Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda Packet - 2010-11-30
AGENDA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING Tuesday, November 30, 2010 6:30 Y.«l. C UuiiCil C.1lamDrj A AvCuuC U11 Y ur t AKh uS W hU(—) 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 503-675-3984 www.ci.osweso.or.us (Untact: RaRyn ClIrLtie_ city Recuraer AI,u puB1611ea un the internet at: Email: rc.Rri�tie@ci.u.,vvEgu.ur.u3 v,,,,,,VV. 3v„r. 0.3 PRCnE: 5u3-6/5-31184 he meeting location is accessible to persons with disabilities. io request accommodations, please contact the City Recorder's Office at 503-635-0236, 48 hours before the meeting. rage 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. STUDY SESSION 3.1 lake L3ro„e R-/.5/ R-iu u„erlay District study session - urdinance 2558 z ([u zu-004u) 3./ PrupuSEFl Ecvnumic Flar"aSRip E,AEMaivn Tvr LUU/-LUUy lama 035E Apprvval5 11y ([u IG-Ou48) 3.3 Recommendations for Sensitive Lands Map Corrections Process 153 3.4 Opaate to water Lubt of -Service Analybi5 161 3.5 Update tv Master FEES and LlIargE.� 163 ZF. AMOORMMIEM i CABLE VIEWERS: Thib meeting will 6e Lelevibea an Cfiannel 28. TEE meeting will Be rebroadcast at the following times on Channel /8: WEanEsaay 2:30 a.m. Saturday 3:00 p.m. Friday 7:00 p.m. Sanaay 7:00 p.m. Also a.ailaUle on li„e streaming „Oeo at mms://wvv.wr.ci.osvvego.or.us�. j.,k nr,ff.. u.., lviu,r7. Ur-- it,.duii, Dan VLz;*..n:. G)--n�a,)r ■ Sall, Mon�r:eff. Co--n—Jar ■ Mary Ol on, Co--n�-3or ■ B:11 T.erne,, Caun�aar CITY COUNCIL / LORA TENTATIVE SCHEDULE Item, Rnown as at 11/13/1U Monday_ Special MEeting, 6:30 p.m. Coencil Cham6erx November z9 - E„ecuti„e ScssiC;M: CRarter OTricer E„aIaations Taesaay, Special Meeting, 6:30 p.m. Caancil Chambers N-W„em6er 30 - Lake Grove Neighborhood Ov-crlay (30 minutes) • Proposed ordinance to extend development permit completion deadlines (LU 10-0048) (30 minutes) • Status Update on Natural Resources Map Correction Process and Isolated Tree Groves(30 urinates) • Update to Water Cost of Service Analysis (30 minutes) • Update La MasLcr Fees and Charges (30 minaLes) Tuesday, Regular Meeting, 6:30 p.m. Ceancil CFiam6er5 December 7 • LOIS Update • Water Partnership Update - Umaomg Hcru A,,varas • Award Professional Services ConLracL far StarmWdLer Cade Rewrite • Multiple site lanascape contract • Lake Oswego -Tigard Water Supply Partnership: Approval of Supply Facilities Capital Improvement Plan - Support of statewide plastic Bag Ban jRes. 10-65) • 5 -Year Financial Forecax - Utility Billing liability limitations urainance • Declaration of the vote • LOIS Change Order Public Mearings • ComprE5enx1ve Plan text amenamCnt to dCtinition of congregate hoaxing (LU 10-0041) • Lake seL6acks (LU 08-0052A) - Supplementol Budget vvednesday, Special Mleeting, 6:.50 p.m. Council Chambers December 8 • Intradactiun to the Draft Enviraninental I111paCt StdMnent (DEIS) far the Lake Oswego to Portland i ransit study Redevelopment Agency Meting, 7:30 p.m. Council CRaur6er3 •i heater Agreement • DeSt Financing - Financial Update IClanday, Special Mleedng, 6:30 p.m. Council Chambers December 13 PaBlic Huaring3 • Sensitive [ands Hmendments to Definitions and Exempt Development (LU 10-0043) • Hdaption of revised list of invasive tree species BOLD ITEMS - New issues added to schedule CITY COUNCIL / LORA TENTATIVE SCHEDULE Item, Rnawn ab at 11/Z3/1U Tae�day Regular Meeting, 6:30 p.m. Coancil Cham6Cr, December 1z - Ruzusnitivn vT Cvarizilvr7 Hunnasin aria Vizzini • /,ward Con:traction ComrdCL tar Chow Corner Pedestrian Improvements - NurtRv„e�t Natural FrancFii5c Renewal (Ord. 2565) • PRAB Recommendation for naming lakefront park (Res. 10-71) • Adoption at EmcrgCncy Operations Plan - Revievv c;t 2010 Gc;a15 • Hudii committee Report • Appointment W Cuae Auait Steering Committee Public Bearings • LaRe Grove NeigFiborMood Plan Implementation -Amendments to create new overlay cane ([0 10-0040) • Adoption at Update to Ma:,tcr Fccz, and CFiarge�. (Re.,. 10-69) - Proposed ordinance to e, tend development permit completion deadlines (LU 10-0048) TacSday, No McEting Dccrm6er 21 Tuesday, No meeting December 28 Tuesday, Rcgalar Meeting, 6:30 p.m. Council CRam6er5 January 4 • Oath of Office for Councilors Kehoe, Gudman and Jordan -reception following Tuesday. Redevelopment Agency Meeting 6:30 p.m. Coancil CRamber5 January 11 - North Anchor Prujact • Discussion of future FORK Projects • Debt Financing TaCsday_ Regular Meeting, 6:30 p.m. Coancil 0am6ers January 18 i aesday, special Mleeting, 5:j0 p.m. Council chambers January 25 • To Be Scheduled LaRe 03 Ego to Portland Transit Locally Prctcrrcd Alternative Pruce55 (DEcErMBcr/Janaary) • Review draft vvastewater Kloster Plan (January /-011) • Content ,tatEmEnt relating to LaRe Oswcgo's Iron Indastry and Mid-Centary periods ACC National Accreditation • Vancouver. WA tieldtrip - F=MM3 Update • Industrial Park Zone Amendment (LU 10-0042) • Mcdia in Execative Sc»ion Policy Manicipal Finaricu Prescntativn • Summary of Rail-valatian Faathills Charente • ArtS Coancil Smart Phone Gallery Withuat Walls Tuar App (February 1) BOLD ITEMS - New issues added to schedule CITY COUNCIL / LORA TENTATIVE SCHEDULE Item, Rnawn ab of 11/13/1U Rvaular Upaate3 • LOIS Update, 13t meeting every month • water ProjECL UpddLE, ISL meeting every monLfi • Streetcar Update, 2na meeting every month Sustainability Update, quarterly (20 meeting, Jane, Sept., Dec.) • Financial Update. (Sept._ Dec._ March_ Jane) • LegWat;ve Update, quarterly (13t meeting, Jane, Sept., D'cr-.) • Comp Plan Updates BOLD ITEMS — New issues added to schedule '171S W t7M Ce_e. i;J 79:0-20-10 CUUI4LIE KEPuR I TO: Jack Hotfman, Mayor Members of Lhe City Coancil Aler D. McIntyre, City Manager FRuM: Cauwa vvcigEl, A3ziociate I"Immeer Planning and Building uEportmEnt 3.1 LAID- CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswe6o, OR 97034 503-675-3984 _ww.d.oswe fio.or.us SUBJECT: Lake Grove R-7.5/ R-10 Overlay District Study Session - ordinance 2556 lCU lu-uU4u) DATt: November 22 2010 Rc,TIUN No Coancil aarion is proposed for rhe November 30, 2uzu study ses3ion. INTRUDUc;i IVIG un DcLGi,,DEr 14, ZOiD, the City (,ouncil I> >cl1eaulea to hold a pablic hearing an the Lake Grove R-7.5/K-lu overlay u1strict. un No,,Em5Er 30, the (,uuncil iz, _,cMeeduied to hula a atuay Session regaraing the overlay. Members of the Cake Grove iveigMMZ;rMou5 A3wiiatium will pre3ent ana expiain the provi,ion5 inclaaeea in the draft overlay. This report provides an Gver,,;7. Uf t117 pacKgr�mna leaai,q up to the December 1ZILh hearing. t3ACKuR0UIVD lyy8 Care urrivE Neign5or5uoa Plan adopted by Lhe City Coancil. 200u-z0v5 ivumerous plan itc,ii5 arc implernEntE3 City-vvide and the jeig5l5or50oEl conr.;naes work on plan implementation. 2005-2006 Neighborhooa aNbUCiddon identities neighborhood specific plan pulic:iE3 tRat Still need implementation btrategieN. 2007-2vu6 iveigM5c;rNc;o3 association, awing vvith an implementation cummitree, ana Ciry statt work to develop an overlay one Tor tME R-7.5 ana R-10 _tinea areas within the neighborhood Lo preserve the neighborhood character identified in the plan. uctt 2uu8 14 overlay curie provi3ionN are prTNenrea w rhe neighborhood association for feedbacR. TRie meeting was aavurti�Ea through CU Review, aired mail and email. 35 people attended (648 1 November 30, 2010 Page 2 mailer ,ent). Alio_ Planning Commi„ion receive, an update trom the committee on the 3tatu3 7if plan implerrientation. Feb. 2009 Survey sent to all Lake Grove residents asking fir feeaaac.R uri ail cencept3. Survey al,i, po,tea on-line. There was a 13 % response rate (appro. iiu respvn3e3). Jan. 2009 t3ased on the survey results, tele corn, duct aria CGIQH boara aIMp Six pr7viaio,„ trom con,iaeration. IVIarcn 2010 2na open hou,e held to pre,ent ,urvey results, revisions to provisions, and to jute un remaining eight provi,ion,. 3b Citicen, vvLed. April 2010 Ba,ea on the neighborhooa vote the Cake Grove neighborhood association board cludaaa to inelaae all t5e prvvi, on3 li3tea above in the propo,ea Cake Grove overlay, may zuiv Thu Planning l.vmmi331vn Held a vvvrR,e„ion and ba. -,ea oi, MUZ15aC.K tv the neighborhood association a few of the pro„isiori3 vvEm mmovea or aiterea. Sept. 2010 The Planning Commission held a public hearing and recummendea aaz;ption UT the tvvo UT the,even Coae provi,don, pruuposed by the neighborhood association. Thu finding, are inclaaea a, (EAtii6it ti -1). E)15—Lu551viv Thi,,MlUn discusses the character of the rake Grove „eigMbz;rMrn5 n,3 tMz overlay prnvi3iVn3 that arc recommended by the Planning Commission and the neighborhood assuciatium to Fieip R7airitah, Ou character. All of the coda cc;ncupt3 vvuru gerieratea Trom the neighborhood character,tatement, which tallows: Dense vegetatiar, ur,d large trees define the scale and character Vf th;:y nGrghbvrhvc7a, 3cpt7rz7tc v„c lot fro,,, its neighbor onia mn3t bm'O;ng3 from the ,t, EEL Hrm3e3 z7, a Set withi„ thi, brrd3c_ape, instead of defining it. Ma„y appea, ,eClaaea mO p,;vate fium other buildings. Hauser of many different sizes, height, dna ahupe3 fit this neighborhood because the vegetation d;min7'3hr3 the vr3,b;l;ty Mita 3ralc of the baila;,,g,. Aadidanally, the code provisions seek to implement many of the gual3 aria poiicie, iae„tifiea in tMe neigHorMucia plan, including: Goal LO, Policy 6: Ensure all new residential aevelopment, incluaiicg >ecOrlda, y awelling, and home, being ,ab,tantially remodeled, contributes to the pc;3itive ae3ign cFinracter and Ljaalitie3 of raKe Grove', eexi,ti„g re,iaenual neighborhood. This shall be accomplishes tMrc;agM the appliCzItinn OT oe,ign compatibility ,ta„aard,, whiCh inelaae: 5i« Ur pnvca area, • HppMpriate 3MUCR3, Mattering aria ,creeping • Preservation of mature canopy and otner iana,Zape Teatare, 2 November 30, 2010 Pages 3 Rer-ornmenaea by the Planning Commi»ian and the NeighBorhoad Association: 1. 5iae Ya. a 3etoazk in R-7.5 L.urrent Code: requires that portions of strartnrea le,a tMan iu feet in MEigMt mint Flave a 5 Taut minimom side yard setback and a total combined width of 15 feet, Structures greater than zis Teet require to Teet minimam on each At. Pi opo,Ca CFianru - Regairub trat portionz) vt 5tr artare5 le» Lhdn 18 teen in height maSL have a 10 feet rninimurn ,iae ya. a ,2tba%R. Neighborhood Reason: Increased set bar.Ka incma,e tME 5iatan4E betVYeGn Mornea ana- inr, eaac privacy between neighbors. Additionally, larger front yard setbacks allovv tRe vegetation tz; aefine tME at. EEtarapE, rruL Lhe hoa5e5. PIa,,ninx Commi»ion grornmen3ation: The (:ummi55iu-n rerommend5 aaopLing Lhe req aIre ment forth e 1u -root ,idc vara aetbarR . Equi, ernEnt in the R-7.5 pv. tion W the La Re (,iruvT Overlay 6iatr iCt 5eCaa5e Lhe Commis3ion Ti..aa tMMt inurEa,ing tM7 alae yara ,ctl3acR vviil help maintain tFiE nt:igF1)orhuoa character of Lake Grove as described in the Lake Grove iveigMbrrMrua Plan. Recommended by the riannin commission But nu Ian E. 3uppu,t,,a 5V the Nei haa.Hood A»aciatian: 2. Driveway Turnarounds: (.anent Coae: [).iVEVVdy ta.ndIUana maLerlal5 dre nOL SpeCitiea. Pippgaea uMamre: Drivevvay to, na.v-una, ahall bC CUnati artea oat W perviva5 materidl5 5ar5 pervi0a5 pavcra, -ama Sraaa paving. - 0111rMellaoti- : The l,iz;rnrniaaiun recummEnd, adopting the reyairement for "grew.." driv,vvay turnaroana, bc;Cauae tri -re nrl no city-vvMe Aanaa, as aaareaairig arivevvay tarnaroana5 and the Commission finds that this regairem,nt vviii REIT, maintain tME neigrynorryooa cMa. nctEr OT LaRE Grave as described in the Lake Grove Neighborhood Plan, Neir,hBorhood Rational tar aiapping this urovi5i-un: It Lhe CiLy Coancil adopts the proposed hardscape aeTinition Svlovv. the a, ivevvay tarnaroana pruvi5ion i5 no lunger nece55ary. REcurnmenaea By the NeighBar haaa A»aciatian, Bat nUL recommenaea by the Planning Commission. 3. Ha. d3carc MrLmi...u... UT "sU% Current Code: No maximum percentage of hardscape is defined. Prvpvaca Change: No more than 509; of the IoL carr be hdrI cdpea. Rardscdpe includes structures, patios, etaildrIg vvail,, paving, vvalR, and artiTidaily placed rvCR or gravel. 5an35et pavers and Similar gruand 3 November 30, 2010 Page 4 wveririg a. a al3a iriC.iuded tFle C,al�ulativn. Planning Commission recommendation: i he Commission .ecommena3 that the CJty cun,Jaer vvMetFlc, hard,cape limitations should be city-wide, and thus uniformly applied. Lake urove's definition 13 different Lhan Glenmorrie', recently aaopLed aetiniLivn (see below). A uniform definition could be developed/aaare„ea in connection with the Cemprehem ive Plan Opaal.e. A130, tele Corrirria,ion icwmmEma-, that a prupa3ed ie,trictiun ,heuld have wide,piead nelshB—urho—ua 3uppvrt to juatlfy adaitiunal c5tr ctivn, on aEvciupment tM.ruurpM a E.ArIctiom witMin a neigUorheod overlay district, rsased on the public testimony, the l.OrMmiaaivn Tina, that tFie prupu3E3 Rard�:.ape provision does not have sufficient neighborhood support. NeigHorhoad rational for Reeping this pruykien: The neigHarhooa would still like to see the hardscape IJmitatian ineiudCa in the overlay. I hey Believe it will Be helptul in deco ea,Jng the amount at gray InTra,trorture in tyle neigMl3o, ruud and to inc, ea,ing,torm water tiltration and protect neighBurhaoa character. TFie ne gMl3urMuu3 a33uciatiun clue, pi upu3e a Ica, i TO aeetirlltion at Rai a,eape ba,ed on feedback from tME Planning Cz:;mmiaaiun at tele puBiic Hearing. I Fie vlarimmg CVmmi33ion ana City council adopted a similar code provision for the ulenmorrie overlay. Pio o,ed Chan a to Detinition atter Planning Commission public hearing. No more than _1)u% at a lot ,hall be covered with any at the tallowing elemenU,: ,Lrucl.ure, Texcluding decks that alivw water tv Ch Op tMOagh the jarnt3J' 1 patio,, paving. impervivu, walk,, yravel. ,ana,eL pavers and Similar gruuncl zuve. Jng3. Natui al-appea, ing conSti uctea puna, Shall riot Be induaea within thi, iimitatiun. Where a pnved area cz;ntained mi„cd min -plant ana plant UlcmcntS, only tRE nun -plant portiun, at the area shall be included within this limitation. Glenmorrie', Detinition (tor reterence) No more than 50% at a lot ,hall be covered with any at Ll5e tallowing elements: structures, patios, paving ui irrlperviou, walR,. Huvvevei }rervivua decK, and natural -appearing con,tructea ponas,Fdll not Be imduaea vvJtMin tMiS limitation. WFiere a pavea area contain, minea non -plant ana plant element,, only the non -plant portion3 cf the a ca Shall oe incluaea vvitMin tMi, limitation. (gee LuC AppenaiA 5u.u86.u2u-A ter illustrations of natural -appearing constructed punas ana paved areaa vvitM rrli„ea nun -plant drip plant elements.) *Bald ituiiu., hiyhliyhtC611viences between Lukr Uravr'., definidOn and Glenmorrie's. ACTEKNATIVES & HSCAE HMPAO 1) Adopt tME Planning Curmmi33iun icCurmr leirclatiun: a. R -i.5 side yard setback inc. eaaed to 10 minimum en BetM ,iae,. b. Driveway turnarounds shall be constructed out of pervious mate. ials :5ucn pervic;u, pnve.3, and gid„ paving. z) Adapt the NeighborMuua A„—uciatiun recommenaation: a. R--/.5 _,Jae yard ,et6acR imcreaaea to w minimum on both ,Jae,. 6. Limit to Rara3zape to 5uio 3) No code provisions are adopted and there is n—W Lakc u,—cove neirMbo. Hoed overlay K'Arict. 4 November 30, 2010 Pagc 5 Fkzal impact i� miii mal. The uvei lay aues nat airee< <Fie City Lu iniLiaLe new prujecu or programs. The code amenarrment3 au result in inure cumpleA egaiiement, that may iegaiie aaaii.ional time tui ,tact review. RE%-vMMEN VATIVI9 Nu recommenadLiun is provided for the study session. RCVIeUVea by: EXHIBIT A. Dratt Oi ainances A-1 uratt or ainance 2558, aaLea Aagasl., 24, 2010 (not included, superseded by A --L.1) A-1.1 D, att U, ainance 2558 dated Octuber 19 2010 A -z Mcclgnwi Mlvva A33vClativn Prupu,'ea ui ainance B. Findings and conclusions B-1 Approved Planning Commission Findings, t-onclu3ion3 K uraz., 5epteii&:r, zulu (:. Knotea. L-1 Planning Curnmi,�ivn Minute,_ (Olay 12. 2006 L -z Planning Cummi,3iun Minute,, (Olay 24. 2u1u L-3 Planning lUMmi33ivit IOlinutc3, 5eptemner 13 ZU10 D. Stdtt Memaranaa/Reports D-1 W►R Session on IDlay 12, 2008 (staff memo dated May 5, zuuu) D-2 Wog R Session on May 24, 2010 (sLatt memo dated May 13, 2010) D-3 Planning Commission PaBlic Rear ing (SLatt Repo[ L dated August 20, 2010) E. t3raphics E-1 Map of rake Grove R-i.s/K-lu u„c. lay Di,trict bcmmaa, ie, F. Written Materialb F-1 CaRc biove Meeig5burhuua Saivey, I71aich 2009 U. Letters G-1 Letter from Barry and Leslie r,asson, data 5eptem6er 1, zulu G-2 Leller tum Allard and Tanna Conger, dated September 1, z010 5 November 30, 2010 Page 6 u-3 Letter from LL u and DvvigMt 5chvvar), rCLeivEU 5cptemSer 3_ Zulu G-4 Letter from Bert Guarrasi, dated �,e1jtz7mrcr 4, zulu G-5 Letter from rhillip and Lonni Arakelian, dated September y, Zulu G-6 Letter tram Vahe and Susan Arakelian, dated September J, Zulu G-/ Letter tram Ed Bushman, dated SepLem6er8, 2010 G -ti Letter tram Bill and Rim6erley Lee, dated SeptemBer 8, 2010 U_tf Lcttcr Trum Bill and Kimberley Lee_ dated September 8_ Zulu l3-Iu Letter from Bill aria Kirril3EHEy LCC, dated 5cptcmMe, 8 Zulu G -IT Cetter from Bill and Kimberley Lcc, dated 5eptemMEr u, zulu G-12 Letter from Bill and Kimberley Lee, dated 5eptcmber 8, zulu 6-13 Leiser tram Brenn and Kimm Wall, dated September S, z01u G-14 Letter tram Daane Hattinger, dai.ed September 8, 2010 G-15 Letter Tram Mitchell Elli�zn'dated SepLem6er 8, 2010 G -I6 Letter Trump Marg FranRen_ dated September S. Zulu L3 -I/ Letter from L)rcg Lreit,�., Gated Jcptcmibcr `J_ zulu G -i8 Letter from Jerry Jones, dated 5cptumber ts, zulu G-19 Letter from Jessica Lee, dated September 9, zui0 G-20 Leiser tram FJawell and Lela Lee, dated September 9, 2010 G-11 Letter tram Jahn and Batty Mercep, dated September 10, 2010 6 November 30, 2010 DRAFT iu/11110 DRAFT ORDINAjNUE No. 2558 [PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION] AN ORDINANCE OF THE LAKE OSWEGO CITY COUNCIL AMENuiNG CHAPTER 5u vF THE LAKE OSWEGO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE TO ADD rQEw ARTICUE 50.08C LAKE GROVE R-7.5 / R-10 OVERLAY DISTRICT, AND ADOPTINq-� FINDINGS L u 10- 0040. The City of Lake Oswego ordains as follows: SCCLiOn 1 See6011 50.05,005 of Lhe Lake u3weg-� t--�ae i3 i,ereby amenaea ny a55ing now test 5nown in bold and underlined type as follo.r,: Szztiuu n0m5mun Zu.,i.,g DiArizts Th7, City i3 aiviaza inti tLC Mllowing zoning designations: ResidenLial -- Low Density R-1.5 ReSidenti-I - Low D-In,ity R-10 RCsiaCntial -- l,. -,w Densit] R-7 S Rusidcntial Medium Density (FAN) R-6 Residenual - Medium Density R-5 Resiaentini - High Dc!n3i R- Rusiaential - Hi h Densit (WLv) R-2.5 Residemial - High Density R-2 Residential - High Density R-0 Wnter-nmit Cabanu3 WR De,i�n District (ulct Town) DD ur3inunuc! N7,2558 Puge 1 of 4 EXHIBIT A-1.1 LU 1U-UU40 7 November 30, 2010 DRAFT 10/19/10 jIfiduArial . Ma Desi natid ' Industrial I IndU,Lrial Park if- Public Use IVIS .Desi 1111. Pumic Function PF Overla s' 'M Desi nation Plamtea Develo menL PD Resotxce ConservaCm. RC _ RcSourcc PrmcvtiUu RP Willd„,e«e Rivur Grcenway.. GM Neighborhood Overlays l� ieni.,.,rr;c R-15 u, crlav uist, ict GO Lake Grove R -7.5/R-10 Overlay District L(; -Q Section 2. H new Article 50.081. ,s krcr)v irMO to tnc LuM, VSWCgO 1-7juu„u„ity Devclupment Cuk. Chapter 50 to reaa a., f7,117,3; Article 50.08C Lakc t4ro.d R -7.5/R -1u v.erlav District 50.08C.005 Purpose. The parposc of the overlay IS M ei,sum that development in Lhe Ovurlay Dislricr promotes rhe un;quc cha,uUm ottl,c Lake Grnvu Neighborhood. 50.08C.010 Applicability. Tl.;s article applies to Izai,Us z7m%,d R-/.5 or R-10 withi„ die Lake Grove Overlay DiSuiCt. as shown on LuC Appendix 50.08C.0IO-A. 50.08C.01.5 Relationship tu Vthzr Standards. To the extent that a,.y requirmcnt or tnk Article imposes a regulatio„ relating LO Lhc ,a,,,e Mauer as regulat;c;n ;xi LvC Articic 5u.u8, tnis Articla shad prevail. vraint-Iii „c N;-,, z 5 5 8 Pagc7 2 or 4 8 November 30, 2010 DRAFT 101' 1 9/ 10 50.08C.626 Yard Sctback3. 1. e Yald aeILaLs WiLhin Lhe LdkeGrove ver ay UlsLr GL shall e a5 o ows: Lake Grove Overlay District Ya. d Setbacks. j ACC�5S�0 Strttctues Primary Straata,es Aecesso= `Struure..�` ,Sid® Yard Adjaceht ': Frt�iit to e Rear Zone Yeti .:Street T Othe, Side Yards r and Side antl Rear Yards PUrtlul is of Portion u .,f Straatares Stractures> Strut ture5> 18 feet 18 feet i,5friacture 18'; m 18 feet ins in height height 30 fait feet in h6i #fit hei 'ht 20,fefi, orf !. artenal . ands collector, R- 25 � 15 :feet 6feet, side 10, feet, side T5 fie ', : on 'local, 10 feet` 1 o ft 30 feet 1"0 ifeet,: rear.. , 15 :feet, to 2Ofeet arterial acid coiiiactO-n V5`feet 1i3:feet;side 10 fleet or► loci . 10 feel 15 feet 30 feet `15 feet, rear' 1 5 feet . *Different than 50.08.030 A►► vtner p.v,;3;7,a5 �f LOC 50.08.03u are applieabtc. Secticm 5u.u8C.025 Drivutvay Turnarounds Driveway tu,,,ar.,u„ ds shall 'be aenstrurted out of pervious materials seah as pervious pavers and grass pay i,,g. (Sam LOC Appenaix 50.u8C.030-A tv—r itlusLrmion of driveways Luruarounds and of mixed hardsaapa and greensaapa), Sertio„ 3. The Lake UsNvego Coommitidly Developmem Code ChapLer 50 Appendix i:;hereby a.nenaaa by addi,Ag the Lake Orove Uverlay District reap as shown on attached exhibit A (LUt. Appa,.Qix 50.00.0I O -A), Section 4. The Lake Oswe,,To Community Devel--p►nznt Chaptcr 50 Appcnaix is harany trmanp,-a by adding pho►ographs of driveways with mixaa nnroscnpa anq g,acnscnpe as LOQ: Appe„aix 50.08C.030 -A, as follows: Ordinance Nm. 2558 Page 3 .—,f 4 November 30, 2010 9 DRAFT lo/19/10 LOC Appznd.x n0.08C.030-A tllastrat,—�., —�f a«vz7way taijarr7jut,E3 u,Z :,f t„ixca harascapc a„a groet,�Cape). Section J. fhti of ti�is i,rEhanizz me 57-vcrablu, Irally pOrt,011 Of this vrd►num,c Lb 'tot ally rc7"37Lu 11V13 tv ou l,,v-ai]U, s�tch dccini , 5112111 not of xt t1w val,dlty of the reiiiai,-; lg portionb Of thih �:;rdihal,ze. E„actcd at tl,C� 11,Ceting vt the hake UswegO (amity Cvulleil of tllc CILy of Lake Uswcgo held rill the day „f , 2(j 1 U. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: 7acK D. H„rim_,n, ivtayv, Datul ATTEST: Rot)p, (shrktiu, City Rucurder APPROvED AS TO FORM: David D. Powell City ALLVri1Gy ur5i.,w► cu 1V7,. 25525 Page 4 r 4 10 November 30, 2010 Q F X w V v F V_ F N r a J LU O z LU CL a November 30, 2010 11 12 November 30, 2010 DRAFT 11/19/to DRAFT ORDINANCE Nu. 2558 [NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION RL COMMENDATION] AN ORDINANCE OF THE LAKE OSWEGO CITY COUNCIL AMENDING CHAPTER 50 Or THE LAKE OSWEGO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE TO ADiv NEW ARTICLE 50.08C LAKE GROVE R-7.5 / R-10 OVERLAY DISTRICT. AND AvOrTiNG FINDINGS LU 10- 0040. the City of Lake Oswego ordains as tolluws: Section 1. Section 50.05 .005 of the Lake Osweg-- �--dz in nurny rr-u,Zc75 tz; uqa the rn - tv-xt sn�w,� iLl bald, underlined type as f6llz:;w3: SLztiz;.. 50.05.005 Zaning Di3t,;ct3 thz t-„ty 6 aiviaea ;nto the az5ignzrtions: Residential TVa Desi nation Resiaernial - Low Deusi R-15 Residential - L_ -w Dunoity R-10 Ru5iaeutial -- Luw Dua5i R-7.5 _ Residential - Mediuul Densit (FAN) R -b Resi3cmial - Medium Density R-5 Residential - IIigh Dz:Aisit y R-3 Re3.Jc,,tial - High Density (wL(j) R-2.5 Resicleutial - High Dejisi MC Residundal - High Density _R.-2 R-0 Waterfront Cabanro WR Design Di5tric�t (uta 1own) DD Gom7nercial , lYlDesi nation Neighburh_uua Uummercial NC, General Commercial GC H h-ryCommercial HC uftic� l::,-nipus Easy Ina General Cummereial L;7 Campus InsLICULiorral CI Campus Kenearcl. at DeveG meat Ck&D Mixed Comn�crc� MC Ordinance No. 2558 Page i of 4 November 30, 2010 EXHIBIT A-2 LU 10-0040 13 DRAFT 11/19/10 Section 2. A new Article 50,08C is hereby added to the Lake Oswego Community llevelopnium CWC, Chapter 50 to read as follows: Article 50.08C Lake Grove R -7.5/R-10 Overlay District 5u.08C.005 Pul pose. Tnc7 p.,rpc;s7, m tnc �,v7,rtzty;S t7j c L3urc tnat 3evcirpm7nt it, tn7 vvcriay uist,;Gt pr7,„iot7,5 the u.ugtLc cnaraitcr of me LaKc urvvc Ncignt)vihvv-l. 5u.uSk-.u10 Appl;cab;l;ty. This article applies tz; lands z.--ned rc-I.3 zr R -1u ..;tn;a nic L,,K- G.ovc Ov7,I,,y Distri-It, us sn,.wn mi l,v� Appcna;x 5u.u8C.ulu-A. 50.08C.015 Rdutionsh;p tv- vthzr Stnndµrda. To she extent that any requirement ofthis Article impose; a regulaton relating to the same matter as a regulation in LOC Article 50.08; this Article shall prevail. 11 77 I Ordi:iance No. 258 Page 2 7,f 4 14 November 30, 2010 DRAFT 11/19/10 5u.uSC.OLu Yard Sctba%ks. YL_J 1_ - n 1. - 1_ 1_ -_I III L -.i hu ydru bkfLUdLKJ WILrn the LdKe Grove Vvendy U15LVILL Jtldll Ut! db IQIIUWS: Different titan X0.08.030 All other provisions of LOC 50.08.030 are ar plicable. Sectio.. 50.v5C.Oz5 L:m:tati—vn an L crthi,. Ele... ents 1. Nv mv,;-, than 5u°/o yr a lot Shull uu wvurcn witn any c�t trty fvllvwing ulumvnt5: AI UCtLL C5 (excluding &CKS taut ally,, WatC, tv drvp thrnugt, tele jviilt5), pat;v5, paving, ;,,,pc,viuu5 walks, gavel. sa,idset pavers ana 5i,,,ila, grv.a,d mvv,i„gs. Natural -appearing constructed pends -)kali t,ut be iiicludea wid,iu this lin„ tativn. Wl,ere a pavex area Gv„talncd ,nixed no plata aid plait elements_ only the nun -plant purtiuns of the area shall ou includad vvitl,in this limitativ,l. See LOC AppendiN 50.08U.05 -A tot cxau,plcs. Section 3. The Lake Oswego Cummuniry Devclup,r,unt Cade Chapter 50 Appendix is hereby amended by adding the Lake Gtuvv Uveilay Distriounap as shown on attached Exhibit E.l (LOC Appendix 50.00.0I O -A). Section 4. The Lake Oswego Canttntattity Development Code Chapter 50 Appendix is hereby umz1ld71d by adding the Lake Grove Hardscape Appendix, shown below as LOC APFeadix 5u.u6C.uu5-A: v,dinat,ce N�;. 2558 Page .s of 4 15 November 30, 2010 Lake Grove Overlay District Yard Setbacks. Pd , arid.. ACC�SSLii�( trllCtUr S,.- i' Primary Strcictures ACCessor tfuCtllreS Side :Yard Adjaoertt FirtiF t to R�a� Ze��C Yard: ` `Straet ' Other Side Ydrdb Ydrd Side aM Fear Wards P -rte -ns of Portions of Stractares Stramare5> frctres 18 feet 18 feet iii Structures 18 18 feet tri in height height 30 feet feet i, n& h# riei` ht .. 20 feet on artnal and collector, , R- 25 15 feet L 5 feet,, side 1 Q'feet, side ;, 7.5 feet". On 1.ocai 10 feet" 10 ft 30 feet 10,feet,,` rear 15 f et,. rear, IQ- .fee# ort ; arterial i{ an i collect&, R- -�15 10 felt; title 10 feaf .:''onocalw : ;;' 10 feet 15 feet :M reet 15 feet„ teal 15feet Different titan X0.08.030 All other provisions of LOC 50.08.030 are ar plicable. Sectio.. 50.v5C.Oz5 L:m:tati—vn an L crthi,. Ele... ents 1. Nv mv,;-, than 5u°/o yr a lot Shull uu wvurcn witn any c�t trty fvllvwing ulumvnt5: AI UCtLL C5 (excluding &CKS taut ally,, WatC, tv drvp thrnugt, tele jviilt5), pat;v5, paving, ;,,,pc,viuu5 walks, gavel. sa,idset pavers ana 5i,,,ila, grv.a,d mvv,i„gs. Natural -appearing constructed pends -)kali t,ut be iiicludea wid,iu this lin„ tativn. Wl,ere a pavex area Gv„talncd ,nixed no plata aid plait elements_ only the nun -plant purtiuns of the area shall ou includad vvitl,in this limitativ,l. See LOC AppendiN 50.08U.05 -A tot cxau,plcs. Section 3. The Lake Oswego Cummuniry Devclup,r,unt Cade Chapter 50 Appendix is hereby amended by adding the Lake Gtuvv Uveilay Distriounap as shown on attached Exhibit E.l (LOC Appendix 50.00.0I O -A). Section 4. The Lake Oswego Canttntattity Development Code Chapter 50 Appendix is hereby umz1ld71d by adding the Lake Grove Hardscape Appendix, shown below as LOC APFeadix 5u.u6C.uu5-A: v,dinat,ce N�;. 2558 Page .s of 4 15 November 30, 2010 DRAFT 11/19/10 llIud�rativ�id vt Enulii w vlw�llhlnativRS of 1lurLIS[,al1C a11Q, rw ,SGa � Jae OI I1lteC10C]CIaVeCSl ._I171)Inntl:,l1 of nal'Q$Cu.pe c1l1Q�l�C..ns Sectio.. 5. Tl,7 pivviai7ilp Of this orCllnancc aic 5CVb,zT0J.. It mly pvrtimi vt tl,i5 or(Iiiiailce is tvr alAy ,c.5on held to me invalia, sucl, 5ccki;-,n snail nit att,ct the vatictity et the ,email,ing p—vrLiv—„s et d1i3 o,dinun7,c. Enacted at the meeting of the LaKu 05wegu laity (,vuncil vt the City of Lake Oswego held on Shu nay e,t 21010. AYE,s: NOES: ABS&NT: ABSTAIN jz%-K D. 14effmnn, Maymr Datca: ATTEST: Rot)p, uhri5tie, laity Ru oidar APPROVED AS TO FORM: Davin D. Powell Ci(y Attorney Ordinance No. 2558 Page 4 of 4 16 November 30, 2010 0 r 0 U co O �ll Z W a. d E Novemper iu, zui u 17 18 November 30, 2010 0 i BEFORE THE PLANNING CuIO MISSIuM y OF THE CITY OF CAKE OSWEGO APPI 4 5 6 A KFuuFS i FUR A CE&SLA i IvE I Ex 1 ) Cu 10-0040 - 1743 7 A1v1EMb1v1EM 1 Tv THE cummulvi i r ) (Ulr r UV LHKt USwtGU 8 DEVELOPMENT CvDE Tu INCI'ubE LaRu un,e Ne�ynaeTnor,a) V LAKE GROVE OVERLAY DISTRICT. ) FInTIMu�, uuMuLuSluMS & uRuER iu 12 MATuRE uF APPI"IuA i IuN 13 14 A legislative text amendment to ine IaRe uswego community be„eioprrlGnt uc;ae (uz;aE5) tz; D include a new rection to the Community Development Code, Article 50.066 , the l"aRe Gro"F FR - r) 7.5/H-10 Overlay District; and to amend LUC 50.17.015. The amendment is proposed by the 17 ulty of EaRe Usweyo, at the request of the lake Grove l9eiyhbulhood Assuciation. The raRe 18 hruvE 1vElyhborhood Association wog Ked with Uity cit Eake Usweyo statt to propose the text 19 amendments. 20 LI HEARINGS /Z 23 The Uummission held a public hearing and considered this application at its meeting of: 24 SEpM Baer 13, an 0. 25 26 CRI i ERIA AICD S i AMDARDS 2, <a A. City of Lake Osweyo Comprehensive Plan �y Goal 2: Land Use Planning Section 1 land Use Policies and Regulations, Policy 40 and z4 1 SGctiun 2 Uummunity uesiyn and Aesthetics, Policy 1 32 33 - -- - 34 raRe Grove loci hporhooa Plan 3D Goal 2: Lana Use Planning: Resi5entiai G%al ana Pz;liz:y 3 ,s Goal 10: Housing: Goal and Policy 1, 3 38 6. IOlet, o urtJan Growth IOlana.4ement Fanctional Plan 39 1 itle 1. Aci�-.oiiimodation of Growth 40 41 U. UreLIM StateStatevviele Plammim- 42 hoal 1: ulticen Involvement 43 heal L: Car ,d Use Plan ging. 44 45 D. Lake Oswego Deveio ment uoae Pro,ea.ral Rc uirci i.g, its 46 lOu 50.01.0-10 PurN-Vs7- 41 LOC 50.75 Legislative Decisions rTa LUC 50.75.005 Leyislative Decisions Defined 49 IOU 50.75.010 Criteria Tor a legislative Decision 50 Cuu 50.75.015 Re.4uired Notice to uLCu E5 I7)-V02TV EXHIBIT 13-1 LU 10-0040 PAGE 19 November 30, 2010 20 I TUU 50.15.020 Planning uommission Recommendation Required LUC 50.75.025 City Council Review and Decision LUC 50.75.030 LttCctlVC DatC at CCyiJlative Decl.Ion 4 5 UUMUCuSIUM 6 7 The commission recommends that the city council adopt two of the seen propvzied pruviziions 6 in ELI 10-0040, for the Cake Grove Overlay District: y 10 1. Reyuiremej it Tur 'yreei i;: driveway tori iaroonds; and i, 2. A 10 -Toot si5v yard sCtbaek in the R-7.5 cunu puition at the Lake Grave Overlay District. i.z I' The Commission cc,iclades that its Iecommendation to adopt the dbave two provisions 14 proposed in w 10-0040 are in complianuC with all applicable criteria. 1.5 16 TMe uommi,,siun does got recommend: 17 18 A. Adoption of the following provisions in Lake urove uvenay District: 20 i. A 304730t Ti ant yard 5Ct6ack in the R-10 Lune (carruntly 25 -Coat). �r ii. Cat covei dge limitdtions (which rutlect the lot cavurdye limitations prior to the 22 rucunt Community Devulupment Cade lntill Amendment, Urd. No. 2524). Z'I iii, Iau marc thai1 509/6 at the lot can be covered in haidscdpe (na carienl. limits). Z4 iv. Submittal of a non-binding planting and rlufferiny plan for review Dy the Uity /_D iCyairud for nCw duvelvpment (nu carrunt ruq❑iremunts). zr 6. A text amendment to the Planned Development section i Cuu 50.17.u15) to pruvunt uxcuptiuns to the yard setback rugairements an the perimeter of planned 28 devclupmcnt Tuts abatti,iy R-10 dnd R-7.5 4anub. iy 30 FiNMINUS AND REASuMS 31 32 The uommission inco poratuz5 Me staTT FepcR, vatca Apyust Xu, X011J, vn zu 70-0040 (vvitn all s3 exhioits attachea thereto) as support Tor its decision, ,nppl.mu,,ted 15y the TorthUr Tindinys and 34 conclasions set faFh herein. In the event of any inconsistency between the supplementary -)D mdtter herein and the stdtt report, the matter herein contrals. To the extent they are consistent 36 vvith the approval yrantud huruiii, the Cummissian adopts by reterence its anal deliberations on 37 this i i utter. 38 39 Following are the supplementary Tindings and uonulusions OT this Uummi55io. ,: 40 41 1. The Commission does nat rucummend ddapriny the 30 -foot front yard setr5ack for the 17- 4-2 10 tumv portion of the Cake Grove Neiyhbarhood, or the lot coveraye limitations (which reflect 43 the lot %vvurayu limitatim ,s priur to tre rece, it Cummanity DCvCIopmCnt Cade I, Mill 44 AmZ7j iaMU its) CeCc usc: 45 A. There is a lack OT evidence tRat tMe �tandard� in the reucntly adupt�_d haill 46 Amendments and additional code changes since 19ajo regarding Tront ya d setl5ack and 41 sti eetscdpe stdnddrds does not dccomplish the goal of the prarectiny neighborhood character; 48 aiid Cu i0-0040 PAGE 2 November 30, 2010 B. These provisions would not make enough of an impact to vv a, rant adainy Eli C;TMFi layer of complexity to the Cade. 4 2, The CurrmrrmiSSiun does not rccumme„d adopting the proposCd ha,dscape rnaximurrn 5 provision l3ecaase: 6 7 A. The Commission recommends that the Uity shunI5 c;c;nsiaur ,,humm ha,5ocnpE5 5 limitations should be city-wide, and thus uniformly applied, particularly in lignt of the update to 9 the Comprehensive Plan as part of periodic review that is currently underway before adopting a 10 ditte,cnt deTinition of "haraszape" t,om that recently adopted as part of the Glenmorrie Overlay 11 vi5t, iGt (CUU Hrticle 50.0513), a„d 12 13 13, 1 he c;ommi5sion , ccu,,,rmend5 that a proposed restriction shoald have 14 widespread neignlScrncca Jupport to Inotity additional ,e5trictiun5 on developme„t thruayh a 15 restriction within a neignrorhood overlay di5tr ;-,t. Sa5ea cm ft pa6lic te5tirrm my, the 1s Commission finds that the proposed Tiarascape provision does not haves suffiuie„ t neiyhPSerFicad 1 r rapport. 16 3. The Commission does not recommend adopting the proposed pia, tiny and l5nffe, ing 1y pla„ sabmlttal ,egaire,nent because the proposal neither includes any standards or 20 reuairements a5 to what that the planting and 5afferiny plan shoald include, nor are plants 21 prz;pz5ua in the pla„tiny and butte,[„ -g pia„ actually ,egai,ed to be plated (nothing bat plan 22 submittal is required). The (..v,,,,,n551vn dve5 not rucommurid adopting Uccle provisions that 23 have no regulatory impact. /_ 7T /_3 4. 1 he Commission does not recommend adopting the proposed prohirition of an 26 exception to the yard setback ,egairernent on the perimeter of Planned Development lots 27 abutting R-10 and R-7.5 ones DCcauSe the p,oposal is in contlict with the purpose of rhe 28 Punned Devel�;p,,,ent regalaticno. 29 A 5. The Commission recommends adopting the requi,umunt rur "green” a,iveway I tarnaroands (no current requirements) because there are no city-wide standards aaar755ing -)L driveway tarnaroands and the Commission finds that this requirement wiii neip maintain the 33 neigh5urnand character of Cake Gruve as described in the Cake Grove ME!iyhborhood Plan. 34 35 e. i nu uernmissien recammena5 adapting the regaire,,,ent for the 10 -toot Side yard 36 setgack requirement in the 17-7.5 porticn er The Cake umvc Uvcrlay 01St, ict (carrently the R-/.5 .s zone regaires a "combined total” of 15 -root side yard setback) 137cauSv the U-mmi55i,', , r„ate �?s that inc,easiny the side ya,d setback will help maintain the neighrlornood character of Lake 39 G, ove aS desc, ibed in the Cake Grove Neiyhbor hood Plan. 40 41 URDER 42 73 IT IS RECOMMENDED BY THE PL/-\MMIllu UvMMiSSIUM of tnu U ty et Cake USvvctyu that the ZTZT Cake Osweya Community Development Code be amended to add a new section, Hrticle 4-) 5u.u5C, Cake Greve 17-7.5/17-10 Ove, lay District, as set forth on Exhibir A, attached. 46 47 i UERTir Y THAT i HIS ORDER was presented to and HPPRUVED by the Planing 48 Commission of the Uity of CaRe Oswego. �y 7V ,1 Cu "10-0040 PAGE 3 21 November 30, 2010 L 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1�) 2n 21 22 23 %4 �s 2, 28 29 30 31 �)L DATED this 25th aay or uctor)er 2u1u. JunGu_�iafson_ /�>/ Jon GUxaf un Chair T rlairning Cornrnission ATTES i: Iris MuCaleb L Iris MLCaleb Adiiiiiii5AraLive Supporr AYES: Glisson, 7ohnson, ,zones DOES: Gustafson, Paretchan ABSTAIM: I9unu REuuSE: IgVIIC EAUUSED: MUM. AMSD-E M i : Moi �u HLDOPTION OF FINDINGS AND uml3ER - uctol5er z5 z515 AYES: Glisson; Gastatsun, Junes, Paretchan MuES: Nomu AE3STAi M: Ig7jm REuuoE: Ione EXCUSED: Johnson AE3SEN 1 : Done rM IV-nV4V PAGE 4 22 November 30, 2010 OREGON \ City of bake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes �M 1 Y May 1.2, 200$ APP ro CALL TO ORDER v,vv l.na,i Juha CIl,aSvi, walled tn4 rlauulub l,vluullSSlVlI I11GGtlllg Vt 1V1�IICla;', May t.�, LUUS tv vlacl at 6:00 P.M. ill Lhc Cou11Cil Chambers of City Ha1L at 380 "A" A,ven.,e. Lake Oswego, Oregon. I1. ROLL CALL Members present were Vice Cl,.„ J1Jt1µ Ut,3S7j„ —u„Cl L,w„uu55ivmCls Aa,lzrml,� tS,veKulau_ Nimy U1501l, Yl,ilip �itrvvart alld Alison Webster. C01111llis"'Imlm SOUL Siegct was excusea. Sttxtt t,lcscllt vvcic Duimia hgllcl, Lotic, Kall-,e Planuiug Manager; Laura Weigel; Neighborhood Planner, Evan Boone, Deputy Cit? Att7yr,17y «,.a 11;a 1,c1im%,,, ��duuu,�t, ati v C >SuNNvit. III. CITIZEN COMMENT None. IV. MINUTES F—VLllll115$IVmCl' I.�rO n luuv c(i _ _ _ _ {..M111111JS1 cbJSXI seevrrded Lhe motion and it passed 4:0. Cv,x,a,,,.c33,v„ei V13'v„ V. PLANNING COMMISSION - WORK SESSION u Z xiv- .:ve 11=1 lrlzFia imp cue cu a lUu uZ - u Laura Weigel, Neighborhooa rIun.,Z., u.,C( 1Za JMhic3, Unzin U7 t1lu LaKU Uiuvc h,,t#k,ucutatuwll C.ummUtcc, lup7jrtc7 to the Flai My, ULhel C01111114We Inelnbcrs presenL were Blit Ward arid Barbara Zeller. Mr. Jeff" -i -1:i .ef'c"-tcd that tt,ti Col,u„cttee vv"s d,6CuilE1uF7 typC7 M Pvtcmt,zrl lcgulgt;MiS t11 y wVuld faSilirlll 111tV VvG1lay CVdc language tv 11HPIGrlIGl7t thG Lake Uuvc Neibhborhaaa Plan. HIP, 11sL includcd R-7.5 seLbacks, Hour Area Ratio (PAR); height, landscap;ng and nuffc,j„g, trcc r,7jtcCt;7j,,, 1111,,t„1S P1u„1LcC1 UCvsA7jl.r,memt5 (vvn,t,h allOm-3 sllcallci lets)' uuttGllllt,' the llelgllbl)1'llvva against cvlm c7ic;al euclvachluenL; a nelghborhaaa design review process; increased tear down fees; how Lo encourage remodeling; uRd ho,Y tc 7I,gu,,;L,, a„a s,;ncaL,lc EXHIBIT C-1 CU 7 0-0040 or L -Kr M, .ebo rlat;n;se Commission Minu,es of May 12, 2008 rue 1 of e 23 November 30, 2010 acvelupei/uciahboihova lnccullgs. Mr. JC1117es Said lie hopCa the C011111141Ce would be able to present the neighborhood v,;th t,17,jO3O,d zo& that a3d,7,337a tnc 103s OI p,;vACf WC a,Ca wzr3 CAP7LLCnC,ng as uCw 3CVC10plucut 1c5 ItcC1 u1 ,u,allc, lots with lot get h011rGJ and LOSS Ot thir ne;ghbvrhood's grecs butter. He said he hoped They could draft the ove,lay code by fall. Ms. Weigel aslCCa the Commissioners for ideas and guidance. D.,rin&, the v„3u;,,g d1�C uS�1Ou, mi. j7mr:7, 3t,C83ca that tnc L1o1l1,111ttCC wautua to 110intain the "!5WAc7 chalactcl" of thlc neighbolhvva bccausC they save their large parcels being parLitioried into smaller ]OLS.' FAR was increasing; and they were losing g1Z7113CEL.Z. k�0111111i33:O11C,, tiiuM ,an 3a,3 tnC-V 3nvuO oc zrvwa,i7 tht[t the C;1ty vJ213 wu,lClcung a C v1111i1ut1Yty Dcvelup1110,11 Lude (CDC) upaatC that would ClirrlirlatC the IOL depth requirement when lots were created. Mr. 7effr:e3 a„t:7:„ut7a tnzrt tl,7, avoid.- ,,,akC tn', Ov7,11z[y COLIC C0115!Acllt with the City's 3ucisio„ W allow or uVt allow ga,aPu a1Ca tv be included in 1ho t AR Calculation. Ms. Weigel clarified that the negative and posit;vu lubu13 vv,;tt-- 7,11 u,Lll Qcl lvtivu3 u, tnz t-o,l,ululuty L)CvClv1n11C,1t Duvurtl11c11t mvmoictAum aatea May ). 2UUt5 VYe1C stall 117tati7lls Ulla ala 1101 rCtlect rhe C 0l1lrrlittce's opinion. She Contirined that they had the cons.ltal,t's a,lalys;s Of un`u,11p1C3 771 ;111111 30117 ;,, 2uul to iuici to. V;CC. Cnzr;; ui,337j1, wcZ„tca to ki ow iI all stakeho0c;l iutcreslu wcic 1cplcsC1lLra. M1. Jettr cS ICpvl ted that the neighborhood association had invited local builder.- to 3z., v� on the C--,.,,,.ittee, a,1d the d:,c%,,;ty OI ,1,i.,,,OC,sri;p naa CC,uitUU l„ I;vC1y ClUbatC. NIS. WC;gul ,epOrtea that s17c a11c1 M1. I gnC1 had tvulCd the neighborhood with Current planning statf and solicited their ideas. Mr. Cgner advi„ed the C.7.mm;tt— t.- 1:111.- proposed ,Cgulat:7;111 ;,, tnc Overlay cock to those that .151cs5cc1 unique aspucts cit tllc uc;g11bv111005 U10 otfur ally LGCVIII111GIIaYl tivllJ lCgalaillg C;tywl'aC Changes separately. Ms. Weigel said the "next steps” were to further refine the Eat Of CO11C7pt3 tnzrt 1„igl,t nc 1CgulzrtC3 zr,,E -'CnCCk ;,,” trgtl;i, vv;tn tnu rizr1111;11g uchj1h11S,iu1, helulc they plCsClltca L11C Ovcllay w11Ccp1s to the Ia1gCr neighborhood to'r feedback. unjunnunity Devuloputuntnjull rn0u S - Update on f roY�3ed tent dun uQ,,,Cut3 to = LzrKC U,vvCgv Cud% (LUC ), ptel �u (C cimil,1.41,ity t1VVC17jpinGllt (;vac). C1Q111Vlllg, Cori Miilg dlld upadullg s C , IN, CO„ tu,uC,C1 thC:i CAUMI„atly„ of tllr-11 47 N06 (.0111111t1114Y llevelvp111C11t Ucpart111c11t 5tatt KepOrt: CDC Update, ><IzeL 2. They wanted to bVaU understand what developme„t vv--uld b7, ullvvvid i v;rO,,11,C„ tzrl LMIC3. Stall Cnpla;nca tnat a KC57u1CC r1vtCCtiMl (Kr) Ui,ti Ut Ltea a watcl les0ulce dila a KCs,UUFCC C01lsetvati0rr (KC;) DiStlict protected upland tree grove. They. said tnu N17'YO3:,3 changes would C113u,7 tnC KC U;S vvltn tnC t,cc g,vvc tent typically mu0wU3 a stican, wfi idyl wZTS licit 315coll11e tlVol the 1Clatca KP DisiriCt. they clarit1c3 that the pluseucc at a resource tr1Ct overlay Served as a ",ed Ilag' tnzrt tn1C1C vvcLC ,c3ou,w3 u, tnC mzrr. tiv-vvev , a 3C,cat13t wOl1131 latCl CACr11l111G tnu dl,tr;ct mole clo,cly t0 detenllule ;f thC1c act wa, a rc,vil> Ce to be protected and aelinCatC its boundaries so it could be prOte from the development on that pu,OOl. StZlf a_,;d thZ vvutO, biouuCLa,y la nc itwtnc viotuut,ra by a 6uttc, zma Ju% oftlle true -rave Ilan to be p1oteCtU3 train Cay of ! oke Oswe,o Planninr, Commission MillU,05 of May 12, 2008 t .,g G yr G 24 November 30, 2010 uACL TU uRDER City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 2010 Chair Philip Stewart called the Planning uomrn;sz5i„n UT May z4, Zulu, to order at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chamfer of amity Hall at oisu "A" H,enue, CaRlu vsvveyv, Ureyui i. II. RUCL LACL Tleml3ur pru3umt vvure unair Philip Stewart, vice chair Julie vlissun (arrived- 7:40 p.m.) ana commissioners i -Mariann- SrccRma , Jcn vastafscn. Russell Jeiies mid Lynne Paretchan. Commissioner Jim Johnson was ex7,az5ea. Mayur Jack Huttman, Council Liaison Bill Tierney and councilor Sally Moncrierr participated in part of the meeti, y, Uaests incladed Jonathan Snell and Paul Lyons. Starr prez5z;nt vvurE Debra Andreades. Seg iinr Play �, ger; Sidaro Sin, Senior Planner; Laura Weigel, NeignMornooa Planner; Evan buuma, Deputy City Attorney and Iris PICCalCb, Administrative Support. III. UITIZEN UUMMEN I N.,nu. IV. CuUNCIC UPDATE Councilors Tierney and Muncrieff reported tnat the bad uorrmmittee had fast recommended a badyet that would fund the Comprenen e Plan apaatK pr�;c75s. It allocated 1.5 tall time employees (F I E) neiyhbarhood pleners to tnat process. V. MINUTES The vote on the Minutes or Aprii 1 z, zuJP"W'as pcstponea until the neAt meetin-y. VI. PRESENT ATIUNS IHvu*iny Paas-Cyons was p of a yroap of interested citizens that had been examining Roaainy >advise hiH� g a sliCie presentation and diseased demayraphics, market trends, and h ing prujucts tnat filled the geed for smaller homes on smaller luts. He at good design cuuld make small spaces worn i. vvalRa6le "eco -u districts." The ld look to other jurisdictions to rind the appropriate planning tools for tnC laryer at in the short ran it could simplify the code related to 3z ,naa-y avvelfna units. City --f Lake Oswego Planning Commission txRIBIT C-2 Minutes of May 24, 2010 LU 10-0040 Pago 1 cf 6 25 November 30, 2010 VII. vvuRK SESSION _ 0p! LaRe - An update and discussion on 7- propvacd piuviaivna 1911i1tMe Overlay wne. Jonathan Snell, Chair of the Lake urove MeigRl3orRoo5 Hssociation, intmducea the overlay cuncepts. He advised that the character of Lake trove was aue to its vegetation and tiees. Euts were being partitioned and small houses were being replaced ey large houses. I Me nelghrurrhood Mad adopted its neighboihoud plan in 1998. A neighl3u, noka cummittee Mad been ta5nioningg the implementation overlay. As part of that process they Rad anrveyea the u,,tire neignpurnoud and held open hoasCs, 1 he survey response rate was 12-/o. I Rirty-rive people Rad been present to vote oFi the overlay concepts at an association meeting in 1IarrM 2010. At that meeting a motion had 5 emi made from the floor to require a more detailea landscaping plan tncmi tn7 Board's version required. IDIr. Shell referred ro it as the "Landscaping trouping Proposal." He clarified it was not endursed by the board. I7Ir. Snell 5-mmmari,.ed tMe key concepts. I Me overlay increased the front yald setback requirement in 17-1u and tMu aide yard wetback in R-/,5, ine neignuornood did not accept the increased lot coverage tMu IrITill amendments allovved and vvOald keep the previous lot coverage requirement. TRe overlay requires Piannud Devulopmenta to meet the setbacks required in the overlay. The overlay required a developer to onrmit a land5capii.g plan, but it did not specify what had to be in tMe plan or make tMe developer actually install it. He eAplained that the neighborhood jast wanted ro be able to talk to tRe developer aruat landscaping and utter saggestions and help. I hey knew they could not enTorce tMe plan. I Re overlay Set a Rard5cape limit of 5U% of the lot, But the definition, "hardscape," still Rad to Pse worked oat. it would Hot Be eAactly the Same as the definition Glenmorrie used. TRe neigRP5orRood vvantud developers to ase pervioa5 salface iii the City-reqaired driveway turnarounds. 1Ir. Snell acknovvledyed that tMe overlay vvuald nut mange the trend at replacing small older houses with larger ones, 13ut Re relieved it miggnt affect that trend a bit. Hee thanked the neighborhood residents wMo Rad Rclped TaOiVn tRe overlay. Planning L.vmm1JJlVn PEUdbaCK During tMe cnsnina d�JVaJaIVII, Mr. Srmli contirmed that t5e overlay did not cuiitaln requirements Tor landscaping and tM7 a6a17iatiun vvaa aware they could not enturce the landscape plan they required tMe developer to sa6—mit. He anticipated the aa5cclation would continue to discuss that issue. He expiainea that tMe Implementation Uummittee Mad decided to increase front setbacks by five feet after they looked at Rouses in tRe ,eigMrorMuud and oBserved that even large houses fit better when they were set (Sack fium me Street a little pit more. I he Commissloners cautioned that might address how tRz; Rouse locked Trcm tRe street, rat it could have unintended adverse affects at pusning tMe Rouse too cloaU t -V the nuignqz;rai mrbmnj the Tir5t tlour Back so the stroctare would be taller and intrude on tMe nei-,Mbors' privacy; and decrease the TieAi5ility to shift ail addition a bit to save a tree. TRey advised against rulyiny on the va iance pruce55 to save trees, The Commissivrners then discussed the harascape limit. I Rey noted tRat Side -loading -gara-ges created the need for more hardscape. The Planning Commission mlivnt cup eider vvretMer to address side -loading garages citywide ar some point in the fntnrr. uummiaaioner ParetcMan related that 5Mc Mad found it was hard to find pervious pavers. ORe suggested the term aR7,ald re tetter mined and products that tit the definition should be identified. commissioner unotafoon aaggeated it vvonO be tetter for City �f Lake Osw�gu Planning Cwrmrrlis5k n Minutes of May 24, 2010 Pag. 3 �f 6 26 November 30, 2010 tMe c7,mrrmanity :IT UIE7rMU,rIU and Cake drove and the other nelyhborhoods had a similar Rarascape provision. uommisioner raretchan sayyestea that the rla''niny Commission consider adopting a citywide Marascape aeTinition insTuaa UT custMiiit-My it tar each neiyh5oihood, She suyyested the neighoorMooa consider a requirement to pat plants in trout of a diiveway toniaroand it they were concerned about the visual impact. vice chair Glisson recalled a church in Walaya that pat in pervious paving that looked like asphalt. Ms, vveigel recalled the committee had considered iegairiny yreen pervivu9 pavers. bM;Zc Ma, iTZd they vvure comcurned a5vOt both draincaye al id ae5thet]C: P. The Commissioners advised the neighoorMoua that the pay pose of a Planned Development (PD) was to offer the flexibility to protect resources and allovv ycoa auwiji that fit the neiyUorhood. By torciny a PD to have the same size setuacKs a3 tMu ul idui lyii iy -one would not do that. Ms. Weiyel recalled the neighborhood had initially talked aboat not allowiny any NDs at all, then compromised on the setback provision, u1—jmmi5oiomu, Bi vc,krman oappurted the overlay beuaase the me yh5orhood had gone Torwara witR it in good TaitM. uc;mmisioner vastaTsan encouraged the neiyhborhood to come up with landscaping requirements ratMEr than just reyaire a p1m, that could not be e. ifarced. I he Plai ininy commission took a short break and then reconvened the meeting Tor pa611c G�mmcnts. PuUlic E.v►►►►"CIits Road,55Y PrideCIMA. distr hated, "Cake Grove 19eiyhburhood Pall Response, i ree canopy N -Landscape," a on, i inmary of five i eiy5bor5ood polls. U1 I the back of tMe document she had printed MEr "Canascape urunpiny Alter native" proposal. She pointed out poll results showed that tie majority UT respondents Supported preserviny the tree canopy and landscaping, but tMe Implementation uc;mmittu7 vv as i irit recommendiny that kind of reyolatioij. She held it was needed Qecause developers, not property ovvmers, were baildiny most of the new 5oaSes. Vice Chair Glisson Maud noticed Out developers vvere landscapiny the homes they vvele marketiny. Ms. Prideaax explained shy vvn,tea t7, en=arayu thein to Save matare treed and native plants. commissioner Bones sayye5tua limiting tCie percEritayc of trees that could 6e cut on a lot to 50%. Bill Ward, 4301 Upper Drive, a member of the association ooard, the Implementaiion committee, and the laative Plant Society of Oreyon, indicated he did not oelieve guverrlrmFmt should reyaire a property owner to plant a certain set of plants. Ec dei Iluck, 3155 Eagurnont Ruaa, all Association board member, reported the Implementation committee Mad considUrz7a namamas prc;pc;sals Tor laiidscapiny requirements. Re indicated he could support stronger lanascaping mgnirumcnts IT the level of rapport in the neiyhborhood was yreater, but only 35 people had participatua, so Me did not want to impose tl`ium. Re advised the neiyhborhood could save a lot OT trees 6y removiny invasives and e5toriny riparian areas. chair Stewart asked tRz� nz�iyhborhc;oa tz� t1—Y to achieve cGnsei Sas. (..ommisaionei Gasiafson wanted the neigRborRooa tc oe mora u Jiaa about their vision. Ms. Welyel reported the difference of opinion in the neigMDorMooa about landscaping and 6afferiny requirements had challenyed the process for many months. She Roped that tyle ooara Mild committee would talk d5oat what they heard from the Planning Commission and resolve tCie issue, IT they could not do that, she hoped they wo❑ld move tarward with the City of Lakt. Oswt-go Planning Commission iAinutes of May 24, 2010 Page 4 of 6 27 November 30, 2010 overlay withuat addiessiny landscaping and buffering. She clarified for Commissioner ParetChan that the sorvey response rate had been 12.5% and all 850 huuseholds and basinussus in the iieiyhburhuud had beef, sarveyed and Hivited to the meetinys, but trlEm had iivt Seem a hiyh tun,uut at the iiieetiny5. The cui,,,,,itteC had talRea abunt yui ,y duur to dour, but dm7idEa that vva5 ,,ut fE5asible. Thirty-five ... e,,,6er5 has atter �aed tMe meeting vaMen tMe vote was condactea. TME ruomlt of tMu ante un tnU La, �aocapiny Grouping Alternative was 3u:3:z. VIII. POBLIC HEARINGS / WORK SESSION Lu 0-005u — EAwan — ot vvu*t_-1131figitHut. A ruyaust 01 U7,m9prnmuri3iv—� Plan map mid 4umimy tent and iiinp aRlcndiiicnto Tru/oen RndR ves ana Ren San5l3last, Punning Resourzes. uo� tinuud from February Staff reCumrnended removing the case from the agenda, but keepil TRe applicant was ready aiid asked fur a hearing date. After the applitheir ii,furmatioi, staff w'uald cuitin,ae to work with then,, sChedole a hed out ai,uthei motive of hear,Iy. LU 08-0052 Ordinance 2525 — Community,Develo nt Code — General Housekeeping ana iwinor Policy Amunamunta. A. „end nt5 (ul"Imptur 5u) Tur trye parpose of clarifying, correcting, formatting, updating se ons ana discussing ,,,inur pulicy cha„yes. Cuntin,aed review of Ordinance 2525 — tachment B (dated August 8, 2008). Cuntinued try,,, May 10, 2010. uMair Stevvart upened tMe Meari„y. 171,, Andre es, dist, ibated the statT report (suu Planning and Building 5errices DepaPtme�.t pplemental Repurt �4 datea May 14, 201 u). i he Commissioners exa/FiAccess ibit F-4 titled, " Firu Dept. Accus al�a Alternate Methods." The Commiserally accepted cRanging pug; 50.58,0 i5 Un -Site Circolation — Driveways aRoads, Standards for Approval, (s) Driveway Grades to say that It theeeded 15% the Fire Marshal may require alta nate ,methods for firesapprey discassed Cun,n,issioner Parutchan's cumin, �, tMat 5eutivm 5u.47.u05 and5capimy, Screening a„d t3atteriny, Applicability, wc,,t toe far. SMu sayyusted emuvimg the part ut the bulleted list atter Imdastrlal development." EMe and Vic air uiissu,, cbscrvca tnuru vvuru areas UT tMe Ulty vvitn no curbs or planting strip w ere it would be out of character to require a spu7_ifir_ spacl„y of street trees along th ight-of-way. Commissioner BrocKman suggested applying t when there were „o tr, sin the f,orit yard. Mr. Boone advised a tree was considered a °str/Tlatas CVC„ it ' way nut in the riyht-uf-way if its Canopy was over the right-of-way. Re that staff hap 4een imterpretl„y the rude az, zaylny the st,eet t,ee Iu,4t ap ied even IT a partitiu„ that Created an additiu,ial lut did not meatu a stret as wMy tMEy added tMe hullut, "lay �d divincm5.` Re clarified that a, der the curan institutional or cu, ,urcial usu in an EDoti, �g 6uilai„y cuula enpama its parwithout any requirement to plant street trees, so staff liaa aaaea a bulletaddt. The Corrlrr11551oneis agreed to take more time to tRinR this tMrougR and run the staff. 0Commi33i"MUr ITluvua to Cu„ time LO 08-0052 (Urdimai ice 2525) to Jane 14, 2010. l.Ommisslone GnstaTaO„ 5U�-,vRdUEI OU ,nut um ana it passed 6:0. City cf Lake Owvegu Planning Currin 7n isiom MinatGs of May 24, 2010 Page 5 of 6 28 November 30, 2010 k.,l1 i1.1:- C.r:b IV I:t:il.1 CALL Tv ORDER city of Lake Osweuv t'IantIliny Commission Minutes StplCml5vt I --J, ZUl U Cha;, Jv,i the Planning Cunimisz iudl rneeiincg of Septemuer 13, 2.010; in order at 0.30 p.m. i„ thu Cua,iciI Lhti,,;ber5 of City Hall at 380"A" Avenge, L&kz- U�W1--gu, Ure+Vui,. ROLL CALL Members presemt YYere chair Ju„ CauStaf�,en, Vive Chad t..y„i,� Pa,etchar,, and E�c,i�missicrter5 Julia Glisson, Jim Jonnson and Russell Ju ,uS, Staff present Y ere D�6ra A,mreadez,, Pla,,,-,er; Denise F,Gs-bee, D'+i�Ltar, Plevviir,y a,rd Badding Services Department; Jonna Papal-fthir„ um, Natural Rcz7,urz:ia6 Plaim=F ld3ty Si,,, Sir,Jor Planner; Laard Weiyel, Assucidie Planner; Evan Boone. Deputy City At+7,muyci,d Jonu Reyrlvlds, Adrnirt;stiotcve Suppuit, 3. COUNCIL UPDATE Dem,!,e Fr.Sbet�: reported that the Coancil was abar,t to apt7rove the tj7',M-- FG, ry Phaze 2 and vva5 cunsicfuriny ;jppuintiiig an ad•vibory 1:01TIM Sne saki tney would also study a repGrt abcat Lakes. OsU„ego del,Qugraph,cs.;,' 4. CITIZEN t.:OMMENT N n, ,e. 6. MINUTES u.1 t,omm,ss,W,-,w9` Ivhlav,i +i.vvc4l tv q i tkuo_ ,)f ANY 12), 2010- Cc-)mifl1ssjuner Janes 5uror-rded the [notion and it Passed,;”' 6. WORK SESSIONS 111 7,f 2) 6,1 LU 10-07043 -Amendments ta`Sensit ve Lands Overlay Zonin Rules. r, repSt ff M ne Clty of Lake Oswego to make text a,6z;ndmeht6 tr; the Scr,sitive Landes chaptei of the CGommu, r ty Dt:wulopmc4 it Cade tO allOW Same additional USeS in rca'vu;�,u r�rcaa tu+dur -- ap,,,ifi�, �.,it.t�r—r,JtnCe.7, 2ll,d to deflrtc ten, s. Staff Rt:pori Jonn.1peP,,pnefth1mije, ivatu,aI Re�wn ti,e5 Pian, er, pFr.:se!fked the SepLurrium Z, co10, 5 aff Memorandum. She explained that th>r i;,ni -oil had ieaelitly au;rupted the Seuand ' vun Tazk l=ure recu, im--�,datiuns slid directed stao to propos, h�ngc.i thpt vYGaid make the land. ivdc easier to w„derstdnd arid rnale flexible fur property uk,merz, \z�,Ce RezjOiLluan IU-rJ Iii). The Set „f ihangg z, staff Gags unFre„tly pmpua6ng vve,re Ci�y of Lake Oswego Pianning Commission Minutes of Sepiemuer 13, / !o Page 1 of a Page 1 of 8 EXHIBIT C-3 LU 10-0040 November 30, 2010 29 the easiest, "fixes," It c:laririea Berne terms and described ,,that kind, u,f dvvc-lupmc„tt ware eaea[,pt from being rev;cvved orrdvr Lha SCnsitrvu Lwa`5 Cade because they had de minimums ;mv,,, tom. Thi prupuaad zi,irc, id,i,ci,ta made it clearer what k;rida of develupnlent were already exempt and nddvd ,r,o;� �,;u,clpt rr�as MUIU lir,y a 500 Sq. adcT ttGi, iv air cArst:i1g r,truottirG; 200 sq. ft, of new, devrelupilrem; fencing; area uttiity ea- Staff proposed to o.e tha Department of Stab-, Lai,ds (DSL) definition, ,"DitL5,” T s would pvrrt,it the City tv ask the DSL to Meip deterr*ne if a water char ,� I rYa Mal ti,,,-,al ditCh" thatwuuld Fist be Tcgulated by dit:r 3er,sitive lanus ci3c�e he propa5en changes clarified that th6 "ReSunro� (RP) u;strictZr7,7tio,, composed. of both a 5tieam yr wrtland and its d5: cuciated beirrer, anc That the "c aGtba,,k` was a different typo of wetback that the o-vvncr could la, rdscepe as y wished after con�trucdcrn. H prohibition on herbicide ano pest;7s d� ,�s l,nd n dGiz;ted bCCau5� that vva3 not a la,,d uzu rncitter. Dur irg the questioning period, Ivis. Papaefth,'rn;uu clFrifiA that the 500 sq. ft. Itmmit V„ additivn,s was also the limit it, the Wetru it,sidei code etr'o considered that de minimis impact). Sh- ulariTiCd that it limited the Bice of the otp, ir,t, not the bice of the struutuie above rite footprint. She clarified that the prupo d =ta„d irds vvere rrtoru str;r,ger it thou the , i,udel code when they specified that an dition up to aQa z , r[. -aa only aifuYred on thv ptima,yotru tu,c. HuYvEvcr, they re mora gcrleruas thaTt telt model cone t ecau�e Lhey alluwea a Iarger amount tw 200 �q- ft.) of [ icvv deoclup,,,er,t. The atio�dle f jr that avas that 200 5q. ft. ould atiow a more luny :.iionai development. Commissioner Jones asked thv C m;aaiu ,ups to vUn,sider int. eas„ g the liE„it Orr additions so uwners would hav ore use of their property. He als-, que�5tionLd v�h�th�r thu �,tupvsed fe ,o;;,g stared that Iequ;rud a 2 sq. ftcpt�fting for wildlife passage every 100 lee[ was practical. C mis�l�„er John v„ m,allGd that kind of rGgn;rCrr,e�,t vva5 i,ut u�,cVr ,mvrt in other I I ictiorr�, Ms. Papoeftmirniuu conii reed that there were uFprotoctud riparia rcas i,, the u ty; she explained vvhe?C the "Top if Bank” was grid she clarified that e stream buffer v,as 25 tW 30 f.vzt v„ citl,c, gide if a stream. She ayree;d with C missiciiiea Paretcnan that the vegetation 7 ovision relatud to ' llity lanes I I=:dCd to b ^Iar lied, Curr, sii3„ei Juries asket7 why are of tine two versions of the City Council.57'Inti'vi, hGpdcl Lead lett mut a atatemerit that said the City wda r,[7,i11111tted Lu the principles of fness with respect to private t.,,;r,Urty- St,ff platen ud tr, 1 -view Me L:vun�il „rin�rtU:> tv lod Vut, PUBLIC HEARING 7, 1 ELI _1 - rair Lakc rvvcc. bvrhzv, . cz ieiitatium. A regdMA by the City of Cake Oswego fur creation of a new overlay zone for the R-7.5 ped R-10 z, ,ud amus vvitMM the buundar;es of the Lake gave NeiyhI1urlluo❑ association, and a text amendment to the Pia„ -Fled l,lcvclvprMent sectju, , (50.17.015). Chair Gu^atafsua, opened the pobl;, hearing and outlined ihC applicable criteria anti procedure. When asked, node of the Cvi,ml5z iun,7rs dr�,lared , uu, iflict of IntCrCst. Staff Repvrc Laara Weigel, Associate Plan;,ur, prusunted the staff repvr't, gated Augnst 20, 2010. Shu explained that the neghborMaud association proposea the ovGrlty i7i,r,u in vtdur tv tarvtuut itz5 unique i=eivhbt,, h—VV—d character. ThC UVC, Idy would only apply to its two towesi density resiee'ntiai Lanes and it required a mini, chur,g� to thy, Pl nnud Dcvcl-vpmc—nt (PD) zeut1vi-r. She said that a rieighborhorsd SLC -CT r,-9 committee helped fasniun r'ne overlay. She explained that th-y had Started v "Ith fifteen ideas n„d then City of Lakes Oswegu• Planning Cvmmission Minutes of 0epternber 13, 2010 Page 2 of 8 30 Page 2 of 8 EXHIBIT C-3 LU 10-0040 November 30, 2010 riaiiawed the liai i.v the 5i'xprupo5ed concepts and tyle F'« code amendment based on thv— ru,,tilts vf n aurvuy, twv C,per h'vuscs, o,ad an vete. Shu puirried oot Lhar the overiay increased required side yard s-tbuk3 in ord7r to ;,,aku 111717 ova fW, vagetatiun bctweFj, hua5e5 and that it denrea5ed fut uovm'age sriglltly in order to keep the limit at what it -ns bcfw, thG City adopted the Infill .,(AE. Mz,, Weigel i ,d;cattA that the amenuments iirniteu narascape to no more than 50-/,u ,f q lot -Ind -�pzF;:A7d what etu,i, ,its vve u curi5rdured hardscape. She explained ural ffecaase LMe rfeighl!wnood -a3 c-,nuerl,cd ab�nt cis vvcll as the a,r,vui t of pervioa� surface, y, avcl vvas considered Mardscape and driveway turnarounds had t, be r, ado of a yreGr, pG{viVUJ 5cirfau�. The Uvun lay , equired d devuluper of a 5ing,e-farrriiy hawse to submit a planting and burmriny vlai, with the building permit application. The requested PIS Code uhange w001d mean that PD yard setbacks could not be oudnvud �,Vhnn rr,brutting R-7.5 e, R-10, 3tcM rucorrT„ rc,-,dcd app ,„al vf all the prupo5ud Gtla„g'ds en:;upt the planti, rg at,d buffering pian se:quiitanent and the PD text amendment, The pl.nting -arid buffering pla„ Irggr21ru„iamt vvci3 u,.ie, fu,ce-dblc. It,egnIzcd the applicarnt iu siubrnii a pian, DUL offered no guidance on how much or what to pla,,t and did nut r --quirt= actual planting. Staff did not reconstend the FICO amendrnem I3ecautie it was not consistent with th4 PlnrpU"u of PD vvh;rh is to ollov'u gr,rnter flexibility of cjuvulup t, , it. 5t�;ff pointed ❑ui that unlu5s two properties were combined to cTeatu -a ler gm pivuc �f prvpu, ty, the Hu„t C; lab vara. the U�,ly parcrrl in the neiyhbu,hood Thar was Paige enuugM icy be developed as a Pu, but dcv`clupment there vvvuid bG Ci,rstraii,ud by prutaitud r�57)urceb, lir ruspvn5e to a question frown the Commissioners during the ensuing discussion, Mr. Buv,lu advised that a building permit was ,equiidd to build a 5trUCLore over 200 sp. ft, or any smaller one that ,,nWi Ud uleutrical va. plumbiog. Ms. Vveiyul vunfirmCd that the proposal would return the IUL coverage standar- to w'riat it was berore the Infill cWde vvaa ad.ptud, She explaiiic;d that must „eighborh.uc;d Ivt:, raid „at have 50°.t, vi more hardscape, but some could get clo.c if th--y „atall,d a pool a pr' --d a Iarge portio„ of the froi,t driveway. She irrdiCa'rud ihdx G'Ienrnurs1e'.5 pianung provisions were enforceable beua4as7 their av�;rlay pravidadgUid Wl , sos about wheat and hovv Fno7h to plant; huvveve, Lake Grove had not been able to agree on stow stringent tree planting and buff ring regwiremu, it ehuQld be. Puaric Comrrre►rts Bill Lee, 4050 Upp5 Diive, uxpIdined Mat he was r0ih a resident and a buildei(develuyer. Hu upwoae;d the overlay. He said thai :17 did 1`1e71.,nake Snllzsv to inc, eaa� u�tDnL- , thatit vvvula "t,ak�” more p, aapertv. Hu ova ed a lot ur, i vvin Fir whe�,'u thele was a 25-fooi. sei.back and he would have to place the structure 40 feet naLk after the City wide, iCd the right-vf-way there inuthier 15 fuut. 'That was like; ivt5ii ag i c feet of him t-,rGr;Grfy. HG aid thu hardauap� limit did not „,akc sense. Dither, especially cm , large, but. He had a for of hardscape in his oaeRyard where people driving by voWid nut Jug it. Hu advised that n lot of I,ardaiapu vvas required ii i ordu:r to Sri a W10- ur three-cdr garage further ®acic on a lot. He advised that requiring turrfa orndu tv bG p,mi.us surfaua vvas nut p,actival. It vva� axpenssve ry instal) and if,a,iy realderrr5 wou13 iiRely rrot maintain it adequately so it would luvk R1c36y. 17c paid thzt thu 80% su, vcy ruspun,se was riot adegaaiu rupreSenEaiiun. lr,hau pucK..),oz) cagemont Road, seared on the Lake �,vvc Nciyhbvrhvud lassuuiatloi r buaid He explai, red that the nuighburhoou rec;c)gmceU LMat tyle oMaracter ar the neighb,✓,h�ud vvca5 du—=to ;to g,veai,d,.,ovcr ar id $hr,abs a� vvalE as its tree Ca,r=uNy, but ihuy Laald im reach a community consens,.z abotat ho%v t:) tlwfa„tify and Gudify landsCapii,g and buff --tiny requirerrre„ts. He opined drat it'd uuicf tie 5eiter if a citywide code addressed this issue. Hz7 explained thu prvpu5nd rz cquir,=r ,er,t to : rabmit a piamincg City of hake Oswego Planning Commission Minutes or September 13, 2010 pay-- 3 of S Page 3 OT 8 EXRiBiT C-3 LU 10-0040 November 30, 2010 31 and buffering plan Simply uredted a paint of contact oemuen an ownei;ueveioper and the rieighba„hnvd �,u they t,anld talk abunt it. When asked if the iieighbullluud wV01d ue able to Its i�;ha a, -tel ender the auFrei It er,de lv11. Ettavk Gxplamed the curl c1. t trend was to rnaFe the Mouse tate dominant part of a parcel. He said t-ne small -�hanv�s the i,e;ghbvThuud vvai 1twd wvnid help briny the huu5e and lest it-rtq Letter balarice. Daniel Wurk 2855 Biuu zAe Rued. a iiieinber of My neigrioorMuod panning currirnittee Prld a m rimbc, of the m3zv7,latim, b'Vald, 7Aplafloe'd'.h.lt thc; VvCrlay vva5 tht= iuzult of neai1.fty debates, cc�mprorriises and trying to involve the rest �r the i eighb�rhood usll eg the :nulvey alid avliu+filly p'ubliu coinirielits, He elaiified the yowl of 1.he uveilay Wdt5 1101. to change the neighborhT ud, bat to ;,hal lye the uity zudc �o it r,;TlGcted the rwality of the exi5irng neighborhood. me pointed out that iew homes in the neighborhood were as vlvac caa ten Beet apart, but the cuttermt Uity nude alluwvcd that, the uvCrlay It satbauks to ref G ;t re©lity. Mr. Work e„plai, led that und7r tt e carie: it unde mvvrero, cV�ila pote'ntiat y cover the entire lot with gravel or asphalt, He said the ov,rlay chat a 50,70 limit that iiiu,E! acuniately reflected the cxiz5t1ilg iieighborhaaa. Jona Denctel, 3505 UR2er Drive, objected to the overlay. He agr47,d -'th Bill Li4u 4estiinuriy. He indicated the neighborhuod should not move fuswdrd with an uveriay, eapvu ally afar thin u had been 3.ch a luvv response to tl le z)urvcy. He Qntimpated it would reuuce the value of his ,property. Re ana his wife owned two ouildable lots and plan inGd to build their drGal i I humu, le. Michael Kdplun 371 1 Lake Grove Aveirue, questioned whether the corramiueu had fully =nz,ldcred the IrTmpliurstiuiis of the p,nv slur, "Thi Pla rating and Briffeer Plarm shall be received and 'reviewed by the silty Manager." He indicated that some people might r-onSidCr a giabs grid stone walkway acathetiUdlly attractive., btrt 5ume sCniuiS could nut safely walk vn that kind of vvalkvvay. He adv Sed that iiiule; Gali,-ulativrs deeded to bF done t. e, ,.aure that Te result OT applying the 5011% hardscF,,.z lii,,'rt epi w 7,500 sq. Ti- lot with a house and modest patio, deck, driveway anu sidew,iiR was realistic. He reasoned that altze the hardtivape lir-mit did ,int ditfclElltiate LGtvveGrs a uric -:miry hunsG grid a taller h,u:5e it cr,atud an IF=c-nt;,,e to nnld bigg,r h� -Uses. H, ,ukrd the Pl,11-1.,,g Gommlti 1.J uii to uarefully uonsidei applicability, wooia thin net w iegu'rations uiily apply to hew c;5,,stFn7t1utl vi vvval:d they apply vvhcia am uvvncr did thiritg's like I'Fvvlre a huu5e'? Vf the Aiakeliaw :3000 Bmuks de Road, spoke Dii behalf iw,f hinrseslt and h a brother. They 0v it d thl e pr1.1Ncrti-s I,, thu neigh—J71) .od. They liked whQt had bmen happening ineie, including the new hUCIbes Mat Mac been built there. rie assured those who Might s[ippvrt the uvei foy just to prntuct the parcel the Hunt Club vera* oi,, that the Hurst Club was doing woli rmd --,,Id got go away. He submattud in °e icz:gh :,,.,ugh" icttur 54igned by all 22 neighbu s he iiad talked to. He Cvrlttaste-u inial EeSpvnse tate wiiii ui Ve G�o Asan,,-Jatrull sUrvey Ia5pvnsc. He e.7tii l latCd that IIIVi FC rJeVple WCrC Ca aiiibt the uvc.r{ray than —e, e fur it. He had recr!i.cd appro,r al ti, pcartitiur vnu .,f his plr npertiea int,, three lots. He wanted thein to be "gidridfath:ered iti" so thE:. ruveilay aid [lot apply- Me 5uyt`je5ted thnt 5LJ5 tICV116 vvhu warted the Vverlay lzdC �-r6t.ild JL13t pat a Jlrllilai re Jt,iUtlVn on h;slhvr own d6ud instuac. hie asked: the I laid iirmguvrr'il e;i��tvr mut tv L,hn, tge the uni t ei rt jade. JArDe. t Bucy-, 3155 Edgemont Road had served ort the i v c;hborhooci bwa,-d' and o1., its planrmil,g -unli ottea, She teztfiied that the C7)riirritteL: had dont:: les vvurk while keeping two goals in the Lake Grovo rtleivhburh=d Flan in n iad that C.-,Iled fur invulvll g vticeris and pre�elving the livability dad ae5ihetiC uharauicr of i 1.0 rreiyr1DorRouu, r ney had c vi lardcrcd the I cpci%..n55ii,I 1.J vn both cnr5t rlg nI ib tic\N They had vetted the overlay cunOept:; with the neighuorlloou association alio narrowed them ac,ordinyly. City of Lake Oswego Planning Cornmis5i7,n Minutes of Sepiemijer 13, 2010 Pages ZE ®T 8 32 rage ;4 of 8 EXHIBIT C:-3 LU 10-0040 November 30, 2010 They useo inureasea setbacks and decrea5A harl57-apr to p, esu, we the; ,hai QutCr of the neiyhbutho; d and buffet G,xl31.my humes fratrr flew Monies. i hey wanted tw lua«v6 more f1r p[ant;ng a„d (hv,p�fnlly) nati„G growth. Cennt,tittee vnemberz> had diverse potato of view but worked LRirigs out, z6he regretted if any d;3mpp7,inted zg'hbm z, had nut ccs „e fur vvard Sum ov, to provide input at bud,d, cQmrrrittee or neigriborhood meetings. J. B, MzFr4, _._ 3705 Upper Dive, recalled iffar the City Mac taken a portion of his property just before the S,,p eme t 7,A uled that vvas not allvwud in Dolan v. City of Tigard. He asked if the harascape limit would apply to cho, uh pm,p�rty. H -U uquated the 81/ zurvuy z7sp7jn5e rate tv a re5ponsc by une out of eight Piannng Commissioners, Ed Gehrig, 4850 Uppz7r Drive, was opposed to rezo,ling ptoNerty nt 3vunus Furry bead/Upp4r Dave for vvmmeiLial usv. Chair Gosidfsun expiained sraT was not within the scope of the hearing o prmpo..ed i„ the wveiltny. Dvlibcratrvrrs Crlair Gustafson closed the public hearing, HG Zrr,,, j,.t � �i a five-minutt~ break and thereafter oeuunvetred the meeting for deliberations. C.ommissI7,t T Jnhr,5u„ 7b5e7v-cd that Cake Curove Neighborhood Plan poliuie5 hdd been in tRe Corrrprenerisive Pian since 1998 so the policy debate nad already ouuoirud. Nnvv t tt: Plat ii it, ig cul; ,r,,issivn 'Tad Lhe Iespoiisibilityto reuurrtrrrerrd the proposed code that implm ,eritGd the Pia; if theyfucrFtd It vva5 7,UrI515tu Vt with the flan. He believed thdL what Lhc neigriborhood proposed ,as Me minimum necessaFy to dV that. He 5npported the -,toff rGc7rifFj-1enddti0fi. Cvmrf bwoneT Glisson observed that neighborhood effo,ls to audify the plan had br;v;r, ging cn fur yoai 5 5v the, v had Deco, rrrany vpportunrties for input. Commissioner Jones agreed the proposed changes vvciG nriini,,tal. He supp.,rted ten -foot Side yard 5rtbacka tlevauaC he believed five -favi setbacks were too smaT Dice Crrair r-areiciian recalied the number cf p7v-plz7 vvh� h d teatificd they did nut Suppurt the pi upv5al and gnez tirii red whuthar it was what U10 greater neighborhood wanted. Shu reoalled the Co, i,rrij5aZnv+s had apt i t a lGt if time working an loot coveraye and ht::ight standards in the Infill code before L ity C.,u,„,,,il adopted it. Shy ,,os Iulinctant to allow a neiyhbvrhuud to revel back to the previous standards without a,i assessme,-,t oT what diTmrencc that vvvuld make. Snu ret,�illed that the ratioridie fur the hdidscape pravisiuns was related to aesthetic,, b,.rt the p:�.ivi5iv,ts did n6t �.7j,,5idc- vYhcthc, m riot it would be visible well back err a fenced tot. She agreed with testimony that called fm calcni.ting vvhatthe iesults of tht; 5091/, herr#,;;ape liMit uould iouR fiRe. Vice L.;hai, Pai utchai r alsu indivated that the City sRuuin cnmiider adopting a citywide definition of and li, ,it on ha,-d.vppe (gTavizf did not uvunt) rAher than allowi,rg each neighborhvud Lu o5e a dlffererTt definition and limit. She did net favor pre�Cribii,y "green” drivz7wJ y turnaI t)Gl fuse Tuned medics driving drEds posey Malmenance and drainage Iasue's an'n were actually m.rc 77xpm,�i.0 to LLJIi,-7 and miatrttoin thart other types. She said the Plannir rg Commission Mad rim yei a7illressed the is5u- of aide - loading garag7a, which Lrided to rvgnir'c mote povurttert, Chair Gustaf5,,,, r am ,n d that if Dake Grave Wait Red different standards than those that Ran Qeen adopted for the entre City, there sh,.,ufd be vvemhelming ur neat LIrianitnUM, 5uppvrt iii the Tieighborhood. He was truubied by the prof:,-,s;zZ dGr;nitiun, `ha,d5L"upe." Hz agreed .'rth 5taTT that tht�; Plant irtg Comtriiasiun shvufd r!ot recon meri a the planting and Quiiering pian requirement z;, the PD vhza„yu. He griestfu:red whether the overlay would have the desi;ud ri✓s©ILs. He recafle❑ that rause Grove lik-;d thei unm-5tury houses, but duri„g Infill diuutia5ionz the uumm15567jner5 hl fd obberved Lr}at increasing City of Lake Oswego Planiting Commission tvlinutGS of September 13, 2010 page 5 of g Page 5 of 8 t:AHIBIT C-3 LU 10-0040 November 30, 2010 33 setbdCKS puSned houses higher, commissioner 61issor, e,7,alted they had I;u eAomined lot uuverage daring Infill discussions. The Commissioners considered reeor—",,,andi,tg the ovurl :,y vvitn mdjG5t,,171lta, The majority of CuFnmi55ivtrcr5 either fovurtA ur could accept kuepirry the front setback at 25 feet instead of im�ru..s ng it to 30 feet in the R-10 To inorc,ase it would inipaut bdukyard5. Tire neigriDumuou wanted to preserve the cLrrem feel of thZ7 neighbo�a heed and uur,crit Lvrtiny vias 25 feet. Staff co, firmed the ,etbjc.k chCnge would not. affect flag lots because they vaLru 5ubjv,t to 5puJal flag it.,t : tnrdnrd5. uomrmlziaatvrrer Gli-aur, Im5i7at7d ohu vvuld agree to lt,v, u35u the 5idtz- yard oetba7k lit the m -r,5 zone another two and a half feet because thrt reflu—Ztud the uhurmuter Wt the nvighburho'ud. Gunlmissiurrur JGhnS©n agreun, C, air %.[lstai'sun was concerned that it would rezult is, t,.,vre �kiu i(y hou5u5 Gin 50-footMae lots, The Curnml"iuilers recalled they had workeQ with Dennis Egner on lot coverage during I'irfill diszu`aaiv, t5. They pointed out that molly of the: e7w,r iple,o they had studied were Lako G eve lata and that the l4ill -hued had uhmngFd since th , Lakes Grew Nt--iyhdarhuod Pian was adopted and current Infill regulat ons might help the „eighboi hued atrh eve its plan pul ciCo. Cern rrtis5iGr,er Uh5s5un agree0 with tetitirrlUrly MaL the ii;ao cape limp might nuL ou appropriate ir, 5of„e ,,ire umsto, toes. She believed there might be vthor wayo to hide the view of hardscape ana she anticipated the City would consiMer a citywide approach to hard5uape during the Cm i tprehei isfve Plait apdate pruucJ'Sa as a o[r5td l lability oitJdSurt. the indi4r;tcd that Glu,,MZ F, ie Tight have alrundy keoked ,,t hvvv their 50% haFd5cape ritnit dffemed Meir iarye lmti, rout it was a complex issae ural. invalve0 n7w it WChd apply to d;ffetiz�„t sites of lots and hGvv it affected d, all- age. `dice C',hni, Patntahan woo viae,ned there w2,, mn f�rid3t-gz5 to support the 507/. limit 17L,, WuigGf rzUalled that Glenmorrie had created its own definition of hardscape beCcaUse the Lity Council had not bet zr Fu idy tv create vile ter the Ulty. Chair Ga�tdfa,Mf i uhoeiv'ed Lhat tht� proposed dufjnitiu,, vvca5 a otia,,yc miu, i?c�auic it GatCvuraz-cd rvok a to yravcl ms hardooapu. Thu meaning of `hardscape” needed to be clarified in order to fe;ermine what percentage wao appropriate. ivrs. vveige's crarified that the "driveway c.urnarvant=," regcv5&T1er1t requireu We Lurnarffand stub off the drivetvay to be "glccn." The recloirement wao inte,,ded tv improve beth aesthetics and perviousness. Commissioner JUhn�,�-n cautioned thGt driveway tar wruunds consuFned yard ar&a. Ccwimissiuiiur Jones woo uont.;ume0 that d `greeri„ tat-=ctruu,,d that vvao 7mmpooed ofjU5t puraiouzo paver Weuid still luvk like a uG,,oretu area. Vice Chair Paretchan recalled testimony that gz;vstioned whethG, thio r�4uirmmunt dr-tadlly duhleved the gual5 of the neiyhborhvud pian_ She 5uggeoted the Infill Cade might a� hi vC it, Cutit, ni5sioncr Cal 5av9 F gRcstioi red vvhGthGr the propuaed hat dsaape limit and having a "green" driveway Lmaround of paver. , th g asz5 i between eLhioved the gotila of the Plan, Commissioner John3on moved to recommend that the C„tY C o nci# no# aw., r"vo LU 10- 0040 because there was nu evidence that Cun'errt code rt,,g0r7inunts weri; nut, achieving the policies of thu Laku Gr,,,,. Nuighbo, h.od Plw,. Vice -slur Paretuhmn �vvurrded the rr,Gtivrl arid aiscussian falltawea. Ccrnrni5siunur Juhn5vn suggesied that proponents who really believed the Infill rode vvao ,vt auhieving Plan policies could mdke their ease to tMe Gity Cooncii. Fe was inclined to believe it was, Wnen Commissi7nor Gli,,�"v; Wbz,erved the Infill cone did' itot give the neighborhood the 10 -foot side yard seLbauks they wanted, Chair Gustafson observed the consuFf3nzt ..as to agree to the lorgur City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Mir,uLes of September 1,3, 20 iu Page 6 of 8 34 Paye 6 of 8 EXHIBIT C-3 LV 10-0040 November 30, 2010 5ctbacka, Cmt,i„i55i%nem J7,ez5 held that the Picmi,i,i, ig Coi,,rnissicn vvvuidb,r dui,rg a disservice to trte neignQornood it it turned down the entire Nrop-,sal, H�- ad'vucated ,eu,.. �, ,endinrg the ruqui,emumta for increa and tont and Side yaru 5ucbacks, int; lot co„e+age limirt the neiahb�,rhu5d .skud Tui, and perhaps the ®gree„" dri 7w;tr ty t nia,cu'nd iequiEemem itr order to help the neighborhooa maintain its character. He suggest,d the haidsuape issue shoold be a citywide d1t;=5bion. He agreeU tRe infill code sriould 5 ,trvl [titc veraye. C�%i,,,�,;ssi�,a er Joh,-,aur v„ithdruw his mFitivn and Vice Chair Pareturian withdrew her second. Ma. Weigel and M,, 135% -A -Z ad„iscd that the ccde ccuid riot i iat nu apu6fic pi vdauts to be aced far pervious driveway turnarounds, but it co ild define thv a pr%duct had to ni-=jiipii h to iimret that zta,idard. Stiff would keep a [:,,,I of rriaieriaiy that ttiey thought would qual;ry as "Pe,vivu. kavas„° Vice Chair PaFutchmr vva,,tud a better dvfinitiun. Ms. Weigel cutifir red that gi avel was rypiGaliy ;,onsiciered to be pervious but r ivt green.” Cmiirriisslvrim Juiies rttvvud to iecutmriend that the Cit% oancil aduQi LU t0-Ou,+v tOrdlnance 2556) with the Tcllvrvi„g ncvv ivgultitivns The R-7.5 side yard setback was to increase to 10 feet. Driveway tomarvands were to be "green." He clarified that the R-10 fr,Jnt yard setov�* vvgS to rima n 25 feet as e5tabliunud In the current oodt, giro lot coverage was to remain as established in the cwrrently adopted Infill .ode. JuhnaG , secundiod the riivtio,i arid dit5cussioii foiloweu. Commissioner Glisson asked stuff to .vi iv7y the Cmiiiiiissi7i r rs' ra,,m, , midatiun to uo„sider a citywide approuuh to "haidscape" sooner ram er than later in the staff r7,�ort to the Cc; moll. ChA;r GubtafSGn vvaz, cuiiuurncd that a„ over'ay wile coimipvsed of only two requirements was not a meaningful enough ovG,1Qy CvnZ,,iiSalvmer JWhrl5u r saw it as a place tv begin and he indicated that it was bearer to Send it forward than to ketip .e„dsng the p,up%sal back t% the ,e[ght)uThDrd, c31i557iri i,idivated she Mviievtra that Mat Me two new requirements, plug the !„fill egulnti7ms ccnld help the re;ighborhoud achieve its plan. Vice Chair Pare uhaii a sQ iiian confiuertce in Me Inriil nude. She , Jai ified she did nFit sappurt the ruquirt:ment fL,r "grime, i” driveways, Vice Chai, f arctchan moved to amend the mationM einninaiinQ Me requirement for d,iv, Shu vete: ,an the clmuriurf int was conducted' and itfallea 3:2. C7, J'wn,:;s and Jvhnsvi i voted against; Vice Chair Parel,Uhan and �!Rair GCisicli5i3r] voted in favor. The vote was then c:onducLed on fine original motion and it passed 3:2. Curmr ,is u,ie,3 Glissoii, J7)h,,,5m, and Juiio�, voted iri favid, Vice Chair Paietchan and Chair Gustafson voted againA Cha,,, Gustafacn an,,ud,r,uad the fi ,a,l vote would b,7, conducted ori Outober 11, 20 10. $, WORK SESSION (c of /-) o. i Fr' 10-0007 - i-ompreheF93ive Plan_(Perioa; RcW filo"Y;. R r i" line of Octuber p'laniiing woik`shupti Sidwo Sin, Senior Manner . a ra Weigel, A5�u7iate Planner, preaer,tFFd P l-iMmimg aA Building S+-15epaRrrrem Mernoraninurn oaten September 1, 2010. The me Bated the p, cpasGd acti'vn arzas, pi opased a form: rat for the uammunity ee-tingti, anM contained the project timelin n ,d . 71 vdnle u„c g5al of the program City of Lake Oswego Manning Commibsion Minutes of aepiember 1,5, e.71 C Page 7 of 8 Pay= f Vr 8 EXHIBIT C-3 LU 10-0040 November 30, 2010 35 36 EXHIBIT C-3 1-19 10-0040 November 30, 2010 --_ HEGON Community Development I Department Memorandum 10: IoKe O5wey0 Plarnrirry Commission rm—UM: [aura vveiyei, Ides—yPiSurPiuoa Planner DATE: May 5, 2008 SUBJECT: Lake Grove Neighborhood Plan Implementation Committee Backgmund cn un Play "1L , 07 Plai ii tiny lwTTission is scheduled for a .heck -ii i tram the LaRe U, Uve MeigMllorMood 4\ssoc;at4—Vn Plan ilmlpierne, Aati�n �,�rrilm'fttee vront the st ateyies they are developing to implement their neigMl5orhood plan. i Pie pia vva5 adopted lay the 0ty in 'iyao. Over the cuorsC of 19 meetings, the implementation committee (with a slightly different maRe- up) and former City statt completed a full analysis of the ddupted plan. When corrent staff 5tarted meeting with the committee in Nuvermber of 2UU7, they had already decided to develop an overlay x -one to implement outstanding polities and recommended action mea5ores In the plan. JtaTT nas met vvitM the committee I line times to date. Duriny the tirst Seven meetiny5 the committee worRea to narrow the concepts tney vvantca to con5iaer TL r incmoiu—n in the over lay zone. Now, the committee is in the process or relining those ideas to determine tnZ5 rel, ye �t potential cede changes to discuss with the neighborhood. in addition to the meetinys, several members of long rarrye and torrent pldnrriny staff went on a tour of the LaRe vrove neiy55or5ood with the committee to understand how the neiyhborhuod i5 develvpiny and hove the overlay /-one conld 5e more ettective in mail itail tiny CaRe Car ove'5 unique uPiaracteri�tics. The Planning Commission requested that neighborhoods developing implementation strategies checF-in with the Commission for teedbdck drrd guidance on potential ideas throughout the pr=55. Lake vrove 15 the tir5t neighburhoud to cherF-in with the Pldnniny Commission 5ecau5e tnuy are the tortnest along in the pruce55. I Mis memo 5rietly outiines the overiay concepts coricntly m0rwv d;z5,RJJ1V11 Ily tME committee. The cornrnittee will continue to meet and refine the ideas until they are ready to present tnem t7, the yerreral neighborhood for feedback. EXAI�sIT U-1 LU 10-0040 Planning Commission Lake Greve NEighbo hood Plan Irrmplementatic;n 37 November 30, 2010 Meighoori"looa t-Maracter t-oncepts The ideas currently under discussion are intended to protect neigME5orrlooa cnaracter. Lake Uuve mmyhburhood character was defined in a background document created for the initial infiii development work in 2001 (See Attachment A.) I he neighborhood character assessment inclaaes the following statement aboat the lar iascape of the neiyhboi Hood: De ,se vugutatiun aria larges treed a'cfinc tnu 5caic dna character of (LaRe Grove). separate one lot from its neighbor, aria separate most 13,.115ing5 from the Street. Rva5u5 are set within the landscape, instead of defining it. Many appear secluded aria private fium other baildinys. Houses of many different sizes, heights, and sRapes fit this neigUorhood becaase the vegetation diminishes the visibility and scale of the buildings. i he committee i5 cc siaering an overlay z -one vvhi7h would 6e applica6le in tMe R -/.b and R-10 zones. uoae concepts !Being discussed inolaae: 1. Increase setbacks to protect privacy and maintain secluded character. 2. Lower fluor area ratios (FAR) to decrease Haase sire. Larger houses require more iot coverage, which can decrease the amount of veyetatian between houses and encroach vn „cigllibvr's pi ivacy. ,i. Ruvisu the 6ail5inyiitafig-nz to increase privacy. I Aller houses often have windows tRat look down into smaiier Roa5e'5 vvinarjvv5 aria yar55. �+. Require landscaping and Durrering retween properties dna 1117 strut to protect privacy. b. Develop more iiyid tree protection to increase privacy and !Because trees are large part of LaRe Grove's character. �.P, -rUE1-aI:-'VI:-iu_ ii the neighbor hood. Planned developments can deu,Ea�u lot 5i/ -e vvitHout reducing the huase size, therefore development appears more r . EstaMlisR more rigid zone oMrrige criteria that farther limit the encroaclImerit of commercial development in residential -o ,e5 to rmalntain tMe reoiaential character of the neighborhood. S. Establish residential design review for all new development to ensure compatil5dity. 9. Increase the fees for tear downs iri the neighborhood. Generally, the houses being torn down are shall and sarroanded 6y vegetatioi i. I he new hoaxes that replace them are „aopi 6ivger ono vegetation i5 removed. 5ume committee membeis feel that higher tear- dovvri fees create a 5k im7cnt,ve to tear dovvn5. 10. Encourage re -models as a means to ai==Uuray7 tunr aovvno. 11. Changes to notification process a. Require neighborhood meetings to occur aver pre -application meeti ,g5 (requirement in CDC update is currently underway). ^ 6. I9eighl5orfiiuoa meetkiu dates should be prupused an three different days at least ffli-- a a„d i,vt held 10 days piioi to a City recoyniced holiday (the Mruu day s-Uparativn prupobal i5 a„dEir 7=5 deratlon in CDU update). QuesuDn: Dves the Plarmirig Commission have any ideas, concerns or general re�dback ur the i.mplementatian camirrittee as they continue discussing these conceptse, Htta�.PlTcrit�: A. ncigrl6urMou55LAl3, I he university of Uregun, Jane 13, 2001 Plan i g Ccrrmrrnisic Lake Grove Neighborhood Plan Implemeniation 38 November 30, 2010 e;cparrd by: neighbu I houdSLAB The University UT OrTgon (5;;-t) 346 - j-6:4/ D RAF t J- i T- -k[JDellC[lX .L 1 39 November 30, 2010 L [77n U p X Cr, 0= Charactur TOP: A31U Lake Grove, Miduie: 2;txa5 UpMer Drive, L—er ' 3660 Lake :rove Landscei—pt: Dejj,e VegC-Lation allE rargca tir=e, d=fint; the ,cdle and chziran, C)f this eighborhoud- beparatz: one IcL from its ri,ighbui, and miv-5t nulldings from the street, Hoa.,tfs are set within thi, 6,d- 5c:r3pF, insLt=ad m defM-Mg it. many appear --eJuded and PI lVaLe Trorn other 5ulldjtjgs. Houses of T, -.;24,y djff�teF-,L sizezi, hejghL,, and shapes fit Lhl, nel�hburhuud because c;f the VegeLation Lhe YloIbAILY and sca4e of th, E5u;idi,,g-z' q 40 November 30, 2010 a icy IBJ Charaurer Siri=tr5 R UbL sLreet right -of -trays are between 30 and 35 feet. Pawed widths are bc1 ,7„ 18 and 24 fFt L. Lame streets tc„d t -U fvPlvry the L.U9.kLUur� raf Lne lana, WnH7 SmaLlei ,LreeLb Gcrtcl Lo run across the Contours. Top: Ueper Drive; Middle. Lake Grove Avenue. N ai Tow: planted shautders ,,.d the ssb5er,ce of aw;b, define she character of thE7 5tr�Eu. The;- a7,c 11u catbey� ;ii Lake GrovC. ,o parking must bz7 z%a=ssed fry:, the ,Lr�eL. 41 November 30, 2010 k N1 (, tl f ,Z :-� , Rtesidential Lots There are four diffC,-rnt ivt types in the Leke Grove sruay arca; jThe majorit. a,e ReAangarar Lots fov„d bit 'Smaiia, thrugh smtevrs and Cul-de-sacs. These arw asr—,d11y I ss than 60''w,`dv arra l00-200' deep (IJE ri s acra). Ther a are a out 5u Lasrgu Rectangular LVta. These lets ara typically I vu -200' Wide arrd ,200-300' deep (about 112 - r acre). urrre of larger lyto have been livid d i;7ty F'1ag Lots, which vary widely in uizu, Nat tend to be avout ur7C-third to urge -half a�,as. These rigs are emery cvrrrrrron Detw-- Upper Drive and Lekcvievv Blvd.,_ out mmut bluinks rrrroughoat the neighoorhoz-,d hoot at loasr one ur tmi flag leis. Tnere gyre =Iso a. srrran numbar of Large Irregular Lvt5, typicalry an aL, e or mare heY a� Uziunfly the result C.r c;w ve irr the road �r vtht, rr;jtural ar,�mzij,y; Trig exem,o'las of goo7 inf,Yl occ❑rreL,, on all Types of J07 Trrc negative F—arrOUS we a, ialyzed a// uccurred ill, rwccang,tiar 42 November 30, 2010 L R iln) -u, [E Infill Housitig Examples Upper Drive LUKE, Gi ove Avenue November 30, 2010 43 DD Twin Fir Drive 44 November 30, 2010 Address: Twin Fir Arcn' r, c t: Mascaru 40ning: R - iv Loo size, 77,860 sq, ri— Area: 2 Ur17 sq, Tt. Foo prim' Zr060 sq. FAR: U -X4 LoverW.,V: 0.17 Heishr: 3 7, peak 25" ,overage m• —n Fir, view ircm sirep, MI-ddle: ,-in ;ir, view irorn 44 November 30, 2010 I- ItICIr At ea Ftou, Area: Li -,t S'ZE: FAR: CuverdgE: >�ID=%-Ka Main mass is setback 30' fl um road. 5ldv ,mtbdcks ciie 20' ansa Twin Fir - Site Z I a 15 Nu bignifiudny crew in front �f "I hou.e, 7 45 November 30, 2010 openings TWO -car aragc app,,,,, III idLely halt Wt tFU jl.1 $ ei- el.evat;w,, E7� Gzzj- 1 Twin Fir - Aruhirecture 01ev ldrg'e Ma Ss a,;th t. u zmall Sabi cop Rigs. Gc age IS pdrC Of p'r.,any 9IIcl�y. North siUC bvdtl is a till, lituAty blaiik plane. 46 November 30, 2010 Lake Grove Avenue Tc r L' :3KG view frc)rr, Spree'6' M'Um� L�Kc Grove, view iron corner November 30, 2010 Building rnr-t, Arwress: Lake orove Archirecz-: varcla, a Assoc, Wevefop— Ed Buchman Date BUHL.- I YY.I 4vnin5: R - j v LOO — -ze., 13,280 sq, Tr, Floor Area: I , 96 0 '77. ft Faocprinr: 2,230 Sq. T4, FAR: cov«a'e Height, V.1 S Q.:9 Z 7 Ptak 14' Average 47 Lz-"'�K[E Lake rov F100i As ea ��andi FLVv, Arc4: q e Lot Size: 13,; FAR: birt acRS Gu n5u 6 3ut ba4g abuut 40'_ while the hvuNt- ib %eLback about 50'. Side setback= arc 25' nA 35'. i-92IIUbf sdsdpusepo Two targe LUniTerou, fruit of th,- hnr,.�:, one on each side, 48 November 30, 2010 .e s LAXE URQ),)VE Lake Grove Architecture Up=";IjM Garage wpe, ing i, ar G„Led Lowards the ,,iw! ,creel, leaving the p,;nLipat street etevati. f'i =cr ut large 0Frc1 1;r1g,_ November 30, 2010 The house is organ,,, -,u ;ntu two „,asses. thepri,klary l�vi„F ,,aye and the garau •lith a ii ar f u conneCt OIj 6ctvbeFR the two. Because thi, nu, , is „ngle story, t"n.r—. arc fin tall, unbroken planar .orfact,>, 49 R-6 (E-,� L: D 7\�-, D ,q. cnitecr.- Douglab Circle DFCZv, Ve7elopment, Inc. I 0'l LjOUgias .—FrCte, 7;,- TFOM s,reei, 1V7i,J Irb rloz;gl',n Circlu. Vit:!w frC)M easi, Address: Dorux,Ios Circle ,q. cnitecr.- Olson Gratip Arcnirecr, Developer: DFCZv, Ve7elopment, Inc. Built: Under construccion R - 10 Lor 16,3'10 Floor Area: ;4,jju ':7. ft, r- oo rp rin r: 3j230 sq, fL, rA?r: 0.27 Coi-e, aye, 0.20 HeighL. JV' PIL-Crk 25'Ayeraye 50 November 30, 2010 Dougias uircle -'Site Pla"ning Floor Area Floor Area: LUQ, size: FA R: C VV7j M g7: Setbacks 25' fiVIIL :,etback. i:)' on each sid,-=. November 30, 2010 One stnatt dec;duDus trEFc ii, fr7a,it of h u a.-, c . 51 iwo car garages ", about half of the girSL ILOGr s�recL elevation, equat in widLh L.0 she porch ano enTr,. FronL of house vroRen into t Masses, a one-sLaFy porch -entry ano w Bow e. The east side watt is a single ion, though rn,Te is significanL fenestraTion. f 52 November 30, 2010 FE R H U 0' R Upper Drive Bu; Address: Upper Drive Lac Type: Flog A, Miller Developer: Ally Consrruczion Face OuiTr,* .1une, 15-Fyz Zoning: K - /,Zk LLL size: ia,luu q. I -c. Floor Area: 2,240 sq. fz:,* Fomprim,- j;W/V sq. J -E.= FAR, U.fz 1v.-: G;7p- M"Um, UPP�F u- :G Lor Corer -,C! U,Ud Hei$h L: 28' Peak I Y* Average 'Main house and DddiLjon only November 30, 2010 53 ,zs Upper urive! - Sire Planning Floor Area Sian Flu—or AT-ea- Lut Si4t: tAR: Cov"u-ST: Setbacks The house is setrF,.::k 80' f, om the tf a,,, Lz',t. Sege 5EitDaCk.,) are i C. 11 15 There are s—.rtil targe, M,1LWrV Lees fi OF -it of thu hua,,,e. 54 November 30, 2010 Ualxl=�� G[Ralv�-� hUPtfjr ng5 Vct.ac ICU gw a!gv Ilut y :.JbLC fl Urfa :,Lree4. Largest opening T, um zt, cct i:w Me xLidittg gL;3:,S auVr:, of Lhe SLudiu OT -1 -1 -CE. House organ zed inti, th, e mia bez. Iwo for the pr,mary [ivir►g spaces, and anr,tFt« far the attached uff.klstudie. 55 November 30, 2010 L Roor Area I?at#'OS Hoor Area:: Lot Size Plot b.UUU n,uuu - Doustas vouglas a uougr.s ;+,000 _ Twin Fir 3,UDV ■ Upper L, uuu LaRe r7rove Lake G7c,,e 1,0OU 5, OOV -Iu,uucj 15,000 Lu, uuV L�-Ouu C'M 5;.,F Tt.) vvbitlye Examples Negative Examples 56 November 30, 2010 iied4. FXtwl Su,, ,,,.try for Lake Grovm, Lake Dswego R-7.5 uvircgulatt=d 7,500 meq. fl. 25-/0 35-40% u, ercgulakt td R -10 Flag Lvts° ul oruguiatce 1 d;0t3{} Z5,A, ft. 25 30°e Qi ,rcgQtistcfj 25` rreviae maximum sep,,-ation ;,T 1a - 20' buildings. 15' »` Z7, 28' 30' Sri ti nai enceen Ine ave,age neige , J5' t r r-ARILW Coverage 35' f?tiTiUf7i tot area 10' fLr vacant tors. - coverage tneew cun5tr, unregulated - �iWVCId (1Ui1'UV[S[1Vi1, minimum ar 12 FAR - Trom en.egulaied - side (sere ,j - side (other) unregulated S; cie `renovarons) - rear �jo:bibic (24' Otvarance from nropc, ly tie --ht - Tsat laf - siopeE: lci sireeL. :.se more InFn one pane or - rt::nova,ion Massing ' Roof Forms Frojecrions Openings R-7.5 uvircgulatt=d 7,500 meq. fl. 25-/0 35-40% u, ercgulakt td R -10 Flag Lvts° ul oruguiatce 1 d;0t3{} Z5,A, ft. 25 30°e Qi ,rcgQtistcfj 25` rreviae maximum sep,,-ation ;,T 1a - 20' buildings. 15' »` Z7, 28' 30' Sri ti nai enceen Ine ave,age neige , J5' 25' of -Zh dweiaings on iols aLiuuing. use 35' 35' 10' fLr vacant tors. .rt,eguiated unregulated minimum ar 12 rnh,imum 6:', 2 en.egulaied --meg,-fated unreguraMET unregulated 73arage wiii De side, icaninc wtien �jo:bibic (24' Otvarance from nropc, ly ;p). N7 m,rl- than 40% visible from sireeL. :.se more InFn one pane or t i�Z�t i0°'. glazev. MUST comply With und_riying zoning: =cte, .L e 57 November 30, 2010 'fi l f r1 LI 1 irk Planning hisue Summary Cancsccxp it iv, T'heaha, �ct�i of L:akc Gi uva is defined by large tr—t!rs ana dense v—�gatatzvii moth houbm, im-w led withirl LhC land2.Upe. Less successful infill duidiiflatM u, el rni,iaLes Lhe slarrvundtng landscape, plow, 19 a gi eatrr EF, iiphasis vie the basldlq!g� Q ti cc w,Rzrizu iijay hELP redUu-e Lhe aiTiOUnLOT vegetation b,—ing P�— iiovA, setbacks Pti ;tiv� ,i,�plra of in4i[i construction have gvrieroUS front ia,,d aide JetbaL.ka. ill negative examples a,e at r near existing =„ninr, hm,t�. SeL-bacKS ShDUia b� rzFgulatew; baat=d on tvL tyy.+c aaiid dtii, n,Sviis. �! /;e 7 — ��-7 LtrL LakaSr--" R.', LiU. �irci^ 58 November 30, 2010 t Luut Area Standards LCL zJ4= and bui{diny, sizes are quite varied, hv"cVur, lot 3izca OFV7 iwL LUi rC-laced wiL.h Lurrenr tuning. Cul I E, qtly, lat z_vrclmgc is Lht only rnet,hod of reg�tatinp D AdAg 31Zc ,n Li3ke Cir uve, bat this may flat pe sufficient. LVNci inn Luvrrame tz'Quirellmij 3 will lead to miss; Ag p;-01,,+z� (e.s ta4tcr buildMtp Ori witallei Cuts). FAR may be a better refyulutury ,rzcaa[7r;:. Based: on thu PUDiLIVE arid l,rgauve infill examples, desirable FAR'3 Laic Grove arm belvw 0. 2. Co:cray:e Ci�nfs � 1t�2�z^ POW, eke brovc taaove tYTYj ana r -6; ;5 L:r elt (abwm , ;hc), have co.erd9, rAtres nea 0,2, put MC GrOYe a very nr;rtptasiM, wR to Mug= t,:,..le a rrrent m, the streetscam. PAR is a tinter measure, r1as a FgR of u.1 i, wn+[ rias rAK U,4 Z, p0 aQ'i' .P 1 V 1 59 November 30, 2010 1. �. i..v �' 7.� .. .., ._ 4J� ..J i'• �i-.J-. 41 �.� , t Luut Area Standards LCL zJ4= and bui{diny, sizes are quite varied, hv"cVur, lot 3izca OFV7 iwL LUi rC-laced wiL.h Lurrenr tuning. Cul I E, qtly, lat z_vrclmgc is Lht only rnet,hod of reg�tatinp D AdAg 31Zc ,n Li3ke Cir uve, bat this may flat pe sufficient. LVNci inn Luvrrame tz'Quirellmij 3 will lead to miss; Ag p;-01,,+z� (e.s ta4tcr buildMtp Ori witallei Cuts). FAR may be a better refyulutury ,rzcaa[7r;:. Based: on thu PUDiLIVE arid l,rgauve infill examples, desirable FAR'3 Laic Grove arm belvw 0. 2. Co:cray:e Ci�nfs � 1t�2�z^ POW, eke brovc taaove tYTYj ana r -6; ;5 L:r elt (abwm , ;hc), have co.erd9, rAtres nea 0,2, put MC GrOYe a very nr;rtptasiM, wR to Mug= t,:,..le a rrrent m, the streetscam. PAR is a tinter measure, r1as a FgR of u.1 i, wn+[ rias rAK U,4 Z, p0 aQ'i' .P 1 V 1 59 November 30, 2010 IV.! Architucture Issue Summary UpVili[Igs Garages, LhItL are orient, -Q t. We st, =-zt tend L -v 3rit4iWate thr tacddt and t�ne str,utsc.pe. Suggestions. U RLsI31660n Orie-ti-g tFW 5zzia;E Ef-iktaric-e tv the bZU Of Lhe k0t, o Redu-J,,g the crl-lUGiit of principat facad.- given Lo garage Uperlirlp. U RvawLe the prominence of tR� p2sr.ge zPwtlTjlRfs) atui-19 ifie Principal facade, Mia,sl- rig Somme hou;&, zeem too (a, g-- In rely 4;om LU their ne'ghbrzv. Fe.caues that ars r,ct broker duwn into dia,-r�ct ett:mtr%, are less r-cmpmt,bte. ongin� sh7,,,Ld 5, 7APan:i.=.� of it�JLvat'a PUnCLUdLed b, yr up�ningB to - the m2r.-,s ur buLR oi- the building. jo Top I Twin Fir as 5LHtt. AL'Uve: t. I Dec=r 60 November 30, 2010 -1 001s for increasing Compa-. EssaCs �haL tan be quantified or clearly defined in words and 'IUMD-, 3U"r za 5etoaaks, fiuicrl' IL. Uften incorporated Imtz; cu, i o, it zwr-, iris as am�EFicjffivrits vi 4.> 4vi ailo uvr'l txiys LC 'Peulll: a[ Ucn- - (jedl, UndLjj6'gULjU$, reliiLively easy Lo enfurze Liabi&iL-.5 — Diff cuk to quantify many features that contribute to compatio!ifty, , ---yairEs lepZiLaLiUrl LLY III IpWmem Deb' if Ktview izzua that ra%ju;rE J'UC1grr1C1 it tL1 assess ME �I I rP.rau6:3icp u: Lrl= pi I I IiL, yut-h e,� rnvANing, projtMzLluns, roof form and openings. —T CL R=VJEVY bL.OZIF 5 LEaL r -I eCIL= ads D� KV-'qU 1 knE LI-EatICA; W gUidelint:-', Lhii etswbfisn standards and review applications. Senefirs — An enforceable but flexible means in which to ass�:;. COMP4CLAIII.Y. Lrtates another level 01 adFTfiniS1.rZt10n (suafi, support, Boards, etc.) and, pFzicass lor 50LF UL7 61 Id Pel I I IIL CLPP1ILd11L---,, L05L UT crZF-1,11 Ig ZChawiln=. Ad:bcrr Y Guldelil tus - imllar tv a Dasign R�- 1=Y, aH,ruah -&-,i that sta; id42rcz; arc VvalMitai y. - AEvlsm y gWdefiflt:!s dre LY yiic.dll y broad iii riawi E avid FILL Vt!r,V PrUsZrIPOVE, Md.� 11 kvluce a i cY,Vy b7aT-5, DLL th- [)OaVd'Z 3�-JZIWN3 EKI e FIZ:4 =1 lf1. l "ECLDiE. z5ci7cfirs — EstzE51ishes g, ,z; idliu fmr owners and developers, no ndoit!—uMzrIv ndminfaLration — NUL eiiturcedblt--, c:YNL ul Ci CdLina Zwlaehrlt:� a,_ r, -" tj 'V November 30, 2010 61 R.Ggulixting (—Ompat bis y h i Dake Grave Compacib ft° I he I I VaGrix belowiliusri aces wFich regulatory tuul triia n, applied to r i-ipuLbifi Issues, 1 MU:3tt;:d L—u5 t a[ i yu bke Grova 3'g,rCamsct ssues that p €lii lrfdiF4a_cs the preferred r�; utawa r 1a41=-Lhvd. © In6mrai a IES- pre-lerred Mn ; atistac%U' y rt--gulaLary Me h77d. A Uank ,-c1u the least desirable r gUldLO y McLhoa 62 November 30, 2010 R � ,�'��''�' •fir `? l There = aMout J.) 61orks in the Fir_t Auuition stun, two--. -Te ZSU' x 400' and are aivinea ,,to'14-16lam IVIOst Tutt Djur is haves alleys running thede,z�tn of the block, While setl5acx - Isom block to ujocj:' rile; t-0 t„ be con- sisteniwitni:; ,a.,,n clock. A- - Pl,` or`scucv aro:, t.,-gtiiz-,Ck 1ounaed by titer and 7115 5t ti.11 atudEAVen November 30, 2010 i 63 IDUMO K 200 KRQ� 00 DD, Neighborhood Chiarracter Marrow streeLs, no cures MDStr'9"t-O(-WaYS';:V E'[]feet, With VUUMSS 370,0 less than In I-ot Alluy5 20' typically tttlpayezlaij--Y ways pmVi& a'Vsz; to fe'ar yard PaxKInD iwaturg 'rrs shade sLruet5- Vali nouses b-Ause this is an tilere are st gn',I.-L.Z treesrots, most JO, Duz 7—t z repetitive patter., Taa.71.1, species, Low, wooden rences and thick shrubbery creat',, a sense OT P'livacy CfIZIM L' ---K UnCollUnon' ane IS Olte- Z;—El to SUFFOrt flowering v;n-, —V other reenaa�. bEmct Lv�—,AIIy in betwmn 7- Zna LJ t),ft and 7th --yemrs 64 November 30, 2010 Neighborhood Chafracter Small-5cale Mouses on iia -raw, dee, lots rvi—t 50' x 120' (6,000 sq, It.). ltau'- 1 m7-- to tn�s� homes stretch back- into tot. rrom Enc Strr� the hoist still reads as a small nouse. ZpiMP,e 9-01=5 or hid. roofs The UX13 of MOl is IYP-PUL17 --ss the, lot- Single story huuses Most Oiudt riouse� -re z tory or L story and a half. lncrw.r,entaf changes vIazr frontes nz:-.z c=, of additiam and modifications Porches have been converteu to MIM 7ZO..-, cai-pOrtS to family Tooms, aii6 dormers aama te, attic spaccs far bedrooms, I "is Ras Je73 to z.--jw� and complex massing or pams ans v.,7,rS1MttanL1v-Av=Ln;, inizMe. U ^Vert=. 7-1h =6 Gth. carp— -r 8;314c! Marnas uecn --nvcri.d irito 3ivwg3pace. 65 November 30, 2010 4 [RHOCID Current Zoning w6, -14 a Sle Plarmirig Floor Area bcandard`s i.. R -d; the maximam FAR rati; fur First Adairion is 0.5. Build'"g .coverage is limited Lo .a@ OT the lot. on K -r. areas, the rraxirraum io; ca-,ryae is 25% for new constru,,tion, and ,a - qui, foi renvvaLions, minimum ironz setback is currentiy Lu' Tram the right-or-wa„ but parcries can 4xzend six fees inro chis setback, The minimum sitfe setback is five feet Tor sms-le-sLory sLrucrures; and a. curnuLaElLV 45' for muLzi-SLory Structure,. In R -S_ Two trees are required for every 50' Of SLreeG r, ontase. 66 November 30, 2010 A F Q�kDD Q U��UHFE6XB(DRxO �� UU ur rent oaraia ulaerv;ngs When possitife; garage, mese Me acccsNeE from rne alleys behir;d she vhouse. Roof Foraiia riaL roofs are not permitted in R-6 areas, The ,ninimum raor slope visible from sne sLreet is currenxay 6:12. A similar requtremen> is prop ---d for R-7;5. Height i eye ouilding heigh� [imil is cs'. ;=or gable roof sLruczwre,, the average roof heigne is uses, This means tnat a ror qp' wide house wiE:n a 6:12 gable root, znc F; -k of the gabie can extend uJ, Lo 33", ror zne sa-c House with a i c: iL -sable roof, she peaR or zne gape ca„ exzeno up to 38'. Pro] cround , FrunL porches are re;�eired on alt new houses. They must 5e at te-:t half the L=n_tn ui the from fa�aae. 67 November 30, 2010 Recent Infill DeVulup yen dth $treer nrrrercorr vvooffs, F Arra m 8rrween v 68 November 30, 2010 D Example A Address: ath Streer Arcnirecr J -E. Krause Developer: )iMm, rine Homes ware esu fr: 1999 Zoning: R - 6 Lor size: i57DE70 S,4, ft. H -o, Area: 2,939 sq, 1-17. Foorprim: 1;350 Sy, 1'. f,832F W, gar -.,- FAR: O.j Lm Coverage 17-si HeighL: jo' t,a-k 2T Average 69 November 30, 2010 I- 1 343'-r Area Si;ancai oz, rl®u, Arne: z,v3y a,q. rt. Let 5 61000 sq. rt. a i'iv r, vnL of she porcri ss cu Trom she prv,.crty line, while Lne vv�;5-hbori„e houses .,rte set back 30' - ;iQ'. 70 Lanascapmg Landscaping in rront of the house is simple. Becatl,c she face or tMe house is 2u' i rom tM frWit- of the properxy -cine, there is iimiLeF3 r. -m for large Lree canopies to develop, MAU November 30, 2010 2U[Do-TuUu H FIEMY, M3)o,R-Hooc Yr Ujections PorrF, exLenos ap t,: setback, buc nOL into iL. massing necause the frw", of Lhe house is emiret, withi„ o,,e pla-e, I,. rt;a-s as a sing[= geometric shape and seems larger tna„ a Ta; Ae o,,,posed of seven srnai6r eiements: Roof Forms The ridge of Lhe roof is oriented to the strecc, poidinc, Lhe eatlesc pain[ pf the house at Lhe from, ar uje tot. He.g It The house is consioermy t -Iter than tri, neighboring houses. 71 November 30, 2010 [��[,3� lI Z°��U� U � oOG� l�IFdS7—nDUQ��(DOD) Example B mddress. t- A-,enue Lievelot,er: Daniel MucTyauyfjuon ,dare Built: I piu ZoninS., K - 5 Lou size: 12;,Uuu 'q. It, Fl -or Area., 3,120 sq. ;r. Foorprinr, t; 1.10 sp . rt. Coverage-, V. ID t -AR: 0.22 "427 25'Peak oW, "p% 4N, 01- U Av,z a., klidulc- ricrin s ' wl Q Aerial jn�t, Ol ti vwe.n 7th anz W- 72 November 30, 2010 Example f; - Site Piann" s' 'rra,,r .-mL cks are fairly consistenL across me Setbacks are minimum, ieavinj; L;Llt Poem Oeveiapmum, .,ound 15'. for Large Lreees, bUL i'rani yarns ap, MC.;-Itj iandsca�,ed. Hum area Standards rLoorArea: 3,300 s -y. ft, LoL Size FAR: tsuffotm, C --e, age: IF 4 5 73 November 30, 2010 RR57 AN)MUH KMSHBUuKH0(DP Example B - Architecture Openings t u -rase openings face Lhe srreeL_ nut aru set back from the from of me Rau.;.: Roof C'°ormzC The Jdge 01 Lne roor is oriented p�rallet to the s,.reeL. 1 n s mage, the houses seem tress tal6; and breanS Lne front pia Re of the house into Lwo pieces, Massing The sLreei ete.ation reads as a collection of smaiier eta amts rather Lhan ane single mass. i ne upper .torr and roof seep oacR from the we -r, N. the scale of Lhc house closesL to the strtee s one story. Projection. On ;aces house.. porcnes protect about 5' Into the 20' sccbacK. Height Houses on Luis siae ,T the block are all about the same neigRL. 74 November 30, 2010 Planning and BuildiFill Services ®epartmunt Memorandum I v: [aRe UJvvGgo Plan iii Iy U01 I il I j55ien FROM: Laura Weigel, Neighborhood Planner DA I t: May 13, 2-W U SUBJECT: WorR Session — Proposed LaRe Grove MeigMDornooa uverlay Lone err 0 -r -0-0_'I3) At the vvurK seaaieii scneaaled ter May 24tn the LaRe Grove Neijburnood Plan Imylementation Committee will present a proposed overlay zone for the neighborhood. Tne overlay zone is inienaea to Melp ia;niaii Me 'uiiiyGe cPiaramer OT Tne neiyFit)erFieea aiia turtne, h iplemeia the mmi jm)erneed plat. I tie cummittee wuald IiRe to discaas the proposed provisions in the overlay zone and answer any specific questions or concerns from the Commission in preparation Tor the pur)lic nearing. bacRyrounci Iyyt5 LaRe hrOv'c IvelgMD0rM00d PlayI aaepteCI Dy Ulty (:Vaned. 2000-2005 Numerous plan items are implemented City-wide and the neighborhood continues worR on pian implemeniaTio,,. 2UUb-2006 I9eiy5borhood association identifies neighborhood specific plan policies that stili neea implementation siraiegies. 200(-2008 l4eiy5burhuud association, along with an implementation committee, and City staff work to develop an overlay zone fur the 17-t.5 and R i u in tMF meIulIgorMoud to presei ve ine minVi)urnuod character identitied in the plan. Oct. 2000 14 overlay gone provision) are pre5Grli'ca to ilIe mFlijnoorhOea asseiiaiivn Ter TeedbacR. Meeting adverffi5ed thruagh Lu Review; direct mail and emdIl. 35 attendees (888 parcels in the neighborhood, including businesses). Also, Planning Commission receives an update Tr7jm the Mi i ii i iiTTFE on TMe 51aT0s OT Alai i il—I Iplei i ieniatlOn. Planning Cummissiun Werk Su55iun 05/24/10 txmI131 1 ®-2 Lake Grave NeignDorrIvoo Pian implementation i,PP Or -OO ia/ LU 10-0040 75 November 30, 2010 Feb. zuua Survey Sent (Exhibit F -i) to all CaRe Grove residents aSRiny tar teedbacR on all concepts. Survey also posted on-line. 32.5 % response raze. Jail. zUUy Based on survey re5ult5. committee and CGNA beard drop Slx provisions trorrr carosideration. Marcn zu-iu znd open Muu5e nelp to present 5arvey results, revl5ian5 to proviawns, and to vote an remaininy eiyht provisions. 35 citizens voted. Require iu feet minimum side yard set6acRs in in-_ R-/.5. AgrGG zi. D15alJ. lee 5. Neutral 3 - RGl{uirG .50 Met i Jnimum Tr'ont yard 5et5acRs in the R-lu. Ayree 24, Uisayree 5; Neutral 6 • uo not allow the Tront yard Setback exception that allows a reduction in setback if the abutting homes have a reduced setback. Agree zu, Disagree u, Neutral i City Council recently approved increasing lot coverage a5 a m5vit UT tCie InTiII I a5R Force recommendation. I he CaRe Grave proposal is to Reep the carrent city-wide lot coverage standard: Lot Coverage cannot exceed 35% for a primary structure <zz feet in neignt or z5% Tor a primary Structure > than zz Met in nelynt Tor the neiynborhaad rather than increase it. Agree 31, Disagree 3, Neutral 1 • Parcels that are developed as a "planned development" should be required to meet Me Ca Ke urove Neiynbornaod overlay 5et5acK5. Ayree 3u. Di5ayree 3. Neutral z ■ Establish a Rardscape maximum of 5u /o. Agree zu. uisayree 5. Neutral i ■ Driveway turnarounds shall be constructed out of pervious materials such as pervious pavers. and yra55 paviny. Ayree zz. ui5ayree 11 . Neutral z • Require a Plantirly and Batteriny Plan when a baildiny permit is required tar any structure on the site. Agree 25, Disagree 5, Neutrai 4 April zuiu Based on the neiynbarnaad vete the CaRe Grove heiyhborhood association board decided to include all the provisions listed aaove in the proposes CaRe grove overlay. Planning Cummi5siui Work Se55ion 05/24/10 Lake Gruve MeignRarnaaa Plan impiementation SPP Ot-0018 76 November 30, 2010 All ut the cude concepts were yenerated from the neighborhood character statement: Dense vegetation and large trees serine ine scale ana c;naramer OT inio ,.eiyl16ornoo5_ Separate une lot Tram its neiyn5or; a, id mast BaildinyS tram the Street. FluaSeS are Set within this landscape, instead of defining it. Many appear secluded and private from other buildings. Houses of many airrereni si,-es, Pieignis, and snape5 TIT ini5 neiynoorhona BecaaSe tMe veyetatiun diminishes the vioiBility acid ocal'c uT the Baild nyo. Additionally; the code provisions seek to implement many of the goals and policies iaentiriea in ine neignaorMooa pin,,, imcln5imy: Gual 10, Policy 6: Ensure all new residential development, including secondary dwellings and nomes aeing snMsiurmaliy remoaeiea. cnmtri6ate5 to the pat itive 5e5iym cnaramer aria ynalitiCo OT CaRE vrove'S exiStiny residential neiyhborhood. I his mall Be accomplished through the application of design compatibility standards, which include: ReiyMt. BalR and lot coveraye Standards • Sit-e of paved areas Appropriate setaacRs, Burreriny and Saree, iii ,y Preservation of matore canopy slid other IandScape teatures PROPOSED OVERLAY CONCEr 15 FOR R-f.5 ai R--IQ IIG I Flt LAKE UKUVE 1gEiUR6uRFI-UUD SETBACKS S;ae yard ;5vtDa�R in R-i.5 Carrent Cuae:-Reyaires that pulffiuiis ut stractares less than 18 feet in height must have a 5 foot minimum side yard setback and a total combined wiatn OT rl 5 Teel. Structures greater in an 10 Teei require "IU Teat rnimirricirm an each Side. rrygSea Chaiie - KeyaireS that portions of stractares lest) tnai i 18 feet in height must have a 10 feet minimum side yard setback. Front yard setlaacR in the K-1u Uarreia code: Requires a minimum 25 feet front yard setback in the R-10. Proposed Change: Requires a minimum su Teei Tml-ll yard SeT6acR. EACOptiun to the tront yard 5et6ack Current Code: 50.22.010 allows the following exception: if tRere are iawrui 3""eiiim95 7jr aemcMed yaraycs (irminaiiiy avv'vllinys or yaraye5 deemed lavvml I in,-cvntormiiiy or thruayh a variance appruval). on Both aBattiny lots with trout yards of less than the required depth for the zone, the front yard for the lot need not exceed tie average Tront yard of the aButting dweiiings anaTor aeiacnea yaraye5. Fro o5ed CCiarle: Uv nv allow the ase OT thio exception. MeiyhBurhoud ReaSun: increased set backs increase the distance between homes and increase privacy between neighbors. Additionally, larger front yard setaacRs allow the vegeiadom tv aeTim 7 in'c Strumocap', moot tn' wG5c5. Planning Cummissiun Wurk Scssiun 05/24/10 raRe Grove neigl`lot3rMaua rian implementation tFF 07-0018) 77 November 30, 2010 Statt comments: Staff is concerned about having to administer the exception to the front yard setbacR. It is an exception tnat is nm frequenuy used in iMe neiul"115 i Mac;5 and 6 5o rrlinGr that .t CUOld 6e vverleeRea. Additionally; the EACeptOrl wad developed to nicreabe cvmpat'U'lity and maintain the existing character, therefore removing the exception may cause a house to look out of character in 0etween iMe ahutting Mouses TPiaT Rave decraasua Tmmi yard Seirac.R5. Lot Coverage current uo5e: Cot Coverage cannot e,.oeea 3o°ro TUr a PIirrla�y StractuIe <zz teet in neiyht or 15oio Tor a prima.—y st, acture - than 11 tees in heiyht for the neighborhood, Infill Recommendation: City Council recently gave preliminary approval to a cnange in the city wide lot Coverage STan5ar5s. vvliiCli a,ee slightly yreatei than the Cal rent Code Tor structures greater man 13-1b teet In heiyht. I ne reason Tor the sliyht increase is to provide greater flexibility for lot coverage (especially for sloped lots) and to create a sliding scale based on MeigMi. rry osed uode: CaRe move vvarlts the lot coveiaye to stay at carrent City code 5tandard5 and not increase. Additionally; if lot coverage were to decrease city-wide below the current code stated above, LaRe Grove would i;Re aacreaoed lot coverage standards m u've,,iq'c the CaR'c tjruve overlay standaid5. 19eit4n5ornood ReaSan: umient Standards allow an appropriate amount of lot coverage - increasing coverage decreases vegetation and tree canopy. Plannua ucvuivpmunt,-, Current Code: The Planned Development Overlay code (50.1 t) ailows for Tlexiniiity in lana aevelopment stan0ar3s to encourage variety in iana aeveimpment patterns. I Me Planned ouvelc;pment Overlay standaldJ can only 5e a5ed when: a) I he property i5 yieater than 15,000 square feet in size; b) An RC District or RP District or its associated hurter is iocaTe'd on iMe propeRy; c) A tree grow greater than l:).uuu square Teet In ai/-e emt5 on the proper-fy, ur d) I he property inulude5 resources identitied as Class I or II Riparian Corridors/Wildlife Habitat or Class A or B Upland Wildlife Ral5itat as mappea cm Mletro's i isle -13 Regionally biyniticant Fish and vvildiite Rahitat Inventoryy Map. Side yard aetl5aCRS can 15e eaaued it certain iequiiements are met, including when the proposed lot sizes are less than the minimum size required by the unaenying zone, c;r lesser set0acRs are necessary m provide adaiticnal Tree pieSei vation or protection oT al5attiny nataral areas. Proposed Chanye: Require parcels that are developed as a planned development To meet tRe LaRe Grove Meign0orRoo'd overlay seil5ac:R5 cr iMu anaeilying /-aniny vvnicnever 15 mere St. ingent. I9eighbornood Reason: Currently there are no parcels in the Lake Grove boundaries that could be developed as a planned development except iMe Runt Clul! property. I Pie n�lyPii$orPiooa is oonoemea tnat IT ,Gdevelupmemt of the Rant Club vvere to occur in the Tuture tnat it vvouid be developed as a planned development which could result in smaller lots with large houses that that would be out of character with iMe neigRlSorMooa Planning Commission Warn Session 051z4110 Lake Grove Nuighburhuud Plan Implementation (PP 07-0018) 4 78 November 30, 2010 character. Reduced 5et6acRa aecreaae veyeteition a►Id homes begin to define the space instead of veyetation. StaTT cvn911 lents: Cony range plat Inii ly atarr would We to note that it the Rant Club site vvere developed it would be very constrained due to historic resources and sensitive lands and the planned development overlay would Me 1Pie iiRely tool area t0 creatively aevelap the prcperffy, includil ly allevviny reduced SetljacRS to protect the wetlands and the tree yrove. I heretore; start does not ayree with this provision. 5u% Rarascape Ma. ;ream uorrent ugde: No IIIdAillla,i, percentaye at hardscape is detined. Proposed Lhallue: No more than 50% of the lot can be hardscaped. riarascape includes structures, patios, retaining vvaIls, paviny. vvaiR5 and arffiticially placed rack or gravel. 5ana5et pavers and 5illfilar yrouna coveriny are also included the calculation. 1964176orhood Reason: I o decrease the amount of gray infrastructure in IM. neighborhood and to increase storm water Tiltratic;n. Driveway 1 urnarounds: Current Code: Driveway turnaround materials are SpeciTiea. Proposed Chan e: Drivevvay tarnamnnd5 Shall 6e con5tracted out of pervious materials Such pelviou5 paves, and yrdss paviny. Nei hhorhood Reason: Larger houses with large ariveway5 are 6einy built an Smaller lots, which decreases tete 5en5e vegetation and tree canopy. uecreasiny the visual impact UT The built environment will help maintain neighborhood character. Planting and Buffering Plan Current Code: i Frere i5 n0 piantilly and batteriny requirement. Proposed QManue: Require a Planting and Buffering Plan when a nuilaing permit i5 required for any structure on the site. _Neighborhood Reason: PlanIrny and 6utteriny will enhance privacy and mitigate the visual II i (pact UT new development as well as help control erosion. Staff comments: i he aetaiis OT Thu planting and 5uttering plan concept were discussed at length 6y both the implementation comlllittee and the board over a number of mantFo. Uitterent members had different views of what shauia be iilcluaeEl alfa it vvaS difficult for the groups to come to a cel I5en5u5 an havv to proceed. ultimately; the board decided Ta put MR11 the calkept Stated a5ave; which only requires a plan, but does not require any zpedtic plantiny. Nor does it require that the plan actuaiiy Me in5tal6d, therefore it is not an impactful regulatio,l. i Pie boas vievv5 the reyalation as a "teacRaale" unc;rmuia m ellc uraye applicants to install plantinys and buffering, but the reyniatiun does not require any plantiny or buffering. A number of tRe committee rrlerrlber5 vvere not pleased with the tinal proposed concept, lur vvas 01 IG 0T the CaKe Crave neiyhbors who worked on the plan over the years. /As a ret,uit, that citi/-en unexpectedly proposed a new concept aurins iMe Sakaila open haaSe where these all of these concepts were vmu5 an. I Fie CaRe yrove resident aSRed the Planning Cvmmissian vvorK Session 05/24/10 Lake Gr7,ve Neighb7,rhoz-d Plan Implc�mantation (PP 07-0018) 79 November 3u, 2010 aaaienue to vote an a ditterent Nrviaion which states; in part; that "New houses in Lake Grove will have (a minimum of) one contiguous landscape grouping consisting cm .' native tree, i medium MeigMi naive 5hraia and i native law plant or yraand Suver.` ;ei vvErE in Tavur. 3 were not. The proposal and the results were aiscn35e5 ai Me na..i board meetiny. 1 he hoard aaclaea to Nre5ent the propuaal to the Plarininy uammiaaion and ask for direction as to hovv to proceed. Shoald the neiyhborhood include the citizen proposal in Ime overlay zone or should Me concept remain as originally pm5ented ! Start recommended to the l5aard and committee that they should agree to a concept Prior to presenting to Planning Commission, however Mey are aT an impa55e and vvcala IiRe iMe Planning uomrni55ivn io provide ya dan,,e. Stats alae ayreea that the provision as originally atated is not really reyolatar-y or impactful because no plantings or buffering is actually required. ��nciasi� 15e Lake vrave Neighborhood Pian Implementation Committee woula IiRe reuvoM5 to any questions tete Commission may Piave in preparation Tor the pa6lic heariny grid yet dirumiun un I'lovv to proceed vvith the plantiny and 6attenny provision. Exhibits A. nutirU —vt ApP3eal [No current exhibits; reserved for Plearing used B. Fi��C] nys. Uuiidaaivns and Order [I90 current exhibits; reserved for hearing usel Cr. Plali��atc5 [I90 carrent exhihita; reserved for hearing use] D. Taff KCpvFisllglumorandarris [Mo carrent exhibits; reserved for hearing use] E. GrapRics [Mu carrent re5eived tar heariny use] F. Written Knateriais F- i LaRe urove Meiyh6oncood Say vey G. Letters tMo carrent e..PiiMii5: re5e,ved Tor heariny aaej Plaiining Commission WorR Session Qo,«i io Lake Greve Neighbu—rhoud Plan Implementatiun (PP 07-0018) 80 November 30, 2010 STAFF REPOR I p re 1 i 1 APPLICANT: Uity M Lake U5vv75yo Tor Me Lake urove Muilyj lDvrl1ooa H55vr-intiun PROPERTY UWNERS: M/A LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOCATIUI4: R-7.5 & R- iu zone wit"nin tRe LaKe urove Neighborhood Association bounaaries: See map, Exhibit E-1. uumP. PLAI9 DESIGNATluN: N/A MEIyHBORHUUD ASSUUATIUN: Lake Grove Neighborhood Rssociation I. APPLICANT'S REQUES r FILE Mu: LU 1O-uu40 STAFF: Laura Weigel, A55vc ate Planner DATE OF REPORT: AuyR5t Zu, zu1 u DATE OF HEARING: September -13, zul u ZONING DESIGNATION: R -t.5 & R-.iu REQUEST: Amendment to tMu uJity cif Lake uswego community Dev;z7loprrmunt Code to include a new Lake urove R -7.5/R-10 Overlay District. TFie city of Lake Usvveyo is maRiny this application for the Lake Grove Neighborhood Rssociation to amend the to,,t of tMe LcFe Usweyo Commanity Develupment Cude (LOC) Lo include the Lake urove R-l.b/R--iu Overlay D stri(,t [EAMBit A-1]. IL RPeL`iuABLr-iRH ERlA A. City of Lake Osweuo ComUrehensive Plan Gaal 2: Land Uze Planning Section 1 Land U,e Pvliuies and Reyr lotions, Policy 4b and 24 Section z uommanity Design and AestMetios, Policy 1 v a u Lake Grove iveighD ;rh;-,od Plan Goal 2: Land Use Planning: Residential uoal and P-UIcy ,s Goal 10: Housing: Goal and Policy 1,3 ExFliel 1 U-3 LU 1 U-UU40 rianning Commission FuDlic Rearing August 20. 2010 LU 10-0040 81 November 30, 2010 I rtIU "I : /Acrc;mmndativn ut uruwtFT C. Oregon Statewide Planning coals Goal 1: Citizen Involvement Goal 2: Land Ube Planning D. CaRe u3vvequ - e - -- -- - ruC 5u.u�i.0"Iu Purpu5e ru-u 5u.i5 LEyislativE Dec i5iun5 LOC 50.75.Ou5 Legislative Decisions DeTinca LOU 50.75, 010 Criteria Tor a regislative Decision CUC 50.75.015 Required Notice to DLE"D Luc; 5u.75.U20 Planniny Commission Recommendation mequirea Cuu 5u.75.U25 City Cuancil Review and Decision Cuu 5u.75.uK ETTective Date of Ceyi5lative Detrsran Illi, survTwrARTr This report addresses the creation of a new LaRe urove Overlay District (MME. Art1rIuu Cuu 5u.u8-C) to implement the 1998 Lake Grove Neiyhborhood Plan. The concepts addressed in tft uvEriay uistiict vvere developed 6y a eummittee made ap of Lake Grove neiyhborhood residents, The Tinal version Pias bE-cii reviewed and approved 6y the LaRe drove Iaeiyhborhood Association board. Staff proposes that tMe Punning uummis5ic ec,ummumd most (but not all) ut tMese Community Development Code amendments Tor adoption by tft city Caunc,il. The EdRe Grove Neiyhborhood Association proposes tete T011owing amenamzmts: An c,vurlay dist ic,t that vvould add u, modify Six parts of the ander lying R -7.5/R-10 base zone within the LaRe ureic Meiyhbc,rMz; ,a Hscciaticn 6uanda, ie5 (EAhi5it E-1). I he dist ict would be implemented through a new article iF the Cc,mmunity Development Cmde; and A teAt amendment to the Plarn red Development Section (50.17.015). The amendment would prohibit En%Eptl-vii5 to the yard 5et6ack equirementb on the perimeter of planned development rots abutting tMe R- i u ara K-7.5 cnimy. i nu pnrpu,sE m the vvcrlay i5 to emouic that new e5idemtial development pamoteS the anigoe character of the LaRe urc;ve Ideiyhbc,rryuua. The Lake Grove Neighborhood Rssociation discussed overlay c,unc,epts vvitM the Planniny Cummi55i0F1 on May 12, 2008 (Exhibit D-1) and May 24, 2u iu (ExMibit D-2). I Fie new rCyalatiun5 include: (Sue Ordinance, Exhibit A-1) 1. A 30 -toot tront yard Se1.15ack in rhe R-10 (currently 25 -root. 2. A 10 -foot side yard setbacRs in the R-7.5 (currently =mbimud total uT 15-Tuut). 3. rot coverage limitations (which reflect the Ic,t c,uvEiage 11mitatien5 piiui to t5e recent Community Development Code infill amendments). zi. Requirements that no more than 5u°/o oT the w -t Gan ru c c;verua in ha,d5cape (no rui rent limits). 5. Requirements Tor "yruen' arivaway to na,vumd5 (nu canent regairementS). 6. REgnirea planting and boumin-y plan 5a6mittal on new development (no torrent requirements). Planning Commission Public Hearing LU 10-0040 august 20, 2010 82 November 30, 2010 7. There is also a text ai I Eridmei it to the Planned Development section (50.17.015) that does not permit enCeptiun5 tU the yard setback regaireme,&D on the perimeter of planned development lets n5ntting t117 F7 -1u and R-7.5 it 15 prupuze5 tnat the Planniny Commission recommend 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 in Community Development code armendrriurlt5 fur adupt url 5y the laity L;um ,cil. Staff is recommending tRat the Planning uommis51uri retcet amen dment5 5 and 7. I he bcn amendma, It to submit a pldnting and buffering plan, does not inciude any language as to vvriat that play 5haald inclade nor dues it actaally require the landscaping plan to ire piante5; tnerefore tMe rugalaiiun ha5 mi - impact (nothing Bat place 6a5mittal i5 required). Additionally, the regulation will require extra start time to administer vvithuut providing ar-vy Benefit to the I ieiyhBorhood. f Be 7t" amendment to prohibit e,,;,eptiens to trye yard zet5aek5 is in eon ifliet vvit5 t5a purpose of the planned development regulations aro Stated a5 Tuulluuvv5 (5u.17.uu5): i ne purl oue orrn'c Pia,,,,ea Duvoic;jiment Uveriay 15 to Nrovrae, far paruels of 3utticient size, greater nexiDitity in deveiovmenr'uria„d a5 %umpared to a standard subdivisiarr, eftuVErrdye variety in the development pattern or Me cm,ijI1a„ity, Fj1VUr71age dc�v8r'vp8rs to us8 a Creative appradah /it land development, conserve natural tand renture5, raai14ate a pc5iiawe aestnu-tiC and etticient use of open space, create public and private common opus, SNmuc7u, a„d N, uvice M, riC7hib;1 ty arid variety irr the location of impruivements on lots. If these puDlic purposes are aUUvi11V/,Sncd, cnL;cNtiorI5 to Ccrtairr zorIi/ ry 3tarrdard,!5 rndy be yr atited as provided Dy Luu- 5v. 17.x15. Additiunaliy, it 15 irrmpurtant to eon5ider thie applicability of these standards: Use of the Planned Development Overlay (PD) is allowed in any zone Tor subdivision pMpu;5a15, eneept vvhen the property is located in t5e R-7.5, R-10, or R-15 cone, at least one of the fullOvving drrUrM5tai �iic5 m05t EAi5t: a. TMe property is greater than 75,UUu 5yaare Leet in site; b, mn Ru District or RP District ar Ito a55ociated Batter is located on the property; c. A tree grove greater tRan 1o,00 s An.re feet in 5icc EAi5t5 an the property; or d. The property includes resources identified as uiass I II Riparian L;uurr dor5/Wlldlite Rabitat or Class A or B Upland Wildlife Habitat as mapped on ivietru'o Title 13 Regionally Siyniticant Fish and Wildlife Habitat Inventory Map (a5opte5 ay I71etro on 5zptem5er 2g, 2005 and amended on December 8, 2005), See LOC Appendix ou.4n.u-i 0. Cat rently there aren't any parcels in tRe neighborhood larger tRan 75,000 5yuaj-e Leet vvitn Me exception of the Hunt Club; therefore creating one special provision i the pian� ped development rude for one I eiynBorhood and one property in that neighnorhooa seems unnecessary .1-15 roald Be easily uvarluoked, it also makes the code more complex. I!N. RF't'CIC:ABLEAPPROVAL CRITERIA'. APPCII;RBCE CRITERIA - LAKE uSvvEuu uumPREHENSIVE PLAN Uumpiiance with City Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan coal 2: [a ld u5u Planning, Section 1, LaFid Use Policies a, id Regulatiaii, Policies 4b and c, and 24. Pldnning Commission PQb is Rearing august z0, 2010 LU 10-0040 83 November 30, 2010 POEUES 4. l73__4uli3__ iamd uaE rcyulations tu: b. rrornote compatiMlity between develeNment and EA15tiny and desired neiyhborhoud character; c. Provide for the implementation oT neighborhood plans. 24. uompru5uns1veiy evaluate piopo5ed land use actions to determine the full range OT potential nEyative impalas and ,Equile appiicantS to provide appropriate 5olution5 prior to approval. rinaings: Tne CaRe urnve 7-7.5in---iu Overlay District code's consistent vvith and Miplemeut5 the u Comprenensive Plan Goal 2, Cana 5E Planning, Section 1, Cand Use Poiiuies and Regulation c5apter because its regulations: Maintain the neiyhborhuod's existing zoning and plan density designation consistent vvirn the Lity'S objective of meeting the Metru huusing allocation targets and implementation uT the State's uooal 1U, and the Piet,o HouSiny Rule. A u intended to unsure that residential development accu,S in a way that is compatible with the unique chs amen UT the CaRe Drove Neign5orhood. Implements the goal, policies and action stcN of the LnRe u, ove NEiy115o, hood Plan. Cginulusion: Tse LaRe Giove Ideiyhboihood Overlay District conforms to CaRe Oswego Lomymhem5ive Plan, vial 2, Policy 4155 and c and 24. Godl 2 Land Ose Planning, Section 2 Community Design and HesMaUU; , Compliance with CaRe uswego uomprenenSivu Plan, uuai 2 Cand Use Planning, Section 2: Community Design and Aesthetics, Policies 1 a and 15, and 4. PvCI�IE� Enact and maintain regulations and standards which Segni E: a. ldew development to enhance the existing 15uilt environment in terms OT size, Scale, 5"IR, color, mates ial and ai chitectural de5iyn. b. Eandscapiny. 4. Ensure that both public and private development emnance t5e aesthetic quality ut the community. Findirmb: The Cake Grove R -7.5/R-10 Overlay District code is consistent with and imNlurrmEnta MEM Uomp,uhcnSive Plait Goal 2, Land 05e Planning, Section 2: Community Design and Restnetics because its ieyulatiuns: UMMTOi m tZi and arc 7on5i5te, it with tMe goals of tM15 chapter to maintain and enhance appearance and design quaity. Seek to fuRher define the appearance and dlaiym gnnlity 77 the LaRe Grove neiyhborhood. Enacts Standards that require new development to Ile consistent with the scale and style Qf e,&istiny development and the desired character of the Lake Gi ove neiyhbomood. Conclusion: The Lake u ove 17 -7.51R --1 u uvErlay Dist, ict code cunfuji ms to CaRe USweyo Compiehensive Pian, Goal 2, Section z: uornmunity Deuiyn and A75thEtic5, Policies I and b; and 4. Planning Commi55ion Public Rearing Hugust z0, 2010 LU 10-0040 84 November 30, 2010 SF'CUTAL U15 I RIC; I FLANS LAFtt uRuvEMEiGHBuRriuuD FLAI4 Lake Grove Land Use: residential Gaal UemplianaC with Lake Grove I9eiyhbor5ood Plan, Land Use: Residrrntial Goal, Policy 1 GOAL maintain and cnnanoc the appcaramru and c5aracter of tru residuntiai areas of the Lake Grove n7iynbuvrnuud. POLICES Work to ensare that development occurs in a way tnat is compatible witM the unique chaPactcr UT the Lake Grove neighborhood. Firiding�: i ne Lake vreve R-t.5/R-i(i Uveriay District oodC i, consistent with and implements the Lake uruve Meiynburnuud Plan Cand use: Kesidcntial Goal because its reyalatians suck to ensare that new aevelopment is in scale .1tM and supports tRc enigee Cna, aster et the LaKe Greve Neighborhood, Cunelabivrr: I he Lake Grove R -7.51R-10 Overlay District code conforms to CaRe urove MeigMborneed Plan Land Use; Residential Goal, Policy 1. uuMSIS i EMuY vvi i n lilt i Ru'S QNbAld GRUvv I R MANAGEMEN I F019U I IUNAL PEAN The Metro Urban Growth r-unctional Plan vvaz5 approved I71evembcr 21, 19vb by tFic Metre Uounoil, ai od became effective February 19, 1997, 1 Re purpose OT tMe plan is to implement tMu Keyienal Urban Growth Goals and Objectives (RUGGO), including the 2u4u Growth concept. i Pie Functional Tian must be addressed when Uomprehenwve Plan Mat, Amendments are proposed througn tMe quasi- jnd;mal c;r legislative pruccsscs. i ne Torlowing responses aadr�-ss eemplianee vvitM the Metro Functlm gal Plan. Response: I itle 1 — Reyoirements Tor Floasiny and Employment Accommodation. i nis title requires cManginy l0r-al pians, IT nace55aF—y, to increase permitted densities to assare safficienr capacity for the zij urewtn Uuneept. l ne Lakc Greve R -7.5/K -1U uverlay District is consistent with this Title in that the dist ict maintains current Plan and z-oniny ivlap densities within the neighborhood boundaries. Overall, the Uity OT Lake Oswego Pias Vend that the uity'S current /-eniny desiynatioi is when developed at allowed densities are in suQstantial compliance vvitM Au title. I itle 2 — Regional Parking Policy. This title regulates the amount of parking permitted by use Te jm isdictiens in the Metro region. I his title is not applicable to the code recommendations. a Up ;ty zma F [ UUd lVlCIHCIR4Ur"UHt Uumservation. I him title is not applicable to the code recommendations. I itle 4 -- Retail in Employment and Industrial Areas, i kis i itle dolls not appiy. Planning Cornfirrrission Public Rearing Hugust z0, 2010 LU 10-0040 85 November 30, 2010 J itle 5 — Neighbor �,ities ana Rural Reserves dUTH Us ivietrm's paliay regarding areas autsiae aT the Urban Growth Boundary. i hese codes woula apply vvitM:ln tMe urban uro,,Ah Baundnry; thereTare, this title doer not apply. i itle 6 — ReLjimial Accessibility. I fiis title recoyilices the link between made split, levels of conyestion, Street design ana cammec;tivlty iii creatiny a transportation system that works and rapports the desired laid use �zm%cpt. I his title dues mat apply. Title 7 — A_ffordaDle Flousing. i his title is aa„isory only and rucarrirrmumds that la,al jur*sai�tiana implement tools to facilitate development or afforaaDle Rousing. i his title aoes not apply. I itle b, U. ala 10 require compliance, perfformance measures and definitions tar implementation of the f-ui,ctia„al Pian, ana are not applicable. conclusion: i he Lake urm u R-7-wR- iu u„erlay District Caii,plies with the relevant titles of the Pletro Functional Plan. GUIVIPLIANGE WI I_FI I RE OREGON TRANSPORTATION PLA ,4. Nu PULL (CPIAr i ER Gnu, DIVISV9 12) his Mate aT uregam Administrative Rule applies to ame rnants to comprehen,ive plans, tanctional plans and iana use rugulatiams (uAR 66u-i2-ubu(1)). I Fie rule is applicable because the application requests amendment oT the City OT Lake usvvuga edam „unity De„elmpment Laae. UAR 660-12-060(1) and (2) provides as follows: (i) AmFiiFIitFiit5 to Cr),nprulIMisive plailzi, futictiorral plans and !arid m7 ie ieyulations which sigr,ificnritly arruct a tla„5pvrtatioll facility shall assure that allowed larld uses are Canalotunt vvitri tnu Zlu"tif'eCY fm tirii_ capacity arid level of sur vice of the facility. I hilb shall z)e accamplisnea Dy eitne,: (a) limiting allavveZY laid uses to be cv„3istuiit with the plan functions, capacity ana level of s,rvic. of the trAn3purtat,un facility; (p) a,,,c,ldi, ig the TSP [Trarisportation System Plan] to proviue transpartntiwun fauizities apugaafG In support the piupazied land uses consistent with the requirements of this divi3ia,,; (L,) altulllly lalla Use dCJlyrlatiorlzi, derlsities, or design requirements to reduce demand ter autu–mWdu hav'ul aril !fleet travel !lauds throuyh othei inades. (2) R lana us, regulation u,,,unan,u„t s,gr7ficantty arreut3 the tra,13portatioii facility if it: (a) chanyes the functional classification of an e,ioting urplanviod tin"Oportatia,l facility; (b) chanyes a standard implementing a functional classifica6un oyatum; (C) VIIaJVv5 typu3 of levul5 of land uses which would result in levels of travel or access wnicn ar, i„censiotent with the functional ulas'sificativrl of a transportation facility; or (d) would reduce the level ofoF,viCa of the facilitybelvvv the lllirliiilum acceptable levet iduritified /!I TSP.” Findings/Conclusion; uAR 66Du-12-u5u(i) and (2) is not applicable becaase t5e Cake Grove R-7.5tR- 10 Overlay does not propose to change lana ase aesiymntiams or the TurlCtlanal CIE15wTicatiom of streets. UREGUN S I A I F -WIDE PLANNING GOHLS Goal 1, uiti«m I ivolvememt, uoal 2, Land use Hlaiininy. The Lake urove R-r.5rR-1u uveriay District c:arrmplles with tFie above relevant Ureyon Statewide Planniny Goals as follows: Plann ny C7,rnrnissiun Public Haring August 20, 2010 170 i 0-00zi0 86 November 30, 2010 Gudl 1:: Citizen Invvlverrienr ne Labe uiuve R -7.5/R -1U Uverlay District is in conformance to all procedural requirements or trig Lake O5vveyv Zonis -y a, id Develoy gent Dodes and has been reviewed to be consistent with tnc uitizun liiivolvciiiunt uualo on the Uity'5 acknowledyed Gomprchen5ive Plan, Goan L: Cana use Planning The Lake Grove R -7.5/R- i u overlay District has been ruv',,wed and dote Ii,.ed m bu consistent with the City's acknowledged lana use planning and policy trameworR. i nis mviuvv na5 determined that thele IS a tactoal basis to approve the Lake Grove n -f .5/m- iu uveriay District in that it i5 CoM515tCnt with all applicable c,iteiid. The Plan has also been coordinate( vvith all appliva155Icjaii5dictionS and ayenciea. LAKE u_0vvEkju DEVELOPMENT uuME PRuuEDuRAL KEuulRtl7EM i 5 LUG 50-01 .010 Purpose LUC 50.75 Leyislative Decisions Luc: 5u. /5.uU5 Leyislative Decisions Defined LOU 5u. t5.15u5 Ui itei is toi a Leyislative Decision Luu 5u. t5.u15 Rauaired Notice to OLurl Lot- 50.i5.uzu Plannin-y uwmmi5z5iun Kecummendaticn Keuaiied LOC 50.75.025 city uouncil Kcviuvv and Dccioiun LUC 50.75.030 Effective Date or Legislative Decision ne Uity OT Lake UsweyyD has contuuirned to all procedural fegolfements, evidence of which is contained in thu i eco, d. v. C�Iq�.�U��ul�;'rcEuumisA�nur� i lupi Staff has found that LU 10-0040, the Lake vrove r<-t.51R- i 0 overlay Dist ict ccnterm5 to ail applicable deci5 vn-makiny critei ia. Matt undo, 5c5 Tive ut the seven a�, iCndm i iumts pi'vposed by the Lake a ove R -7.5/R-10 Overlay District and rOl'Vmliiuiiids the Planning uu mi55ivn torward the tulluwiny Uummunity Development Code amendments to tnc ulty UoMMMl To, appivval. 1 . 3U -toot fi vnt yard Setback in the R-1 u (currently 25 -tout) 2. 1 U -foot side yai d 5etbacRS in the R-7.5 (currently combined total of 15 -foot) 3. Lot cuveiaye liriRdtions (which reflect the lot coverage limitations prior to the ruzent u6irrirmunity DevelopIiient Uode intlll aiiiendment5) 4. No iiioie than 50% of the lot can be covered in hardscape kno current limits) 5. Regaiiements for "green" driveway turnarounds (io c:,r unt iu�ui,eIIIemt5) Start does not endu,Se the 'uthei two amendrinents and does not recommend forwarding them to city C.vui icit Tor apps oval. b. Reuaii ed planting and boffe, my plan sabmittal on new development (no current regnil ement5) Y. I hese IS also a text amendment to the Planne( oeveiopment section (50._1 1.015) that dGus not permit exceptions to the yard setback requirements on the perimeter of planned development juts abattiny the R-1 u and K-7.5 zoniny. Planning uammission Public Hearing Angn3t 20, 2010 LU 10-0040 87 November 30, 2010 EXHIBITS A. Dratt OrdinanCrs H-1 Daft Oidinanue 2558, dated Anyort, 24, 2010 S. Findings and Co.ouiusiuna [Nu 1,urnent FAM151t5; Ie5EMea Mr healiny 'use] C. Minutes G-1 (Olay 12, 2008 C-2 (Olay 24, 2010 D. Starr wiumurandalRwpuFf5 ❑-1 vvork cm Mmy -I z, 2508 (Sta?T i i iei i iv dates Play 5, 2003) D-2 vvorR Session on May z4, zu-lU (Starr dated May 10, zulu) E. Graphiu:s L-1 Play et Lake Uruve R -7.5/R-10 Ovei lay District Boundaries F. vVi ittun Matcriak [No ,u, rent exrhl5its; reSerCed to, Tearing ooe] F -i CaRe urove Nei-gnr)UrFii11d Survey G. Letters [No current exninits; reserved for Pi -a. ii ig u5u] Planning Commission Paolic Rearing August 20, 2010 LU 10-0040 88 November 30, 2010 Un" xm + "K$.IB 111g zIq j xm4-1 a. xl� r � on77 � C .1 „ I r i' v 9 I — : � & .. I `�, �'l�� �I�Ia �I •�� �,�, �� Imml `n � $I� �� �gI A s r.. 9� i I i a d "0.9 "- � \ grip I { ooa.,�� 1 . �. _ _.� a,.< ���� i� � f I.I: f ;�� iel 1�1-gin 1 f�•�'L� * E IA � yN yy Ia ' J ei sx¢ aoe �e �X � ! S .I _ C qI November 3U, 2ui u 89 � � s Un" xm + "K$.IB 111g zIq j xm4-1 a. xl� r � on77 � C .1 „ I r i' v 9 I — : � & .. I `�, �'l�� �I�Ia �I •�� �,�, �� Imml `n � $I� �� �gI A s r.. 9� i I i a d "0.9 "- � \ grip I { ooa.,�� 1 . �. _ _.� a,.< ���� i� � f I.I: f ;�� iel 1�1-gin 1 f�•�'L� * E IA � yN yy Ia ' J ei sx¢ aoe �e �X � ! S .I _ C qI November 3U, 2ui u 89 90 November 30, 2010 Hello Lake Grove Neigl7bors! WUheLheryou•ve,li:ed i.i the ne:ghlSornood To, 3o yea, s or ao days you are aware of Che features Lhcu make the Lake Glove neigh bo,- nuou such gr—u ,;are to live: the amazing tree candpy and abun- dans vegrtaLion the trails through Iron rv�ountain, the diversity of housea, aid our close prDAM-likyto the local busmessdiSiriCr among others. in f,.ct, you probably chose to live in Lake Grove for some or all of these reasons. what you may not Rnow is that thz Lake Grove NeigW5rhcjvd A tvt,ia6un (LGNA ) is dedieateo to preser.ing cmd enhancing the quality of lite in vur neigh- burh,,od end wurks hard to maintain the characi_er of she neighborhoud. t -u yN +,as Been an official neighborhood 8as7ciatiort of the City of t.aKe'uswego since 1976. Over she years the associati,,n nas accor,IpLl-nod a number of goals, live h7,st the Lake Grove viwage vat's, commu- niiy clear; -up days, and cheSurnmer Fun Fest. W1 al,u sponsor the'hanging basket "r.-ra, Avo-lat-1 for good develop ,=nt, gctpa,hways bu°It, and participated in the development prtn� Lai<e Grove'Village Centar Plan which waz, adopted in April of Jon8. Neighburhuvd P131 une of Our most irnporta;,t accomplishments was de,,elopimg a neighborhood plan that was adopted Dy the City or t-aKe Oswego City Cnun�il in 1998. The Lake Grove Neighborhuod Plan idend- rses',-a y.� to p, eserve and enhance the neighbor}loud for the fUiore, The plan was deveiopen o.er several tzar, by the neigh- buriood YYith the assistance of CiLy staff and the full piancan Me viewed online on the City's vvebsitc or at, the library. ft is mode+ea on the Lity': Comprerensive Plan and includes goals, policies and recommended acdon measuresrelaten to: •Citizen Involvement *vpe, � :'Paces, "1; u,,8 Histo, i4 Resour es, and Natural Resources •Econorri,c DevelopmenrlCvfmi,errial Lands eHousiny7rresidenriai c a„ds vPublic Facilicie, ur)dCenvices; 0 Tran 5p orta ton Goals r oodH,a_al.ion ocBoundary ;. '' ... fn. F WtW F` a a i S 4ti ii � Y r W F_ x W Nciyhbor5 vvurk Uiliyeritiy Uverthe Years on Plan Implemer itation There hnve been at least three different cvmmiiiees working on plan implementation since tne. pian vv-.-, ad.ptEd. ThCn in 4vos- 2Wo6 neighbors worlctd togedher to review the pin in detail to determine whish Aspects of the plan Mill nerd to be implemenien hlthough a m-;ariry ofthe `policies were identified as iniplernem- ed ongoing or addressed in r„e IaKe Grove villag Center Plan and development code reeommendaiion,, the review did result ;n a est of items Of r-.quiring further action. This is what we'd like yourhetpwih today. V1 November 30, 2010 � fn. F r W F_ x W Nciyhbor5 vvurk Uiliyeritiy Uverthe Years on Plan Implemer itation There hnve been at least three different cvmmiiiees working on plan implementation since tne. pian vv-.-, ad.ptEd. ThCn in 4vos- 2Wo6 neighbors worlctd togedher to review the pin in detail to determine whish Aspects of the plan Mill nerd to be implemenien hlthough a m-;ariry ofthe `policies were identified as iniplernem- ed ongoing or addressed in r„e IaKe Grove villag Center Plan and development code reeommendaiion,, the review did result ;n a est of items Of r-.quiring further action. This is what we'd like yourhetpwih today. V1 November 30, 2010 2UU/ Neighbors uiscu5s Creating New Cure -Umity D%--v�lupmcr it Cudc Spn-ifiLally fur the I9eighburhuud a5 a Means Lo Irriplementtne Plait In early 2007 the neighborhood assoc.ia don decided tharone way reimplement. some of the outstanding paliri,:s identified ill the adopted 'plarr would be- to Uvare new devel„pmentregulatior,s in the rv, m vt an neighbor Froud vve,lay ALurre. I'he o,erl o,,e could rrotzct the chvraae, or the neighb,,rnuua a: id.=„tirled i„ the Plan and reconfirr'ned ;n Oniversitr of Oregon Character stud,. A„ ove, lay cone i-5 a 5&L cif developme, i L regolaoum: that arc- required in addit;bn tv th,c vide, lymg cv, diiy rEgvl, c, i mn'az. An Ove, lay Lould'cur tt.ailr a NeW t eguiadV l not addr-csied in the underlying ba: s• zone u, could`make a khange Lo an ex sing reguiadmi. r ne overay c-,,cepts cur-entiy nd, r�-un:3ider'ati„n wc,,,Id be applica- ble ,:v new single family huu5ing in the rc 7.5yluts zuned to be a minimum of /,goo square feet) and R vu cui yes (iu ovo square feet) within ,lie Cake Urove Neignbor- hood bo,,noaries. In luta u neighbors forniea a Neighborhu ;d Plan IrnplemenLadonComm i4 - Kee to 4-ceeto discuss, ot,nt,'al devel7, pry, ent reguIativn;tv indu& i.,, the Vver Ivy zone. Meig;hbors worKed diiigenti, to keep tneoveriay concepts true tv the urig in. i policy inkenc stated in Jhe adopted plan. i hefinal overlay concepts, identifies in the }u, vey, are the re_ult of over a year's wvr th -vf discussion, ney wiavon and thoughttui a,ialysis by these detiicaated nciyhbv6. The committee, with the assiS4a„vc of Ciky,Laf-f'Studied the exisi.ing coning code and tracked tf,e proljre5s of the I„ fill Task Furce (for more k rtor,.,jaaion on the Task r-oFce, ,leas, visit www.ci.oswego.orx,s/plan/j and the other updates to the Com- rnun;cyveveiop,)'ieicCod-thaca e.urre,ti' underdiscussionbythe Planning Commission.Togedherstaff and she commiuee also toured the ne ghborh„od. The cvl„rmitt'eE u -n alyced the built a rvirunmeML tv iderlr_ity the best regulations' th.t c-vuld:prv;tect the character of the neighb.rhUXUd. They studied ex6ting hoosF he;gnts, floora,ea-,atio, ki,.t,iz4 in rGlati7mshiptdbaildingsquart tuvtage), sEt- backs lot size, lo coverage, driveway widths, and ha. dscape timrervious surTac.p such as die house garage. walk, driveways.,patios, Qct.). The oTnllt,.ce cmiji]L7 of seven rriei,iber5 whu are all are feslderll5 of Lake Grove' Janet Buck, Ann Ja„zen, Ted Jeffrie5'Sara Pen y, Bili Ward; Dar, Wurk, and Barbara ZJe,, T Yo oq n businesses in LaPL- Gr„ve and ane builu: nvuse3 in the neigouor- hood. un'e grew up in Ehe neignbornood and is now rai.ing a fumily of four children there. One has lived di-- re for o.er3o years. I he comniizLee;a di verse and repre- senu many perspectives. y�d November 30, 2010 q 'q, �'n k "Q '. 4, q, vvhcjt,5 f9apptmvig Nuw o-csr*c� �uvt,l wici jtirtrittitit vian -Enriaign In lake 0CLU15ere0U8 LRe neighborhood aSbUrlc[6011 board held extensive neighborhood outreach. an open Kuze for all Lake Gruve , eighbors La hear coi i ri iieM On and pr -z; � Ide fc,cl back or. the QvFrIay concepts s theydc:vOopeE to 1998 im pl�rrient mti a5p,ted plan. App, oximatel y jo peopIr attended. Council adoots neiahborhood plan. city: , But Lhe board needs Lo hear from a; man, prople as posjiblu and YVa I I L> . Lo hear abOUL how YOU feel about Lhe ideas. ihai:'sw III 'Qu %998-7-oo& a, e receiving this flyer and 5uFvey. Your feedback is vei y impofTanu !,Your meignbors,,uEd to hea, yu.r thooght.-j in oidar to,efine tHt: ideas oaseU on ever),or-.e's viewHol'nt bzFor- rnvinq forward. neighbors continue to work on pign i.n WUM .6. 2- if you would rine to receive a nome vi.,t fr--,—.. one of yr,7. �ei�jh- 0052oo6 Citystaff neighborhood association identify out-, bois Lo ask qUe-1dom, and share ideas, please coniaCt Laera & a Weigel, Lhv Neighburhood Planner from Lhe MLY of L-aFU U5VVvqQ standing neighborhood specificplan policies th t a:i:,igimcl tv a»rst the ixighburhurid impiernem <he,;iaopLud plan, Moo. implementation strategies. Yvu can ,i,to,t Laura at lwuiel@cLoswego,or.u�or503.67u and �h-"ll arrange Tor a Lake Gruve rizighbortu stun by. 200-20o8 7 Neig 6rhood association agrees to develop an What F1cjppt--ir:- i\juxt? - After the purvey resulks a, e Lorjipiled, the WriCepL5i will be further Q developing.overlay concepts. refined by th;: Lake Grove Ncigh b.rhocd Association bard and commi-me. Z)orne of tMe Aeas ma, v,lve, 7-V,z7,,— idz:V-j rmay October2ooB neige and7oi soirm ideas rnighL be dropped from cons:deration. Committee and neighborhood association board It will. depej.8 ot-, YO W. present overlay concepts to full neighborhood at an, Afterthe idea are further refined diere wilf be dilC)Lhei upen open house. n7,u,z7 fu.r the ;7nt;rF, eigh.bc;rhj,,d to hea, the iclzc,.� cmd pruvidE rzabaJ again. It there iz i-,,7re tee1)acK and the nigJ,5vrhjod wants tMe ideas furthzr rzn,-,,d the zv-rnmiittir-- and Dz;urd continue to work and the concepts presented cans be apj.;--WVe(-1 'F� J, by vuLt by Lhe rieighborhood aE a general neighbornoca associa W, -V 4R kjon MQULing, If Lht: ritf!, ighborhoud VULUto ZIPPMVE Lhe overlay the neighborhood associadz;F, will prezm vhe uv. clay LU t1hc CiLy of Lake Osweg- Pluning Com lis3i�n and City Coun�il why NEXTSTEPS rri rs revise overlay concets baseon also have ideas ancr recommendations. before the final zwzrlay is Neighbopd adOpLed and ellaLLEcl in Lhe CiLy'S corrimuniLy develcipmeni: code. survey, resu Neighborhood C s ktion holds 3pen house 1 socle secondt NOW is tFe time to GET Involved. to discuss revised� overlay concepts. WE MEZEI TO hear fu�ui j i you. Start By comple-Eing our survey! Neighborhood association votes on overlay concepts to present to Planning Commission and Become e-Jgible to -win a PRLe_,E' City Council. �0,w= of 4+ ice !jift icert -ates Neighborhood association presents overlay concepts for local L,-.T-ke Grove resi:aUranzz)). to the Planning Commission and City Council in work, i sessions and public hearings for revisions and approval. and becomes oart of the Community :Development:Code.� -93 November 30, 2010 Mr, W -M 94 November 30, 2010 0 cn o 4,= cn cn.:w Lw Inv Ma Mr, W -M 94 November 30, 2010 ° Q o N m � PQ November 30, 2010 C G n " z .y O z L 6 5 s E i � - 3 ro s s i y f �a- F w c7� v O C] U (] Z U �f = v � a d S' a w v o E v w r+ - � � Ol ♦U _ T ti o — 3 v — G � v � - N� L � w T _ — _ J � a i. w i- v 0 ° w a c CT - November 30, 2010 C G n " z .y O z C o73, T v s E i � - 3 ro s s i y f �a- F � O 1 O C] U (] Z ro 2 �f = v � a d S' a N a I - � = a v w r+ - � � Ol ♦U _ T ti 3 v — G � v � - N� L 1 ° Q J � c � i. 1, 95 C o73, s E om E _ r. i y f �a- � s v - � L r " 3 N a v v v Q d N a I - � = a v w a o 0 3 v — G � v � - N� L 1 ° Q 95 N i y f �a- v - � L p _ y = 111 a I - � = a a o 0 — G � v � 1 ° Q w a c A 95 DESIGN STANDARDS Contiri C'v„c,,,:: The asso,iation is proposiny to prohibit Planns,d D,cel,p pert, TC'nI within the ieiyhboihood boundaries because PD's can result in ,ail _F let e.[ aea pedeee8 -et6o_Z cpile oe en:pne8 t:ny tp. c,.n+e n; --n hor;ad thi't, II a!lec cd en loryc, L to ana ths,r t -may be vitt of character with the neighborhoou. Planneu Developments area type of ueveiopment that allows nexiuility in tee development stanI as a -e n5 tv s,ne a ye .oriety .n ds,.elvpn s,nt y tccra, rrvc es, r ve,cs,5, end prr,eids, l,cn l rc-. Irt ord v e,sc tha PD standards, the r,r.p_ erty must Me larger titan 7S,000 square feet or pave a protecteM resource or its pener or. the ; ite. Pler, Jr,le the re pon3e zhaz most closely , etlects your opinion. Plo.,.,ed D,z,lopmens Proh.b,t Plari-c! D_' o6ppmep -_ ith:r; tFe StreIllgly Se h,,t Strongly See;e:4h t 5tr�ny y N nei hborRood Boundaries- Agree A ree Nee.t al Disa ree Dlsarea opinion PRIVACY INCLUDING BUFFERING AND>CREENING Netyhborhood Plan statement Provide 17ufferiny anu auequate separation of new uuiioiriys rum existing resiuences (Goal =o, Policy Co„ ji lncr5ctL17' to incl e the dl5t.,7= bei-cen h -3,7s end ,ncrea5e privacy - Setbacks Enact u landscaping and St,ony'y ncren,2 Bice yard setbacli r,5,xo eettto io Strongly Somewhat ztroruly Somewhat Str•-)ngly No ,e each side la the R 7.5, --one_ Agree Agree IEeutral Di—c— ulsb r« pirion Increase from , and setback from _, feet to,_ St m,ly S,1-ewhot S_We-het 5tp,pgly Ne feet In Th—az,ri- Agree Agree, Nestral Disa reeLisa ree opinion De Met sIIe- the fiI y_F ,7_pt._m e.,de tri.-, Agree Agr_ea ❑i-a,p_e D,sser_,e ,pip.,cp allows auecrease in the front yard setback Ir St.ongl, Svme-r_t 5vme-hat Str,.PI N, obotCrsy cs s,TiI k ore less ,hon 'gree Ayree Neutral Disayree Pi;a5ree opinion tond;rd. Strongy 5omewh:t See,e-hat Strep;!; I Ne NATURAL RESOURCES Netgr,00rr,00a Ran )tctement, Preser-e La Ke Gr07e':: M_t-_Z,l pe e:,p -p.cM-„8ao JF..r;, (G,.,I,), Concept; Current code does not set a standard yoverning the maximum area o, a lot that can be covereu in naroscape, puttee association ns,- ,taF_Z 777 .I-I!J;,tiny ths, om.,ent vt %rd, p� eiiowrclor, u lot an . mean; t., IiIr-tain tFis, der -i- ecyeration and reduce stormwater run -oil. Tpe propose'u maximum amount a rowe'u is 5O%, -p'.-in -o71a Mei—ole all ilee_ -'r-es Ir,,f the nee e, y rye, -oils, csri s„y5, ratio,, leek,,-alFCway�, tcn-5, aclli5, landscahiny boulders, etc., and water features. M1 r6 p, Karim m Enact u landscaping and St,ony'y Ne : regei tier: g., -e. nig th, Stf,,I Somewhat ztroruly No b-tteriny reyuwen ent for new amourr: ci a parcelthat can be hardscaped. The Str_,.giy r ;, :hat N...t: el Se" e..Fat Scri:nyly Ne rn.�irn�e rrrrdc co,alderat,bn s5„ Agree Agree Disagpae U",_gr_e _lowiem concept: Currently landscaping an'u pufferiny linear uan'us or permanent vegetatio.i, F reier6l,iy oon-istillg eT..ati-e Mn L,eally „a,.rtea ire des) iu r.,t reyei, ed for ns,-,inyle tG, ly 5oesiny. TPI. as,ociation is proposiny to enact a landscaping and bufferiny code for hue neiyyp7or- Moo7l in oruer to maintain tne-ooaei7 cnaraciep eTti:e r:eiyp10,111 ,.,zl oea in" e,.,e F. ia,. , II'ti;d r;21yp16orhooa 6clic��; the concept in y.,od, there will he fur -the, discussions as to what the requirement woui'u De, L..nds...Ni„y tlr B..ttc, ir,y Enact u landscaping and St,ony'y Somewhat Stf,,I Somewhat ztroruly No b-tteriny reyuwen ent for new neutral Neutral sinyle family housin Ayree Agree Disagree Disagree opinion Co,,cep!: If a driveway eyresses to a street wpere vision clearance is a concern, tee engineer ,c, nc,>..rtmcet rruy reyeire "drip,. �Qy terr,,,rv�nrh,"which ,eyoi,s,5 mors, pcciny and the reli Of veyetation.Tpereiore, Lake Grove proposes "turnar,.una's" oe green. Dr y ori ,arbunu'i Rr cj ire dr ewe 't -i mroends' bt •, ade of Stf,,I pew Jr,., Lek rig Neutral Lot Co -rage Moi tam w rent City tot cQveraye rieed.re. ipeteod eer...,,.ly a,r,er ort. c:orT,nT ity LUce: Scrongiy _ So,�re77r, - 3wrew„o 3irong:y �v,i Lot co-e,.ge-._� pet ---d 7,9/ f,. o Neet.�l prima,y,:, ecmre «aftin heig!sc �r z5p� Agree Agr_ea ❑i-a,p_e D,sser_,e ,pip.,cp for a primary stru=ture> than a_ ft:r height). Eliminate the ado square fee - lot coverage Strongy 5omewh:t See,e-hat Strep;!; I Ne ber.G71eT;de I Agree A ,ee Neutral Disaree 1L)-grec.1 o irrian COMMERCIAL ENCROACHMENT INTO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE rra.ls a x Sr„ , Ns,;'Pb,.,h,.,,d PI--S[uts,....... Do raa pand the easte, nlsoutReastern boundary ofthe Lala'. Grove commercial District as snown...see map Goal g, P -I cy _ 7. Concept: I pe eerpeprt eeoe era. at , lliMent;,.1 t;vr,; s7-FT;r s,rei, l or;a, -`ere tn, 51-k line 15 drawn below. I Fc neiyEbor- hood wants to ensure that in the future the lire 4d' PI- ;, r, 57-'3 ,Pts, ,,,r to ensure that resiuential areas Oo not get rcZoned tv Corrlr—,,ercial nrea5. c rnmer, a 1! CrOOLHm,,'T Do not allo.. o rrnepc;al ::oni..g to -pi beyond !ZS e..iicing eoe,rd�ry. 5[ron!I� SontewitaC Ilx T I SoR ewhat Strong No s .i e,saq-ea apineon I rtAIVA T OU rvK 1701VIII i iNG Tnc Svtcvs, is MAIL IT IN TODAYTO BECOME ELIGIBLE FOR A PRIZE.' 96 November 30, 2010 AT N: Iris Mct_alrb and i;ake Oz5--lg7, City Czrn,zil LakC USwcgv PIWIlting U C1llll I1l551v1t t'U lJV'% JOV LakC USw`v,gu Ulegvtl H/U34 Subject: Lake Oswugu Propused Land Use Regulation No. 25587 File LU 10-0040 D%,ul Ells lvlc:Caiix c`u1Q rl1oaW It [ maceLos P1ew"C accept this Icucl as a Subltlittal vt wtitteu request tt71 tavuc!C: Froperty and home owners in the Laxe vr,veiC)sw�&o area tire deeply co,,cel- o'U about the new proposed property restriction ordinance on develot,nlclit. t:,N0lJG1J IS ENOUGH; 1 nur vropL t.ty base -d 1711 t11G cii5ting b[Il1tl11i cuae:5. It. IS u.Illair t0 a,llull -c tllcxxl_ L'dW' Uswz�o leas Ziune vvuil vvlth ulclsting'wles not ill Spite VI 1nG111. It 11G I\1G 1 11Ji 11Vllty mz; tl yL1l.5 tin 1.ILZ111Glllullt Ghialigc by tYaKillC away pimv 7tu tights, fnz1 lll[tj[nity YUt: UFA llltl ZFC1l C SillCe tlt(!l C, ;S ilt)SOUlut'1Y IiU YIC (I lin a` Chalig% M Cu&zi, A tthau7C ill ``pcultr ttf}L as -e u1 llltlperty" 1 MCI welt d11twtl�v atic4t }71u}7t rtv valUc beCatlac It I'catl IctS lit; V:XUC Llai ty"S 1 igr1tS to tclltvdel 101buitdyil IheSc 1sew cu&5 ate ullowM Ir this plvl us d })`da:will 1 Ill fel;utn.mvll(Z1 to all 1. leight)VLi tO 'c{ peal i_U the taA ZLS�ICSSvl v11 thCll latia Value atia w }n;titiun 11)VVC1 talc aSScSSLlleltt VZXC due LC luwet piolnrty daluc (ue. w these pro -sed tesalwtiryns. I feel t vllfedCui that the tlla�'vlity vt }nv},1��lc lit Lemic C7t[3vC( USwe v 2%1 that It id the illuividuitl tivltl-c t/w11C1d Ii i w d- as ihcy please with their piivatc laird as allowed by cuiient codes and rag`ulatluns. It is iitlllvttallt tl) IGaliZC tllc C1 istillg buildil1 c odCs wette in PRICE w11CI1 tivt palaial5 wCIG }AIILhaSed alld to liena.hzc hotlle alld 14UTUVVLICLS wht; teliC'd oil tttt:re-cxistul vdcS IS a uave5t . lt:ut owijet was Ilut snti5hecd with the existing c5 -des they slluuld avc toot puldlas;t1 it1 the lilst place, "]'hose who want the code change can simply call their title company and put a dead restriction on their propertyy's to compl) with the proposed new ordinance or taiy other t�_Ad:ng r;:At ztivn th;.T-ti.-a. At me .ury Mist tLe Cgty co_� ;t c��,t,t C_..6e bc71Il,,1ot to t,lt.rw Me at�:,-: ted Cllk . �.s to vote as to wh;:lncr of &A(A tt, puss Me new t,11 4a I t Iamce. Chese plupoaed cuoe 7Mzwgcs acre cleatly a Cave of torb t ucli liuveltuilelu interfuience wittl e,%i.A;Pt,9 private plu}>`tsy lights C oncarned a i tit, Oate: _Lt �IttoJ Plitu Nat17e: t5r9'P�'`-T �-�"��u' Address: 1 J S)ta'J t tt- S Ct. t.:<tke Sign: � c.✓ lY Date: }'l llll N:111It;:�'� 9 �^ l.,ake Oswego, oregrlu EA RIBI-r G -,i LU 10-0040 97 November 30, 2010 A'l l'N: Lis MCCaleb arlU Lake Wsvc;go Uity Cvttncil Lake Oswego Plarrrnng Countllssion 380 A Avunue PO Box 3159 Lake Oswcgu, Oreg*un 97034 SUDjCat: L;XKZ V�;vv—vgup rrvroe�:d Lund u.z: Rcgulativu l�lv. 23:55; r.le Lu 1u--Vu4u Deal If is McC:afeb and 11105e It C.UIlCel IIS Please accept this letter as a 5ubrnittal of written request Cor notice. Paa,perty zmd nv.nc; vvvnma in the area ase tXcC:ply Gvi7ec liccff ZIVOUt the new prvpv.,c.li viz)perty .cstncltvn vaiii uncv oil devcfvpment. ENOU61-1 IS ENOUGH' I puiobasea our propel Ly bascd int the cxistin► builai►.Ig codes. fl is untair tU 4hdu rr thulll. Lake Oswc&o has acne well with ex)s%tng co es I M ;n Sp;.tC 10f theca►►. 'I he ucal Ill'ilul ity ale uyt,.l� to iaul�lett►a:nt t:hattgc; by taking away private ►Ights. l he majvruy a►e not pl► active singe thele is ubsiolumly no need 161 a vhauge of COCKS. A Cllunr u in "puuunssible use o1 prupeity" 1 Itrel will directl atteci txuln:rty valilc b'ct:ause It result is l►rivale party's lights to remodel or budYif these new Cvc es ale alluwtsd. if this prinlwsal passes 1 will ►ecounueuU to all r[eighbots to uype'al to the tax assessor ell thletr lana value tend to P066011 Ivtver taX aSSCSSnaent W1 ue aue to IUWCI- p►uperty valt.t:* aue to these prtf� '-a restricfions. I feel CO►tt-Idcrlt that tht> majutity ut-Iac:a Ic in Lake G[Uvc/ Osvic�Q iet:1 Lha L it is the: ir►aivi1=1 humt; owncis right a.v do &S they please with their private lant3 a5 allowed by cul-1-ent iudes anu r:egulatiolls. It is trupurtiun to rtalir' the existing budilin},, codes wt:►e it] IJlaCc Whett thV pa31tials weLe puichased :ane to penalize home and (tidy owliers who relied oil thesc eximin % cuacs iS a tlavesry, 11' an v�v'net was not Satisfied with 111e existing codes the), �huul(f�ave nut purchased in the fir't place. Those who want the code cnange can simply can Ineir tale v,a�t ae.7 a.,a put a OCCO ,z:str.it.orl vn tlaelx Ff%—pirt J tv CuMply wttn tai: pivlluot'U n0VV ulla Al"kC v1 hny inner- t)";iu;jxg .w.atssctsin, t C vvita..t. At tnu vuy newt the city %v;ujjc f Couta t.scuagt ti 04110t to Zd1vvv thu az1VTIUU c.1t.-e.s5 t., vvtc, as tv wnettler or not tv pass tt.e new VCV.tIauuu. II'ht:>e ptuposua Cvde tLanges ate clearly a u:LSe of too )much Covernrnent intci furuncu With UAisuttg private prvperty i ig hLS Conced csidellt' WCU t t A5dre,;,;:�V_i Q Wx_ k _ f'aEC 0swegm, 0,egv.. Sign: mm� N `L Aatlless: Iiate: 9 - /-1t/ ke Oswego, Oregon ExRi611 u-1 (Cu I u-u94u) 98 November 30, 2010 0swkn',41 oEi79$3fti ° 1,<c.itl. Osi•o'ir o: L..; -Q: .0 9 � � s r �' �p ➢y°g a s"; r `i i aa� 1,4%1(1 �.Ne a: t>t x �' c�, '£fie ,�Y I,0-iWWW °:1 l i ;tiJtC� at t1'_nh"I l lsOSQ it 0)1'7s�wkkt:+ Nc.as acL„'-" 9t,,' kis as a su'C'.1111tt-a$ t�ttP t as" ,.ik t k'aika.tii' f)'y;4'dt s ttt ttit t.;it i l7it Z4 s° i,M fit. _u'cu. ° r,.,' deop, y L.b3?+;°ccitc() a how the lwlv p'F't po.'- d pT'opi~:,l`—� i ':'9tri tif-i-i ti +"'La.12.t1( ➢t'. ,t $ k �at3i]�. Ht f nitl 11,AS;i� €)ttc ie> a tt�. N "11 r y a L�,. s k {arw :,°1:,1C$4 i. �4 ]„; 1tP#� l:tt Cti �t?'aCif'2 Cfls'3Tl �..,<i�i�. tJ,7Final}f) 1# F , .Isis',. �.c..la Sa•s��2 ti.� .Sttik`, 4„t3RiC'�v in Spurr i?$ th4:r— [ aL $f8%u:l .satdsr.)1'Ity' `mi' LVi l' {tiP 9ygt• z srd'ita. t$4t11,+,qw �?a 9 i�"E1[L? � c"a s ri.'2:zCc i"a tcCS. $ t"at casi3(i atty :Ik'C it'Ot ttik 1 uctl.". ., t9 1, L"¢' 8i'3tiZ)itil, 1{' ilC) CtL,` t(ii 4 ch:: p'l C 01 l.tt'.il'ettl iu ccperinls 1313¢,' USC 11"ej kt tC; Pt icntr[4ts S k '1tS to of N-J1s,1 `f th, 11L 4.1, °7 il4( ii owed. it lhu4tr_a�'i i 'v ),l, 1e,d• "adaaitt�I � ,&, 117$ 9i t. fxi7tta a CL, E )t)$ x) til 11tt; im'u nr"sSr S4t_)k 01th i9 t i=% i 1, 1c ' 1� b;) p tl6t P k)vvt f tL�x .2.. sht9t_.i°l VQ 0.'. dUO (0 1OWC;1` .)1"0jJex` V b'lI]Ud JUI ct xut>tt�Yaittt ttkaa fil La"� 10 9'1t l tate t , (ti M(fit 1dd1„,1{ horn,:- (,vj lers lThl ta) o ud the:' Ali rza.`� k1t>k ih 3 IS _aEt`. '. l } <t'+ $fo4%v"L'C' by :`.Rtl`ro,nt ode,-, anu pe9�,iai tsb,.lzi. a is ltitpiC rtmil ti::" 't�'Crc' it) plh e "Jit_ni tf t' tr r'$#`_tiS Were}atti'cf1:1SL_1 Qnd u-.”aY:;` ?t.',� hil 'eti. and3211 .7 it$;t) celled s) I illi',S;c7 ex1stllti? i„ C d , IS a 1-ftWe tY, ifall ltil4 4 1. n0l i�-:Idsfled vvidl file i„xiS1,1ltg th-e. ,"$il.)Luld inave f1cm p1t(`c3H,.L"ed itl CL,C �L. C.,1 eC,ti4,1Y1 'aia.i: Y :dtdlsC Ctt Ottii J1y` C',l their t1'tlt il'4 Ct} t4 3}Yg3rL°col'Ipy w h chu p4pW.din,1,e oz . T�ah °r buill�aln'2 re°ii1"lCuon 111:"' +Aii nt— _T.t tits. Ve'l,Y" '11t �t Ct : .t'`, fi.94cia ui t t` c+„$ :itniigti x lliit tr) ll3iixv' ine affeelea Ls[ilt J'18 W %vt ° -,Is to "S: l � cl„i:1` . s' tt4re Ctl T%ass 1hQ a LN7N` 3T`P:I kl a "sea xl:ti . 11"LeSe PI'Or'OA, `t_'d 16UXI %$e ac® y h]V, Cle,31$y' '1 1= Va e 01 LO -'l 1t't ,C.':s t 0°t"-i`iilitf'tu- lllt�ifcFi�njce x'th cxz'-ifitt }f s c+ g+a v$ ttr i`t`sititi fli;nt Name: r EXHIBIT C-3 LU i u-0040 99 November 30, 2010 ;-,UpE-ii i €bra- 4, 201 Cl A'CfN! is rvieCal@fy and Lako U. Ivvvgo GLY COMIC -1i Lake, Osv-,-go Pfummj� C'urnmisslort aK7 380 A Avenue 11 kJ t5UA ),69 1-,nke Osvvego- Oit-(Yii 97034 Subject: Lake UswvVo Proposed Land UsC Wg-tat;z— 2558,pj, 1-t,l 1 jj)-4(j4tj He'ase acctvj,t 0,;St tt J Mi a ZAA)mitt7li Of VVI Aten ;CqTMST f -,Di cc. Prope4ly and honic ii., ftle LMK� kjTOW/O,�We,('-, a-fea arc deeeo ply inerncd abr7uk 1 w lic-V p1t7pertj 17StjiZti0ll Oil de velc'[IT I tell!, )UG] I IS j6h i pw- —ezl K1,PCI-ty 5-,vicd. arl L`)O exist . ng t)Ui'1.ai,wL1 CUUCI,,S'. It is Itku U,- "Ile IU2 eS no[ in j.1Ae Df tIVIN11. Ctt�Aiq�e 11V welf with cxis�ing cod' lli:! IoT7 -tyV'CLy atd r, a[ irtin�vity are t!-y,in.g to implement D�' L41AS. Tilt, ma Xvv Zli N 7 SlliCl-- .,,irity �I.c not �' U I K$ curies. A chawye N!��U Vf In �'Tlfcrly" I Ilcej will Mfcc(ly affiwt pupetiv valut because it restrieCs 1,711 vatc paIly , Sii ¢i5 Lll re'lliudel U1 build it Chese liew Codes are i Ilowed, [f (11,13 P'.'IF'sa! fw-seI will rezo43'1wiend to all neighbor'to up,.eat tin tt& T," zy, LiRej, i"axtil fait dc ftlitl Cwt EO dIt'se, PiK-Tjj;:5Std t") C,ti$i z)n tax vaikse due ti -Y tt - f, - 1� m Lai c Gmvo,` Oswepco fbel ihat it 14 ju'll . "i () pukip Ule �`iZIUK'lt hOFFIC nghLu do as dx9 ,- pl-lus-,C afid H i.,-; imporvult Teak." d,c. huil sl -.,T C(-tiTW 4 n4' as - �VTC V C LU IU-UU4U 100 November 30, 2010 A'] i I,-, xic.Caiev ca„i1 LaKC t- ),So,�gu (—Ity C()uiiC11 ['akc Oswegz' FIM14-1jug k-IDAmItlisiml 3 Ski 2x A vziiu-- rk-) J6v Lakc 0-wego, Owguit 97034 �-'ItY Or Lake Osvvag— Y SuDivCt S -. Luku Oso,ugo Jrujpo,,,ied Land Use t"IC,Lu 10-DOu Detc N's Vluc;�Iell U117 Tr1c;SC It Cullcel'il.3, Please accopt tILIS ]Z!11i4 21� a ';%LMIJIWTI ul, Wi1ttvii le(4LICit 601 1106QC, NI), nume is P1,;l1q1 ikj,.akc7i,&T, oL finiify's uwn jimpm i;esat 2S55 Uppei Dr- 30DO Brookside f -d' t'.5 15-18o CvNm IiL K1 WC linve lived here slom early 11)'60. 01'117 ftillIJ)" "?TxM LL1411Y l)t-VjYCJ-tY '111d 11011le WMICIs M the Luk,' Crove/Oswego arn L.,u iizn!jiy rc3,tc,--,rneo arxitit jjic� new puposed pruperty restrictioll ZI-611-41L7C iY11 GeVe1o}11iteFit, 1 'NoGG iroperty bsed k,, ti,e eki,ihiig nuAinin - cu(je,.7, it r), -�, 1IJ IS I"MAR.'fi; I purchased our wifair to change th.em. lake Osw-�� Xni%� VVC11 With C'03cs 1101 M 'Vife Of Litelm v The local Al%-- try wig W ?A I I p I of I ACI It t"A I I W "I wa) I'm ed 1",m- a change of code,,,. -n;�,.ge IIIUJOilt VC ilial Dict UCUiVt S*jj• t%'thej*C i'., UL)N4j Ut Y 31C wiv rX I foCl will directly affect proOrtiv' v'Jllie it iCt:,) priv ati, [;,-11 LV 'S I Ji�hL'N, to remodel or bu lid I f thesc ew ILA" _'THOvved' I'l tills plupOsal pusse,s I will recommend to ,xll tea appeal t") Mk� tai "x"j4C"3'9tN Ogj thell jaild '"due arlil to petxtxoll ta's. Valet: Ode tv lawri PIL)})IOTLN' V'11UC aLIC Lu Lhiese pro,osed resti'UtICILIS. I Ieel CZ)1ifM7J1t diat LW Maiwity ofpuople in Cako Crove/ 0! Mat it is tllu i11TVIOuaf huffle owliers right to do as tllvy PlCa"e With tnI'r pjiv"IxJZa It"j,,j tjS tEjIZ7%7Ved ',)Y cui-rcia coJes and regulatioii.3. It s [LL'L'Grtkut t7� le:dj:'C t= C'\istilic, t)CL1jdj[j(7 CO(ICS Wece -1i�'Jjj�j k��Nfi�JS Wirto relied rl Pla(:)l7c�' Wheel t1 1%-1 �,W*L;2116 Y�C&e Vuiurlasu(l mid to p�ijuWTI hume and tbu37' Ci-'LS6Ag CDZICS is it trtrvesly. Wall Owiter was [lot "ausfied With th;.' wniatate� C.l1Gla,.� 1114 yr ased in the first place. I 110stt W;A) vv;'Iin the coc cFuiige uui sinip-ly call their title compaiiN '�in(j jjkL11 '-i ClCuo Jestficuoli Oil thell, property's tCi cornply "'All trl% Y17uj)%ASC;r4 IACV-, M'uinaiicc, u, ally other building restriction'thej vvurit. At tric vc, Y m�;st the city al Could lallge a ba,flotto L allo", thz to VCJt.0 =i ID VVLr-thCr Ur HOL ell 1..�ass the new m-dirianue. I , hese Code changes ar,: :,Jenrl a c--ks,' (if tDo mel :l7 iiiid", ct� widi IC, vin t exlsdn,(� private Cwim-ied' iusidcni, '�Idcdl'CSS: Lako S, L Z 4, I.Pi ;.iit N '.0 i te A Addruss, Luk� Oswc—'. .--_.,.w-/.._.. ii u.o LCJ 1U-UU4U 101 November 30, 2010 A,r I N: Iris McCaleb and I..ake Oswego Ctty Cu.c%i i'aKe tj-sV,7Cgv Plamillig C011111il"'SiRM 3N 0 A Avef i a I' PO Box 369 3 4 SuCvt. Lakv Uiw ego Putyused Land Use Regul,.6-17it. -No. :Z-,59, P 4v LAJ to-mWi D -.a., 1r;8 -M11'I`11OSC It UMLCeMS ua I ue"i se accept th.i,; lette.-,o a sUnji,itttiI vi Ict, . My narne is Vahe Arak-ciian our fa.,fiT.',3 pr�uFejtles UL ,,85 -io)O Brookside Rd. and 13 780 Twin F, h Na[ Wu Wive il'vecl )JIlce early and r-nany, proplert-v ititU nziie iyvvjjors hi ttic I -ake Cyouvu/Oi"1ugu area wt deeply concern , -d. a- jlr0j'rCrt V ICstlictiou oidinauce on dev;wiopaient- EN0(,jGfi IS ENuk-JOFI; I putchased owpupeny based oil tile ex"';t,ikj" l.,AZ1111g; C07e,�. It J,� limfail to Chatige dkem. I ako OswcZo has don� ,ull COCILIU.N uOt ni -spitrz TAI 'Ll'Icin, ['fie local 111inoritV are ti' ,.n,) to ;iiqfl-.,iLjCiA Cntri-igC OV 1 -:,,king i!Wayl 1,711 Va majority iii, jot pto actly� :)j1J7e t1lele is absolutely Do need k)r a chaDge ol'�.odes. i4 cha,, ;kIL;- --r1L113S10jC use (it' I'll Cyp�party's i"igljus to remc.&fft-y" I llref "III directl� aftlw prz'I'vily value belc.IUS%� it lciti'icks -1 Drbu'lld 'Afthes:, ,eveX)deS1t passcs I will recommend tt, all MbDrNurS ti, tpp iCal t�-r the ,�S t�L< ZiC&SDi Oil L11 Ir lujid vala-- and (0 Petill6n tLw, ti33Cs8jt1eiA v'�luu- aue to 10%/VC1 jjj�)pertV "'altw, due to theSe Pr,-)PoSC!d 1 IcC1 C011ilaClik, dial, iho iiiajnriLy ofPcople in !-halo Grove/ Os`vvetilat it is L the 111Ch V;!L]Ztl hOMe OWj1ej-,S right (K) do as they please ,,vitl, Incil, ItriLd as '1-dC)Wed OV CLIHLILL euzh�s arld It k IMP-),t,,,j7Tt J(7 F,-tljZe t'lle CX�Stl,lg t)1Ljljkjl ng Q63es wete 11,1 Place vvhen the partQs paiznacu hn(I tO pC11Zd&,XO 1101rne, 'Ma Izmd L)wavZts who r --fish on Lhese coacs) 'is a t,--,LN;7A KI I i I y, If ZILI UwYlut WaS; jl�m �' kisi-ed �Nvith dic existin.,) code:, they ShOdId 1144"VT LAPt Puictlased ill tile linst ptaA;C, Those .,,h-,, N'llit.the C�Ync M111ge Util i:tfiJAY 03.11 thelf Lide COH11.3ally and put a decd till thUlf pllvpei.-Ly",7� to Compiv with ffie pr(,p(,,,ed oiditia,=ui, ` -.,,..y z,,tne, hullr1mg re'soictiou , dicy wan't, At tit yvi� lAi%-)3t the city eT;,n��'t - i c�yum :jiiafjgcl a N.111 )t to '11 loafie w tile cted M -f4,) tO v ZAi�:' I �- ai ti ) VV etIM U]' 11AM Ut j,)ZANS J10 fww.- orTinince, Ftiosl! prot-pseZI uode change,; aT-c;u'ut,iy a 04R� vT tW; 1ITCIC[) ed vciwjjent ijn.,rf'�-retic e with CI ig X St'r19 Prl�l ZuZ� FTOf 'ell � i'* fAS ConcunwdjeAdent. rr H Addr,-,ss: 1 Cot-) Lake (-JSWI- (it gon 91 Til y L e, J z Ac',LdrniS,,, LtTKIC. OSVA�,,T,, 01 7 Ol'i EAHISIT LU IMOO 102 November 30, 2010 P, i i N. j.R., viuCMT-b and Lake Oswego City Cow tuil Lak6 Oswego Plamtkig CuituaiNhiou C)P Lake OSwzgo, Urr-0—va 9 /U34 Subject: Lake Oswep PropUNA LnixH unr Kguintiu. r4z;. 2558-7 Fat Lu io-WPO Deu his N&;Culeb zu.0 I hoc It FRMSC FrOCPt t1l;S lCttCl = U 3UM.LaW of 'Vdtten request for notiuu- k-t7purty �,d nume owners in the Lake UrUvuJ-0z!;wtg7v area are C77ply ;>-Pticeyxied abom Litt; ijuvv pvposz;E I;j-z;pA-,rty a7,3trictim,. ordinance on development. FNIuUGH IS ENOUGH- I purchased ULU Plopurty tmsed,,, tne building codes. IL is "Ellc�l tri utlmis, tne... L`v O..�,go has done Nvell with c&'I bxill� r7c)(1-- cs 110-t 11-t si-t7 of theni the luca-1 x.xl axvaity ai ic tyilg tu- cnang;z by taking away privaLu i ight-,,. I JIV, t,,aj Ortly not pro active since them is A),sub Aely ito I a�ecl 1M & Change of codes ' . A chauigr LLZ; cir P'Lopc 'll der Aly it i.-Istricts i feel Aly affuCL jUperty VNIL&U M�.,au37 thz,.- i,- , co es are allowuU. It this pivFvsal le tnc = tz,.cssw on their larO valur ai-0 -PurtV Vaduc Zruiz tv musc 1,.0 sed t j le in fake Grovel (JNWUVU I= tn:at A ma ,,tn mzbs private land as alluwcd by A oundinR codes were in I J.AuZu ed on VY tite V��M vv,'L� jVdUW'V' and to p[cjjajizjc holiju w.lc[ anZI uYvi.I.Flis ",nz; iz;i t Ultbe cudr,"i" a tinvu:5ty. ii tui 7,wner was not satistied with tilt r-?6stillg %—Efcz; Tn- sho,;Ad ft")VU 170t PWCJjZE5C3 Ll the: Jaaat T vd-qQ- a vmit 7ait c - de znange can simply call their Li 1,P UMIljjzMY alid put a 7ac;z:d thei, YL v-piurty, s -u Yvan xne p.L oposed Pleur ordinanim 4l1aTiy ")MCI rusu building resuicuon they wain. :Nt thu, v�ly ljj'jNt the 6ty m,.Ze't could arnangu a h5lfut tu allow, ttc u;tizens to vote aq to whmh�i ui uut tr7 p�s tri, ase vv -Vidanance. j,, - - ,i.Li, n --C-ment interfit!reitkx Wittl YLI„e rn 4 RHAIL LakeOSW�D)7 M F K” 1')ate: Lake (Jz:vve,Yr'Y. UrCrM" EARIBIT G-7 LU 10-v4 4U 103 November 30, 2010 AT'TN- lr-',s ivicuaiD mrad Lmcw, v:jwcg7v City ct)ujjuiI Lake Oswego Pla#.. 38u .' -k fikvellilr' "ifY LAkt Osw,& ru tst7u' 36'�) Laic,�� 0,-�,vvugio, Uxogun 97034 r Subj'Cut: LakcUNwugu Pruposed Land Use xegut.ti-�-,jx File LU _,IU-i0sj41j t-J7�7 b LZI MUCUICb tUld I hQZ!,C It C01 CAULUS ttl.'63 MdE-k ft:1 a S'Uthluttal at W1 Itteil Mq Uest for notice. Property and noi.i-ic vy—u-5 all Ulu, Lake Uiuvvc/U_Nwcgu area are deeply conee..,<,d,,bo,,t tnz� IjAvposucl viiavcrty i cstri:tlu" orUluance on. devel(?pm;,-nt. LM)uUti iS Li,4uut71!*7 I pLehuj!cj Clul 10pUFY based on the exis-ting ouimi. kZTM5, it ii wilaii tv ch mite thtGni, bake Qswe_ tiesone veli wAn eYL16t4'&1j, C�6clv'3 Al"t its !Ipltu Uftheill. the IQCCd milicyrify are Lryin� to implernet: cmff%C 0., MK=xn: a% - nivatt Lights. t , hC MaJIUMV are not pro actve sin;x :3 txi)-:�ujutz;ty, iky ji�wr1 a CU160 of curies. A uhangzt In "peri iiss:ble s,- of p.7,vi-,ftY 7.- 1 Tv,ul Will, ditcutly aftClet j)jt-JjJ'CJ LY Valtle beUaUSC iL resLricts privatUl jja1ty-'.).LlgAts, to 1'.;ixrjduj c11 t)ujjct it thusr tirw cuUes arC allowed. If this pr,,posal jja5u'; 1 will ieculuiliund io all uu;ghbE)rs to appeal to the UIX LxsseSS7c vli tM'11 IUIAI VZ11U7V �-Iu to Imtiticin tower uLx assessment value due tol%,wcx pik-jVc.rty zae Eue to thus e j11VI)VL-j(!C[ y -UT pUtipbC Ali LakO (.ji(jvC/ UNwUaij turdd1aL it I'S restrictions. I Lel 7ond7..,t that tnZ.111=jmitt� C, -With Lileii-pr.ivatelan(iasallowedby cuuviit CC)C_k�S ZLLId It is important to realize the ex'�stx'L.xr' bu*Xid,,jg vv;,-,%, Li, place when the partials were purchased and to rikh.uic MIC Icuid ;j-W11;;1Z!' whrl I'divEl nil these C'1_:sti.L'; to U LaYMAY. If tM VW_XMT was IiUt With LhIC UXisLing Qudczs they :,niuyuja nayu ivt purniasea lit thrz tu5t pia'Lx. yvtrzAt tti,, 7,wci,� criatiV %'MT Si'lliply uall thr'll iitic CTYlitpuly WO put a deed j7V-_St171rt;7Vx1 vii tlleL plupurly 3 OU M.111j1iY with t h -C! ropeil now ordinance olaity y, othor N4114ijig iestrictimi Mvery ey waxit. AL the vemost the city coun-*1 Czzid cu, e a Duijmt tim allU W the attUcted citizens to vote as to wnether o, ,%it tu lynas thjL� slaw v, dil I hvw Prupu-'scd UMIC CMUIgus tue Ulcurly a umsu of too much Government +v.th cxi'5'ul 1g. Vi I va(e PTUCI-Lyrights ," Lit Y-Wress, 4Osvvc-'.s,U' Oic"Un Sign: Date: r1ait Ncum: Address:U-,vNe F -J, L)Mguii , 't 104 LU 10-0040 November 30, 2010 0-, - z A 1-1-N, Iris McCaleb and Lake Osweg-.- 4--ity tLZUK.14,11 'C � LaW Diwugu Planning Commission 380 A Avunue PO Box 369 city 0 Lake LAI, UA VgW11 Y UJ 4 S.Di,,V� L4KV Vmvvcgv r, upoaud Laud Um; Kvguiatiun Nu. 2558_ File LU tO-OV4u Dcar Iris McCaleb w.ia- i nv3;;it Cztf%-i.ixta Please accept this letter as a submittat -Mi ,v t AWL1 1":,4 U'&St lol. I I(YttcL;. Fropurty and home owneri in the Lake Grove—iUsyyUgim- al,4'a- W -L-, aFzV[Y UV-11C.;CnIed i3 but tht new)-1,.of;os-%15 i,,.,,.rty Lustr,,tloia v.aiud "OU Un 0-cycl4ipinciA. ENOUGH IS ENOUGli; i pwzhQz,,Z;-=rJ 7l.WKrt-F OZE-z'davat itis r.xistillg builldill� cudus. It is Otte W,11 Willi CNIstilig cud.us 1,101 111, SP Le 01-t11QM. The 1%judi mhwiitySCC it-yiu�to impWinetachangtby Lakiti away rxvate-nghts.Thz I flajUL'Ity We, 11M.V1 0 UCLJ Ve:SJJJUV, LhCrO is absolutely no ne(T ga%e viA ch—xge n " ipewtissiblu usu of property"T feel will dhectlya:ffcz!t2j7pzty vaiuz m!cat,5c-, 11xU-11t,;;7ts privatear-Lys rights to remodel or build lfmc3c..z:,,, rvaz:3 tme zzimWEH. if tills plUPOSZ11 P�'134�li ?VVA11 Lu,Cvxlalluud to to apFval t7iL7tniz tax aNz5vs5o', t7t, dIr-Iff IdILU VWUU LUZ to p4itluil lovvci taaA assussavent value dur, to lowei pjupci"ty value due to these proposed I usti icauns. I itzi confident that ffie majority of people in Lake aoVe/ O!tWeg &Zj tJ.,Z[t 't the individual home owners -ght t- Qv as tb,)r plzzae vv;tr) ttjc,vl FLI VUtC IZMO ftZ1 4110'#NTC1 by pt=lz wfttui ihu Vk-Etuds m -,Lu put ase wO tupunalizi,- home. ,—mdland owners who relied on tIthuse existing codes is a travesty. If an owner was not iat'Psflez. Mn the U,Zy sho,ld ha,z .-,A 1,.,,hzcsud *,.. tho iL it piav,;. Thuse who want the code change can simply call the;, tain coTp4ily �10 Fdt Zz M-00 FrV iYert V 7 3 tU Z:r7JJJ JJl.Y VVA L11 I VJJ Ostrizt."oT, .7y, thzi, r11a11lz"-tUC U1 ��ILY uul%�l OullMiq iv,3ttiAilaii tllt�y waut. At ttie InZzu city evLancil Could �uiiuige a WIAA LU aJ1VW thy. UfICA-Aea i. 1641 to V-Utr, azS tu- volXther vi uot to pa�is i -he new ot-diiianue. I n7a-Al FiLU-Ptnird i--oaz znz=gus =z cium ty a �zsU vif tarts aluvh GuyvUllullu-in lfnellelvlxr With izz,ii;fillf, PLIvatu Thupefty lights Si n: Print'Name: AU -di ucsN - 1 Lak, Osw��,,Ozgv, UaW: Mm Name: loi - Addiuss, - t . ke Oswego, Orego.n Li LU 10-OU4U 105 November 30, 2010 ATUNI: Iris McCaleb and Lake Oswego City t-Immit Laku QSWU90 Plmuling CUM111ission 380 A Avutfue PO Box 369 LaK;: btis, tjL%;sv.L, viu_i4 G7e0 SuDjvU* Litku (J9wuWu- FropuScUl LanU UNU Regulation No. 2558, File tTi iii -W40 uear t.ia waa I nose it (_;rjj1rC111N Please accept this iatz;. _3 a,;unTM'tta1 ul YviAM, juqucst Rn jjotict:. Pivperty mid hume owners in the Lake Grove/Uls":;r,7a azc,,a az.,. Cj%-,cVjy about the new proposed property. esti xzti;-,.t ;-,, am.XjXc vii ENOUGH IS ENOUGH; I purchased ow p,,upertjr MISU! ou (ne eAist!Lq; buildiiig Wdcs. It is un.L.. to thz:At,. LaK7 0,-,,VV7,gvY nazi d'"I'Le WIAI VV;th CAl-'k-ing codc:3 11"L 1.11'spict: Of diefil. 1.11� tV iMPIC.111CUL chtutru by taking away vnvate rights. 'lite I M', IU�l m;t1ul ity al -C t!y, !naju6ty �ffe nut pu activu sinue there is ubscylutely no need f(-1ri,_fiang7 uf cudizs, A zncLxjgc� IS " I Z , permissible use of propert, " I fi 1 11 di,culy OCMUSC� it stri�-,ts Pnvate )art. t�, Tt ee will s rights el u. 1).,Id *Ll tn,�3c L_uVV iV-Fics toe ziliuww. if t1iis piujusal to 21 iiuighbvL3 tty Uplycial til Lhu tbx assessur on Lhair land value and to petition lowrn tax u5scssment value due to -lower property value due to th7z Py "VS -W restrictions. I f!el confident that th. mqj�uilty �;f lj%Ajpjc ,, Luc Cri-Fiv V 1,)8w-,,r,7j L"I ti.i.t it IS thz; i,a.u,,eri %-J"Ilels 11 nt t-xj Oki as Ult-,y plUaz5C with the;j pivatu Jwjd aS ai��d key ; us IS. — i/ Cut I L�Lft C7j(AUz5 Z1110 �Cgulat It JZ iMj)U1UU,1L W L"I W d1C UXiSftui building codes were i� place wiiun dic parbalz-� wne purQhuNed and LU penalize, homt and and vhc, reliz7d -,,,rT OICSU �-,Xlitiflc UU&S iS ZI Lravesty. If an owner was aMt satmifica r,Itn tnk-, eiZAJTL& Uuzli A ttL,-,y should have not purcha.,ed ;a. the fist piticz. 'I WSE Who Warn the CoUe chauge can simply call their title company and p,.t a dz.d restriction on their property's to comply W A1. th-, -7 a.tLiv VaFilar2FFiie of Mxly zithel oui.1d.,.g cstrita;un tuiL;y "aIAL 'M tn-%,, V" 11,fuz, 7 City LVWIcil Couln �.0 I ELI QYU a bal lFit to allow tti,.; aTf6-,tt;U Qxti4l-,Its tqj VoIC bs to wuh7uj U1 11CYL tU jY S1 the 11.rw ()1`d3ikW,1CC. 1 riczie Fz!YjAj.,uo cojaz unmiroz, an, cwariy a casu ut ti-Ruj (JUV711alluut illirrt"CiCHIM. WEth umst;jig V1 I Vate pitavvrl—Ly HOF lun, C-011AXulued Sigh: J Lake 0sw,-g.F), 0regon ra Alit Address: I U-UU4U 106 November 30, 2010 2xTTN: I. ,s McGalub .,Ld izzzc uweV city Uotuxil bake Oswego ru"laLiLIF i_s61LULL1301oll YU BVA, J69 lake Q�w�ga, Oregon 97034 "Ay of L ke Subjvvt: Lake Obwego Proposed Land Use Kit; LV 10z"tF4FU 1,c;71 11 �z, MCC,"Iii0b mid I ho�c it Colicerus r1CZFZ,e a,77Ft tnls lcttet a. -I unun-mittal mf wilft" AcqueNt tor autice. Property ana j m:t 3 'm MC LaM Gi v wZ =a wu ducply concerned about the KY LJUVY pikipVSea pliop-rty tVArictiou VIC111AWAOe on deve opment. fopurty baseZl sou the existing building codes. It;. unRiii tU Cheui�C Mum, Lake OS vv ego has one well with existi..g c(Zi..., I,ut iijspite ;%jr tnuirt, lucat minority are trying to imple.., et eh.,.g, b W Lights. fhe TaK —a -Y ZE "'MovV"'C ig Ut cvdez�i. A t.�ftwige majoriTy are not pro aCtiNC SjiiZ-,w TI -%'lz 13 ftOO-Mutely ij 'Ile, I e �rt Un, v fly kip, I I -EA will &C�7tfy atIQ4,A IOPCILY valuE beta so It rusfriuts ght3 7 ICILIVII m build it these In L,7atc parrty� Z5 it t j IMW COFus are allowed. If this proposal paz3z,r-,v I will itzeurtunund Lu all ucighbors to appeal to the tax �assessor on tnui, UuZ YM-twG as I I J C!r[y Uj6 C1 tC; t - ,u - - 67 to potition lower tax assessment value due to lz;,V�Z P % F vjupv,� restri.aRms, 1 &1-1 that thin, ,,,njutity Ufv -V M ill Lake (ijuve/ Oswugu tvul that it IS ju taleLJJ(hVJdU,11 IIVIAvL� vwllc'Ja 11 11t to (10 �[S thr-Y FYemric w;di Lheir privaw land as allowed b Y CLU I Cut MYCIV-'s mid fv- JtiS jJjjj)VjrtZUjt to reatiZe the existing buildi"g %,zZ�n lilac c whun the partials were purchased and to penal.;,Z, hm,,r ixld ItLLIG OW-LIC1,5 VV IM IdICU slit these existing co& -s as it tia I Yusty. If ! wyVAIM W20 clvt Lat;,fICZ VV An the umistill.0 CudlzS they an,juid n2rvz itz5t 1xula dicra Cl ii., ufu fi,.i pittou. TLOSC -1.7, Za-at tb-kl ;UCLC ZIAMMSI, C_Ul&LLIFIy kill tMil LitIC rWJ111PftFEY �;UA JJUt a Utvrj C111 tnCrAj jfjUPCt'tY'Zi WO %N-F-111ply vvAh thepiopoxcil rwvv ulramwice ur any other buddilly, [rib ietkpil !�uy wwit. At thU very most the city council could az--angiz� rit btrllvt tz- allow the atftcted citizens to vote as to whether 7,r of p,:59 tne j,cw Ihteae Uf too much GoverameiA Intex-Licy" "im pvprj,�-d zudc uhangus we clearly a ualC uxlzi Wig pi i vace lyrupurty rights lkatu: Print Name: AddressJ LhKC 0s" Date: ,c uswety, 0mgui, EXPin CU 10.0040 107 November 30, 2010 ATFN� Iris McUdeb and Late Oswego Ciry Council Lake ilhunilng Cuimuission 380 A Avenue rO B -W, _169 LUC: Uzn vv tMWyj i V I UJ4 4nm "fuDj at: LxK7. 0.,.,LTgu Pi ijpovd Land UNti Keguintiou -NU. 2558, Mir LU 10-0040 Dear his McCaleb and Those It Cos-,e"x;, Pica.se accept this letter as a submittal of written request for La;c, - - - I , Fruperty id hulnu UW11taN III thu Iakr, CjrovefOswego area are deeply concerned auout tri, new proposed property restriction o, dinance on Cie v cilxjjij ta_Iit. ENOUGR IS ENOUGH; I purchased cur propLrty b-wv4 -WA, tn� e,,stug Out lclu cg;:KraG�It is %mfai.r to iijaiigw L1lirix. Laxz: na., dotic. VV411 YVAtl UAigtitlg CUCIV5 Hot ill bVitO 01 MUM. 17 UW;AY private rights. 'Fhe in pci-misstblu use of propeny" I feel will directly affe--t ,-roerty Yalu, o;_-,asz7 it ,ctx_x,_tm private C.-Duc;Z3 ,t Cr tn;s Plu-IJUSMI tftc tax assusguh Olt thull bled value wid iul?C1 LV VUILIC! ELIF LU Lhesu 1' sed e in L�ke Grove/ Ositego feel that it is the11 d1 wads thzi,- p4kvut_y 1 IA1 43 4110"770 r3y a wx'o R.7� 1111FV C, D 11fjij,Lg C(i(l%;',S Welc iii CUL I Z4 At COM.3 Uri rtant tnQ _jZ41,11 u j,,ia%—A_ vvilei., trig. Ipmtariz vy,,o puicnasea cuict t7u Px-,.uZE11Z0 tichlic �hl;ITZI UWLIMS VAICY Xtiucl nil til' -se uxlstsllg cvde"Y;� a travebLy. 11 mi OW11ra WaS 110L NaLISIX11 wills the CAISLillg COUCS LhCy should have not purchased in t3ie firSL place. I hT-Psh whu waut die cude chauge udin -S'nuply call Lhuh LiLIC CC)11113WIWld PUL U deed restriction on their property's to comply with the proposed new ordinance o, any other vym tricy it. Rt tn., V P-1 FrIU."A t Z:Lty urjulcl M-ra-Aigu a MIKA tv— allow tti,-_ MuctezT citu"eliz; to vete w, tv Wetftct of Ilut to thl;; uew uld1114114'u. i nez, pvpwzi-_a TmaeTtan5%,.� a=o=y a %'4.m vf W-vy iijuen Guvei4huent ditzi lei. ELIkui-, VvLttl 7A;St,;11g .. . ....... ... Sign: Date. PFHIL Nwue: J r VgV7 01 ugull Lake khw arrant iiame* Addicas. Lake Osweciu, EXH& I U-11 LU 10-0040 108 November 30, 2010 ATIN. tris MtCaluty mid Lake Oswego City Council La C ClawugU Vizikniig 3870A- Avenuc P0 Box 369 Lake Oswego, Oreg.., 9 tu3,+ Zt: 1-"Kz 0STVv raujiva-W Lbaid Uw Krgulattitpu Ng� 255K, kliu LU 10-040 Dear iris McCal eb an7a Tb.;3, It Ci�jL jzz-,,j L.t3 ?lease accept this letter as a submittal0f WTHWI.I. 1--4UC:tetIbL Lt(AiLZ. ?i up,crty and huaic- owners in the Lake Grove/Oswego area are deelty c7llca.I Ilea ZZI)VUt tfic new proposed property restriction ovdiuta-ice o -L, ENOUGH IS ENOLJCHI purchased our property basad o., th,-boli( zode-:5. it 's unfair to change thern. Lake Oswego ht;�- as d�.vvzn "All cUUC-,jIV-t ;u 5pitir, at thual. TILL lkjaLl kUAIIWW4 AY 4U%, WVUI� tU IA1IFR�jIIFVjjt C;IIMIgQ by aw, :,may - ivi*W I iovs. Th -Z !ILU — MAY ZEM AlUt PI;7 ZCtiVk� :AgJUC tMIU, jz!� at)Z�u-jut7uly 110 Lir,(7-40-7a cQge ut-codes. A change t)," I R!W will directly aff use it r,striaj Ill. Puf jltizz�iiblu uNv, of propui ect property value beca rights rein�de o6bu d these I -1 P, �ivate� 'g to re CU(N'S M7 U11ki"C72. if tlict plUFM541 te yr 1a M 5, P ttit, teen ryu tfiuii land value UiLd tv it _t upel Ly value dur, tel those Proposed CC , _ _d - - e ()"t, 0", L Lh _ I 't c a 0 e n Lak- o. Grove/ OsvJ57r-,,, fr:;-,l tn.t ',t il70 rj t to Ill i r"y Of �Opl wners g 0 h n h a U r Ni ual 0 thz:_ Fl -. "All Men -jjI I I, tttCr IWIC as W 177 WMI Dy L CIAt rtan t t� the U"%'Istiug huiluilig codc$ wiry, ill vizou vvtiei, tric partiaL, vvletu yuictizmud =d tu pt;iialize home AnE Imid owners who relied on LhUbFU eNISUIIJ!, CUdeh IS.'I L'Iuvcny. 11 wi uwricT was tot satisfied with the existing co&s Uzy 5hcjuld have not pw-cliuscd in the first place. I huso wtio wam' the mak, uliojigC 1.;413 SiiItPlY UU11 LhV;i Title U01iIj3aIIV =id PLA deed a dd I UNUICUU11 011 thCil- PI-Operty'S to ecimply with the proposed new o.-d.eiritmcz 7j, ayiy %jthz!L, buildinm restriction they .ant. at the ve ost th-I city c%-Juiicil 0c;U10 rtraulgu zi nallut to n1m, tg,7 P6zctw 0iu,,ALn tv vr;tc as t,,� %ctnz, T,), iii,Pt ti5 pa -ss the i.aow vidinaltue. These proposed code changes are clearly m eeoc ul tuz, mui-aL mlzaliaivaue witil C'once..ied Sign-, Prim Name- Addicsa,: Laku OsAregu, Oregon sigaA;"Y PI ait Nuf nc: E AWL uNs. Lake Oswego, Oregon [7U 11=1-0040 109 November 30, 2010 V NIIN: m7a Laku, Fjziwvgv- City Cowir-il Lake Oswego Planning Comrn�ssi,-Jft 380 A FU t5uA Ldk;U Dzywcgo- (Acguij. 97034 Subivet: Lake Oswego Proposed Lana uo, ZNM, 11le LU B"U" Dcm- It jMuCal et) 'u td Thuzie it Concerns richze hece"Pt thIS JUMM as a aUbjnjttul uf writtun request for PrOP-,ftY ---a- 11—sit-, -,vYV1LI---1:> all tnz 1AK7, UIo-,u[Uswzg-vdrt:a afe dMply concerm-A ubut the sic; W pAUjJV;5UC1 plujim t), I uzL'I ictiou oidiumiuc on development. 13 r"Ou"Irt is jjul-has%�d -I upui ty hwiuZI urt if to existing building co&,.. it i3 ulllc�-i tv Clltuigv, thr-ta. La.Kr UbwUgu h: Tunu well mith C-XiSling Co—aeo' A-xot ili 31, 1t,: 6f EnCsa,, I ]LIZ locat litiltumy are U-Ylnto iMplernent change by mK%llg aw-ay plivak Iigtitb. the Majority are not pro active smee the,e ,s aDsuiutuiy v iiuca for a'uh=gv,,uf uvZlcz. A uhaiigr, buuause It resinCLS JL FcA 1i n5i f I ILUUtly Ulfect piopel Cy VaILIJU F1 I 1grits to Iuuwl-1 , c,�zr tiew codeb are allowed- If till, proposal 1., I vatc� will ivummnend to all iteighborsttothappeal to the tax fisaes3m a,t tmii, imia vaiue aL,(J to petition lo.. -Ir tax "IZU, due to iowu't piripurty value UUC to Muse plupused le"tt;kA110113. I TcZkvxxhaullt that ttlu iijaj,vilty utpeople m 1,ake Crove/'O.-wet,o feel that 1A 13 the illdiliZhial hOUX UNNUCES Light, to do as they please with the privatz, 1..71 tri rrljm�vi-,C-L PT CUFFCHL Wdes and regulations. It is.. 0UAClIj.1L4C;UCl1ff.'1 wtie III place when til:,Fart;U13 auct ti,jn;1-kajA2,U floinc ft"CITaIld owllt:as W117V 10hed oil tn,su -.latish, o6aus is a LlcavcSty, if a,, vwtkei was ItUt,'JaLlStied With the existing coZles they Stmuld flavu iiot jnauhuzjW in the IaNt plain;. I D"'i" -r1zJ ""t thC7, %,kAz ZlItUALp" CalL 5AILLIA.Y k;Ztjl thk-,il t;tiC Uuiapauiy MTd JJUL It decd 1"c5tki0tio11 VaA tnCil popurty,5 t7v C10111,ply With the pIVPUsaZ1 iiew uidaiance or any other buildilly-, IeNtricuum they waist. Ac the very most. the city council could arnangU a ballot to allow the atlected citizens to vote as to whethe. or ot to pt:zy's tnz: vv 'I hCSU prupused curie uhanges am clearly a case of too muzh -rQverrllrtent interfizen, , T,;th existing private property rights zl- Date: 4 A -es, dd.� 3: U sign: Date: MIA Namv' LaICC OswugoDrugun EAFilts! i G --i-4 LU 10-UU4U 110 November 30, 2010 A'I I N: 1i is WUalvb aud Lake 06vvtvgo City Council tAKU Q';Wi-'t.SV 380 A Avunuv tl PO Box 369 i,ake 0`"%,gU, LMC Y /U.)4 1'..KV uzrn ur,7v Jrj;5_t_r_uawd , Lanij Ube Rvgulutivu No. 2558, File LU 10-0040 Dear Iris McCaleb and Those It Fica'se acet;pt thin lEt'iM as a sutin.uLLul of written request fOr L,Z.YtIcz. Y znii(l ftt7lni;; vwixi-a ni the Lalcu (jiuvr-10swego area are deeply concerned r6ct the 11t;W vtvvused prupurky restriction ordinance on jerty based on Ilio c_-st;,Ig bzii-]Ui.itis bNUOW-1 IS FN0U(_'H* I puluhas1-d our unfair to ch,r nge�them, Lkl Osw.-.gc; hum ibz7xLz vr, 11 vvitil t n1ntLiT crwaub flut 1.11 spite of thuill. 'fhz; 1.xzai 11 LKII01 �tV Mrl- tl Y iil� t;5 uILVIellielit Ulally'u by tak4t li&�;.The liiz�jkni4' WIC WIDt VT�j MANE �illrxvl thexe ;S abbUlutely 110 licuYi-or a cfiange of cedes. m chanr,,. ill "JIM LINO Ut 111upcaty".1 teal will directly affect property J r)==.,,iu, It zI'A, izt;5 PilVatup=Ly's righLS to remodel or build if these xldm UOC103 acc; ZZU'vVyUcl. 11 [111;'S p.0,—,S,',1 passes I will recommend to A] Ii'iPLok_a3 r"- Fi.Nl t" tnc taa& USSC,$bLJL Mi thCii land value mid L, -t 1 1 v vy 7L tEL,, zrSucSS I I ma it v i tu V-Aiti 3 7wui puputLy value Eue ay these proposed 1Qbtri".'tI0I.in'. I ler'l Coldid&lit tjl;dt the lllujuriLy of peoplu in Lake Grove/ Osw�,go feel that itt's die M31vidLial huale ownerm EiAt to do as they please, with th,wir t=nU w3 auoYY1C(-1 Cly current codes and regulationsAt is irnportat to 3, tIMTb"IMI'lig COCUN Weir ill, place whzI, the ,art.als zmasa��a UMX, = jjuiw7Z tu IjnalizZ ILI0 zriZ UwLIOL� vyhtl ieliud oil tri"ic C�&&Anig COCIL;S 15 Z1 tllavuatY, IfUll VWJJV1 W415 Ilk -It NatLItled Wltb the UXiSdIlg CoueS dicy 511otild have ijUt 1jLnChwsCd in the tins tjface. I nv:1-_ wtiv wait tilt codc LAIwige Omi a.Lluply Call theli 6dC coolpally Zulu pul, a dued WNtriCt,1011 I.Ill Lft011"FOpal ly's Lo corn[Ay with the roposed new ordlnanc�.: o, any building restriction they want. Cit tn%l - -�L m -3t t9c: i-,ity cuu.cil cutilcl Uftzmg,' 4 onit'-'t to 0 a:, 1,71 vV rtu'l Of uOt tv Pv)-" the I'luW uldlilarlev. fam, trf'� MTV';tr!l;z�"ti1zIlA t ; VOW �'Irt -Lu,ip,s zuz cj;-,�ty zx cz, Y These pxoj�oz5�a �waz �, m,� 61 _U tV LaJUCtj LItrIeIVIlCe W;,th plj.""tc piij-pzrty L.'Lgtit.' Concerned resident, Slaw mate:. L- YL_ i< I, t. A7jff75;j: Lac; Oz�wc�v_ (JLU9rj1I SIS.: Print Nwne: thw: I- LaKe 0-,wtgo, U_ lr'gull EXHIBIT Gio LU I U -MU 111 November 30, 2010 131 fl 1V: iri;:, mvuzxlcu cUlu La k` Fiz, WvgO City CvLUIL`il Lakz -Jov Laku Qzswrgu, Oiugua !4704 a ep Subjuct-, L4kv Ozmtx-v rimjpaNed Land Use Regulation No. 2558File LU lq)-004u iji=-at Itis mz�Caien ancE i tiu5t it cknjuej tv-, t'Xas, zriz��-jjt MILS lvttcl a3 a 3uDinittal ut wtittucli. a n4uEA tu, noLice. t'rOpetty arid nOMe OWne.. h.x MC Lak,, arulr atc Q,v-laly COLICulnuct about thU liew p.i',JPVSCCI PIr9VC11), I.Cstricrtiult Ou ENUUGH iS f-.NUUkjI'i; I jjtu-%LL"" 1haL�AL,(I UU-UWUj-1,vpcfty M503 rui the uxi-.sting builaiu& Cedes. IL il., — UD14ij to vIlaIlgv d1ju11t. Lak-C 0,-,VVEgn has e knit well with U-XiSUIlg uodes not in spite of them. The, local mitioriLy, are trying to implement change by taking zmay priv4tc 7ig 1 t&5. Ync Inajority pre not pro active since there =s wb.7,14tziy xsio j.xueZ1 iu, a AaLigu vf 17K ii. A %.tiarigc . T — — 7- 13 V 1jA1LZ5Z51Dj7, U,�Z! wr pLupeM lf�el will anC&Aly afTuCt piuperty Vuluc be%.<Ziuzyu it F:iVZTZ Val -.y a 11611ti tu LCILIU&I Uj build it tlle5c itu-w COUaefflow7d, If tluz� Vit7pr7sal I Will IVUEY111tarLid tu all lffit�,IIWIZJ LO VptMl VO LhIO LaA WS'LI'MNSOF U11 their larld Value and LO PULM011 lower tax assessment value due to lower property value due to these, ,roposz-d ests ict'ons. f feel confident that th, k ; y X petopie ir, LaKe, -,/ O.,vcgT, rx] tnat it tnz-, IJACMVAIU�d 11011IA-, -Qvv.LMS iignt t--,., Ziv aS tnCy plCaNe with Lheii pilvate, ImTCI as afloyVed by Cullent viduZ5 allu tugulativils. It is illivOrtam to tuailze the oxistiii bUildilig Codes ovule III place when the partials were purchased andto penalize horn,and land own--rs who relied thC"Ye zxZks JS A trav%.Zjty. If= Z;VNJ37L "413 1L%A OZTtAafLi',(1 Wtn tnc C,A'st11xg CM,�. tnuy -,sfivul(l Mavu ic"Alsuaii?ceycCl L1. MZ7 LIA place'. i "nu yvz-mit mc uwa, ;n=,gi �-,uu 3&ILAFIV ;"all tli%-,;x tatz i-,M1x1Pt111y' tEnZI put ET IW 1'e5tTMGk,F1t 1Cnx ttkil PI UpUrtf ', tv koivjljply NNAII Ulu In -Vpusezl IX VV Of dllldhu of My UtI1,01 building scmuiCtimi they wzwu At till' varyryJ1,2051L Lhu ciLy MwtCil could HErM1g'C- ',I ballet LO a1JOW Lhe alTected citizens LO \40W as to whether or not to pass the new ordinance. -MTL;SF V1OjA)Nr,7 Q—GM VJIZMYJ : a drzza-ly Zi K,aC Ut CUJU Inueh GUVA--,IMIJVIIL LLIM1.1"Jultalec, with em"sfilig FT -1 Val"u- tIMPUI IY righty Ua V L 12 it N'u XX addresl-- Lay,,e ugcj. S I g1l. . — DaIe: V1 d LA Nauu::: Yiddress: Eal(f' OS v 7�6, 01 CF-Uxf i lu 1u-Uij4U 112 November 30, 2010 -A I IN: 1,;S MM. ffilcb UH(I Lake UbVVVgvY City OULUivil L,aki-- US"Cgm ficiTjillaq (-;V.LlLllLk8aLUII Laku Ubwrgo- (leg on 97034 Subject: Lake Oswego Proposea "xad ua� xi;SutnGuz,, iNu. z5A-sx, yilc LU 1 o-ou4o Duar hizi McCuleb and Those It Concerns Fluzmc al sept this luttei ;as a asubrnittdl of written request for rrojpL-fty mid W-31filu -%JVVJLlUI5 ill tn, Lf1 U U10VU10swego uiud are deeply conce,-.ed about tn,- 21rvv 1x4VJJV.;Vd )1311'aulce ou development. EiNyuk:lri t> iiNOUGft; I -Vul—Plupuay bazied URI d1r- existing buildi-g it ',5 L"'112ru to u1n1wige t1i I it. 1,-akk; Ubwugu huS doilu well with xisfing codes .,Lnt il, 3Fitc w tne,L4. itle loco 111illWiLy am trying to implement chang, tap taki I t _ 15 tT WaY- 1-nivatc Lights. Inc majority a -re not pro actve sxxijix th;;x, as aosuiutuny 1tv, iii -,w fc,)r �,-L'Zfizrtlge of cuUu:5. A chauge LLSL, ZA* jp%ZtY- I T -UI wd] 1331uctly atic7L lit oppity value because it restricts Pis vutc jarty,z� iignu to tcmudei v, t)M'id it those new uodres are allowed. If th*:i ,.uposal pubsvl �wDf tecuiruiiend to all neithosebors to1,,peal to tne td., a.�iu:3svl� vi, tnZn'laii(l Y?rlurz cuia to petit;on tax al—z5ox,tryxt du--- tv �7vvcl popurty vajc ;Tue tv these l-?tFJ Sed le.trictiu.,s. i fri Bizet tne LuajOilty of PUVPfe Ili Lake Gryvc/ 0swego ill it is tivullud'; V laual Duane ownul xi ht tu as as they please with their private land no erflvv,zd oy. Curl Cut Cozies mid re ul in, i�, important to �&K I�IZIS 1U OUIRIALIg CUCIC. WVITZ M place when the ,paA9s%PC, F;Z; C WlAnTld t3wifel"; vvhu il:4 ed Oil 6 wixi was aF-it' z4iud widi the cxlsl-ing codes they Sl1(140 tlavu 11r7t pUIL41WOCI Ili thetil-A place. 'I'hose who want thy. cay-. &;jLyiy %,a—u tri%�m titk:, CM I 1paay raid put a d-ue—d LU7tl;%A1w41 via Mull FL-UFKUVtv Culaply with thepluupusud itt:w aidalance or wother iy oth bull(Iijig iMiftriL;tion the), want, At the veq 11,10st the city council could arra-ge a oallot t(, allow tht affected Uitizzus to vow as co whether or not t.) pass tise .7 via.,=zck. J nv PI VPUZ�Vd ti,Udv chaugcs are Weat ly u uusu of Lou unuch 6-overarnent Hyterferenze , th UXANWIg privale! plopul-Ly rights "J Date. Ae taR,; oswc i -i- o' vguls Addres,s: Date N=C:: ,ALZid, %,az5.* Laku Usw-cgu. Uiugun EXHIBIT G-17 CU -1U-UV4U 113 November 30, 2010 A , YYN: Ins MuCalub stud Lake Oswego City Council Lakr City 0i 390 A Aveitau PO Box 369 Laict- us "ogU, u, Y u34 Sunje,t: Lake Os -T, eg-- rrwPOSW U.%,R*3 , UMM;rulatiun Nty. °9 58, F'R-v LU 10-0-940 Dear his McCaleb and Those It Concerns Please accept thio Inter as a submittal of written request for notice.. FlopciLy aUid house UVVIIUL-.s III dic Lake Urave./Oswego area aro deeply concerned abot the, new proposed property restriction ordinance on 'E'NOLA-IJ-1 J� ENUU(1H; I put ullusud ourproperty based on tliz z;x-;ti-g b,:,Id;t�r, it -1, unfair to change th ' ern. Laks Oswego has done alaITL'M cvd7g [IT'it Ili $Vltu W MOm, Mg Y ak 1,iolt-i"11C 'fika ivozai ,Li,,z;,Aty =-w ts.Y IL.I& U5 �lkqA6;x1IVLjX emery" Dy ttzK, Ili%Plit3LIAV-L tn y twe LIM P,U ti cic 1:5 ab;501utcly ntl u4cml t0i a & angU of curies. A changu III PullilizSIDIE Ust Ut pupulty- 1, I-vvi will diitxtly atruet pjupeny value because u resuicts i1vate party7N sights tv it-modUl m build it thr,.,u new codon are allowed. If this proposal passes I will rucuminund to all nuigfthor9to appeal to the tax assessor on their land Yzd.e a.3 to Fetifix.n lower tax assessment value du-- to In",zi pLut.,erty vwv,� cue tv- tn�.13�1 slkld w 'iU thUt iL I ret'l c'-UlIndmit tnat mu jjLlzrj'-Utlty -r -upir, .I, i-aRc 6-1- , cV U� Ugo f5c is thr "mchvidu-al huljlt� owitels LigItIt tu 30 a�i they vih their private; laird as sell by current codes and regulations. It is iiriWZe important to reali.the --xisting building codes were n — pja%x =L., thy. fie` "z, 1,r-, rased cx-ad t7%j n7i'liz aU.Lcl 1=0 uvvnzwls VVt1V 1.01-LXI Uhl tfiv'su, LAIS6AIF, C -Wes 45 a travesty. HaU UWuCk YVM IJUat!'Shed Vvim tilt CAlbling F.0des that' should hav(* unL j)ui-hasvE[ in the dist plax. Thosr, VN116 qk—,M1 want thz MUC CtimuL ,MILIta1 Ulzill t1u;;j title C0,11,P411Y Wict Pa knit Clued I ustt lut _1k LheIA Pf(jj)ttLY,S to C0111. Ali-- piupused tiew ordiriwicio or any other building, restriction they want- At the very most the city council z!ould arrange a ball,.t t.. ai ic, v, the arfected cit17ens t7, vote as to whzth,,* -W, "tst t�7 F"'S tnt i., r Yv cis. d L, jauce. These proposed'vode changes Lire clearly a case of too much Government interference, vNq'th existinprivate,prorights F) .,it N,�e,, Fiiiit d E, A-ad.ezry: i,ake Os,,,egz), txRU3h u --i8 LU 10-UU-4-U L -L—'-'—] 114 November 30, 2010 AI iN-W tris MUC alzt3 ana LU:,; UzJ ,vvcgv City t -,UL iZ11nz m L'axi� s"776�ks Y''1zui�zLJL WVL11dLLiJi1�fL3, 390 A Avi-,'uuc PO Hux -69 LaaKe Oswz7gf>, r: .a 97034 e &mi)irce L a ,s zrgiv Px,,VV sed Land Usz Regulation No. Le y Fife Etf wu Dear Ir;s l cCaleb and Those It Concerns PlcLse accept this letter as a atibrltittal vt vwl attun Ica. uMt Mi FlopeTty uud ilUuR! UwuULs ui tMw I-AKU 7rov/0a"%,6- area are deeply CouccineU at3viit till nUW J-710 ;U:,Ud j3tC pcit'y IcJuictivls vI(7.Ia,IQ1ijt.' Vu (1UY;71UFL1iCL1.t. .L,NUfJGH '1S ENOUG cudes. It sz unfair to cilia ge them. in 5P1te of thrL11. i rit im,w rninoLity are IrylIl�, tG9 iiil���il7eilt Cl3dzx�B �3y tt�CTii� away tavatc isgnt, Tha, trial rtrt xc e.tvt lsz�� �t tivc satl�c t11cic Ia �pS� lltu� Leo Pie%ij t?T C ante cit Cx au;a i. A cllcaamg4 ,r! ``permi3sible use o rC} Fty" 1 tccl wu.cll C1as ly t cti xvgrerij YOU(' 9P use if reAricts F1IVaI }.cLYM "3 ,Lg is tv Leilll? �`l of'E�UIId 1�tltCSC Ilevv 0 C5 cxs'e a�lvvv €vl 1I Ln�S I,,;5PoSal }�c35Sc y 1 wall, IUMIJ.1nul'a $v all -eig—nuu,3 tv appeal to the tax r.. ssm vast tt ru 1at41 v31u% zm+L to I ttat!s, t lower ��., a 5 5 Iticliz value tlxic tv avwe°I ptv],cr€y valLx due to these ry szcl re-StLxe,t of ,i 7. I feel confident that thv majority at ocuiple ip,Lake lixe`,,vc,./ U3Y gel feel that it 1s t$Ic tt:tLSa V 3C1iIdI $ti,uiC 'vwzLaa ia"ht ti, fIv as they please with ihuii pi iv3tc Wad zz eallu-r-Yoa Dy sur CIlf, c �tl a ctrrCl _ c4?ulcttl�Jal . d$ za axsxk,v?"laeL{ tv L��IL w tlAe eXiStlr�.yiliu lC—m(y cudes wcxc W place when the partials wCLU livactia. zU Mizi tc, l,cxxxlacw rima, C Ad larid owners wily idled vtx t cso exlit.t'za ;,odes is a travesty. I# tali iwa.soa vvzu) axvt sat;st zfl w,m tn, --xisting codas tWy as CrP lC1 rtav'z uk,t Ill xuhased in the first placu. Th,GSe Who want ChE code chwto—u Causslt S -Nn til ' tin, z,kni.,pally and put a Seed LK.St s.tcirT: Oki t kiL 11zC3gje1`ty'V To comply LIlC rupu-,,eU ur!w®tilLaxaiar. v^C any dither bolldi;• q lestxIctivai tI1Gy w uit. .,it tnuvz,ry most' e City council couldarrau8u a DMIM tv allow 6e, e"Tti 0�cd C1iJz't:1 ti to �'Iu e to vvji7 ex u, u A t.y pass the new ordi IiI.TIx. d lir slag x c777 7 jzmrs c,:, aoi ciuc xly h sz °.,I too much Govercxlxtvtaa AaaiCrtcicaxc'c YVLul ex..`li y livatu. Property gaas. A6r ss�,,e d —pp I. Swe ivy UM90n OaLc' I ai—,c, u3V° ego, Oregon EXH1B! I G-'1 LU "IU -040 115 November 30, 2010 AI I N: Iris MuUdlub und Lake Oswego City Coun,,Il Ld-K,L, k-)SvvegU FIZaTIM11g, ATJ A ANI'vnue FO MY,& 36Y C'fiyof L& t Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034+ T" Subject: Lake Oswego rropozieu L4*uU U . aE Hugul"ion Nva 2558, F;]v LU 10-0040 Vzw- Iris MrCaleb and Those It Concemq Ple=- axupt chis lema as a submidal of written reqa,,st Vi vvzrty wid hviuvvwncis in th--- Lake Grove/Oswego ama &,;z kicz,)iy- j-Lv-,a mulA thu iiuw proposed property restrictio.i oTd,*,..tC—&L,1%,%, -vu LNOGUH IS ENOWH- I purchased our property b -,cd (... lite zxistirar, t)u;j&,g cruris. it is U111air LU change them. Lake Oswego has doLj,_ VVJVV ] 'ttl ill �S'pitU Uf ihejll. Thc 1vcal. ..'a-Ifi,ty toy u% tV7 All Liji-�-ai.X-Flit Fntff1g7V-- byr taking away pl-iVULE righLS.The llUlAty �wL;.uwt piv aLrtivu nAu;7� Ulmc 4:, absvlutely 115.)uced fic)i a eb&- ange of codes, i -k cb tan, All "Pei, i m0istoh,- LISC Of F1 upulty— i rvci will airccctiy affeut roperry value neca-sc',t,est,*.ct75 Plivate party ii,--ps tuCC - UU1 or build if these new c passus I will recornme-nd to all neighb,,.,, tuftPI-P-ai W tnc tzT^--tSm5zx',)vl. Vil thus[ kulzI Valuu M13, Lv F%--tit1011 Ivy".11 taX aaS7,5.jitu-iit vUki,-� 141,- W %-,I PLUPCI LY N,alue duc Lu these propo&,d ogle in Lake Grove/ W,7g,, fel that at 'As thu individual hornu owners right to do as they }Neuss; ";tit tnei, I)ijv,Ltr Inniszm anuww ny current coae3 —ma It is ;u1F-VftzMt W iv-,alUlc the V"UM11 19Y builffing UU&S wulc if) plac%; vylarni the partials wuiz jYui%,ftziSzZ1 aTTU tv panutiz-c hame "U'13 laad owners who relied on these r-xibtillg codub is a uavc.sLy- It zuj. owner was not satisfied with the u,�'�3tjxig tnuy stmuld 11aVe 11UL purchased in the first place. 1, tin -Se who vyf-VlL thu UQCV, Change tsi minply call Lheir title company and pa a dezu 17C,ifftr,6011 tali LhCiY property's to comply YA.tb the propv;s;-,d z3e,,-Y (jLcii44mmu 01 avi�r kytMl' building restriction they ..ant. At M, _r) 4Axnst the c;ty rol.1.11cit c7yUja jfflj13;jn ,z ballot to tine,, the aftzt,a- _ALcais tr) e�zjtz az% tu- v,/n-V1tnzx ryi, uz),,L tv, Pasi the urw oidilildlICU. Phase propose d coda; changes are clearly a case of t% -Yo ti-jurn Gu YciiLills-,"t irlt to Iaiie z, VVItti existing private property ngntu twtsl I U-4 LU 10-0040 116 November 30, 2010 C A I I N: h Li MCCalet) uA Lac, Uz, wcgv City Gam iAk-v-' 3N A Aveam, PO Box 369011y Of LaK:r Uzsvv%=gG, Uregu.. Y /UJ4 SubjvUt: t-FdRu "z.iWUg—U rK UJJUN� 1.4uij Use Kicguiativu LN v,.z,,:s33 Fhv LU 10-0040 "e 1, ,, =a I D"3a, It Please accept this 1--tt-, --, a submittal of written request for isD�icc. UUw propusud propurty reStriCLI011 otdiiiamz till d-uVelupilleal, tNULTUM IS EANUU(jH* I puirnUSIUAI ULU'PLUpt.�MMI vat UJC%,Aj:5tiALg D"i.1ding codes. It is uufair to Change them. Lake Oswego has dFutie well with U."INtiag WdF� llf-CAIIL SpitV VT fne1ji. The weal .... no,ity arc, trying to implement change by taking away private lights. 1 -he !Jlz'� UL ity zire Uot F1 U ztl'ti VC soler ffici U is zibavl Uttzly llu lima I -VI M 6=r-, ;J codes. A change ill pCi-Ilussible use of pro e " I f',el Will Zjj I CUCly Utrct;t pi Uperty Value t)0Z-a"SC , it private? aqy 7 s right. tz; . - bu.ld,f these n.:.w codes are allowed, It thi-, pirViial 111 XV,v;UUAJU-�WJ U-1 an arVA T 1Dva3 tu ``-3'V peal tc; tric tax tu,aessor ox.L their land value and tui peativil towel LdA Z15=5NIllelit Vulur, due to lOWUl pluperty value duz tV tn=:50 - s -d restrictions. I feel confident that the majority ot people ill Lak-- ClOVU/ UNM;7gU tUV, WILt A 'S tri, nvutw nt t -" d- a.- they please w.th their private Imid a:., allowuEl by Cui I U1 it Ckjzrcz:� zu'17 'L it in,ilit"-izriLt tv 1catic tn7- c,'stin t)uildi"g codes were ill t IT� U l,Yvv,.Leis "nzj ;-,Iied on Place Wt1":11 she PM-LialN WCle PUJ%�114.Nr, Tallrt(I CY POW1112,U bottle Z these existing codes is a Lravescy. Ifuii uwjiri WUS LLULsUtisfizd Wath ttieL-,:Ai3tin- cvd-%.-, U.I.-Illy should have riot purchased in the first place. Z:� d 1'110 z who \,Vzult ttru- Code ';hzM9V- call aHllply C511 there Litlu Cualpalky ana put a 5�z res ' triction on their property's to comply with the proposed new rjidlllwlc� V1 kuly 7tnci budi'Llig lustrictiOn UICY Want. At tM VeTy-.,,;7:�t thc meaty c,",xcd could arrange a ball(YL LO Wl'jW the allectc-d eltizelm, LU VC)LU dZ, L(Y vyllUffirt ui uut AIQ DZC5Z; ttIC 11C" U171JILCUIC1- Trie5v In UyvzsCO C:V(li;; vIMgC5 ai � ClEaily a i-a.5C Ot tOOD iimi-,ri CT�M V;,L1 U Lient interference with CXlSt't1t9 Pliva� pruperty Figtius CU 1U-002FU 117 November 30, 2010 118 November 30, 2010 L'AK-L us EC373 C�w;�w-i„11910-201p COUNCIL REPORT o u: jack woffman, Mayor Members of the City Council Alex D. MClnLyre, City Planager FROM: Je„Ica Namanvglu_ Aaaociate Planner Planning & Builainr, Service.:- Department 3.2 CJI Y 01~ 'LAKE OS W L(jFJ 0 H /-hell ue PO Box 369 Lake Oswero, OR 97034 Dei-5��-��s� www.ci.oswugo.or.us 50tul!t.i: Study 57.Ssion on Proposed Economic wardship Extension tur 200/-2009 Land Use Approval (LU 1u-uu48) DATE: NovemBer 22 2010 ACTIUN Ni -j action 13 , «1uU3ted for this study session. INTROIU0CTIUN/t3ALKGRUUND I he Planning Diviaiun no.-.) been app, c;achUd by several applicants as well as the Oregon Hume Builders Aaaociatiun a5unt the pu33ibility of extending completion deadlines for land u.e application. tiled auring tME Eci-inumic Euvvnturn (zuui-2uuy). i he purpose of the exLeMian 15 to provide reliet to property uvvncra and a-velc;pers that received approval of their prajeas awing the Severe economic dovvntai n ana tightening of the credit markets and have Been anaBle to oBtain tinancing �-jr to otncrvviae commence or finalise their prajecUs in a timely manner. Several jai iaaiCtivna in u, eron and in otner StatE3 have adopted ordinances to extend the completion aCaalinea ter lana oae appri-jvala affectEd by the economic crisis. Staff propo�>e5 a similar ordinance to piuviae ea3vnaric and temporary relief to help mitigate the iMpdCLb of the economic downtorn. A public hearing on the proposed e4onamic hara3Fiip completion deaalirne ehtenJlVn vvaa heid BEfore the Planning Commission an NovemBer 8' 2010. Thi, report aammariz:aa tRe main i3suEs outlined in the staff repor< <u Lhe C;umriiia�ian. the tinainga ana recommenaatiun Zt the Commission, and the draft Ordinance as Bar-Rgioand for the diacuaaivn at the Council Study 5e33ion. A public hearing on the prop—used exLemi—un is acheaul'ca 11etul a the pity uzuncil on December 14, 2ui0. 119 November 30, 2010 Page z DISCUSSION Planninx Commi„ion 5tatt_Report I RE Octu5er z�), z0iu, ataTT report cu'nta n5 a 3,5cn55,un of the city's current development completion deadline, and e.temziun prmceaure5 for land use applications, a summary of the 52 land use cases potentially eligible for the extension, research of other jurisdictions that have passed similar ordinances aliuvving economic hardship extensions of completion deadlines, and a summary of issaes dnd uptiona for the t-ommission's consideration. The main issues outlined dnd di5cassea in the staff report are a5 Tulluvv,: • What time period should the completion deadline extension Be applied to and ,Roma application, within that LIME period thdt hdve diready expired Be eligiBie Tor the e,.tenaion r • now long should the extension be? 5h.—nld a blanket extension be enacted for all cases in the eligible time period or should the t„ainance permit extensions if they are reviewed on case -6y -case basis? IT reviewed on a case-by-case basis, should applicants be required to comply with d„y new code, dna standards adopted since their development permit was originally approved? PldnninK Commission Finding,, condnz-AUn,_and urder l he Commia,ion received pub is tc5tirmumy anq aullberated on the extension proposal at the November 8t” pabiic Hearing. witH mrara to tna main issues outlined in the staff report, the Commission made the Tollovvins Tin3ing5: i He commi„iun found that the extension should be available LO approved development pe, mits where the application for the development permit was tiled Between.ldnaary 1, zuui_ and Ducember 31, z -0j, whether or not the development permit hds already expired. i he commission found that the extension should be for a 2 --year period. i He currmrm6:,im–n found that the extension should be reviewed on a case-By-cdse Basis and that the burden should be on the applicant to demonstrate that the project anthoritea By the approved development permit is delayed as a resalt at adver,e marRet conaltion, or inability to aecare Tinandr1r, i he i,,ommission found that the applicant should not Be required to comply with new code, ana standards that have been adopted since the application for the development permit wa, uriginauy thea. The Commission concluded aria recommended to tRe city uucincil tHat a cne-time, z -year e,.tension to completion deadlines impoaea or inclaaea a, a condition OT apprZ-,val Az;uld be available to approved land ase applications that were Thea between January 1, zuui, and December 31, 2009, if they meet the criteria ana proceanrE, bciuvv: me city MunUgM n,uy, upon application, grant up to a two-yeur extenS/on to the Completion deudline ftiT a„ approved land use application that complies with oil of the fallowing Lr itei l'U.' however_ ir, nu CGac shall the completion deadline be extended beyond Uecerrrber 31, 2012: I. rhe applicant filed a written extension, opplicutiorr with applit-able fee no lffter then Mu, Ch 1, 2012• 120 November 30, 2010 Page 3 Z. I he app1;CC7nt ae,nv„�tr 17te3 that the worK aatnar Lel oy the lu„4 a3e upp, vvul 7' 3 UVTuyed u3 u e3[iIt C71 UZYverse ml!7,Ket Cvna;t;Un3 M ;ne7o;6ty, to 3eCarc fin atIC;1Ig; 3. ►ne e„te„3;on request is for an issued land use approval (whether expired or not) where the lana use application was filed between January 1, 2007 and December 31. 2009; una, 4. If the application for externs;on;s for o folia a;v;s;on or lvi l;rre naja3trnent opprovol. the UppliCC7rrt had prev;oasly f;lea a timely royQo�tfor the oatorrratrC 1-ye0r exterr3;o„ allvweape, LOC Review of the appliCativ„ 3na11 V17 ;v, tTie ,panne, p,ear,;Dea fv, mi„vr developments by Luc Articles 5U.81 —.50.84. (An enten3;vn par3rm"t to tn;3 vra;nance;s „ot a modification of a permit and therefore LO(- 50.85.0z5 ;3 not appl;cable to Me application.) Draft Ordinance 2563 A diatt ordinanCe inco,poratingthe Planning Commi33iun'3 recammCnaatian iz. pruviaea fo, the Council's review. ACI ERIQAI IVE5 AiQU F15l.AC IMPAC I Ido alternati. es are being recommended at this time as no deckian i5 being made. The extension recummended by the Commkion woald,Cga re ,tatt time to pro3 CC33 cacM application. A provided tur in the Mater FCC Sc5tfoalC a new tee Will Be p, opo -)Ca aria commuur lcatea to tMu Council In w, iting to ailuw upportunity to comment it the Council app, nvc3 an, n, ainance permitting the completion aeaar,ne> to, aCVeiupment pe, M -1t3 to rE e,.tenaea on a case -My -case basis. RECUMMEIvuAIIUN Staff supports the Planning Commission's recommendation. 1 he parpobe of the 3taay 3C»ion 13 to provide background informaLian to the Council and to engage in a p,Ciimi=nary d13CC133iUn ;,n ME prOpo3ea ordinance tar extenbion of completion deadlinC3 for development permit. p, for to tRe puRlic Rearing bcheaalea tur DecCm5ar 14 2u1u. Al IAI.I' MEly 15 1. Planning commission -)taff Report for LU 10-0048, dated OClaber 29. 2U10 (inclading exhibits (3-1_ G- 2, and G-3, submitted at the November $t” hcdring) 2. Planning Commission Findings, Conclabion. and Urde, to, 10 1u-uO48 3. Drag Ordinance 2563 121 November 30, 2010 pagz 4 Reviewed 6y: uepartrrme, it ity Mto Alex U. M nfi City Manager 122 November 30, 2010 APPLICANT: FILE NO: City at Lake Osw—ego LU it7-MzT8 PROPERTY OWNERS: STAFF: N/A Jessica Numanoglu, Associate rlanner LEGAL DESCRIPTION: DATE Mr REPO—KT: N/A October 29. 2010 COCH i SON: DATE OF HEARING: City --ids November 8 2010 COivir. rLAM ME31UMIA I IOM: ZONING DESIGNATION: N/A N/A NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION: RE VEST: All Extend development completion deadlI„es irmpc;3ed a3 a „dit;rM Ut appy ural tur issaGd lay id use decisions tiled beLweeI I January 1, 20ni and December 31, 2009, due to the econu,.„c dew„tar,,. I. APPLICANT'S REQUEST The City of Lake Osvvegc7 seek3 a z;,e tiu,c, tY„u year e%u„umic hardship exte, Psion to developmem completim, deadlines impaled as a condition at approval tar issued land use decisions filen bet,�ee„ January 1, /-0000/ and December 31, 2009. The extens;Z„ �vuald provide te,,,purary reliet to property z;wner3 and de„elcper3 that received approval at their projects darhig LFie severe economic downturn and tig5LMIiiig at the credit markets and who have been unable to obtain financing to C7tR,;rwi3e commence or finalize their pr�jccts im a tl,,,cly maiirmr. II. APPLICABLE CRITERIA an�rea:aiw�yua{ULMGIM VIV-1 11,74U- Geral 1 Gaal 2 Citizen hwulveme,,t, PollCie� 1 and 5 Land Use Planning, Secdan 1, Land Use Policies and Rz:salati�„3, Pulicie3 3 ana 23 rlanning Commission Public Rearing 1 LU 10-0048 NOVemF«-r R ?nin November 30, 2010 123 Y LOC 50.75.005 Leg13lative Decision Detinea. LOC 50.75.010 Cr;teria for legislative Decision EDDC n0. /5.015 Required Noticz tu DLCD LOC 50.75.020 Planning Commission Recommendation Required LOC 50.75.025 City Coancil Review and Decision LOC 50.75.030 W7=t;v7 Dote z;f L'cg;alative Dez:Won C. Statewlae Planning coal or Hdministrative Rule aaz;tea a- want to ORS Chapter 197 Goal 1 Citicerr Involvement uaal z rand Use Plannilig IIL SUMMARY Land sae approval. for aesign review and variance applications typically contain a cond;ti.,r, 7,T approval that provides that the approval will expire three yea. 3 after the dec;3ion nate; land oae approvals for land d;vi3ic;.3 and In line aajt,3trrments enpire one year after the decision date, as provided by LOC 50.87.010, The Planning Division has been approached by several applicants a3 vveli as the Huurriel5u;lder ) Hssociation about the possibiiity of e„tenai .g cumptetit,n deadline., Tor Iona sae applicauulis filed daring the econor�ric dovvntuwn (approximately 2007-2009). Many applicants that received lana ase approval3 do, Ing that time period have suffered serious economic haraahip doe to the cr ash in the huasing market and/z;r are unable tz; .,bta;n financing to cor�rmence or firralice their projects before the expiration date of their appruval. Since a comaderable amuont of resources, including time dna rnulley 13 inve3ted in a project before ground is even broken j5epend;ng o;, the projuct, th13 could inclade preparation of aichitEctnral aravv;ng3, technical reports such as drainage arra soils reports, site design, planning consultant_ etc.)_ applicants could suffer significant losses iTtftii Piuject3 expire. Several jar isdict;ons in Oregon and in other states have adopted ordinances to cxtumcl the dcaCilirre3 for completion of land ase approvals affected by the ezznm„,ic 7, 1a13. Staft proposes a similar ordinance to provide rea3.,nable and temporary relief to help Mitigate the impacts of the economic downturn. Following is a d;scnssi�;n .,f the City-:, sur. Ent development completion 8eaalines and extension procedures fur lana ase applications, a sammary of affected [arid use cases, research of otMz:r jurisdictions that have passed similar ordinances allo.A.g ecumomic harp)hip extensions_ dna a sammary of i33ae3 aria options for the Commission's consideration. a. expiration and Extension or land Usc AppEcat ons Land ase approvals typically expire three years art; --r tMZ! 37ci3ivn sate f7jr aEaign r eview, vat ianLe aria RID appli4ation3 [ccndition3 of approval, per LOC 50.79,040(2)(a)] and one year after the decision date tor land divisions and lot line adjustments [LOC 50.87.010. If th—_ p. z;je:,t i3 not constructed or the plat is not snbmittz:a vvithin these time fr arnea, the applicant rrruat apply tar an extEl 1310n „r the approval ;a vo;d. Table 1_ below, )Ummarices the completion deadlines and extension) currently allowed by Code. Planning Commission Puriiic Rearing 124ovember 8, c00 LU 10-0048 November 30, 2010 e able 1: Summary of Expiration and Extensi-,-,s by Appiicativ-i Type Application Type Typical Expiration Time Ner:oe t:-ten.ion Allowed? Cost for First Extension Addidional Exdensions Allowed? COsd For Addidional Extensions Yes; 50 reviewed by (ministerial) the 54,447 ap,,rovins (major One year from res; audomaLiC 1 -yr aezno-;ty Tor rn zc ificat onp Land dale of final exdension if conformance $l,4yt Divisions/Lot approval requesded in wriding wish current (minor Line Adjustments (LOC 50.87.010) (LOC 50.87.010) None standards modification) Three years $4,z;zrr from date of (major final approval 54,447 (major Yes_ by filing modificadion) (Condition of Yes, by filin6 a modification) another $1,492 Design Re-.iew apero-�al, per modification 51,492 (minor modification (minor /Rio/Variance _Z.ry.040(t)(a)). ppiicat;on modification) application modification) Extensions for design review and variance approvals are only available by requesting a Modification to an Approved Developmemt Pz:rmit. The criteria in LOC 50.86.025, below, determine w5etFier the request is a "minor" or "major" modification: The City Mminguvv"try erppvnve minnv chmige5 irr 17„y development perrrrit provided thUt.Surh rharrge: 1. Does rrat itis, ease the irrterr5ity of urry me Of the density of residvrrl.ir7l USE; and 2. Meets all requirerrnents of rhe development standards and other legul riequir-rr„ent,; u,,d, 3. DCe, not Signifir[rntly erffrrt ether prMperty yr a3e5; will not caa5e urry deterlart7titA1 yr 1055 of Urry nUtarUl f2Utt7re, prar255 Of aperr 5paCE' nor Significantly affecr any public facility; and z;. uaes riot affect any condition specifically Nlacrd or, the developme>7t by uctior, of a hearing bu8y ov City Council. Any proposca chan6e that doe3 not meet oire or nrore of tFie criteria, abuvc, is considered a major moditication and is reviewed as a new application. Became the timeframe in which the land ase approval expires is almost always included as a z!omdition of approvai for laird ase applicatio�r3, any extension requEst for an application that vvas approved by a hearing body would automatically 5e prore55ea a5 a major moditicatian because criterion zT, above, would not be met. For land aivi5ion5 and lot line aajastmCntS, a one-year extension may be granted aatamatically tB the applicant if requested in writing within one year of tMe application approval date. Any additional extcn317,n rcquest3 beyond the first year are reviewea by the original approving authority [LOC 50.87.010(1)]. if new rode5 or standards were adopted after the application was approved and they affect the prz;ject-s compliamce „vitn the Zurrent 3tanaara3, the adaitiunal extension request rrna5t be processed a5 a Modification to an Appr-uvea DevelopMeenc Permit (see di5ca55ion, above). Bath minor acrd major modifications are procc5.,ea ay a minor development, which is the same or similar process, timeline, and in some cases, cost, as the original application. Rochart3 illn3trating tfic proce35 timeline for moditication applications reviewed administratively and by a hearing body are inclaaed in Exhibit F-3. Generally, modifications take aboat .5-4 months to Planning Commission Public Hearing 3 Lu 173-117ira Novenmg-r n. lnju, 125 November 30, 2010 price„ it ,a appeal i, tiled. (Carreildy Lhe application tee for a major modification is $4,447 ana is $1.zTyL for a minor modification.) The Lime money. and ettorL required Lo request an extension through the modirication prn7U33 i3 a barrier to many applicant3 that Piave alrcaay experienced economic hard.3hip a, a re,ult at tFie rece53iu. i. CorripIction 'aeaali E3 for land u5E applications are impc,ed to en,am LhaL developmenL is completed or col lsLracLed wiLhin a reasonable time period after 4 is approved. It gives doth tele applicant and tMe public a clear expectation of the time -frame for completio... A typical la..a a,e developme. t propo3al may taKE 6-12 mo..th, to complete from LFu initial planning phase Lo applicaLiOli approval and applicants are given up to three years after receivin6 approval to complete or con3truct tRz:1r vro;Ect3. A3 a re3ult, trye actual develop..ent may not be %on,Lra4Led Tor 3-4 year, tram the initial inception. AddidUllally. if new codes or standards are adopted in the Lime period after the land use application is submitted to tk: City a..5 trye completio., deadline, tRu neve code Aa..aar33 are not applicable to tre project. rlisturicaliy, tpe completion deadlines for land n37 appruvals Have give„ applicant, ,nfficiei it time to complete their project, and it Ra, seen vela Lively anasaal tar an applicanL Lo apply far a rnaditication in order w get an exLension. However, the recession Pia3 6roagMt development to a near Stand All ana many projects approved ,ince the economic duwnLar,i occurred have expired or will expire 6etum Lhe economy recover,. The praposed extension would increase the completion deadline for eligible applications My t—n additional year3. The Corrmrrmi„ia� � mn,t con,ider wMEther the carrier, tar applicant, impacLed By Lhe economic downtarn aatweign Lhe pablic's interest in Lhe Limely compledUll of approved development and wl"Inn7rthE Eligible applications Aould comply witR new vacs and sta..dara, that have been adopted sine Lheir origin gal ,abmittal date. TFie,e i„ne, are di,cas,ed in more detail ander subsection d, below. 13. ATTacted Land Use App. ovals (2007-2009) i able 2, below, summari=es tMz: status ur land n5F ca3c3 filed betwec.. 2007-2009. A Lvtal at 21 case, approved dariiig tho,e year, have already expired and a Lural of sl cases are still active. Table 2: Summary ut Lana USC CaSC ®ata 2007-200A Year Total number of approved LU cases with expiration dates . oLal number of LU cases completed laumner Of LU cases mat nave Expired (as of X17- 3-10) MumBer of LU cases ziei io Expire 2007 85 61(71%) 1L 1Z 2008 5z -1 / (/.L7'.) / 8 2009 37 24(65%) 2 11 notal of all yrs. L/4 I 14L (7U%) L1 (lZ%) 31(18%) rianning 4ommissio,. Peglic 4 LU 10-0048 126uvembur 0, t010 November 30, 2010 A tall HA of all the 2007-2009 cases LhaL have expired or are set to expire is incluaea in ExhiMit F-1. A total ut 17 Cases will Expire ove, the next year. They Consist ut 11 oaL of Lye 12 unexpired Cases tram 2007 and tive of Lhle eight unexpired cases from 2008. For 2009, 10 UT the 11 a..expimcl ca3e3 will expire mia-2012 z;r late.. Because Lhis proposal is being brought to the Comm 3s;z;n late in the year (moat ut the other Ju. isdictiu.. that vvc. F 3tadiea pa35Ea thei, ordii rances late in 2009 or mid -2010), 21 applications app, oved between 2007-2009 have aiready expired. r he Commission shoula consiaer v.nz:thz:r any economic hardship extension shoula Mc provided to these expired applications a, well. C. ResearcFi of 01.11her Jurisdictions Statt . esearcnEd or dinances ti om seven jarkaictions in 11regon and Washington that have granted exLensions for land use cases approved during the ezz; o..iC auvv. itar,. A va.lety of approaches we. z: taken 6y caCH jarisaictiu.., which 15 5ammari4ed in EA5i6it F-2. ,)ome jurisdictions, including the City 77 Pm tland and Wa,hingtun County, gr anted blanket exter-15ion5 tui all la. ia a,e Ca,c, that were approved or are SEL Lo expire within a specified time per iod. OLher jarisdiCLions req aire applicants to apply M. thz 3peCi3l cxtcn3ii,n u.. a case-by-,as'c Has�3 and to meet Certain c, itc.la. The aava..tage at OF! for mer approach is char IL requires no etto, t by applicant, and avoid, Lhe poLendal for an influx of extension requests that Could Strain staff's ability to process the appiicatiz;n3 in a timely manner. The latter appruaCh limit, the applicativns eligible for the Cxten,ion to appliCanLs LhaL apply for Lhe extension and meet specific CriLerId. Among tPe jai kZIctions that. wee e reviewed, the land ase Cases eligible for the economic haraship extension ranged from any approvals that has nut yet e.,pirea as ut the Ettective date ut the ., airiance alluvving the e„ten5ion (this Gould irrClade prajects approved pre -2007) thruagh to the errd at 2009. MU -',L commonly, jarisdiCLions allowed extensions for appliCati�-,n3 appruved bctvvcc.. 2007-2009. Issues for Consideration 1. WHat time period !,Huuld the extension be applied to and sho.la applic.atia..s vvithin tHat time period that have alruady uAtjirud be aligiroie fur the cxtcraiuiie gar isdiCLions Lhat were reviewed by staff most CImn9G .ly allUwea extensiUns fu. appk3t 73n, appruvud between 2007-2009 and 5peC.itied that the extension only applied Lo Lhose applications that had noL already expired as of Lhe effective date of the z;r5inanz:7. Si6Ce MmA of the land use applications appruvea Hy the City in 2006 wuala have expired by the end of 2009, ana the economic r eCession was officially declared Lo have began in December 2001 and enLered in Lo a slow recovery in Jane 20091, staff recummend3 the time peri"d betvveen January 1, 2007 ana Dm:ccmncr 31, 2009, a3 the tiling date, eligible for the proposed Cxten,iun. Mmit z;t the j,.635ictiu..3 .evievvea by 3tatf pa„ed their extension ordinances in late 2009 or by mid -2010. Since this proposal is being presenLed to the Commission late in 2010, a total „t ' Business Cycle Daring COmmittee, waLional oureau of economic Kesearcn, I'lttp://-- -..nber.org/circles/sept2010,htmI (September 20, 2010). Planning Commission vul3lic Reur;n6 5 LU L0-0vwa November o, pole 127 November 30, 2010 21 lana ase applications in the proposes elisibility p7ri-U3 nave alrt�aay 7Apired. BeCome the purpose E;f the EAtensivn i5 W p,ovide temporary relief to applicants hit the hardest by the econor„ic , ecession_ -,raft recommends those applications that nave already cApi, ed to be incladed as well, with the exz:epti�n ff ce,tain eApired land aivi-,ion a„d lot line adjastment applications. Land division ana Int line a3ja3tment application-, have one "aatumatic" extension that allows the applica„t an aaditio„dl yedr simply By regae.sting the extension in vvriting [LOC 50.87.010(1)]. If an applicant never mane thi3 nAtz!m:mm, rE7ga,:5t aria allowed the application tc; eAF,ir�, It implies that they ncvC, intended to tolluw through with the application since this eAten-,ion regaires very little effort at no cost to the applicant. Only tnobe lana aivi5ivn ana lot line adjustment applications that receivud the tir5t e,tten-,ion -,hoala Be eligiBle for the p, UpU5e3 entcnsivn. Staff Recomrnenaati;,n: Tne proposed eAten-,ion -,houla apply to lana ase applications filed betwcee„ January 1. 2007 and DecernBer 31, 200y. Npplications apprz;vc'a Gari„g tR: time period that have already expired should b-, z!ligibl7 fir thz7 7Atcn-,ion cAcept for lana division and Iut ling adjustment application-, that did not receive the one-year extension allovvea parbaant tv LOC 50.87.010(1). 2. Huvv iong ahuald the Wemiu,r be? M-_stjuri33i:.ti;-,n3 that vve,e reviewed g, anted eirher a one or two year extension to the original Completion deadline or to the modifies deadline it a„ 1_:;:AtCn3iVn was p, cvivu-,ly granted. Given that the economy has been very slow to rebz;una tram the recc-,5io„ staff i� recommenains a two year enten-,ion. Staff finds that the Barden faced by applicants that received approval aur i„g the economic downtarn outweighs the pol5lic- 3 EApEctation that projects be completed within the avvrvvE3 cumplctivn ticadli„c-,. Aaai,rg two years to the eligible completion deadline-, Would not Have a significant impact since there is already n spread of 3-4 years between the inception ana :.z;rnpl7ti;,n of a project and modifying that time -frame t-- 5-6 year3 fnr a llmitctl mumBe, of appiicatlUn-, is not a significai,t change. Staff Recommendation: The length UT the proposes e,,ten-,ion shoals be two years trorn the original czmpleti7,n aeaaG„e or to tre Modified deadline if an extension was previously gra„tea. 3. Blaii-SEt entcnsion or cube bV case review? M--st z;f the jurisaiction5 that were , uviewCa regair ea applicants to sabmit an application z -,r regaest for the additional extension and to meet certain -', A'zria. The main i55ae in these jurisdictions was whether a„y coac ama„5ment5 had been ddoptea since the application was originally appruvca and Whether the apprUval complied with or could comply vvith the neve code regalations. Both Ou City ut Portland and Washington County approved blanket entej,3ii,n3 tRat aia not regaire any additional process, application, z;, tee. The main issue fo, Ldke Oswego is that the "infill' stanaaras that —zar', adopted in Jely 2010 (ordinance c5/-4) modifies or aaaea ncvv , Fgalatiu i5 to the Community Development Code Piannin6 Commission Public Hearinr, 6 [U 10-0048 128 overrroer 6, zDA November 30, 2010 (Chapter 50), including flag lot requirements, residential Sit,, dz7veiopme,it and du,ig„ stan5ard3, dna tMz: clas3iricati7,n of variance,. These ameArnents potentially attect a number of the applications that would be eligible tut the extension. If a biankEt exten3ion we, a granted, eligible applicanw would be permitted to construct the BevClopment per the urigindl approval regardless of whethe, it complied vvith the new standards. This is the simplest app,--ach fm both the applica„t and the City ,ince rru additional pi ocu33ing of , eview would be neieaaai y. If eAtension3 vvcrc g,anted rim a ca3E-by-ca,e ba,i,, applicants would be required to either file a written regae,t o, all application for the extension, which would be reviewed for compliance with certain criteria. This app,-�ach vv-Uula ,cquirc more etturt to, the dpplica,rt anp the City to p,'vcc33, but it would allow a higher level of discretion in granting extensions. Below is a compilatizn --T variw--us c, its, is the Studied je, IAictions applied to extension I Uq'ue,t,: The ur;g;nat app, w;ng a-uthvr;ty,r,Cry, r7pDrr written request (or uppliCutiurr) by the appl;Larrt grant a .Single two year extension to the Comptetior, aeual;ne3 fa, apprvvea land use applications that Co,,,pty vvith alt of the fv1ivw;„g L„teria: 1. The applicant files a written extension vegarut vv;th uppG able fee nu Tater than March 1, 2012, 2. The exten3lu r request rnclades a sworn declaration that the work aathurizea by Me land use approval will be delayed a3 a re5a7t of aave,se ,,,a,ket =vnditiarrs or inability to secure finunCing; 3. The Lade requirerneut5 applicable to the development have not chungep 37noi the orig;nul appruvul. If rga;rrne„t3 nave rhanguZY art exten,;un may be gr anted p, v vOed: a. rhe applicant agrees to CUmtj7y vv;th any „evv vegr7n ernent3, a, A c.Dndition of the exte„3iun; a„d, b. Any changes made in order to comply vv;th the ncvv r�ga7rc,,,ent5 da nut re3a7t in u greater imppct to Sar, oandi,rg properties th❑n the orig;rral appravol os deterrrrined by the applicable criteria of the or;yinal upprovol. 4. The exten3;v„ regae3t1a fvr an i„aec7 /arid a e upprovul appruved between January 1 2007 of December 31 200y. Staff , ecommends granting a blanket EAten,ion because the code amendments passed earlier in 2010 may significantly complicate the review p. Ices, and Severely , e3t, ict which application:, gNSHTy Tor th7 z7.tz7mmnn. Tile pu, pusC of g, anting the extension I, to provide temporary and reasonable reliet to applicants who received approvai --r vverc i,, th7 p,ucuuz; ut receiving approval when the severe econ7amic dovv„tern occur, ed. Becaase the I, mill O, ainance enacted a number at change, that dttect site development, dwelling design, and or ientdtiun and access for tiag lots, it i5 likely that a nambu, uf applizamt3 vvill „ot be able to comply with the new standa, ds vvithc;ut impacting the app, caved design and/or conditions of approval. Fu, enample, in the raze of RID and vdr ianee applications, the new standards may Lduse expensive design changes or loss of functionality tz; approved development that was already TZ;.nd tz; b�- nth7rvvi3z7 compatible and/or not mate, ially i,rjarioa, to the barroanding neig5burhood. In weighing the impact of re -designing projects to meet tMe „evv sta„dare,, Planning Commi33i7,n Public Hearins 7 [M 17-MMZTs iGotiemEler is. zU.LM 129 November 30, 2010 staff finds that the overall neighborhood impact would not be significant, c�;mpa. za to tME financial effect upon the aNpIicant to .hake changes to the design or lotting pattern. It the Commission prefers the Case—My-case al pronch, Staff recu...mend3 that the application i3 prm-c3se3 a3 a miinor developr�.ent Subject to public moth e anq appeal and sabjECL to the , iiie or dmilai Cr iter is IISLed above. Staff REcom.i.cndatiorl: A blanket two ycdr extension for Idnd ase applications approved between Janaary 1, 2007 and Der -ember .5-L, /-009. Bacausc there are a numbrr of iaaara for the Commdssiun to consider regarding the proposed economic hardship extension, staff has outlined various decision option3, buluvv. Staff will d. aft an 0. ainance ba..ed z;n the Com ... ;33ion-S delibe. ation anq p. alimina.y deLialon. 'vpxion is Allow a blanket, one time, two year economic ha. d5hip Uxtenaion to iaau'cCl land Qac deci3ion5 tiled between Janaary 1, 2007 and Drcerrrber 31. 2009. No additional process, application, or fee is required for this extension. Optiun 2: Allow a orre time. two year ewnor—mc Hardship extension to issued land use decisions files between January 1, 2007 and December 31, 2009, Subject to the follow p. ocequ. e5 and z:. ite. ia: TnT Original apprvvr ,q authur-Ity may, ap'vrr wr;tterl applirativn by the uppl;cullt gram( Q a;ng/e twv yeut 2xterlslvn to the completion deudllnes, including any extensions previously granted for approved lana u3� a,,t,l;cutr'7,n3 that r,,,ply vvith all of the c, rte, iu, GtrU nelvvv. 7Tie upplirutivn ahull br p, vc8a. EO as a Minor Developrrlent. 1. The applicantTiles a written uxtens;v„ request w;tn applicuble fee rlv late/ thud Mulch 1 2012• 2. rhe exrerlsiorl request includes a sworn aealarat;un tnut tnc vvc;rk rmtna,;/ed by the /urTU CSE upprovul vv;il be acluyFU u5 a result of u7ver5e murket conditions or inability to Se1717re firluricirlg.• 3. The code requirements ar,ph"cavi. to the development have nvt cha,rgud ai,lee the or iginul app, oval. if requiiernum—N huve r huuged an extension may be granted provided: a. Tne aNNlruant ugrees to rn,,,ply w;tl7 uny few ,uqurrrnlenu ua v La11i7rL1orl of the exterl5ivn_ arid. b. Any changes made in oria�r to eumpiy vvitT! the neve , c:qai, ernc"ta do riot r c317lt in u greater adveraC impact tv aarrvur0irrg properties than the originu/ upprDval as determined by the apvlicawl . riteria of the urigi„al u,,,,raval. 4. The extena;vll 1 equea t 1.14o, un issued lured ase decision filed between January 1, znai and uecember s1, z009. Optiun 3: Decline to adopt the proposed economic hardship extension for issues land u3u decmUma filed between January 1, 2007 anis Dece... be. 31, 2009. Fm applications that have not expired yet, trie applicants may aae the %ar rent extension pruLe5s as provided for by the Corrrnranity Development Code. Optiun 4: Otner options, as deter rained by the Commission. Piannins Commission Public Wearing S LO 10-O748 130ovemeer n. /-010 November 30, 2010 IV. APPLICABLE APPROvAL CRI i ERIN LAKE OSWEGO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN goal it Citizen involvement 1. P, v�;de oppo, tunrtre3 fu, c t;'e„ pa, ti6put;Cn ;n prep[lrrrrg and ,evr,nrg local land a,e plans and or die rC7nre,. 5. Seek ritiLerl input through,ervice org[7nicatlorrs, inreresr groups, and individuals, as well as through neighborhood associations. Findings: Pu 5uant to the I'cq'uii el Ent3 cit a legi,lative process, announcement, for Lhe pr oposed eronormc hara,hip exten,ion Have been provided to all neighborhood associations and affect�-a agencies. Additionally, notices wc. a rnailea t�; all applicants that tiled lana n. -,E application.., 6etweCll 2007-2009. Public heal ing, will be held betul IF rhe Planning Commission and city council. Citizens, interest groups, and neighbor Flood associations will have an opportunity to participate in the rEvicw or the pi OpU3e3 V;„ ten3i7,n dm ing tME City's pn5lic heal ing prrjre„C,. Notice Ila, Been provided consistent with City req-uireliremt -. Adegaate opportanides have Been made available for citizen involvement with regard to this application. Conclusion: i he application complies with Eake Oswego Comprehen3ive Plan Goai 1. Gaol 2, Lana Use Planning z3. Coordinate the development and amendment or C;ty Plun3 err,d mrt;o„5, elates to lo„d u,e w;th i7the, cuRnty, state, Met, o, fede, ul uge„cy and ,perial disc, ice plans. Findings: Policy 23 was adaressed ander Goal 1, Citizen involvement Policies 1 ana 5, abo„,-. Conclw,ion: Propo,ed changes contarm to rake Oswego Comprehensive Plan Goal 2. LAKE OSWEGO DEVELOPMENT CODE PROCEDURAL REQUIREMEN i S LOC 50.75.005 Legislative Deci,iams DCtinea LOC 50.75.1505 Cr iter is for a regislative Decision LOC 50.75.015 Rcgm. ca Nc;ti..E tc; DLCD LOC 50.75.020 Planni,lg Cummi„ion Recor►rrnendation Required LOC :)O.i:).UcD City Council Review ana DE,i3iz;n The Ciry has contuir—ned to all procedural requirements, evidence of which is contained in the , ecord. OREGON STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS StatgyJ8E Planning Gual 1, CitiLm. InylJIyETEnt Statewiae Planning Goal 1 IEgai, e,jar i,airtiorl, to develop a citizen involvement program that allows re,idents to be involved in all phases of the planning p.m:e33. The City a,knwvleagEa Cc;IlprehE, Sive Plan ana Cummunity DcvElVpmumt Cude cc;mtaill the nece„aly rEgairEmEnt, Mi a Citi4TH involvement program. The Cade defines pablit, notification requirements, and all of the required notification measures were met for this application. This applizat1cm i5 in z:rmpliance with Statewiae Planning Gaal 1. Plannin6 Commission Public Hearinr, 9 EM M -;,;,era N0 a-6cF M. zoic 131 November 30, 2010 Statewide Planning Goal 2, Lana Use Planning Thi, Goal regaire,jari,aiction, to aCvelop a Id,0 a,C planning process and policy framework as d basis for all decisions and dcLionh reldLed Lo Lhe use of Me land ana to a,sure a,, adequate factual ba5I5 Tor Such 3eci5ian5 ana actlan5. This application provide, the regairea intormation and re,poir,C, to Lhe applicable approval ,tanaard, for Lhe propo,dl and Lheretore is consistent with-tatewide Fldnning coal L. V. CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION StaTT Tip a, that LU 10-0048, a one-time, two year CxLension of development complELion deddlines for issued land ase decisions filed beLween January 1, 2007 and December 31, 2009, cm.form3 to all ap pl—able criteria. Staff recommends the Commission adopt Option 1 to allnw a MianRet, o ie tirmE, two year ELo, orrnic haraAip extension to i55aea lana ase deLi,ion, filed between Jai nary 1, 2007 and DeL.ember 31. 2009. No addidUridl process. applicdLion, or tee would beregaired for this extension. E&RI'al s S A. DrafL Ordindnee5 [No carrent exhibits: reserved far fa Lure use] B. Findings and Cuiiclabjuii5 [No current exhibits: reserved for faLare ase] C. Min'utc. [Nu current cnhibit5; re5crviF5 for tuture 'u,e] U. Staff Memoranda/Reports [No current exhiMits, re5cr,.ca for future a5ei E. Graphics [No current exhibits: reserved for faLare use] F. Written Materials F-1 Table of 2007-2009 Cases Expired or Set to Expirz by Year F-2 Tabic of Economia Hardship Extensions Approved by oLherJuri5dirUuns F-3 Flow ChdrLs of Lhe iviodificdLlon Lo and Hpproved Development Permit Pro,u3s G. Lette, 5 ivone Planning Cw missi„n Public Hearing 10 LU 10-0048 132 o;emF)er 6, 2010 November 30, 2010 Llat UT ZUUI-ZUUy LU C:aae� EApirua or but to tANire by Year 2007 Application Type Expi,atiun Date LU 07-0041 Partition and DR Expires 4-7-11 LU 07-0058 LLA EAdid to 9-6-11 LU 07-0090 5ubdMjiuniduG,uatiun Entcndcd tv 2-2-11 LU 07-0068 PD EAtF, idcd t� 10-15-10 L.0 07-0074 RID Expires 12-7-10 LU 07-0064 RID Expirsz5 2-29-11 LU 07-0031 DR Expires 4-21-12 LU 07-0011 Partitio, a. id Variance Extci idcd to 4-30-11 LU 07-0087 Partitlui i Extu chid to 4-17-11 LU 07-0044 DR Expirus i 1 -5- 10 LU Or -Our i DR Expires 3-1 t- i i CU rIf-008ZF PD Extended to 11-3-10 CU O r -0023 Ciass i Variance Expired 10-2-10 LU 07-0024 Class 1 Variance Expir.d 10-2-10 Lu 07-0036 Claz53 1 Varian- Expi, td 9-27-10 Lu 07-0050 Partitiu & Dulinuatiu Expired 2-11-10 Lu 07-0063 Partitiun Expired 9-13-08 Lu 07-0095 Partitic; , Expired 2-25-09 LU 07-0002 Class 1 Variai.cc Expired 3=22-10 LU 07-0018 Class 1 Variance Expired 6-8-10 LU 07-0032 LLA Expired 8-15-08 LU 07-0001 DR Expired 6-18-10 LU Or -003r PD Expired 10-5-vo LU 07-0040 1 DR Expired o-7-10 PD = Planned Develovment un = Design Reziew LLA= LOC Line HLijust nlent RID= Residendal infill Design Review txRIBII F-1 Page i Of s LU 10-0048 3 u November 30, 2010 133 2008 Applicat;on Type E.,p;. at;un Data LU Ou-0011 ParLhiurf Extended to 12-30-10 LU 'u8 -171I7 izr uR Expires 7-21-11 LU 08-0050 Class i variance Expire 1-29-12 LU 08-0057 PD & Delineation Expir-ci 1-4-11 LU 08-0066 Partition EA -I did to 6-10-11 LU 08-0072 DR Ewpires 5-8-12 LU 08-0074 Pmtitic;n Entcndud tc; 3-4-11 LU 08-0076 Class 1 Variaiwc EApires 3-3-12 LU 08-0021 Pa.titimn Extended tc 10-3-10 LU 08-0022 Partition Expired 9-16-10is LU 08-0003 Partition Expired 4-25-10 LU 08-0004 PD & Dulineatiun Expired 6-2-09 LU 08-0027 LLA Expired u -19-1u LU 08-0032 Parutiun Expired 1-11-10 LU Partition Expired 10-29.09 2009 Application Type= E..piratiV11 Date LU 09-0006 Variance/RP reductions r-xpires i- 5- 13 LU 05-0005 Class i Variance Expires 1-8-13 LU 09-0011 Class 2 Variance Expires 7-7-12 LU 09-0002 Class 2 Variance EApirE3 5-18-12 LU 09-0016 DR Expiras 5-21-12 LU 09-0042 ulazis 1 Variein7--� Expiras 2-5-13 LU 09-0041 LLA Expires 12-28-10 LU 09-0013 Class 1 VariamrE Expires 5-26-12 LU 09-0035 DR Expires 4-5-14 LU 09-0021 LLA/Delinuation LLA Plan submitted LU 09-0039 DR Still pending approval LU 09-0024 LLA Expired 9-8-10 LU 09-0030 Resuarce Enhancement Expired 10 PD = Planned Development DR = Desirn Review LLA= Lot Line Adjustment RID= Residential Infill Desitin Review 134 Pa5� 2 „T 3 November 30, 2010 summary Ucita TM zu0t-1UUy CU C:azet, Expi�ua or Set to Expire Year Numbrr Vf Number Of Cass Lh4L have Number of NamDer of Caaua sut to ah wady ...pired DR/VAR Land expire cases set to divisionlLLA expire Cases set to Uxpi. U 2007 12 12 (7 DR/VAR) 6 6 2008 8 7 (ail land di,isi,,n;5/LLA) 3 5 2009 11 2 LLA, Re�uaf ue Enhance 9 Total Vf all yea,5 31 21 18 13 Page 3 of 3 135 November 30, 2010 136 November 30, 2010 Table 3: E-unumi` HardSh'p EatenAun5 Apprvvod by other 10rna;CtlVns t7,mitsi l F-2 LU 10-0048 137 November 30, 2010 Tyvu of extension Ye.r. oT ca.es [engiR oT a--t.nsion and (blanket or case by juristliction arTectetl terms case) Fee Case by case; City of Bellingham, Approvals set to applicant must WA expire Metween suomita written 1/1/10 and request ana meet lc/31/11 one-time, c -yr extension certain criteria $i0i Case My case; City 7f 5herwoud, Deadline to begin applicant must r-%pprovals between construction or record submit an application OR 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 th.r h. -;e „ot ordinance City c;f Kirkland, alrearly expires as Applicu„t mast (normally WA of the effective L -year extension ror UR- su5mii an extension $414.00 for date of the type cases and a /--year application and meet DK ordinance extension to record plat certain criteria extensions) Case My case; applicant must City of vveat Einn, submit an application of OR Approvals between and i5 Subject to deposit fee 7/1/06 and public notice and for the 12/31/09 one-time, 2 -yr extension appeal original app Case by case; Whatcom County, Land use approvals applicant must WA that expire submit a written between 1/1/09 request and meet a.,d 3/1/12 one-time, 2 -yr extension certain criteria 5100 Approvals set to expire between Washin6ton the effective date County, OR of ord. and one Blanket extension of year from that all approvals in the nate one year extension specified time period None City of Portland, rt City permit must be Approvals effective issued or the approved Blanket extension of OR 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 by case; l6 rnoncM e -tension; an applicant mu3t City of Ashland, OR Onexpirea ian0 use aa0idonal -yr extension smMmR a.. r:-.tr:„sion permits approved may be granted by a anal meet certain prior to 7/1/09 separate request criteria $304 t7,mitsi l F-2 LU 10-0048 137 November 30, 2010 138 November 30, 2010 MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PROCESS (ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW) Pre -Application conference 1 vvEEKJ Application Preparation and Submitral Val ie5 w-mpieteness Review J dayJ PODl % c.jmment i erica vvEEKJ Starr Repoff7imitial Uedsiv-ill L-4 weeKa DRC: Finainys 2 weeks Appeal Pel i0d 15 days City C;oandi Real my (it appealed) 4 weeks city council FindinyJ 2 weeks Appeal Pei iod (to E06A) 3 weeks if not complete, prepare revisions Up to -wu days It nu appeal is riled. the decision becomes final It no appeal is tiled, the decision becomes final E&FIlibl i F-3 LU 10-0048 Page 1 of 2 Z 139 November 30, 2010 Appeal PCI IVa a� 15 dayJ DR(- Real my (it appeale8) 4 weeKs DRC: Finainys 2 weeks Appeal Pel i0d 15 days City C;oandi Real my (it appealed) 4 weeks city council FindinyJ 2 weeks Appeal Pei iod (to E06A) 3 weeks if not complete, prepare revisions Up to -wu days It nu appeal is riled. the decision becomes final It no appeal is tiled, the decision becomes final E&FIlibl i F-3 LU 10-0048 Page 1 of 2 Z 139 November 30, 2010 IviODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PROCESS (PUBLIC HEARING) Pre-ANNlieatien Co, iterence 2 weeks Neiyh3urnvod Meetii y tit required) 3 weeks AppliCatioi i Preparation and 5[16mittal j Varies C ampletene�):> Review 1t i ivt camplete, prepare revia of is 30 days H Up Lo 180 days Notice of Public Heariny 20 days DRC Hearn iy DRC Findinys Q z weeks o Appeal Period 1!j 'aays if no appeal is filed, the nevi-w0l I IIEM Fez rig jai City Council Hearing (if appealed) 't vvEEKS City Council Findings L vvEEK3 it no appeal is riled, Oe aeebt inn 6ecuine5 rinal /Appeal reriod (Lo Lut5A) — ,i vvEeKz� Page 2 of 2 140 November 30, 2010 140V 0 9 WO INOvCi11071 2S, u-10 city u—f Lake utmegu t,ommunityr u5,eiopmei it L)80 Planning Commissinit City OI LaKc U,WCL�V 380 "A" Avenue lake U,webo_ UK 9 /1.1 4 KI",: Pile NO. LU IU -0048 L1i, v iIV VI11%11t aprliCAtiMI C�tCusluu5 Vii bcllal OI the IUUU-r muni Acis Ot tlic HOnic! Buildcis A,JOclaL1On Of MUtrQ Portland_ 1 vvloi] t0 whJl� h'valtCdl� Su�pO,t �l t1011 1 Of the otaII iCCvxtlilACalQz[t101i wbt11 icaia ti) this agCnaa 5ia1t ha, 5011e all CAUCHeut jvb of ChaiaCXliLiiig the background for this situation, and the uptniil I altclilativc vv in rlvvllls, tnc 1110A cIf%_tiv% tr,Z Cquitar)17 i7S71utlGu tO tnC siluariOn, wirh the lea>t po-,m aility Im unintunaea consequences for applicants who might Hot vtn71 vv157 111aKt, ft t1111C1y aYkrllCt[tivu Iv1 ZIn utvtC,li,�lvAi. IWe ulp- y iru tv MICit Atilt tv PL=rcC1 witn tnc7 p1cpaiatir%, v1 ai1 r�Y1J1O1�iiatG vAClAualaic t0 effect Lliis policy. Sincerely, �,�inc Platt Director of Local Government Affairs txFiibIT G-1 LU 10-0048 15555 SW Bansy Road * Suite 30 i * Lake Osweso, Oreson 97035 Ff�one: nu�.6ay. i ssc ® Fax: 503.'osz:i w www.i�omeuuiilaersporLIanu.org 141 November 30, 2010 Co, , eared Erin O'Rourke-Meadn,s 5261 Coventry Court LaKc USw�gQ. U1c�;Q11 y103,) S NOVU111be, 2U10 John C7ustafnm, , ll11a1,, a„a l v11u,,,�a1v„c,5 i1Zl1llL111�' l_.Q1111L11551QL1 City of Lak, 03�,c7g7 JSU "A" Avenue Luke Onvvego, U,ogv1, y ius4 R7ga,d,llg.1.,U IU-QU46 Uia1 11c1,t1cpCf3�11s: Received by City of Lake Oswego 11 /ups/ -e u A3 a f7„11�,1. U,a;1 vT this Lake UswcbQ BAr-UL Committee, aad re3kdc„t m vu, fail �kty too Vlore than twenty years, I enp,733 3iF„;f,Ca,1t 5n vat;ol, fe�'alMI]g the Staff proposal Dk.Mlc yGu tn,5 evccljiur, l ieput ally awareness Of this prok,o37d actio„ t-altil this past weekend which has not allo,,cd 1„c the acgf7, rit leview mid appropriate research a11d anzrlyni,� wn,uh 1 uQlulally suck brlmu oiierllig comment. A3 1„y rwirllt 5C11c7u1e ages not allow me to be in att.,,,dzu,c� at t7i,lkgnt-5 ,,,vFt;Lj�; 1 utter the following wr;tt7„ tcstu„ouy . followi„g leview of the Stall Kcport, including Enh;bit3 r-1 tn,ougn 1-3, 1 am baiilca as to the conclud-, Staff, i 1,11,1,,aatiVll. A5 Q„e Gxalnplc_ only two of the e,�zm juli5aictimial ena,liples, Maul a "blanket exception =a, yet suet, ;5 p1opQ5ea by SLUIL I respectfully sugg7-3t; 1. A lcpurt allow;lig apps opfime review and a„u17-3i3 c;f t1,7 speuliju pinjeeLs/land use decisko„o cffootca tlllough ally extells;on; 2. IJntc„31v7 17v1cw VY tnG �j~,1�Q11Qlll1e Hardship EXtenslv113 g,v7,l by Uregoll jurisdictions -including um, akt;ill,' soon as public not;Ce; the vppv1"tLu11ty To, appeal_ a,la other criteria; 3. And, careful determination a3 to wnat best Tu1TLlls the 11ILMIL ut our Lvu,p,cneu,lvF. 1'lau la iugijia Lo years affected, 1,,,yth GT extension/terms, and, tyFr 7f cntcll,kv„_ a5 well as, appropriate fee: and, 4. Yo55,blc coutiauaucc vi thls 111ULter to allOW.,%.atC, publiC part kc,pativn. U11, t,ust5 that youf ca,etul and balaucea leview and coni;de,ut,c,1, vvin b11„g tortll a proposal more reflective and appioplkato fb„ amu, cniiiil,un;ty tnal! Lhal which Staff has In Upvsea. 5u1G`:1 cly, Ei M U'Rourke-Meadors EXRIBIT G-2 LU IU -U148 142 November 30, 2010 November 30, 2010 R 143 144 November 30, 2010 L 3 G4 ZD 2s 28 29 30 31 JL ,3 34 3--� 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 4J ZT4 4J 46 47 48 49 50 51 .) 2 J4 tsEFuRE I HE PCAIaIGllav cOMnni551UM OF I RE — rovO GI 1 Y OF EAKt uSvvtGO APP ORE I IME EX I E19SIO19 OF UUMPLE 11019 ) LU 10-0048-1 /48 DEADLINES FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS) CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO FILED BETWEEN 2007 AND 2009. } FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & ORDER IQA I 0 -RE OF APPEIUA I lulu I he City at Lake Usweya seeks a one time, two year econamic hardship extension to development completion deadlines imposed as a condition of approval for issued land use decisions filed between January 1, 2007 and December 31, 2009. The extension would provide temporary relief to propeRy owners and aevelopers tnat received approval of their projects aur,mv iflc uevuru economic dovvniurn and iigntening OT tfle credit marReis and wMo nave oeen ul'1aDle Tu a5taill Tirlaricil'1y or io uiMurmi3u vaml l lenve or Tirlali,-U iftir projects in a timely manner. 14PAP1191-.IR The Planning Commission held a public hearing and considered this application at its meeting of Ivovemoer o, zu I U. I Fie Tulluvvlrly FAMO1t5 vvere 5u61—niTTF5 at TMe Flearimq: Exnibit u-1 Letter tram Ernie Platt ut t5e Flume Sailders A55uDiatiOri, dated 14'vvel116er tS, zU10 Exn16it G -z letter trum Erin U'Raarke-Meadurs, dated november b, zU1 U Exhibit (3-3 Pnutayraphs of antinibhed project on 5`h Street, 5at)mitted 6y Diana Boum an I9ovember 8. 2010 1 IT I E R I A AIGU S I AMLOA RuS A, Uity UT EaRG U5vvc u kom reMer15ive Plan: Gaal 1 ulti4en Invulvement, Pulicieb 1 and 5 Gaal 2 land Use Planning, Section 1, land Ube Policies and Keyalatiun5, Palicies 3 and 23 B. City of Lake Oswego Community Development Code: EuC 5u. t 5.005 1!egisiaiive Decision oetined. Luk 5u. t 5.0 I u kriteria Tor Legislative Decision CUC 50./5.0-i5 KE lMrcd ldoti= Tu DLCD LUC 50. t5.uzu Planning uorrirmi55lon Kecorrirmendaiion Key'uirEa LUC 50./5.015 laity U00MCil Keview and ❑elision EUL 5U. /5.030 Ettective Date at Ceyiblative Decibion C. Statewide Planninq Goal or Administrative Rale adopted parboant to URS Q5d ter 19/ Goal 1 Citizen Involvement Goal z Land Use Planning UVIgU[05IOIa I he Planning Co, ,imiission concludes tFiat CU 10-0048 15 in cu,, pilamce ,vitM ail applZaDle criteria. November 30, 2010 LU 10-00zf8-1748 Page 1 of 5 145 i FINDINGS AND REASUNb G 3 The Planning Commission incorporates the btatt report, dated Uetoaer 29, 2U1 0, (vvith ail 4 exhibits attached thereto) as support for its decision, supplemented By the turffher tinaiooyb a[ id 5 conciusions set forrth herein. In the event of any inconsistency between the bapplemeoatary 6 matter herein and the staff report, the matter herein controls. To the extent they are consibtea at 7 vv:RM Me approval granted nerein, tRe Commission adopts by reference its oral deliberations on 8 tris iiiattcr. 9 10 rollowing are the supplementary findings and conclusions of this Commission: 11 12 l . l Me commission received testimony Trom residents that not all applicants within the 13 uliv blU time perMa i i iay aMualiy Acca an u.,iunsion; tneretore, tney preferred that if the ,Z� (_,omission reG�nimenaea tMe prepesva extunJiun, that tnu Mcommanaation be inat Tne ID extension i5 revievvea on a Gabe -6y -case 6abib ratter Marl a Mai,Rat e"Te, lslol i ISU;ny 16 enacted. 17 18 The Commission tinds that the extension should only apply to 005e appliGa, its that nave 19 had to delay their project due to a leyitioioate econamic hardship and that a B1arlRet 20 extension would be too broad. The burden should be on the applicant to demo, abtrate 21 iMac tReir approved project has been delayed due to the downturn in the economy diad 22 tiy,Mieninv OT tMe credit marRets. 23 24 1 re UU lmlbbiurl GanGluaes Mat exTEMiUMO should Me revievvea on a case-py-case Qasis ') and that tMe applicant i iabt aei umbtrate that the vvorR autMorizea ry tMe land use Gb appraval it, delayed ab a result at adverse iiiarReT comditiUM3 or ii iaMi;ty tv secure 27 tinanciny. 28 29 2. The Commission received tebtimany tram a resident that boa i ae a ieiyMBarnuoab Have 30 unfinished projects that have become eyesoreb and they are cod icer~ oed that grantii 19 M 31 extension will furiher delay the completion of those projects. Additionally; there vvab 32 concern Mat some projects that would be eligible for the proposed extension oiiay have 33 P5eun controversial in Me neivMrorMood when iMey were approved. 34 Delay OT UnT rliOUd PMOITMb .55 1 Fe 1 rillium vvuGds planned Development project in the vvaiaya l9nignrormouua vv as 37 discussed ab an exaa i aple at an ontiniz F,W project, 1 he public i. proveme, ita a, Z bo, iU 38 landscaping tar thib project were inbtalled within the iabt tew years, but to date, nui ie OT 39 the lots have been built on and the landbcapiny Fab Been neglected. I Fie bu5divibiU11 40 plat was recorded prior to the project completion deadline, ba althouyF the project it, 41 perceived to be unfinished, it is in compliance with the required completimi deadline aoad 42 is still vaiia. Because the completion deadline for this project has been met, the 43 provooea e..TUnsion vvouia not apply. l Pie commission finds that in many cases, if a 44 prcjem Flab btarrtea ccnbtraGticn, Mey Piave already complied- with tRe completion deadline 14.) tur platting and Tor Gcnbtructicn cT tMe pul3k; improvements a, Z vvoaid not need an Z10 eAtenbian. z17 48 1 he Uc;mrnibbioii concludes tFat tFe proposed extenb;vn Will not ;rrlpam the altirrlatU P5aila 49 out of projectb that Fave only Been paiTially Gonbtracted, hat rave utrerm;be Gvmpl;ca 50 with the completion deadline impubed as a condition of approval. 51 52 Controversial Applications 53 l Pte vommission finds that regardless of whether a project wab Gvaatroverbiai ioa a 54 particular neigMMornood, it was only approved if it was found to comply with all applicable LU 10-0048-1748 146 Paye 2 of 5 November 30, 2010 I criteria. Unce TMe project is approves and tMe time for appeal has expired, the approval 2 15 Tinal. i Pig cuncluaus TMai approvea applications in the eligible time period, 3 vvhcthcr Comb avcrsial or not, SMUMIa Dc 'cliyiDIU Tor tide proposea extension l5ecause they 4 vvere rev evvea and TVand to Comply vvith the applicable urlicr;a. 6 3. I fie LoIIIIIII551on received te5ti1i1any Trum allutner re5igent a5Riny Tor 7 8 - Mlore review and analysis of what specific land use applications would be eligible tar 9 tMU proposea extension; �0 • A I l are eAten5ive review oT 5h I ilar e,ktu, ibiom5 approved Dy other jari5diCtiun5 in I U1eyon, incladiny the type at public notice reyulrea, wMetharthere vva5 uppulffunity to 12 appeal; and what criteria were abed; 13 - R careful determination as to what type and length of extension; fee, and terms best 14 1 1 pelt tPiuu Intrnt oT the uompreRensive Pian; ana, is • Possible continuance oT the reyae5t to allow yreater pubiiu partlCipatim,. 16 17 More research of applications eligible for the extension 18 Exhibit F-1 lists the file number and type of land use request tar all at the 52 approvtvd 19 applications that would be eligible for the proposed extension. This concern 1S addressed 20 by IMF reclmirement Tor case-oy-case applications for a completion extension. 21 22 l ne porpu5e OT IMF proposed e„ten5icn is to proviae temporary relief to applicants that L, ale unable to UUIIIplete an appruvcd project DUTuru IMF uo, I pletion aeaaline sue to G4 adverse I l larRet conditiun5 or inability to SeCare TinanCii ly a5 a re5'uli UT iMe economic LJ Iecebb1Un. i he porpu5e l5 not to reopen al Id ladye anew eaurl eligible applieaiiun. EarM 26 of the ellylble applications underwent an exten5lve review a, id pnolic pruGe55, vva5 Tirana 27 to comply with the applicable criteria, and the time to challenge the deUi5lun has pa55G5. 28 29 Because the Commission recommends that the proposed extension Should be available 30 only io inose applicants tRat suomit an application for the extension and demonstrate the 31 caasEi Tor aelay was aue to tMe aownturn in tMe economy and tightening of the credit 32 111a1 RirtS. IMF cntcnSiunS vvoula be reviewea on a case-by-case basis. As a result, only a puff ion oT the 51 eligible applicaTiumo vviil actuaily receive iMe extension. -)4 .sD mo, e I e5earch UT exten51on5 a roved by utMer u ui I uri3-gzdum5 36 1 he Lo111mi55ion recol llmend5 that the propa5ed exte1151on Shunid be revlevved om Q 37 case-by-case basis Subject to the Plir1or Development procedara5 in LUL 50.31.uu5- 38 50.81.020, which requires a 14 -day public notice period and a 15 -day appeal period. 39 l7ore detailed information about the procedures that the other studied jorisdiction5 40 aaopieo Tor iMeir extensions were available for public review in the tile. 41 42 A C'vl I 1piiati'vn UT IMF ,ariono criteria trlai iMe staaiea jurisdictions applied to extension 4.) rCyue5t5 15 115ted on pays t oT IMF umor)Fr Zy, Zu 10, siaTT report. 44 4J Lumpllanceyyith the uo l preMen5ive Plan 46 1 he UaII mi55ion tind5 that the 5tatt repurff adeyaately aadra55a5 thio uomprerlGnslvG 47 Elan policies that are applicable to the propu5al. i he uu1155ium cup .clo5u5 iM.T inc 48 applicable Uomprhensive policies are met. 49 50 Continuance to allow greater public participation 51 i Me Commission finds that the City has provided the required public notices Tor a 52 legislative decision and opportunity to comment. The Commission concludes that the 53 appk;atiun complies with the noticing requirements for a leyislative decision, Statewide LU 10-0048-1748 Page 3 of 5 147 November 30, 2010 I Planning goal '1 l�iU.--cn Im,,uh Emem, and voal 1, Policies 1 and 5 of the City's 2 uorrlpreFiensive Plan. 3 4 4. 1 he LumrnI55Ion uonsldered whether applicants Tor the proposea extension Aouia Pse regaired to uomiiply with new codes and standards that nave been aavptea s n,,e TME G application was originally approved (most notably, the Intill udinance passed in ZU1u). 7 The Commission tinds that while new standards were added and several others vvere 8 modified, the overall intent of the Infill Ordinance approved in 1010 has not chanyed 9 significantly from the infill standards in effect 2007-2009. The code changes enautcd by 10 the zu 1u Ordinance are not so extensive as to cause projects approved between 2007- 11 zuuy io novv l5ecome incompatiMie witn iMe surrounding neighborhood; however, some 1.2 new 5tanaardo, SUcPI as tMe 51ae yard 5etl5acR plane, could require changes to the 13 appruved deli-yn that are relatively ii ;mor to tPie UATerior, PSui co,ala nave larger impacts on IZf the interior tanutianality UT the desiyn (e.y.. ceiling neiyIMT, fluor plans, etc.). 1 lie 1D commissiun tind5 that the l5uiden ct reyairing appiicants to maRe ,.Flanges tc; appy ovea 15 designs in order to Comply with the 2010 infill Ordinance catvveiyhs the pmentlai irrlpacis 17 to the surroundiny neighborhood. 18 19 The Commission concludes that compliance with new L;Udes and standards adopted 20 since original application approval date should not be a criterion tar review of an 21 extension application. 22 23 5. 1 he uommissivn noted TMat 3-4 applications iMac vvere approvea tater in the eligible time 2zT period had zmpletlun aeaaiines in zu13 or ZU14 aria a /--year extension wouid extend the deadlines to zU15 or 20-16. ine Commi=un tind5 that appiZati7Jns that nave 26 completion deadlines beyond 2012 have 5offi ent tulle to complete tMeir pruium. aha 27 shoold not receive the propased 2 -year extension. It necessary: these applicants may 28 still apply for an extension throuyh the pr aces currently prez u, Zed by the Uode. 29 30 1 Pie Commission concludes that up to a 2 -year extension should be granted to 31 applications wiAn ine eligit5le time period, IZut in no case should the extension go beyond 32 1Je,..eml5Gr 31, z0- 1z. 33 �ZT 5. 1 he Uni,imissien .zndnde5 and rec'vrrlmends t7, the C;;ty uouncil iMac a one-time, z -year » extension to completion deadlines irrlpusea ur iridnaea as a cmnaition of approval snoula .ss be available to approved land ase applivatl'vns that were tiled l3etvveen Jan'ualy 1, ZUU/ j7 and December 31, 2009, it they meet the criteria and prm edo, es 6eiovv: 38 39 The City Manayer may, upon appliudtion, ytarrt up to a tVVU year exter15iurr to ine 40 completion deadline for an approved land use develuprnent limmit that complied 41 wire all of the following criteria; however, in no case shall the completion UeaUlitte 42 DU UArenaea Dey-ono Z:7ecemDer 3-t, zv t z: 43 44 1. / he apphCal It tllcp a VVI ;UU1I FAtunutun uppiuur;on with applicable Tee no later 4J that Mal Ch 7, ZU7 Z1- ;46 45 Z. 1 he aNNh[;artt C7@mC7natrat@s that the vvVtK ZruthVttceU Dy ine in"FY use approval 47 iz> aelaye7 a3 a re, i,Wt vt adver,>e marKet UunUitivn5 of irtaDility to uUuuru 48 financing' 49 3. The extemwun request is tar art isziaeU land awe approval (whether exNiUU Of 50 nor) where the land use appliudtiotr was tilUD between January 1, 2001 and 51 December 31, 2009; and, 52 4. if ine application for extension is for a land division, or lot lire dC7justment 53 approval, ine appucant haU previously filed a timely request tot the autotrtatic 1- 54 year UATension alloweia per LULI EU 1114OOzFa- i tZF8 148 Paye 4of5 November 30, 2010 1 2 3 4 5 0 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 GV z GL 23 24 15 26 27 28 2y 30 31 32 33 34 37 38 39 40 41 42 I-) ZTIT ZT3 Ke,,iew or me appficarion shah oe in me manner prescribed for minor developments Dy LDU AfTlClVo 00.0 r — 00. 04. (An extension pursuant to this ordinance is not a ,rr0Uih-Uutwrr UT a perrrut arra MM r@ LDU 50,05, F)ZO is nor applicaDie To The up/j/1 -fatrorr.) UKDEK II Ia UKLJt tD BY I ht PCHIdrail4V C�muyllaaiON of the City of Lake Oswego that: I he Planniny uoii mitslon recummemdzi Mat CU iu-0048 6e approved lay the uity Council. I CERTIFY THAT THIS ORDER was presented to and APPKUVED by the Pldnniny uummiasion of the City of Lake Oswego. DA i tD illi zzna day or Ivovemiser, zu i u. JUM C30ztat5Vrr/5/ ion vastdtson, hair Planniny uol 1 Im15510n Iris McCaleb /s/ Iris McCaleb Haminisirwive Support ATTEST: PKEF-110 PRY ucCISION — November 8, 2010 AYES: CiRatani, uii35on, Gustarson, ,7oMnson, Pareichan, Prager NuES: None ABS I AI IQ: NC;Me KELUSE: None EAGOSED: hones ABSEN I : None ADUP I IUM UP FIIQUiIQVs AM) ORDtR — November 22, 2010 AYES: bMUTani, Glisson, GustaTron, ParetcRan, Prager DUES: WME ASS I AM: Norte KEC:USE: None EACUSED: Johnson ABSE191: None November 30, 2010 LU 10-0048-1748 Page 5 of 5 149 150 November 30, 2010 llKAP ! 11122110 URDIMAM,—E Iv,... z5t)3 Ala VRDIMAIa4E OF I FIE 0I r OF [AIDE uSWEGO RELATING TO EXTENSION OF COMPEETION DEADLINES FOR APPROVED LAND USE PERMITS. WHEREAS. th'e State and EaRE USwego have 5attered a Severe economic dovvriturri vvnicFl Fia5 created economic vara: FAip3 aria tigFitE,,ing oT creait marIZEta; aria vvREREH5, tFie economic Fiaraships ana tighte ging of credit markets results in a situation where aEveopers ana property owners are unable to commence or finalize approved land ase developments and projects in a timely manner; and WHEREAS, the economic hdrdships and Lighreni11g, of credit markets were 6ey0113 tFie expECLdLion of the property owners and developers at`fhe time uT lana uw= cippruval; ai,3 vvnEREA5, tFie City uT EaRCe USvvego can reance nd,alieviate the,.consequences of the economic avvvriturn ana credit marRet conditions for project5;that received approval but have not been completed within the existing time limitations byentlin; 'compleLian deadlines when Lhe property owner or developer's ecoriomic hardship ar,, indbiliLV Lo obtain tinancing i5 demonstrated; I9UW, THEREFURE, THE c1TY u►- [AKE US% The City Manager mcg deadline for an apprr however, in rib cases 1. The applicant til 1-:2012- 3. Eou"uRVAM H5 FuLLOWS ,upon application, grant up to a two-year extension Lo the completion led. land Ose,6application„that complies with all of the tuilowing criteria* d th'e c0mplEdon deadliire'be extended beeymid December 31 201t: dia.. written.'exten5ion applicatfun vvitM applicable tee no later tha.. l7lamN ThE applicant demonstrates that the work authorized by the land use approval is delayed as a result of adverse market conditions or inability to secure tinancing. The extension request is for an issued land ase approval (vvlIetFler eApirea ur mut) vvnere the Idnd use application was tiled between January 1 200/ aria DecEmber 51, LUU�); ana 4. It tFie application Tor ent7ri517ri 6 Mr a iaria aivision c;r lot line adjustment approval, the eppiicarit Flea previously filed a timely request for the automatic one-year extension allowed per [UC 50.6/.010(1). Uraiiiance 2563 Page 1 of 2 151 November 30, 2010 UKAP l 11122 -ILO R�-vi�-vv of the application Shall b. in the mnann�-r pr�-3cr;bed for minor developments by rot - Articles 5u.9 -L — 5u.zszi. (Extension pursuant to this ordinance is not a modification of a permit and therefore LOC 50.85.025 is not applicable to the application.) lead By title and endctea at the rcgaldr meeting at the City Council at the City at CaKe Uzvvegu Field an Nay at zu1u. AY t.,): Ordinance z563 Pages z of z 152 November 30, 2010 LAKE OSWEGO Centennial 1910-2010 TO: Jade Hottman, Mayor Members ut the City Council Alen D. morityre. City Planager i iRuivi: Ucni3c Fri,aec, Director jonna Papaz:nRimiva, Natural Re,ourca Planner vlanning and Bvi;lding Survicza, Department SUBJECT: Recommendations for Sensitive rands rviap Lorrections vroce33 DATE: Novcm6Cr 18 1010 Ai- iiuM 3.3 l 11 Y )r LA&h (Y5 WLCju 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 503-675-3984 www.ci.oswer,z;.z;r.us This item is for information only, no formal action ;3 rE4nEatea at tpi3 time. Lzamcil i, a,Rea to proviae aimr-dun LD 5Adtt regarding next steps in the Sensitive Lands map updatE procE3,. IIS i RV Dui, i IUM This iuly, the Council adopted Re3olution 1u -!51A, vvnicn airectea ,tart to impiement improvement, to the City's environmental programs. i he resolution includEd a n'uii,MEr of recommenaativn3 tru111 the secvria LuuR Td!,R Farce, including: ImpiemCnt the regulatory cFiangeN iaelldtlea in SLatt Report Section B within the next year, including tMe tvllvvvirig 3tep3: 1. uevelvp aria initiate a tree Tap correction proce„ Z. LA n3iacr rcmvv ng Small, l,ulatca tree grove, trv111 tMe overlay curie vi, private property, not including private dedicated open ,pace (Re3Vlutiun 10-51A, !)ECtiOn 6) A Lfiiird iLUrn requested by Council was: Implement regaldtory changeb idendtiea by the City Council as follows: 3. Uircct ,tats to return to the City C:uancil with recummenaadons for an appeal process and optivn3, %fvitM a,, empha,i, on tairne„ and equity- Incladillg a aiscu»ion and timeline for 1B propertie3, Py tRe ena ut tRe year. tRe,olutivn 10-51A section E) 153 November 30, 2010 Page 2 This staff report responds to these Council directions. It provides background on the current maps and tae at.dnadra5 dna legal requirements for changing them; identifies reasons to initiate map changes; outlines Raw prapa5ea chdnge5 migfiL Be groupea LageLfier dnd reviewed; and presents a conceptual program for moving tc;rwdra. Staff recommena, tfiat tRe City puraue d geogrdpfiiCally-6daea review of Lfie enure 5eriaitive Lana-, map a, tac muat etticient (and tMereture leas Cuatly) dpprodCfi' aaare»ing Butfi dlreday- mapped resource3 aitca aria prupUaca tutare (1-6) Jtea, and taat map apaatea Be linked witn otMer environmental outr.ach Efforts. BACKGROUND Curreni Sensitive Lands IV1ap I Fie C:ity'S current SenSiuve LdnaS map wd5 daapted in 1998. IL was created to implement the City's Cumpreficn5ivc Plan dna Comply with State Lana 05e VQalS 5 and S. IL dnt.iCipdt.ea MelrQ 5 Tide 3. which aCI CIrCJJea protCltion ut riparian reboarceS' it was daoptea a tew mantfi5 Betare I itle 3. i he map was prodacea tarauga a collaSoratiun 6ctvvccri Fiaamari Lrivirommcrital AaauMatca (ncvv 5VVC.A) and Jalix Associates. In Iyy3 and Fishman ;&mt;f1c3 Nutcntially aigmificant natural rcavurcc arcaa using the City's existing Distinctive Natural Areas Mlap (tyiu), aerial photographs, and published topugrdpfiiC rndp5. They pertormed site visits and used the Wildlife Rabitat Assessment score (RAs) metfioa W rate dread. ReSQarCeS L5dl Scored dt least 35 (tfie average score) were considered "significant." Salix tficn analycca all aigniticant ,ite, witfi an ESLL (Energy, SOMA, Environment., and Ecanormy) report., vvai%a is rcquirea By uAR 650 -Uzi to implcment State Land U,17 Gaal 5. I Fie Planning Cammia,ion reviewed recomm'cnaationa raaca on tRe RAJ ,Core, and EJEL report- and recommenaca adoption of a 5eenaitivee Lands Mai, Ba3ea on taat data. I Me Council accepted tac Planning C.Qmmiaaion,a recommendation. The sensitive Cands Article says that additional resource areas can ba added to tha Mlap following tae same RAS / ESEE process. However, no resources have been added to the map since iyttis, except for a few ConLeSLea Sit.eS LhdL were resolved, and properties that were annexed after 1998. Similarly, only a very few Sites Have Been removed tram Lfie map, By inaiviaadl Idnaawner5 aemonSLrdt.ing L5dt the resource area did nowt exiat on their property. rwaaiale IOlap irRange3 z -s sites i he name "I-15" refers to the uregon Adminiatrativc R:.Ic (uAR) acCtian vvaica rzLiairca zitICa to invcritury their Goal 5 resources. The OAR classifies resource sites about which the City is unable to obtain intarmddan d5 "1-B." The 1998 Sensitive Lands atlas contains about 40 1-13 sites: these were resources numindtca ldte in Lfie praeea5, ar where the City was unable to obtain access. Salix suggested that the Planning C ommia,ian retain to the i,Sae La review Lfie,e ait.e, dtt.er Lfie Senait.ive LdndS Article Had been in placc tur cin itiQnth,. wfiicfi ha, not Happened. In ZUU3, the City circa 5VVLA (tarmcriy Fi,aman, aame atatt) to update tae irltormatirjri Tor tRe 1-13 ,it'c, aria other sites nominated by staff or shovvn on Metra maps as votcriCally aigriiticarit. 5vvCA CinauCt0 tido work and developed a draft updated map and supporting RAs worksheets. I he (.ity chose not to move turwdra wiLN daapuon at the time. This decision was made partially because the inventory remained incomplete (ace to IimiLea Budget. re5uurce5), dnd pdrtially because the City was in the middle of a process to develop at t anneAatiun plan Tor tRe unincarpurdtea died wiLfiin Lfie 0613. I fie C.it.y did noL wdnL Lo credt.e tae impreaaian taat tac annehati0n dna inventory wurR were aumefiaw related (tfiey were not). Following 154 November 30, 2010 Page 3 extensive community discussions, the proposed annexation plan as abandoned, but the inventory work was naL resumea aL LhdL Lime. In zuui_ the City once again nil ea SwCA. to review their 2UU3 r ecommenaations and Complete the inventory mapping, incluaing new areas mappea anae, Title 13. SWCA cenaactea site visits in the sam���er of zuui ana aeveiupea a neve aratt map, vvnicn vvas paBliAEa on tRe City vvc5site in ear ly zuu$. ,'Nortiy after this, the mapping project vvas pat on hold bccnm z: of bruaacr pul3 is curiccrns aMout tRo ,c%itive Lands program. The properties shown an the 2008 SWCA dratL map are technically no longer "1-13" sites; that is, the City does now Have enough intormation to determine Lha< <hey are IiRcely signitiranL. The Lerm 1-13 is asea here merely as a sFiortFiana reterence for these proposea changes. The next step in the review at these 1-13 resources is to Complete an ESEE analysis to acteer mine vvRetRur the sites ACHIM Be r ecammenaea for dc3ig„atio<, as 5ensitivc DmF13_ Designation vvonla Be recommenaea unless the City maae tinaings trat social, economic, or ene, gy factor3 precluded tRcir protection, or tRe City cccivca ncvv cviacncc that a 5it'c had been degraded and was no longer significant. There are approximately ds many as 247 new Lax lots in the city limits that could be designated as Sensitive Candy with the map apaate. I his irlCluaes aBoat B dries at Resource Prolerlion (RP-wdter resource) and 49 acrCs at Resource Conservation (RC -tree grove). Twenty-eighI. at these tax lots have RP 207 have RC. ana 1z I•lave SotH RP ana RC. Fey Comparison a5uunt 10.33 taA lots are currently aCsignatea Sensitive Eanas. TRis inciaaes Aunt 46z acres UT RC ana 501 acres of RP Tor a total OT V66 arres. upland i ree Groves Council has directed staff to "consider removing small, isolated tree groves from the overlay zone on privdLe property, not including private dedicated open space." Staff has investigated this possibility by reviewing existing tree grove aesignaLians ana iaentitying those that are on private lands, not connected to water. and not all eaay permanently pratectea in suBaivQoon/PD apen spdCe udCUs. AppliCdLian at 1.1505e criteria lea to tMe iaentitication at three carrently-designated tree graves that might Be eliminaUea. ut the proposea 1-5 Sites, Stott estimates M=re are an aaaitional a-zu sites that apon r'evi'ew waala tall within tRe criteria fu. rernovai. i ne City '.> approac!9 to tnis policy Na'cation neeas to Bc , esalvea 6eturc 1-13 tree groves are added to the map. In order to exclude isolated tree groves from RC protection, the City will need to either amend the sensitive Eanas ArLICle to ddUPL LhdL CriLerid'OF alLernaLively, could repeat the HAS process for isolated upland tree groves Lo deter mine it any exisdng or proposea Lree graves shoals Be eliminaLea on I.he basis that they have Been aegradea ana no longer aChleve a claalitying scare. It the "re -RAS -review" dpprodCh is Ldken Start antic;patcs triiat at Fast one at the three existing isolatea tree groves woala Be removea trom the RC UvAi i%t SECau5e it is aegraaea; However, since tele 1-B sites vvcrc cvalaatca more rcrently IiiCeiy naiie at these vvould be removed. Under either approach, additional site investigations would be needed to determine the ecological status of the tree groves in yaesdan. The praposea City Forester / arborist position would be an appropriate person to evaluate these areas ana mdRu rerommenaaLians. SLdtt waula like Lo reLarn La CoanCil with aaaiLional intorrrratiun ana options this spring. 155 November 30, 2010 Page 4 Staff anticipates that the removal of a small number of tree groves would not jeopardize Metro approval of the C:ity'S Tide 3 and 13 CumplidnCe pdckdge. Hurrreow"Ur Z171,Vu urra / rvrrteatea Setea Some p, ripe, t;e3 mappea as 5emaitive lanaa have wimple map errura; the 6u'unaai y uT a vvetiana ui the tree canopy vva3 cat;matca iriaccn.atcly, urtFIE maonrcE i-Mangca tRivagN mat a,aI piuccaaca an ch trlat tRc vla map is no longer correct. When homeowners identify map inaccuracies to staff, these are added to the list of 1-13 sites to be corrected. corrections for all documented errors are already included in the proposed 1-6 map changes. However requests for map corrections have come in sporadically. Staff has not contacted every SenaiUve Candy pruperLy owner La aol1CiL 5agge5Liun5 tar Chdnges. It Lhe City were Lu Sullcil. map Cvi i ectiona trvm all Carrent berib itive Earid a owners, it CODlaadd thoae map ietinementa to the lint of piupubed map crange,. TRE city cam ariticipate tRat . eclu73t3 Tv. map cmrrectinm3 ,,,ill come Trvm pi Mperty vvvMM vvRv Ravc correctly identified mapping errors--i.e., fairly ontimu cuirruCtion uffo.t3 that can bu p.occssu5 vvith Staff support and agreement, and also from those property owners who object to being mapped under any Circamstdnces. This poses a challenge for establishing a workable process. For those homeowners that canteat mapping, a "CanLUbMa bile" proCebs needs La be e5Ldbllshed. The "ConLebLEa Cdse" prucesb, simildr to mind development appliCatiun, today, will likely neF_eeaaitata bite viait. Aatt level deciaion. and on appeal I eview Vt tFe iaaae beture a aeciaion-maRer and p0,_.30y an appeal Roay. I E proceaa oatlinea Rci piuviCle3 tRat uppurturiity. Legal Re4aireme,it3 fur Map Ua,%Eni 1-6 sites, upland tree groves, map errors, and contested sites all propose map changes that must meet minimum requirements under Lake Oswego Development Code and the Oregon Administrative Rules. According to Current Code, the City must do the tollowing to add a new resource site to the map: • DumunsLrdLE the resource is significant, using the HAS system, AND • Complete an ESEE analysis showing the resource should be protected or partly protected, AIYD • Hold Planning commission and t-ouncil REavings .0 attendant notice ana opportunity for testimony. To remove d rebouice trum Lhe mdp, the City muss either: • Demonb!LrdLE Lhe resaarce is no lunger SignitiCdnt, OR • Demonstrate the resource is not located on the subject property, OR • complete an t5tt analysis showing new factors that lead the City to remove protections, AICD ® Hula Planning Cummiaaium ana �xancil Rcai ing3 (aa Tor aaaiiig iicvv i EzioUrce3). The City may process map changes (essentially re -zonings of an overlay district) that affect one or a "small nambur" ut Ldx IULS ds qudsi-judicidl amendments. Changes that affect "a group of properties" must be pluCeaSed Iegiblatively. ALTERNATIVES As the background discussion saggeA3, tRere are numerou3 3onrce3 of potential leap changes. Each 156 November 30, 2010 Page !) change must include consideration of an expert environmental assessment (HA5) and impact analysis (ESEE). I he naml5er at new and patenddlly contested sites also makes the project logistically complex. For this reason, it is important to identity at the outset a process that provides clear procedures and criteria Tor aecision-maRing aria that will Bu open to all landowners, witFioat rewiring a proMitive commitment UT ti,irc Or re,ource,. similarly, tRe process nceas to Se one tRe city can complete within a rea�onaljic amount of time, relying Gn cni3ting re5ourcc5. Elements of a successful Program To develop recommendations for the map update process, the amity consulted staff at the Department of Cana Conservation and Development, Metro, the City of Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability, ana rriemSers atthe cansaltant community. Based on their inpaL and the conbiaeration, outlined above, statt recor i rmenas tRe process include the tollowing element: 1, r;t;ul �7G, rtuucts vv;tn sen,;t;vc la,,U, p, epci ty vvvrrc, a , ega, 71'rrg it up apCiate-, -,mala he Coa, a;rratea vv;tn outreach on other natural resoarccr t; p;cs. Rcsourcz:3 anucate'a tu uducatiun uffurt3 3Ruula ai3U support the map update, and when contacting property ov.ners the city should inform them of programs and resources available to them. The ritup upUate piOCe» should piOvOIF OFrlrOrt>arric;e.s far ;II ivia[rUl rrreecirrys wish zaull. [anaavvners ana tRe City henetit when resident can az R questions and get intormation aBoat their property in particular; one-on-one pru61em-so1v1ng i, tRe easiest way to resolve many map errors and gaeation,. updates snaaiV ae pvncessea;n 4-5 gevg, apn;irvluy-Dared g, dap.,, , atne, than v„e large lan(F a.,c c;a-3e. Inviting all property owners to contact the pity at once ,.onid maRe it difficult to provide timely responses. Breaking the project up also allows for adaptation and process improvement after the first group is processed. Sites where Doth plOErerty Owners Urra Zrity staff Uyree Orr FrrOl�OsO chprryes �aaa;t;Orrs Or C7ele�;Orrsf snvala pe FrrvCessea tvyether. 1191-, is the approach thie City took with the original maps. Changes vvlIem landowners ana city staTT agree will move MroagR tRe iegizlative prose» relatively gaiCKly ana .id result in a algniTiCant improvement to tRe maps. Contested sites should be reviewed by a professional hearings officer. Where the owner and city staff do not agree on the proposed addition or deletion, staff should refer the matter directly to a hearings atticer for a pa5lic hearing and recommenaddan to LRE Planning Commission (and possible appeal to the City Council). I he Planning Commission aoes not have the Capa[iLy to spend aotens at meetings reviewing inaiviaaal map challenges. A P, upw3A ApprwacH T%,r Upaating Map, X process for updating the sensitive [ands Atla3 that wcula incIuaE tRE eiemEnts ae3criOEa aiwvc vvriula resemble the following: 1. Contact all current SensiLive Canas praperLy awners and intorm them that the City is updating its Sensitive Cands maps. and that they will Have the opportunity to request changes as a part at LFiat process. Descriae tRe procedure tar mdRing map cRanges. connect the map review withi other regulatory improvement ana environmental programs tRe City is initiating. 157 November 30, 2010 Page b 2. Complete the ESEE analysis for proposed new resource areas (simultaneous with 1). 3. Develop a aser-triendly mapping weBsiLU where property owners can review intorrnaLian a55ociaLecl with their property, inciaaing original ESEE reports and HAS worRsheets (simaltan—eoas with 1). 4. Uiviae tMee City into tour to ,ix geogi apHic planning area:, witH approximately the same amount UT re,oarce� in eacH. i Hese group Aoula generally Reep neigHBorMUUaz. anq vvater,Heo, together. S. 5en3 a Motile to all Current aria propoaca Tuturc 5Cn31tivE Canoa uvvner, in a dingle gEograplllic planning area, notifying them of draft map recommendations. Notices clearly state: a. whether City staff is proposing to remove, delete, or leave unchanged the resource mapped on their property; B. Raw La aBILain capies at all relevant data, maps, and the ESEE analysis (which shaala Be an the weBsite, with a Fiord copy By regae5t); c. How to request a cite visit to review their property it they Believe the Boonaary is in error* a. How to ,cHeaaie a meeting vvitH ,tart to u5tain aaaitional intarmativn' ana u. Hvvv to wFlteat tHcir pc,igriatiari im vvriting. Meet one-on-one vvith property ovvners concernEd about proposed CPianges, Ur vvho vvant t7i be "un -mapped". At the meeting: a. Review how the Sensitive Lands overlay might affect the use of their property; B. Explain haw Lo challenge LHE mapping an their properLy, give Lhem a toren Lo complete and Nig, . ana tell them what Rina of intarmativn will Be acetal at the hearing. c. Provide detail, of the map update process. inciaaing required intormation and timeline to revievv their case. /. rim aii,e recommended map cmangca, maRing Aaition aI currectim la a, ncce„dry TooI!Uvv I ng the ,ite visits ana one -on -gine m'c'ctinga. u. Move all uncontested map changes directly to the rC to be heard as a legislative matter. 9. Present contested changes to a hearings officer to be heard quasi -judicially, one by one or in small groups of related properties. 10. Move conLUNLO changes Lo the PC Logel_her with the hearings atticer recammenaddans. 11. Move to the next geographic planning area. i M11, propu,ea proceaa woala meet the VB,ective, Vatlined at the oats Ct, in that it: • Brea Ra the project Into manageaBle units • Praviaes oppoitanity tar one-on-une proBlem-solving with property owners • Allaws sites where I.he City and homeowners agree on map changes to move torward right away • Manages Planning Commission workload • i✓reates an opportunity for everyone who wishes to contest the Sensitive [ands designation to make their case to a neutral third party, and provides structure and guidelines for that process. I his process could Begin in Spring 2011, when she City initiates the environment.al aaLreach ana education ettorts recently discussed By Council. THe Planning Division has the resaarces to complete the ESEE analysis ana I Manage the map apaate in -Haase up to the legislative paBiic Hearing Tor the Tlrst croup UT avvner/Starr-agreea map cl1anse,. In the ne„ t Tiscal year, nevv Tanaa vvvala 5e requeatea to pay Tor a hearings officer to revievv the conte,tea ,ite,. Depending on tRe percentage of cGnte,tea ,itc, iri the first unit of map revisions, the Division may also identify other resources needed to complete subseq.ent groups of map changes in a timely way. 158 November 30, 2010 Page 7 Variation — uroup Map Changes by Source 5Latt looked at the option of grouping map changes according to criteria other than geographic, e.g. proce�,bing Challenges Lo carrendy-designated sites first, then removing isolated tree groves, then adding i i'ew ,it'e3. Tnl, appruach woala alba terve La parse LFie projeCL into more manageable pieces, and it is appealing in that it wuala all—uw people why aiapate the aaoptea map Lo have Lhe tiraL CFianCe aL CurrEction3. HGvvcver, M3 approacFi pre3ent, 3ignitiCant aitticaltie,. To provide a fair and cun3i3t'cnt reauarce pruteCtiun prugram, the City need, to treat ruzzo, Cc al ea, tMe same way on all the tax lots on which they exist. A process that rc:viem tMe reauurce nlapa geugrapNically allows decision -makers to examine each resource area as a unit and treat it consistently, a process that aue5 not group pruperLiea wgeLFier by location may well lead to inconsistencies. Geographic grouping also Create3 an opportunity tar nu%55ar5 Lo aavaCME LogULher for prutection or removal of a resource area—or at lea,t allow, neigh6orb witR aitturing viewa to eaCH maRe a Caae at the Same time. For example: an cnl,ting tree gruuve i3 pruupu3c5 to BE EApanaea. Une lai0owner may challenge the eni,ting tiee grove on OU ba3i3 that it 13 acgraaca. HnvtFler may Cnallcnge it un tnc Ba313 that the overlay i3 ail cCunumiC burden. Several others could suppurt the 0e3ignatiun un tficir uvvn praparty 6ccanae it a5a3 ie3auice protection on neighboring properties as vvell as their oven. The t;3tlrnony fmrrl all theae r�3i'dent3 Auc;1a Be Considered together leading to a decision based on all the evidence to either delete or preserve the entire tree grove. In aaaition a particular pruBlem with taking Cante,tea Ca�)e�) tint i�, tHat it would Bring LEE monk Lime- Cun3urrling ca,e3 to ME trent of tMe iinu ana require lanaowner, who ,apport propubea map Changes and lanauwner3 wFlu,c pruperty 13 un tFie aratt map tU wait mucFi longer to ,ee tMeir Ca3e, re,olvea. it i, Tor tMi3 rea3on that the prupu3ea pruCe33 taKc3 all Cun,t:n,aal map CFiange3 tint. Th13 appmaCFi 13 eRpecteEi to yield the most consistent results, llenEfit the grcat'cat namMEr of re3iaent,, ana result in the must rapid improvement to the maps. Variation – Hearings Otticer Recommendations Directly to City Council In Oregon, it i, not unaaaal tur gaa�,i-jaaiCial lana -ase mauers Lo be reviewed By a hearings utticer rather than By a Planning Cammi33ian. However La Re Uawego'!) Cade regaireN that Both gaa5i-juaiCial and legWative rnange, to the uomprelIen,ive Pian. Maps, or Development Lade Be reviewed by the Planning uc;mmi33lvn. Thcrcfum, tFlc pruic,a outlined fere Fla, a Flcaring uttil.cr rcvievv ca3c, and make recommendations to the Planning C7,rnrm13:5Zn. TFIE Cumml33iun vvunnla ,till rcvi'cvv tRlc H'caring UTtiCcr-, recommendations at the end: the new procedure could provide either that tM. vlanning LUMMi33iun vvuu a Be aBle Lo Lake new testimony or would review them on the record before the Hearings uff icer alone. It woala Be pu,bible tar the Mae La allow a Hearings otticer to make recommendations directly to the City LuUndl (or even tar the Council to aelegate it, own aeci�,ion-making aaLHariLy in LHiS Mauer La a Hearings UTticer, 3V thiat tME hearing otticCr', aec ,ion i, the tinal deci,ion at the City). Moving conteatEa Ca,e, directly from n HEaring3 UTticer to tFie l.ity council cauia reaace tRu BuraCn on the Planning Cummi„ion_ and reduce tME amount of time it taRe3 to mac:M a &:63iun, vvF rM 6enetit3 property uvvnei,. Fiuvvevcr, Council or Planning Commission may find this change unappealing MEcau3e it Jminate3 tM. 133uc- ClaritiCation and public discussion that occurs during the appeal review process. 159 November 30, 2010 variation — Staff-[evel vecisioo.s The process presented here assumes that all residents why own lana that i3 mappea ori tME eni.,ting Sem,idVe Cands map and want the designation removed, should have their "day in court," and that this prose-,-, Aould Be tree. 111915 is not flow most cities approach owner -initiated map amendments to remove protectea resource-,* it i-, more u -,dal that residents who disagree with existing designations are responsible Tor completing a lana -u -,e appliCdtivn dna paying a tee. It tFie City were interestea in acing this dpprodCF, tnum AaTT ..:vola 30116t aria MviEvv lariauvvner mque3t3 for cFiange-, to exlbung map-, and mdRL- aeci-,ions in cases wnere a Site vi3it ai �a a mvievv UT tMe aavptea FIRS zzo, C aria BEE inaiCate that the property was designated consistent with ex sting criteria. IT tRe property avvner al-,agrEEa itM tRe -,tart recommendation, then they would be responsible for applying t�; change it t!"ImagFi tRe normal lana -u -,e appliCdtian process. This would reduce the burden on the Planning commission and reduce the numDer z;f cases (ana cma) tvr a Fledrings otticer. (in this case, the hearings Officer would only hear contested z -t5 It the (zancil is innterebted in using a statt-leve] decision process, statt can present additional details c;n nuvv 3uc!11 a proce-i-, Ovula Be 3trueturea to maintain tramparency and conbibtency. RE,-VIGIMEMuATIuM This report is for information only; no action is recommEnded at this time. l.vuri%il i3 111vitea tU prUvft airer-tion or comments on the proposed map update process. staff can then return at a later time with ii ore project details, d timeline, ana sample outreach materials. ATTACH IDI E I9TS None 160 November 30, 2010 3.4 U1'1' Y Ur LAKE 05 W hU0 TO: jack Hoffman, Mayor Members of the city t-ouncil Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager FROM: Joel B. Komarek, P.E., Project Director 5uts)Eu : water LU -A of Service Opaate DArE: Ido,-emberzz, zuiu ACTION i Mia 5taay SC»inn pruviae�- an opportunity tvr SLdtt Lo share wiLfi Council preliminary findings from the Conduct M a (-0-A UT Service analpi� (LU.')) UT the City'b wdLer enter prise tuna ("OLiliLy"). At the close of the Study 5e33ion, 5taTT will 3eerC Teealjar_R Trorn tRe Conrldl on matteerb relating to dn5ampdon, aaea in Lhe COS analysis and implementatiun timing UT Tutnre , ate Inc, eaae� aeterminea to Se neCe»ar y 6y the dndlyal5 findings. INTRODULTIUIa%BALKuRUUND un ❑ecumoEr z, zVU8, tMe city Cunncil aaoptea Renoiatiun U8-92 aatFiur icing daja5tmenU) Lo water IdLeS and establishing a tierea pricing A, acture tar tMe utility's jingle tamily cld» Ut water captomer. Water rates were adjusted for all utility customers ba3ud upan a w5 anaiy313 attRe Utility.) iCvenae reyaimment�, for dli cdpiLdl and operating costs. The capital cost compunent of tMu revenue rkjoh ement incivaea e-,timatea �oat� to tuna the GI.y'S share of costs to implement the Lake uswego-Tigard eater 3npNly EApa"3iun project. Thoz>e coz>t�. were LFien e51.imal.ed LII 5e $82.5M. Ke.,wntiun 08-vz antnuri,.ed a zede3 of aajoArnenL, to water rate3 over an iniLial three-year period as fullc;vv3: Ettective Date 7/1/2009 7/1/luzu 7/1/2u11 W", low;,. gx' WER Water Rate Increase 15.570 15.z:)70 15.L5% Council approved Resolution 08-92 but modified the rate prupusal to unly aatfrize tRe NA tvvu yeai3 UT rate increa:)-eb. Council tarlher direCLed that Staff should update the LuS prior to implementation of Torther rate aEli a.-Arnentb tour FY 11/12. 161 November 30, 2010 Page 2 DI,Lu3oIvN FCS Group wds reWinea La apddLe iLs prior 2008 COS analysis using current Utility customer statistics as provided by the Finance [Department arra Carrera e5umaLe5 of LFie CiLy'S Adie of CMAN LCI t131a do EAPdmivrr W tR'c City", water ,y,tem in pa,tner,hip with TigdIa. Stdtt ae,Ire, to engage the Coancil in d ai3CE133ion UT tRe TIM aing, W tRe CU,) npa ate an tRe ander lying tindr,cid l d„amptiorr,, apon vvhich p.opo3ea nevv cu3tornFr utility .atie3 a.E ac.ivea. TRe,e Tina..6al a„amptiMn, inClaae: • Grawth in customer base — assumed at 0.5% per annum • Operating reserves — assumed at 37 days of u&MI expense • Capital reserves --- assumed at no of plant -',n -service 5Dl 3 — avallaME fun33 u3e3 To. i..u- i iga.3 p.OjUt lnve,trrlent into. eat — a„umea at U.55% inc, ea,ing to 1% in FY 1 j14 • Gene, al Co, -.,t intlation — 3,0% • Co, ,tr action Coit inflation — 3.59,,. • Capital r epldCement tanning — 0% • Personnel Benefits costs — assumed to increase 8% in FY 13712, 4% in FY 12713 and n% in FY 1j714— • j714• Transfers to veneral Fund — Increasing at 3% annually • LD-Tiga. d CIP 5cena. io — 325 mgd vvitR mLo..e Qel3t 5e. vile Coverage — m nimam 1.[5 Staff appreciates that Council also would like to know what effect if ally, tRe p. io. adopted tie. ad p. iC.ing structure has had on reducing water waste. Rt the Study Session, Staff will review what the customer Billing SLauNLiCN reveal in terms of water use by tier and among customer classes. In general, water revenae5 are down dpproximdLely 3.4% reldLive w BaagEL. WedLher, and perhaps to a lesser degree, the City"�o comer vation ettort, are Believed to be the Cd MM of renaCea demand arra aiminI:,Rea revenaes. Going Tor war d tNuae r eaacea revenge, ma,t Be con,iaer ed in tFee corrteAt of propmma tatare r cite a3JU3tment3 dna ai,4a„ivn, UT,trategie, to amelior ate tRe,e impact, eitl1er tRroagR lar ger r ate a3ju3tment3 u. Ea.lic. implcmcntatlon of 3malle. a3j'n-Amer It,. 162 November 30, 2010 3.5 CITY OF LA&r OS w r GO 380 AAvenue ry tso-- �36y Lake Oswego, OR 97034 { 503-675-3984 �. —C. .os .ego.or.us TO: Jack Hoffman, Mayor MEM5erb vt LEE City Cuuncil Alex D. Piclntyre, City Manager FRuM: uraala Eaier Finance Director SuBJEC l : 5tudy 5c33iurl — Upaatc of Maatccr rcca & ClilarBca Tur Racal Year LU11-1L DATE: November 19, 201u ALiIVIV Revlcvv cilia alacaaa cRangca to Pla-AEr rcc5 K (..Mlarge5 (IVIF&(,) civ that 5tatt can preaent a tirial report to L.ouna.il On Uc%cmbcr 14, LU1V for aavptivn. IIV-rRODULTION/ BAcKGROUND �.ity 5tatt prupu5e5 cMange5 to teen and cRargea annually. They are z�ammariLed in tRe MF&C Booklet ab attacrl'ca. KEvlalul la to USI Iity TCCJ generally gu Intu CMU aJ UT July 1. 2011 eAcept were otRerWIJe IIVte5. All other change:, to charrua fur nun-atility SCrviuE3 gu into MTETt as UT January 1, 2011. DISCUSSION Utilities - Water At tre time tIIia memo is written_ 515caa5ion5 on tRe Lake Ubwegu-Tigard Water PartnerbFiip cunt impala cilia the rcaUltll IS rcvence requirement tur tMe Water atility Have I ,ut Seel, tlliali e3. I Fie attar lea aratt ut the Iver& - in%ludc3 Mc asaumptiun ut an average incrcaae ut Lb.zb%. Row macr ut tRia it lcreaae will attEr-t the fixed portion „ersms the three blu%k3 will Be ;.imputed aTtcr alai llaaiVl la Have Been it may be assumed that the combination of fixed and variable charges to a typical crostomer will increaae by 25.25% and LFie chart in Section 1, A) of the booklet shows that. A5 an vptiuli. atcitt prupubeb to make LEE CRange ettective a�, vt March 1, 2011 to Begin Lo raise tFie ncc.eaaary revel lues a5 early a5 pc; a.bl a and to avoid all utherwi�e larger average Increase a� ut July 1_ 2u11. TFia increaaea in Me MdUvvil lg two yearn vvvala alaz ucc.ar as of March 1st_ Bat 111Ily Tur Water. All st other chensua of atility ratca will continue tU g" nity ETTe4t a5 UTJaly 1 163 November 30, 2010 Page 2 Utilities — Wastcwatcr The wdSLewater utility (sewer) was slated for a third 367o average ca3tormer rate incrca3c, the tRira OT three, to be tallawea By another two annual A% increases, and general inflationary increases thu,-wafter, ariven by the Cal•Ce Uswega IntercepLor System project. In September of this year an updated cost analysis reveaiea Mat a 1/.25% incmdb'e ab at Jaly 1. 2011 dna 2012 (dna general intldLiandry increases thereafter) ahaala proviae tMe nel e33ary MvEnaea to meet all USHEdtiona tar operdtions dna cdpitdi projectb.. I hese increa3ea arc iovvcr Man originally anticipatea ane to iavver co, rAraction 1a3t3 dna lower ZIER service expenditures, than previoaaly aaaarnea. i Fla increa3e3 are appiica to tRe tinea portion at the tee only which makes up about i3% of an average casto.r'3 vvaatcvvatcr tea, vvitR arripRaai3 an "average: Depenaing on usage, each customer can experience a higher or lovver than li.z5ro increa3e. when 3tatt prezentea RldAer Fees & Chdrges in November 2009 it presented new non-residential fixed cFiargea aaing a aocament it 5elievea to Be an datharitdtive baarce aacamenlL. While statt worked on the 5Eptember LULU upaate of tMe caatamer rate analysis it 5ecame clear thdt this aacament was nOL a 5aarce document aha inaavcrtently inclaaea acme anintanaea information. I he tAIe 5elaw bhow what happened and what 3honld have Rappanea. wastewater — I19an-Re3iaential Monthly Fixed Chdrgeb Muter Si&u Imphi m-pted Imended fer Prupubed for n 7/1/2010 7/1/201 711/2011 ,� P......3 4.. 32.37 32.97 40.62 �." 32.37 41.73 51A1 4.L73 49.53 6a...oT 2" a a)'09 92.50 Yfi 75.59 3431. 103.86 4.. 34.31. 1.09.76 135' 21. 6.. 109,76 135,03 1R_34 81' 143.9�1 1.3.5.52 1'j1. /14 _LK—ems 185.93 229.11. 32" 235.01 262.x.3 .3.22.92 staff estimates that about A5 EuAoi , er3 are aTM_'tUa. In ea.ence, tMese ea.toiiier. have enjoyea a temporary rate that was lower than intended. staff woala UC to 5r1ng tRe Tinea rate. tar mater .iz.) OT 1 inch dna larger to the intended rate amount as shown above and as of iMarch 1, zull ana tREn proceea with the 17.25% average increase as of July 1, 2011. staff estimates the revenue loss to the utility to be araana X50_000 tar FY2010-11. 164 November 30, 2010 Page 3 Utili-lies - Stormwater In NovelrlBer 2009_ Council daoptea the city's Cledn Strearrrs Plan and approved a funding option that calls Tor all amiaal 7.01% increase thragh FYL017-18. I he dttachea MF&c Booklet retlects this. Utilities - street Maintenam c Resolution 1u-iy, adopted in MarcM Zulu, specifies mo..tMly Street rnaintcila,Ice TEES By u5c-c1a551Tlcatlo�l5 (resiaerltial, non-residential) to be effective as of July i, 2uiu. Resolution lu-zu established annual in7exirlg of the 5treet Mdintenance Fee according to a collared 2u -City Average Engineering ivevvs Record Corlstraction Cost (ENKCC) index, where the minimum index is 2% and the maximum index is 7%. The new StrCCt Malntellalll,e tec� irlclaaea irl the aratt IDIF&C Booklet have Been compatea accoraingly. Page 5 of tM.= MF&L 5vvKlct 3110vvs the rc�alt ng Si-rnmAnly utility Bill tar a typical re Amitial ca�tonrcr as of July 1, 2011, a..d compares it with pr'cvioM5 y'car5. A COrMpari50ii with neisnBariiis dtic5 15 �navvii a,i page 6. other Paaz�Nort tees are prescrl5ea By the U5 Depdrtmerlt of 5tdte dila were iticreasea (see edge 17) dccordingly. Liarary tees vvere riot l.nallgea_ neither were tees ill beverdl other areal, �)aCh d:� Manicipal Court, Tennis, UZOT, Athllctic Field uae, Aaalt COrrIMMlity (.cuter Swim ParR_ Kecreatiolldl Classes, water Spurts Center, skate Park, aria utMer mi5cellaiianua ParRa K Recreatloi, C3E3. Kccora retelltim, aria arcniving tet=' in building and Planni,ig were reviewed a A i icrea5e3 to reflect curre,it CUA . OT arcRiviiis requiremcnts; they will generate funding for the new record retention employee apvrovea tMroogM tRe most recent Budget process. Proposed wdter dlla WdstEVVdter Connection chdrges were increased by the 20 -City average ENRCC index (z5.8%), as vvere System Development Charges. Special Wastewater Connective Charges were increased By tMe Seattle ENKLC illaex (u.7%)' all prescridea By prior oralllarlcea. F15c.AL IMPAaT & ALi ERNM IVES The increase to a typical residential customer in dollars and cents, rather than percentages, is 3liow,i iii Section 1, A) on page 4. Rcvaliaczo gerleratea trum City tees dre shown on the attached 10-yedr history. Council coola reconsider 5vIT1c tee change, alga aaRC for a aelay in implemelltdtiorl. REt.uMI01timuAe iuw It is recommended that council review the fee schedule and direct staff to return vvitB fiiial Ma.tEr Fee., & Chdrges for d paBlic hearing and adoption on December 14, 2uzu. 165 November 30, 2010 Page 4 ATTACHM E NTS 1. 10 -Year hlswry ut Revenaeb GeneraLe7 trum City Fees Z. Dratt of IVIF&C 6uuKlet, ihange�, are tracked in culur Reviewed by: Ale,, D. Mrintyre City Manager Davi? Powell t ity Attorney 166 November 30, 2010 City of Lake Oswego For Fiscal Years Endins June 30th DEPARTMENVAREA FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 GENERAL: 3,829 4.451 2.186 6,476 4,509 4,732 3.6.50 2,511 2.834 796 Team field improv fee 175,589 $ 179,340 $ 180.961 $ 174,092 $ 214,241 S 208,554 $ 204,019 $ 198,331 S 226,017 $ 156,740 MUNICIPAL COURT: 97,395 136,198 705,749 -7,I 218,215 261,105 265,667 172,767 110,751 97,812 Ce---- T �-a-Ld-ea 28,50(- 32,451 35,064 3(,1(5 35,945 38,893 39,519 38,804 41,925 37,3(5 Hkt l l M,,:-1'1'-.: 359,869 359,428 367,878 409,529 459,008 532,483 614,594 733,297 678,052 457,428 :.?_-ba: Ilia❑ 8,335 7,894 7,3(0 7,575 7,407 7,905 6572 2;,;42 (-381 (--,003 Lien I'ees 102,748 139.08 236.88] 136,4;7 112,370 97,84, )9,44) 77,735 67.902 69,075 i�cspi. ccr ccs .-,7,7 730,718 859,452 788,387 854,1(.7 )(.1,439 1,1(8.4(.6 I,z07,1F.9 1,134382 83(1,6(19 Lig,,:,,,: T I. Library fines 61,975 68,040 69,944 128,542 121,399 173,075 178,349 1:,6,165 120,623. 10°),770 Bldg Fl.,-.�F .k 3,829 4.451 2.186 6,476 4,509 4,732 3.6.50 2,511 2.834 796 Team field improv fee 65,804 72,491 72.130 135,018 125,908 127,807 131.999 128,676 123,457 110,066 MUNICIPAL COURT: 97,395 136,198 705,749 173,196 218,215 261,105 265,667 172,767 110,751 97,812 Fin.- & f ef.iak- 573,243 576,459 566,261 731,261 863,800 894.059 788,082 801,463 742,974 951581 ACC: 4,054 2,748 2,372 3,722 210 - - - - - :.?_-ba: Ilia❑ 8,335 7,894 7,3(0 7,575 7,407 7,905 6572 6,979 (-381 (--,003 Re-ideas 27,198 27,362 32,731 34,443 37,384 39,472 35,128 35,087 32,779 31.261 i�cspi. ccr ccs .-,7,7 ,,7+�� -,. ,,.� ,..9a o,ov�, - ,,o - - --... Meals Network fees - -n27 la, ,'0 3,,,3v 4,-,2v 78,578 73.907 90,106 104,497 103,800 T.. -:r❑, eh._.c P..,., & e[:.,- 47,850 5 (.661 58.028 65,679 78,746 95,853 46,102 70,909 7 LEI ( 50,610 1'-,e 87,120 92,663 104,102 112,387 130,332 221,808 162.339 203,171 215,273 214,667 FRANCHISE. FRES - 2,573 10,433 9,334 9,357 11115 14.894 14,845 11,553 10.806, Pe..-aaad G....r-IEl.ecr. 668,244 741,594 910,779 862,422 881,813 882,002 943,269 1,046,053 1,015,146 1.057,467 �Wcse i, -„ i -T, 77 i.7,d.,- i79,17� i ,,e)�,; i ---� I, -.i i6, -s2 - Allied Waste & Keller Drop 133,593 129,504 149,77$ 154,991 257,097 252,371 295,924 300,986 341,176 307,700 C.:7-r.t 180,546 778.053 257,351 248,538 3303,344 347,775 381,571 473,041 420-753 509-896 Vc-;;,,-,' 6--[ Tcicpho„c 41,647 38,117 35,769 36,064 40,018 44,156 39,774 34,753 30,582 55,341 T.�rui.csr,,'-'i �ov,7iu �r-o,- - -3-mI-, -7 - ,- v-�,uv7 7-_.- , � n -7,'v, �--, n Elactric Light -a- 12,148 8,43(- 11.095 21,139 2C-,357 35,495 34,1)$ 4z,E(-7 4(-,7(-4 2(.847 No : PEth 27,7.,o »9,»0 6,,7. .,,,.,00 --,-i2 76.i8, 67,7 1, 60,»29 »i,67i 25.000 D.- -.d.-f= mm 1,707,191 Im-,123 1,932,40, 18,789 2,e2o,24,, 2,1x4,721 2,,,,3,73o 2,77-0,060 3,489 2,a2e.02 BUILDING & PERMIT CENTER Bldg Fl.,-.�F .k 178,277 324,523 528,413 376„911 395,162 384,756 338,(,-35 277,869 172.900 167,945 Team field improv fee x,3)0 33,761 43,102 17,232 x6,159 17,092 73,003 "','o 27r, ,,v iTo-i; Plumbingpermits 97,395 136,198 705,749 173,196 218,215 261,105 265,667 172,767 110,751 97,812 L -6,;c I' -r, 45,848 66,034 144,839 113,670 134,890 182,960 172,945 137,999 99,551 102,118 Dr;7e-,sy 4,054 2,748 2,372 3,722 210 - - - - - �icc,r, 14,017 6,916 8,504 37,745 50,544 65,615 46,810 34,854 52,789 91,078 Stats % m.wharga 42,770 5%,977 89,1(:1 (-,9,904 75,879 93.219 87,918 81,395 (.7,524 64,1(.1 Pl=bi::gl;1:.:eL.ek 10,277 5,000 21,245 5,959 10,856 9,781 11,142 4,190 75 - ,�,�churicslplu cLoo� 4,,,94 -n27 la, ,'0 3,,,3v 4,-,2v ;,301 0,0 4 0,2,2 3-090 4,034 Electrical plan check L11 4,37., 1),561 3,447 4,949 6,677 6,388 3,138 (8711 1,400 1'-,e 12,505 25,375 23,330 %3,498 18,865 24,51E 45,407 32,81(- 31,4(8 16,401 Re -,--N. fee - 2,573 10,433 9,334 9,357 11115 14.894 14,845 11,553 10.806, - - --- -- -- - - - - - - - - 77�.77v PUBLIC SAFETY h„p0erds, Pl^r, ks,d0g fn., 7,414 4,110 20,761 25,840 50,945 36,200 33,500 34,365 56.600 121,080 ",;Ice F`-aC--trait- 1,(77,280 1,701,309 1.735.43(1 1,817,221 2,010,949 1,953.75(- 7,07:,8:.8 %,141,808 %,299,9(.-5 L(42.707 1,((34,694 1,705,419 1.756,181 1,843,061 2,061,894 1;989.956 2,106,328 2,176,173 2,356,565 2,555.625 PLANNING Tree curing permi" 27,7.,o »9,»0 6,,7. .,,,.,00 --,-i2 76.i8, 67,7 1, 60,»29 »i,67i 475.7,, D.- -.d.-f= mm 14,536 13,930 12,610 18,789 28,352 34,287 73,210 13,101 3,489 10,454 Ai:;i.-.app-e7.3 fes 37,824 69,498 57,987 119,683 74,834 109,356 72,970 172,533 133.379 IIL-,86,3 ..c.ci.,p;rcrc� e.ieW ;4,7 079 Planning commission 10,786 447 1,781 4,590 278 - - 9,747 5,910 A,,,,.-] f..- 10,515 2,525 7,954 4,713 5,944 7.432 5,166 2,134 7,878 373 M;scf ca 5,102 12,777 10,124 33,995 37,494 9.863 11.934 9,658 6.732 27.725 7�,7or LI_.-,�. -v.� v 7.-r,Z�7 3;I,oV-o �v�,7av 3i-o.7 PARKS & RECREATION Azz,aeea,deecf-, 1,32v 2,199 1,755 4,561 3,750 3,193 3,846 42,892 4,534 Team field improv fee x,3)0 33,761 43,102 17,232 x6,159 17,092 73,003 - 0,,762 - f .r. 228,0-81 297,219 331,634 330,025 474,973 384,549 410,270 456-,76(1 469,102 456,751 L -6,;c I' -r, 2,459 - 4,312 - - - - - vv aieT TP6,"S Co$ - Field usage fees 14,017 6,916 8,504 37,745 50,544 65,615 46,810 34,854 52,789 91,078 Park e:c-o. f..r 7,360 8,059 10,763 8,635 10,575 18,111 76,89t 36,263 47,045 78.517 OTg-ie Ede --i „Co,eCT 6,879 7,890 9,388 20,348 26,980 53,227 57,388 73,326 60,531 79,732 �p�c,aiov�ss Iv,v.., ,,.,vo -. - "'j, -,-,� ,-,wu ,3 B_ildingrantalfaas 1(.-,901 15,539 21,(83 72,277 22,775 21,395 20.2(5 17,992 %2,)10 17,(57 323,259 399,151 4(1,305 465,731 607,121 (-25?17 6,57.528 (.92,778 740,713 710.(85 file: R.r^^^^ hprie:d.,:.: 1112312010 page, 1 _f:1 R7 November 30, 2010 rv�. r.doul Y.,:..5 L.0.7 -.g Ju..., Atli 1681.: Re-enue FY Thi .e h_FY 2010...1.,., prin: d.,:e: 11123/2010 2..12 November 30, 2010 -7tr� --tro In. --tr7 --00 -.."T --;o TOURISM Heeel/Metel Tu,. 258,6(9 GOLF COURSE Gree.feel 456,916 423,606 432,719 423,278 375,981 391,036 423,971 390,687 419,621 395,202 „cirg,srg� 04 1-,m391 131,.,24 116, 07 9.,,09; 80,.39 77,729 79,-7 9..-,,407 d,-07 Clubicart rental 18,220 15.2,90 13,347 13,.,88 12,666 I w34 16,6-11 14,908 2;•018 18,572 12,395 8,322 (..441 (,338 8,029 E;2C8 7,97E 13,237 11,(91 1 1,482 Me.ehr..dlae mlar, 75,634 94,445 103,1((- 88,433 84,981 80,008 72,753 77,595 71,391 65,607 _., .t,,.7, Vending Machine sales - - - - - - - - 303 454 Yeeth e1a-.e., 12,282 10.535 10,378 9,949 14,178 22,871 22,681 23,751 28.686 35,532 Adult 9,424 6.525 35.188 39,157 23,590 29,778 38.544 51.921 46.200 38,796 716,7, - -v -- -- --�,pG3 6�;,:" ov-,a7S TENNIS FACILITY �oerh�Iap��� x;,286 o1,,I -o,- 7,-m,r Adult classes 42,202 41.683 42,410 44,434 47,008 62,066 61,773 7_,811 69.369 82,3-8 S, -..■-1c1 ---..tr 2,281 3,538 5,899 4,959 0,515 13,207 973(3 9,99( 10,87( 22,081 D:.ily e�;a.fee-. 32,069 35,411 34,809 29,745 29,339 25,009 27.458 35,860 2(,567 42,994 - - -- -- - --- I o.� - - - - -- - -,26,327 236,064 246,063 263,016 268,737 263.916 301,994 347,945 333.347 378.372 UTILITY RATE REVENUE .,Or -Y,ti�» ,�3s,i'00 -i7,ds7 -- -- ,i-06,�57, ,77tJ30, - '037 x,53» J.:o +,73-,,60-, .,53J,i7 W, -7t --W:, 3,788,-04 3,980,397 4.371,027 4,916,259 4,957,039 4,922.962 5,174,172 5,810,183 6,299,517 7,723,050 Serf ee W -:e, 1,181,548 1,269,867 1,343,114 1,430,221 1,445,115 1,722.065 1,676,896 1,795,867 1,808,077 1,822.127 S..00t, -sin"nan-;oo ,;12 ;.12- , 1, 1. x,017 1,;42,2,•„-, I:; 1,��4,�e; 9,333,796 9.789.450 10.03].-,38 10,744,917 11,-,41,7-,s 12,0 7,999 12,412.537 13,-,82,298 13;978.514 16.Z.,7,,QI SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGES: Gcs-.,aw,Z-'unspvra.iarij-J, md.'m ,-0"1 -o7,Z,Z .76.7-- SDCs- Parks & Recreation -,44,248 168,468 141,507 203,483 240,744 49-,,038 408,787 103,317 22),6-,3 210.9-.4 SDC,- W,t- 186,242 193,830 237,782 189,195 377,463 390,622 298,66E 228,709 75,198 61,535 SDC:- W-er�w,a�r 191,628 218.730 26-3,6-89 245,032 305,298 413,628 3047994 121,672 117,688 124,701 SDC-, - Suracc vz"cr i 1,2,0E i i 0, 10 ZL,utn 77.355 i i.3737--,ioZ 3,727 1,150,231 1,115,907 1.37(,795 9(5,594 1,155,951 7,0(9.663 1,613,(80 671,357 717,853 571.519 Eng n-ing Engineering Fees 82,390 131,779 114,109 177,30-, 283,176 1Z7,876 -29,738 129,713 66,933 103,00, LID- & -irk e7ja.-n (:z2,575 595,178 598,8(-.7 (;17,347 550,195 807,478 711,441 483,519 309,854 355,575 3,435 18,900 33,630 42,480 57,525 67.655 56,867 43,600 27,750 21.275 'S�r- Pcnibg pons 7,2,v l2,+,..-.06 - -'- - -' -.-u =I,;v7 - - -- - J -1.7,,00 708;400 763.107 764.106 863,727 1)19,707 ].071.361 1,011),708 (,74,728 437.268 509,655 LO/TIGARD WATER SUPPLY & warn arcers - - - - - - - - - 7-570 Revenues Generated by Cily Fees & cls ra- 17,917,2(( 18,984,804 20,991.452 21,180,457 23,02(,,8 18 25,22(,,197 25,534994 25,162,451 25,125,35( 27.485,0(10 Pe.-ee:auge ..:a.eu0e e_e._ Fr.�.r year 0.911/11 5 49% 10.58% 0.90% 8.72%, 9.55% 1.22% -1.46 % -0.15 % 9.39% 1681.: Re-enue FY Thi .e h_FY 2010...1.,., prin: d.,:e: 11123/2010 2..12 November 30, 2010 Preface City of Lake Oswego, Oregon The City provides a full range of municipal services to the community which includes police and fire protection, emergency medical services, traffic control and improvement, street maintenance and improvement, water, sewer, and surface water management services, planning and zoning regulation, building inspection and regulation, parks and recreational activities, and community library service. This Master Fees and Charges booklet consolidates all City fees and charges, adopted by City Council resolution, for the various services that the City provides. Typically, it is updated annually and reflects all fee resolutions passed by Council during the year. For easy reference, the current Master Fees and Charges booklet, as well as the last couple of year's versions, are available online at: www.ci.oswego.or.us/finance/fees.htm Fee Variance and Waiver Statement Based upon an unusual circumstance or event, past practices, demonstrated hardship, or public benefit, the City Manager is authorized to waive or decrease a fee(s) or charge(s) in a particular matter or establish a fee not yet authorized in this resolution. When a new fee is established by the City Manager it may be incorporated into this resolution. It shall be communicated to Council in writing to allow opportunity for comment. The request for a waiver or reduction may be in writing. If the City Manager or his designee agrees to said waiver or reduction, he/she may inform the City Council, in writing, of the request and his/her decision, except in minor matters such as non-profit signed fee waivers and City tree removal applications. 2011 Master Fees and Charges Page 1 169 Table of Contents Section1: General................................................................................................................... 5 Utility Rates: Water, Sewer, Surface Water, and Street.......................................................................... 5 Business License, Liquor License, and Sidewalk Cafe Fees..................................................................... 13 DogLicense.............................................................................................................................................14 FranchiseFees.........................................................................................................................................15 PublicRecords Fees.................................................................................................................................17 MiscellaneousFees.................................................................................................................................18 Section 2: City Attorney Office............................................................................................... 19 DiscoveryFees........................................................................................................................................19 CityCode.................................................................................................................................................19 Section 3: Fire Department.................................................................................................... 20 GeneralFees...........................................................................................................................................20 Emergency Services Rates....................................................................................................................... 21 Fireand Life Safety Checks..................................................................................................................... 21 FireSafety Inspections............................................................................................................................ 21 Section4: Library................................................................................................................... 22 GeneralFees........................................................................................................................................... 22 Section 5: Maintenance Services............................................................................................ 23 GeneralFees........................................................................................................................................... 23 Section 6: Municipal Court..................................................................................................... 23 GeneralFees...........................................................................................................................................23 Section 7. Parks & Recreation................................................................................................ 24 IndoorTennis Center.............................................................................................................................. 24 GolfCourse.............................................................................................................................................. 25 AthleticField User Charges..................................................................................................................... 26 Adult Community Center Fees................................................................................................................ 27 SwimPark................................................................................................................................................28 Recreation Classes and Activities............................................................................................................ 29 WaterSports Center............................................................................................................................... 29 170 Page 2 2011 Master Fees and Charges SkatePark................................................................................................................................................29 35 Miscellaneous Parks & Recreation Fees................................................................................................. 30 Commercial Filming in City Parks............................................................................................................ 31 Section 8: Police Department................................................................................................. 32 Security Alarm Code Violation Fees........................................................................................................ 32 PoliceReports......................................................................................................................................... 32 Miscellaneous Police Fees....................................................................................................................... 32 Section 9: Building Division.................................................................................................... 33 BuildingPermits.................................................................. Electrical Permits................................................................ Mechanical Permits............................................................. Mechanical Permits............................................................. PlumbingPermits................................................................ Community Development Code Enforcement Charges...... Record Retention Fee ......................................................... Research and Consultation Fees ......................................... Other Inspections and Fees ................................................ Additional Miscellaneous Fees ............................................ Refunds............................................................................... .................................................................... 33 .................................................................... 34 .................................................................... 35 .................................................................... 35 .................................................................... 36 .................................................................... 37 .................................................................... 37 .................................................................... 37 .................................................................... 37 .................................................................... 38 .................................................................... 38 Section 10: Engineering Division............................................................................................ 39 Grading/Earthwork Fees.........................................................................................................................39 Minor Utility Facilities, Installed or Constructed by Public or Private Entities.......................................39 GeneralEngineering Fees....................................................................................................................... 39 OtherEngineering Fees...........................................................................................................................40 Section 11: Planning Division................................................................................................. 42 MinisterialDevelopments.......................................................................................................................42 MinorDevelopments.............................................................................................................................. 42 Comprehensive Plan and Community Development Code Amendments..............................................43 MajorDevelopments.............................................................................................................................. 44 Fees Relating to Historical Preservation.................................................................................................44 Appeals.................................................................................................................................................... 44 171 2011 Master Fees and Charges Page 3 Pre -Application Conference/Consultations............................................................................................ 44 ResearchFees.........................................................................................................................................45 TreeCode Fees........................................................................................................................................45 OtherPlanning Fees................................................................................................................................45 Section 12: Systems Development Charges............................................................................ 47 Systems Development Charges............................................................................................................... 47 Systems Development Charges Methodologies..................................................................................... 48 Page 4 2011 Master Fees and Charges 172 Section 1: General Section 1: General Utility Rates: Water, Sewer, Surface Water, and Street (LOC 37 and 38) LOC 38.04.015 Water and Sewer charges for customers outside of the City may be set by specific agreement. For customers outside the City, but not covered by a special agreement, the charge is 150% of standard "in -City" rates. For bulk water users, the City Manager may set "peak" season rates. LOC 38.06.030 The billing cycle for all utility customers shall be from the meter -read date through the meter -read date (currently a two-month period, from approximately the 15th through the 15th), due and payable on the 1st day of the month following the billing date, and delinquent on the 15th day of such month. A late charge of $5 may be assessed for utility bills not paid within 30 days after billing. If the utility bill is $200 or more, the late charge is 2.5% of the total amount due. The late charge is divided proportionately among the amounts due for water, sewer, surface water, and street fee and becomes part of the total user charge amount due for each utility. Lake Oswego's typical Bi -Monthly Utility Bill Based on typical use for a single-family home - 2,000cf for water & 1,600 cf for sewer Projected future utility rate increases - Multi-year Financing Plan 7/1/06 7/1/07 7/1/08 7/1/09 7/1/10 7/1/11 7/1/12 Water Rates - 3% 3% 15.5% 15.25% 25.25% 25.25% Wastewater Rates 5% 10% 10% 30% $217.12 17.25% 17.25% Surface Water Rates 10% 5% 3% 3°% 7% 7°% 7% Street Maintenance Fee $200 - - 7% 28% 32% 30% Average Increase of total utility bill 3% 6% 6% 14% 22% 19% 21% $182.02 $149.38 $150 114.24 $120.86 $100 4 $50 $0 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 ■ Water $42.02 $42.02 $42.02 $42.02 $42.02 $43.18 $44.56 $46.76 $53.08 $66.48 ■ Wastewater $42.38 $47.04 $47.04 $47.04 $49.38 $54.38 $59.86 $77.86 $100.80 $117.94 ■ Street Maintenance $7.50 $7.50 $7.50 $7.50 $7.50 $8.00 $10.20 $13.50 ■ Surface Water $12.52 1 $13.28 1 $13.28 1 $14.60 $15.34 1 $15.80 $16.28 $16.76 $17.94 $19.20 Based on typical use for a single-family home - 2,000cf for water & 1,600 cf for sewer Projected future utility rate increases - Multi-year Financing Plan 2011 Master Fees and Charges Page 5 173 7/1/06 7/1/07 7/1/08 7/1/09 7/1/10 7/1/11 7/1/12 Water Rates - 3% 3% 15.5% 15.25% 25.25% 25.25% Wastewater Rates 5% 10% 10% 30% 30% 17.25% 17.25% Surface Water Rates 10% 5% 3% 3°% 7% 7°% 7% Street Maintenance Fee - - - 7% 28% 32% 30% Average Increase of total utility bill 3% 6% 6% 14% 22% 19% 21% 2011 Master Fees and Charges Page 5 173 Section 1: General Comparison of Neighboring Cities' typical Bi -Monthly Utility Bills V Based on an October 2010 survey of typical single-family homes in other Portland metropolitan area cities Components of the typical Lake Oswego Utility Bill $140 $120 $100 $80 $60 - $40 $0 Page 6 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 - Wastewater Water Surface Water - - - Street Maintenance 2011 Master Fees and Charges 174 $ 234 $ 224 $ 217 $200.00 $147 $148 $153 $153 $150.00 142 $ 135 $ 127 $100.00 $50.00 $_ Hillsboro Milwaukee Gresham West Linn Beaverton Tualatin Oregon Tigard KE Wilsonville Portland City OS 0Water $42.32 $43.20 $76.26 $53.29 $60.40 $59.60 $67.76 $64.74 $66.48 $109.59 $79.45 ■ Wastewater $68.92 $65.51 $48.18 $51.48 $72.92 $70.70 $56.90 $68.92 $117.94 $93.62 $110.72 ■Street/Parks 1 $6.20 $6.70 $31.06 $6.84 $15.00 $6.02 $13.50 $13.54 ®Surface Water $9.50 $19.50 $17.20 $9.14 $13.50 $10.38 $13.00 $13.50 $19.2 $7.44 $43.58 V Based on an October 2010 survey of typical single-family homes in other Portland metropolitan area cities Components of the typical Lake Oswego Utility Bill $140 $120 $100 $80 $60 - $40 $0 Page 6 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 - Wastewater Water Surface Water - - - Street Maintenance 2011 Master Fees and Charges 174 Section 1: General Water Rates 1. Water connection charge' - this charge is in addition to the Water SDC fee, if applicable (LOC 38.10.113). Meter Size Charge 5/8" - %" $ X609 1" $ x§868 1-1/2" $'042,184 2" $ 242,443 Larger than 2" are charged at cost and materials plus 20% overhead ($2,215 minimum) 2. Standard minimum monthly water rates for customers within the City, including Forest Highlands Water District. LOC 38.06.020 (2a). Meter Size 5/8"-3/4" 1" 1-1/2" 2" 3" 4" 6" 8" 10" 12" First dwelling unit 7/1/09 7/1/10 7/1/11 Each additional dwelling unit 7/1/09 7/1/10 7/1/11 Non-residential services 1/1/10 7/1/10 7/1/11 $13.48 $13.88 $ $12.16 $12.52 $ $13.48 $13.88 $ $13.48 $13.88 $ $12.16 $12.52 $ $17.08 $17.59 $ $ 13.48 $ 13.88 $ $12.16 $ 12.52 $ $ 20.32 $ 20.93 $ $ 13.48 $ 13.88 $ $12.16 $ 12.52 $ $ 30.75 $ 31.67 $ $ 13.48 $ 13.88 $ $12.16 $ 12.52 $ $ 34.53 $ 35.57 $ $ 13.48 $ 13.88 $ $12.16 $ 12.52 $ $ 44.97 $ 46.32 $ $ 13.48 $ 13.88 $ $12.16 $ 12.52 $ $ 55.30 $ 56.96 $ $ 13.48 $ 13.88 $ $12.16 $ 12.52 $ $ 74.24 $ 85.75 $ $ 13.48 $ 13.88 $ $12.16 $ 12.52 $ $ 85.89 $ 98.98 $ $ 13.48 $ 13.88 $ $12.16 $ 12.52 $ $121.53 $140.06 $ USAGE: Per 100 cubic feet (ccf)2 3. If a customer's water is turned off because of noncompliance with the proper use of water or for non- payment of utility bills, a charge of $30 will be assessed for turning the water off, and another charge of $30 for a water turn -on. (LOC 38.16.170). 4. Voluntary turn -ons or turn-offs via the customer's request will be free of charge during regular working hours. 5. There is a charge for reading meters or making service turn -ons or turn-offs at other than regular working hours. In order to suit the convenience of water purchasers, whenever a City employee is required to read a meter or make a water service turn -on or turn-off during hours other than the regular work hours established for City employees, a flat charge of $80 shall be required for such service, in addition to all other charges provided for in this resolution, to be payable as other charges for water services. (LOC 38.16.175). ' Indexed annually by the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index (CCI) for 20 -City Average z Based on water delivered during the period between meter read dates 2011 Master Fees and Charges Page 7 175 7/1/09 7/1/10 7/1/11 Single family residential customers: Block 1: 0- 8 ccf monthly ......................................................................................................................... $ 0.90/ccf$ 1.15/ccf $ Block 2: 9 -16 ccf monthly ....................................................................................................................... $ 1.35/ccf $ 1.73/ccf $ Block 3: over 17 ccf monthly ........................................................................................................................ $ 2.74/ccf $ 3.51/ccf $ Multi -family customers $ 1.21/ccf $ 1.53/ccf $ Non-residential customers $ 1.21/ccf $ 1.53/ccf $ Irrigation customers $ 2.05/ccf $ 2.65/ccf $ 3. If a customer's water is turned off because of noncompliance with the proper use of water or for non- payment of utility bills, a charge of $30 will be assessed for turning the water off, and another charge of $30 for a water turn -on. (LOC 38.16.170). 4. Voluntary turn -ons or turn-offs via the customer's request will be free of charge during regular working hours. 5. There is a charge for reading meters or making service turn -ons or turn-offs at other than regular working hours. In order to suit the convenience of water purchasers, whenever a City employee is required to read a meter or make a water service turn -on or turn-off during hours other than the regular work hours established for City employees, a flat charge of $80 shall be required for such service, in addition to all other charges provided for in this resolution, to be payable as other charges for water services. (LOC 38.16.175). ' Indexed annually by the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index (CCI) for 20 -City Average z Based on water delivered during the period between meter read dates 2011 Master Fees and Charges Page 7 175 Section 1: General 6. Rates for the use of a fire hydrant include $10/day for hydrant meter rental, plus the usage fee for water. 7. Failure to test backflow prevention assemblies within 30 calendar days of the anniversary inspection date shall be cause for the City to arrange for and conduct the required test. The cost of such a test shall be added to the customer's bi-monthly utility bill at the actual incurred cost plus overhead utilizing a billing multiplier of 2.4 times direct costs. (LOC 38.12.126). 8. If the City is requested to conduct a fire flow test, a flat fee will be charged for each test. See Section 3 A). Fiscal Year 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 Fixed rate Usage Rate Typical usage in ccf Typical water portion of bill % change Monthly Bi -monthly Monthly Bi -monthly Monthly Bi -monthly $ 12.10 $ 24.20 $ 0.79 10 20 $ 20.00 $ 40.00 - $ 12.71 $ 25.42 $ 0.83 10 20 $ 21.01 $ 42.02 5% $ 12.71 $ 25.42 $ 0.83 10 20 $ 21.01 $ 42.02 - $ 12.71 $ 25.42 $ 0.83 10 20 $ 21.01 $ 42.02 - $ 12.71 $ 25.42 $ 0.83 10 20 $ 21.01 $ 42.02 - $ 12.71 $ 25.42 $ 0.83 10 20 $ 21.01 $ 42.02 - $ 12.71 $ 25.42 $ 0.83 10 20 $ 21.01 $ 42.02 - $ 12.71 $ 25.42 $ 0.83 10 20 $ 21.01 $ 42.02 - $ 13.09 $ 26.18 $ 0.85 10 20 $ 21.59 $ 43.18 3% $ 13.48 $ 26.96 $ 0.88 10 20 $ 22.28 $ 44.56 3% $ 13.48 $ 26.96 $ 0.90 10 20 $ 25.18 $ 46.76 5%* $ 13.88 $ 27.76 $ 1.15 10 20 $ 26.54 $ 53.08 14%* *With a tiered rate structure increases here can vary depending on usage Fixed portion of Bi -Monthly Water Bill Water Usage Rate per ccf Page 8 2011 Master Fees and Charges 176 Section 1: General 1. Sewer rates for customers within the City, served by the City, and outside Clean Water Services (CWS) shall be charged the following rates for sewer service LOC 38.06.020 (2b): Meter Size 5/8"-3/4" 1" 1-1/2" 2" 3" 4" 6" 8" 10" 12" First dwelling unit 7/1/09 7/1/10 7/1/11 Each additional dwelling unit 7/1/09 7/1/10 7/1/11 Non-residential services 1/1/10 7/1/10 3/1/11 7/1/11 $ 25.49 $ 36.96 $ 45.53 $23.00 $ 33.34 $ 41.07 $ 22.74 $ 32.97 $ 32.97 $40.(2 $ 25.49 $ 36.96 $ 45.53 $23.00 $ 33.34 $ 41.07 $ 28.78 $ 32.97 $ 41.73 $ 51. 1 $ 25.49 $ 36.96 $ 45.53 $23.00 $ 33.34 $ 41.07 $ 34.23 $ 41.73 $ 49.63 $ 61.'4 $ 25.49 $ 36.96 $ 45.53 $23.00 $ 33.34 $ 41.07 $ 51.79 $ 49.63 $ 75.09 $ 92. $ 25.49 $ 36.96 $ 45.53 $23.00 $ 33.34 $ 41.07 $ 58.15 $ 75.09 $ 84.31 $ 103 86 $ 25.49 $ 36.96 $ 45.53 $23.00 $ 33.34 $ 41.07 $ 75.70 $ 84.31 $ 109.76 $ 135 21 $ 25.49 $ 36.96 $ 45.53 $23.00 $ 33.34 $ 41.07 $ 93.13 $109.76 $ 135.03 $ 166.34 $ 25.49 $ 36.96 $ 45.53 $23.00 $ 33.34 $ 41.07 $110.70 $143.91 $ 143.91 $ 177 28 $ 25.49 $ 36.96 $ 45.53 $23.00 $ 33.34 $ 41.07 $128.26 $166.74 $ 166.74 $ 205 41 $ 25.49 $ 36.96 $_45.53 $23.00 $ 33.34 $_41.07 $180.78 $235.01 $ 235.01 $ 289 51 USAGE: Per 100 cubic feet (ccf) of average winter water usage 7/1/09 7/1/10 7/1/11 $ 1.68/ccf $ 1.68/ccf $ 1.68ccf a. The above Sewer Usage Rate per 100 cubic feet of average monthly water consumption is applied against the three applicable winter billing cycles of the preceding year. If the full three winter billing cycles are not available, whatever billing record is available shall be used for the computation. b. Where no average winter water usage is available or where it is deemed inappropriate to use in some unusual circumstance, use the standard City-wide average of 8ccf per month (16ccf per two-month billing period) multiplied by the standard sewer rates listed above. c. The monthly sewer utility user charge for property within the City and served by Clean Water Services (CWS) of Washington County shall be equal to the monthly service charge established by the agency for similar uses served by the Agency system. The City Manager shall keep on file for public inspection a copy of the current rate structure. Note: Clean Water Services (CWS) was formerly known as Unified Sewage Agency (USA) 3 Not known at this time, usually becomes available on June 1St 2011 Master Fees and Charges Page 9 177 7/1/07 7/1/08 7/1/09 7/1/10 7/1/113 CWS wastewater - fixed base charge CWS wastewater - usage charge $ 19.14 $ 1.27 $ 20.12 $ 1.36 $ 21.13 $ 1.43 $ 22.46 $ 1.50 n/a n/a Note: Clean Water Services (CWS) was formerly known as Unified Sewage Agency (USA) 3 Not known at this time, usually becomes available on June 1St 2011 Master Fees and Charges Page 9 177 Section 1: General 2. If the City is requested to conduct a sewer connection verification test, a fee of $60 will be charged for each test. Homeowners requesting the test and residing at the residence are exempt from this fee. 3. A line charge shall be assessed upon connection to portions of the wastewater system. The City Engineer is authorized to establish additional benefited project areas upon completion of new projects that are constructed under the City's Sanitary Sewer Extension Program. Customers within the project area shall be assessed the line charge as a condition of receiving a connection permit. The line charge will be reviewed annually and adjusted to reflect actual construction costs of eligible projects or the change in the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index (20 -City Average) as published in Naver"be October of the preceding year. The charges shown below are for eligible projects already completed through the Dec 2, 2009 resolution date: a. For the following project areas, the cost per single family connection..............................$17,845 18,5234 Sundeleaf Drive Deemar Way Country Club Road Mardee Avenue Bryant Rd./Old Gate Road Stonebridge Way Jean Road Upper Drive west of Bryant Carman Drive b. A multiple of the above fee in 3a with the multiplier equal to the number of single family connections that could be developed on the subject property under R-5 zoning, as determined by the City Engineer 4. Special Wastewater Connection Charges: a. Fairway Road Project (pursuant to Ordinance #2262)...........................................................$1 26,7675 b. Rivergrove Sewer Connection Charges: (pursuant to Zone -of -Benefit Ordinance #2352) Refer to final ZOBordinance for fees by lot......................................................................................................various5 4 Indexed annually by the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index (CCI) for 20 -City Average Amount is rounded to the nearest dollar. 5 Indexed annually by the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index (CCI) for Seattle Amount is rounded to the nearest dollar. Note: for items 3) through 4), SDC charges may apply and are in addition to the line charges shown Page 10 2011 Master Fees and Charges 178 Section 1: General Surface Water Rates 1. The surface water management utility user charge shall be as follows {LOC 38.06.020 22(c) 1: a. Each customer using a location for a single-family home or a duplex shall be charged $947 9.60 per month or $9419.20 per two-month billing cycle. b. All other parcels shall be charged $ 9.60 per month (or $4-7-. 19.20 per two-month billing cycle) per Equivalent Service Unit (ESU). Total ESUs charged is determined by dividing the total impervious area by 3,030 and rounding to the nearest whole number. 2. The system and structure of rates for surface water management can be controlled and/or avoided through on-site mitigation credits and non -service abatement. (LOC 38.06.020). 3. Tampering Fine. The fine for tampering with the City utility system shall be equal to the total of the cost of correcting the tampering, plus any utility fee revenue estimated by the City to have been lost or affected by the tampering and a $100 fine. (LOC 38.26.915). 2011 Master Fees and Charges Page 11 179 7/1/05 7/1/06 7/1/07 7/1/08 7/1/09 7/1/10 7/1/11 Fixed monthly rate $ 7.30 $ 7.67 $ 7.90 $ 8.14 $ 8.38 $ 8.97 $ 9.60 Fixed bi-monthly rate $ 14.60 $ 15.34 $ 15.80 $ 16.28 $ 16.76 $ 17.94 $ 19.20 increases 5% 3% 3% 3% 7% 7% 2. The system and structure of rates for surface water management can be controlled and/or avoided through on-site mitigation credits and non -service abatement. (LOC 38.06.020). 3. Tampering Fine. The fine for tampering with the City utility system shall be equal to the total of the cost of correcting the tampering, plus any utility fee revenue estimated by the City to have been lost or affected by the tampering and a $100 fine. (LOC 38.26.915). 2011 Master Fees and Charges Page 11 179 Section 1: General Street Maintenance Fee (LOC 37) LOC 37.02.015 A Street Maintenance Fee is hereby established by Ordinance No. 2373 in an amount to be adjusted from time to time, by resolution of the City Council. The fee shall be based upon the relative direct and indirect use of, or benefit from, the City street system that results from activities within the City, and shall be imposed upon the persons responsible for each developed property upon which such activities occur. LOC 37.02.020 All funds collected pursuant to this Chapter shall be used to pay costs of operation, maintenance, repair, engineering, improvement, renewal, replacement and reconstruction of the City street system. Xi1� MIZKOXII The Street Maintenance Fee shall be billed and collected with and as part of the combined utility user charge billing pursuant to LOC 38.06.020 and LOC 38.06.030. In the event funds received from the City's utility billings are inadequate to satisfy in full all of the water, sewer, surface water, and street maintenance fees, credit shall be first given in this order: street maintenance fee, surface water, sewer, and then water. Rates6 and Effective Dates (Per Resolution 10-19 and 10-20): a. Residential groups will be billed 100% of the following per resident fees, beginning July 1, 2011 Single family (peF units#aFge `.............................. bi- A4eRthly Bi 8 Fnent#ly X9-29 $ 245 , ...... 3.12 730 Effective July 1, 2010 Effective July 1, 2011 14.06 .................. bi- $ 4346 bi- monthly monthly monthly monthly Single family ................................ 5.10 10.20 .................... 6.75 13.50 Multi -family (per unit) ................ 3.65 7.30 .................... 4.82 9.64 b. Non -Residential groups will be billed the following fees, multiplied by their square footage: GroupI ...................................... GroupII ......................................... GroupIII ....................................... effective July 1, 20092010 General "Group" classification defined as: Group I: less than 29 vehicle trip miles per day, per 1000 sq ft Group 11: from 29 to 90 vehicle trip miles per day, per 1000 sq ft Group III: greater than 90 vehicle trip miles per day, per 1000 sq ft effective July 1, 20101 bi- monthly monthly $ 245 $ 4,90 3.12 6.24 .................. $ 5. $ ii.02 7.03 14.06 .................. $ 20.58 $ 4346 26.24 52.48 .................. General "Group" classification defined as: Group I: less than 29 vehicle trip miles per day, per 1000 sq ft Group 11: from 29 to 90 vehicle trip miles per day, per 1000 sq ft Group III: greater than 90 vehicle trip miles per day, per 1000 sq ft effective July 1, 20101 6 Indexed annually by the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index (CCI) for 20 -City Average Page 12 2011 Master Fees and Charges 180 bi- monthly monthly $ 3-42 $ 6-.24 4.13 8.26 $ 7.03 $ i4.()6 9.29 18.58 $ 2-24 $ 52.48 34.71 69.42 6 Indexed annually by the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index (CCI) for 20 -City Average Page 12 2011 Master Fees and Charges 180 Section 1: General Business License, Liquor License, and Sidewalk Cafe Fees Business License Certain businesses, demonstrating less than $1,000 gross revenue on a calendar year basis, are exempt from the following annual business license fees: 3 or fewer 4-10 11 or more Business License Fees: employees employees employees Initial issue fee $ 75 $ 105 $ 145 Renewal fee $ 60 $ 80 $ 100 Additional review feel $ 15 $ 25 $ 40 Late fees$ $ 2 each day delinquent, maximum of $ 100 1. Renewal Period: Applicants who apply between January 1st and November 1st will renew their license by December 31st of the same year. Businesses applying after November 1st will renew their licenses by December 31st of the following year. First time new businesses may have their year 1 fee pro -rated for the appropriate months. 2. Appeal Fees: Appeal of issue, denial, suspension, or revocation of license............................................................................$ 200 3. Temporary Business License: License shall be valid for no more than two successive weeks during a calendar year. They are non-renewable with a minimum fee of $25 per week (or portion thereof) and a maximum fee of $50 per two-week period. Applicants are restricted to two temporary licenses per year. Liquor License The Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLCC) solicits the city's recommendation on applications for new, renewed, or changed liquor licenses. ORS 471 and OAR 845 provide that, in order to charge certain processing fees, the basis for such recommendations must be consistent with current OLCC regulations. Council has determined that the following fees are (1) reasonable and necessary to pay the expenses of processing written recommendations and (2) incorporate current statutory provisions and OLCC rules and regulations. Summary of liquor license fees [updated for Resolution 02-03]: Original application $ 100 Change in ownership $ 75 Change in location $ 75 Change in privilege $ 75 Renewal of license $ 35 Temporary license $ 0 7 Additional review fee applies to any application (initial or renewal) that requires additional review. 8 The business license application for a new business should be received thirty (30) days before the business opens. Application should also be received on the specific "due date." If compliance with these time frames is not met, the business may be assessed the late fees referenced above. 2011 Master Fees and Charges Page 13 181 Section 1: General Sidewalk Cafe Fees (Updated per Resolution 03-24): Annual Limited food service establishments (establishments that do not serve full meals. For example, only beverages and limited items such as pastries)................................................................................. $ 25 Allother establishments.............................................................................................................................. $ 150 Dog License (LOC 31.02.115) Every person keeping a dog that has a set of permanent canine teeth or is 6 months old, whichever comes first, shall procure a license for the dog. The license must be procured by paying the following fee to the City, not later than 30 days after the person becomes keeper of the dog. A dog license shall be valid for 1, 2, or 3 years, and shall expire on the appropriate month end of the respective year. In accordance with State Law, no license may be issued with an expiration date that is beyond two months of the applicable rabies vaccination expiration date: Expires on the appropriate month end Dog license fees: One year Two years9 Three yearslo Infertile $ 17 $ 32 $ 46 Fertile $ 35 $ 67 $ 95 Delinquent license charge (after 2mo. past due)...... Replacement dog tag .................................................... Dog impounded without license ................................. Impoundment fee (first pickup) .................................. Impoundment fee (additional within 90days).......... Shelterfee...................................................................... $ 20 plus license fee $ 5 .. License fee plus impoundment fee $ 30 $ 60 Set by Clackamas County Dog Control Shelter Dog license exceptions: 1. Seeing -eye or other assistance dog: No fee is charged for certified seeing -eye or other assistance dogs as defined in ORS 346.680, such as "in -training", hearing -ear, or other assistance types recognized by a qualified organization. 2. Rabies vaccination due to medical reasons: No rabies vaccination certificate is required as long as (1) the examining veterinarian certifies that the dog should be exempted from the rabies vaccination due to medical reasons and (2) states whether the reason is permanent or the date when exemption ends. 3. Kenneled for commercial sale (and not at large): The fee for a dog that is kept primarily in kennels for commercial sale (and not permitted to run at large) as part of a dog breeder's inventory is $0; a dog that is kept primarily in kennels (and not permitted to run at large), but is removed from the dog breeder's inventory is $5. The keeper must provide evidence that the keeper is a dog breeder and that the dog is a part of the breeder's inventory and/or is kept primarily in kennels for commercial sale and not permitted to run at large. 4. New resident or new dog: New dogs are required to be licensed within 30 days of the owner becoming a resident, of acquisition, or of first rabies shot, and the full -year license fee applies. After an additional 60 days, the delinquent license charge is added to the regular license fee. 5. New dog licensed elsewhere: No fee is charged to owners of new dogs currently licensed elsewhere, but are required to register the dog and obtain a City of Lake Oswego dog tag. 9 Two years fee includes 5% discount io Three years fee includes 10% discount Page 14 2011 Master Fees and Charges 182 Franchise Fees (as set by franchise agreements): Electricity Portland General Electric Franchise fee: 3.5 % of defined gross revenue Ordinance No. 2054 Expires December 31, 2012 Natural Gas Northwest Natural Franchise fee: 3% of gross revenue collected Resolution 84-55 Expired November 6, 2004 (ext. pending) Garbage/Solid Waste Allied Waste North America, Inc. Franchise fee: 5% of gross cash receipts Ordinance 2391, effective August 19, 2004 Expires September 1, 2014 (10 year agreement) Telephone Qwest/U.S. West Communications Franchise fee: 4.3% of gross revenues Ordinance 2126 Expires October 5, 2015 Cable and Broadband Services TCI Cable/AT&T Franchise fee: 5% of gross revenue Ordinance 2178/2193 Expires June 17, 2014 Telecommunication Services Time Warner Telecom of Oregon, LLC Franchise fee: Min. of $1,500 per qtr or 5% of gross revenues — whichever is greater Ordinance 2489 Expires April 30, 2017 Electric Lightwave, Inc Franchise fee: Min. of $1,000 per qtr or 5% of gross revenues — whichever is greater Ordinance 21582564, Effective ^^toter 11997December 16, 2010 Expires October 2431, 2007 2020 (10 yr 2011 Master Fees and Charges Section 1: General Verizon Northwest, Inc. Franchise fee: 4.3% of gross revenue Ordinance 2484 Expires April 17, 2022 Verizon Northwest, Inc. Franchise fee: 5% of gross revenue Ordinance 2486 Expires April 3, 2022 NewPath Networks, LLC Franchise fee: 5% of gross revenues Ordinance 2519 Expires April 30, 2018 Page 15 183 Section 1: General agreement) Page 16 2011 Master Fees and Charges 184 Section 1: General Public Records Fees 1. Copies of finance documents: Annual Budget............................................................. $ 15 per copy Annual Audit(CAFR)................................................... $ 15 per copy Annual LORA Budget .................................................... $ 5 per copv Annual LORA Audit(CAFR).......................................... $ 5 per copy 2. Copies of planning documents Capital Improvement Plan(CIP)................................. $ 54 per copy Community Development Code ................................. $ 62 per copy Comprehensive Plan .................................................... $ 54 per copy Public Facility Plan ....................................................... $ 27 per copy Public Facility Plan Appendix ...................................... $ 54 per copy Neighborhood Plans .................................................... $ 17 per copy 3. Copies of maps: Zoning map................................................................... $ 17 per copy Comprehensive Plan map ........................................... $ 17 per copy City Limits map............................................................. $ 10 per copy City Atlas with binder .................................................. $ 45 per copy City Atlas (update w/o binder) ................................... $.25 per page 4. Copies of Lake Oswego City Code: Copies of Lake Oswego City Code - excludes Ch 50(no binder)... $ 55 Copies of City Code in PDF format(CD)........................................... $ 18 Copies of Community Development Code in PDF format (CD)... $ 18 5. Copies of community surveys ................................................... $ 10 per copy 6. General service copies.............................................................. $.25 per page 7. Audio and video tape -copies .................................................... $ 18 first tape/DVD/CD $ 15 each additional copy 8. Records research........................................................................ $18 per 15 min./request (minimum $18) plus copies and materials charges 9. Computer CD DVD copies ...................................................... $ 18 first tape/DVD/CD $ 15 each additional copy 10. Blueprints................................................................................... $ 1 to $ 7 depending on map size plus $.50 to $ 3.50 for overlays 2011 Master Fees and Charges Page 17 185 Section 1: General Miscellaneous Fees 1. Employment application fee (including assessment tools & testing): time & materials, not to exceed $25 2. Use fees (as shown in the Administrative Procedures Manual, Procedure No. 2): First use of City facilities shall be by City or other governmental entities. These use fees will be applicable to private parties using City facilities. Fee will include, but is not limited to, a facility supervisor fee, a janitorial fee, and a building use fee. A security and/or cleaning deposit may also be required. Fee may be waived at the discretion of the City Manager. a. Facility supervisor fee: Based upon employee's hourly rate plus benefits and applicable overhead charges. If overtime is involved, the overtime rate will be charged. b. Janitorial fee: Hourly rate plus benefits of the custodial staff and applicable overhead charges will be charged to the user. C. Building use fee $25 per hour, except for certain park facilities in Section 7 (J) 3. 4 Request for construction contract bidding documents: As established in the Invitation to Bid Filming permit processing fee (LOC 20.06.400) Filming permit processing fee appeal See commercial filming in City Parks in Section 7 (J) 5. Lien search fee Initial search per tax lot Subsequent search of same tax lot 0 7 NSF check charges $ 1,000 $ 100 $ 58 for initial search $ 15 for next 90 days $ 20 for first offense $ 40 for repeat offenses Parking stall fee $ 1 per hour per stall (Stalls could be located in public right -a -way or public parking lots) 8. Passport Fees made payable to U. S. Department of State a. To be attached to "minor" applications (under 16 years old) $ 6980 b. To be attached to "adult" applications (16 years or older) $ 7-5110 C. To EXPEDITE any passport application add $ 60 d. For "minor" PASS Card only (under 16 years old) $ 4815 e. For "adult" PASS Card only (16 years or older) $ 2830 9. Passport Fees made payable to "City of Lake Oswego" a. For regular passport applications b. For PASS Card applications Only one fee charged if applying for both 10. Passport photo fee Page 18 All passport fees are set by the U.S. Department of State $ 25 per passport application $ 25 per PASS Card only $ 15 per set of two 2011 Master Fees and Charges 186 Section 2: City Attorney Section 2: City Attorney Office The following fees shall be charged for the services of the City Attorney Office of the City: Discovery Fees 1. Copies €reea---up to 10 pages4R length Each additional page City Code 2. Audio and video copies 3. Copies of photographs $ 9-.AA18 $ 0.25 $ 18 first tape/DVD/CD $ 15 each additional to -pec; p $ 1 per print $ 18 burned to CD (for up to 30) 1. See Section 1: General, Public Record Fees, on page 17. 187 2011 Master Fees and Charges Page 19 Section 3: Fire Department Section 3: Fire Department The following fees shall be charged for the Fire Department activities of the City: General Fees 1. Fire and Inspection Reports a. Includes up to 15 minutes of research time and copies #rena--up to 10 pages iR length Each additional page b. Additional research time past first 15 minutes charged to nearest quarter hour. 2. Fire Investigation Information and Other a. Narrative report -1-2p to 10 pages Each additional page over 10 b. Digital disk copies Each additional copy same disk Plus charge for each picture C. Video tape copies Each additional copy same tape d. Photos Prints 4" x 6" (full roll only) e. Photolog f. Staff time past first 15 minutes charged to the nearest quarter hour 3. Classes a. CPR Class b. First Aid Class C. CPR & First Aid together d. Classroom Materials e. CERT Classes (materials fee) 4. Permits a. Fireworks sales permit application b. All other fire code permits 5. Hydrant flow a. Hydrant flow information (if on file) b. Hydrant flow information (not on file) 6. House Burn (Training Fire) 7. Non -listed expenses to provide services in Section 3 Page 20 $ X18 $ 0.25 $ S876 per staff hour $ 25 $ 0.25 $18 $15 $ 0.25 $18 $15 $ leach $ 15 each $ 5876 per staff hour $ 30 each person $ 30 each person $ 50 each person Current Cost $ 25 each person $ 100 $ 52 + $ 68 per hour for additional inspection time $ 27 first hydrant $ 20 each additional hydrant requested $ 392 for first hydrant $ 196 each additional hydrant requested $ 500 per building Charged at cost 2011 Master Fees and Charges 188 Section 3: Fire Department Emergency Services Rates 1. Apparatus - per current State Conflagration Act Fees 2. Personnel costs: Fire employee's actual hourly rate plus benefits or the actual personnel costs to replace on -shift firefighters in their assigned capacity. 3. Materials costs: Emergency medical supplies, fire fighting foam, and other materials to be charged at cost plus 20% administrative charge. 4. Dive team operations: Personnel costs apply; the dive vehicle is a "support vehicle" as listed under Apparatus above, plus $54 per hour for equipment maintenance and breathing -air. 5. Boat operations: $60/hour plus Fire personnel costs (noted above), plus cost of workers' compensation rates for water operations. Calls for emergency services for accidents on highways, public right-of-ways, railways, or resulting from other transportation incidents exceeding 4 hours may be billed according to the current payment schedule in the Oregon State Mobilization Plan adopted by the Oregon State Fire Marshal's Office. Fire and Life Safety Checks 1. Preliminary water and emergency access evaluation for all pre -applications $ 70 2. Detailed water and emergency access evaluation for all development and building permit applications: a. Minor partitions (up to 3 lots) $ 140 b. Subdivisions $ 250 C. Commercial $ 250 d. All other land use permit applications requiring fire review $ 140 3. Fire protections Hydrant flow information: a. Not on file $392 for 1st hydrant, $196 for each additional hydrant in the same area, at the same time b. On file $27 for 1st hydrant, $20 for each additional hydrant flow needed with same application Fire Safety Inspections 1. Initial inspection and 1st follow-up No charge 2. Each additional inspection, required for compliance $ 68 per hour (1 hour minimum) 3. After-hours inspections $ 101 per hour (1 hour minimum) 2011 Master Fees and Charges Page 21 189 Section 4: Library Section 4: Library The following fees shall be charged for the Library Department activities of the City: General Fees (LOC 16.08.310) 1. Uniform Library Network Fees Non-resident card 2. Library Penalty Fees Lost and damaged library items 3. Fees for Special Library Services Rental collection 4. Commission on Display Sales 5. Sale of withdrawn/surplus items 6. Uniform Library Network Charges Overdue fine 7. Photocopy charges $95 per family per year Replacement cost, as determined by staff, using established guidelines plus a $5 processing fee per item $0.25 per item per day 20% of gross sales price Varies; typically $0.10 - $3 $0.25 per item per day, with a $5 maximum fine per item for adult material and a $3 maximum fine for children's material General photocopy charges $0.10 per page Reference collection photocopies $0.10 per page (first 5 pages are free) Black and white internet printing charges $0.10 per page (first 5 pages are free) Color internet printing charges $0.25 per page 190 Page 22 2011 Master Fees and Charges Section 5 & 6: Maintenance Services & Municipal Court Section 5: Maintenance Services The following fees shall be charged for the Maintenance Service activities of the City: General Fees 1. Public facilities damage (street signs, water lines, etc.)... Billed at cost plus 20% for overhead plus lost revenue 2. Sign installation for new subdivisions ................................. Billed at cost plus 20% for overhead 3. New sewer line television inspection and vacuum testing..................................................................................... First inspection is free Second inspection at cost plus applicable overhead 4. Citizen -requested items (hydrant relocation, water service relocation, etc.)......................................................... Billed at cost plus 20% for overhead Section 6: Municipal Court The following fees shall be charged for the Municipal Court activities of the City: General Fees 1. Delayed Payment Fee This fee is assessed in order to help defray the costs of deferred payment of fines. Duration of Payments Amount added to fine 0 to 60 days $ 0 Over 60 days $ 15 2. Vacate Fee $ 20 This is a fee charged when someone requests the Municipal Court Judge to review a file, change the status, and/or vacate a charge from the DMV record. 3. Expungement Fee $ 250 This fee is required by anyone filing an application for expungement. 2011 Master Fees and Charges Page 23 191 Section 7: Parks & Recreation Section 7: Parks & Recreation The following fees shall be charged for the Parks & Recreation activities of the City: Enterprise Funds The Tennis Facility and Golf Course Funds are enterprise funds. Each fund is self-supporting and programs within these funds are designed to meet the expectations of the Lake Oswego community. A wide range of recreational activities are offered to all ages and ability levels. Programs are offered to families and individuals at an affordable price and well within market value. Fees Each fund shall determine fees based upon marketability and associated expenses for the specific program or service. Rates for activities are planned according to a "base rate" which includes all direct program expenses plus an overhead rate. Expenses calculated into the base may include all or some of the following: wages and benefits, supplies/materials, advertising, transportation, and training. Indoor Tennis Center 1. Court Fees Drop In $18/hour Sept. 1— May 31 Drop In $18/hour June 1— August 31 Seasonal $18/hour Package Play $18/hour 2. Activity Rates a. Staff Instructed Activities — Fees established by determining the "base rate" plus a $5 administrative charge per person. b. Contracted Activities — Fees cover total direct program expenses plus a percentage for overhead costs. Contractors are paid a negotiated percentage of the revenue collected. C. Private Lessons — Instructors who are employees of the City may teach private lessons. Instructors must pay the City for the use of the courts at the seasonal rate. d. Ball Machine Rentals— Fees based upon the seasonal court rate plus an overhead rate. e. Social and Mixer Rates — Fees established by determining the "base rate" plus a $5 administrative charge per person. f. Tournaments — Fees established for City -sponsored tournaments include determining the "base rate" plus overhead. 3. Card Key Fee — A non-refundable fee of $10 annually or $30 for 4 years. An additional fee of $10 is charged for replacement of the card. 4. Additional Fees — The Tennis Center shall be able to add new activities or programs during the year in order to promote marketability of the facility. As with other activities, fees will be based on a base rate plus overhead. Page 24 2011 Master Fees and Charges 192 Section 7: Parks & Recreation Golf Course (LOC 34.12.614) 1. Green Fees 9 Holes 18 Holes Monday - Thursday $ 14 $ 23 Fri, Sat, Sun & Holidays $ 16 $ 26 Juniors & Seniors (M -F) $ 11 $ 18 Junior/Senior 15 -play card (M -F) $ 130 - Adult Club -Member 15 -play card (7 -day) $ 175 - Non -Player (walker) Fee $ 6 $ 6 2. Driving Range Fees Warm-up ................. 20 balls................... $ 2.25 Small bucket........... 40 balls ................... $ 4.50 Medium bucket ..... 75 balls ................... $ 6.75 Large bucket........... 115 balls ................... $ 9.00 3. Rental Fees 9 Holes 18 Holes Rental clubs with bag $ 5 $ 8 Pull cart $ 3 $ 5 Power cart (handicap only) $ 7 $ 14 4. Activity Rates a. Staff instructed activities and private lessons — Fees established by determining the "base rate" and the fair market value. b. Pro Shop Merchandise — Varies by type of merchandise, but generally priced to return an overall minimum gross profit of 25%. c. Tournament Fees — Special requests for reservations for tournaments with 20 or more participants will be charged regular full adult fees reflected in the fee schedule above. 5. Facility Rental $35/hour, minimum two hours. $50 non-refundable cleaning fee. $200 refundable deposit. 6. Additional Fees The Golf Course shall be able to add new activities or programs during the year in order to promote marketability of the facility. As with other activities, fees will be based on a base rate plus overhead. Examples: Twilight Fees, Monthly Specials, and Volume Pricing. 2011 Master Fees and Charges Page 25 193 Section 7: Parks & Recreation Athletic Field User Charges 1. Field Lighting Permit card fee $15 per each card requested, per season 2. Youth Athletic Field use fee Residents $17 per player, per season Non-residents $24 per player, per season Provider organization may choose to donate equivalent funds to support field maintenance and equipment purchases annually by October 1 in lieu of the per player, per season fee. 3. Adult Athletic Field use fee Residents $20 per player, per season Nonresidents $25 per player, per season 4. League Cleaning & trash disposal fee (covers cost of trash pick-up on school fields over and above regular trash disposal. Only for leagues using artificial turf fields): $200 per season (refundable deposit) 5. Turf Field fees Natural Turf Artificial Turf daytime w/lights daytime w/lights Category 1 (local games & practices) $ 0/hr. $ 0/hr. $ 0/hr. $ 0/hr. Category 2 (locally sponsored) $ 25/hr $ 35/hr $ 25/hr $ 35/hr Category 3 (non -local & for-profit) $ 60/hr $ 70/hr $ 60/hr $ 70/hr Category 1 Applies to all City affiliated activities, Community School activities, School District sport activities, and local leagues who have paid a per person field use fee for league play. Organizations within this category must be based in Lake Oswego and a majority of their membership/participants are Lake Oswego residents. (Groups that have qualified as "leagues" include LO Little League, Waluga Little League, Girl's ASA Softball, Pacer Junior Baseball, Lakeridge & LO Youth Football, Community School Lacrosse, City Coed Soccer, and Lake Oswego Soccer Club.) Category 2 This category applies to tournaments, events and activities that are hosted by local organizations including athletic/sport leagues, civic groups, churches, business organizations, neighborhood associations, and individual residents for non-profit purposes. "Local" is defined as those organizations based in Lake Oswego or where a majority of the organization's participants or members are Lake Oswego residents. (Examples include the District 4 All-Star tournament organized by the Little Leagues, Nike Cup hosted by the Lake Oswego Soccer Club, neighborhood association events, and Chamber of Commerce activities.) Category 3 This category applies to all clinics, camps, tournaments, and activities hosted by non -local organizations. "Non - local" is defined as those organizations not based in Lake Oswego, or where a majority of the organization's participants or members are not Lake Oswego residents. (Examples include Portland State University). This category also applies to all for-profit entities, regardless of whether or not they are based in Lake Oswego or have a majority of Lake Oswego residents participating in programs. (Examples include a Lacrosse camp offered by Mainline Lacrosse of San Diego; private sport camps). Additional Fees: City may charge additional fees for category 2 and 3 users, over and above the hourly rates listed, to cover costs such as concession stand use, cleaning, garbage, etc. 194 Page 26 2011 Master Fees and Charges Section 7: Parks & Recreation 6. Basketball Practice for City League Teams (covers gym supervisor and administrative cost) $10 per hour for half court $15 per hour for full court 7. Field Preparation Fees Local Organizations Baseball/Softball Fields: No charge for initial set-up Additional lining $25 Soccer League Fields: No charge for initial set-up Additional lining (large field) $100 Additional lining (small field) $80 Football Fields: No charge for initial set-up Additional lining $150 8. Admission/Event Fees: Organizations which charge admission or event fees at any City athletic field must notify the Parks and Recreation Department ten days before the scheduled event and will be charged 10% of the gross income received. The group will be required to provide Parks and Recreation with financial records of their event within five working days after the completion of the event. Spectators who do not wish to pay admission or make a donation are to be ADMITTED FREE. 9. Drop-in gym programs $2.00 Resident $3.00 Non-resident Adult Community Center Fees 1. Membership Fees and Donations Resident membership donation $40 individual Resident membership donation $55 couple Non-resident required fee $50 individual Non-resident required fee $75 couple 2. Recreation Classes, Activities, & Events a. LOACC members are given priority in registration and pricing for all recreation programs. Non-members are charged additional fees up to 1.5 times the base class rate. b. Fees are designed to cover 100% of the expenses associated with programs. Factors included in the base rate are: Instructor wages & benefits, room rentals, supplies/materials entrance/admission fees, advertising, postage, transportation, and training. c. Contracted program fees cover total expenses plus a person percentage for overhead costs. Instructors are paid a negotiated sum. d. PCC classes and other programs generating revenue for the hosting entity and held at the LOACC shall be charged a per person fee paid to the LOACC. 3. Social Service Programs a. A per participant donation may be suggested for specified social service programs. b. Fees are designed to cover up to 100% of the expenses associated with the Social Services trips and Respite Program. 2011 Master Fees and Charges Page 27 195 Section 7: Parks & Recreation 4. Van Transportation to and from the Center Suggested donation is $0.75 per one-way ride. 5. Refund Policy Notification is required and is indicated by the "cancel by" date for trips and activities. A refund will be given less a $5 processing fee. If notified after the class has begun, a prorated refund may be given less a $5 processing fee. If the amount of the proration is under $5, a credit will be given for future programs. All credits expire at the end of the fiscal year. Exceptions to the refund policy may be made at staff's discretion depending upon extenuating circumstances. 6. Room Rental Fees — the following fees will be charged: Multi -Purpose Room Meeting/Class Rooms Kitchen Mon -Fri Sat -Sun Mon -Fri Sat -Sun (additional) Rate 1 $ 35/hr $ 70/hr $ 15/hr $ 35/hr $ 10/hr Rate II $ 40/hr $ 80/hr $ 20/hr $ 40/hr $ 35/hr Rate III $ 50/hr $ 70/hr $ 30/hr $ 50/hr $ 50/hr Cleaning fee is $50 Refundable damage deposit is $200 Note: Kitchen use is allowed in conjunction with rental of facility at the indicated rates. Rate I: Open or closed to the public; events with no sales, no admission fees, no concession sales, no entry fees, and no pledges of future revenues; no sponsor signage allowed. Rate II: Open to the public; events which generate sales, admission fees, concessions, entry fees and/or pledges of future revenues; sponsor signage allowed. Rate III: Closed to the public; events which generate sales, admission fees, concessions, entry fees, and/or pledges of future revenues; sponsor signage allowed. 7. Additional Fees The Adult Community Center shall be able to add new activities or programs during the year in order to promote marketability of the facility. As with other activities, the fee will be based on a base rate plus overhead. Swim Park Daily usage is free to local residents in compliance with an agreement between the Lake Corporation and the City of Lake Oswego. Page 28 2011 Master Fees and Charges 196 Section 7: Parks & Recreation Recreation Classes and Activities 1. Lake Oswego residents are given priority in registration and pricing for recreation classes and activities. Non- residents are charged additional fees of up to 1.5 times the base class or activity rate. 2. Fees are designed to cover 100% of the expenses associated with adult programs, and 70% to 100% of the expenses associated with youth programs. Factors included in the base rate are: Part-time instructor wages, part-time benefits, room rentals, supplies/materials, entrance/admission fees, advertising, postage, transportation, training, and administrative overhead. 3. Contract class fees cover total expenses plus a per person percentage for overhead costs. Instructors are paid a negotiated sum. 4. Refund Policy: If notified three days before the first day of class, a refund will be given less a $5 processing fee. If notified after the class has begun, a prorated refund may be given less a $5 processing fee. If the amount of proration is under $5, a credit will be given for future programs. All credits expire at the end of the fiscal year. Exceptions to the refund policy may be made at staff's discretion depending upon extenuating circumstances. Water Sports Center 1. Class Fees a. Staff instructed and activities — Fees are established by determining a "base rate" which includes all direct program expenses plus a $5 administrative charge per person. Expenses calculated into the base rate may include all or some of the following: part-time instructor wages, part-time benefits, supplies / materials, advertising, transportation, training, and applicable overhead costs. b. Contracted Classes — Fees cover total direct program expenses plus 20% for overhead costs. Instructors are paid a negotiated percentage of the revenue collected. 2. Special Events— Varies depending on program and overhead costs. Skate Park The Skate Park annual season is mid-March through mid-October Resident $ 30 per season (half-price after July 15th) Non-resident $ 50 per season (half-price after July 15th) Daily pass $ 4 per day 2011 Master Fees and Charges Page 29 197 Section 7: Parks & Recreation Miscellaneous Parks & Recreation Fees 1. Facility Rental — Exceptions to Section 1, Miscellaneous Fees, page 16 Facility Rate I Rate II Rate III Millennium Park pergola area $ 75/hr $ 150/hr $ 450/hr Foothills Park (entry/arbor area) $ 75/hr $ 150/hr $ 350/hr Roehr Park amphitheater $ 50/hr $ 100/hr $ 300/hr Roehr Park "viewing dolphins" $ 35/hr $ 70/hr $ 210/hr Excursion boat dock — commercial docking $ 35/hr $ 70/hr $ 210/hr Luscher Farm House $ 40/hr $ 80/hr $ 240/hr Non -shelter Parks Areas11 $ 35/hr $ 70/hr $ 210/hr Millennium Plaza and Foothills Park Roehr Park and Luscher Farm Non-refundable cleaning fee $ 100/use $ 50/use Refundable damage deposit $ 500/use $ 500/use Rate I: Open or closed to the public; events with no sales, no admission fees, no concession sales, no entry fees, and no pledges of future revenues; no sponsor signage allowed. Rate II: Open to the public; events which generate sales, admission fees, concessions, entry fees and/or pledges of future revenues; sponsor signage allowed. Rate III: Closed to the public; events which generate sales, admission fees, concessions, entry fees, and/or pledges of future revenues; sponsor signage allowed. West End Building Non -Profit Organizations All Others Up to 3 hrs Over 3 hrs Willamette Room Usage Fee $ 25/hr $ 50/hr $ 200/hr Non-refundable cleaning fee $ 0 $ 25 $ 75 Non-refundable cleaning fee w/food $ 850 $ _50100 $ 150 Refundable deposit $ 50 $ 100 $ 500 Santiam Room Usage Fee $ 25/hr $ 35/hr $ 100/hr Non-refundable cleaning fee $ 0 $ 0 $ 25 Non-refundable cleaning fee w/food $ 0 $ 25 $ 100 Refundable deposit $ 25 $ 50 $ 200 Oswego Room Usage Fee $ 10/hr $ 25/hr $ 50/hr Non-refundable cleaning fee $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 Non-refundable cleaning fee w/food $ 0 $ 0 $ 50 Refundable deposit $ 25 $ 25 $ 100 Yamhill Room Usage Fee $ 2510 hr $ 10/hr $ 50/hr Non-refundable cleaning fee $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 Non-refundable cleaning fee w/food $ 0 $ 0 $ 50 Refundable deposit $ 15825 $ 25 $ 100 11 Includes gardens, historical sites, or use of ball fields or parking lots for special events. Page 30 2011 Master Fees and Charges 198 Section 7: Parks & Recreation 2. Ball field Concession Stands Rental: Locations at Westlake Park, George Rogers Park, and the amphitheater are available to individuals or groups. Basic fee is $5/hour to cover facility overhead cost. 3. Groups who use picnic facilities on a reservation basis are required to pay the following fees: a. $55 to reserve the picnic facilities, not to exceed 5.5 hours, will be charged for any group up to 75 people. If staff determines that groups of more than 75 can be accommodated, a reservation fee of $110 will be charged. The fee is non-refundable. b. The group using the park facility on a reservation basis is responsible for the litter generated by the group activity. A damage deposit of up to $200 may be required depending upon the size and nature of the event. 4. Plan documents/specifications 5. Comprehensive Park and Recreation Plan 6. Other park master plans 7. Research fee 8. Key deposits (refundable) Commercial Filming in City Parks See Filming Permit in Section 1, page 16 $15 if picked up, $20 if mailed $30 per copy $20 per copy $40 per hour $5 per key 1. Film/Video rate a. One day fee - no park closure required $ 250 b. One day fee - park closure required $ 1,000 Damage deposit may be required, depending on scope of filming. 2. Still Photography rate a. 1 to 5 hours $ 55 b. 6 to 24 hours $ 110 3. Long-term shoot: Any shoot over 24 hours will be considered a long shoot. Fees will be assessed for each 24 hour period. 2011 Master Fees and Charges Page 31 199 Section 8: Police Department Section 8: Police Department The following fees shall be charged for the Police Department activities of the City: Security Alarm Code Violation Fees (LOC 20.08.615) 1. Fourth false alarm in any year $ 100 2. Fifth false alarm in any year $ 150 3. Sixth false alarm in any year $ 250 4. Seventh and succeeding false alarms in any year $ 400 Police Reports (LOC 14.06.220) 2. Copies 4en+4-2p to 10 pages iR IeRgth $ 4518 Each additional page $ .25 3. Audio and videe tapes 911 audio recording Other,4audio and video tapesrecording $ 50 per recording $ 350 first tape & $ 15 each additional tape per recording Miscellaneous Police Fees (LOC 14.06.020) 1. Records research $ 40-18 per 15 minutes ($10.50 18 minimum) plus copy and material charges 2. Copies of photographs $ 1 per color print $ 2050 (for up to 30) burned to CD, plus $ 1 each thereafter 3. Storage fee at BREC for vehicles & equipment $ 50 per day 4. Hazmat quarantine/investigation $ 250 per day 5. Police impounded vehicle fee $ 350 per vehicle 6. Overtime charge for special events requiring police services Community Services Officer (CSO) $ 3:7.8444.35 per hour $'6177.40 minimum (4 hours) Police Officer $ So -%L6.94 per hour $ 202.24227.76 minimum (4 hours) Sergeants/Lieutenants/Captains $ 64:3067.22 per hour $ 20268.88 minimum (4 hours) Page 32 2011 Master Fees and Charges 200 Section 9: Building Section 9: Building Division The following fees shall be charged for the Building Division activities of the City (LOC 45.01.040): Building Permits Valuation is based on the tables referenced in Oregon Administrative Rule 918-050-0100 and 0110. 1. Total Valuation $ 1 to $ 2,000 ............................. $78 up to and including $2,000 $ 2,001 to $ 25,000 ................... $78 for the first $2,000 plus $9.40 for each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof, up to and including $25,000 $ 25,001 to $ 50,000 ................. $293 for the first $25,000 plus $6.75 for each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof, up to and including $50,000 $ 50,001 to $ 100,000 .............. $462 for the first $50,000 plus $4.70 for each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof, up to and including $100,000 $ 100,001 to $ 500,000............ $696 for the first $100,000 plus $3.00 for each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof, up to and including $500,000 $ 500,001 to $ 1,000,000......... $1,896 for first $500,000 plus $2.55 for each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof, up to and including $1,000,000 $1,000,001 and up .................... $3,171 for first $1,000,000 plus $1.65 for each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof 2. Plan review fees 65% of structural permit fee 3. Fire & life safety review fee 40% of structural permit fee (on commercial only) 4. Other inspections a. Inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated (minimum charge = 1/2 hr) $62.25 per hour b. Additional plan review required by changes, additions, or revisions to plans (minimum charge = 1/2 hour) $62.25 per hour 5. Phased permits Phased permit (Plan Review) fees shall be $250 plus 10% of the total building permit fee and shall not exceed $1,500 pursuant to the authority of OAR 918-050-0160 6. Deferred submittals The fee for processing deferred submittals shall be 10% of the building permit fee, using the value of the particular deferred portion or portions of the project and not less than $275. This fee is in addition to the project plan review fee based on the $ 275 plus plan total project fee. review fee 7. Architects and Engineer's exemption for plan review of "conventional light frame construction" (allows architects and engineers to perform plan reviews in lieu of the jurisdiction) Administration fee for processing and facilitating issuance $ 250 2011 Master Fees and Charges Page 33 201 Section 9: Building 8. Stand-alone and multi-purpose sprinkler system fees Square footage Permit fee Plan review fee 0 to 2,000 $ 140.00 $ 91.00 2,001 to 3,600 $ 190.00 $ 123.50 3,601 to 7,200 $ 226.00 $ 146.25 7,200 and above $ 265.00 $ 172.25 9. Solar Panel Installation Permit (does not include Electrical Permit)* *Fee is reauired by Oreeon Administrative Rule #918-050-0180 Electrical Permits 1. New residential, single or multi -family per dwelling unit 1,000 square feet or less $ 143.10 Each additional 500 square feet or portion thereof $ 27.00 Each manufactured home, modular dwelling service, or feeder $ 67.50 Limited energy $ 54.00 2. Service or feeders: installations, alterations, or relocation 200 amps or less $ 85.05 201 amps to 400 amps $ 101.25 401 amps to 600 amps $ 168.75 601 amps to 1,000 amps $ 220.05 Over 1,000 amps or volts $ 506.25 Reconnect only $ 67.50 3. Temporary services or feeders: installations, alterations, or relocation 200 amps or less $ 67.50 201 amps to 400 amps $ 93.15 401 amps to 600 amps $ 135.00 601 amps to 1,000 amps $ 220.05 Over 1,000 amps or volts $ 506.25 4. Branch circuits: new, alteration, or extension per panel With purchase of service or feeder, each $ 6.75 Without purchase of service or feeder First circuit $ 62.25 Each additional circuit $ 6.75 5. Miscellaneous (service or feeder not included) Each pump or irrigation circle $ 67.50 Each sign or outside lighting $ 67.50 Signal circuit(s) or a limited energy panel, alteration, or extension $ 67.50 6. Each additional inspection over the allowable in any of the above, $ 62.25 per inspection 7. Special inspections $ 75 per hour Fees - total of applicable electrical fees above, plus state surcharge; add 25% of fees as Page 34 125 2011 Master Fees and Charges 202 Section 9: Building calculated above for plan review if required. Mechanical Permits (Residential) Unit Fee Schedule 1. For the installation or relocation of each forced -air or Gravity -type furnace or burner, including ducts and vents attached to such appliance Less than 100,000 BTU input..................................................................................................... $ 36 Greater than 100,000 BTU input.............................................................................................. $ 36 2. For the installation or relocation of each floor furnace, including vent ................................... $ 29 3. For the installation or relocation of each suspended heater, recessed wall heater, or floor mountedunit heater........................................................................................................................ $ 29 4. For the installation, relocation, or replacement of each appliance vent or chimney installed and not included in an appliance permit....................................................................... $ 20 5. For the repair, alteration, or addition of an Air Handler Or Heat Exchanger ........................... $ 27 6. Woodstove, including hearth and wall shield............................................................................... $ 50 7. Fireplace stove, masonry, or factory built fireplace.................................................................... $ 50 8. Room heaters, non-portable........................................................................................................... $ 29 9. Boilers not exceeding 120 gallons or a water temperature of 210 degrees F or 150 -PSI Mechanical Permits (Commercial) Use this section for commercial installation, replacement, or relocation of non-portable mechanical equipment or mechanical work not covered previously. Indicate the value of all mechanical labor, materials, and equipment. Value $ 1 to $ 10,000 $ 10,001 to $ 100,000 $ 100,001 and above 2011 Master Fees and Charges Permit Fee Amount $ 40.25 plus $ 1.35 for each additional $100 over $ 1,000 $ 253 plus $ 8.30 for each additional $ 1,000 over $ 10,000 $ 1,560 plus $ 5.70 for each additional $ 1,000 over $ 100,000 Page 35 203 operating pressure or 200,000 BTU input..................................................................................... $ 29 10. For each ventilation fan connected to a single duct.................................................................... $ 14 11. For the installation of each range hood which is served by mechanical exhaust, including theducts for such hood................................................................................................................... $ 22 12. Heat pumps and air conditioners.................................................................................................... $ 50 13. For each appliance or piece of equipment regulated by this code but not classed in other appliance categories, for which no other fee is listed in this code, or for which there is an alteration or extension to an existing mechanical system.......................................................... $ 13 14. Exhaust vent....................................................................................................................................... $ 14 15. Permit fees for fuel gas -piping shall be For each gas -piping system of one to four outlets................................................................. $ 14 For each gas -piping system of more than four outlets, per outlet ...................................... $ 2.20 16. For each appliance or equipment not listed above...................................................................... $ 21 17. A minimum charge for mechanical permits.................................................................................. $ 75 Mechanical Permits (Commercial) Use this section for commercial installation, replacement, or relocation of non-portable mechanical equipment or mechanical work not covered previously. Indicate the value of all mechanical labor, materials, and equipment. Value $ 1 to $ 10,000 $ 10,001 to $ 100,000 $ 100,001 and above 2011 Master Fees and Charges Permit Fee Amount $ 40.25 plus $ 1.35 for each additional $100 over $ 1,000 $ 253 plus $ 8.30 for each additional $ 1,000 over $ 10,000 $ 1,560 plus $ 5.70 for each additional $ 1,000 over $ 100,000 Page 35 203 Section 9: Building Plumbing Permits (LOC 46.02) 2. For NEW one and two family dwellings only, the fees are per bathroom as follows (this fee includes 100 feet for each utility connection): a. One bath $ 333.50 b. Two baths $ 362.25 C. Three baths $ 402.50 d. Each additional bath/kitchen $ 130.80 3. Add 30% of fess as calculated above for plan review, if required. 4. Medical gas fees: a. Medical gas permit fees shall be based on the value of work completed, with the fees calculated according to subsection A) 1) of this Section, with a minimum fee of $62.50. b. Medical gas plan review fees shall be 30% of medical gas permit fees. Page 36 2011 Master Fees and Charges 204 These fees do not apply when solely replacing 1. A minimum Permit Fee for issuance and first fixture fixtures without re -plumbing and/or relocating is $75; for each additional fixture, the fees are as them (except for water heaters, item K) follows: a. Sink $ 24 b. Lavatory $ 24 C. Tub (or tub and shower combination) $ 24 d. Shower separate from tub $ 24 e. Water closet $ 24 f. Dishwasher $ 24 g. Garbage disposal $ 24 h. Washing machine $ 24 i. Floor drain $ 24 j. Sewer, per foot $ 0.75 k. Water heater (minimum fee may apply even w/replacement) $ 24 I. Water service, per foot $ 0.75 m. Storm drain, per foot $ 0.75 n. Sewage ejector pump and sump pump $ 24 o. Special waste connection $ 24 p. Backflow prevention device or anti -pollution device $ 24 q. Any trap or waste not connected to a fixture $ 24 r. Any other plumbing installation, not otherwise listed in this schedule, having a sanitary waste or potable water supply $ 24 S. Re -piping of existing fixtures First fixture $ 17 Each additional fixture $ 10 t. Minimum fee for plumbing permits $ 75 2. For NEW one and two family dwellings only, the fees are per bathroom as follows (this fee includes 100 feet for each utility connection): a. One bath $ 333.50 b. Two baths $ 362.25 C. Three baths $ 402.50 d. Each additional bath/kitchen $ 130.80 3. Add 30% of fess as calculated above for plan review, if required. 4. Medical gas fees: a. Medical gas permit fees shall be based on the value of work completed, with the fees calculated according to subsection A) 1) of this Section, with a minimum fee of $62.50. b. Medical gas plan review fees shall be 30% of medical gas permit fees. Page 36 2011 Master Fees and Charges 204 Community Development Code Enforcement Charges Single family Multi -family Office/Retail 0 — 5,000 square feet 5,001- 10,000 square feet 10,001- 25,000 square feet 25,001- 50,000 square feet 50,001+ square feet Industrial/Public/Institutional 0 — 20,000 square feet 20,001- 30,000 square feet 30,001+ square feet Section 9: Building $ 116 $ 116 plus $ 116 per each 12 units $ 116 $ 232 $ 348 $ 464 $ 580 $ 116 $ 232 $ 348 Record Retention and Archiving Fee For purposes of archiving records per State mandate Additional charge per page of submitted document 8%:"x11"or8%:"x14" 521/"v17" 18" x 24" 24" x 36" 36" x 42" Other (larger than 36" x 42") Research and Consultation Fees Records Research Fee Estimates - new commercial projects Residential, other additions, alterations Consultation for code review, hypothetical projects Supplemental Plan Review Other Inspections and Fees $20.00 minimum ^ r �^ m plicatie $ 0.25 per page $ 0.50 per page $ 2.00 per page $ 3.00 per page $ 4.00 per page $ 5.00 per page $62.25/hr per request, minimum one hour $62.25/hr per request, minimum one hour $62.25/hr per request, minimum one hour $75 per hour, minimum 1/2 hour $75 per hour, minimum 1/2 hour 1. Inspections outside of normal business hours (minimum charge = 1 hour) $62.25 per hour 2. Re -inspection fee assessed under provisions Section 305 (f) $62.25 per inspection 3. Inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated $62.25 per hour 4. Additional plan review required by changes, additions, or revisions to approved $62.25 per hour plans (minimum charge = 1 hour) 5. Plan review fees: A plan review fee shall be paid. The fee is equal to 25% of the total permit fee set forth in the Mechanical Permits of this section of this resolution. 6. Work commencing before permit issuance Any person who commences any work on a building or structure before obtaining the necessary permits shall be subject to an investigation fee equal to the permit fees, but not less than $750.00 that shall be in addition to the required permit fees. Exception: A one-time exemption shall apply to homeowners applying for their own permits. 2011 Master Fees and Charges Page 37 205 Section 9: Building Additional Miscellaneous Fees 1. The fee to a governmental agency shall be determined by the provisions set forth under ORS 190.003 to 190.110 for the purpose of carrying out the respective responsibilities of each $62.25/hr or agency............................................................................................. portion thereof 2. Re -inspection fee for structural, electrical, mechanical, and plumbing permits shall be charged for inspection of violations found by the Building Official after the second $ 62.25 violation..................................................................................................................... 3. The fee to any governmental agency or person for specifically requested inspections or surveys............................................................................................. $62.25/hr or portion thereof 4. Housing moving permit (LOC 45.12.510): Relocating within Lake Oswego.................................................................. 438 Moving out of Lake Oswego........................................................................ 217 Refunds 1. Permit Refunds a. Where a permit has been issued and no inspections have been completed, 80% of the permit fee will be refunded. b. There are no refunds when a permit has been issued and inspections performed. 2. Plan Review Refund a. Where a permit has not been issued, 80% of the plan review fee will be refunded. b. There are no refunds when a plan review has been completed and the permit issued. Note: The permit fees listed in this Section 9 do not include the 12% state surcharge, of which 11% is forwarded to the State of Oregon, and 1% to the Tri -County Services Center. Page 38 2011 Master Fees and Charges 206 Section 10: Engineering Section 10: Engineering Division The following fees shall be charged for the Engineering Division activities of the City: Grading/Earthwork Fees (LOC 45.16.605) Fill/excavation permit $100 single family, less than 1 acre $200 per acre all others Minor Utility Facilities, Installed or Constructed by PubliC12 or Private Entities Street opening permit fee* Improved Unimproved surfaces surfaces 1. Minor utility structures, except substations, but including poles, lines, pipes or other such facilities.............................................................................................. $ 300 $ 150 2. Sewer, storm drainage, or water system structures, excluding treatment plants, reservoirs or pump stations; but including reconstruction of manholes, valves, hydrants, or other portions of the collection, treatment, and distribution systems located within public property .................................... $ 300 $ 150 3. Street improvements within existing development, including sidewalks, curbs, gutter, catch basins, paving, signs, and traffic control devices and streetlights................................................................................................................ $ 300 $ 150 *Performance bonds may be required for large projects. 4. Permit fees for large projects will be determined on a case-by-case basis by the City Engineer. A deposit of 9% of estimated construction costs or $1,000 whichever is greater will be taken in advance. Final costs will be based on the total of labor and materials costs incurred while administering the project plus overhead billed at 2.4 times direct costs. 5. Permit and inspection of new driveway approach or relocation of an existing approach............ $ 50 General Engineering Fees 1. Engineering plan review and inspection of public 9% of estimated construction costs or $1,000 whichever or private infrastructure, grading, or other is greater - taken as an advance deposit. Final costs incidental work that is not reviewed and based on total time spent administering project (all inspected under State Building Specialty Codes projects involving public improvements) including and delegated to Engineering. overhead. 2. Engineering review of development applicationsr Billed at hourly staff rate including overhead and carried until a land use decision is rendered. I as a balance due and payable upon project approval. 3. Appeal of a staff decision or hearing body to ther $ 100 next higher authority. 4. Street vacation $ 1,500 5. Quitclaim $ 175 6. Blasting Permit $250 application fee plus engineering costs to administer and observe blasting operations billed at labor and materials plus overhead billed at 2.4 times direct costs. 12 Quasi -public agencies other than the City and Franchise Utilities. 207 2011 Master Fees and Charges Page 39 Section 10: Engineering 7. Document recording to comply with conditions Actual County recording costs of development approval (i.e., easements, agreements, etc.) Other Engineering Fees 1. Water analysis for lead content 2. Encroachment Permit Type 1— Minor Easily removable structures, such as fences, driveway, entrances, monument walls, or timbers, less than 3' tall, or other non-loadbearing structures. Type 2 — Maior Relatively large structures that may need engineering, such as driveway decking, reinforced concrete structures, boathouses, decks and hatches over in -lake manholes, or other structures that are not typically found in rights-of-way or public easements. 3. Encroachment Appeal 4. Zone of Benefit Formation, exclusive of LID Boundaries 5. Rivergrove Sanitary Sewer Connection Fee 13 6. Lien segregation One parcel into two Each additional parcel 7. Street widening 8. Street name change 9. Change of address request for reasons other than fire and life safety 10. Erosion control permit, plan review and inspection fee Dwelling Type: Single family residential 0 sf — 750 sf $ 175 $ 60 $ ern n peFFRit $ 300 — Type 1 $750 — Type 2 $ 500 per appeal $500 deposit, plus reimbursement for administrative time (paid prior to rendering of final decision) $ 200 $ 200 $ 100 $ 300 $ 250 $ 60 750 sf —1 acre $ 300 Greater than 1 acre 14 $ 670 Multi-family/Commercial 0 sf-1 acre $ 300 plus labor and material for time spent administering the permit in excess of 8 hours 11. Single-family residential landscaping erosion control permit, plan review and inspection fee $ 75 12. Site re -inspection fee for inspection of violations $ 75 13. Investigation fees: Work without a permit Investigation - Whenever any work for which an erosion control permit is required has commenced without first obtaining said permit, a special investigation shall be made before a permit may be issued for the work. 13 Check with engineering department for additional connection fee related to new zone of benefits established for certain properties. 14 Effective 1/1/03, impact areas 1 acre and greater will require a 1200-C permit per the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEA). Page 40 2011 Master Fees and Charges 208 Section 10: Engineering Fee - An investigation fee equal in amount and in addition to the permit fee shall be collected whether or not a permit is issued. 14. Erosion control enforcement fees For violations of LOC Chapter 52 and in addition to penalties prescribed under LOC 52.06, enforcement fees may also be assessed on a time and materials basis plus overhead billed at 2.4 times direct costs. 15. Illicit Discharge Enforcement Fees For violations of LOC Chapter 38 (Utility Code) and in addition to penalties prescribed under LOC 38.26.930 and LOC 38.26.935, enforcement fees may also be assessed on a time and materials basis plus overhead billed at 2.4 times direct costs. 2011 Master Fees and Charges Page 41 209 Section 11: Planning Section 11: Planning Division The following fees shall be charged for the Planning Division activities of the City (LOC 50.88.005): Ministerial Developments (LOC 50.79.010) Accessory Building which requires a building permit (e.g., garage, carport) Building Permit Fee 1. 2. Accessory structure or use (e.g., driveway, fence) Building Permit Fee 3. Delineation of an RP or RC resource boundary pursuant to LOC 50.16 (see Determination of RCPA, under Minor Developments) $-868No charge 4. Duplex Building Permit Fee 5. Exterior remodeling of duplex or single-family dwelling requiring a building Building Permit Fee permit 6. Home Occupations Business License 7. Lot Line Adjustment $ 1,492 Process to correct an illegal Lot Line Adjustment $ 1,492 8. Resource enhancement projects in RP or RC Districts - 9. Temporary Structures, Use Business License & Sign Permit, if applicable Minor Developments (LOC 50.79.020) 1. Administrative modifications to R-6 standards in First Addition Neighborhood $ 1,492 23. Change of use $ 3,162 34. Construction or exterior modification of a single-family structure or a structure accessory to a single-family use subject to minor development review process (if this application is accompanied by an application for a resource boundary delineation or other resource related application, the combined application fee shall be the greater of two fees) $ 3,357 45. Determination of an RC "Protection Area" pursuant to LOC 50.16.055 (if this application is accompanied by an application for an RC resource boundary delineation, the combined application fee shall be the greater of the two fees) $ 1,658 5b. Development in DD Zone: Duplex in DD zone (hearing body action) $ 4,447 Exterior remodeling of duplex or single-family dwelling requiring a building permit in DD Zone (hearing body action) $ 4,447 Single -Family Dwelling in DD Zone (hearing body action) $ 4,447 Zero lot line dwelling in DD Zone (hearing body action) $ 4,447 6-7. Development within Greenway Management Overlay Boundary $ 3,357 79. Development Review: Multiple Family, Commercial, Industrial, Institutional, Townhouses $ 4,447 + 37% of building Infill Design Review 50.7-2l permit fee $ i,705 81. (LOG Exceptions/Modifications to RP Buffer requirements (if this application is accompanied by an application for an RP resource boundary Page 42 2011 Master Fees and Charges 210 Section 11: Planning Comprehensive Plan and Community Development Code Amendments delineation, the combined application fee shall be the greater of the $ 1,492 Comprehensive Plan amendments only two fees) Comprehensive Plan amendments and Zone Change 4-9-. Heusing Fneving peRnit (LOG 45.12.510): $ 9,745 2. Legislative amendments to a text Relocating within Lake Oswego X3-8 $ 4,874 nneying e t of Lake ns,.,ege $-24-7 934. Lot Line Adjustment $ 1,492 1044. Minor Partition $ 3,661 Comprehensive Plan amendments and Zone Change Expedited Minor Partition $ 6,089 Process to correct creation of an illegal lot $ 3,661 113. Major Partition (includes the creation of a street) $ 4,196 + $ 208/lot Expedited Major Partition $ 6,413 + $ 208/lot Process to correct creation of an illegal lot $ 2,659 124. Modification of approved development permits Minor change LOC 50.86.025 $ 1,492 Non -minor change LOC 50.86.025 $ 4,44-72 ,500 134-5. Public or private road, major transportation or utility facility within a delineated RP District or buffer or RC protection area $ 2,692 146. Request for formal Code interpretation under LOC 50.04.010 $ 506 15. Residential Infill Design (RID) Review $1,705 1637. Secondary dwelling units - 1745. Signs $ 374 Signs (awning, window, blade) $ 103 Special event sign $ 108 Variance to Sign Code $ 1,228 Sign Retrieval Fee (violations) $ 23 Sign Removal Hearing Fee (refundable if sign was removed improperly) $ 23 Refundable deposit for Public Notice Signs $ 77 1833. Subdivision (with or without P.D.) $ 4,795 + $ 208/lot Expedited Subdivisions $ 8,956 + $ 208/lot 1920 �Ia.rian .,,s +„ C__9Fn UR;t y r,,,velep. eRt rode $ 2,910 for 1st + $ 321 for Class 1 (Minor) Variance each additional variance 2024. VaFmanees to GammuRity Development Code $ 3,356 for 1st + $ 431 for Class 2 Variance each additional variance Comprehensive Plan and Community Development Code Amendments 1. Legislative amendments to a map Comprehensive Plan amendments only $ 9,745 Comprehensive Plan amendments and Zone Change $ 9,745 Zone Change only $ 9,745 2. Legislative amendments to a text Comprehensive Plan text amendment $ 4,874 Community Development Code text amendment $ 4,874 3. Quasi-judicial amendments to a map Comprehensive Plan amendments only $ 9,745 Zone change onlyls $ 9,745 Comprehensive Plan amendments and Zone Change $ 9,745 is Not required for zone changes that conform to the Comprehensive Plan following annexations 2011 Master Fees and Charges Page 43 211 Section 11: Planning Minor modifications to approved amendment $ 1,304 Substantial modifications to approved amendments $ 1,678 Major Developments (LOC 58.02.035) 1. Conditional Uses $ 4,784 2. Overall Development Plan and Schedule $ 4,447 Fees Relating to Historical Preservation (LOC 58.02.035) 1. Designation of Landmark No fee 2. Exterior Alteration of Landmark No fee 3. Historic District Designation No fee 4. New construction (not attached to historic structure; e.g., detached No fee 2. Pre -application Consultation: garage, secondary dwelling, garden shed) One follow-up meeting with staff to discuss issues addressed at the 5. Removal or deconstruction of Landmark $ 3,707 6. Withdrawal of historic landmark designation $ 3,707 Appeals 1. Appeals of a formal Code Interpretation to a Hearing Body16 $ 643 2. Appeals of a staff decision to a Hearing Body16 $ 529 3. Appeals of a Hearing Body decision to City Counci117 % original Application Fee not to exceed $4,606 Pre -Application Conference/ConsultationS18 1. Pre -application Conference: Infill Design Review, both pre -application meetings are required: Pre -application with Planning Staff $ 531 Pre -application with the Infill Advisors Team $ 1,705 All other applications $ 321 2. Pre -application Consultation: One follow-up meeting with staff to discuss issues addressed at the pre -application conference No fee For any meetings after the follow-up (3rd meeting on) 50% of pre -application fee 3. Consultation Fee A private meeting to discuss a project outside the context of a pre - application conference or at -the -counter services by a planner $ 70/hr 16 Appeal fee shall not apply to appeals filed by DLCD or recognized Neighborhood Association whose boundaries include the subject property. 17 The City Manager has waived this fee for appeals filed by DLCD or recognized Neighborhood Association whose boundaries include the subject property. 18 In addition to planning fees noted in this sub -section, the Fire Department also levies a pre -application fee. Please refer to Fire Department, Section 3 for the correct amount. Page 44 2011 Master Fees and Charges 212 Section 11: Planning Research Fees 1. Letter of zoning verification $ 70/hr 2. Letter of verification of compliance with Community Development Codes of an existing development $ 107/hr 3. Deed research to determine the legality of a lot of record $ 107/hr 4. Research/Interpretation of old planning files (often requested by the $ 133 plus $ 13 per tree applicants before filing of a development application) $ 70/hr Tree Code Fees (Resolution 00-07) 1. Tree Cutting Permit Fees Type I Permit $ 13 Dead or Hazard Tree Permit $ 13 Type II Permit $ 133 plus $ 13 per tree Type II Permit in conjunction with major or minor development application $ 0 Verification Permit $ 23 plus $5 per tree Topping Permit $ 13 per request 2. Mitigation [as provided in LOC 55.02.084(3)] $ 328 per tree 3. Enforcement Fees - For violations under LOC 55.02.130 (3), enforcement fees will be assessed as follows: Type I Permits violations, dead or hazard tree violations $ 106 All other Permit Type violations $470 plus $33 per tree 4. Restoration Standard City Tree Fund Fee [as provided in LOC 55.02.130(4)(a)] $73 per caliper inch Increased City Tree Fund Fee [as provided in LOC 55.02.130(4)(b)] $144 per caliper inch 5. Public Hearing Review Request for CFC Hearing on Tree Cutting Permit $ 164 Appeal of CFC's decision to City Council % of original application fee 6. Heritage Tree Program The City may charge for providing the plaque marking a heritage tree. The fee will be the actual cost of providing the plaque. 7. Tree Protection Inspection Fee $61 per inspection* *Fee may be waived if inspection is done in conjunction with the review of a tree -cutting permit application Other Planning Fees (Resolution 04-12) 1. Annexation Application Fee Parcel less than 3 times minimum lot area for the zone designation that will apply upon annexation $ 0+Applicable Metro Fees19 Parcel 3 times or greater than the minimum lot area for the zone designation that will apply upon annexation $690 per no. of lots into which the parcel could be divided under the zone designation that will apply upon annexation + Metro fees 19 See Annexation Application Form 2011 Master Fees and Charges Page 45 213 Section 11: Planning 2. Copies of Planning Documents See Section 1, Public Records Fees, page 17 3. Site review and inspection fees a. Single family dwelling on infill lots (i.e., lots or parcels not approved as part of a land partition/subdivision) $ 185 b. Single family dwelling or townhomes approved as a part of a land partition/subdivision/planned development application $ 464 C. Non -single family residential development, including apartments, commercial, industrial, and institutional uses $ 925 d. Re -inspection fee $ 97 e. Residential remodels Interior remodels and accessory structures $ 102 Exterior addition of no more than 500 sq ft $ 142 Exterior addition exceeding 500 sq ft (same fee as if new construction) See a. — c. above 4. Final Plat Review Fee $ 355 5. Ballot Measure -W49 Claims Fees for claims under LOC Article 12.55 (Resolution 05-31) Pre -filing conference fee $ 365 Filing fee $ 1,066 6. Application Mailing List Fee $ 56 7. Records Retention Fees For purposes of archiving records per State mandate a. Ministerial land use applications 30 b. Minor land use applications (without public hearing) 50 c. Minor land use applications (with public hearing) and major land use 100 applications d. Type II and verification tree removal permits 20 e. Sign permits 20 Page 46 2011 Master Fees and Charges 214 Section 12: System Development Charges Section 12: Systems Development Charges The following fees shall be assessed for Systems Development Charges (SDC). For each type of SDC, the fees assessed to each unit of a duplex shall be the same as those assessed to a single-family residence. These SDC's shall be indexed for inflation annually using the Engineering News - Record Construction Cost Index (20 -city average). Accordingly, for 20102011, the SDC fees have been decreased increased by 703%3.8% which is equal to the last recorded change in this index. Calculated amount is rounded to the nearest dollar. Systems Development Charges (LOC 39.04) 20 Un -metered secondary dwelling units shall be charged the smallest SDC above. 2011 Master Fees and Charges Page 47 215 Sanitary Sewer SID C20 Water SDC20 Reimbursement Reimbursement Improvement Administrative Total Fee 77.84% Fee 42.5814.79% Fee 57.4278.72% Fee 6.49% 100% Water Meter Size 5/8-3/4 inch $ 580519 $ 4--A 1l 825 $ 2-,21592 ,344 5/8-3/4 inch $ 1380 $ X4232,025 167 $ 2782,572 3/4 inch 35-5380 1,412�2,025 167 2-4782,572 1 inch 4 7r7634 2,703,372 278 41274,284 1-1/2 inch 1,268 4426,748 556 8588,572 2 inch 7,0 2,535 98213,495 1,113 46 4517,143 3 inch 16;78-76,085 22-,76832,389 2,670 39-63841,144 4 inch 2933610,649 392956,679 4,673 69,36572,001 6 inch 64x9823,327 8246124,157 10,236 151,946157,720 8 inch 1' 52240,568 ' 51,731215,925 17,802 264 3274,295 10 inch "7531463,388 2372337,383 27,815 ^' 96428,586 20 Un -metered secondary dwelling units shall be charged the smallest SDC above. 2011 Master Fees and Charges Page 47 215 Sanitary Sewer SID C20 Reimbursement Improvement Total Fee 22.16% Fee 77.84% 100% Water Meter Size 5/8-3/4 inch $ 580519 $ 4--A 1l 825 $ 2-,21592 ,344 3/4 inch 588519 4, 581,825 2,,2582,344 1 inch 886866 2293,042 3,7653 ,908 1-1/2 inch 1,6641 ,732 53686,083 73297,815 2 inch 3 3353,463 4 2-112,165 15;-06615,628 3 inch 9,0078 ,312 28 3029,198 36 3737,510 4 inch 14,01 L14,546 494,N51 097 63;24065,643 6 inch 38,69131,863 ,^ 33111,925 , 524143,788 8 inch 53,7555,414 187;535194,651 240;910250,065 10 inch 8339886,585 '0023304,140 3'421390,725 20 Un -metered secondary dwelling units shall be charged the smallest SDC above. 2011 Master Fees and Charges Page 47 215 Section 12: Systems Development Charges Surface Water Management SDC Reimbursement Improvement Total Fee 0% Fee 100% 100% Single family $ 0 $ X4129 $ 324129 Multi -family, commercial/industrial, institutional, and other land use fees are determined as follows: Improvement Fee equals the total impervious area of the property in units of 3,030 square feet or portion thereof multiplied by the fee. This fee is the Surface Water Management System Development Charge. Transportation SDC Refer to methodology and rate schedule in Attachment D Parks & Recreation SDC Reimbursement Improvement Total Fee 0% Fee 100% 100% Residential Single family $ 5,-624 $ 511,089 $10;8311,089 Multi-family/secondary dwellings 342-6 2-,81§6,167 56,167 "Congregate Housing" units are charged at 50% of the Multi -family rate. (See attachment E for definition of Congregate Housing") Non-residential 352 3-25713 68-7713 per employee "Residential Care Housing" units are charged at 100% of the Non-residential rate. (See attachment E for definition of "Residential Care Housing") Systems Development Charges Methodologies (LOC 39.04.041) Water SDC methodology is provided in....................................................................................................... Attachment A Sanitary Sewer SDC methodology is provided in........................................................................................ Attachment B Surface Water Management SDC methodology is provided in................................................................ Attachment C Transportation SDC rate tables Fnetha elegy is pFevided in Attachment D Parks and Recreation SDC methodology is provided in............................................................................. Attachment E Page 48 2011 Master Fees and Charges 216