittugulation Nu, ;z558, Ulf 10-0040 1)czn-his McCaleb and Those It Concerns Please aZeepi.dus iCtit7;r as a submittal of written request for Property and home-i„Piegille15 in the Lake Grove/Oswego area are deeply .a uhuut tn new proposed property restriction ordinark,e dz. ENOUCH IS ENOUGH; I purchased our property baseri tic eAisting builning coc7es. It is fair to ch.4. F.,therm n d ',tun vvtn i,7_,,,7,,Efes not in simile ut them, °file irrcat &uuOutyM“7; lid tinipiuiut etlange by taking away ptivaLe rights. The majr„nity aTe tern IA naive :MICAZ Mete i absolutely no need for a change of;...odes. change 1111SSible use of property'I tee! will directly affect property yraluz ;t,estriets privatuartys rights to remodel or build if these new cod..-_-3 auzy-7„,rt. titrns epo3ni passes I ii re,70; .nd tu,all n,...ignooLz1totristual to tric7 ta„, assess-Alt tin rtieit laud vatuto to petition KvCi tbiik assessment value due,-to Jewel ploperty value due to these ploposeU testrictions„ I lee! cuntZent that the majority of people in Lake Grove/Oswego feel that it is the individual home owners right to do a.;they yleasz the.. at I.E*2E a;"3. cu, de and.,„.7.,,F.,..aations. it ;a ,ALEpUrtriit't tiCalizL the CA:tStita . buitali codes we place when the patJafis wtak; purCIiaied and to penalize home anU lanU owners who relied on these existing codes is a travesty. If an owner was not satisfied with the existing codes they should have not pa-chased in the first place. Those who want the code change can simply call their title company and put a deed StEiCtit,11 oa their p.coperty to omply vvith th intJpidakla iv tndutic7, ally kittla building testi ictiun they want. Pkt the, vCit 111t the city Oiw& 1L saint uianc n tOITit to aitif w the al tr:-,,cted citiLens Lk) as to whethei uubf to pass the ie-w Fit7F:L.,3%.,r1coe Clraast--a.tam?,i.7.1,--caly ktt 7t1t trmy anaT7...r1 interteirAIM wain eitastal,6, E vatC pithite.Tty iipts resisTi7nt, , bate: Print Name: ," r AddrSS .! 4 ' , , Lake Owego, Oregon n.;.;,..t Name: Address: Lake Oswego, Oregon EXHIBIT G-I6 LU 1U-tAU4tl 204 Feb 1, 2011 27,.M4:is IVICCalth.k.ritri Lake us vyw,..,gt7,1,..:.ity Cuturtftl ,mi,iutiitV Lake Oswego Planning Commission 380 A Avenue '- =.V In ("' - c ru .0,7,7 3v9 i,a.i( t.As-wgo, ()lc-gun 91054 : ,7 Subject: Lake Osvvego Proposed Land Use Regulation INAg., h5:18, iti;1 LU ilUAIIPWI Dv=ht his Nick:ale)and those It COittw,r-us 11C ac=ept this tenet as a submittal ot wtitten te-queSt fur nonce. - rioperty .10_mint:....T.fwilZis in tiles Lake k_iiv.vg/Uwv.-Sk,att ea,t`lit C CICeply cuucenied abuut the 111.,-,W 1.11171,1USch 1.-711.1paty 1 V strii-..7tion rodinance on Tievelopinem, EiNOtikitt IS tiNOutiti; I pwettazud-out Ti rperty basud on the e-stistita,building euaes. It is Luitzu,1,,„7..hatig,tri„,„. LalCt tigk, itl,w,s dolie well with existing codes-not in spite Ufthem. the local mitiotity are trying to implement chanoe by taking away private'lights. The majority are not pro active since there is absolutEly no nee ri IN-.f7 chriugo ut z,,Zrt, A elitatge .IL:'''p+7;titiissible .se. f.p.,:bp,..rtvT:' t ,&.-,,o-i ,ilt cin=tly atteet poperty value because it i esti ias Jilyte party's lights to icittudel U1 htli ICI it these 11C W lendos are amwed. It this pi oposal pas I will lecnittutend to all tteignots to appeal in the tax assessor on their land value and to vetitior. lower tax asessment value doc...t7 1,,,,..-.4 1,,kvertj, 1+'e,,ii c-o, du,:to tn,T..1.sc ic,titetirm... .1 Itot oonnFac,nt tnat tno ttiajotity ut pi.---opi,f7:; ill LUe (It ve7 tib Weg4.$ led t that it is the-individt-ml netue uwileis tight to do as they plase will it their..private land as allowed by current codes and regulkiptistA i ..important to realize the existing buildirtg codes were in place „vben the.partitisVererfurehased ad te penalik.e i17.u.tr, tit6.7.5.c.. e..4.,;St;Jug 0.7,71%.5 ;S tr t1,--5.v.atty. II ci.=gvvuCt waz,not hed, 7.,,t;h1 theckki'sting evac. .they Mould have lint puttased in the lust place. rmooz ,,,,,n‘o ,,, mJ tne zotTie .7.,11411FT,Z.,,,,.4.A.$u.uptz CWIt11%.41 Uti.... CACtupau? and put r7.1.dew LestritAimi on,ttwf inopert.yS to Cinttply with the 1iit,p0sert nev,i, otainaute?tit any utitti building teSti teflon they want At MU very must the City Cauturnt. CoulU arrange a ballot iti allow the affected citizens to vote as to whether or not to pass the new ordinance. ... ,,-, I hese innoised 17;r3tle changes csiC dually a ecT—se ut Lug mutat 1...,OVernilient intertetmee with existing private property rights .,--, Concerned resident, ,/ / / ,,,' ,e..;,' Date: ?tint Name- -Fr-,-.-.. / , :(,.• ,:.-, , Irt,1- 27 , ,,. ,„„,.. _')..i . ,r !,„,604,,(:,fL,-ii ,..,, "ALL.‘ t:, , 1..E.47 0,wegn,Onon Sign: Date: Flint N.,ai ie! ACial .S .: ,Lake irisw--e..o., Otegon EXHIBIT (i-if LU 10-0040 L . Feb 1, 2011 205 AITN: hi ivieCateb and Lake Oswego City Council Lake CisweguPkug(2011.11LiiSS1011 380 A Avenue PO Box 2,69 Lake,tiiv6,741.7y,tirkzrna 1534 St: Lk Oeg PuoposeEi Eaua UST.; LU.gsairittutx 1.NU., .155Ft,rat LI) 104/1/4i) Dear his McCaleb and Those It Concerns Please accept this letter as a submittal of written request for notice. Property and home owileis in the Lake(hove/Oswego area arc deeply concerned about the new proposed property restriction ordinance on ENOUGH IS ENOUGH: I purchased our property based on the existing buildina codes. It culfErir to en ,ge them, 0e hrr5 ClitOnti. irrAn in spite 01 tiOni. 1'r17IJa1 nun:T.-nay t U1 tiT) LU iWUt Alaligc by taking away yfivatUlights. ine inajoi are uut pit)uetive 51.1117..0 tbz is •CiblillitC1Y110!Wed 101 u Change Pt codes. A change in "IfeliniSSiblU use t plapcity" I led will&Ceti)/ aticea pupeny vtdne because it sesta'lets private patty's rights to remodel or build if these new codes are allowed. If this proposal I -will recominend to all neighbors to appeal to the tax aisessor nn hie:, land value ad to prytrun Lv tzvc quu.tO IOvvaA pwpertY Orluk, Clue t,,7,these Foels„13ed sestnctions. 1 lcdeouttackt that tbe inUivtity Cot people in Lae CR ri vet US vitiT;p7i teCI Mart it iS the individual home owners right to do as they please with th..ir private land as allowed by ,Zode.:.,4 Li id,,,p4Intions. it is important to realize the existing,building codes were in plaCe wtlCn trie pUrtial,5 weiC ptuataSerCI Mad tO p‘c;nulak norue <1.111 land tfritielz. these exisung '80deb iNa traVCrAy. It an ownel was net satisfied with the existing erZies they .ihoald have not purchased in the first place. Those who want die Cede etImIgC Cmi simply eau then title company and put a deed restriction on their property's to comply with the proposed rie-Tv ordinance or any Uttiel tO,Stfittion.trtey want. At thc very most the city comicii could arrange a ballot to allow the anected eiti2.en5 te ,./tk, trf rh.C.111,74 ZIA LIM tO irie new in a;Ti.44‘7Z. Tht proposedcode enemges are clearly a case of too rich T.iovernment interference with existing plivateproperly Concerhedlicsidi*, Sign: Date: Print NaMe; 'S„, t Address-'' Lakcuswegu.UkcgDit vate: Print Name: Addi ess: UgUll tAtlitit I LU 10-UU4U 206 Feb 1, 2011 ATIN his McCaleb and Lake Os wugu city(7.:xtrui1 00 0 rt., Ubvvcgt.) Viauntug 380 A Avadue PO&,7).,{ 369 1.ake uteguit /(ii4 - Y Subject: Lake USvvitgu rit7opUged Laud U•3,-c-KugulariUu No. 2558,File ttr-im-ruty*, iittu his NicUatubaii7'inusc. it r1easriz.c,,,..vt this tette, 273 a submittal of written request fior notice. Property and home owners in the Lake uEroa Ck....=,pty concerned about the new-prop,„:',:r-od property restriction ordinance on dev-elopittent. E-NC3U(;I-1 IS ENOUGH; I purehaseU ow pioperty bas,-,4d me,7,xisting building nodes. It is unrati t7iti‘i--rag7,them. Lake Oswego has done well with eitibting Clooes itottit.,p,ite of them. I he local uttinwity nac trying;to: Lit change by taking away private lights. Inc majcrity are not pro active s,infx Mete abNcitutely no Lieed tui. a change of codes. A chaiwe pDk. cfFiup,...iv"I feel will directly affectpicperty waiuz 13c.. ,u.S.,7 it restrict-s vato grit to ir,niod.cl buil!! ,fth codes are allowed. it this 1,.,trpom passes I will recommend to all neighbors to appeai to me t aZas,SSOt on their land value and. to ttT vi t riL53rn.,7711I value due to lower property vat M ttj trk,SC 1posed ictious. feel ccuridcut that 014 ivajoity of pi7,-oylt•.,- in Lake Grove/Oswcgo ltd mat it io the indiviUttal home owners tight IP at, tney th,ii,oivats7,land as allowed by et.rent „),ties and regulations„ it is important LU teali2g th tLu nuiteaitg codes were in place yviten me partials worr,ptr,znased and to penalize hutuve auTi land uwiieiswnodied ‘,11 thee exi,Aiti.cl Crfatt;5 a travesty. It au u.vv“,er was not satisfied with the u.N.iting Cua thcy shoiid have nut puler-rased ;Li the lirst 1114.7:3Z no want tn dr,17,hanG-17.,IT,,a11 simply call their title zoitipany mart put a riccE lesulcouliou tkiti puptYs to th tn .eteposed new ordmatice or any mei building re3tlietiert they w L. Ai die very iliuA'the t.,ity couLudii could arrange a ballot to ali15NV tnt.„arleiec -T-..iti-Lrcits ce rote as to whether or r Wit, to pubs ttit uCv vtrlivau‘,C, nee pz.,:;0,,,S,7:-d code changes are clearly a ease ef iu noact Guyowittent interference with c.xist.i7g TICIv ate nifoperty tights -r- Lake Oswecto, kilekzon • S Oat,: Print Lake Oswego, Oieuu f EXF-lit3Il G-19 LU 10-0040 Feb 1, 2011 207 ATTN: his McCaleb and„Lak, t-ityui Lake uswega Planning Commission 380 A A.venue PO Box.35v „ titCgon 9/1.1134 =9, ,gev ,„. Sattlatt t.larm-gu.nnpused Laud Use Regulation No. 2558,File LU .1.0-0tRit M.CUalrn MCI I Ilkyc It CotICUI rktze ac.,7,,pt this lettc.; a sunttat orvviittzu.iemuest ti-31'notice. Property and home owners in the Lake 4417,v.vitiavvigt7; as mite decoy euticuineti about the Her, puiptrty test;iction oldivatieeondevelopinent. - , IINILIt)(Jti i t.',INULJUI-1.; 1 ifkuCilaaea, vat Tri-Operty based ou the CAiSting bu1in.g t...-,odeS, It IS untait to7,11C ilium. Lake t„,ivvege has dune well with existing cudes not in spite or them. -ftie Irca1tuutOtRy are tryiugto iniplentent change by taking away private rights. The maiurity axe not pro active since there is absolutely no rieed, fi,. a ohmage or Co17,3.. A ige in "peimissible use of property I fJ ildetiy arrrzt pi,,tierty valueoeciue aiestriet., liarty'S a igilts to d17.74rtci ittWa- new -codes WC alik?WW. ii this pi OpuSai paL'SSzS I will tet:tittnuenCI to all Ift"grIbuta to appeal to t110 tas aSSe—NSCIt on their land value and to petition lower tax assessment value due to lower property value due ts.,these t,,,oposed festtictions. I feel coufident that tar,majuiity p‘opte us,,,ego ± l mat it is tiiC iudivi7ued 11Zyna 7.)aninCtS 11811t tts az trICy plInne with then lnizte- land as allowed by cu.!tent codes and regulations. It IS illIpOi tall.t. to realize the existing building codes were in place when the partials were purchased and to penalize home and and owners who relied on tncst,cwistiug mciez is a ta.wiraty--.. it cura,avvaa74 waswa t satisfied with tri•t-, L....k.i",t; g r,t7",(1,.:43tLky Should t1a tLUt ptIM-IaSE3 La the List place. t th,wU cn,Tiugc, ar vrill aluz tilte;a tale ettalp=y mill put a aced festi itiu 7,11 tneu pirlierty M's to utply with ttiv ptCapOzsca tiny ratCIntatiCt:of any Ottlre building testi iction they want. At the very ni0St the City council Could arrange a ballot to allow the affected citizens to vote as to whether or not to pass the new ordinance. I heSe plopysed uode,Changes are Clearly a Cabe CA' &CIO wart GONfettunent intraltiuuCt: with existing pr3 vaLC ptuperty right ICS tdel Date: NatttC: 4 Lake 0cgo, 7..).tt:zOn Sign: Data: Pi;at _ Ada Le : .1) Lake. 02.7zOn EXHIBIT Ci-z0 1*,* LU I u-kiv_40 208 Feb 1, 2011 1, TTN Iris 1vlcCaleb�and Lake Oswego City Council "te �1 Lake,Oswego Planning cure t'ti;siuu 380 A 9.venue i'Cl tio,N 3a ,it I (it _ lake Oswego,thegon 9"/034 Subj,a. Lake Oswego Proposed Land Use Regulation Nu, 2553, kite .i,t9 ti u4ti IJeaI Iris McCaleb and I hOae!r CrIueelus 1- ua�c atupt thi.a letter as a subuii tal yr wa;ttcii is usat tesi sst)tt�ti. yrop,rty and nc me ownc , n the Lak,Grove/Oswego area are deeply cvneerne anent the _ Lie }raUYi»vQ tssausas►ce vat fdr.v�l. t•°ase+la.t. ENOUGH IS ENOuGrri.; i , ,chas d our ioperty based on the existing buii+-iing cuoes. it is u Jerii tv s nmil e tfr:iu_Luz U5wCgki l cia via% rv�ll with S sacg codes not in Spite of them. the local uiiuuiity att.trying, to implement change by takii.ig avvay iivatc I;T dts. I tiv rnaaority are tot pm active since there ;�absolutely no need for a change of enaes. A change �xi }s�r eau3�iCllc a 7.4 It up 1 f ..l will CIi,R etly xrrc c i cpii.rt y value because it restricts private ttii y's iigtus tt1 ieiiii){del Oi bulb it tlitsc new ov41 a are alit7we£I. IT Thi3 I�.xuI,�,3c31 passes I will recommend to all neighbors to appeal to the tax asscssui on then iaiid waLuc and to petitivai ivw4ai>5isis.sst vaius,Gdu tii vr�.1 1✓iOverty S'4.1r..Re due to these proposed ac y$iistlu�i l I ci C17)i.tsciriat that the iriajviity ut 1./csalslcu lid I AK+: l.Te v u. vvego feel that it is the ilidiviClua.l ldolue uwucis iighi to au as they please with thci.i piivatC lair€ a'r aI cWCZ try current codes and regulations. It is im1ortant to realize the existing builduig CUFies wca C ptuee v ne,L me +artists vr:,,.C,vt.,,,nw,eo and to penaUe e home and land owners who ie.lied 1Jii tli:%�v v i�zatdir c vClesz as eZ tieivwty. it an.vvvsi3a wu 3a:7t aZCti3r.s 1 wall the existing codes t ey stivult�.have'Alt puiehcse i:ii the taut plait. l tlsi�s vvtle want tha iv(lu a.nange►.c[ii 5sxrc 1p call theki title a,e)restiatly and put a deed Iestiictiwu on their ptt perty's to Cl3iiiply with the itiiru cd I.Fc vv ui(Iuiimce vl any it'ner building restriction they want. At the very most the t e city council Could al Lange a ballnrt Lo t`i"llvv,the ui.fv%tzZ t atizo.tv v'utu M5 to wn the-in iiiA to pass the new ordinance. These proposed cod, changes are C.1, arly a case of too much Covenuiie it iutci tc eiit with u,ia tiug piivats pI4In:rty xsnits C Oasee Lieu s W ii sxrl Sign �, Date. Fluff Nainr: ",..�� ..� __...;; I . . �__.,...�. , uswego, Oregon Sign: ei .:.._.....,,.,_. .w ,....�....... «_..... _„.... ?snit Name: .clan;ss: ' � , t.saKce Osv.e�ro, Oregon EXHIBIT G-21 LU "to-wj4u Feb 1, 2011 209 Statement from Daniel Work Submitted 11/30/10 I srlived on the LG Oval-ay Committee tor tne letst yerts LGNA beard fci three year$ and am currently tne Ltrea,s(irer. Fie overlay.corrimitlee iivae is55.e. ni Cli\ffSE, yrOi:„Ipot neighbors, Moth on tine C,‘Jr,ii-k boaro- home Ottint,-T Cui divercity incinCeO iifesyyle, OUTtkf/c=101 rfv;rty fl Gi riouse se, career anu more. having a diverse committee, we, prty.em that it'teire indiued ric S that will 141(7 petted or ever', -,:tc:gi.eeaNe srimetiiiie;i:. We th however, do our besit", Tind common rt..:i=1 n u ge that will help keep the iiosieswe a cbrr,F:iiiitiy enjoy in -",„ake JrOve. rci also to point out that the concept of petsnal Cern ',..ferZUS Ccfno Tut iity standards always weighed neaviiv on discitritions trie re /tirig putrtrites. The, remaining 3 Overlay proposais (t,srt ofrorioniy trcit were dicousseid) are the resin of many discussiorri,i, aria nth tpireimk-es. Tr ,- nave beet, edited or alined significantly pas,e,,o on ,uI'C ! uleut and LiN esults. Our resenrch even tt7,r6,(71 .70 pliy7;;;L,Ally though tnFI:-ileighborhood with olio staff to observe, in.en itTtisca5s -tte lock; feel nCi .yariOrts attributes of the. LaKe Grove: 7esioentiai area. Id like to Clarify one important premise. I he goal of toe overlay .p.roptsatiis t t no hetornood, but rather to illpoTivt,the diity artlezi to reflect the actual stare a c reaky of our wondeffui I hued to point out rwr.,, e,;arriphdc f tflt riIS him pitiposel CPyST;UIS, ail the tiCil\i/A area ai C31113, C.74:ThirateCi uy O otal on TP, side Inc (;Xi5ti, CuC, iiovvever, tivould allow for trliS OCC,Ur. flu , one of the overlay proposals is to ctiange the minimum .iiitance between sues ci homes r, ; to ZUe total (loi per lot), lobs crianget o ctrcately refi& t:F; the existing reality,or cur nonet aha the Die..8ioty 71 OW SpaCtifiS, 0;'2,'el1 and ijrner rieignboiintorli 1 he •ta..:ctrial 'FeSuitt rtnib ohm.ige would be-tOial side setbacks of 2Y instead or trkc,...“rent code's 15 oiitri a 5' ri z. Gurrentiy, mere is no maximum percentage l ar cecne (tK manmade vesis naturan ! a ibt; thus a Foilfetowil it with, 1;301Avo T.rich pave ne „7iiitire lot witn asp hb Cubd ct ileei ft 0ce yttithtrio cutceri look of- our & a67iiiga mobdrribili ' rilSrarlpe u0vrEigO 0150-x,,, a city coue woum more atourafiri reflect thr existiiirj reicpbornood al.id the chores made by all of us living here, ec.)4,r1 of tries examples, refict Ile existing styld and natuiii:: neignborhociTi,. while Still allowing a large, 'flexible uegrezr or personal, EXHIBIT G.22 LU lu-uUriu 210 Feb 1, 2011 From: borgford@ix.iietcom.cum [irrailto:burgford@ix.iretcanr.conr] Scent: Tuesday, N7.,,�,,,b�1.30, 2010 4:59 PM iv: COONCIE Cc: 06o11. Mary- Hcffi rran Jack' btien ry@cl.o5wego.or.as S..bw:.t: Writtcci i Tccntii,zny IT: Lake GI vv'c Overlay PI upo5al (tGi light's egci do) Gooa,.�ning: We cannot attend tonight, but would like to let you know our thoughts on LU10-0040 I. vve wouia iiRe to ask mat the council rollow me Planning commission's recommennations on tnis LG Gveria, Plan. 2. The Planning Commission supports only two out of the seven (please see page 20 of your packet). 3. We have attended the LG Neighborhood meetings on this. There never was a survey sent out in the last year, and the neighborhood really never"voted"on these provisions. We are therefore encouraged that the Planning Commission saw through the problems in the proposal. 4. overlay is always prollematic. vve nee to nave rules ana appeal channels in this city that are consistent Between neignrorrlooOs ana mat allow appeals Mien rules no not mane sense Tor a particular use or lot. 5. Laura Weigel, the City Planner on this project,told us informally at the LG Neighborhood meeting (when asked the specific question) ,that she had spent about 50%of her time the last few years on Glenmorrie and Lake Grove, (with this LU-0040 being the culmination of her working with these two neighborhoods). Think about it, please Council. That is .5FTE for a city employee. What time the City has spent in leading to this point for Lake Grove"Overlay" has therefore cost something more than $30,000(my estimate)for research, powerpoints, meetings, graphics, etc. etc. vve nope you approve oniy hose two provisions. Thank you, Robert and Sharon Borgford i 5a3u r win Fir Roan Lake Osweo OR 97035 uU -I U -vaL."5 EX1911311 (a-Z3 LU 10-0040 Feb 1, 2011 211 212 Feb 1, 2011 8.2 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO LAKE n i W LCo C, .,l 19.C-20 0 380 A A7ease PO Box 369 Lake Oswego,OR 97034 f &r " x ^.: mew itip, COUNCIL REPORT JUj 5g-3ybs www.ci.oswe o.or.us lu: JaLK 1-IoTTrrran, Mayor Memrlers of the City Council Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager FROM: Jessica Numanogla, Senior Planner Planning & Bailaing Services Department SUBJLui: An oraainanCe UT tie City l.o ncil of LaRe uswego (Ordinance No. 2563) permiiiing a tempo'al y EConorrrie Rardsh;p Extension for z007-2009 Land Use Approvals (LU 1U-U048) DR I E: January zO, zOii ACTION Move to tentatively approve LU lu-u048 and direct staff to return the final version of UrdirranCe 2563. inciaaing T;na;ngs, ConClus;on and order on IGlarch 1, 2011. rroposea ur dinance z5o3 (exhibit A-i) would permit a 2-year extension to completion aeaal;nca impo ea as a Condition of approval for land use developrneni permits vvICiC the application vva tiled between January i, zu07, and December 31, 2009. TFie orainanCe would provide tcrrrporar y ieiief to land use applicants that reCeivea approval of their plojeCta aul;rig the Tirat years oT Ole economic downtown and tighienirrg of the Credit war keta and Rave Seen anabie to commence or finalize their projects wii.hirr the specitiea time trame due to an cCenorm;C Mar dafip or inability to obtain financing. 1191 RODULTION/BACKGROUND The Planning Division Figs Seen apploaChea Gy several appiicants as well as the Oregon Rome Builders Association about the possibility oT eAtena;ng Completion deadlines for land use projects where the approves app! at;ona vvere Tiled auring the economic downturn (2007-2009). Corlrpletion aeaaiines for Tana use applieat;ons are imposed to ensure that development is Completes within a r CaaOrlaDiv tir—,C period after ;t is approved so that it is consisieni. with the most I ecent I egalations. It aiao gives tMe applicant and the public that weighed in on the application a deal enpectatiorr oT tRe time-frame for completion. Land use appr ovals typiCaliy cnp;r C tMr ee years after the decision date for design review varidu ICC and Residential mull Design (RID) review applications [conditions of approval, per LUC 50.79.04U(2)(a)) aura orre year after the decision date for land divisions and lot line adjustments [LOL 50.8i.uiu]. Flistoricaily, tfeae Feb 1, 2011 213 Page 2 completion duadiinc3 Piave given applicant3 sofriciunt time to complete their projects and it has been relatively unusual for an applicant to apply for an extension. However, the recession has brought development to a near standstill and many projects approved since the economic downturn have expired or will expire before the economy recovers. The purpose of the proposed extension is to provide relief to those property owners and developers that received approval at their projects daring the severe economic downturn and tightening at the credit markets. several jarisaict;an3 in Oregon and ;n otFiEr a-a-Ea have aaoptea orainance3 to eAtend the %vmplction deadline3 Tor land u3e appravai3 prrected by the economic cri3i3. staff proposed a similar approach to provide reasonable and temporary relief to help mitigate the impacts of the economic downturn. A public hearing on the proposed extension was held betore the Planning Commission on November 8, 2010, and a stady session with the City Coancil was held on November 30, 2010. DIscUssioN rlannin commission Fl_qpi_.ing he Commission held a public hearing and considered the proposed extension at its meeting at November 8, 2010. The October 29, 2010, staff report to the Planning Commission is attached and contains the criteria tar approval and discassian at compliance, a discussion of the City's current development completion deadlines and extension procedures tor land age applications, a samuuiary of the 51 land use projects potentially eligible tar the extension and research at atner jurisdictions that 'nave passed Similar ardlnance3 allavving economic Hardship Entcnsians at%an9pletla19 acaallne3 (Exll;alt D-1J. i he commission received public testimony and made the following findings at the November 8tn public hearing: • The Commission found that the extension should be available to approved development permits where the application for the development permit was tiled Between January 1, 2007, and December 31, 2009, whether or not the development permit has already expired. • The Commission tound that the extension should Be for a 2-year period. • a he Commission found that the extension should be reviewed on a case-by-case Basis and that the burden should be on the applicant to demonstrate that the project anthariLed By the approved development permit is delayed a5 a resalt at adverse market conditions or inability to secure tinancing. • The Commission found that the applicant shoald not Be required to comply with new codes and standards that have Been adopted since the application for the development permit was originally tiled. I he c;ommis,;an concluded and recommended to the city council that a one-time, 1-year extension to completion deadlines impo3ea or included as a canait;an of approval should be available to approved land ;, e applications that vvere filed between January 1, z007, and December 31, 2uu9, if they meet the criteria and procedures below: The City Manager may, upon application, grant Up too two-year extension to the corrrpletion deadline for art t7pprOvPa 10[0 use application that complies with all of the fallowing Criteria: however_ in na crose shall the con,pletiort deadline be extertUEd beyond Uecerrrber .51 2W 2: 214 Feb 1, 2011 Page 3 z. !he applicant filed a written extension application with applicable fee no later than iv,arch z, zoiz; 2. The applicant demonstrates that the work authorized by the land use approval is delayed as a result of c1 verse market Lor,aitiur,> or nobility to seLare fir,I7r/Lir,y: 3. the extension rei ue>t i>far ur, issued lurid a>e upprovul (whether expired or riot) where the lona use appliuotian wu>filed between JurruUt y 1 200/ aria Uecernber .il. 2U09' aria 41. If the applicativ„far extc,rs,D,r r.3 far a land arvr3rori Dr 1Dt Tine uajustrric,it uppr vvul, tnc applicant fQS previau.)Ty fried a timely reyucstJar the aatamutrc 1 ycQr exterra,arr allavvca per LUL 5v.zti.ulv(1). Review of the application shall be in the manner prescribed Jot minor developments by LOCArticles 50.81 —5D.84.1 PA,, vxterisivf,pursaur,l to this ordir,arice Is riot u rnuaificatiur, of u permit ur,d therefore LUC50.8b.025 is riot Opplic.Oble' to the upplic.utilrr.J I he commission s Findings, COriCluivn and urger were adopted on l avGmber LL, Lu1u (Exhibit 6-1). City council Work Session A work session on the proposed extension was held wish ihe City Council on November 30, 2010. Ai ine session_ Council requested more detailed intormdtion on the 200/-2009 projects that would be potentially eiigiEle for the extension. More detailed intarmation dbout the eligible projects Is provided in txhibit F-4 and Includes a brier project description ovvner7applicant name site address, and neighborhood association in which the site is located. Exhibit F-4 also identities vvhich land aivi..)ivn and lot lirE adjustment applications filed an automatic 1-year extension per Cut, 5U.8/.UlU(1). (As recommended by the Commission, applicant3 for land divi3i7An3 or lot line adjustmeits that did nut file a timely request for the automatic z-year extension permitted by LuC 50.37.0l0(1) would not be eligible for the proposed 2-year extension.) Council also requested that start identity which applicants have inquired about extensions beyond the automatic extension permitted 6y LOc_ 5u.SI.u1U(1).To the nest OT stair, RCnovvlcagc, a total vT lb applicant3 vT the EllgialE LUU/-LUUy applications have inquired aEuut ExtEnaing thEir Iaiia ua approval apprOAirrlateiy trIE past year. These applicants are identified an Exhibit F-4 by a single asterisk next to the file number in the first column. ALTERNATIVES AND FISCAL IMPACT 1) Adopt the Planning commission recommendation tour a 2-year extension outlined in draft Uidiiiancee 25b3 (Exhibit A-1). 2) iviaaiTy the recommended criteria and/or procuaures Tor the proposed extension and adapt a revised ardinanc . 3) Decline to provide a new extension opportunity. For approved land use applications that have not already expired, the applicants may use ihe curreni. extension process as provided by the Communiky Development Code [the current extension process varies by land use application type and is descriaed in detail on pages 2-4 at the October 29, 2010, start report to the Planning commission (Exnihit D-1)]. 1 raoie: minor nevelopmenrs are subjeci <o public notice and appeal. Feb1, 2011 215 Page 4 i Fie extension recommended 6y tFie LommiLsion vvouia re4 lire Starr time to proce33 eaCN application. If Ole LvuiiCll approves an ordinance permitting the completion aaeaaiines for development permits to be extended on a case-by-case oasis, then as provided for in the Master Fees and Charges Schedule, the City Manager may establish a new fee for processing the extension applications. Prior to incorporating the tee into the Master Fees and Charges Schedule, the fee will be communicated to the Council in writing to allow opportanity to comment. KtWOMMEIaDATIOIa Move to teuutatively appiove LU 1.u-uu48 aria airEct Staff to retari1 the final version of urdinance z5o3, iilLloaing finaings, conclusion and order on March 1, zu11. EXHIBITS A. Dratt Ordinances A-1 Dratt ordinance 25hi 8. F:naing. and LonCiusions 6 1 Planning Lommission Findings, Conclusion, and Order for LU 10-0048 C. Minutes C-1 Planning Commission Militates tor the November 8, 2010. Pohiic Rearing D. Start Mcinvranda]Reports D-1 Planning Commission StaTT Keport Tor CU lU-UU4o, Gated uctooer zy, 2010 D-z Council 5taay 5c33ion Staff Keport for LC.) 1u-uu48, dated Rlovember 22, 2010 E. uraphics [Rlo current exhibits; reserved for future usej F. Written MdLer ials F-1 Table ot 2UU7-2UUy Cases Expired or et to Enpire toy Year F-2 Ta6Ie ot Ecaiuomic Harasryip Approves Dy otPierJorisaictions F-3 Flovv LRart3 or the Modification to and Approved Development Permit Process F-4 Detailed list of z0Ui-z00J Land use Approvals potentially eligible for the proposed extension �. Letters G-1 Letter tram Ernie Platt ot the Home Madders Association. dated I1avem5Cr 8, 2010 G-2 Letter tram Erin O'Roarke-Meadors dated November 8 zUiU G-3 Photographs ot antinibhea project on 5th street, soo mittea oy Diana Boom on Rlovcmber 8, 2010 t3-4 Email from Jan Lafontaine, datca Rlovcmbor z4, zU1U u-5 Letter from Ernie Platt of the Rome Builders Association, dated December 8, 2010 216 Feb 1, 2011 Page 5 Rcvcvyca Dy: kte..61,446LDepartment Direct" Lity Aar, Alcx D. ivicln yre Lity manager Feb 1, 2011 217 218 Feb 1, 2011 t)KAti 1/3/11 ORDINANCE Nu. 2563 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO REEATING TO EXTENSION OF COMPLETION DEADLINES FOR APPROVED LAND USE PERMITS. WHEREAS the State and Lake Owego have buttered a severe economic downturn which has created economic flarasRip3 and tightening Or Lreait markets; oriel WHEREA5, the e onumlc hardships aria tightening at credit markets results in a situation where developers and property ovvners are unal3ie Lommence or finalL.e approved land use developments and projects in a timely manner; and WHEREA5, the economic harasnips aria tigPtening of credit R,arkets vvere beyond the expectation at the property owners and developers at the Lime of land use approval; and WHEREAS, the City of Lake Oswego can reduce and alieviate the consequences of the ck,1171iii,, dovvntarn and credit market conditions tur projects that received approval but have not been completes vvitnin tfle misting time Iimitatiu—ns 6y extending completion deadlines when the property owner or developer's economic hardship or inability to o<Stain rinancing i3 demonstrated; IOW THEREFORE. THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO ORDAINS AS FuLLOWS: Tne City Manager may, upon application, grant up to a tvva-year extension to the completion deadline tor an approved,land use application that complies witn all or tne rollowinig criteria; However, in no case shall the completion deadline be extended beyond December 31, 2012: 1. The applicant tiled a written extension application with applicable fee no later tnan Marcel 1, 2012; 2. The applicant demonstrates that the work adiharized by the land use approval is delayed a3 a result of aaverse market conditions or inability to secure tinanLing; 3. The extension request is tor an issued land use approval (whether expired or not) where tfle land use application vva3 riiea 6etvveen January 1, 2007 aria December 31. 2009. and 4. It the application for extension is tor a land division or lot line adjustment approval, the applicant Iliad previously rhea a timely request ror tne automatic. one-year extension allowed per LOC 50.87.010(1). EXHIBIT A-1 Ordinance 2563 LU 10-0048 Page 1 of 2 Feb 1, 2011 219 IKAIF"l 1/3/11 Review of the application shall Be in the manner prescribed for minor developrrienis by LOC Article3 5u.oi 5u.ts4. (EAterbior pursuant to tfli ordinant.e is riot a modirication or a permit and therefore LOB 50.86.025 is not applicable to the application.) Reaa r5y title aria enacted at trle regular meeting or tMe city l.ouurlcil ur tple city or Lake Oswego held on day of , 2u11. AYES: 110E5: ABSTAIIQ: EXCUSED: Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor Dates: ATTEST: Robyn Christie City Recorder APPROVED AS TO FORM: David Powell,City Attor ney Ordinance 2563 Page 2 of 2 220 Feb 1, 2011 IstFURE L:umI®IISSiurl uF i FIErov d 2 L:I I Y OF CARE USwEGU APP 3 4 ONE I ME EX I ENSIOIN OF COIOIPLE I IUN ) LU10-0048-1748 J DEADLINES FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS ) CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO o FILED BE I WEEN 2007 AND 2009. ) I=INDIMGS, CuNCCUSIOIvS 1k uRDER 7 8 RDA I uRE ur ArPCIt.rk I iulN 9 10 i ne City or CaRe usvveyo seeRs d one time, two year economic hardship extension to 11 deveiopment �ci �pletion deadlines imposed as a condition of approval for issued land use r2 decisions tiled between Jdnadry 1, 2007 and December 31, 2009. The extension would provide 1.) temporary reliet to property owners and developers that received approvai or their projects 14 during the severe economic downturn and tightening or the credit marRets and wno Piave bccn 15 unable to obtain financing or to otnerwise commence or rinaiLe meir projects in a timely manner. 16 17 fll_ARINUS I he Planning Coniniission held a public hearing and considered this application at its meeting or 20 November 8, 2010. 21 22 The following exnibits were suhmittea at me hearing: 23 24 Exninit - I Cetter rro i i Ernie Platt oor the Flume bailaers Association, dated November 8, 2010 25 C.Aninit Cetter iron, Erin u'RoorRe-Meaaors, dated November 8, 2U10 26 LAnibit v-3 Pnotcyrapns or onrinisnea project on 511 Street, so5111itted 5y Diana Boom on 27 Idwember 8, 2010 28 2.9 CRITERIA AND STANDARDS 30 31 A, City or Lane Oswego Comprehensive Plan: 32 33 uoal 1 u tLen Involvement, Policies 1 and 5 34 Cwal z Cand Use Planning, Section 1, Cana Use Policies and Regulations, 35 Policies 3 aria 23 36 37 6. City or CaRe Oswego community Development Code: 38 LUC 50.75.U05 Legislative Decision Defined. zro LOC 50.75.010 Criteria for Legislative Decision 41 LOC 50.(5.015 Required Notice to ❑LLD 42 LOC 5U.tb.UzU Planning Commission Recommendation Required 43 LOU5U./5.UL5 lacy uonnoil Revlevv and uecision 44 LVC. SU./5.u3u Errective Uate or Ceyislative Decision 45 46 L. Statevvide Planninu Uodl or Administrative Role adopted uorsoant to ORS Chapter 19/ 47 48 C3oal 1 Citicen Involvement 49 Voai 2 Land Use Planning EXHIBIT B-1 30 51 CONCLUSION LU 10-0048 52 �3 The Planning Commission concludes tnat Cu i u-u048 is in compliance vvitPS all applioa5ic 54 criteria. 55 LU 10-0048-1748 Feb 1, 2011 Page 1 of 5 221 1 FINDINGS AND REASONS 2 3 I rle Planning L.ommission incorporates the staTr report, dated' uctober Ly. LUl U, (vvith all 4 exhibits attached thereto) as soppoR tor its decision, Sapplemer-tea by the taIher findings and 5 l,ol K,ioio115 Set roRh herein. in the event cT any inconsistency betvveen the supplementary 6 matter nerein and the start report_ me matter nerein controls. I o the extent they are consistent 7 vvith the approval granted herein, me Commission adopts by reterence its oral deliberations on 8 this matter. 9 10 Follovviny aid the supplementary rir dings and aonclasions or this uummissian: 11 12 1. I he Commission received testimony trom residents that not all applicants within the 13 eiiyible time period may actually need an extension; therefore, they preferred that if the I� Commission recommended the proposed extension, that the recommendation be that the D extension is reviewed on a case-by-case basis rather than a blanket extension being in enacted. 17 18 The Commission rinds that Cie extension should only apply Tv those applicants tnat have 19 has to delay their project doe to a legitimate eaanamia hardship and tnat a blanket 2.0 extension woeia 6e too broad, i he burden Shcaia be on the applicant to demonstrate 21 that their approved project has been delayed doe to the downturn in the economy and 22 tightening at the Credit marRets. 23 24 I he Commission concludes that extensions should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis ,.3 ana that the applicant most demonstrate that the work authorized by the land use zu approval is delayed as a result of adverse market conditions or inability to secure 27 financing. 28 29 2. I he commission received testimony rrorri a resident that Some neiyhborhauas have 30 unrinished projects that nave bCcOrrie eyesores an a they arc concerned that yrantiiiiy an 31 extension will roRhci delay the completion at those projects. Additionally, there vvas 32 concern that Some projects that vvoald be eligible to the proposed extension may have 33 been controversial in the neighborhood vvherii they were approved. 34 33 Delay of Unfinished Projects I he I rilliaiii Woods Planned Development project in the Waluga Neighborhood was _17 discussed as an example of an unfinished project. The public improvements and some 38 landscaping for this project were installed within the last revv years, but to date, none or 39 the lots have been Quilt on and the landscaping has been neglected. i he Sabaivison 40 plat was recorded prior to the project completion deadline, saa aitnavayh the project i5 41 perceived to be unrini5hea, it is in compliance with the reyairea completion deadline and 42 is 501 valid. 6e7a05e the completion deadline for this project has been met, the 43 proposed extension vvoaid not apply. I ne commission rinds that in many Cases, it a 44 project has Stafed construction, they have already complied with the completion deadline 45 for platting and for constraction at the pablic improvements and would not need an extension. r I he Commission concludes that the proposed extension will not impact the ultimate build 49 oat of projects that have only been partially constructed, but have otherwise complied D0 with the completion deadline imposed as a condition of approval. 51 52 Controversial Applications 53 I he commission rinds that regardless or whether a project was controversial in a 54 particular neighborhood, it Was only approved it it vvas roona to comply-vvith all applicable LU 10-0048-1748 222 Feb 1, 2011 criteria. Once the project is approved and the time for appeal has expired, the approval 2 is final. The Commission concludes that approved applications in the eligible time period, 3 whether controversial or not, should be eligible for tne proposed extension because they 4 were reviewed and found to comply witn the applicable criteria. 5 6 3. I ne t.,ommission received testimony Trom another resident auRiny Tar 7 • More review and analysis at what specific land use applications would be eligible for 9 the proposed extension; 10 - H more extensive review or simiiar extensions approved by otner jarisdiotian5 in 11 ure an, including the type or public notice reyuirea, vvnetner mere vva5 opportunity to 12 appeal and vvhat criteria vvere o ed; ►J • A caretul determination as to what type and length of extension, fee, and terms best 14 meet the intent of the Comprehensive Plan; and, 15 - Possible continuance or the re,lue5t to allow greater publl% paltlCipation. 16 17 More research or appilcatiOn5 eliylbie to the extension 18 EAhi6it F-11 lists me tile noiiiber and type at land rise reyrieut tar all of the 52 approved �9 applications that vvuald be eligible tar the proposed extension. I his concern is addressed �� by the reyairer r rent for case-by-case applications tar a completion extension. 2.1 LZ The purpose of the proposed extension is to provide temporary relief to applicants that 23 are unable to complete an approved project before the completion deadline due to 24 adverse market conditions or inability to secure financing as a result or the economic 25 recession. I he purpose is not to reopen and jodge anew each eligible application. tarn 26 or the eligible applications underwent an extensive revievv and public p17/7,e5, vva5 rod d 27 to comply with inc applicable Orite la, and tne time to challenge me decision has p555cd. 28 29 Because the Uammissian recommends mat the proposed extension should be available 30 only to those applicants that sabmit an application tar the extension and demonstrate the 31 cause for delay was doe to the downturn in the economy and tightening at the credit markets, the extensions would de reviewed on a case-by-case basis. As a result, only a portion of the 52 eligible applications will actually receive the extension. 34 35 More research of extensions approved by otner Oregon jurisdictions 36 I he Commission recommends tnat the proposed extension snoald be reviewed on a 37 Case-by-Case basis subject to the Minor Development prucedareu in Wu 5u.81.UU5- 38 51).81.UZU, vvhioh reLjaires a 14-day p'ubiic notice period and a ]5-day appeal period. 39 More detailed intormation boot the praoednres tnat the otner studied jarisdictions 40 adopted to their extenSian5 were available for public review in the tile. 4i 4L A curripilatlon at the variuos criteria that the studied jurisdictions applied to extension 4J reyaests is listed on page 7 at the October 29, 2010, staff report. 45 Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan 46 The Commission finds that tne staff report adequately addresses the C omprehensive 47 Plan policies tnat are applicable to the proposal. I he C ommission concludes that me 48 applicable C omprenensive policies are met. 49 50 uvntinaanCe to allOvv yrcater Nablio partiCiti,ation 51 I ne rinds tnat the Uity has provided the reLiaired public notices toi a 52 legislative decision and appartanity to comment. I he C.orrrrrri5sion conclades that the 53 application car,Iplles with the noticing ieyriirements for a legislative decision, Statewide LU 10-0048-1748 Pag 3 of 5 Feb 1, 2011 es 223 Punning ( o l 1 Citiccn Involvement, and (goal 1. Policies 1 and 5 ut the Gity"s 2 UOmprchensive Plan. j 4 4. I he Gommissivn considered whether applicants for the proposed extension should be required to comply with new codes and standards that have been adopted since the 6 application was originally approved (most notably, the Infill Ordinance passed in zu iu). 7 The Commission finds that while new standards were added and several others were 8 modified, the overall intent of die intill Ordinance approves in Lulu nas not cnanged 9 significantly from die infi i standards in effect Luui-zuu . i ne code cflangea enacted ay 10 tPle Lulu Ordinance are not So extensive as to Caaac prujccts approved bctvvecn 2UUl- 11 LUU`,1 tv Mvvv become incompatible vvitn the Sarroundiny neighborhood; however, s0iiie 12 ncvv standards. sachl as the side yard setbacR plane, could reyoirtr Changes to the 13 approved design that are relatively minor to the exterior, bat could have larger impacts on 14 the interior tanctiunality of the design (e.g., ceiling height, floor plans, etc.). The 13 Lomrnission finds that the burden of requiring applicants to make changes to approved designs in order to comply with the 2010 Infill Ordinance outweighs the potential impacts 17 to the surrounding neighborhood. 18 19 Tr1e Commission concludes Mat compliance wit new codes and standards adopted 20 since original application approval date 5nould not be a criterion for revievv 0t an 21 extension application. 22 23 b. I he Uommissicn rioted Mat 3-4 applications that were approved later in the eligible time 24 period had completion deadlines in 2013 or 2014 and a 2-year extension would extend GJ the deadlines to 2015 or 2016. I he Gommissiun tinds that applications that have y6 completion deadlines beyond 2012 have sufficient time to complete their projects and / should not receive the proposed 2-year extension. If necessary, these applicants may 2.8 still apply for an extension through the process currently prescribed by Cie Code. 29 30 Tfle Commission concludes Mat up to a L-year extensiofl should be granted to 31 applications witPfin Ole eligible time period, bat in Mc case 3P1cuid Ifle extension yc beyond 32 ueuernber 3l, LUl L. 33 34 b. I he commission concludes and recommends to the L ity l-uoancil that a one-time, 2-year 35 extension to completion deadlines imposed or included as a condition of approval should be available to approved land use applications that were tiled between January 1, 2007 and December 31, 2009, it they meet the criteria and procedures below: its 3y The City Manager may, upon application, grant up to a two year extension To me 40 completion deadline for an approves lava use aeveropmenr permit rear--,,,Nrieo 41 with an or me ronowing criteria; nowever, in no caste mart me ca,„Nretim„ aeaari,ree 42 be exrenaea beyond ueuewoe, 37, LU7 L: 43 44 7. Inv aptilrca,,t Tiled a vvritterr ex terrsrvrr pp/rCatrvn with apiuliCable tee no /ate/ 45 tna,r Ma,Cn 7 1U7. 46 2. l tie apiiicant aernorrstrate that the vvt7rk authvriced by the livid use approval 47 is delayed as a t t7/t of aCTver6-e rrrarket COI aitions or indbility to secure tinanCirrg; 47 3. /he extension request is for do issued land use approval (whether expires or Dr) riot) where the land use application was filed between January r, z0ui and D December 31, 2009; and, 52 4. If the application for extension is for a Lana division or lot line aajusAn,e„r 53 approval, the applicant had previously rhea a trmery reyQe,r ro, me also,„uric 7- 54 year extension allowed per LC)( 5u.br.u7'u(i). LU 10-0048-1748 224 Feb 1, 2011 1 2 Kcvi6vv snail bE irr the r,rarr„er pie.CribaU To, mina, a&velopments 3 by LUC;Articled 50.81 — 50.84. (Air exte,raiu,r Nu,aua„t to this o,dinance is not a 4 ,,,uaitivatiut, at a l,e,r„it al1U the,eto,& LOC 50.86.025 is not applicable to The ap1livatiurr.) n 7 ORDER 8 9 I I IS uRutRtu BY I lit PLANNINv L UIMIMISSIUfa vt'Me Utty ut CdKe Usweyu tndt: 10 , 1. I he Pldnriing Commission recommends that LU 10-0648 ae approvea i3y die amity ,2 Council. 13 14 I CERTIFY I HH I THIS ORDER was presentee 17i ana HPrRUvED 6y the Planning c;tmmisian 15 of me city of Lane Oswego. 16 17 DH I ED tR,, LL11a aay aT Idavem5iri, 2U1 U. 18 19 20 Jan Gatdtanls/ L 1 Jon Gustafson, Chair LL Planning Commission 24 25 Iris IvIcualeq i5i 26 I �s IVI�C:alcq 27 Haministu ative Sapperr 28 L7 A I I LST: 31 PRELIMINARY De.i Iuld — November u, zUiU 32 AYES: Bnotani, vlisson, JUnrIsen. Paietchan, F'iayci 33 IduES: None 34 ABS I HI FI: 14011E 35 REUUSE: Nine 36 tAUUStD: Jones r ABSEN I : Dane 39 ADOPTION OF FINDINGS AND ORDER— November zz, zuiu 40 AYES: Eflutani, vlisson, vustarson, rai etcnan, a9E1 41 IduES: More 42 HBS I Hlld: none 43 REuuS : N0rI 44 EAC.;UEU: Jart�isoi 45 ABSEN I : Idm ie LU 10-0048-1748 Feb 1, 2011 Page o of 225 226 Feb 1, 2011 �H 1.}t,, tt- CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 10166 r Tiro-�t© Planning Cummis,iun minutes p9, op) NuvCm .6ur ui u l 40 1. CALL TU UrcER Chair Jon Gustafson called the Planning Commission meeting of rovemtler 8, za i u, to order at 6:3U p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall at 380 "A"Avenue, Lake Usvveyo, ureyott. 2. rcuEE GALE Members present were Chair Jon UustaTson, Vice crlair Eynne Paretcflan and Commissioners Pcja Bhutani, Julia Glisson, Jim Johnson and i odd Prager. Commissioner Russell Jones was excused. Starr present vvere Ucnise Fr isnee Director, Plan tiny and Baildiny Services; Jessica iNumanoylo, AssGGiate Plar rner; De5ra Andreades, Senior Planner; Sidaro Sin, Senior Planner; Sarah Seiaen, Ne;gflocrMooa Piannr; ucr rr ris Eyner, Assistant Planning Director; Hamid Pishvaie, Assistant Planning uirector; Paul Espe, Associate Planner; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney and Iris Mcc,alel3, Administrative support. 3. CITIZEN L UIRIMENT INonE. 4. COUNCIL UPDATE M . Frisbee reported that the two Councilors-elect planned to atte.• Council meetings or rtil they took orrice in Jai tsar y. I he Council would continue • -ddress natural resource issues mid consider Planniny Commission moo • ended code amendments al rd tMe CaKC Grove Neiyhborhooa Plan aariny the re - nder of 201 U. 5. MINUrE5 5.1 Aagabt 30, 2010 Commissioner Johnson moved : accept the Minutes of August 30, 2010. commissioner blisson sec°, .ed the motion and it pas,ed 4:0:2. Commissioners Bhutani Enna Pr aver rust ea. 5.2 September 1s, 0 Vice Cha. -aretchan moved to accc.yt the Minatuo of Aauost 3u, zu1U. Commissioner Gliss.' seconded the motion and it passes 4:u:z. commissioners Bhutani airy Prayer a.: airred. EXHIBIT C-1 LU 10-0048 City or LaKe Oswego Planning Comr„i5zion Minutes of November 8, 2010 Pager or Feb 1, 2011 227 6. PUBLIC HEARING V1 of zi ei.1 EU 10-0048- Extension of Approved Land Use Decisions. A reqaest by the City of Lake Osvvego for approval of a one-time extension for land ase decisions filed daring the first years ur the ecoi ron9it. downturn. The eater rsion vvas proposed for land use decisions riled lSGtweeri zuu7 aria LUuy. Chair Gustafson opened the public Rearing and outlined me applicable criteria a,id procedure. None of the Commissioners present declared a conflict or interest. Statf Report Jessica Ncxmanoyla, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. SRe explained that the proposed or re-time, two-year extension would affect about 52 applications that Mad been approved zuu7-L009 bat had not been completed. She said applicants and the Horreb'uiiders f-lss7clation had asked Tor this extension. She explained that she had evaluated eight other uregon and Washington jurisdictions that had adopted a similar extension and found they offered a one or two-year extensio,,. She clarified that tvvo jurisdictions offered a "blanket" extension and the others conducted case-by-case reviews to ensare the applications met codes and standards that Rad been adopted since approval. She recommended making the extension retroactive; she indicated that almost halt of the allected approvals had already expired arid six more would likely expire by the eira of Lu"Iu. Ms. Namanoyia explained that the other jorisdictioi is had gra,'tea applicants relict in late zuuu ana early ZU]U. She tonnd that a two-year extension was reasonable ana the total at three to tour years to complete a project cupid be considered timely completion. She said the staff report listed tour pote,real options for the Commission's consideration: Option 1 was the "blanket" extension recommended by staff. She pointed oat that neighborhood impacts and code compliance had been considered at the time of approval and that applicants might have to siyi iiticaritly change their approved plans it they had to comply with newer and si-yriiticaritly dirrere,rt inriii arid flag lot standards. The Planning commission leaned toward a case-by-case revievv; starr i ecommeridea the critei la listed on paye 7 ut the staff report requiring each case to be processed as a minor aeelop�r Pei it, subject to public notice and appeal. Ms. Numanoglu reported that public notice has been sent to all neighborhood associations and affected applicants and agencies. only the Homebailders Association and Erin O'Ruarke-Meadors had submitted comments. Daring the yacstioning period, Ms. Numanoglu clarified that most of the affected, expired approvals aid not have a building permit. in order to yaalify for the city of Portland's "4lanket" extension the applicant Mad to gut a city permit (i.e., building permit) or commence activity by June 30, z01z. She explained mat requiri„g the applicants to seek new Residential Infill Development (RID) approvals to comply with subsequently adopted codes and standards woald be problematic because RID approvals granted exceptions to the standards in place at the time. She clarified that the extension provision vvonia apply to applications that had been tiled during 20U7 -20U9. Sha advised that an approved lot line adjustment or laird division vvas permitted by code to receive a one-year extension r,om the original completioi, deadline it the applicai it requested it in writing. The proposed extension provision vvould extend it another two years, for a total of roar years. Fifteen of the lot line adjustment/land division approvals listed in the staff report had already been granted ministerial extensions. Public I.stin►ony uhcryl Uchida, 15190 illicit!v Road, supported Option 3, to not adopt the proposed economic hardship extension. She yaestionea the assamptiurr that the only thing that City of bane Oswego Planning commission Minutes of November 8, 2010 Page 2 of I 228 Feb 1, 2011 kept a developer from going forward was the need or an extension. I he I riliium vvooda project seemed to be surviving and moving forward without an extension in spite or the tact that the it litial applicant went under and another took aver and reapplied for development. Diana Boom, IPu Bvx s2is, CaRe usvvego, y7U34, favored option 3, to do notfliny. She said it the Planning commission agreed to the extei isicn proposal, it should be a case- by-case review. She did not want to offer developers, vvho save code changes coming and rushed in to yet RID approval, a "way out." She stated that iT the code had changed since the original approval, then the development needed to be re-examined. She submitted a photograph of a lot on bth Street that teatared equipment and debris to show what a delay looked like. She clarified that it was not a site of one ct the approvals listed in the start report, but it had the potential to become one. She said perhaps the City could charge a lower Tee it the approved development met all the conditions of approval except the completion deadline. Ralph I ahran, 13741 Knaas Road, supported a blanket extension. He stated that the proposal was practical and reasonable and similar to what other jurisdictions were doing and that no one took the approval process lightly. His experience was that even a very small tall plat flied development project vv ithl no opposition costs about $45,000, plus $.i u,uuu in t:lty Tees to get thra'uyh Development Rev evv commission (DRU) approval and that process Rad taken about eight months. r-ie claririea that I he BanR or the vvest Center, two-building project, Rad not been opposed and it had cost about $7o,u00, plus $15,000 iir City tees to yet through DRC approval. Mr. Tahran said the developer spent additional money on engineering and architect fees and permits for a total cost of about $:3UU,uuU by the time they completed the first building and the process took about a year. He questiol lea why the city should send projects "back to square one"to be reviewed 'under IrlTlll, vvho they had been extol isively reviewed betore. He said he was Tamlliar with the Inrlll Lode and that some aspects vvere stricter and some were more flexible, therefore, it was hard to determine the benerit cT revievving the project agail1. Deliberations Chair Gustafson closed the public Rearing. lots. Numanoglu said that a typical condition at approval is to require applicants to obtain a building permit and have the project completed 1pleted and inspected by the completion deadline. She proposed a temporary ordinal ice that vvould allovv a one-time-only extel lsion. She clarified that it the City did I lot take ally motion', an applicant could still apply for a modification of the condition of approval that set the deadline in order to extend it. She said a blanket extension vvas being proposed in order to streamline the process and maRe it more erncient. Ms. Numanoglu referred to the criteria used by other jurisdictioi,3 and poi,ltea out that Criterion 3 specified that if code requirements had changed since the original approval, an extension could be granted if the applicant made changes to comply with the newer standards, as long as the result was not greater impact to surrounding properties. She Olariried that iT complying with the new requirements created more adverse impacts the application would not yualiiTy Tor an extension. Commissioner Johnson was sympathetic to the concern that developers might sit on their permits, speculating, and leave unfinished projects in neighborhoods. me leaf led toward case-by-case review. He said the applicant should have to show real economic hardship. He suggested waiving or reducing the tee it the fee was really the issue. Vice chair Paretchan also teal led tovvard case-by-case revievv. She recalled staff had advised that an applicant coula currently apply to modify the condition that set the deadline. Ms. Numanoglu indicated that completion deadlines for land use approvals were different depending on the type of land use approval and that aevelopmel It review, City of rage uswego Planning Commission Minutes of November 8, 2010 Page 3 of 7 Feb 1, 2011 229 RID and variance approvals contained a condition that set a three-year aeaaiine. She said successful applicants for land divisions and lot line adjustments had one year to file the tinal plat, but they coald also receive a one-year automatic extension if they applied for it in writing, Alas additional ore-year extensions if the codes had not changed. She said start believed that even thoagh these applicants may have received an automatic eAtunsiun, they shuuid be it rCiudea in the proposed extension pi ovislur r. She pointed oat that once the completion deadline for the land use application was met, a building per mit was the next step in the process and it had a "shelf lite" or siA montns and coals be extended for an additional six months even it there was no activity. She Claritied that once coristroction started the project could potentially drag on ror years. chair Gustafson reasoned that Coffering the extension would help reduce the number of untir fished prujeuts in the uity because the developers would riot have to start the process all over again and hear more costs and tees. He assumed they had each made a good faith errort to meet the intent at the code vvhen they or igir rally applied and the intent had not changed that much because of the Infill bode. He said they might give up if the City changed the I ules on them and he reasoned that it the city allovved people to rehaild a noncontorming house that burned down, it should allow a developer to build an approved development that had been adversely impacted by the economic downturn. LCmmissioi ter Glisson suggested utter ing a two-year extension to those who met certain types ut newt infill r eyelativns and One year to those who did 'lot want to yo that tell. When asked, ma. Numanoylu advised that at the bz attected projects, these mar ked as design review could be either commercial or non-sir iylc TarTlliy residential pi ojects. Commissioner Bhutani suggested not maRing an applicant go thi'Caghh a ION, C„pensive, rnoditication process if the application had already been found to meet the test of being compatible with neiyhboi hood character. Commissioner Prager related that the City of l;yaid uttered a blanRet extension and was now seeiny more momentarrr to finish subdivisions. He Tavel ed a blanket extension that vvoald allow people to taRe advantage or an apsvving in the =Timmy. mohair Caustatsan vvas concer nee that a partially-built development might be farther delayed by a re ooirement ter an additional revievv. Corrrrrrissioner Johnson explained he was not convinced there was true, across the boaid, economic hardship, so he did not support a blanket extension. Re held it should be the applicant's harden to prove economic hardship. Chair Gustafson noted the border' on the applicant vvas simply a bad economy. I hey both agreed that proving economic bar dship could be the only cr iter icr r for all extension. commissioner Johnson explained that he ccaid agree not to impose the Criteria" that required applicants to comply with the newer code requirements because he has not seer r a rush ut applicants trying to yet approvals before infill regulations were adopted. Fie anticipated that a large percentage of the affected projects were not moving forward ror speculative reasons, not hecaase the economy was bad, Commissioner Glisson observed if they could not prove economic hardship their recourse was to apply to modify the conditions of approval. Ms. Numanogle Clarified that start recommended applying the proposed extension provision only to land divisions and lot litre adjustments that had already applied for at ICast one extension, which tooR very little errart ar ra that thei were 15 of them. She said those applicants who had not mace the small errort to asR tar all extension liRely aid riot intend to move forward anyway. When asked, she clarified that lot line adjustments involving tidy lots coald he affected by code changes because flay lot standards had changed in which case they would have to apply to modify the conditions of approval. Mr. Boone advised the extension application vvoald he processed as a minor development and that typically meant it could be a decision by staff that vvas appealable to the DRc, Or stall could decide to refer the request directly to the DRL. city of Lake Oswego Planning C7mrrii55i7,19 Minutes of Naverirber 8, 2010 Page zr or r 230 Feb 1, 2011 Commissioner Johnson moved to recommend that the City Council adopt CU 10-uu4$, based on Option 2, minus criterion 3; with criterion 2 refined to require documentation - more than jest a svvor n statement- as proot ot economic hardship; plus Iwo other criteria as tellovvs. • It was to apply retroactively to development review, RID and variance applications that had been filed between January 1, 2007 and December 31, 200 , and any land division and lot lire adjustment applications that had been filed during that time period that sebsel.luer itly received at least one eAtension. • I he extension provision would sunset on December 31, 2012, Chair Gustafson seconded the motion and it passed 6:0. The final vote was to oe conducted on november 22, 2010, 7. vvuRFC SESSIUl4 7. 1 Pr "i0-0007—t..omprehen,ive Plan Update Review Summary of Goals 9 (Economic Development) and 10 (Housing) Staff distributed copies of tie Community vision Tor 2035 (1115/1 U draft) that w.- about to Be published for public comment. Consulting firm Cogan uwens uogan h.. collected and analysed background data related to Goals 9 and 10. Summaries of t►ase reports and statt's "Housing Buildable Lands Inventory Methodology Compariso► " spreadsheet vvere attached to Senior Planner, Sidaro Sin's October 26, 2010 staff r emorandum. Mr. Sin; Sarah Selden, Neighborhooa Planner; and Firsten Greene, Cos.n Uvvens Cogan, discussed Mu process and the suml r lorries. I hey asked the cum, issloners it the reports raisea the right questions and it the lJvr II iissicn vvcold .upport creation UT a nevv subcommittee to vet the technical information contained in t • reports oetore it was presented to the Comprehensive Plan Update Citizen Adv..ory t.,ommittee. During the discussion. Commissioners suggested tha he '`mixed use districts" envisioned under Coriplete Neighborhoods & Hoe gill the draft vision statement did not have to Cu large districts, like Cake Grove an. aovvntovvn, bat might light also be small pocket areas of mi„ea use in other places in t uity. I hey suggested clarifying that a "transit corridor"was not along a neighborhe a street. Some questioned the tconomic Development Summary Report statemen at Cake uswego was a 'regional model Tor employment..." Ms. Greene advised th. Kruse Way was a regional economic driver and she asked it CaKe Uswego wanted m, e ot therm. I he Commissioners observed that the l..ity did not have other land areas ►•nnected with a freeway that would have economic driver potential, unless Stattoord .s developed, but there vvas more opportunity to develop along Kruse Way. T -y suggested refining the taCles that torecastea housing trends so they sRowea nary• er age ranges. i hey vvanted to knovv if Metro vvoula challenge the City if it ad..ted a strategy to attract more young Tamilies. Ivlr. Egner aid riot anticipate that Metr,"would challenge it. The consultant clarified Mar the question regarding how the C' should account for"governmental needs" referred to city services and schools. I he 'oml l lissioners observed that the current City Hall site might cventoally be re<-eveloped into an errrployment area. Ms. Greene confirmed that the sUl�co rrr ritte. old take a closer look at vvhere potential future "elIIployment areas" were. I he 'ommissioners found it hard to relate the tables because some ci the linking informati• had been left out in the summarization process. I he consultant planned to correc at. It was also pointed out that one of the missing links showed Row emu .yment numbers had been translated into estimated land need. Mr. Egner related th . Metro vvanted to find more large-lot industrial sites in order to attract more high-tech dust,ial uses. Re advised that even though Metro vvas not going to mandate a specific Ciry of Lake Oswego r✓ianning commission Minutc5 November 8, 2010 Page 5 of 7 Feb 1, 2011 231 232 Feb 1, 2011 STAFF REPORT CITY CAKE OSWEGO PEAIQIQINb & I U'EDIIw SERvIcES DEPARTMENT APPLICANT: FILE NO: City of Rake l7swego LU 10-0048 PROPERTY OvvNErS: STAFF: N/A Jessica Ilumanogiu, Associate Planner LEGAL DESCRIPTION: DATE OF REPORT: N/A October 29, 2010 EGCH I iGld: DATE OF HEARING: City-wide November 8, 2010 C171IGIP. PLAID DESIGNATION: ZONING DESIGNATION: N/A N/A NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION: nELttlES i: All Extend development completion deadlines imposed as a condition of approval for issued land use decisii,,,_, riled between January 1, 2007 and December 31, 2009, due to the economic dovviiturn. 1: APPLICANTS>REQLUES The City of Lake 03,,,,eg.seeks a one time,two year economic hardship extension w development completion deadlines imposed as a condition of approval fur issued land use decisions filed between January 1, 2007 and December 31, 2009. The extension would provide temporary reiier to property owners and developers that received approval of their projects during the Severe downturn and tightening of the credit markets and who have been unable to obtain financing or to othervvise commence or finalize their projects in a timely manner. ll.. •APPLICABLE CRITERIA A. City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan: Goal J. Citizen involvement, Policies 1 and 5 Goal 4 Land Use Planning, Section 1, Laud Use Policies and Regulations, Policies 3 and 23 EXHIBIT D-1 rlu,,,,i„s Commission Public Hearins 1 LU 10-0048 November a,<O.tO Feb 1, 2011 233 B. City of Lake Oswego Community Development rode: [Inc DO./D.00D regislative Decision Defined. LOC 50.75.010 Criteria for Le5iblative Decisio,, LOC 50.75.015 Required Notice to DLCD LOC 50.75.020 Planning Commission Recommendation Required LOC 50.75.025 City Council Review and Decision LOC 50.i D.030 Effective Date of regislative Decision C. Statewide i Oral or AdR1i„isirative RuleatJvpicti pursuarrl lt,ORS Chailcr 197 Goal 1 Citizen Involvement Goal 2 Land Use Planning ill �l7MMIARIY Land use approvals for desig„ review and variance applications typically Lo„tai„ a condition of approval that provides that the approval will expire three years after the decision date' land use approvals for land divisions arid lot litre adjustments expire one year after the decision date, as provided by rDC 50.87.010.The Planning Division has been approached oy several applicants a5 well a5 the HoTebuilder5 Association about the possibility of extending completion deadlines fur land use applications filed during the economic downtov,,„ (approximately 2007-2009). Many applicants that received laird use approvals durins that time period have suffered serious economic hardship due to the crash in the housing market and/or are unable to obtain financing to commence or finalize their projects before the expiration date of their approval. Since a considerable amount of resources, including time and money is invested in a project before ground is even broken (depending on the project, trlis could include preparation of architectural drawings, technical reports such as drainage and soils reports, site de5ibn, plan„i consultant, etc.), applicants could suffer 5i6„ificant losses if their projects expire. Several jurisdictions in Oregon and in other states have adopted ordinances to extend the deadlines for completion of land use approvals affected by the economic crisis. ataff proposes a similar ordinance to provide reasonable and temporary relief to help mitigate the impacts of the economic downturn. Following is a discussion of the City-3 current development completion deadlines aid exte„sio„ procedure for land use applications, a summary of affected laid use cases, research of other jurisdictions that have passed similar ordinances allowing economic hardship extensions, and a summary of issues and options for the Commission's consideration. a. Expiration and Extension of rand Use Hppiications Land use approvals typically expire three years after the derision date for design review_ variance and RID applications [conditions of approval, per LOC 50,79.040(2)(a)] and one year after the decision date for laid divisions arid lot line adjustments [[vc DO.o/.0i0]. If the project is not constructed or the plat is not submitted witrlin trlese time frames,the appi;cant mast apply for an extension or the approval is voila. 'able i, below, summarizes the completion deadli„es and extensions currently allowed by Code. Planning Commission Public Hearing 2 CO 10-v'u4u ICovemIler a, LOl0 234 Feb 1, 2011 able l:summary of Expiration ania Extensions by Application Type typical Add tionai Cost for Expiration Time Cost for First Extensions HOuitional Application Type Period Extension Allowed? Extension Allowed? Extensions Yes; $0 reviewea Ely (ministerial) the $4,µ7r approving (major One year from res: automatic i-yr aatli.pit, rota rnoairic�tio i Land date of final extension if conformance $l,wc Divisions/Cot approv,ul requested in writing with current (minor Line Adjustments (MC D't,.ar.n74 (E'vCDG.ai.ulu) Mo„c stanaards modification) hree years 54,447 from date of (major ri-ui�ppro��l 54,447(major Yes; by filing modification) (Conllition of res; Ely riiing a moa;ric,tion) another 51,492 Design Review approval, per modification $1,47L(minor modification (minor /RiD/Variance 50.79.040(2)(a)). application modification) application modification) Extensions for design review and variance approvals are only available by requesting a Modification to an Approved Development rermit. i he criteria in COC 50.86,025, below, determine whether the request is a "minor" or"major" modification: r he city rvtanager may approve minor chunge3 in eny development permit, provided that such chonye: 1. Does not increase the intensity of arty use, or the density of residential use;end, 2. tvteets all requiremenrs of me aeveropmentstandard.5 and other legal requirement3;and, s. uoes nor significantly ajject other r,ruperty or ase ; will not muse any deterioration or loss of any naturalleatt,re, process or open space;nor significantly affect any public facility;and 4. Doe3 not affect any condition specifically placed on the development by action of a hearing body or City Council, Any proposed change that does not meet one or more of the criteria, above, is considered a major modification and is reviewed as a new application. Because the timeframe in which the land use approval unpire5 i5 almost always included as a condition of approval for land use applications,any «tecn5ion request for an application that was approved by a hearing body would automatically be processed as a major modification because criterion q, above, would not be met. For land divisions and lot line adjustments, a one-year extension may be granted automatically to the applicant if requested in writi,6 within one year of the application approval date. Any additional exte,,ion req,.ests beyond the first year are reviewed by the original approving authority[LOC 50.87.010(1)]. If new codes or standards were adopted after the application was approved and they affect the project's compliance with the current standards, the aaditional extension request mast be processed as a Modification to an Approved Development Permit (sec discussion, above). Born minor and major modifications are processed as a minor development, which is the same or similar process, timeline, and in some cases, cost, as the original application. Flowcharts illustrating the process timeline for modification applications reviewed administratively and by a hearing body are included in E,thibit F-3. Generally modifications take about 3-4 montlfs to Plannins Commission Public Hearing 3 ED lu-o048 ivovemtler 8,zOID Feb 1, 2011 235 process if no appeal is filed. (Currently the application fee for a major modification is $4 447 and is $1,492 toi a minor modification.) The time, money, and effort required to request an extension through the modification process is a barrier to many applicants that have already experienced economic hardship as a result of the recession. Completion deadlines for land use applications are imposed to ensure that development is completed or constructed within a reasonable time period after it is approver. it gives both the applicant and the public a clear expectation of the time-frame for completion. A typical land use aevelopment proposal may take 6-12 months to complete from the initial planning phase to application approval and applicants are given up to three years after receiving approval to complete or construct their projects. As a result,the actual development may not be constructed tor 3-4 years trom the initial inception. Additionally, if new codes or standards are adopted in the time period after the land use application is submitted to the City an the completion deadline, the new code standards are not applicafle to the project. Historically,the completion deadlines for land ase approvals have given applicants safficient time to complete their projects and it has been relatively unusual for an applicant to apply for a modification in order to get an extension. However the recession has brought development to a near stand still and many projects approved since the economic downturn occurrer nave expired or will expire before the economy recovers. i he proposed extension would increase the completion aeaaline for eligible applications by two additional years.The Commission must consider whether the barriers foT applicants impacted by the economic downturn outweigh the public's interest in the timely completion of approved development and whether the eligible applications should comply with new codes and standards that have been adopted since their original submittal date. These issues are discussed in more detail under sansectian r, nelow. b. ;Affected Land use npprovais jc007-c0091 Table 2, below,summarizes the status of land use cases filed between 2007-2009. A total of 21 cases approved during those years have already expired and a total of 31 cases are still active. able 4: summary of Land use Case Daia c007-c009 riumh., oT CU oral number cases that have Total number of approved LU of LU cases Expired(as of 10- Number of EC cases year cases with expiration hates completed 5-10) Set to Expire 2007 85 51(/1%e) 1L LuOo 52 37(71%) 7 8 LOOy 37 24(65%) 2 11 1 oral vt all yrs. 174 122(70%) 21(12%) Pianning Commission r.P3h,, 4 LU 10-0048 November 8,2010 236 Feb 1, 2011 A full list of all the 2007-2009 cases that have expired or are set to expire is included in Exhibit F-1. A total of 17 cases will expire over the next year. i hey consist of ii out of the IL unexpired cases from ztInt and five of the eignt unexpired cases from 2008. For 2009, 10 of the 11 unexpired cases will expire mid-2012 or later. Because this proposal is being brought to the Commission late in the year(most of the other jurisdiction that were studied passed their ordinances late in Lul77 or mid-zuiu), zi applications approved between 2nny-2u07 have already expires. i he commission shoals consider whether any economic hardship extension should be provided to these expired applications as —ell. C. Research of Other Jurisdictions Staff researched ordinances from seven jurisdictions in Oregon and Washington that have granted extensions for land use cases approved daring the economic downturn. H variety of approaches were taken by each jurisdiction,which is summarized in Exhibit F-2. Some.r.rbdictions, includin5 the City of Portland and Washington County,granted blanket extensions for all land use cases that were approved or are set to expire within a specified time period. Other jurisdictions require applicants to apply for the special extension on a case-My-case basis and to meet certain criteria. he advantage of the former approach is that it requires no effort by applicants and avoids the potential for an influx of extension requests that could strain staff's ability to process the applications in a timely manner. The latter approach limits the applications eligible for the extension to applicants that apply for the extension and meet specific criteria. Among the jurisdictions that were reviewed, the land use cases eligible for the economic hardship extension ranged from any approvals that had not yet expired as of the effective date of the ordinance allowing the extension this could include projects approved pre-2007)through to the end of 2009. Must commonly,jurisdictions allowed extensions for applications approved between 2007-2009. d. issues for Cunsideradun 1. what time period should the extension be applied to and 5hoald application,within that time period that have already expired be eligible for the extension? Jurisdictions that were reviewed by staff most commonly allowed extensions for applications approved between 2007 2009 and specified that the extension only applied to those applications that had not already expires as of the effective date of the ordinance. Since most of the land use applications approved by the City in 2006 would have expired by the end of 2009, and the economic recession was officially declared to have begun in December 2007 and entered into a slow recovery in June 20091,staff recommends the time period between January 1, 2007 and December 31. 2009_ as the filing dates eligible for the proposed extension. Most of the jurisdictions reviewed by staff passed their extension ordinances in late 2009 or Fly mid-L010. Since this proposal is being presented to the Commission late in 2010, a total of Business Cycle Dating Committee, National Bureau of Economic Research, htip://www.nber.org/cycles/sepLL'vI'v.html peptemoer z0,L010i. Pl„nninb Pic Haarin6 5 LU 10-0048 november a, L017, Feb 1, 2011 237 21 land use applications in the proposed eligibility period have already expired. Because the purpose of the Extension is to provide temporary relief to applicants hit the hardest by the economic recession, staff recommends those applications that have already expired to be included as well with the exception of certain expired land division and lot line adjustment applications. Land division and lot line adjustment applications have one -'automatic" Extension that allows the applicant an additional year simply by requesting the extension in writing [LOC 50.87.010(1)1. If an applicant never made this extension request and allowed the application to expire, it implies that they never intended to follow through with the application since this extension requires very little effort at no cost to the applicant. Only those land division a,,d lot line adjustment applications that received the first extension should be elibible for the proposed extension. Staff Recommendation:The proposed extension should apply to land use applications filed between January i. L007 and December 31. 2'u0y. Hpplications approved during this time period that have already expired should be eligible for the extension, except for land division ano lot line adjustment applications that did not receive the o„c-year extension allowed pursuant to LOC 50.87.010(1). 2. Huw lung shuuld the extension b ? Most jurisdictions that were reviewed granted either a one or two year extension to the original completion deadline or to the modified deadline if an extension was previously granted. Given that the economy has been very slow to rebound from the recession_ staff is recommending a two year extension. Staff finds that the burden faced by applicants that received approval during the economic downturn outweighs the public's expectation that projects be completed within the approved completion deadlines. Addinb two years to the eligible completion deadlines would not have a significant impact since there is already a spread of 3-4 years between the inception and completion of a project and modifying that time-frame to 5-6 years for a limited number of applications is not a significant change. Staff Recommendation:The length of the proposed extension should tie two years from the original completion deadline or to the modified deadline if an extension was previously granted. 3. Blanket extension ur case by case review? Most of the jurisdictions that were reviewed required applicants to submit an application or request for the additional extension and to meet certain criteria, The main issue in these jurisdictions was whether any code amendments had been adopted since the application was ori5inally approved and whether the approval complied with or could comply with the new code regulations. Both the City of Portland and Washington County approved blanket extensions that did not require any additional process, application, or fee. The main issue for rake Oswebo is that the "i„fill' standards that were adopted in July 2010 (Ordinance 2524) modified or added new regulations to the Community Development Code Planning Commission PufSlic Rearing a CU L0-0048 November 8, 2010 238 Feb 1, 2011 (Chapter 50), including flag lot requirements, residential zone site development and design standards, and the classification of variances. These amendments potentially affect a number of the applications that would be eligible for the extension. if a ISianret extension were granted, eligible applicants would be permitted to construct the development per the original approval resardles3 of whether it co..,plied vvith the new standards.This is the si plest approach fo. both the applicant and the City since no additional processing or review would be necessary. If extensions were granted on d case-by-case basis_applicants would be required to either file a written request or an application for the extension, which would Qe reviewed for compliance with certain criteria.This approach would require more Effort for the applicant a..d the City to process, but it would allow a higher level of discretion in granting extensions. Below is a corrrpildtion of various criteria the studied jurisdictions applied to extension requests: The original approving authority may, upon written request Tor appli otion/by the applicant, grant a 3inyle two year extension to the completion deadlines for approved loud use applications that comply with oil of the following criteria: 1. The applicant files a written extension,request with applicable fee no later than march 1, zc71L; z. he extension request includes a sworn declaration that the work authorized by the land usc approval will be delayed a3 a result 7J adverse market conditions or inability to secure financing; 3. The code requirements applicable to the development have not changed since the original approval. If requirements have changed an extension maybe granted provided: a. me applicant agrees to comply witn any new requirements, as a condition of the extension;and, b. Any changes made in order to comply with the nicw requirements do not result in a greater adverse impact to surrounding properties than the original approval as determined by the applicable criteria of the original approval. �. i he extension request is Jar an issued land use approval approved between January 1, 2007 and December 31, 2009. Staff reco mends granting a blanket extension because the code amendments passed earlier in 2010 may significantly complicate the review process and severely restrict which applications qualify for the extension. r he purpose of granting the extension is to provide temporary and reasonaQie relief to applicants who received approval or were in the proce35 of receiving approval when the severe economic downturn occurred. Because the Infill Ordinance enacted a number of changes that affect site development,dvvelling design, and o ientation and access for flag lots, it is likely that a number of applicants will not be able to comply vvith the new standards without impacting the approved design and/or conditions of approval. For example, in the case of RID and variance applications, the new standards may cause expensive design changes or loss of functionality to approved development that was already found to be otherwise compatible and/or not materially in;urious to the 3,.rro,.ndin6 neighborhood. In weighing the impact of re-desibninb projects to meet the new Standards, Planning Commission Purlic Hearing i LU i0-0048 November 8, 2010 Feb 1, 2011 239 staff finds that the overall neigllDorhood impact wouid not be significant, compared to the rinancial efrect upon the applicant to make changes to the desisn or lotting patte,n. If the Commission prefers the case-by-case approach, staff recommends that the application is processed as a minor development subject to public notice and appeal and sobject to the same or similar criteria listed above. staff Recommendation:A blankEt t,,Yo yzcr extension. for land use application's approved between January 1, 2007 and December 31, 2009. Because there are a number of issues for the Commission to consider regarding the proposed economic hardship extension staff has outlined various decision options, below. Staff will draft an ordinance based on the Cornmission's deliberation and preliminary Recision. Option 1: Allow a blanket, one time., two year cc7,rromic hardshiF,Extension'to issued lard use decisions filed between January 1, 2007 and December 31, 2009. No additional process_ application, or fee is required for this extension. Option 2: Allow a one time. two year economic hardship extension to issued land use decisions filed Metween January 1, z00i and Dezember 31, 2009, subject to the follow procedures and criteria: Thu original approving authority may, upon written application by the applicant, grant a single two year extension to the completion deadlines, including any extensions previously granted,for approved land use applications that comply with all aj the criteria, listed below. r ne apf,rication shod be processed as o Minor Develor,ment, 1. The af.,p/ieurrtyi/es a written extension request with eppliLable fee no later than Mart.h 1, 2012; 2. The extension request includes a sworn declaration that the work authorized by the land use approval will be delayed as a result of adverse marker conditions or inability to secure financing; 3. Tne code requirements eNNlir.able to the develor,ment have not changed sinr.e the Original o,Nroval, lj requir ements have changed, On extension may be granted_ provided: a. The applicant agrees to comply with any new requirements, as a condition of the extension-arid. b. ,vny changes made in order to comply with the new requirements do not result in a greater adver.c imr act to surrounding r.,roperties than the ariyirTu/o,.,proval, us determined by the applir_able criteria of the or iginal 0NNroval. 4. The extension request is for an issued land use decision filed between January 1, 2007 and December 31. 2009. Option .s: ueciine to adopt the proposed economic hardship extension for issued land use decisionrs filed between January 1, 2007 mud December 31, 2009. For application's that have riot expired yet, the applicants may use the current extension process as provided for by the Community Development Code. Option 4: Other options as deter mimed by the Commission. Planning Commission Public Hearing 8 [O x171-004.5 Idov cii �ci ts,. 0iC 240 Feb 1, 2011 IV.. tPP1 ICABI E APPROVAL CRITERIA LAKE OSvvEGO COMvREHENSIVE PLAN Goal J. Citizen Involvement 1. Provide uppurtunitin fur%itizen partiripatiun in prepuring and revi3ing lucul land ue plans and urdinance3. 5. Seek citizen input through service orguni<utiuns, interest gruups, and individuais, as well rm thruugh neighburhuud ussuciaciuns. Findings: Porsaant to the requirements of a legislative process announcements for the proposed economic hardship extension have been provider!to all neighbornood associations and affected agencies. Honitionally, notices were mailed to all avplicants that filed land use applications between 2007-2009. Public, hearr,6s well be held before the Plannin6 Commission and City Council. Citizens, interest groups, and neighborhood associations will have an opportunity to participate in the review of the proposed extension daring the City's public hearing processes. Notice has been provided consistent with City requirements. Adequate oppooria„ities have been made available for citizen involvement with regard to this application. Conclusion: TRe at,plication comvlies with Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan Goal 1. Goal c, Land Ose rianning 23. Coordinate the development and umendme„t of City Plans and uctiuns refuted to land[rse with other cuulsty, state, Metro,federal agency and special district plans. Findi,.gs: Policy 23 was addressed ander Goal 1, Citizen Involvement Policies 1 and 5, above. Conclusion: rroposed changes conform to Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan Goal 2. LAKE OSWEGO DEVELOPMENT CODE PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS LOC 50.75.005 Legislative Decisions uefined LOC J'o.i0.io00 Criteria for a Legislative Decision LOC Jr),ID.o1J Required Notice to DLCD LOC 50.75.020 Plantnin6 Commission Recommendation Required LOC 50.75.025 City Council Review and Decision The City has conformed to all procedural requirements, evidence of which is contained in the record. tjITLisDiv rLrirvAI1173 unMtD Statewide Planning Goal 1, Citizen Involvement Statewide Planning Goal 1 requires jurisdictions to develop a citizen involvement program that allows residents to be involved in all phases of the planning process.The City's acknowledged Comprehensive Plan and Colrumanity Development Code contain the necessary requirements fora citizen involvement program.The Code defines public notification requirements, and all of the required notification measures were met for this application. i 11is application is in compliance with Statewide Planni,n6 Goal 1. Plannin6 Commission Public Hearin6 9 LU 10-0040 IQv�cT�c�a, LULU Feb 1, 2011 241 statewide Planning Goal L, rand Ose Planning his Goal requires;urisdiction3 to develop a land use planninE, process and policy frarnev ork asp basis for all decisions and actions related to the use of the land and to assure an adequate factual basis for such decisions and actions. This application provides the required information and response, to the applicable approval standards for the proposal and therefore is consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 2. V.: CONCLUSION/RECOi MENDAt ION Staff finds that LU 10-0048, a one t; e,two year intension of development completion deadline,for issued land use decisions filed between January 1 2007 and December 31, 2009 conforms to all applicable decision-making criteria. staff recommenfls the Commission adopt Option 1 to allow a blanket, one time,two year economic hardship cntcnsion to i.33ued land use deci3ikn3 filed between January 1, 2007 and December 31, 2009. No additional process, application, o, fee would be required for this extension. EXn1131rS A. Draft Ordinances [No current Enh;bits; re erved for future use' B. Findings and Conclusion) [No torrent Exhibits_ reserved tor fotoree use] C. Minutes[Iio current exhibits; reserved for furore use] D. Staff Memoranda/Report, [No current exhibits; reserved for future usej E. Graphics [No current Exhibits; reserved for future use] F. Written Materials F-1 'able of LuCli-2uu9 Cases Expired or Set to Expire by Year F-2 Table of Econowic Hardship EAen3ion3 Approved by ctherJurisdiction3 F-3 Flow Charts of the Modification to and Approved Development Permit Process G. Letters None Planning Commission Public Hearing 10 ru iu-nuZTS November 8, 2010 242 Feb 1, 2011 C11 Y OF LAKE OSWEGO LAKE OSWEGO criicri nim 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 UI Lake Oswego,OR 97034 COUNCIL REPORT 503 6g-3984 w, www.ci.oswe o.or.us IU: JacR Hvttman_ Mayor 101ernbers DI the City Council Ale„ D. IGlLintyre, city Manager FROM: Jessica Numanoglu, Associate Planner Pldnning & Building Services Department 5UBJECI: Study Session on Proposed ELonomiL Rardship Extension tor 1007-1009 Land Use Approvals i[u lu-uu48) DA r E: November zz, zuru ACTION No action reNaeAed To this )fogy �n»Ion. INTR060CTI0N/BACRGR0UND I he Planning Division hay seen approaL.hed by several applicants as well as the Oregon Home Builders A33ociat ul l about the possibility of extending completion deadlines tor Iand ase applivauons tiled daring the economic downturn (zuu/-zuu* I he purpose of the extension is to provide i eliet to properly owners and developers that received approval of their Nroje,,ts (Timing the severe economic dovvntiai n and tightening of the credit markets and have been unable to obtain financing or to other wise Miiiillence or tindlice their projects in a timely manner. Sever al jai isdictions in Oregon and in usher stares have adopted ordinances Lo extend the completion deadlines tor land use approvals afCctcd by the economic crisis, Statt proposes a similar ordinance to pi ovide I easonarlie and ternporai y I eiier to help mitigate the impacts oT the economic downtui n. A public hearing on the proposed economic hardship completion deadline extension vvas Field EeTuie the Pldnning Commission on November 8, 2010. This report summarizes the main issues outlined in the StaTT r epos< <o dhe Commission, the findings and recommendation of the Commission, and the draft Ordinance as bacRgfoand tot the discussion at the Council Study Session. A public hearing on the proposed extension is scheduled 6eroie the city council on uecembei 14 zu1U. EXHIBIT D-2 LU 10-0048 Feb 1, 2011 - 243 Page 2 DISCUSSION P lannirix commission 5tatt Report file October 29, 2u1u, staff repo it 7A711taiir3 a discussion of tfle City 3 Current devel7,piiieiit completion deadlines and extension procedures for land use applications, a sum,,,ary of the 52 land use Ca3E3 potentially eligible for the extension, research of other jurisdictions that have passed similar ordinances allowing economic hardship extensions of completion deadlines, and a summary of issues and options for the Commission's consideration. The main issues outlined and discussed in the staff report are as follows: • What time period should the completion deadline extension be applied to and should applications within that time period that have already expired be eligible tor the extension? • How long should the extension be? • Should d blanket extension be enacted for all cases in the eligible time period or should the ordinance permit extensions it they are reviewed on case-by-case basis? • It reviewed on a case-by-case basis, should applicants be required to comply with any new codes and standards adopted since their development permit was originally approved? F'larnrlrrp Cvrrrriil331vn Findlrr�,3, conclusion, and order ▪ Commission received public testimony and deliberated on tfle e„ten3Ion proposal at the rlovember Est" public hearing, vv ith regard to the main issues outlined in the staff report, the Commission made the following findings: • The Commission toand that the extension should be available to approved development permits where the application tor the deveioprrrent permit was tiled between lanudi y 1, 2007, and December 31, 2009, whether or not the development permit has already expired. • The Commission tonnd that the extension should be tor a 2-year period. • The Cornrrrission toand that the extension should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis and that the burden should be on the applicant to derrronstrate that the project authorized by the approved development permit is delayed as a result of adverse rrrarket conditions or inability to secure financing. • I he Commission toand that the applicant should not be required to comply with new codes and standards that have beery adopted since the application ter the development permit was originally tiled. TFlee Lomml33io19 wrrCluaea and recommended to the City l.o'urlCrl tat a one-tithe, 2-year entension to completion deadlines imposed or included as a condition of approval should DE available to approved lard use applications that were filed between January 1, zuui, and uecember �1, zu65, if they meet the criteria and procedures below: the City Manayer rrray, apart application, grant ap to a two-year Cxtert5ion to the cornpletion deadline far air C7ppravEa lotto a.0 application that Carrrpliea with all of the following CI he! however, in rta MSC .hall the Comnpletiorr Ne liue be ente/Ou-U beyonC7 Deecrnber 31. 2012: 1. 1 he applicant frlea a vvrrtte, CAterr.rvrr application with applicable fee no late, than March 1, LU1L; 244 Feb 1, 2011 Page 3 2. The applicant demonstrates that the work authorized by the land use uppruval;s aeleryea us result of adverse market conditions or inability to secure financing; 3. I he exterrsiorr reyaest is far an ISsaed land ase approval (whether expired or not) where the land ase appi;cation was filea betweerr Jarraar y 1, 2007 aria December 31, 2009; and 4. If the upprie.tror+]or, FAtFilaiVrr i. jar a lama aivr.,iarr Or lot lure aafa3trrrent approval, the applicant hod pr-c v,ualy filed a timely rc yae5tfur th ty r,try 1 year enten)ror, ullvvved per La(, 5u.zs7.u1 u(z). Review of the appliCution Shull be in the manner prescribed for minor developments by LCA Articles 50.81 —50.84. (An extension parsaant to this ordinance is not a rrrudificatiorr of a permit and therefore L005D.8b.DL5 i. not applicable to the application.) Draft urdiiiancc Z5b3 A draft ordinance incorporating the Planning Lommission's recommendation is pho„ided for tf e Lo rcil's review. ALTERNAI IVES AND FISCAL IMPACT NO alternatives are icing recommended at tPlis time as rio deeCisioll k being uladC. The extension recommended by the commission would require staff time to pnoce55 earn application. As provided for in tFie Master Fee Schedule, a new fee will be proposed and conImunicated to the Coo cii i�� writing to dhow opportunity to comment it the Council approves an ordinance permitting the completion deadlines for aEveloplllent permits to Ee eAtended On d case-Ey-case basis. RECuMiviENDATIuN 5taff supports the Planning commission's recommendation. The pul Nose of tie study session is to pl Oviae background information to the council and to engage in a preliminary discussion on VIE proposed ordinance for extension of completion deadlines for development permits prior to the public hearing scheduled for DeceniEer 14 LU1U. ATTACHMENTS 1. Planning Lo+n+,iissivii Staff Kcport for CU IU-UU48, dated Ucto er L`J-, Lulu (iilcl'udiiig exhiE;1- G-1 G- 2, and u-3, submitted at the November uth Plearing) 2. Planning Commission Findings, conclusion, and Order for ED 1u-uul+u 3. Drat ordinance 2563 Feb 1, 2011 245 Page 4 Reviewed 5y: Devartrnent Director City Attorney AICA u. McIntyre Lity MaiiagEr 246 Feb 1, 2011 Llsi vT LUU(- UUy LU Eases Expired or Set to EApire by Year 2007 Application Type Expiration Daie LU 07-0041 Partition ana DR Expires 4-7-11 LU 07-0058 LLA Extenaea to a-F3- LU 07-0090 Subdivision/delineation Extended to 2-2-11 LU 07-0068 PD Extended to 10-15-10 rU 07-0074 RID Expires 12-7-10 LU 0r-i3O!4 RiD Expires 2-29-11 LU 07-0031 DR Expires 4-z 1-12 LU 07-0011 Partition and Variance Extenae to 4-. 0-I I LU 07-0087 Partition Extended to 4-17-11 LU 07-0044 DR Expires 11-5-10 ru 'ur-'u'ur r DR Expires 3-17-11 LU 0r-0084 PD Extended to 11-3-10 LU 07-0023 Class 1 Variance airetl Q 2 10' m LU 07-0024 Class 1 Variance Ex rr d 1 2.10, LU 07-0036 Clas. 1 Variance xpir d; -2710., ro 0r-0050 Partition & Deiin�at�o fired 2=11 10 LU 0r-OrMo PartitionLU 07-0095 Partition LU 07-0002 Class 1 Variance LU 07-0018 Class 1 Variance Eox 'tarred 8 '10 i ,. LU 07-0032 LLA LU 07-0001 DR LU 0r-0000s.r Pu Expir d 1: 5 08 LU 07-0045 DR xpi ed 8-7 10 . PD= Planned Development t,n=Design Revi..w LLA= ('oL rine Hdjusimeni EXHIBIT F-i RID= Residential Infill Design Review [u i u-0048 Page 1 of 3 Feb 1, 2011 247 s'uva Application r,pe E,.p;ratikn Date LU 08-0011 Partition Extended to 12-30-10 LU 08-0014 DR Expiius 7-21-11 EU 08-00o'u Class I variance Expires 1-29-12 LU 08-0057 PD & Delineation Expires LU 08-0066 Partition Extended to 6-10-11 LU 08-0072 DR Expires 5-8-12 LU 08-0074 Partition Extended to 3-4-11 E0 08-0076 Class 1 Variance Expires 3-3-12 LU 08-0021 Partition tended to 1.0 10 LU 08-0022 Partition Fpired -16 1Q LU 08-0003 Paaartitiui i Ea pir d 4'-25 ,0 LU 08-0004 PD & Delineation LU 08-0027 LLA LU 08-0032 Partition Eplr �i t1110 CO Oo-OO'+o Partition 2009 Application r ype- Expiration Date LU 09-0006 Variance/RP ieductiun3 Expires 1-15-13 00 In-0005 Class 1 Variance EApiles 1-8-13 LU 09-0011 Class 2 variance Expires 7-7-12 LU 09-0002 Class 2 Val iai ice Expires o-la-I z LU 09-0016 DR Expires 5-21-12 LU 09-0042 Claw 1 Valiance Enpiies2-5-13 LU 09-0041 LLA Expires 12-28-10 E0 09-0013 Class 1 Variance Expires 5-26-12 LU 09-00,Do 1.7117 Expire.,4-5-14 LU 09-0021 LLA/Delilleatlon CCH Plan su0mitted LU 09-0039 DR Still pending approval LU 09-0024 LLA E fired 9-8 1C?. 4,41 LU 09-0030 Resoui ce Enhancement pared J,.30 10 a }PD= Planneu Development DR= Design Review LLA=Lot Line Adjustment RID= Resinential Intill Design Review Pa6a 2 of 3 248 • Feb 1, 2011 Summary Data for Luur-Luu9 EU Vases txpir.a yr 5.1 tu ExAire rear Dumper of Number of cases mat nave Numoer of Number or ZQaes au.t to already u..pirud DRNAR Laud expire cases set to aivision/LLA uAtAru i4T1 act tv expire 2007 12 12 (7 DRNAR) 6 6 2008 8 7 (dll Idiid diviions/LLA) 3 — a 2009 11 2 (LLA, Resvarae Enhance) 9 z Total of all years 31 21 18 13 PaBe 3 7,f 3 Feb 1, 2011 249 250 Feb 1, 2011 Table 3: Ec7,n7,.=,i;Hardship Extensions ApprovEd by sther Jar sditisns Type of extension rears of cases Ce..6tri or e..te.a:on—d j61anRet or case by Jurisdiction affected terms case) Fee Case My case; Approvals set to applicant must City of Bellingham, e between submit a written WA i/1/it7 and request a.,d meet 12/31/11 one-time,2-yr extension certain criteria $iuy Case by case: City of Sherwood, Deadline to bee,in applicant must Ore Hpprovals Between record ,aPS,,.it un application 1/1/07 through the final plat extended to and meet certain 12/31/09 12-31-13 criteria $150.00 Land use approvals None per that have not ordinance City of Kirkland, alread ired as H licant must Y e P pp (normally vvH of the effective 1-year extension for MN- submit an extension $414.00 date of the type cases and a 2-year application and meet DR dnun extension to record plat certain criteria extensions) Case by case; City of West Linn, submit an application Dt-A,of t7R Approvals between and is subject to deposit fee t/i/Oo and p.,Bii n ti a nd for the 12/31/09 one-time, 2-yr extension appeal original app Case ISy case; vvnatcom County, Land use approvals applicant must W„ Oat expire submit a written between 1/1/09 request an meet and 3/1/12 one-time,2-yr extension certain criteria $100 Approvals set to c„pi.e bet een Washington the effective nate County,OR of ord. and one Blanket extension of year f.orr to t all approvals in the nate one year extension ,pc,,ified time period None City of Portland, A City permit must be OR Hpprovals effectiveh approval issued or te approv ul ,Kci c.,tcn.,i„n r between 5/27/06 activity must have been all approvals in the and 12/31/08 commenced by 6/30/12 specified time period None Case Fly case; 18 month extension; an applicant must City or A5 land,OR Dnexpired lane u..e ut9diti nul i-yr extension submit an extension permits approved may be grantee By a and meet certain prior to 7/1/09 separate request criteria $3114 EANIr3IT F-2 LU 10-0048 Feb 1, 2011 251 252 Feb 1, 2011 MUL)II I :A I IUN I U AN APPRUVtD DEVLLOPIvItNN I PERMI I PROCESS (ADMINISTRA I IVE REVILW) Pi e-AppIiCation Contei ante 2 weeks i Appiicatiun Preparation and 5u5mittal Varies i Completene5b Review It not complete, prepare reviion5 30 days —► up to iuu days i Pu61ic Commen it Period 2 weeks i Statt Report/initial Decision z-'+ weeks i Appeal Period m 7 15 days if no appeal is filed, the D c men renal Q 7 DRC Hearing (if appealed) 'i weeks DRC Findings z vvGelKo Appeal Period �5 aay5 ► it 110 appeal io tPfe decibion becomes renal City Council nearing (if appealed) 'I vveei J F City Council Findings z vveel7 Appeal Period (to EDBA) i vveeR EXHIBIT F-3 LU 10-0048 rz[6c 1 v1 L 2 Feb 1, 2011 253 MODIFICA i 'uN 10 AN APPROVED DEVELOPMENT PERM' I PROCESS (PUBLIC HEARING) Pre-Application Lome!ence 2 weeks Neighborhood Meeting (it i eHoii ed) 3 weeks Application Preparation and SuBmittai Varies i Completeness Kevievv it not complete, prepare revisions 30 days Op to 180 days i Notice of Public Heal my z0 days $ DRC Heariny DRC Findings z weeks — 7 Appeal Period 15 days If no appeal is mea the decision becomes final city council Rearing (if appealed) 4 vveeKs $ City council Findings z vveeKs If no appeal is riled the decision becomes final Appeal Period (to LUBA) vveeKS Page 2 of 2 254 Feb 1, 2011 Llelaile El Lilt a f 1007-2009 l U Clases Expired of SE t'la Min ine 1 ei Ye a n I I i5 2007 Application Type Owner/Applicant Name Site Address Neighborhood Assoc. Expiration Date First Extension Requested � cecori#pla#ALLlrk plan? L— )041* 3-lot Parlition and DR for town ha me s Mark Beirwagen 692 2n,19 ire e t lira Additia r Expires 4-7-11 Yes IL 0)658* LLP t etwe en two late and Rescnrcl Delineation Ulliotl&AJIne Mantel) 605 Country(Ilnt Rd&1110Iron Mt.Al,id IlcraatHighlands Enitercleolto9-II-11 Yes I L - )090* 4-lot Suit division arid Resalime Delis a ation Ja ret I a Fantaine 14804 Bacnes Ferry Read tale Grave Enter(kill to 2-2-11 Yes I L )0 68 4-lot expedited PD Gregory Borclal 189 70 Bryant Re ac I Blue Hera n Enter c lei I to 10-15-10 Yes LU ur-0074* RID fora new single-family dwelling Mark Hem 3328 Lakeview Blvd Lakeview-Summit Expires 12-1-10 N/A I LI 01-00 64 RID fora dclition s to existing dwelling Brie&Dabney Budde a 3368 9 or ith 9 hi re A lvd Blue Hera n Expires;1-211-11 N/A I LI 01-0031 DR fa r45-ur it Congregate Housing NW Housing Alta matiuies 4255 Oakridge Rd Waluga Expires 4-21-12 N/A I LI 01-0011 2-lot Parlition Ale c Ha Is er&Na n Binkley 1011 Sunningdale Rd list Additie r Enter c la olto 4-10-11 Yes ILI01-0081 2-lot Parlition Jeffry Tolima n 77 Iron Muir tein Btu I Country Chit-Narlh9hire DIN r(laIto4-11-11 Yes ILI01-0044* DR far new single-farail)Iduoailing Jahn Pinson 31 Ladd Street Old Tawn Enpires 11-I-10 N/A ILI01-0071* DR far axle riarre medal tc KRCbuilding Moran,I LC 15641Bacaea Ferry Read Waluga Expires 1-11-11 N/A LU 07-0084* 8-lot PD Tyrone&Jackie Cruse Family Trust,LLC 5248 Lakeview Blvd Bryant Extended to 11-3-10 Yes I LI 01-0021 Class 1 Va ria n CE to side a ett in I far new dwelling H.H.Specialists 170 71 Ret ea,a 1 an a Bryant Expired 10-2-10 N/A I LI 01-00 24 Class 1 Va ria n,eta side a ett ac I far new dwelling NI.H.Specialists 170 99 Ret ec,a I an€ Bryant Expired 10-2-10 N/A I LI01-0038 Class 1 Variaru a to side a ett ac I faran acklitian Tocldd Dana Hennelly 18120 WestuiewDr.ve Palisades Expired 9-2 7-10 N/A I LI 01-0050* 2-lot Parlition &Rase urge 0 a lineation Gregory Dan ids 425 G Aue first Additie r Expired 2-11-10 Yes ILI01-0061 3-lot Parlition IIenaisiancaHomes 128 01 Goa dell R cl Mc rest Highlands Expired 9-13-08 Na** Ce mg le ten(no LU 07 0005 2 lot Partition Olivor&Dorothy Ghitoa 13050 Amber Place Forost Highlands exte ns is n needed) N/A I LI 01-00 02* Class 1 Vol rf an co ta let coverage far new dwelling Greg F elan Oil, a rcl Det ora h A a u der-R ale n iul 1444 Maple Street McVey-South Sha re Expired 3-2 2-10 N/A LI 01-0018 Cla sa 1 Va Ca n ce ta retaining wall height A have st &9 t rr cll a Rajani 192 5 Cheryl Cot rl Palisades Expired 6-8-10 N/A ILI01-0032 LLP t etwe en twa la to Jay Aeicl&9tarca Heaton 50008 5020 Lake view AI,d Bryant Expired 8-15-08 Na** ILI01-0001 DR aril Class;I Variance far iiE w aornnme ruin It Ill Medallion,I LC 2 Monroe Parkway Mountain Park Enpired6-18-10 N/A ILI01-0031 6-LotPD Taurus Hames 15114 Quarry I d&4162-411E4 0 arman Dr Waluga Expired 10-5-08 Na** ILI01-0041 DR ta 1onstneta concession a tan d Lake Oswego So tocI0intriat 1215Onerloak0r'+e Palisades Expired8-1-10 N/A w, _ 1 c ..- ...: ; . , : . _ -. . trt x€e &ot eques#e 2008 Application Type thMnerAApplfant Name �tke Ad. ess NetgY�orhvod 4�oc �fipJ►ation.Date - trz reoard platiLLA Rlan?� : I LI 08-00 11* 2-lot Parlition Jim 1 cl wartz 160 61 Waluga Dm e I al a lore st Enter c le o l to 12-30-10 Yes MaryJe klieg&Avamere,Lake Oswego I LI 08-00 14* DR far n awe ffice bldg&Re se urc e 0 e line ation Investors,LI C 4550 d 4180 Carina r Dr Waluga Expires 1-21-11 N/A ILI08-0056 Class1Va Can,eta fro)ntlrears ett atksfaraddition Lynall and Susan Gee 1440 Worthington Street Hallinan Enpires1-211-1;1 N/A ILI08-0051 9-lotPD&Aaa ounce Delhi eatiar Steven Vic ng&Jiro nitaBaale 5337&5431Ba rite- Rd IaleRarest DIN rclaIto1 -12 Yes I LI 08-00 68 3-lot Parlition 9 tan Kennedy,Tni s to e 3795 Upper Dime tale Grave Enter r de o l to 6-1C-11 Yes ILI08-0072* DR ta Ion stn.et0tases afaFl rolled mas ter Flan City afLOR arils&Rea Dept 611 N.9tate St(George Rogers Park) Old To]wnd Hallinan Enpires 1-E-12 N/A ILI08-0074* 2-lot Parlition Bryce and Gera Neiman 182 71 Pilkington Rd Re se weed Enter cledto: -11 Yes ILI08-00711 ae,era I Gloss 1Varianoesfar new dwelling James rolakker 16331 Maple 0 in le Blue Hera Expires 1-9-12 N/A I LI 08-0021* 2-lot Parlition Jim Rerris 15964 Parker Road tale More st Enter ded to 10-9-10 Yes I LI 08-00 22* LLP t etwe en two la to arid 2-let Pa rtitia r Jim Rern's&Den Ke Ile r 15164&160111 Park r Rd tale More st Expired 9-16-10 Yes 3-lot Partition,LLA between two lots,Resource I LI08-0002* Delinaatier a a rtl &Debt ie La uis anil SI e ila Ostlyl 3311 d 3271 Fir Ridge Rd Ulllanil: Enpired4-25-10 Yen ILI08-0604 7-lot PD Autler Development,LII 1040(IAVE &93C 10 ti Street CountryClnt-NarlhItare Expired 6-2-09 Na** I LI 08-0021 LLP t etwe en tl a twc properties City a f LO I La kewoe d L of s and Ce Holt s Millenium Park d 101-191 3rd St Evergreen Expired 8-19-10 Yes I LI 08-0032 2-lot Parlition 0 one Id&9 uaan ne Con ilia 4575 Upper Dnsia I al e Grave Expired 1-11-10 Yes ILI08-0048 2-lot Parlition 9 Lisa Seeger Lot sauttaf1E1190Aonrea Ferry Rd Ilc rest Highlands Expired 10-29-09 Na** Page 1 ail 2 BXW IOIT R-41 LU 10-0{148 t11 'J7 cJ# al" a) FirSt ension Requested 2009 Application Type Owner/Applicant Name Site Address Neighborhood Assoc. Expiration Date to record platiLLA plan? Solve ral Class 1 Varance s8 RR I tiff(r re duction far I LI 01-000A ii a w dwelling Ja tit La me r&Ja tti TI c nal Ps rla 718 Maple Stra Et Hs Ilina n Expires 1-11-11 N/A Class 1 Variance ta front setback and retaining wall I LI 09-0001 height for n a w dwelling Ja tn TI c mai Para 720 Maple Still a t Ha llinan Expires 1-8-12 N/A Clans I Va ran CE 1 toi rear/sit la a ett an I a to construct I LI 01-0011 a rewroaf Non nia Hussa 2090 9 uramit Diva I al miiew-Summit Expires 1-1-1"; N/A I LI 01-0001 Class I Va ran ce ta front lel asl,for new garage Nancy&Cl arlia Cot t 2301 9 unsmit Diva I al euiew-Summit Expires I-1/1-13 N/A DR for additions ta residential care facility and Class 2507,2531,2562,2573,2584,and 2595 I LI01-0010 1 variari e to fa iica hail t t at untie 9 C I 041 I Christie Diva GI(nmlitT41 Expires I-21-11 N/A I LI 09-0043 Cla sa. 1 Va rian CE ta fa rn e height Michas I&La ri Gilroy 4431 West Bay Rd Bryant Expires 1-9-1£ N/A I LI 00-0041 LLP t etwe en twa la ta Ja hi Dengel&Elva Edwards 3505 Upper Drive tale Grove Expires 11-1£-11 Yea I LI 01-0011 Class 1 Variance IC Ill IE 1 ett ac I s for rew duplex I]a,ii.I Rodman 4852[Owe r Drive Bryant Expires I-21-1:1 N/A DR fa r dug c uts,ste nic a st ed,a r.1 ca rk ess ion I LI 01-0031 stand L aka Oswego So I.a c I 0 istriat 1215 Omerloa k 0 I',le Pa lisa do a Expires di-9-14 N/A LLA between twa lots,Resource Delineation,and I LI 01-0021 Rea°Lime I utter and raar a ett a al rachiation a Beth Gerber 17171 Cec ar R c acl Blue Hera n I LA II Ian 3 lli mitt ll al N/A Still pa rklinc a pH ro,ial, I ut Eirected to te I LI 01-0031 DR far new single family dwelling Community Financial Corp 307 Duals m 9 treat Old Town withdrawn 1,I/A Os wac a F oirte Ha Idirs s,LI a &Ram c f Lake I LI 01-002i LLP t etwa en twa la ta Oswego Inueatment Ca 340 Oswego Pt.Dr&'....'1( Moot ills R.I Mc ott ilk Expired 9-£-1( Na** Audrel Matlison,Damicl Airs a,0 Nan.1 2929 8 2151 Glen Eagles RI,2150 &3954 I LI 01-0030 Rena unie In hanaeme it in Etre am(oridar Malaria Kelly,Jar a Lovelady Wembley Pa rld R c sal Uplands Expired 9-20-10 N/A *Denotes applicants that have inquired a t out ex.ensigns in tie gait year. **Per the Planning(I a mmissiin's retommendation,applicant's for land dil lisle na and lot line adjustments tI at did not the a request far an automatic 1-yr extension per I 0(1 11.81.010(1)would ma t I a eligible for tie proposed er ensia n. Abbreviations ILA=I c t lin e adjustment DR=Development Review PD=Plan noi cl Development RID=Reside rtial MIDI Design R e,do w -n CD a- _% P.3 0 —% 3 ge 2 crll 2 EMI-11E11T FI-41 LIU 10-0{148 HBA r-iome Builders Association p�p of IClelropol'kdn Por gland eC !Y D NOV 0 g Zt110 1v7yerltbel _ ul- City of Lake Osvvey® t.w,mmunity uavaopment Duo. Planning�..n1A1.11115.llAll Ciiy Ot Lake Uswegt, 380 "H �villue LiKC Vswegu, OK `J/U34 NE: File 1V0. LU 10-u048 llCvGlOpineut appli ,ativu entOJt,iuith year Commissioners: On behalf of the 10UUt [numbers of the Home Builders Association of Metro Portland, I vv i3h to vvhoic netitzaly Sul,l,vlt 7,l,tiull I 7f tll, JtCtiir iGl.u11I1uCuGatiull witrl i gala t7 tri1J ageil a itCAll. Staff has done an excellent job of cnuruct;,lizing tn= Du�.Kgrvlula fat 1ni3 oituution, alld tnc 7,ptivil 1 `uttc111.at1vc, vvlit Nic,viac the iu7,t Cffwtiv7 A110 i,1.11iital,lc 1C371ut1711 tc,, tnc 51tu$1711. wltil tot uuuitcu(t'cC0 Cuilaci111CiiCe t'ui applicants wtla might uet uthelwise make a tiillely application for u11 exteri)i011. WC 1.11 i, yriU t7, ttrrf tO l,lweco with tllli t1141J a1 iti011 of tr. appi,71J11rTt1/47 Vr�1111CL1141 tv effect this �nlicy. Eurl:e Platt virectol of Loe ti ;au mu1ue11t 7�rlau5 LXH1t31I Li-1 LU 10-u048 15555 SW Rangy Road ® Suite 301 ® Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035 Phone: 503.68,1. 1880 • rax www.i ornenuiif,ersporelanu.org Feb 1, 2011 257 258 Feb 1, 2011 Received by City of Lake Osweycu CLurreutua 11/08/10 Erin O'Rourke-Meadors 5Z61 Uovcutiy l�Outt Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035 8 Nvvenibm 2U.1 U John Gustafson, Chair, and Commissioners YlZtuuutg L'JII1uua5tvu city of Lake Oswego 380 "A" Avenue LakC u3 ry Cgo, u'ego. `'/U_54 Regarding: LU 10-0048 LiCztt l7�tttlCl,c[5oI15: As a former Chair of the Lake usvvego uviiu<<1tte.C, a„a ieniOC.itt or Oui rats City fOi u,utC tnatt tvvCitty yCat5, I CApiCS5sttT,tnttCattt tcset vuticii legatdiltg,the Statf}nu/pt./sal betvte you this evening. I tegtet any awareness of this proposed action until this past weekend which has not allowed me the degree of.eviev, and 4,t,fopiate ,e3ezhen atta ui,aly5;3 wn,eh 1 uvtt;tally swk bxruiC utleting witiui-cut. A:, illy Cuttctit sCltc(lulc does nut allow me to be in attcttaaitcc at tonight's meeting, 1 otter the following written testimony. I'ulluvvi„g teview of the staff Keputt, ineluautg Exhibits t'-1 ihtough 1-3, 1 ant battled as to the concluding Stall recornmendatiun. As one example, only two of the eight jurisdictional ezvai,,Nli.3, g,r1it x blu,,Ket CnCCpttvtt'; attq, yet t5 piOpu5CC1 by Starr. 1 t CpCCtlully suggest: 1. A more detailed,er.o.t allovi,tb appiep.,atc rCv,C vv z[uq z[nalyaw yr WIC SpCCtriC pioj is/land use a eisiens ellectei tlitough any extensiutt' 1. Lxtensive review Ot the -Economic; Hardship Extensions" given by Oregon jurisdictions-ii,cludi„g`co11ditio,1 such a, publ;e. nuti,Z, the upportutttty lot appCal, atiU otnct Ct ttet tar, Att7, catctul deteuitivation as tO what best fulfills the intent of our Comprehensive Plan in regard to years affected, length of CntC„5ivt,/tCttttS, atta, type ul CxtCh5iO t, a3 Well aS, appiOptiate fee: attd 4. Possible Cuntutuabee of this nuauci tO allow «reatcr public pariicipauon. One trusts that your careful a,1d balcaueea cc,wvv a,,a c‘7u3iaefnt1Vlt will Oiutg ro to a p�Oupv5ztl ittviC fCI1CCtivc autl appt'uptiatC toi Out cottuuunity that' that which Staff has pt upesea. sitteetely, EXHIBIT G-2 Erin O'Rourke-Meado,3 LU 1U-UU4io Feb 1, 2011 259 c SUBMITTED BYI DIANA BOOM 1 11C18/1 0 N c EXHIB Ill G-3 LA! 1 CI-0C48 ; Nurnanogiu, Jessica PrikEVEL; . . Fro—: Jar. Laf7mtaJne LJan,LaFontaineGogn.00mj 141:Iv 24 "n'q't Zuiv Set; kiVeJited,.y. November 24, 2010 12:12 PM To: Niluteuagio, jessi ,a . cr6VVrtfoiU Sub :t: LOC 50,75_040 LU 10-0O4o DioptiTclit DUpt, i am writing to request Ile rortnind ar.,ommssiori redummend the ay Counoll consider ATndg7,i7,411tly approved lrInd use. ds,7,;.uloris f,r tkat five y rS, that is too on perhaps they u a ttta...,t elitiiineite the language that .ays it is a , rt.e.-6:rle extension. i was granted approva for a 4-lot suplivision on my tine-acre ee: at the Corner of Boone s Ferry drid Ti Fl: in February 2009. Sh,jy after that approval the economy took a dramatc down-turn and buIders were iiglend .,othsr tharc buyimg land fu ueolpIL beer, ‘‘.7.i..tted extension which is due Lo expileIn Fabloary 2011 but the is no new:: r 5ev, o'Douk the i..clustry that would lead me to believe that Me situation wiii Van aroun7 ln the next year. A fiv -year tueijn give foT theort nL 71tuatio...7,to begi:: t L nd. I woul7 expects idt,eny developei-who li light buy lIly popery would hove to coumply with tr:e regolationsin iace7t.tho ',ime the property is oaveicspeu. I'm sure theLand Us D'epartnieht arld the City Cnd t-zy=vry fui! schedul. mid by gtihg fve- year exl.unb-un t.wvuid provide them the One' ta.work cn more pre5zinm r;t:iertl re\lisiting CVO / y1 When the property is cold and me cave-toper sunmit tr,.2 plans fcsr the actual develoorner,'L thePlnimg Cohhoisi,,n oold thenaie tho fai bevelopl-nent pians and tddroaFiy atuuOesue at thd, urne. Thank'y o u for yoJr consideration of my request. ,!Ftrt LaF7Antain7 4770 Svi EQ.7r1E.L.Fen y ,::)03-63G-5907 EARIESIT G-4 1/24/20 LU 10-0048 Feb 1, 2011 261 • RuEVE0 1-IBA. Fir3Ille 6illijaerS Associaton of ML.7iro,tx)ibliriFtaFil:inci rity Uti LaKe f3swirego • c'omrilunitv uoielopinnt Dept Decembei 8, 2010 mayor jack Hoffman {-it): of LaKe u3,,,,,,,f,-_, Lotluclto,s 38C1 -A- Avenuu .1...a1(7. OSN-v :;`40, OR ,..i702'4 RE: 1.,L} 19-004* (En-dinancr 2563) or Mao f noffu.au ti,d, On bchalf of the 100C/ - meuthciS KA the home Litii]Tici., Assw,'..-hiou ol Met,o rorti<uo„, I vr7i,ili tr7r 7,:iness,z,..... ...;ui„,port of the above ordinancu as le,4,::„;111111;..u6c-,6 to you by Li :: plamiiii(j Toiituuissi€,N. I hc.fe, is .L.r.k7y LICre:st;r,ril We. are 6.7dAp eriencing very unusual c-,c-Jnonlic dines, and adulnlioii ot this exxusion will ceitaInly help .,,,,,,,nuc:. typii7aut3. wn,„.7 du ..tic:2(:•,se1ves ,,,,':th ilo i,oss:ble 'way- to move forward with Lheif appik,atious vviLhin the time ...illowe7 t'..•5 4 07.3116;tkill of the oilTitiai aiiin oy'al, Thank %;ou coi he 7ippo.i[Amity tc... :inbuilt trIC.-..se k.g..rrinar7.0.,-.. ..---1 Since,Tr71)14 i . . ' //' "( 11 / tETRE:,f ail Lik,,.7„olor of Local Government.,.4diaii,', 15555 SW Btr,y,y Road • Suite Cl3 4 Lake ::)I.,'IV.t:-.. : 0:-f-gori 5 . :',5 rncrle. DO: '.6,-I, ..,-,i.r.,.%) ..pr rax: 5L.5.67.5-i.7'"ve Vo itriirinAi ilc, 0i.iiide,,rt,-aci-Ei,,no ciiirr _ • ' --+ EXHIBI i G-5 ic:,Aff,÷-rd,g0104 L.:-..q.c.mcv.,, 7, .7r),:',c, LU 10-0048 262 Feb 1, 2011 9. 1 uff Y OF LA1<h LUU L/'dU uSwtL Ce.77en,;I1910-2010 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Laze uswego,nK M iniZr JUJ-LU u COUNCIL RL1 ® I' www.ci.oswa 1` ao.or•.us Iu: Jack Harrma.., Mayor iviembers of the City count l Alex D. McIntyre, city Manager FROM: Don Forman, Interim Chiet of Police sUBJECi: Resolution a -D1 a resolution of the City Lonna of the City of Edge Oswego anihoricing the iviayor to sigiu an intergovernmental agreement Between the City of Ca Re Oswego, IriMer. aria tnE City at Partiand for Transit Polices Division services DATE: February 1, zuii ACTION Adopt Resolution it-ui a resalatian of the city Council at the City of Cage Uswega aathariLing the Mayor to 3ig.. a.. i..tzrgoveri.mc..tai agreemerlt 1Jctvvccii the City at Lake Uvvega TriMet and the city at Partiaiia for iransit Police Division 5ervice3, ITV I KUDUC I ioNjBACKGROUND h� CaRe U3vvega Police Depart,',Ent ha3 long Been Interested in participating in Transit Policing vvith our law enforcement partners in the greater metropolitan area. The Transit Police Division at IriMGt (I PD) consists of so sworn police officers vvho together represent lb airterent City arid comity police agencies and Sheriff's offices from throughout our metropolitan area. In this current economy, opportunities for any new member agency to participate are limited due to the tanding constraints of I riMer.. Any vacancy or opportunity for a new member agency to join the partnership ha Became dependent upon current member agen ies aajasLing the naniBer of their officers assigned to the I PD. i here k currently one vacancy and this unique opportunity has Been uttered to the Edge Uswega Police Department. This opportunity i3 particalariy anklue Irani all ether lave enntorcemennt partnerships in our area since full funding is provided from an outside 3aarcE. I he City ha,the opportunity to participate dt no cost. In fact, the position is reimbursed at 1us°ro or ail casts. Feb 1, 2011 263 rage z DISCUSSION In thi3 Economy, carurul cons;aeration should Be given to ncvv programs or the addition at any nevv FTE positions, i here are a number of apportunitic.to join lavv entor cerncnt partner ships in the gi eater metropolitan area. Some examples include but aye not limited to the ulacKarrIn. Lounty Interagency IO3K Force (CCITF) which is dedicated to drug enforcement and criminal conspiracie3; the Llackarna3 C,Ourity SWAT Team which serves our area; the Joint Terrorism Task Force (J'Tr) based in Portland; the �.lackamas Coanty Major Crimes Team; the Crash Reconstruction and Forensics Team (CRAFT); and the Regional Orgairi4ed Crime Narcotics Agency (ROCN).The members at these partnerships participate in various capacitic3 Bat common to all is that each irrembei agency tands their own contributed position. Soule at the3e partnership3 reuuire personnel be a33;gncd on a tall time Basis saun as the CCI I F or Ruch. Other groups, such as the 5wHI, the Major Crime.Team, ar CRAFT, have the agency resources vvorKing together on as needed basis for training or case callout3. The Cake Oswego Police Department currently is a member of the Major Crimes seam as well as the CRHF I team. I he Police Department is a past. participating member ot ROCN and while in that capacity, the City Tunded a tall-time position tar over 18 years. These various Iavv enTorcement partnerships aliovv for a more etticient else ot the citiLen's tax dollars and enhance the ability of Iavv enforcement in directed activities. These partnerships provide a higher level at enforcement activities in certain areas, aliovv for more in depth aria detailed investigations, and identity criminal conspirators and their organization.. These outside appur tunitie3 a13a provide higher lever or training and experience to the police officers so assigned. T hese a3signments can 3c1 ve a3 recruitment tools, help to motivate and retain staff, and boost morale since such opportunities are usually viewed as most attractive. open completion oT oatsiac assignments. °tticers operate at a mach higher level and are able to pass along the training, education, aria experience to their peer Wing the ROCK experience as an example, r etar sing officers routinely taught less experiences officer. at the rake usvvego Police Department Patrol 3hiTt level how to conduct complicated investigations and write Search vvar r ant affidavit.. Ioaay, it i3 riot uncommon for compete drag investigations to be conducted at the ratrol level with search warrant affidavit. vvr;tten and warrants mart aaLhoriLed. Several returning ROCN officers went on to become successful supervisors with the Department, in large part doe Lo their Broad experiences and expertise. These par tnerNhip, allOvv far a more etticient ase ot resources and pi°dace a more experienced, etticient, and well rounded police otticer. I his enhances the unality of police services provided and contribates to a higher level of safety and security in oar community as well a3 Our 3ui rounding greater metropolitan area. Participation in the Transit rolice partnership will al3o serve a3 ari oppOituriity to get an inside looK at a Iavv enforcement operation which serves our local Transit system as well as the transportation system in the greater metropolitan area. Option 1 could allovv participation By the City vvithoat the addition ot an FIE and woald generate savings. Participation in Transit Poiic�ng, vvithoat the addition at an FIE, provides for great tiscal sensitivity and at the same time allows for exploration of the I ran3it ranee Div1317,ri par trier Ship. IT it vvei e to Be later determined that participation was not of benefit to the Lity, orderly vvithdravval could be made. 264 Feb 1, 2011 Page 3 Option 2 requires the addition of one F I E to backfill the TrilVlet position and, although it could be argued is "no cost," there are indeed some soft or hidden costs. These costs could be recovered by the City over an extended period ot participation But is not certain and would Be dependent on successtal longer tenet participation. uption 3 13 non-participation which results in no Grange or cost. the total agency participation cost is the responsibility of iriMet and is Mundiea ISy vvEly of a montriy invoicing and reimbursement of T00% of the salary, overtime, insurance and all other related employee costs. An additional 5% is allowed, by agreement, to be invoiced for participating agency administrative costs. Currently, the monthly dllloanL LhdL would be invoiced to TriMet would be 59,988 (5119,862 nilcially) and commencing Jaly 1 ZU11, the monthly amount would Be S10,956 (S131,475 annually). The initial ter,,, ot the participation agreement would Be worn February 1, ZU11 throagh Jane 30, ZU11. I Rerearter, the agreement vvoala automatically re,levy for successive one year terms throagh June 3U. Zu15, unless terminates sooner ariaer agreement terms. Any party can terminate the agreement, vvithoat penalty, with a 3u day written notice. ALTERNATIVES & FISCAL IMPACT option 1. savings Generated. I his scenario provides tor participation with adjustments and scheduling oranges i„v0lving oar carrent Police Department stoning resources. I his cdn be done without the addition or an F I E yet maintain our current minimam service levels with oar Patrol stattii,g. In doing so. overtime would be generated bat i3 riot eApectea to eniced $6U,000 on ail ani,aal basis. I he ability to invoice it Met for one police officer, minas the resulting overtime coat for oar Patrol 3tC,rting, vvoala generate esti,„atea annual savings ranging from So ,aa2 to $iuI,445. uption z is supported aria recommended 6y start. Option Z. No Cost (SotL/Hidden Costs Exist). This option provides participation in transit Policing but would require the addition ot one F I E to be hired as a backktill tor the Police Officer sent to the Transit Police Division. Aithoagh reimbursement provides tor all employee Costs, the City does incur wont end expenses in thie recraitment dna training or nevv employees. I he additional invoiced 5% ddlllinistrative tee does conceivably prvviae a ureails to recoup these additional costs Over a period of time_ bat remains dependent on the length or time or saccessrai participation. Option 3. No Cost. The City's non-participation in transit Policing would create no fiscal impact. KELOMMOIENDArION It is recommended (proceeding cinder option 1). that the City Council adopt Resolution 11-01, a resolation of the City Council or the city or Cage Usvvego acithorizing the Mayor to sign an intergovernmental agreement between the City of Lake usvvego, t rilVlet arid the city or Portland for Tranoit Police Division Services. The agreement provides the basis for a cooperative working relationship which provide3 police services to the Transit System in oar City ds well as the greater metropolitan region. Feb 1, 2011 265 Page 4 ATTACHMENTS 1. ReSaI cni i i 11-01 Reviewed by: Department Director Finance Director (Yr) City Attorney AieA ivicintyre City Manager 266 Feb 1, 2011 RESu[U i iul9 zz-uz A rcESOtu i lull ur i HE 1.1 a r wulQclt ur IRE cl i r uF CRK! u5WEuu AiTHuRIZINu THE MAYOR TO SIGN AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO, TRIMET AND THE CITY OF PORTLAND FOR TRANSIT POLICE DIVISION SERVICES. vvREREAS_ I rilviet provides transit services to the citiLcns uT tRe I i i-l.onnty Portland IVIeetropol tan area incluaing tRe l.ity vT Cake U5vve6v; aria WHEREAS I riMet has contracted with the Portland Police Bureau to provide law enforcement services on the I RIME I transit system aarrlinisterea througR the I f ansit Police Division; ana WHEREA5, the I ransit Police Division consists of officers from various law enforcement agencies in the TriMet transit service district; and WHEREAS, 1 riMet, Portland and Cake Usvvego desire to have the Cake Osvvegu Police Department participate Sy assigniiig an otticef to the I ransit Police Program: and vvHEREA5, I Re Portland Police bureau, tfrougR their contract with I riMet, vvill reimburse the city of take Oswego for the salary and benefits for this police officer position plus a five (5) percent administrative fee; NOW I HEREFORE BE II RESOLVED 6y the City Council at the City of Cake Oswego that: 5ection 1: I ne IViayor is authorized to sign the Intergovernmental Agreement rctvveerl I riMet, the City of Portland, and City of tale Oswego for transit police services, in the form attached as Exhibit 1. Section 2: Ettective Date. 1 his Resolution ,Halt take ettect upon passage. Considered and enacted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego held on die 1st ddy at Fehraary, 2011. ArES: NOE5: EXCusED: ABS I AIN: Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor Resolution 11-01 Faye 1 at 2 Feb 1, 2011 267 ATTEST: Robyn Christie, City Recorder APPROVEV AS TO FORM ,444( uavid Powell, City Attor?ey t'eso ution "1 l-u i Page 2 of 2 268 Feb 1, 2011 INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT A1V1Ui' ti l riE 1 K1-L U U IN I Y 1VlE I KUYULl 1 AIN I RAIN SYU K I A 1'lu1N DISTRICT OF OREGON, THE CITY OF PORTLAND AND THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO r UK 1 KAlN Sft r°Ll t SERVICES Contract No. 11-0804 1 nia Agi c c niriit ,a c11tV1 r[l i11ty aiuvllg tilt T1■-Cv uiity 1Vlc t1 v ,i tz[ii 11 z[11311vi lat1v11 11i3t1■c.t of Oicguii ("1'rilVlet"), the City of Yurtlaua (Yurtlaila) aua The city of Lake Oswego (Lake U3vvcgu), pul Suzint t i ziut11i1 ity gi zuitt l ;au UKS l llzrlrtCi .l`JU. 1tliL11AL } 1111V1 et_ rort1alld iii Lake Usw Cr] 1-�t11r. 1.J a1 ti ") 7UNiiC tv C.11tcl iutO all Agreement wltrl iespeZt tV Transit Police Division services ilicluding but 1101 limited to deployment strategy, priority of services aild ad1111111 st1 at ve piriCeaues. A(iXEE1VILlN'1 It1 parties aglee as follows: 1. 1 EKM: The initial teiul UT this Agicelnent shall be Tloiu t'eblurn 1, 201 1 through 2. Ju11e 30, 2011. ihoroafte1, thi3 Ag1ce111C11t auto111atically iniVvv for 3 Lit 7A733iv C/l17-y.al teinis tlnough J une 30, 2013, unless telnnnated Joouuei uliael the telins DI this Agreement. 2. RESYONS1Y1L111ES OF YAK11ES: See attached Exhibits 1 throuo-h 3. 3. TERMINATION: a. Any party may terminate this Agreement for its convenience and without penalty by giving the otnei parties thirty (iU) rlay5 wiitte1111OhCC 01 its iutentiOn to teiiuinate. b. II lii1Vlet is unable to appivpiiate suttiCient luuas to flay Lake Uswcgo to its sei vices under this Agreement, TriMet must notify Lake Oswego and Portland and this .Agleeineiit snail aut0iliatiCally ter minute as 01 tr1C C1.17 01 the tast tisCal yeal tat which such appropriations are available. c. Any,bligations arising prior to the date telmixlatin .7111 v ive the tC1111i11atioll, ineluaing any Ubligati011 tU ne eii . ni1enuiity aria hold h["Tu11less any other JUlisaiCti0ii. 4. 1N VEMN 1r 1UA 1.1U.N: Yoiilana ana Lake Oswego will be responsible tor the work of the officers assigned 10 the 111Niet 11a11sit YVllll 1J1 V1siV 11. 1 ri,-Feb 1, 2011 i�,x C.D.L..-.-, L511 269 r age1 of i1 Subject to the �Ondltlons and limitations oI the U egem LonstitutiOn and the UiegOn Tort Claims Act, ORS 30.260 through 30.300, Lake Oswego shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless lnllVlet and Voltland IrOni and against all liability_ lOss, and Costs arising out of of resulting from the acts of Lake Oswego , its officers, employees, and agents in the performance Or tnis Agicomunt. Subject to the conditions an limitations ot thG Ureg0u COnstitutiOn and the Oregon Tort Claims Act, ORS 30.260 through 30.300, TriMet shall indemnify, defend, and hold hcumless Lake UswegO and Pentland Lulu and against all liability, lOss and anisinia Out oh 01 leultillg from the acts of T1iMet, its officers, employee, and agents in the pelfo1111ance of this Agleenlent. Subject to the eunditi011s and limitations of the Ulegun Cunstituti n and the 01e ,V 11 1 ort Clai1113.r ct, MKS 30.u60 .50.300, Yvrtlalld shall :Lido 11111.:fy, dof711d, and held haiinless Lake OswegO and 11iMit dent and against.all liability, lOss; and COsrs arising Our OI v1 1multnlg Loin tni,a,t5 OI Yoltlan7l, its OIIi,.,7i5, CniplOyees, and agents 111 the,pc.lIelnla[ rde of this Agreement. 5. INSURANCE: Each party shall be responsible for providing workers' compensation insuiaii Ioi tncil icspeaivc employees_ as required by law_ and may elcet to CeiuinefLially insure or self insure for any other liabilities assumed under this Agreement. 6. ADHERENCE TO LAW: Each party must:.omply with all federal, state, and local laws and oidinan'es applicable to this Agicceiiieiit. /. ACCLSS l U KECUKUS: Each party must have aCCess to the books, dueunient, and Othei the partio3 iclatcd tl/thi3 Ag1c,.111e11t fo1 the pu11,73, of CA a111i11ati„11, %upyillg MO audit, unless Mlle].wise limited by law. 8. SUBCONI KAC l UK AND ASS1GNM1~;N I: No party shall subeontraet or assign any pan.of tnis Agieeniieut vvitn0ut the vvlittc11 co115G11t of tnG othei paltie3. `I. LIN 11Kb AliKbhlVlrN 1 : [his Agleeule1It ineOrpOiates by ieieienue and makes all eI the Icons and conditions of the Exhibits 1 through 3 attached hereto a part of this Agreement and COnstituteb the elltile agreement between the panties. This Agreement may be mOditred Or amended only by the written agreement of the parties. 10. ATTORNEY FEES: In the event a lawsuit is filed to obtain performance of any kind under this Agn'coment_ the prevailing panty is entitled to additional sums as the COurt may award ton rea,)onable attorney fees, all costs, and disbursements, including attorney-fees, cost, end disbuiscnncnts On appeal. 11. SI✓VLKAElLl1 Y: 1he parties agree that, it any tellll of this Agleelnent, is deelaied by a Court t� be oA ill,,o..r1i t 1Yith am; law, th:, val:dity of th.,17,1nallllllg t711113 will net affcct:.d. IL. 1Nu luES: no Nartic3 111u3t zany iiOt;Cos, Dino, 111voiCe3, 1CNvrts, Or otnC1 vviltten eOmmunieuriOns required by this Agreement through the United States Mail, first-Class postage Ira�d- of pC13u,ially C1CllvElea to the tidalc»CS below: 2701,zu11-zI1 L.x,�,: h�iva r.n. ell Feb 1, 2011 rage.1of ll 11i%1,urtiCs tiny C Cziust77 this A61C.CiuiCitt tG DC CnCCutr7 Dy tticii duly aathaiize tC -bind We party for which they sign. uITY OF LAKL OSWLuO (JTY OF POR'I'LAND 'I'RI-l:OUNTY METROPOLITAN 380 "A" Avenue 1221 SW 4T11 Ave. TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT OF Lake Oswego,Or.97034 Portland Or. 97204 OREGON (TRIMET) 4012 SE 17th Ave. Portland, OR. 97202 Jack Hoffman Sam Aaains Shelly Lomax ivirrya( mayur l,.i.eGatii Dtr'Ltt r, Operations date dace dine L vj is hiif iirvalttdc Attaitet 'aztC Appiuvea as to fuiin: (77 C.-(7 David Powell, City Attorney ( Linda Menb, City Attorney :".Met Leaa1 Couiisei 1 / (late riatz uxtC / Exhibiis: Exhibit 1 — I>.aii ii Police Division Aalniilisuation & Upciaxioiis tz,niait , linii,it t'vli%u 1Jivi5iul tuff u LCtt%i .Exltibit, 3 ---'Iiausii Police Division Personnel Operatiaiis iruebil-2u15 n:7.'cgo 217il rage 3Feb 1, 2011 271 EMI itlirt .t 11(Alr S11 YULILE DI V 1S1U1r ADMEN 1,1 HA 11UIr tSL Ul'ElkA I LOIN S 1. SERVICE LEVEL 1 Oi the tiiiii 47,1 thi3 AgiC.Ciiiiiit, LaKC U3vvCgO will pAOvi7ICC OiiC Ji nixie lull-tune 0ttiCei(s) tO' assignment to the Transit Police Division(hereinafter Division), in such numbers and Cla55it'CatiOns a5 the parties mutually agtee iu vvtitiug, by letter atuviig Lake Usvveg0 (agency name and title) the Transit Police Division Commander and TriMet's E„e;:utive - UpetatiGtts. with suCh tenet in the mitts Set forth ur Lnhibit L. It a vaCaiCy Ot any Mt the ag1CC - upon number of officers is not filled within 90 days, the parties age. that 1 tilviCt itiay i�a55i6tt the Opening to aiiOthei ju'isClictioii to p'oviae otfic i(s)to the Division. Lake Oswego peisomiel assigned to the Division will iiiiployi,Ca ofthC Lak:, uavvCgO eitd will iiOt DC COns1UCiCU employees Ot agents Ot liiMet DI the City Ot Portland(Yoitlaua). For purposes of this AgleeniCttt, tho officci(s) u.3igiiCd to the uivisiou will be tcfcc11C.d to as assigned to tnc 1 iiMet 1 iansit Pollee Di vision. L. Urr,ic'iiDivs a. Deployirie"t Strategy and Priority for Services: The parties recognize that they have ICg'tiiiiatC ititciC5t5 iiitfL niar'ageurcut anU 7e•plvyiticut Mf 0tt e is assigned to the liaiisit Police Division. The parties will work together to ensure: (1) On-Board Presence: The priority for Transit Police d,=,ployiitcitt is pie3ciice cif the transit system vehiClcs an7I at t'ausit systCin public facilities. (2) Calls toi SeiviCe: lii geneial, response to 9-1-1 Calls for uausii sysLein iuciEETellts 3hA11 be tc5poialcd to by local i$vv tnc 1C3pcCtivC juii�aiCti�tt. (.i) AitC3t5: At1C.3t3 vit the ttatt5it SystCiit i.trCiOCttts snali bC Dy tine iespCCtivc; 1 tansit Police M' local law enforcement that originated action on the incident. (4) Law Elam cement Support: lransii Police and local law enforcement shall be iC3pOii.ib1C IVt lz[vv CiiIViCCtncrit support aCtiv;ties lot tnett iCspCCtive piu.naiy areas of responsibility. (5) birforceInent: l iaiisit Police enforcement shall focus on TriMet ordinances, uiCludutg laic Culbicemeirt ail'. State an7 City laws to help euSuie the sCCutity et passengers, employees, and transit system property. (6) Targeting: Transit Police deployment shall focus oit ideiitificd piOnl;iii mem, 'Mutes an7/ot transit Centers/transfer points based On C1ata relative to the greatest tioCd3 fo1 `licevciitivC aettvu" wing Cituuuuitity piil;Ciiig 5ttatCgiC3 vvfOiiCvCt poSSibIC. 272,D nil-2Uis L kr r,; tr.A rch.-..., ,Litt Feb 1, 2011 1'age 4 of ti Agency Uvvpelativli duel Ll1VICliliat1O11: (1) 1 hee parties will wed(Closely and continuously COiiiiuuuiCate with Caen Odic' to ensure that the resources, strategies, work force deployment, and initiatives of liiMet Yortlana_ and Lake US wear, ale CrMiclinatC7 acid Ctte.tive. (2) 1he Lannuandei, liiMet liansit YoliCe Division o1 his/hei designee_ will eeCidi11ute eoiitiet with the parties to i115u11 that the 175,uiCC , 5tirrt%gie3, wo1k toree deployment, and initiatives of the Division aua Lhose of the respeCiive law e11fo1ee111e11t age1leies zt1e lidiiiated and efIeetivC. (i) Uswege ri iCCS to woiK Coopciatiyely ui an Cltort to niClease ieportiiig o1 TriMet related incidents. Lake Oswego agrees to provide to the Division TriMet CoCleCl icp0rt3. data. duel LeCvias. liiMCt agLeeS tr., make available tr.? Lake Oswego, through the Division, particular data, reports, records, etc. that will a5515t 111 tullillilig the 111issiVii a5 eutlnleCl ni this C10Culllellt. Dulcet Neiliolity: Jeteluuiiativu of VlIiCei selnoiity of the lianmit Yoliee l)iviSivu tVi JLLlpGoes of making shift, vacation, holiday, a11d overtime assignment3 hall be a,,,,ordi1ig to the attaCheCl hxhibit.3. K-9 Unit l iauung t agility: liiMet has enteiea Linn a giouua lease (hereivafier "Lease") v itn the sort .,f P.,rtirlid effete -eptell ibei 1 /, z,uu i fol, the .5 . :,f ceftZlill pi L:11,i.,e, (hereinatter "Yreisiises") io house explosives storage magazines in Support of lriMei's tiaiililig is Llii l..1111.i1t5 to maintain U.S. L)epartliient Vt 11ViiiCla11C1 5cCulity, Transportation Seeuriiy Administration ("TSA") certification for K-9 units. Certain l iau5it YVliee L)ivi5ivii pCiSouuel as 7iCsivateCl by liilVlet aiiCl 1 SA will DC authviiZ'ed to access and utilize the Premises for purposes of TriMet's K-9 unit training in accordance with the Lease teLills. Lake Uswe O agiees that t11e vvvik and V1/G1 at1o115 Vt the L11v15i011 including assigned transit police personnel, with respect to activities relating to the 1'leniises_ aic subject to and shall Coiiiply with all pi ivi5ien5 and iclluileme its of the Lease, the terms of which are incorporated into and made part of this Agreement, and speeitiCally any obligations o1 11ilVlet as Lessee. 3. KEiivitsutcstrviniw i Cr Uv3 i s a. Costs: Lake Uswego must pay the salcuies, civertuue, insuiauce, 1i,ti1e1ne t, and other bellefit5 of its 1e5pee1i ve 0ffiee15 Set v ilig in the Tiilv1 .t TiUllait Police Division. Lake Uswego shall invoice 1 iiMei uionthly tot all suCh L1ivL51V11 pl lSVllllll. Ad111i11ist1Z[tive fees enaigc..d by Lake USvvege, to TriMei in CoilliCCLion with billings shall not exceed the Stan of 5% of direct costs of 5alaniC5 VvcrtiliiC, 1115 ui ali,.e, ictlieniellt othel bcilC tits pa1Ci to its perSViuiCl assigned to the Division. TriMei agrees 10 compensate Lake Oswego within thirty (30) days after receiving the invoice. Invoices should be submitted.to TriMet, Attn: ACCvunts Payable-FN4, 4U12 SE 1 /1°Avcuuu_ l'CiiticliC1, UK y/JUL. 11 4'Feb 1, 2011 !Ko ICE,.February 2011. 273 b. A1liouiit: 13 foie Aplil 1 Ot cacti yeas Cif this Agicement, Lake USweao must submit to T1iMet u yi0pOSCd foi vices thi3 eo11tiaet f°l 1i .t fiscal ycat (July 1 through the tollowiilg Julie JO). l he paitie will then agree oil Lhe Co11111e11saLiolt yard vs..cgc thin AgilJe1111.i1t. if the parks Cannot agiCe oll JUCh culllpe11sali011 by June Ft, any Marty may elCCL LO LeillllllaLe this AgiCC��Ci�t vrithvut�,Ciialty. 274-L,Trli-AGi;Lane.,swego ku reuruory Zvi 1 Feb 1, 2011 �..��b.,111 EXHIBIT 2 IKAINS11 IULIC.L 1DIVISIUIV S1At1+111t7 LE1-1L+1C (0n TiiMCt ietteihead) (az<tc of late.) (l it1'c) (Agency Name) (utailiug aaaies) KL: (AgCuc,y uaiuG) Yvltw StaTTtu tv 1ii1V1Ct 1iau5it Yvltw Utvt5ivu • U'cat lnt5 1Cttct is issuc71 puisuz[nt tv t11C (CTTCCtivC clatC oT HgiCCiiieut auiotig tti lii-Uouiity Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon(TriMet), the City of Portland and (agency name), for l iimet 1 iansit Yolt%c Scf viCes as auiciuc1CU_ tu establish ut Cnauge the iiwitbc, of pOliCC ottiCCis assigned from (agencyname) to the TriMet Transit Police Division. P.1or Staffing 11om (effective date of agreement), 2010, To-Date • front (effective date ofagteetttent), 2,U10 tu (7atC) (51/7Z1fy ilurrib1/47,1 of officer(5)) • from (date)to (date) etc. (3T,CC1fy v157.71.rruirro i 0f vfficcr(s)) eic. • from (date) to (effective date of this staffing change) (specify revised number of officer(s)) Staffing from (effective date of this staffing change) • Trout (C,ITCCtivc aatC of this 5talfulg (specify revised number of officer(s)) Any fututC CnatigC 1u tfC uuuib%t of vlfhCCis a3slgii fivut (a8CtiCy natu'c) YvIiCC to tti 1ii V1 t lia,tsit Police Division, is subject to mutual agreement by the parties by subsequent letter in similar form. Sincerely, Shelly Ll/1)ta2, Executive Uueciui, Upetauu„s 1111V1Ct AgiCC'cc1 to Dy (ag%uCy tteuttC): r i r c1 tu Dy Ltty kit rut-Liana: 1it1C (late I iarisit mice Loiitlt,aiiki fate TFn 2Feb 1, 2011 ego IGA February 2011 275 rase ram, .. L 14111151 I . IKA1 SI YVLII:L' 1JIVISIVIN Y.L'KSV1r1VL+L VYLKAIIVlr- It i5 tn, intent oI this Agrwuicrrt: (1)tO ieeogiii,e that the lrilvlet llausit 1'olree Divi>iuu (Division)r5 staffed by police officers trom multiple jurisdictions, each covered by their respective collective Dargannttg agreements_ but that 5ll1lls_ Clays OIl_ vacations and overtime need to be assii ilea in a fair win equitable manner; (2) to provide for assignment of shifts, days oft, vacations and overtime by ,Jv11iv1 ity; (_3)to allow Mr the Change of shift hours of Operation and to re-alluCatea pOsittons arrU nays Ott within certain shifts to maintain an appropriate balance of field strc1101. THE PHKTIES AG1crE 1 tYA 1: 1. Cuiiint u.rr(l rutule Lake 051,veg7, Offie7,13 a3igned to the Divisions will use tneir LaKC Vawcg0 (date of hire seniority as the means to select shifts_ days Ott, vacations and overtime. 2. C;urrent and future Lake Oswego otticers assigned to the Division will abide by the provisions of tni5 LAnibit i. i. �cmO11ty shall be 71elu1ea as the length o1 uninterr uptea seer viCC by tile Ottreer in his/her agency within the officer's Civil Service classification following the officer's most recent appointment. Time sperm in the Arnica t'o Ccs Orr military leaves of absenee Other authOtit.ea leaves and time lost because of duty-connected disability shall be included in length of scxvice. 1f an Off eel yvho Lua been Y1o111 ited reverts to a pOsitiOn she/he tornrerly held, the utticer's seniority shall be the sum Of the seniority earned i11 the prc111vtio1lal claw a.11d in the vvllie.h the effic ,117 v crtn. 74. subjC,C,t to nlunpvvv�,r 1ieea5 aria irluirltuirliug Off OiCiiey Or t11C 1.11v 011/vetail_ seruo11ty snail he the prime factor in the selection of ships aura nays ott provided the officer is otherwise qualified. SZ11iu1sty Shah gGveil" in the sCieetivlr .—,r vzrl.at;011 mi(71 11.01iQay5_ 11r the ease of voluntary transfer am/Or a55rgrunCnt. the 30n1O11ty or an OIIreei snail apply immediately to the ottrcer's choice concerning holidays and vacations. The transferring officer may not u5C 3e111O1rty to Dump anOtnii ofI1ee1 5 5nIr1 Or days Off until 7iJ nays IiOrrr thee Gate uI the written request. Ô. In case of involuntary transfer and/or assignment, the seniority of an officer shall apply iiiimecliatcly to the miter s Choice CGuCcruinb IOliaays arrd vacation. In the event of an in)Oluutary transfer, the Division shall accommodate the shift and/or days off preferences ;,f tlansfc11i11g ufficels immeniatcly_ and shall riot involuntarily bump any other OltrCer tui at least thirty (.0) days tioruu the time the bumped officer receives notice of the bump. The t1a11nfc11i11g ciiccl 111ay 11ot Line, neiliO1ity t.l bump another othCer's shift or nays Off until .31) nays trour the at of the written request. 276=ll rl,tvll r ake Oswego 1uH ret)ruary ti,1r Feb 1, 2011 rage 8 0111 i. ro1 the Fuirosea of this Hgreeme.t, the phiu3e ` 11a11afe11i11g Office." a hail 1efe1 orrice. (leshnig to change shifts. says Ott Or assignments, or au officer who is involuntarily tratisterrea. tS. lire Division shall prepare a toiui to be uscn by oltieers desiring to tnamstCr tioin one shirt, a33igiunent, ok day off config...atioii to a.1othc1 vvithi1 the. Same .eportiiig unit. rug the puLY.7ses GI tni3 Agreernrenr, This loiiii shall be reteued to as the "Transfer Kequesl t''orui." The lraister Request.1'bnii snail C.OLLtalll a lriacc foi oif1ee15 to iiidientc tneni pLCIOLOLLOZ5 with i3p7,Ct tv SniltS aiid days 9. A transferring officer may complete a Transfer Request Form at any time. If the officer is sCCl(iiig Oi uitiCipatuig a traustei, the otticei shall file the liurstei ltc.uest 1'oiui with a Division Lieutenant. If the officer is seeking a change in days off or shifts which do not involve a transfer between reporting units, the liaiisler Request t'Oiin shall be IileC1 with the 011iCCi's shift CoiiuiiaiidCi. The Division will forward a copy of the Transfer Request Po...to thc locatio.. of the mitieI ited tianstei. lb. lm the event Ot a change in nays o11 on slurs that do not involve a change iii reporunig wins, the tunic, fia111C3 1Cfc11ed to iii SCCtio1l3 and 6 of this 1JAhibit .i shall begin_to .... vvnen the t1a113f�ling otticei subnriis the 1 ianster Request 1 Orin. 11. When the Division knows that.an othicer's preferences as indicated on a Transfer Request Form will.e3u1t in the ai3ylaCCu1Cut Or the shift ok clay3 On of a11OtfC1 .—,Ricci (icicried to herein as the Transferred Officer), the Division shall notify the Transferred Officer as soon as possible of the fact that he o she may DC bumped. 12. the Division shall aCCOuuuOaatCC the shift oriole. days On prefereiCes of trausfeiiirg otticeis On a faster time sehedu.le than that contained in Sectio„s 5 and 6 of this E,,hibit 3, if, the DM o11's juaguient, it is operationally sOLurd to ao sO, piOviaca that no Otliet atteetea officer is bunnpea tromp his or he. day off o1 3hirr vvho objects to thc accommodation. 1.). Ain offices ma), c e1e c 37.11i7iity to hump u`11,tne1 ZIffiC01. 101 shift and aay3 olr Otily o ee ;it ninety (90) days. 14. Vacations. Employees shall be allowed to select Iwo vaCuriOn periods on the basis of seiiioriiy. Each vacation YC1:Od must DC OI a iiiiiiiiiiuiii duiatto1l OI OiiC Clay. V aCat1o11 tiniC 3na11 DC sCfCaulCG by the Division with due Consideralioni being given 10 requests froin officers which shall be determined zuiiOiig OIIiOCi3 of equal iaiiK by 5Cuio1ity; pi0viClCa, hOvvuvC,i_ that each orrice. 511a11 he pClluittcd to exercise Lhe right of senioriy only once each year. The sign-up deadline for the exercise of seniority in t11C Selection OI V ZICUt17/113 snail DC 1V1rnC11 D I0i tfe Ca1ciiaai yen cunning IiOiii Apiil 1J through Apiil 14 of the following year. 15. Holiday Assignment. Where the shift strength is reduced or increased on holidays, consistent with the needs of the Division_ tssigiuiiciits shall be orferen to the urost senior oftieer. Except tOr an emergency, the Division shall provide a minimum of ten (10) days notice of airy de v iatIo11 f1o111 no.. sal shift stn eugth so that officers may plan the use of their time. A. Where shift strength is reduced, the most senior oldicen scheduled tot duty on the shift shall oc offe1ed t11e option of vvOiKiiig Oi uOt. WliCie 3nirt StiCiigth 13 iiiciCasea the iiivst SC.iiiOi officer on the shift shall be ottcted the option of working, Or not. 1 i u Feb 1, 2011 :go d.,L.ieuruary 4Vl1 277 li. 1'Of puipOses Ot this section_ New Y Czu's Lve and Lhiistiiias bve shall be Heated as holidays. 16. Seniority for Vacation Purposes upon T.ansfv.. If an officer is invvh.„ta,ily t,a„5fc,,•.c,d, the Division s1la11 hvnvi the Otheei's pi.e-seleCted vacation tnnCs mid shall nut dIsiupt the pin-seleCted vacation time for other officers in the division to which the Offc r i5;Ai v7lu..ta.ily tia,.5fc,.ICd. if a.. OttiCCCi aCCCpts a voluntary tianstei, the UivisiOn shall attempt tO aCCOuunOdate, iO the extent possible, the officer s pie-selected v rte.-tic).ti...e5. 1 /. Sn1It V v v7;.i .c. W hC.C the u v 7rt.ii.0 .5 ..ot d.iCCtly iClatCa to z[Cti v.tiC5 begun by au ottic,'ci during ihC otticer's regular shirt, and where the planned overtime is anticipated to be four (4) hours or n.oie i.. auiat.On, the Overtime shall be offe.cd in the oo.aei or 5euio.ity_ tO OttiCciS ui the Division. Once each eligible officer has had the opportunity to work shift overtime in a pay period, officers may O„CC again use tleeu seniority to wOik shirt Overtime as Ueselibea above_ and the seniehity list shall rotate in the same fashion thereafter. The Division shall maintain a list in each reporting unit upon which OttiCers must plane t11Cu navies niaiCatnig a willingness tO wOik shift Overtime. It an OttiCei is incorrectly passed over for shift overtime, the officer shall be allowed to work makeup overtime asSiginnent within the next two pay peiiOdS I011owing the disCOvCry DI the eiioi. the otticei and the Division shall mutually agree upon the makeup overtii.., a55ig..t.tt..t, which 5ha11 nit diSplaee mi the. OttiCCi's already-selected Overtime assiginnent. Au otticei whO has been incorrectly passed Over shall not be other vvise entitled to compen3ation fof the...i53ea overtime. 18. wO.x n7fu.a. H..offer,1 vvill nOimally be give,, adejuate advance uOtiCc 01 ally CnaiigC ill the ctticei's iegulai hours ot woik except where an emergency (an emergency is defined as an unforeseen event ...fleeting the Division 5 ability to pe.l0.iii its iiii55iv0 c..ists. otiCC given less than forty-eight (48)hours (or seventy-two [72J hours under the Four-Ten Plan) before the officer is to begin work nuclei the Cl.auged 5CtlC7lule entitles the GIILCCi to COuipensatiOn at the vveiti,,,C ,ate tO, those helms not exceeding eight (8) hours that are earlier, later, or different from the hours the officer last worked in a work day. A police Ottteei is not entitled to COnipensatiOl wide' the overtime iate it the OttiCCA is otherwise entitled to compensation under the same hours of work, or if shift cha..gc5 a.c, the re3ult of a vOluntaiy tiaustei Or piOuiOtiOl. 19. Discipline. DisCipline and diSChaige ot the Lake Uswego OttiCCis assigned to the DivisiOl will he the responsibility of the Lake Oswego and in aceo.dane with the Collective ba.gai..ing Ag,c,e,me..t between Lake UswegO and the Lake Usweg0 YOliCe UItiens AssOCiaLiOn. 2U. C,itiz,eu C Omplaiiits. All CitiLen COmrplaints concerning Lake Oswego otliee's EO be'elm'lea iO the Lake O3vveg0 Police Department with the finding copied to the Lake VSvvego YOIiCC fJCpaftment and the UOnnncuidei, I iausit YOIiCC l-)iviSiOn. Lake Uswt✓gO agrees LO: A. Mainiaiu a police accouuiabil.iuy sysieiu as described at subsections (13) through(G) below. ts. viae a.. aCCOuntab.lity 3y5ten. .utaKC povn.t to which the Othei participating 1,ansit Police jurisdiciioms ("ju isdicuous") can refer or deliver complaints about Lake Oswego officers wO,k,ug uA the liausit police uiviiOn. C. Receive, review and evaluate all complaints referred or delivered by the other ji,ri5dictio..5 COneeinuig its officers who wOik in the liansit t'OliCe Division. D. Deliver all complaints about an office, vvho vvi�.k5 in the T,a..Sit roliec 1)iv vc front Citi .CuS iu generated by peace iitllCeiS to the accountability syStCui intake point of the si,bject officer's employ ingj.ri�dietic,... 278--n Gl1AA,rris :.�.� -� �:Alx,`A A rA:7..:.-, Lo, Feb 1, 2011 rage,l/n, „ r. AbsCut a CeutliCt with UKS 1S1.8 (i)_ pelilut uivCstigatei5 tielu Othei julisaiCtieus to share information with their counterparts investigating or reviewing an incident involving a 11aus1t.k'�11C� llivisi ii vttiCCI. F. Adhere to Portland Police Bureau Transit Police Division SOP A-20 to the extent it does not conflict with the Lace Uswege label agJCCuieut ai171 ageiiCy p1OCeau.es ei ail Ctivos. G. Conduct joint investigations when necessary and applopliate. z 1. c Dui gn' ' g Ag.ccmci,t. All tc...13 mid .311ditim15 ti zt11y v t3aiganlnlg Agieenlent bGtweeii Lake Uswege aua the Lake Uswego Yo1ice Ulficeis Association s1ia11 17.111ai1.1 i11 Cff ATt ZISty oth;1 i55u75 Aaa. 7,a by tni5 rAhieit J. 111 tnc cvi11t of a Co11flict b%tvvi,c11 such Collective Bargaining AgreenlenL ziia this Exhibit 3, she provisions of such Collective Bargaining Agicc.ucut 5na11 gv v Ciu. Feb 1, 2011 1(s{ir o..:. w1x 279 rage 11 01 11 280 Feb 1, 2011 11 . 1 . 1 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO LAKE OSWEGO Centennial 1910-2010 380 A Avenue ry Dox.goy Lake Oswego,OR 97034 COUNCIL V CIL REPORT 503 675 3984 www.ci.oswego.or.us TO: JdCR Hotturdn, IDIdyor Ialem6ers at the City Council Alex D. McIntyre_ city Mai lager I-RUM: Christine is rR, Public Artairs IVlanagel SUBkCl: use of city Publications for Fundraising DATE: Jdnadry 25, 2011 AL I ION Rpprve using city PuIJlications to proviae information Gig Ca Re UsvvegG SCRUM District FCiu1iaation fundraising drives. IN o RODUc a IuNTBAcKvROuI9D Historically, the city or Ca Re U3vvegO has not promote ' tunaraising ettorts in its City palECations tor ogler entities. coancilor]Gratin ulna Mary PusRas vvith LAKE U3vvEgv 57-hnGI District Founaat1i n raises the opportunity for the city to aid the rinancial support for local paEllic schools simply 6y promoting ranaraising drives in its publications. DISCUSSION city publications are reserved to share City services pa5liC events area opportunities which help people Be irlrormeea anCl engageq ill their local commauiiity. Items pabiished include events that the city is somefluw involves in, 3o they are not lire,tea to city events. A3 a rule, the City Ma not prnmotea pare fundraising activities for non-profits, other jurisaiction3 or private entitic3. it the city vvere to a, this, it vvouIa impact print space for items which meet the goals of the publications and there vvoala be difficulty in aetermining the crferia and reviewing organizations for appropriateness. The City Council ha identitied tFidt the hedlt5 at our pa6lic schools is an important component to the overall fleaitfl at oar community. Also_ the LaRE Oswego School DEstricL FoanddLion is d unique enLLy in Lake Usvvcga vvith the unique T'unction Gt raising rands for teachers and programs in the CafRRe Uswego School District. For this reason, PauXiic An-airs cancars vvith the recurnme,,Bation to ailGvv inmrmation oil the Lake uswego 5choois Foundation fund;misers to I1e incluaea in City publications sa6ject to oar space limitations and deadlines. Feb 1, 2011 281 Page L As not all LaRe Oswego residents are within Lhe Lake Oswego School District boundary, Public Affairs recommends that should a similar request tor the Benefit of po6iic school Leachers and programs in LFie other pu6iic schools aistricts servicing LaRe Oswego residents arise, that that request also Be granted. MCI ERrim IvE5 & F15LNC lMPNt i The inclusion of fundraising drives for the Lake Oswego school District Foundation in Lity publications has no additional cost to the City. RECOMMENDATION It is reecommeenged that the Lity l.euncii attirm the aliowance of the LaRe Oswego school District Foundation fundrai3er information in our Lity pu6licatiens aria should another poSlic scnooi entity or its foundation which serves Lake us—ego residents request Mat their fundraiser information lie included, that that be granted also. Reviewed By: (it legal issues) City =. RIexM lntyre City Manager 282 Feb 1, 2011