The URL can be used to link to this page

Agenda Packet - 1999-04-20 AM Rural Lake Grove Neighborhood Plan Steering Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, April 20, 1999 10:00 to 12:00 noon MAri 5it7'I4zll. +l4 'i y. I 411trtir 380 A Avenue Lake Oswego, OR 97034 r/ ' For Information: 697-7422 I. Roll Call II. Discuss General Neighborhood Plan Meeting (April 8, 1999) III. Discuss Comment Cards received at NH Plan Meeting IV. Discuss citizen involvement for remainder of planning process V. Discuss Planning Commission, County Board involvement VI. Set Next Meeting VII. Adjourn Members Ken Sandblast,Chair Greg Springate Laurie Hilliard Peg Trippe Laurie Mahar Mary Ellen White Cathy Shroyer Jane_h/Rurlkgrv/agenda4-20-99 A COOPERATIVE EFFORT BETWEEN THE RURAL LAKE GROVE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION �* AND THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO W • RURAL LAKE GROVE E N IGHBBHOOD PLAN - WORK PROGRAM • S 4 /Loh, ; ;, ;, DRAFT 1998 1 / 1999 2000 TASK Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. I 1.0 Planning Start Up 1.1 Establish boundaries • 1.2 Appoint Steering Committee • 2.0 Data Inventory/Analysis (depends on outcome of neighborhood issues-ongoing) ❑❑❑ ❑❑❑ ❑❑❑ ❑❑ ❑❑❑ ❑❑❑ ❑❑❑ ❑❑❑ ❑❑❑ ❑❑❑ ❑❑❑ ❑❑❑ ❑❑❑ ❑❑❑ ❑❑❑ ❑❑ ❑❑❑ ❑❑❑❑❑ 3.0 Issue Identification/refinement 3.1 Meet w/Steering Committee • 3.2 Prepare list of policy issues/ scope of Neighborhood Plan »»» 3.3 Prioritize issues for work >>» 3.4 Progress report to NHPlanning Subcommittee(Sept. 28, 1998) 4.0 Prepare NH Plan goals/policies 4.1 Develop goals and policies • • • I • • • • • • 4.1.a Goal 1 -Citizen involvement »»> 4.1.b Goal 2 Land Use Planning »»> 4.1.c Goal 5 Natural Resources »»> 4.1.d Goal 6 Air,Water, Land Res. »»> 4.1.e Goal 8 Parks and Recreation j»»> 4.1.f Goal 9 Econ. Development »»> 4.1.g Goal 10 Housing »»> 4.1.h Goal 11 Public Facilities »»> 4.1.i Goal 12 Transportation »»> 4.2 Neighborhood review/refine • • • (Meet w/surrounding areas/ interest groups, etc.for review) 4.3 Mail residents progress rept • I • 4.4 PC/CC progress report I _ 4.5 County review/progress report* J Page 1 1 111 RURAL LAKE GROVE NEIGHBHOOD PLAN - WORK PROGRAM S 1 11/17/98 DRAFT 1998 1999 1 2000 TASK Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. 5.0 Review Goals/Policies for Compliance ` 5.1 Compliance with Metro Functional Plan I I »»> • 5.2 Compliance with City Comprehensive Plan and Statewide Planning Goals 6.0 Adoption Process 6.1 Neighborhood Review »»> li 6.2 Planning Comm.Work Sessions '* 6.3 Planning Commission Hearing I * I 6.4 City Council Work Sessions * 'i• 6.5 City Council Hearing/Adoption 6.6 City Staff/Neighborhood Assoc. present Plan to Clack. Co.Bd.of Commissioners. 6.7 Clackamas Board of !Commissioners Adopts Plan 7.0 Assemble/distribute RLG Plan I »» F•=Steering Committee Mtg.,Neightlllhood vent or Mailing = Public Mtg.Or Hearing County receives all Steering Committee I Packets Page 2 • 676$4 . 4ult leyyL 6-) tet - 6 - I kitAl frEs /ity/4416---- ruAtA-€7 ? /5 d4e/itek/Olit - 5 04)//"-t* - a)44.67 X4112,t..0 S, — r!z .. l / £ «. 7/Cip-ii\c. 4 r U vCs �-e/�l�u..- rotA.KI-rif��to 4r ltithzx - AiStkry y-k-n t-- 0/1 io Atownriotti g.e..4- /in ? erm-vne,ktia- k • keekkiti cM! ' fixertru,le chiwynuil 'f1 Sudu1 . • r 6.iailf Cl, IZL� c'; '-x_ / /ty.r, ,.(, / ,1-47// Q/}-/ V,/w_?' -'i� 4/0i{ l.kYes L LIXf f 'I,:;, Rural Lake Grove Neighborhood Plan �'`�`� Steering CommitteeVIC' � 1 isr-&-, K - / s,,eb - 1 ` ` " ,� Meeting Agenda v efre0 II f P''' �� ; Tuesday, April 20, 1999 lull .,� / ,c ri 10:00 to 12:00 noonv4v. IM ' oit, /6-. Sdt/L47r (_ ,, City Hall Council Work Room, I'Floor r �t,A ,,Are 380 A Avenue p �" •��/1 1-ili �J ` ' /j/ !< Lake Oswego,OR 97034 )I� Y � r — L iit//e JJ Ott For Information: 697-7422 AJ441 1, i �f, fa /I,i)- N e Gf'..t tfiit4,ll / t ai iv/166) / fv-n V-M '='T. c `Ro11 611 i-/qA 6 z-J II. Discuss General Neighborhood Plan Meeting (April 8, 1999)` , -'v /-) ' III. Discuss Comment Cards received at NH Plan Meeting / - 144 eat •4‘ IV. Discuss citizen involvement for remainder of planning process ' • -�'�''u t Aktil V. Discuss�Planning Commission, County Board involvement— - `t 1 iy, IIIVI. Set Next Meeting VII. Adjourn Members i (A)Oh&Kt 0 -/----` C67111 Ken Sandblast,Chair Greg Springate ✓ 1) -1 aj l' Laurie Hilliard rV W Peg Trippe ram~ ft I id P Laurie Mahar Mary Ellen White v Cathy Shroyer u S L ✓� 4/ .:} 1 hr • 1 li ff GC �llYWEt/Z:� 0 l f'I.c,v^- .e" l/ lt J Jt0 /Item /[`!114 7iU r�LL / -GAO t..E u- ' 4_, ;d b 2 f, - 't4'.c/l,-v, C'/ . t/Ui yam,,.,,-,.,.�]�' s,7vh, ,.)r{ ,; ;, ,,:; n , , >„t,ttJ e�IL4� aq)/ /7 i- 4 `�/ & eat �� 1 Jane_h/Rurikgrv/agenda4-20-99 /l 1 A -1111119 A COOPERATIVE EFFORT BETWEEN THE *Ai v � t RURAL LAKE GROVE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION , f/ 'f�"_��`' - AND THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO• cr . III /ut /leo( //ten Aca-, 71- -- ,U2 t.G)/Le 7 -f4--_G t )1tr Heisler, Jane From: Lev, Deborah �ent: Wednesday, April 28, 1999 8:22 AM o: Heisler, Jane Subject: FW: NRAB's recommendations/Staffs proposed changes • —Original Message— From: Tracy,Morgan Sent: Friday,Apnl 23, 1999 10:50 AM To: Lev,Deborah Subject: NRAB's recommendations/Staffs proposed changes Deb, could you please forward this to the NRAB members. We will be providing this to DRC and PC members on Monday night along with the proposed amendments that have already been sent out. The proposed Code revisions to Chapter 55 respond to the City Council's direction to address the issues raised in the Natural Resources Advisory Board's memo of December 18, 1998. The following identifies the issues raised in NRAB's memo, and describes what changes to the Code are proposed to address each of those issues. 1. Requirement Arborist Reports for all Type II permit requests related to tree health. First, the category for"dying trees" was deleted, leaving tree health related requests only for removing dead and hazard trees. Staff feels confident that a dead tree can be identified without a certified arborist report; however, hazard trees are more subjective. As it stands, the City may require an arborist report. Language was added to enable staff to request not only a report 11/ substantiating the request, but also providing alternative recommendations to alleviate the hazard apart from removal of the tree [LOC 55.02.080(2)(b)]. 2. Violations and Mitigation NRAB wanted to require uniform mitigation (tree replacement) for any Type II tree removal. Current standards leave more discretion for imposing mitigation. A new section (LOC 55.02.082) was added to require mitigation based on a minimum one for one tree replacement. NRAB wanted to emphasize that mitigation was a positive and not punitive component of the code. The penalties section was largely re-written to require a person found in violation of the tree code to satisfy the mitigation requirements as if a permit had been properly issued, in addition to fines that are directly related to the severity of the violation. Refer to LOC 55.02.130(4). To promote education related to the values of trees and the permitting program, a provision was added to allow a 25 percent reduction of the imposed fine if the person found in violation attends an "approved tree education course." 3. Clarify Emergency Trees from Hazard Trees Language was amended in both LOC 55.02.080(2) and LOC 55.02.035(3)(a) to better distinguish between what constitutes an "Emergency" from a "Hazard." Additional reporting requirements were added and an independent oversight review provision was added for "Emergency trees." 4. Notice Requirements for Type II permits Three issues were identified with the current notice procedures. NRAB wanted to expand the required notice for Hazard and Dead trees. NRAB also proposed door hangars for notifying abutting neighbors. Third, Major and Minor development proposals are not subject to the same • notification procedures as tree cutting permits when tree removals are involved (i.e. notice is provided through standard Notices Mailed to property owners within 300 feet). i DRAFT RURAL LAKE GROVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN • STEERING COMMITTEE Meeting May 4, 1999 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at approximately 10:10 AM on Tuesday, May 4, 1999, in the Municipal Courtroom of City Hall, by Chair Ken Sandblast. II. ROLL CALL Committee members present were Chair Ken Sandblast, Laurie Mahar, Cathy Shroyer and Peg Trippe. Staff present was Jane Heisler, Project Planner, City of Lake Oswego Planning Department. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the April 20, 1999 meeting were approved as modified. IV. DISCUSS APPROACH TO COMMERCIAL LANDS AND TREES Prior to the commercial lands and tree discussion there was general discussion on some other items. Ken indicated that John Williams, a neighborhood resident, would submit a Letter of Intent for the Neighborhood Enhancement Program, for a pathway between Kimball and Inverurie to improve access to Waluga Park. Staff will prepare a draft flyer for the June 3, 1999 neighborhood meeting and email to the Committee for review along with the draft plan. Ken mentioned that he went to the LONAC (Lake Oswego Neighborhood Action Coalition) on Saturday. He suggested that more Rural Lake Grove officials attend. Albertson's proposal was briefly discussed. Apparently, they are proposing more parking than allowed by code. After some discussion, the Committee agreed to not propose any additional commercial areas or any areas to study for the possibility of commercial uses, within the neighborhood. Reasons cited included a sufficiency of commercial with the West Lake Grove Plan adoption as well as the possibility of raised expectations when naming a study area. It was concluded that property owners who wanted to propose commercial could rely on the City's existing comprehensive plan policies, but the neighborhood plan would indicate that additional commercial was not desirable. Another related issue discussed was whether the Carman/I-5/Lake Forest area should be designated as a study area for higher density housing. The Committee concluded that indicating this as a study area would raise expectations and would be too undefined. The question was raised about whether a developer could develop under • County standards and then annex. Staff would look into this and get back to the Committee. Staff will also explore the question of whether the UGMA or the Minutes of Rural Lake Grove Neighborhood Plan Steering Committee Page 1 5-4--99 The Neighborhood Plan Steering Committee Needs Your Help! Did you know that Rural Lake Grove Neighborhood is developing a Neighborhood Plan? In conjunction with the City of Lake Oswego and Clackamas County,the neighborhood has the opportunity to put together goals and policies to help guide neighborhood improvements. The Neighborhood Plan represents a commitment by the residents, property owners, business owners and the City and County to enhance the quality of the neighborhood. The Steering Committee needs your help! Since this will be YOUR Neighborhood Plan, it should reflect your opinion and that of your neighbors. What things about the neighborhood do you think need to be preserved, enhanced or, don't bear repeating? What kinds of strategies for specific areas or groups of issues are important to you: Street design, neighborhood character, public improvements? This is your chance to state your opinion. t -�i(k 8r y►'�0�(,Q t� lo-L '10 ciet�rnloQd t J)q 1��uj, 0 d evrvl ta-aad The Steering Committee hopes have a draft set of goals and olicies to neighborhood p�ytd CD'y'`�' tdi residents over the next few nths. A January, 1997 survey s nt to all neighborhood r-uKS residents provided good bac ground and direction for the Neig borhood Plan, but needs to be supplemented. Please ill out the attached questionnaire Fax it: iheilerNeci . osiA10 • �' � S City of Lake Oswe Attention: Jane Heisler 635-0269, or, Mail it to the City of Lake Oswego Attention: Jane Heisler P. O. Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034, or, Drop it by City Hall at 380 A Avenue, Lake Oswego eD 11xn - Thank you for your input. d -6141.4V • The Rural Lake Grove Neighborhood Plan Steering Committee Webl ink I 111 The proposed amendments require notice for a Type II permits [LOC 55.02.075(1)]. Door hangars were discussed but seemed ineffective and required either increased staff time to hang • them or verify that they were distributed by the applicant. Instead, post card type notices will be sent to all adjacent properties, LOC 55.02.075(4). Thirdly, changes were made to LOC 55.02.035 requiring a site plan indicating the proposed tree removals and flagging of trees in the field. This site plan would be mailed along with the Major or Minor Development notice of application. This enables members of the public to determine which trees will ultimately require removal as part of the development proposal. 5. Type II permit triggers. NRAB, in concert with the recently adopted Lake Grove neighborhood plan, desired to limit the applicability of Type I permits. Currently, any single family property (with some restrictions)that is not divisible into three or more lots can remove all the trees on the lot with a $7 permit and no criteria to disallow the request. LOC 55.02.042 was changed so that Type II permits are required in all circumstances except when a residentially zoned single family homeowner requests to remove no more than two trees, each less than 12 inches in diameter. 6. Dying and diseased trees The provisions for"dying" and"diseased" trees were deleted form the code. Staff and NRAB concur that the"dying" category is far too broad and could include trees that will be in the process of dying for many years. Diseased trees will be considered part of trees not dead or hazardous. In cases of fast spreading blight where the delays associated with a two week notice process would be possibly detrimental to other nearby trees, emergency tree permits could be an alternative. 7. Removals on single family lots in Commercial or Industrial Zones NRAB was concerned by the inequity caused when non-conforming single family homes apply • for tree cutting permits. Currently they are automatically Type II permits subject to the Type II permit fees. NRAB and staff believe that the Type II criteria are still relevant and that tree removals in commercial and industrial zones should be scrutinized. However, the fees should be similarly applied as if the property were in a residential zone. No code changes are necessary to achieve this, and a separate fee resolution will be presented to Council including other proposed fee changes. • 2 v �P a ?1i- 617 Rural Lake Grove Neighborhood Plan Transportation • Summary of Maior Issues: • Not enough non-auto transportation options • Need to preserve neighborhood character (trees, visual, narrow, rural quality of roads) • Too much cut through traffic • Improve safety for all modes of travel • 72% of survey responses favored additional pathways to Waluga Park Policy Direction Based on January. 1997 Neighborhood Survey: • Maintain small scale, "country lane" character of existing streets. flexible design standards - innovative surface water management solutions don't require full width, curbed and guttered urban streets with • development. • Where appropriate, use traffic management devices (speed bumps, traffic circles, etc.) to prevent speeding and discourage cut-through traffic on local streets • Support improvements on Boones Ferry, Kruse Way and Carman Drive, to reduce neighborhood through-traffic • Ensure ability to walk safely throughout the neighborhood by providing some pedestrian facilities on busier streets and off-street connections through unconstructed right-of-ways • Reduce vehicle miles traveled in the neighborhood lane/rtg/april meeting boards • 71( A COOPERATIVE EFFORT RE:711 F.E\THE RURAL LAKE:GROVE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCLVFION �� 1NI) 1-11E CITY OF LAKE OSIVEGO 1 �� r 1 Rural Lake Grove Neighborhood Plan Neighborhood Character — Trees • Summary of Maior Issues: • About 63% of survey responses favored some type of tree cutting permit system • If a tree-cutting permit system were established, it would likely have to be administered by the City as the County has no comparable program. Current Tree Cutting Regulations In the County In the City ' No required permits Tree cutting permit required for trees over 5" in or monitoring diameter. required If parcel CAN NOT be further divided into more than 2 lots, a $6 permit fee is charged and the permit is issued. (Type I permit) • If parcel CAN be divided into more than 2 additional lots or is located in a Sensitive Lands Area, a notice period is provided, a staff analysis written and a hearing may be requested. For a permit to be issued, a tree must be: 1) dead or dying, 2) a hazard tree, 3) or, need to be cut to allow for an approved development, and will not have a negative impact on erosion, soil stability, surface water, protection for adjacent trees or existing windbreaks, character of the area, aesthetics or property values. (Type II permit) NI" :1 COOPERATIVE F:FFOR"F BET1A`EE\THE RURA1.LAKE GROVE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION 11�, AND THE CITY OF LAKE OW EGO ' �� Rural Lake Grove Neighborhood Plan • Land Use: (a) Limits of Commercial Expansion: Summary of Maior Issues: • West Lake Grove Design Plan recently adopted by City of Lake Oswego provides for 15 acres of office/neighborhood commercial and townhouse development. • Metro 2040 Plan calls for additional commercial and higher density residential to be placed in or near Town Centers, Main Streets and Transit Corridors. • The commercially zoned areas now abutting Rural Lake Grove Neighborhood and including the West Lake Grove Design District lie within the area Lake Oswego has proposed designating as a Town Center and Main Street in the Lake Grove area. Kruse Way and Boones Ferry are proposed as Transit Corridors. • • 86% of survey respondents indicated that they support the opportunity for P small-scale, in-home businesses (e.g., day care, piano lessons), where zoning is kept residential • 75% do not want to rezone any additional areas to commercial • 66% said they did not want any multi-unit housing in the neighborhood Suggested Policy Direction: Limit commercial growth to those areas designated in the West Lake Grove Design District and existing commercially zoned lands in and abutting the neighborhood. • � �cooeER:1 rIVt.E:E PORT ni 1\1 EEN HIE _ - RI RAI. L110 GROVE NEIGHBORHOOD A55Uc 11110\ ' :1N1)'HIE CFI OF L:1Kt:OS11 EGO Rural Lake Grove Neighborhood Plan Land Use: • (b) Carman Drive/I-5. Summary of Major Issues: • There has been interest on the part of a realtor and some residents to change the zoning in the vicinity of I-5/Carman/Lake Forest from single family residential to commercial zoning. • The area is near a bus line, an employment area and a freeway interchange. Policy Options: • Leave zoning as is; take no further action. • Define an area subject to study for alternative uses in the vicinity of Carman/I-5 (e.g., high density, senior housing, etc. A COOPERATIVE EFFORT BETWEEN THE • RL"RAL.LAKE GROVE NEIGHBORHOOD '�1 AND'1'HF.CIT1 OF LAKE 0511'EGO Rural Lake Grove Neighborhood Plan • Annexation Summary: • 40% of survey respondents indicated they did not know whether they wanted to annex, but would like more information on what changes annexation would bring • 13% indicated they would like to annex • 31% indicated they would not like to annex • 17% of respondents were already in the City limits of Lake Oswego • City/County agreement requires annexation when City sewer will serve new development • City/USA agreement requires annexation for USA sewer connection if property is contiguous to City limits or a consent for future annexation if property is not contiguous. • Approximate City/County tax differences are (for year ending June 30, 1999): Tax Code Tax Rate per Tax on $200,000 Area $1,000 AV House Unincorporated 7 22 $12.7551 $2,551.02 Clackamas County 'City of Lake Oswego 7 21 $15.5895 $3,117.901 Difference $2.8344 $566.881 Suggested Policy Direction: • Neighborhood planning process not address annexation. Individual property owners and/or groups of neighbors may annex when city services are needed or desirable on a case by case basis. " COOPERATIVE EFFORT 1)E:TIVEEN TIIE: Ill RAi,LAKE GROVE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION . :1N1)THE CITI OF LAKE OM%EGO 1� , -URA.L LAKE GROVE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION air 2, 1997 :)ear Residents and Property Owners of the Rural Lake Grove Neighborhood Association: 0 ince September 1995 a group of residents from the Rural Lake Grove Neighborhood has been meeting twice a month to discuss the future of our neighborhood. This neighborhood planning group is composed of )eople in our neighborhood who volunteered at general membership meetings of the neighborhood association luring 1995. In addition, these individuals have been presenting the results of their discussions at each of the ;eneral membership meetings held by the Rural Lake Grove Neighborhood Association. In the spring of last year, our neighborhood was selected to participate in a formal neighborhood planning program. A neighborhood plan guides the way our area will look and feel in the future. Policies and ordinances regarding land use, traffic, natural resources, safety and public services will be drafted and adopted that directly affect the future quality and livability of our neighborhood. Since this is only the beginning of the neighborhood planning process, you have the opportunity to participate in identifying those issues that we, as a neighborhood, consider important to guiding the future of our area. It is for this very reason that your responses to the attached survey are vitally important. This is your chance to be in on the ground floor of planning the future of our neighborhood. Other than organizing the survey around several general categories, there have been no conclusions drawn or directions taken for the future of our neighborhood. The results of this survey will act as our guide in all future work so please takes a few, 1 es to answer the attached Questions. Instead of wondering when"someone" will do something about that particular issue you feel would improve or protect our neighborhood, take a few minutes now to answer the attached questions and let your association know what you think. We encourage you to participate in this ongoing neighborhood planning process by: • Completing and returning this survey • Attending Rural Lake Grove Neighborhood Association meetings • Watching your mailbox/Reading the newspaper for information and meeting notices • Calling one of the people listed below with specific questions or concerns Thank you in advance for taking time from your day to respond to the attached survey. The deadline for returning the survey is January 17. 1997. For your convenience, the return address is pre-labeled so that all you have to do is COMPLETE IJiE SURVEY, FOLD IT IN THIRDS. PLACE A STAMP ON IT, AND DROP IT IN THE MAILBOX. If you have any questions or would like additional information, please contact one of the following members of 1 the neighborhood plan committee: Laurie Mahar Ken Sandblast,Chair Cathy Shroyer Laurie Hilliard Greg Springate RLGNA Co-Chair RLGN Plan Committee 21 Year Resident 11 Year Resident 7 Year Resident 40 r Resident 2 Year Resident 636-7585 636-8697 636-9023 iii .'5 636-0721 LAND USE - DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS Land use is a broad term that describes not only the past and present ways in which building and development has and is occurring,but also takes into consideration plans for how development may occur in the future. Presently, the Rural Lake Grove area is composed of predominantly single family homes on lots sized 15,000 to 20,000 square feet with several areas of . newer home construction on lots sized 7,000 to 9,000 square feet. There is also significant commercial development around the fringes of our neighborhood-Kruse Way/Bangy Road and Boones Ferry. FOOD FOR THOUGHT: Government decisions will be made over the next few years to decrease the average lot sizes of new developments occurring throughout the region, including any new development in our neighborhood How do we as a neighborhood want to address this issue? 1. In terms of future growth in our neighborhood,do you support subdividing large lots to build more homes? Yes No Why? 2. If large lots are subdivided,what should the minimum lot size be? A. — 6,500 sq ft C. _ 8,500 sq ft(current county min.) E. Other B. _ 7,500 sq ft(current city min.) D. _ 10,000 sq ft 3. What type of commercial businesses do you support having in our neighborhood? (Answer all 3) A. In-home business which is owner/renter occupied. Zoning is residential. (ie.day care or piano lessons) Yes,No If yes,what restrictions should apply? If no,why? B. A business which is conducted out of a house,but no one lives there. Zoning is commercial. (ie. Omni Electric) Yes_ No If yes,what restrictions should apply? If no,why? C. A business in a new structure. Zoning is commercial. (ie. grocery,fast food,retail,etc.) Yes_No If yes,what restrictions should apply? If no,why? 11111 4. Would you like to re-zone any area of our neighborhood?(ie.residential to commercial,commercial to residential) _ Yes_No If yes, specify streets/locations on the map included with this survey. If no, why? 5. To help meet density requirements,would you support building multi-unit housing(i.e. town/row houses or condominiums)in our neighborhood?_Yes_No If yes,specify location(s)on the map included with this survey. If no,why? 6. Please write down any thoughts,concerns or questions pertaining to Land Use that were not addressed. STREET DESIGN - TRANSPORTATION Many of the roads within our neighborhood do not currently have curbs,sidewalks or bikelanes. Several streets are seeing more and more cars which are traveling too fast. There are numerous dirt pathways used by children and adults alike when walking throughout the neighborhood to connect between streets. POINTS TO PONDER: Do we want our neighborhood to set standards for the future that keep our streets "rural"in nature or do we abide by existing governmental plans for standard streets with curbs, sidewalks and bikelanes? What about connections between blocks for pedestrians? 7. At this point,all of the paths that connect our neighborhood are natural. Would you like to: A. Pave any existing natural paths? — Yes _No If yes,where? • B. Add any new paths? _ Yes—No If yes,where? C. Keep natural,but improve paths? _ Yes_ No If yes,where? Do we need to improve the pedestrian connectivity of our neighborhood?(ie. from street to street,to Waluga Park,to schools or to stores) —Yes No If yes,specify location(s)on the map included with this survey. ).• Would you be willing to participate in a neighborhood Adopt-A--Pathway program? _ Yes_No 10. Are there any streets in our neighborhood that you feel pose a threat to pedestrian/bicyclists safety? Yes_No If yes,list the street(s),what you think the main cause is,and what should be done to make the street more safe. 11. Being as specific as possible,are there any places you would like to see: (Leave blank if answer is no) A. Stop signs: B. _ Speed bumps: C. _ Sidewalks: D. _ Curbs: E. Ped/bike paths: F. Traffic islands: G. Other: 12. Would you be willing to contribute financially towards the costs of constructing improvements?_Yes _ No 13. Do you use the Tri-Met bus lines in our neighborhood? Yes _No If yes,what improvements could be made? 14. Please write down any thoughts,concerns or questions pertaining to Trans,/Street Design that weren't addressed. PUBLIC SERVICES Public services is a term that describes all the various services you receive from a governmental entity. Examples include police,fire,water, sewer and stormwater. 15. Which sanitary system are you on? Septic Sewer _ Other 16. If you recently hooked up to sewer,what was the cost of hooking up and what was reason for the switch? Cost Reason 17. If you are on a septic system,have you had it serviced or pumped in the last 5 years? _ Yes_No If yes,why? 18. Do you want to hook up to sewer? Yes No Comments 19. Do you have a storm drainage problem on your street or in front of your house?_Yes—No 20. Are you satisfied with the police services you receive? _ Yes_No 21. Are you satisfied with the fire services you receive? _Yes _ No ioAre you satisfied with the quality of your drinking water? Yes _ No Please write down any thoughts,concerns or questions you have on Public Services that weren't addressed. • NATURAL RESOURCES Natural resources in our neighborhood include the trees,creeks,parks,trails and wetlands which directly contribute to the character and livability of our area. Given the neighborhood's overall existing pattern of established residences on larger lots, there exists a significant level of natural resources throughout our neighborhood. POINTS TO PONDER: Should existing regulations be left in place or more protective measures be implemented? When new development does occur, is it • appropriate for each project to provide/protect individual areas of open space within the project? 25. How should tree cutting be regulated in our neighborhood? A. No restrictions should apply,totally up to land owner. (Current county policy) B. Only removal of diseased or threatening trees and limbing of healthy trees should be permitted. A permit/approval should be required. C. Restrictions should be based on diameter of tree.(Current city policy) D. _No more tree cutting under any circumstances. E. Other 26. Should Waluga Park serve as the hub of the neighborhood open space and natural area with pathway connections radiating out like spokes on a wheel? Yes _No If no,why? 27. Please write down any thoughts,concerns or questions you have pertaining to Natural Resource's that weren't addressed. GENERAL QUESTIONS 28. Do you live in: City Limits of Lake Oswego Property Owner,Not living in neighborhood Unincorporated Clackamas County 29. How long have you lived in this neighborhood? • 30. How long do you plan to live in this neighborhood? 31. Do you rent or own your home? _ Rent_ Own 32. Would you like to annex to the city of Lake Oswego? A. _Don't know,would like more information on exactly what changes annexing would bring. B. _ Yes,Why? C. ._.No,Why? D. N/A already in the city 33. What concerns you most about annexing to the city of Lake Oswego? 34. What 3 things do you like BEST about this neighborhood? 1 . 2. 3. 35. What 3 things do you like LEAST about this neighborhood? 1 . 2. 3. 36. Please write down any thoughts,concerns or questions you have that weren't addressed in this survey. 1111 114 I0.---- J` ------___ __\ . __ _______--_____. INTERST_ _ /I ATE 5 iii ` ^ n 1-- DAIL i11NCY AVOI.E i - \ .• �� .',,.,v.,i ...7,MI/A... r. I IL naarangli Wier CART i ;i / -i» 4. .,� -v-- Calgru caw` / . f\111141k, c. f • 4 i i' i/V: M. 0 r ! s'' • , �_ N. 7 f :- JJ(J) rria.� —45) \\.,.„..._ ‘11)11%tio.-. 1 I \ Place Stamp Here i S Rural Lake Grove Neighborhood Assoc. 16227 SW Kimball St. Lake Oswego, OR 97035 This Flap outside for return mail. Tape or staple at top. • Rural Lake Grove Neighborhood Association 16227 SW Kimball Si Lake Oswego, OR 97035 • IMPORTANT QUESTIONNAIRE ENCLOSED PLEASE READ r Rural Lake Grove Neighborhood Association • Neighborhood Plan Survey Results Question Response Totals Percentages No. Yes No Neutral Yes No Neutral 1 84 128 2 39.3% 59.8% 0.9% 2-A _---_- 14 -- 7.0% 2-B 411 20.4% I 2-C 55 27.4% 2-D 75 37.3% 2-E 16 8.0% 3-A 188 30 0 86.2% 13.8% 3-B 57 135 0 29.7% 70.3% 3-C 74 133 0 35.7% 64.3° 4 41 139 7 21.9% 74.3°J 3.7% 5 72 140 2 33.6% 65.4% 0.9% 7-A 35 118 0 22.9% 77.1 7-B 55 94 0 36.9% 63.1% 7-C 104 55 0 65.4% 34.6°h 8 107 74 0 59.1% 40.9% • 9 86 78 12 48.9% 44.3°' 6.8% 10 170 25 0 87.2% 12.8% 12 85 101 13 42.7% 50.8% 6.5% I13 23 197 0 10.5% 89.5% 17 62 72 1 45.9% 53.3% 0.7% 18 46 _ 82 10 33.3% 59.4% 7.2% 19 64 151 1 29.6% 69.9% 0.5% 20 115 28 71 52.3% -12.7% 35.0% 21 135 2 80 62.2% 0.9% 36.9% 22 165 19 38 74.3% 8.6% 17.1% 25-A 76 31.0% - 25-B 87 35.5% 25-C _ 63 25.7% 25-D 3 1.2% 25-E - 16 6.5% '26 127 31 18 72.2% 17.6% 10.2% 31 - 2 221 0.9% 99.1% 32-A 83 39.2% 32-B _ 28 13.2% 32-C 65 _ 30.7% 32-D 36 17.0% • RURAL LAKE GROVE NEIGRBORHOOD PLAN - WORK PROGRAM S 9- / j / DRAFT 1998 I I i999 I 2000 TASK I Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. 11.0 Planning Start Up 1.1 Establish boundaries • 1.2 Appoint Steering Committee • 2.0 Data Inventory/Analysis (depends on outcome of neighborhood issues-ongoing) ❑00 ❑O❑ ❑❑❑ ❑❑ ❑❑O 000 000 O❑❑ ❑O❑ 000 000 DUO ❑❑❑ ODD ❑❑❑ ❑O ❑❑❑ 00000 3.0 Issue Identification/refinement 3.1 Meet w/Steering Committee • 3.2 Prepare list of policy issues/ I scope of Neighborhood Plan »»» I 3.3 Prioritize Issues for work >>» I 3.4 Progress report to NHPlanning I Subcommittee(Sept.28, 1998) 4.0 Prepare NH Plan goals/policies I I 4.1 Develop goals and policies • • • • • • • • • I 4.1.a Goal 1 -Citizen Involvement I »»> I 4.1.b Goal 2 Land Use Planning »»>I I 4.1.c Goal 5 Natural Resources »»> 1 I 4.1.d Goal 6 Air,Water, Land Res. »»> 4.1.e Goal 8 Parks and Recreation I »»> 4.1.f Goal 9 Econ. Development I »»> 4.1.g Goal 10 Housing I »»> I I 4.1.h Goal 11 Public Facilities I »»> I 4.1.i Goal 12 Transportation I »»> I I 4.2 Neighborhood review/refine • • • (Meet w/surrounding areas/ interest groups,etc.for review) 4.3 Mail residents progress rept • • 4.4 PC/CC progress report I ' . 4.5 County review/progress RV: I I I I I " I . I I I I k-C ll AA/)I f u1 -i`v ` . Page 1 .. Cal u PC Alit ) RURAL LAKE GROVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN - WORK PROGRAM 11/17/98 DRAFT 1998 1999 _I 2000 TASK Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug. Sept. I Oct Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. 5.0 Review Goals/Policies for Compliance 5.1 Compliance with Metro Functional Plan »»> • 5.2 Compliance with City I Comprehensive Plan and Statewide —' Planning Goals >»» • _ I I 6.0 Adoption Process I I • I I 6.1 Neighborhood Review »»> 6.2 Planning Comm.Work Sessions • 6.3 Planning Commission Hearing 6.4 City Council Work Sessions * * 6.5 City Council Hearing/Adoption _ 6.6 City Staff/Neighborhood Assoc. present Plan to Clack. Co. Bd.of Commissioners. 6.7 Clackamas. Board of Commissioners Adopts Plan 7.0 Assemble/distribute RLG Plan I »» •=Steering Committee Mtg.,Neighborhood Event or�vlaiiing ^*= Public Mtg. Or Hearing i County receives all Steering Committee Packets I — • age 2 The Neighborhood Plan Steering Committee Needs Your Help! • Did you know that Rural Lake Grove Neighborhood is developing a Neighborhood Plan? In conjunction with the City of Lake Oswego and Clackamas County, the neighborhood has the opportunity to put together goals and policies to help guide neighborhood improvements. The Neighborhood Plan represents a commitment by the residents, property owners, business owners and the City and County to enhance the quality of the neighborhood. The Steering Committee needs your help! Since this will be YOUR Neighborhood Plan, it should reflect your opinion and that of your neighbors. What things about the neighborhood do you think need to be preserved, enhanced or, don't bear repeating? What kinds of strategies for specific areas or groups of issues are important to you: Street design, neighborhood character, public improvements? This is y i r chance to state your opinion. dNW tsby The Steering Committee hopes to have a draft set of goals and policies to neighborhood residents over the next few months. A January, 1997 survey sent to all neighborhood residents provided good background and direction for the Neighborhood Plan, but needs to be supplemented. Please fill out the attached questionnaire by May 14, 1999 and either: Fax it: • City of Lake Oswego Attention: Jane Heisler 635-0269, or, Mail it to the City of Lake Oswego Attention: Jane Heisler P. O. Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034, or, Drop it by City Hall at 380 A Avenue, Lake Oswego Thank you for your input. The Rural Lake Grove Neighborhood Plan Steering Committee Weblinkl • Rural Lake Grove Neighborhood Plan Citizen Comment Form Neighborhood Meeting—April 8, 1999 ("The Planning Team needs your help to identify key issues within the Rural Lake Grove Neighborhood. Please answer the questions below and put this form in the basket near the door as you leave. Use the back if you need additional space. Thank you. 1. In your opinion,what are the problems and issues related to transportation?: a. Streets: b. Paths: c. Transit/Bus: d. Bicycle: �e. Auto Traffic: 2. Natural Resources/Neighborhood Beautification. Do you have specific suggestions or concerns about any of the following? a. Tree protection: b. Stream corridors. open space. wetlands: c. Locations for neighborhood entryway enhancement or beautification projects: d. Surface water (storm drainage issues) iA COOPLKA I IVE EFFOR I BE,I WE:E N I'M, (it)RI1RAI.L.tKE.GROVE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSO(I:VI ION 0 ANI)'I'11E:CITV OF LAKE OSWEGO Rural Lake Grove Neighborhood Plan 3. Should residential areas of our neighborhood be studied in order to allow possible land IIIuse/zoning changes (i.e., commercial,high density housing, etc.) Please give reasons. a. Carman Drive—from Meadows/Ouarry to Waluga/Bonita: b. Carman Drive—from I-5 to Lake Forest c. Firwood—from Boones Ferry to Waluga d. Oakridpe—from Waluga to Quarry e. Bonita—from Bangv to Carman Drive 04. Are there any other issues or concerns you would like the neighborhood plan to address? a. Sewer/Septic Tanks b. Annexation: c. Police Protection: d. New development/sub-dividing of large lots/flag lots, etc. e. Other concerns? f. Optional: *Name: Address 02/01/1999 06:25 5036539095 COMPASS ENGINEERING PAGE 02 K L • ♦/ram. 4"C.I —` "� / ril / 1 4" C.II.y r�57 T. ' `• 1.� , - - ram. rx 6 { I I 8" O.I. , r,�• 6". C.I. . 8".D.1. ..4 . \\` .8"r0,lr' _ - .. • ^ _ ,. .... ! •,a �'9" . — �. _ .....___ _ ....... _ _ , . , „.,• ... .., . ..., .. .'st \ T EE ' as I- - . — — — rfx•, _ _ \\C\s....' .'• . '' .4 \::„. \. yi.. . . , ./..... . i . : • :(5).-'.7/:, :::")31' ---:::::-.-7-----7-1-..;-,-_-.1" ....-....."---_--_----7------..: 1.4_4_. -: - I-/0...... tu�orgt MC6" C.0 , , — — _ — _ T— — I ' c 3 � —��> T� . _ ,. _ ----r- _ tom. � en ri: I.14. 1 V,14 '— -- - . —-- ' —- y • — — -- . .l •— . — js,ta '$� — j0P. rF 1 I —--:.:0 tom— __ - . — c9'C 1 — _ —.•-... • 8" C.I.r �y Ir. Ol 1.... ! w.�r,eut iteq�. \ ' rK• ' 8" al. — r' G.I. 4 tr.r CA 0 I.,rx -V i rI e .. O HC O H iD U t0 D „�' mitts - Cj �p �rL 1 e L 02/01/1999 0B:25 5036539095 COMPASS ENGINEERING PAGE 01 lb From the Capital Improvement Plan Pipeline Improvements 1. Connection between Lake Forest and Shakespeare. \I° ,c..j\ 2. Connection between Frost/Summers and Glassner. (3, 1 ". r oa S ��,- rw� FAX" 1 Kit ' \ ll 6 k' 1,11 d‘'‘C\ 1°)\ / ll C` \ 1r /1 J 15U )‘)11\1 I 0 V- ,v �V 1 [.../ l_:, cji'j 0 4611(\ 0/ V• �, 6 �O, 0 � �� ; � ��, o � , � � , _ � ` � � -- � ' I �n.R� MEpa�u .�., � ROA� � �U GROVE KE ,...m�. � � L � _ ,� ..�, �pVN' J .... ..m.�� - u ocv -_ , , i � y .' � � � . .--- � ' •u� :�. " P� �' NEIGHBORHOOD ---� I _ � - -- --�-_ �- I flR� ! I P \ — `�r— �, — — '�_ _ , — ASSOCIATION �_ -_ '�v' LIMITS OF COMMERCIAL II � �, � — �� 9 � � � DEVELOPMENT (FIGURE 1 ) , .— y — � � 7i i w I _ �� i ' ' KEY � 'I i _ — � � � �`�� _ti � �� ....0. .. �.. 1 .i �� FALUGA w I - _� � i � > � �7[vr-j —'" � � � � �> � � I P� i; � R-2.5 Residential 2,500 Sq. Ft. i i .. , � �- , � � � i OC�NC Office Commercial� I I �II � � � , IM Neighborhood Commercial � � I I � � : � � � , I � a �� .a,� � � /)� � I I� I I � � � I . ¢OP9 v � I —'I j z�� .� � ��-� -� � � . I �/ i j � � ��, � � - `, ; � I L� 4p ^� tt ��i I i �� . — .s� � , �� — j � � � �, i ,. a , '\ ` � ..< , � '� ; � /-i. � � �,- ' , � . — `�"� '� � , � �'�� }�-_�y.� � �', i — —�_ — ..�,„�'��"` m� � „ � � — i , JANUARY �' \ � �� °� � � �� a � � � 1999 � �� = s�� , ��, � � �„� i , , � , � � � � - �,� � v v��a� ` �;� V �` � � � �� I II °��' _ �� -� \ ,_,� ,.., � , � �