Agenda Packet - 2002-01-15 PMCITY COUNCIL MEETING OF
JCbLUAY" ZTku�
w�
INCLUDES MINUTES, AG DA
FOLLOW-UP*,
AGENDA AND PACKET.
(NOTE: BLANK NUMBERED PAGES
IN PACKET WERE REMOVED
PRIOR TO MICROFILMING).
*FOLLOW-UPS MIGHT NOT HAVE
BEEN DONE FOR MORNING AND
SOME EVENING MEETINGS.
City Council
Judie Hammerstad, Mayor
Jack Hoffman, Council President
Ellie McPeak
Karl Rohde
Bill .Schoen
Gay Graham
John Turchi
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
AGENDA
Tuesday, January 15, 2002
6:00 P.M.
City Hall
380 A Avenue
Also published on the internet at: ci.oswego.or.us
Contact: Robyn Christie, City Recorder
E -Mail: public_affairs@ci.oswego.or.us
Phone: (503) 675-3984
This meeting is in a handicapped accessible location. For any special accommodations, please contact
Public Affairs, (503) 635-0236, 48 hours before the meeting.
Estimated Stare
Tires
6:00
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
6:05 3. ELECTION OF COUNCIL PRESIDENT
6:10 4. PRESENTATIONS AND RECOGNITION
4.1 Swearing-in of Youth Council
4.2 Presentation by Bicycle Transportation Alliance
6:20 5. CONSENT AGENDA
♦ The consent agenda allows the City Council to consider items
that require no discussion.
♦ An item may only be discussed if it is pulled from the consent
agenda.
♦ The City Council makes one notion covering all items
included in the consent agenda
5.1 COUNCIL BUSINESS
5.1.1 Award of a Design/Build Contract for Supervisory Control ............................1
and Data Acquisition Upgrades to City's Water System Work
(Work Order 1160)
Action: Move to award the Design/ Build Contract for
Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition Upgrades to Tarus
City Council Agenda
January 15, 2002
Pagel of 4
Power and Controls, Inc. for a Guaranteed Maximum Price of
$210,362.00
5.1.2 Resignation of Joseph Cosper from the Transportation...................................7
Advisory Board
Action: Accept resignation with regret
5.2 RESOLUTIONS
5.2.1 Resolution 02-01, authorizing the City Manager to execute a ........................11
quitclaim deed for the conveyance of a strip of right-of-way
along Highway 43 to the Oregon Department of
Transportation
Action: Adopt Resolution 02-01
5.3 APPROVAL OF MINUTES
5.3.1 October 16, 2001, morning meeting...................................................................21
.5.3.2 November 5, 2001, information session..............................................................35
5.3.3 December 4, 2001, morning meeting..................................................................47
5.3.4 December 4, 2001, regular meeting....................................................................59
5.3.5 December 11, 2001, special morning meeting...................................................81
5.3.6 December 11, 2001, special meeting...................................................................8.5
5.3.7 December 18, 2001, regular meeting..................................................................89
Action: Approve minutes as written (or as corrected if Council
adds corrections to the motion)
MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA
VOICE VOTE
END CONSENT AGENDA
6. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA
6:25 7. CITIZEN COMMENT
The purpose of citizen comment is to allow citizens to present
in1brinalion or raise an issue regarding items not on the agenda.
A time limit of three minutes per citizen shall apply.
City Council Meeting
January 15, 2002
Page 2 of 4
8. PUBLIC HEARINGS
6:30 8.1 Planning Commission recommendation for approval of density .................101
guidelines, ZC 7-98 (A)
Public Hearing Process:
Review of hearing procedure by City Attorney
Staff Report by Jane Heisler, Project Planner
Public Testimony
• 5 minutes for individuals
• 10 minutes for representatives of a recognized
neighborhood association, government or government
agency, or other incorporated public interest organization
Questions of Staff
Discussion and deliberations will be held February 5, 2002.
0 8.2 Resolution 02-03, a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Lake ......203
Oswego amending the process for making recommendations to the
Oregon Liquor Control Commission regarding applications for liquor
licenses
Public Hearing Process:
Review of hearing procedure and staff report by David
Powell, City Attorney
Public Testimony
• 5 minutes for individuals
• 10 minutes for representatives of a recognized
neighborhood association, government or government
agency, or other incorporated public interest organization
Questions of Staff
Motion:
Discussion
?:4th 9. INFORMATION FROM COUNCIL.
This agenda item provides an opportunitj, for iudi►,idual Councilors to
provide information to the Council on matters not otherwise on the
agenda. Each Councilor will he given Jive minutes.
9.1 Councilor Information
City Council Meeting
January 15, 2002
Page 3 014
9.1.1 Recommendation from the Transportation Advisory Board to ...................217
Reconsider the 5th and A Avenue Traffic Change
9.2 Reports of Council Committees, Organizational Committees,
and Intergovernmental Committees
10. REPORTS OF OFFICERS
9.1 City Manager
10.1.1 Bangy Road/Bonita Road CIP Projects .........................................................227
10.2 City Attorney
11. ADJOURNMENT
CABLE VIEWERS: The Regular City Council meeting is shown live on AT&T Tualatin
Valley, Channel 22/28,
at 6:00 p.m. The meeting will be rebroadcast:
Wednesday
1:00 a.m. on Channel 22/28
Thursday
7:00 p.m. on Channel 21/30
Fridav
1:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. on Channel 21/30
Friday
7:00 p.m. on Channel 22/28
Saturdav
1:00 a.m. on Channel 22
City Council Meeting
January 15, 2002
Page 4 of 4
I1/t-&-2-
L4, 2-
)a Vie !'Y1 oOre,
Active Community Environments -
The Health Connection
Department of Human Services
Oregon Health Services
• Obesity Epidemic
• Disease Burden of Inactivity
• Importance of Health Promoting
Community Environments
Prevalence of Overweight among
U.S. Adults, BRFSS, 1989
'eU12 30, a - 30 lb• --fight foe 6'4' wortin)
r<
0
No D•u(] • 10%[1 10% - 14% 0 15% 10% 0 -70% �
1
Prevalence of Overweight among
U.S. Adults, BRFSS, 2000
('BMIe J0, u - 701b%ev *w ht (c 54',-
'p
Naos!.[] .10x❑ 10x. 14%M \sw-\r'.. 1-0
Oregon Adults
37% Overweight
20% Obese
Oregon Students
11.0% At Risk of Overweight
5.5 % Overweight
16.5% —
2
Obesity and Disease Risk
T Obesity = T Diabetes
T High Blood Pressure
T Heart Disease
T Stroke
T Arthritis
T Asthma
T Cancers
Oregon Deaths
70% of Oregon deaths are due to
chronic diseases:
• Heart Disease & Stroke
• Cancers
• Chronic Lung Disease
• Diabetes
Oregon Medical Costs
$1.04 billion in annual hospitalization
costs for:
• Heart Disease & Stroke
• Cancers
• Chronic Lung Disease
• Diabetes
3
Risks for Chronic Disease Deaths
50%
Modifiable
Behaviors
50%
Biologic
Susceptibility
Modifiable Factors Associated
with Deaths, US, 1990
lwc�: MCOY�Y�, Fops x. m"
)regon Adults
• 20% report no physical activity
• 28% report 30 minutes/day,
5 days/week
4
0
n Students
• 48% of high-school students report
regular physical activity,
5 days/week
.Ilk -1
1996 Surgeon General's Physical
Activity Recommendations HMIIWI`_I
-- 30 minutes (cumulative)
-moderate level
- most days
Result: significant health benefits
Community Environments
114"W4A
"Changes in the community
environment to promote physical
activity may offer the most practical
approach to prevent obesity or reduce
its co -morbidities. Restoration of
physical activity as part of the daily
routine represents a critical goal."
Or Jeffrey Koplan, Or William Dietz, COC
onn, ami
5
Walking and Bicycling
"Automobile trips that can be safely
replaced by walking or bicycling
offer the first target for increased
physical activity in communities"
Dr Jeffrey Koplan, Or William Dietz, CDC
Active Community Environments
Places where people of all ages and
abilities can easily enjoy walking,
bicycling, and other forms of physical
activity.
- CDC Initiative --
Oregon ACE Partners
• Oregon Dept. of Human Services, Health Services
Oregon Dept. of Transportation
Portland Dept. of 'rransportation
Metro
Bicycle Transportation Alliance
Willamette Pedestrian Coalition
American Heart Association
SAFE KIDS Coalition
Dept. of Environmental Quality
Salem Public Works
Oregon Dept. of Education
• Oregon Coalition for Promoting Physical Activity
o„a. xai
2
In US -
• Average person spends 73 minutes
day driving
• 89110 of all trips are made by auto
• 6.40by walking, biking
• 751,'o of trips < 1 mile are by auto
Save. nM 4.w..M. rMvW tr•nptn•.n 4r.(111.Y, 11vIr
Mode Split by Age Group:
Netherlands, Germany, USA
IMt T�.pr.l SOX b1.t/•M np0e ydt
eox . Erna. n weewrr.>s r,, n.
W%
1•�• Tlx Netherl•rM• '• •• Genwny • '••• »USA x.
For children going to school -
• Only 311/6 of trips < 1 mile are by
walking
• only 2% of trips < 2 miles are by
bicycling
7
Public Policy
"Create and implement public policy
related to the provision of safe and
accessible sidewalks, walking and
bicycling paths, and stairs."
Surgeon General's Call to Action on Obesity, 2001
Community Design
1 Biking and Walking
Safe, accessible facilities
Encouragement
Livable Communities
- Healthy Environment
- Stable Economy
- Healthy People
What are Active Community Environments?
Active Community Environments (ACLS) are places where people of all ages and abilities can easily
enjoy walking, bicycling, and other forms of recreation. These areas:
• Support and promote physical activity.
• Dave sidewalks, on -street bicycle facilities, multi -use paths and trails, parks, open space, and
recreational facilities.
Prornote mixed-use development and a connected grid of streets, allowing; homes, work, schools,
and stores to be close togedier and accessible by walking and bicycling.
Most communities today were designed to favor one mode of travel—the automobile—and usually
do not have many sidewalks or bicycle facilities. Building roads, schools, shopping centers, and other
places of interest only for convenient access by cars often keeps people from safely walking around
town, riding bicycles, or playing outdoors. This is one important reason wiry people in the United
States are not as active as they used to be.
• Between 1977 and 1995, trips made by walking declined while
driving trips increased.' (See charts at right.)
• One-fourth of all trips people make are one mile or less,
but three-fourths of these short trips are made by car.'
Children bem,cen the ages of 5 and 15 do not walk or
ride their bicycles as much as they used to (40% less
from 1977 to 1995).' For school trips one mile or less, only 31%
are made by walking, within two miles, just 2% of school trips
are made by bicycling.'
These trends pose an important public health problem when
the effects of physical inactivity and excess weight are considered.
• Physical inactivity and unhealthy eating are risk behaviors that
contribute to at least 300,000 preventable deaths each year.'
• Almost a third (29%) of adults get little or no exercise (they are
sedentary), and almost three-fourths (73%) are not active
enough.' (Engaging in 30 minutes of physical activity at least
5 days per week is recommended.)
Walk and Bike Ttips, 1977-1995
10-
0
19 1983 1890 145
V
c G
a 4
z
0 1977 1983 .__ 1990 1995
Automobile Trips, 1977-1995
90
88
06
84
a:
19 1983 1890 145
• More than 3 in 10 adults are overweight.
• More than a third (36%) of young people in grades 9-12 do not participate in vigorous activities
3 or more days a week,' and one-fourth (25%) of those aged 6-17 are overwcig;ht.'
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
� Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Ilk _ National Center for Clxonic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion
CDC
..r.ou.s.•w...r oon.o
What are the benefits of Active Community Environments?
ACES have the potential to help people be more physically acLve, This is because they give people more
(and safer) place to walk, ride bicycles, and enjoy other recreational activities.
• People are more active in neighborhoods that arc perceived as safe. Of those who report living in unsafe
neighborhoods, about half of women and the elderly are inactive.
• In neighborhoods with square city blocks, people walk up to three times more than in neighborhoods
with cul-de-sac streets or other features that keep streets from connecting.
• Up to twice as many people may walk or cycle in neighborhoods that arc transit -oriented than in neigh-
borhoods that are auto -oriented.'-`
• People are more likely to be physically active if they have recreational facilities close to their homes.
What is CDC doing to promote
Active Community Environments?
CDC and its Division of Nutrition and Physical Activity are taking the lead in promoting ACES.
Their activities include:
• Development of a guide (KidsWalk-to-School) to promote walking and bicycling to school.
• Collaboration with public and private agencies to promote National and International Walk -to -School
Day (wwwwalktoscliool-us2.org and wwwiwalktoschool.org).
• Development of an ACES manual to help state and local public health workers develop similar initiatives.
• A partnership with the National Park Service's Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance Program
to promote the development and use of dose -to -home parks and recreational facilities
(www.ncrc.nps.gov/rtca/indcx.litm).
• Collaboration on an Atlanta-based study to review the rclationslups of land use, transportation, air
quality, and physical activity.
• Collaboration with the Environmental Protection Agency on a national survey to study attitudes of the
American public toward the environment, walking, and bicycling.
References
1. Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey, US Department ofTmnsportation, Federal Highway Administration, Research and Teehniul
Support Center. Lanham, Md: Federal Highway Administration, 1997.
2. Calculations 6om the 1993 Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey (S. Ham, unpublished data, 2000).
3. McGinnis im, Foege Wit. Actual causes of death in the United Suites. Journal ajthe American Medical Assoclation 1993,270:2207-12.
4. BRFSS (1996 & 1998). Behavioral Rk ( Factor Surveillance System -United States, 1996
and Behavioral RISA Factor Surveillance System -United States, 1998. Atlanta: U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services and Centers for Disuse Control and Prtvcntion.
S. Centers for Disuse Control and Prevention. CDC Sur veillanceSummaries. August 14.1991t.
AIA(WR 1998;47 (No. SS -3).
6. Troisno RP, Fkgal KM. Overweight children and adolescents: desorption, epidemiology, and
demographics.Pediatrics 199R, 101 (3):497-504.
7. Rutherford GS, McCormack E. Wilkinson M. Travel impacts of urban forth: implications
from an analysis of two Scattle area travel diaries. Presented at the TMIP Conference on
Urban Design, Telecommunications and Travel Forecasting.
R Ccrvcro R and Gorham R. Commuting in transit versus automobile neighborhoods. Journal ofthe
American Planning Association 199S; 61:710-22,5.
Write to:
National Center for Chronic Disease
Prevention and Health Promotion
Division of Nutrition and Physical Activity
Physical Activity and Health Branch
Aclive Co,r�uuhhily Environments (ACES)
Inkialive
4770 Buford Highway, N.E., MSIK-46
Allarda GA 30341-3717
Web site:
—.cdc.povfnccd pt Vdn pafa ccs .him
w E'k
`w
June 2000 _
WALK/NG + VIKING =
HEALTHY, ALERT CHILDREN
Children today have fewer opportunities to be physically active than they once did. In the past,
most children started their day with healthy exercise by walking or biking to school. Creating
opportunities for increased physical activity—such as encouraging kids to walk and bike to
school and making roadways safe for them to do so—can improve many aspects of our
children's lives, including school achievement, health, and safety, as well as create a healthier
environment.
Academic Achievement
Studies find that active children generally perform better in
school than their non-active peers. Physically active students
have:
• higher attendance rates
• reduced rates of behavioral referrals
• increased concentration
• better scores in math, reading and writing
Health & Safety
When children walk and bike to school:
• they are more physically active, and physical activity
reduces the risk of becoming overweight and of
developing diabetes—two risk factors for heart disease
• they have less exposure to pollutants and toxins that may
be ten times higher inside vehicles than in ambient air
• there is less air pollution, and cleaner air results in fewer
respiratory and asthma problems
• traffic congestion around schools is reduced, thereby
reducing the risk of children being hit by vehicles
Healthier Environment
Walking and biking, rather than driving, results in:
• less air pollution
• reduced consumption of irreplaceable fossil fuels
)(DHS
Department of I luman $cruces
Oregon licalth Division -2001
Oregon Department of Education
Coordinated School Health Progmn
$
DID YOU KNOW?
$&
•
The percent of overweight young
$
people has doubled since 1980.
o'
•
Overweight children are likely to •.
become obese adults.
•
One in six Oregon students are
$
overweight or at risk of
0
becoming overweight
•
57% of adult Oregonians are
overweight or obese.
$
•
It is recommended that children
$
and teens get 30-60 minutes of
0
moderate physical activity most
$
days.
$
•
Less than 50% of Oregon high ,
$
school students get regular
$
physical activity. ;
•
Schools often do not provide ;
adequate opportunities for ,
$
consistent exercise and PIS.
$
0
•
Between 1977 and 1995, there
$
0
was a 40% drop in the percent
$
of children ages 5-15 years
$
b walkin g and biking.
g.
•
Only 13% of all trips to school
r
are made by walking or biking.
$
•
Many of our communities have
$
been designed for cars, not for
$
pedestrians or bicyclists.
$
Oregon Department of Education
Coordinated School Health Progmn
SOLUTIONS
Oregon communities are creating opportunities for children to walk safely to
school and to participate in physical activity:
r • Many Oregon schools participate in Walk to School Day.
• Safe Walking and Biking is this year's theme for the Oregon SAFE KIDS
program.
• The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) received over 90
Pedestrian and Bicycle Grant Program applications, and 58 were for projects to
improve walking and biking paths. �r
• Through the Transportalion Equity Act for the 21st Century, ODOT funds many
projects that support walking or biking to school. In Oregon communities �r
like Veneta, Phoenix, and Bend, the addition of sidewalks, bike lanes, and
better highway crossings has improved access and safety for children
walking and biking to school.
f *40t
�Yi'riY�i7�`ri��ir�'riri.'r�t�'7i'r�'r�riYi`r�:ri�i��i7��'r�r1^ri�%r�r�iu�"ril•�YirS=Yt'�
Sources
Promoting Better Healthfor Yoxng People Through Physical Actiydty and Sporty, a Report to the President from the
Secretary of Health and Human Services, Fall 2000.
Keeping Ongonianr Healthy: An Assessment of Leading Canter of Death and Related Behayuorr in Oregon, Department
of Human Services/Oregon Health Division, Portland, OR, Dec. 1999.
Kidswalk-to-School• A Guide to Promote Walking to School, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC;),
U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, 11.1.
Hannaford, C. (1995). Smart Moves. Arlington, VA; Great Ocean Publishing Co.
Symons, C.W. (1997). Bridging student health and academic achievements through comprehensive school
health programs. Iournal of School Health, 76(6), 224-228.
Calculations from the 1995 Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey. (S, I -lam, unpublished data, 2000)
The Surface Transportation Policy Project (S"ITP), Transfer, Vol. 5, Issue 12, July 26, 1999.
Beaumont, CC., Pianca, EG., Historic Neighborhood Seboolr in the Age oJSprawl.• ' Why Johnny Can't Walk to
School. "
Focus on
-' LIVab�et'es
Com.._..
Walking is
key to staying
healthy.
b Regular physical exercise
is a vital part of maintain-
ing our health and well
being. Yet we are walk-
ing an average of eight
miles less per day than
our forebearers. Instead,
our time is spent behind
the wheel, On average,
U.S. households make
12 auto trips a day -
0 One-fourth of all trips are
less than one mile, yet
three-fourths of these
trips are made by car.
1 Car dependence is
damaging our health.
Poor diet and lack of
exercise is now second
only to cigarette
smoking as a leading
cause of deathirk th
United S1.tates...
Local Government Commissionl
Center for Livable Communities
1414 K Street, St.iite 251.1
Sacramento, CA 95814-396
tel (916) 448-1198
fax (916)448-82
web www,lgc.org
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Why are we driving everywhere
instead of walking?
Our communities are designed so that we have no other choice!
The following pairs of photographs illu,,trate barriers in current
land use patterns that keep us from walking alongside solutions
that demonstrate more pedestrian friendly alternatives. Which
land use patterns would you like to see in your community?
BARRIERS
J*
1 No through streets or walkways
Walking is made difficult when
streets look like spaghetti and there
are no paths that take you directly
to your destination.
SOLUTIONS
1 Through streets
Streets or paths which connect to
multiple destinations encourage
walking. In these neighborhoods,
penple walk up to 3 times as often.
1 large -lot or strip development
It is unlikely that anyone would walk
from McDonald's to the bank.
Buildings are too spread out.
1 Compact development
Compact development makes
walking possible because destina-
tions are closer to one another
and the walk is more interesting.
"Changes in th
community enviro
ment to promote
physical activity
may offer the most
practical approach
to prevent obesit
or reduce its
co -morbidities.
Restoration of -
physical activity.. ;,,
as part of the daily;
routine represents'
,
a critical goal." _
- Lir. Jeffrey Koplan
,and Dr, William Die
Centers for Disease` c5
1 Dead wall space
In many areas, it doesn't feel safe to
walk. People feel vulnerable when
there is no one around.
1 No crosswalks
It s utt�'H Lou ii,jid to walk across
the street to get where you want
to ao. It's much easier to drive.
1 Long blocks
Luny Ulu( -k,, arc2 a 1cui lv(-nicnL for
pedestrians who want to travel
efficiently between destinations.
. 1T
jr
1 Unappealing walks
A path like this one is infrequently
used except by those without options.
SOLUTIONS
1 Windows on the street
Windows and people along tine
street create a safe and pleas,+nt
place to walk.
1 Crosswalks
Well -marked crosswalks help
the pedestrian feel safer when
crossing a wide street.
1 Short blocks or mid -block
alleys and paths
Mie l Hock crossings make walking
more cnnvrniont.
i Interesting or beautiful walks
Amenities such as landscapinci
encourage pedestrian use.
Ao f J
-W9.8 I i.
_J_ iJ% a
Z-4 ,M IT
Resources
1 he resources listed below
will he helpful to you and
yot rr city planners. Call the
Lo( o/C;overnmentCom-
M!.WIon for additional help,
(�)It,l %118-1198.
Ordinances. I1 , JC c-
rri�rir�[uirrs a r ��llc�ction of
the n� r t ion's best mixed use
orolinarrc.es Land traditional
n(,i(lhl)orhood developnrenl
ordinances.
Policies. "Portland Pedestrian
I )(,ti kIn Guidc, " City of
Portland, hme 1998. C all the
Pedestrian frofl_portotion
Prow ( it 11, (50.3) 823 7004.
"Pedes trion Level of Service,"
City of f=ort Collins. C:-ontoct:
kreavis@C.fort-collirrs.co.us.
Downtowns. The Notional
Moira .` tree t Center can os.sist.
Communities interested in
downtown revitolizotion.
Contact: (102) 588-6219;
w.ww.moinst.oaj, In
Californio: C olifornio Main
Street, (916) 322-5003.
Urban Design. I he- C ongr(,s s
for the New Urbanism hiss
resources (,if I(] referrals to
aichiteo-ts, ply rnno>rs, c.uld
inh(_rn desic.lners wlto design
walkrrhle environmomn .
(41.5),195-2,)'A- www(m r(:)rq
LGC Guidebooks:
"titreet Design Guidelines for
I /c, rlthy Neioil rb()rhoorls, "
by Dan Burden, 19()9,
"Streets and Sidewollo, People
and Cors: The( it item' (mid(,
to I raffic Colrniny,"hy-1)urr-
Buiden, 2000.
BARRIERS SOLUTIONS
i b@Wed schools
- -S ugly, schools are being put
- edge of existing develop -
making driving unavoidable.
1 Neighborhood schools
When schools are integrated into
the neighborhood, children can
walk or ride a bike.
b Isolated recreational areas
. - ; that children will need to
tie . ir!,ien to this recreational area.
Isolated grocery stores
must drive to stores like
>n if they simply need a
milk!
0
Focus on
Livable
Communities
Create a walkable environ-
ment and the community
will reap the benefits:
1 Neighborhood grocery stores
A neighborhood store allows
family members to pick up daily
needs by walking.
1 I sol,ated office buildings
. _trian access here! In 1990,
only A% of Americans walked to work
.,....R,f .,, ,A;vcicdpaper
1 Downtown or neighborhood
This office location allows people
to walk to work and go to lunch
without climbing in a car.
Most planning decisions are
made at the local level by your
city or county. Form coalitions
to work with your county
supervisor, mayor, or city
council members, planning
commission members, and
planning or public works staff.
Phis project is funded by the
q Physical Activity and Health Initiative,
California Department of Health
' Services under a Preventive Health
Services Block Grant from the U.S.
Centers for Disease Control and
l; Prevention. Work performed as
part of a UC San Francisco contract.
0
Walkers bring business
to shop owners.
0
Walkers interact with
neighbors, building a
sense of community.
0
Walkers teach children
1 Neighborhood parks
traffic safety skills.
Neighborhood parks allow kids
I
Walkers don't pollute the air.
to be more active when they are
0
Walkers don't clog the roads.
in their own neighborhood.
Walkers get energized and
improve their fitness.
I
Walkers who are seniors
live longer than those
'
who are sedentary,
-044
Walkers make our
communities more livable.
1 Neighborhood grocery stores
A neighborhood store allows
family members to pick up daily
needs by walking.
1 I sol,ated office buildings
. _trian access here! In 1990,
only A% of Americans walked to work
.,....R,f .,, ,A;vcicdpaper
1 Downtown or neighborhood
This office location allows people
to walk to work and go to lunch
without climbing in a car.
Most planning decisions are
made at the local level by your
city or county. Form coalitions
to work with your county
supervisor, mayor, or city
council members, planning
commission members, and
planning or public works staff.
Phis project is funded by the
q Physical Activity and Health Initiative,
California Department of Health
' Services under a Preventive Health
Services Block Grant from the U.S.
Centers for Disease Control and
l; Prevention. Work performed as
part of a UC San Francisco contract.
5.1.1
01/15/02
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY
MEETING DATE: January 15, 2002
SUBJECT: Award of a Design/Build Contract for Supervisory Control and Data
Acquisition Upgrades to City's Water System (Work Order 1160).
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to award a Design/Build contract for Supervisory Control and Data
Acquisition Upgrades to Taurus Power and Controls, Inc. for a Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) of
$210,362.00.
EST. FISCAL
IMPACT:
$210,362.00
STAFF COST:
BUDGETED:
Y X N
FUNDING SOURCE:
Water Fund
F W ENGINEER
i
ir
al
Date
ATTACHMENTS:
• Komarek Council Report
dated 1/9/02
NOTICED (Date):
Ordinance no.:
Resolution no.:
Previous Council
consideration: No
CO M. DEV. DIRECTOR �-CITY MA- NAG R
/ � Z
Date Date
H: W 011L-_K\wn\ Wu_ I I IiUSCADA_upgrude\ngendu_checklist_7'uurus.doc
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
COUNCIL REPORT
TO: Douglas J. Schmitz, City Manager
FROM: Joel B. Komarek, P.E., City Engineer
PREPARED BY: Joel B. Komarek, P.E., City Engineer
SUBJECT: Award of Design/Build Contract for Supervisory Control and Data
Acquisition (SCADA) Upgrades to City's Water System.
DATE: January 9, 2002
Action
The Council is requested to award a Design/Build contract to Taurus Power and Controls, Inc.
for a guaranteed maximum price (GMP) of $210,362.
Introduction
Pursuant to the City's public contracting procedures and Oregon State contracting and
purchasing statues, public agencies may use alternative contracting processes when such
alternative contracting procedures can be shown to provide substantial public benefit in terms of
cost and quality of the constructed work. Due to the unique nature of the work and skills needed
to complete this project, engineering staff determined the public's interest would be best served
using the Design/Build project delivery method. The solicitation process and results of that
process related to procuring a Design/Build contractor are presented below.
Background
On November 20`' and 21 ", a public notice requesting proposals from qualified Design/Build
contractor's was published in the Daily Journal of Commerce. The solicitation document, or
Request for Proposals (RFP) was prepared by engineering department staff in collaboration with
staff' from the City's Water Treatment Plant.
Over the last five years, existing proprietary SCADA systems located at the City's WTP have
been slowly replaced with systems using an open architecture. This open architecture allows the
City to receive benefit in terms of promoting competition among several vendors of similar
hardware and software that is needed for such systems and provides a larger base for product and
technical support.
3
Council Report
Page 2 of 3
However, similar replacements have not been performed on the City's ` outplant" system of
reservoirs and pump stations. This project will complete the remaining work at the WTP and
replace all outplant systems with new communications systems that are compatible with the
WTP systems and provide increased reliability of data transmission. To ensure compatibility of
design and installation for new SCADA systems with the systems already installed at the City's
WTP, stringent prequalification criteria were developed for prospective Design/Build
contractors. These criteria included requirements for certifications evidencing compliance with
quality assurance/quality control programs developed by the vendors of the needed hardware and
software, recent experience on similar projects and attendance at a mandatory pre -proposal
conference held at the WTP on December 4, 2001.
Discussion
Proposals were received from five prospective Design/Build contractors on December 21, 2001.
Of those received, one proposal was deemed non-responsive because the minimum eligibility
requirements stated in the RFP were not met. The remaining four proposals were reviewed and
evaluated by a team consisting of four City staff. Proposals were scored using a set of
predetermined evaluation criteria weighted relative to the importance of each criterion to project
success. At the time set for receipt of proposals, each Firm also submitted a sealed bid consisting
of its guaranteed maximurn price (GMP) to provide all design and construction phase services.
The basis of selection for the successful Design/Build contractor was the sum of point scores
received for the written proposal and sealed GMP. The maximum score possible was 105 points.
The results of the evaluation and scores are presented below:
Proposing_ Design/Build Firm Proposal Score GMP Total Score
Technical Systems, Inc. 70.00 $296,187 73.00
Taurus Power and Controls, Inc. 78.95 $210,362 83.95
Systems Interface, Inc. 69.25 $245,995 73.25
PCS Utilidata, Inc. 72.25 $323,130 74.25
Engineer's Estimate $220,000
Alternatives
The alternatives are to: 1) award a Design/Build contract to Taurus Power and Controls, Inc. in
the amount of $210,362, or 2) remove from the consent agenda and discuss prior to award.
Council Report
Page 3 of 3
Conclusion
Taurus Power and Controls, Inc. has extensive experience in the design and installation of
SCADA systems and most recently completed installation of a new SCADA process control
system at the City's WTP as part of the filter upgrade project just completed. They are a local
firm and have expressed a commitment to the City for a successful project delivered on time and
within budget. Therefore, staff recommends award of a Design/Build contract to Taurus Power
and Controls, Inc. in the amount of $210,362 for design and construction phase services.
H .11RH. K`,— W,N I IN*4 AUA_uMr3&Wn01pl., Ihxign-lhiild Tnunu.im
5
5.1.2
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 01/15/02
AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY
MEETING DATE: January 15, 2002
SUBJECT: Resignation of Joseph Cosper from the Transportation Advisory Board
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Accept resignation with regret.
ESTIMATED FISCAL ATTACHMENTS:
IMPACT:
• Cosper letter of
resignation
STAFF COST: $
BUDGETED:
Y N
FUNDING SOURCE:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
signoff/date
Document28
NOTICED (Date):
Ordinance no.:
Resolution no.:
Previous Council
consideration:
CITY M AGER
w, 02
sign o:V)date
date
'i
_ =;ect: FW: Council Agendas and Schedule
�:S�JrI A. Cosper
SW Pilkington Road
_.a- a Oswego, Oregon 97035
-5:;3J20-394
hft. Kathy J. Marcott
City of Lake Oswego
F' 6. Box 369
,-.ai<e Oswego, Oregon 97034
Cesar Kathy,
It is wtth great regret that I must submit my resignation to the
Tr,ansoortation Advisory Board effective immediately. My travel schedule
cover the past months has not allowed me to make meetings and that will
rrr, change in the next three months. That is not fair to the other
r"r_--*Hers of our committee nor to the citizens of Lake Oswego.
I -gave truly enjoyed the opportunity to serve our city and wish all of
you continued success in the coming year. Thank you for allowing me the
opportunity to work with you all.
Ekmt regards,
.i(ae Cosper
— Original Message -----
F-am: Christie, Robyn" <rchristie@ci.oswego.or.us>
Seen*- Friday, January 04, 2002 12:36 PM
Si-b)ect: Council Agendas and Schedule
> «0108.doc>>
> <<Schedule.doc>>
> ooyn Christie
> Oity Recorder
>ary
of Lake Oswego
> 503) 675-3984
>
Z
5.2.1
M/ 15102
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY
MEETING DATE: January 15, 2002
SUBJECT: Resolution 02-01; Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Quitclaim Deed
for the Conveyance of a Strip of Right of Way along Highway 43 to the Oregon
Department of Transportation.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Move to adopt Resolution 02-01, authorizing the City Manager to execute a quitclaim deed for the
conveyance of a strip of right of way along Highway 43 to the Oregon Department of Transportation.
EST. FISCAL
IMPACT:
STAFF COST: $0.00
BUDGETED: N/A
FUNDING SOURCE: N/A
ATTACHMENTS:
• Komarek Council Report
dated 12/26/01 with 1
attachment
• Resolution 02-01
NOTICED (Date):
Ordinance no.:
Resolution no.: 02-01
Previous Council consideration:
None
,�TY ENGINEER COMM. DEVEL. DIRECTOR CITY MA AGER
//g , /Ar /C-� Z-
- — — �,---
Date Date Date
H:\ROSS C\STREET\'I'ransf'er juris\Mary's Woody\agenda.DOC
IAKE OSIyfC
O
1,. City Council Report
OREGON
TO: Doug Schmitz, City Manager
FROM: Joel Komarek, Acting City Engineer
PRAPARED BY: Russ Chevrette, Engineering Tech. III
RE: Council Agenda Item: Resolution 02-01, Transferring Jurisdiction
of a 10 -Foot Strip of Right of Way on Highway 43 from the City
of Lake Oswego to the Oregon Department of Transportation.
DATE: December 26, 2001
ACTION REQUESTED
Staff requests the City Council pass Resolution 02-01, approving a transfer of roadway
jurisdiction from the City of Lake Owego to the Oregon Department of Transportation
(ODOT) and authorizing the City Manager to execute a quitclaim deed.
BACKGROUND
The development of Phase One of the Mary's Woods development involved widening
Highway 43 along the site's frontage. Highway 43 is an ODOT facility. There was
insufficient right of way to accomplish the road widening, so the development was
conditioned to dedicate additional right of way (a 10 -foot strip) upon completion of the
improvements. The condition of approval did not give clear direction on how to
implement this requirement.
The applicant satisfied this condition of approval by dedicating 10 additional feet of right
of way on the City's standard Deed of Dedication form, and the document was recorded
with Clackamas County. The City of Lake Oswego is stipulated as the Grantee on that
document. In retrospect, the grantee should have been "the State of Oregon, by and
through its Department of Transportation." ODOT has asked to City to correct this
oversight.
Each agency's engineering and legal staffs have explored several options, from simple to
complex, to arrive at a legally correct and mutually satisfactory method of achieving this
goal. And, while ODOT normally prefers fee simple ownership (which would involve a
public hearing to vacate the right of way and having the property owner re -convey it to
ODOT) they have agreed to accept a quitclaim deed from the City in this case.
The execution of a quitclaim deed is a real property transaction and, as such, is governed
by the following provision in the City Charter:
"The City Manager... Shall after authorization from the
Council, conduct all aspects of real property transactions on
behalf of the City. " [Chapter 5, Section 20, B, 5]
Staff has prepared the attached Resolution to authorize the City Manager's
execution of a quitclaim deed.
ODOT has supplied the City with their standard quitclaim deed. Upon
approval by the City Council, staff will complete the document for the
City Manager's signature and forward it to ODOT.
CONCLUSION
The subject 10 -foot strip of right of way belongs under ODOT's jurisdiction, and should
be transferred to ODOT. The City and ODOT agree that a quitclaim deed is an adequate
vehicle to accomplish this purpose.
RECOMMENDED MOTION
Move to adopt Resolution 02-01, authorizing the City Manager to execute a quitclaim
deed for the conveyance of a strip of right of way along Highway 43 to the Oregon
Department of Transportation
Attachment: vicinity map
1.4
i
/ �tiJ Q 2595
ci
VILLAMETTE
f N
2584
\e `� 90 %� ' i�s3s N �N CHRISTIE ABSON
'SCHOOL 257 256249�?
^h ♦N /� VILSON
(ADMINISTRATION 2531
.BUILDING CLARK /
= ti'3 QQ O O
N '
507
N
173
BLDG C
�Z R NM
17360
BLDG D N n
SISTERS OF THE VO 17371 p
HOLY NAMES HOLY `
SOPHIA CENTS CONVENTp
GLENMORRIE 9�r�� a MARYLHURST 13 3 PLACE
PARK S 173%1 Q 17400
T. MARIE ROSE LODGE BLDG E 0
17480
17400 17400 17399 17440 BLDG 8
X17 FINAN
06\� !/� MARY'S WOODS BLDG. CE \`\ BLDG A
-3;
.17418!,^
ol
EDUCAI
tSS
7479 2313 10 pvp rL �A.o A01
—' a �32B s F`
96
7485 _ 2��� �'t /
rp �Q3o1 �o`� Zsz jo N� t,� 6S\� /'
HOEN
1? 8RO^yh ry vMgRY^b b�2 LIBRARY[
4ky� N`o o r6 l 1 �.
N O lid
r�
u4 rC)
^h�� �l)6p1 U 1'� 0 \sNt� c�t6s?�•`1�p S� // CHAPELLn ZaS
17613 606 2461two Nr�fl dP�L 1110 9A /
_-__-- - rk r N>6, Nr, MARYLHURST
j.c T A 1762 H 762 217s +`�c�JN UNIVERSITY,-,
17637 6u� 2171 0 '4) 11a
17649 6t i `Jrt �11�/ 'y9 11�� CEMETERY
17661
2481 �
0 J
f�S S o qui .Itis' N Nrr Nrc9\�W d93
17790 \� m
neo
S� i c 11 � X0°00 00� 1 ✓ci 1782 j �8p2 I A.
w I
GO SLA
LAKE OSVE
1 `1126 �6Noj/ G,o O�Ah N Nr 17833 fie! r- VES CtNN b
11101 11 ms's G� N^Allro� /
,1 102` N0% 0 to
023 Q��
rr • s �s�
/ r ff s 106°1 �•
6�2
/�,�\fit �,1 9�� X022 NNNo o %• � r \Nr° `. o � I 2 ,8 C
'���, �` ��� .��i 92���L0 l �� 1 �,��`'�N✓�'s y \ ��'s f� N`s ` Nr h`°2 vLp
Z�
V n \ , \ `2
AL2\� � as
�
\,bg
RESOLUTION 02-01
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A QUITCLAIM DEED FOR
THE CONVEYANCE OF A STRIP OF RIGHT OF WAY ALONG HIGHWAY 43 TO
THE OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
WHEREAS, the City of Lake Oswego is named as "Grantee" on a dedication of a strip of
right of way along the frontage of the Mary's Woods development on Highway 43 in the
City of Lake Oswego, said dedication being recorded as document 2001-075187, deed
records of Clackamas County, and
WHEREAS, Highway 43 is a facility managed and maintained by the Oregon
Department of Transportation (ODOT), and
WHEREAS, ODOT has requested the City of Lake Oswego to transfer the City's
property interest in the subject strip of right of way to ODOT, and
WHEREAS, the City of Lake Oswego consents to ODOT's request, now therefore
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego that:
Section 1. The City Council of the City of Lake Oswego hereby authorizes the City
Manager to execute a quitclaim deed for the purpose of conveying the City's interest in
that certain strip of right of way on Highway 43 along the frontage of the Mary's Woods
development to the Oregon Department of Transportation.
Considered and enacted at the regular Council meeting of the City of Lake Oswego held
this 15th day of January, 2002.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Resolution 02-01
Page 1 of 2
Judie Hammerstad
Mayor
ATTEST:
Robyn Christie
City Recorder
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney's Office
Resolution 02-01
Page 2 of 2
1.8
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY
MEETING DATE: January 15, 2002
SUBJECT: Approval of Minutes from:
1.
October 16, 2001, morning meeting
2.
November 5, 2001, information session
3.
December 4, 2001, morning meeting
4.
December 4, 2001, regular meeting
5.
December 11, 2001, special morning meeting
6.
December 11, 2001, special meeting
7.
December 18, 2001, regular meeting
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Approve minutes as written (or as corrected if Council adds corrections to the motion)
EST. FISCAL
IMPACT:
STAFF COST: $
BUDGETED:
Y N
FUNDING SOURCE:
ATTACHMENTS:
Minutes from:
• October 16, 2001, morning
meeting
• November 5, 2001, information
session
• December 4, 2001, morning
meeting
• December 4, 2001, regular
meeting
• December 11, 2001, special
morning meeting
• December 11, 2001, special
meeting
• December 18, 2001, regular
meeting
N:\Robyn\report niinutes.doc
NOTICED (Date):
Ordinance no.:
Resolution no.:
Previous Council
consideration:
CITY MANAGE
/-/d- dZ-
signoff/date
5.3
01/15/02
19
5.3.1
01/15/02
MINUTES OF OCTOBER 16, 2001
MORNING MEETING
w
O, lAlt[ OI,Y!
CITY COUNCIL MORNING MEETING MINUTES
October 16, 2001
a«
Mayor Judie Hammerstad called the special City Council meeting to ordc►- at 7:34 a.m. on
October 16, 2001, in the City Council Chambers.
Present: Mayor Hammerstad, Councilors Hoffman, Rohde, Schoen, Turchi, Graham and
McPeak.
Staff Present: Doug Schmitz, City Manager; David Powell, City Attorney; Robyn Christie, City
Recorder; Morning Meeting only: Chris Jordan, Assistant City Manager; Mark
Schoening, City Engineer; Kim Gilmer, Parks & Recreation Director; Phil
Sample, Fire Marshal; Dan Semrad, Fire Chief; Sidaro Sin, Associate Planner;
Wayne Benson, Sewer Superintendent
Doug Schmitz, City Manager, introduced Wayne Benson, Sewer Superintendent, who started
with the City in 1993 as a utility worker; he was City Manager for the day.
3. REVIEW EVENING AGENDA
Mr. Schmitz indicated to Mayor Hammerstad that Shirley prepared framed Certificates of
Appreciation for the Farmers Market recognitions. Mayor Hammerstad suggested giving the
Stanford gift certificates, which the City received earlier, to Kathy Kern.
Councilor Rohde mentioned that someone chastised him about the Fanners Market sign not
meeting the City sign code. Mr. Schmitz conceded that it probably did not but mentioned the
sign code exemption for public signs.
3.1 Agenda Item 4.1.1
David Powell, City Attorney, reviewed the background on why the City might see a challenge
to this bid. He noted that the first two bidders on the list of bidders (page 4) were disqualified;
that has not been challenged. He explained that the next lowest bidder, Canby Excavating, Inc.,
carne in at a higher bid of $933,000, which staff lowered to $924,000 after correcting
arithmetical errors, as allowed under Oregon statute and City contract rules.
Mr. Powell said that, but for that correction, the third lowest bidder would have been New West
Constructors, Inc.; the City received a protest from New West's attorney. He reviewed the
specific arithmetical errors in the Canby bid. He mentioned Canby's modification of its original
statement that it had no first tier contractors as subcontractors to state that it did have first tier
contractors. He referenced another error in the Canby bid of the correct bid amount given in
numbers but an incorrect bid amount handwritten in letters.
Mr. Powell mentioned that the City has ignored minor informalities before, per its contract
rules, and therefore, to be consistent, staff chose to do the same in this case. I -le indicated that
the City had some risk if it did not consider Canby as the lowest qualified bidder after the
arithmetical corrections.
Mark Schoening, City Engineer, indicated to Councilor McPeak that the City checked the
arithmetic on all bids. Mr. Powell pointed out that the bidder called the errors to the City's
attention. He observed that what was unusual was that arithmetical errors usually did not make a
difference in who was the lowest bidder; however, this was a big contract and it made a
difference.
City Council Morning Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 11
October 16, 2001 ,
?3
Mr. Powell said that today his office was drafting a letter denying the protest in response to the
protest letter received from the New West attorney. He explained that under the City's contract
rules, the Public Contracting Officer (PCO), who was the City Manager, could rule on bid
protests. He recommended proceeding with the PCO's denial of the bid protest and the award of
the bid tonight. He indicated that staff was not certain if New West would protest at the Council
meeting tonight.
Councilor Hoffman asked to remove this item from the consent agenda because he did not think
that a $1 million item should be on the consent agenda.
Mr. Schoening indicated to Councilor Graham that the City has worked with Canby before
and found their work acceptable. He mentioned to Councilor McPeak that the reason for the
high number of bids was the economy.
Mayor Hammerstad commented that it was difficult for the Council to judge the legal
implications of this sort of situation. Mr. Powell explained that the Council could handle this in
one of two ways: it could leave the decision with the Public Contracting Officer (as allowed
under the public contracting rules) or it could make the decision itself, following a more
extensive staff briefing. He indicated that if the Council left the decision to the PCO, then the
Council's responsibility was simply to award the bid; it was up to the disappointed bidder to seek
legal action if he/she wanted to do so.
The Council agreed by consensus with Mayor Hammerstad to leave the decision with the
Public Contracting Officer.
Councilor Hoffman said that he wanted the public to understand that this money came from the
water utility fund and where it was going. He asked staff to have a map illustrating the route of
the project. He observed that the budget was twice the size of normal projects. He reiterated his
request that staff explain what was going on with the project.
3.2 Items 4.2.2 and 7.1, Resolution 01-83 and Public Hearing on LU 01-0029
Mr. Schmitz explained to Councilor McPeak that the reason why the packet did not contain a
list of properties along with their estimated values (as referenced on page 24) was that he pulled
it. He indicated that he did not want property owners to know the City's estimate of the value of
their individual properties because it could affect the City's negotiations with them. He noted
that he did leave in the total estimated amount.
Mr. Schoening indicated to Councilor Graham that staff has not run into any opposition;
several property owners have been receptive and supportive. Staff confirmed that this could not
be construed as a Measure 7 item.
Councilor Hoffman asked to pull Item 4.2.2 for discussion along with Item 7. 1, as they were
related items. He spoke to the City first modifying the Comprehensive Plan and then authorizing
the City Manager to acquire the right-of-way and easements. He mentioned a concern about a
cost issue on Item 7.1. He clarified to Councilor Rohde that his concern was a discrepancy in
the estimated physical cost on page 95 (shown as $1.3 million) and then shown as a higher
amount on page 115.
Mr. Schoening explained that the T-2 project on page 115 did not include the right-of-way costs
because staff only obtained those costs from the appraiser last week, after the Comprehensive
Plan amendment had worked its way through the Planning Commission. He referenced the staff
report estimate of less than $50,000, which increased the cost from $325,000 to $375,000. He
indicated that this project was in this year's capital budget and would go to bid in the next couple
of months, following completion of the land use process.
Mr. Schoening indicated to Councilor Hoffman that the T-5 project was not in the five year
CIP and did not have a funding source. He said that it was part of the planning study but staff
did not know all the costs and right-of-way needs through that corridor. He confirmed to
Councilor Graham that staff did not have an estimate on the right-of-way costs for T-5.
City Council Morning Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 1 I
October 16, 2001
9 A
ti (i
Mr. Schmitz indicated to Councilor Rohde that the level of play, when Council authorized an
estimated amount of $36,539, was 10%.
Mr. Schoening indicated to Councilor Hoffman that the T-2 and T-8 projects were both in this
year's budget. He mentioned that the right-of-way acquisition, which tonight the Council was
authorizing the City Manager to acquire, was for both those intersections. He clarified that the
right-of-way costs for both intersections would be less than $50,000, which was what increased
the $325,000 to the $375,000.
Councilor Hoffman referenced a statement on page 116, Exhibit F-1, listing 'a new local
funding source.' Mr. Schoening confirmed that the City did not know where that funding
source would come from.
Mr. Schoening indicated to Councilor Graham that the City did have to take a bit of Lamont
Springs, as improving the intersection required rounding the property lines at the corners (as
opposed to the current right angles). He said that staff already consulted with the Natural
Resources Advisory Board. He observed that the only reason this project went into the land use
process was its impact on Lamont Springs and the required mitigation.
Councilor Hoffman asked what the cost trade-off was in terms of how much it would cost the
City to save Lamont Springs as opposed to not impacting it. Mr. Schoening explained that they
had to cut across one corner of Lamont Springs; the right-of-way cost $2,500 and the City had to
mitigate one tree.
Mr. Schmitz clarified to Councilor Graham that the Council postponed action on this project
originally in order to send it to the Natural Resources Advisory Board. He indicated that the
Board was comfortable with the 600 square feet on the corner of Lamont Springs with the signal
and sidewalk and sent it back with a recommendation for approval.
Mr. Schoening confirmed to Councilor McPeak that the bottom line on the estimated fiscal
impact on page 95 should be changed to $2.2 million.
Councilor Hoffman noted that, in this modification to the Comprehensive Plan, the City was
saying that some of this $2 million item was budgeted (the intersections would be done). He
observed that what was left was the main road, which was $1.5 million, and would be done in the
future when the City could obtain other funding.
Mr. Schmitz clarified to Councilor Rohde that his concern in not publishing the estimated
values on the two feet of property that the City wanted to purchase from a homeowner was the
negotiation process in purchasing that two feet. He indicated that he could give the Council the
list tonight.
Mayor Hammerstad noted that Councilor I loffman would rc\iew the consent agenda tonight.
3.3 Minutes
Councilor McPeak indicated that the Clackamas River Water's new voluntary program did not
yet exist. She added `proposed program' on page 91, middle paragraph under Item 8.2.1.
Councilor Graham noted that Historic Resources Advisory Board was the correct title (page
73).
Mayor Hammerstad clarified that she had asked Mr. Schmitz to get the election results from
the last levy election in order `to see the amount by which it carried." (page 63, third paragraph).
3.4 Item 7.2
Sidaro Sin, Associate Planner, indicated to Councilor Graham that the R-7.5 lot was a
potential flag lot. He said that staff was unaware ol'any other septic systems along this line that
were failing; the County knew that information and informed the City.
City Council Morning Meeting Minutes Page 3 of I I
October 16, 2001
Mr. Schoening indicated to Councilor McPeak that the City charged a $1,500 application fec
for a zone of benefit, which covered the administration of the program.
Councilor Hoffman asked Mr. Sin to discuss what the dual interest area was at the public
hearing tonight, and to point out that the property would be zoned R-7.5 upon annexation (page
143). He asked staff also to explain what a zone of benefit was for the audience.
3.5 Item 7.3, Special Street Setback
Councilor Graham stated that she would recuse herself from this decision, as she could benefit
from it. Mr. Powell observed that this was a tough call because of the class exemption for a
Councilor who belonged to a large enough group. He indicated that the Councilor recusing
herself was the safest method, given that the Government Standards and Practices Committee
has not used a consistent number for the size of the exempted group.
3.6 Item 7.4, Sign Code
Mr. Powell indicated that Chris Schetky and Jane Leo would bring some samples of signs to the
meeting tonight, per Councilor Hoffman's request.
Councilor Graham mentioned that Mr. Powell had advised against her 36 -inch height request,
reducing it to 30 inches because of measurement concerns. She argued for increasing the sign
height to 30 inches (from 24 inches) as an equitable provision for both realty and estate sale
companies, as both used 30 -inch signs.
Councilor McPeak discussed her concern about the safety issues with the sight lines at corners.
She asked if allowing a 30 -inch sign at a corner reduced visibility. Mr. Powell reviewed the test
for vision clearance, which he noted was in the ordinance. He said that they could put in 30
inches with the caveat of a cross-reference to the vision clearance ordinance because a 30 -inch
sign might not meet the test and be subject to removal.
Mr. Powell clarified to Councilor Schoen that Exhibit A was the synopsis of the ordinance per
the Council's discussion at its study Session and Exhibit B was the formal ordinance enacting
that ordinance. He said that Exhibit C was a synopsis of Councilor Graham's proposal with
Exhibit D as the formal ordinance for it.
Mr. Powell explained to Mayor Hammerstad that if the Council changed either ordinance
substantially by mixing and matching, then the resulting ordinance had to come back to the
Council one more time. He said that the Council could adopt either ordinance wholesale tonight
or make minor modifications prior to adoption. He described the warning and the cross-
reference to the vision clearance ordinance as a good idea in order to provide a fair warning
(even for the 24 -inch high signs).
Councilor Hoffman mentioned asking Mr. Powell for photos in order to verify visually what the
signs looked like, which the ordinance would allow in the right-of-way portion of people's yards
without getting the property owner's permission. He discussed his concern with the Council's
inability to regulate content, as Mr. Powell has mentioned, which meant that people could put up
politically incorrect signs in other people's front yards without their permission. lie said that he
wanted to be fair to the real estate and estate sale people but noted that there was the potential for
other signs.
Mayor Hammerstad indicated to Councilor Hoffman that the Council did ask Jane Leo how
Portland's ordinance has worked, with respect to the sign content problem. She said that Ms.
Leo stated that Portland has not had a problem. She mentioned that this concern was one reason
behind the suggestion of a sunset clause. She commented that she thought it unlikely that people
would put up offensive or political signs in someone's front yard under this ordinance, as they
had to be taken down each night.
Councilor Turchi discussed his concern with corners as prime places for people to place these
signs. He described a scenario of a corner lot owner finding numerous signs appearing on
City Council Morning Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 1 I
October 16, 2001 96
N
his/her property without his/her permission, and discovering that the people had the right to do
SO.
Mr. Powell clarified at Councilor Schoen's request that a sign could not be placed in a yard that
was private property. He pointed out that the problem was determining where the right-of-way
ended and the private property began, which was usually on the other side of the sidewalk; if
someone checked it out on a plat map and found that the right-of-way extended beyond the
sidewalk, then he/she could put a sign there.
Mr. Powell mentioned that he asked Ms. Leo to bring actual signs tonight to the hearing, as
opposed to photos.
Councilor Rohde discussed his concern that the Council discussing the possibility of
inappropriate signs during the public hearing might give someone ideas that otherwise he/she
might not have thought of. He spoke to adopting the ordinance and modifying it if they found a
problem. Councilor McPeak concurred that the Council did not need to suggest the
possibilities to the public but indicated that the content issue could affect her decision.
Mayor Hammerstad noted that the Council has discussed the sign ordinance extensively, and
led the realtors to believe that it would approve it. She mentioned her reluctance to put
something on the agenda that would not pass.
Councilor Schoen said that he would support Ordinance 2310 as proposed, without
modification. Mr. Powell indicated to Councilor McPeak and Mayor Hammerstad that staff
would have to bring back the ordinance for formal adoption at another meeting if the Council
reinstituted the sunset clause.
Councilor Turchi said that he supported the same version as Councilor Schoen. He stated that
he would preface his vote with a comment that he would ask the Council to revisit the ordinance,
should the signs become an eyesore or have content that was unpalatable to the community.
Mayor Hammerstad agreed with revisiting the issue in a year, especially if it was a blight. She
spoke to seeing how it worked through the next summer.
Councilor Graham questioned why not allow the 30 -inch signs and the directional signs at
corners if the Council intended to revisit the issue in a year. She reiterated the importance of
directional signs in helping people sell their homes or the contents of their homes. Councilor
Rohde indicated that he agreed with Councilor Graham.
Councilor Schoen held that lesser was better. Councilor McPeak commented that, while she
understood Councilor Graham's point, she was leery of sticking the corner properties with a bad
situation for a year; she preferred to bring that issue up if the sign ordinance worked well over
the year.
Mr. Powell reviewed where the vision clearance allowed the placement ofa sign. He also
reviewed where the study session version of the ordinance allowed sign placement.
Councilor McPeak indicated to Councilor Graham that she had no problem with the extended
hours and days. Councilor Rohde supported the extended hours.
;Mayor Hammerstad concurred with Councilor Rohde that if the Council wanted in-depth
discussion about the issues regarding content, it would be a prolonged discussion. She held that
they could reach a compromise between the study session ordinance and Councilor Graham's
proposed ordinance. She confirmed to Councilor Graham that the sunset clause was not in the
ordinance at this time.
Councilor McPeak clarified that she only wanted to revisit the ordinance if the Council allowed
signs at the corner, which she thought would be a problem for particular property owners. She
said that she would not bring it back if they did not have signs at the corners.
City Council Morning Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 1 1
October 16, 2001
Councilor Hoffman held that they could accomplish the purpose of a sunset clause if they
scheduled a right-of-way sign hearing for September 21, 2002. He clarified to Councilor
McPeak that an automatically scheduled hearing would allow Council to take action if there was
a problem but would not automatically terminate the ordinance.
Mayor Hammerstad commented that she did not care whether the review occurred during a
public hearing. She recalled that she had asked Mr. Schmitz to write a memo updating the
Council on the water utility rate a year after the Council enacted it; the Council had also
requested a review of the rate change a year after enactment. She supported Councilor Turchi's
suggestion that the City make sure that the realtors knew the Council would review the
ordinance in a year; if there was a problem, that review would occur at a public hearing.
Councilor Rohde referenced the letter that the City received from the Old Town Neighborhood
Association discussing the neighborhood's concerns about the sign they put up on Wednesdays
to announce their neighborhood association meeting that night. Mayor I-lammerstad observed
that that might fall under the exemption for public bodies, and therefore it did not fall under this
ordinance. She held that there was a difference between community service and blight.
Councilor Rohde asked staff to explore the question in order to determine if it did fall under the
sign code exemption for public organizations. Staff indicated that they would do so. Councilor
Hoffman suggested including other non-profit organizations. He mentioned possibly
authorizing the City Manager to grant an exemption, similar to his authority to grant Type I
variances.
Mr. Schmitz spoke to looking at the definition and guidelines in the ordinance in exploring this
difficult question.
3.7 Item 9, Information from the Council
Councilor Turchi said lie would encourage applications to the Youth Council. He indicated to
Councilor McPeak that they have not yet received any applications but they decided to extend
the deadline to two full weeks.
Councilor Graham said she would announce the Booktique book sale. She indicated to Mayor
Hammerstad that the selection committee did winnow the 16 applications for unsung heroes
down to two people, although it was difficult to do so. She said she would get the bios to the
Mayor.
Mayor Hammerstad asked for discussion at some time on finding a piece of City property
worthy of naming after William Stafford, a Poet Laureate of Oregon who died 10 years ago. She
noted that the lower plaza was dedicated to Ann Shucart. Councilor McPeak suggested
establishing a Poet's corner at the back corner of the pergola area at Millennium Plaza Park.
Councilor Rohde suggested naming a school after Mr. Stafford. Councilor Turchi said that
there already was a Stafford Elementary down the road from Abby Creek.
4. REVIEW FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
Mayor Hammerstad noted that they have moved the density guidelines and building height
discussion from November 20 to December 4, because November 20 fell in the same week as
Thanksgiving, and some would not be present. She pointed out that the master fee schedule was
now scheduled for December 18 while the special meeting on November 13 would include a
LORA update from George Crandall on the Foothills Task Force.
5. OTHER BUSINESS
5.1 Electronic Agendas
Robyn Christie, City Recorder, asked for direction on whether the Council wanted her to
continue e -mailing the agendas and reports as she received them or to expand that to e -mailing
scanned reports, which took a long time to download. She mentioned the CDs she sent out with
City Council Morning Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 1 I
October 16, 2001
N
the electronic packets. She said that she was trying to get everything up on the web but was
having technical difficulties in getting the large files on the web.
Councilor Rohde said that getting the packets on CDs worked well as did getting agendas
through e-mail. He commented that eventually he would like not to receive the hardcopy packet
anymore.
Mayor Hammerstad observed that one problem with the electronic format was not being able
to get to the packet Bates stamped page number. Councilor Rohde conceded that that was a
problem.
Councilor McPeak said that she did not want to lose her ability to see the agenda from out of
town, as it was helpful to her to be able to read the bulk of the packet while she was out of town.
She asked Ms. Christie to do the CDs and to keep e -mailing agendas and reports to the extent
that she could e-mail them.
Mayor Hammerstad commented that she liked the e-mailed rolling agendas because she could
add items. Councilor Graham requested a paper copy of the agenda.
Mayor Hammerstad indicated that the Council would stay with the status quo and see how
comfortable people were with it. She mentioned her concern with using her computer at the
meetings for fear that she would get stuck some place and not be able to keep the meeting
moving. She said that it was easier to rely oil the paper for now.
Ms. Christie asked if any Councilors, other than Councilor McPeak, wanted reports e-mailed to
them. She indicated to Councilor McPeak that it was as difficult to send the reports to several
Councilors as it was to one Councilor. Councilor Hoffman said that he did not want the reports
e-mailed.
Mr. Powell clarified to Councilor Schoen that as long as Ms. Christie kept a record of \ lint slic
e-mailed, she did not have to duplicate what she sent electronically.
5.2 Item 10.1 FEMA grant for installing sprinklers in foster care homes
Mayor Hammerstad confirmed to Councilor Rohde that the properties outside the city limits
but within the city's urban services boundary were eligible for this program. She spoke to using
the program as a carrot to entice annexation of those properties outside the city limits.
Fire Chief Dan Semrad suggested assigning a higher priority to those facilities within the city
limits, and giving them first shot at the funds but not eliminating the opportunity for those
facilities outside of the city. He indicated to Mayor Hammerstad that he did not think that they
would run out of money.
Fire Marshal Phil Sample mentioned that the reality was that the foster care providers have had
opportunities before to put in sprinklers at their own expense. He stated his personal impression
that the providers did not appear to care enough to do so, which did not make even a free
program much of a carrot.
Mayor Hammerstad suggested informing the foster care facilities within the fire district that
the City would give priority to those foster homes currently in the city; those outside the city
might not be able to get one if the City expended all the funds on the in -city facilities.
Chief Semrad indicated to Councilor Graham that $28,750 was a one-time City match for the
grant. He noted the scheduled project completion date of August 14.
Marshal Sample indicated to Councilor Graham that, besides the adult foster homes, there
were other homes that could qualify for the program. He mentioned `special residency
occupancy,' which was similar to foster homes but had more than five residents. He clarified
that they did not include daycare facilities, as no one slept at those facilities at night. He
confinned that the fire department would review the applications and give priority to those
facilities located within the city limits.
City Council Morning Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 11
October 16, 2001 �
N •-
5.2 Selection of a Voting Delegate for League of Oregon Cities Annual Business Meeting
Councilor Rohde moved to appoint Councilor Hoffman as the delegate and Councilor
McPeak as the alternate. A voice vote was taken and the motionap ssed with Mayor
Hammerstad, Councilors Hoffman, Rohde, Schoen, Turchi, Graham and McPeak voting in
favor. 17-01
5.3 Sister City
Mayor Hammerstad mentioned Councilor McPeak's concern about recent actions by the City
in sending pieces of art to its sister city, Yoshikawa, Japan. She referenced pages 66 and 67 as
the record of the last time that the Council talked about it. She explained that when she met with
the Japanese delegation in March, she had thought that the things that they requested of the City
were minor, including sending artwork to Yoshikawa's Festival. She said that she had had no
idea of how much it would cost to send two pieces to Yoshikawa. She indicated that Councilor
McPeak wanted to discuss funding sister city activities when the Council has not allocated any
money to the program.
Councilor McPeak mentioned that this issue of spending $900 to send art to their sister city
came up at the Arts Commission's last meeting.
5.4 Arts Downtown Selection Process
Councilor McPeak discussed the issue of the selection process for the piece selected from Arts
Downtown 2001 for the First and A location. She said that she knew from her sources on the
Public Art Committee (PAC) that the PAC was unhappy with the selection process, as it did not
follow the procedures spelled out in the Percent for Arts program guidelines. She indicated that
the PAC did endorse the action retroactively.
Mr. Schmitz confirmed that the PAC was not consulted in the selection of the piece. lie
explained that the First & A project created a hybrid situation, in that a street project did not fall
under the 1.5% for Arts ordinance and yet staff felt that this was more than simply a street
paving project and should have a public art piece. He indicated that staff saw a way to
accomplish two goals at once: the goal of acquiring public art for this project and the goal of the
Arts Downtown program to secure a piece of art for the City.
Mr. Schmitz commented that this problem arose because the PAC felt that it had been bypassed.
He mentioned another consideration of the amount of the budget for the 1.5% for Arts. He
clarified to Councilor McPeak that the $8,000 did not come out of the Public Art Trust Fund
but rather from the LORA project costs, because technically the project did not fall under the
1.5% for Arts ordinance.
Councilor McPeak commented that it would be nice for staff to talk with the PAC about
purchasing a piece of art, even if the funds did not come from the Public Art Trust Fund.
Mayor Hammerstad reviewed the practical problems with the purchase. She said that Arts
Downtown 2001 held only three pieces that the City could afford; one piece did not seem
appropriate at the location and another piece was too big for the location, which lett only one
piece that the City could afford and which fit the site. She commented that all the Arts
Downtown pieces had already gone through the selection process.
Councilor McPeak clarified that the selection process for the Arts Downtown collection was
not the same as for the permanent art collection. Kim Gilmer, Parks & Recreation Director,
indicated that some of the PAC members plus additional members made the Arts Downtown
selections.
Councilor McPeak reviewed the selection committee used for selecting pieces for purchase
when using money frorn the Public Art Trust Fund.
City Council Morning Meeting Minutes
October 16, 2001
Page 8 of 11
'3 U
Mr. Schmitz indicated to Councilor Graham that the City was not required to buy a piece of
art. He reiterated that the street project did not require a piece of public art but staff thought it
would be a nice enhancement to First Street and it would be a way to make the first year's
acquisition from the Arts Downtown collection. He said that staff allocated a location for a
piece of public art in the design plans, with the funding to come out of the total project cost of
$50,000.
Councilor Hoffman confirmed that the theory behind Arts Downtown was the City purchasing
one piece of art a year. He observed that these pieces have been pricey, which was a problem.
Councilor McPeak commented that she thought it was too bad that the basis for selecting the art
piece was the size of the ground and the amount of money. Councilor Rohde argued that the
process used was wrong because it did not include sufficient public input. He spoke of a process
set up for a cost -blind review and consideration of all the pieces of art. Councilor McPeak
pointed out that the basic mission of the Arts Commission was to provide recommendations on
public art to the Council.
Councilor Rohde stated that lie had no objection to the piece of art selected or its proposed
location but he did think that the public should have input during a review of all the pieces in the
collection. Councilor Turchi commented that that was what he had thought they were going to
do. Councilor McPeak indicated that she would have preferred it if the City had turned the
selection over to the Public Arts Committee and the Arts Commission, who could have come to
the Council with a short list.
Mr. Schmitz said that staff would do that. He reiterated that they had no money allocated for an
acquisition; the project had the money for an acquisition, so they went forward. He indicated
that they wanted to start the process, as the artist has been notified. He mentioned that the
purchase price was $16,000; the project had $8,000. Councilor Turchi commented that they
hoped that someone would step forward and help purchase the piece for the street project.
Mayor Hammerstad mentioned that she discussed with the Arts Commission co-chairs doing a
public evaluation of the Arts Downtown program. Ms. Gilmer reported that the program has
begun with a survey in the October Hello LO newsletter.
Mayor Hammerstad questioned whether they should postpone the purchase until it has gone
through more of a process. Ms. Gilmer confirmed that they could take the project back to the
Arts Commission to make a choice from the entire collection, although there were only a couple
of pieces suitable for the location. She mentioned that staff did talk with both co-chairs when
they originally imitated the process and the co-chairs indicated that the staff -proposed process
was appropriate. She said that the artists on the PAC felt that the staff process did not provide a
good enough cross-section.
Councilor McPeak commented that the PAC felt pressured to agree to the decision and were
upset over the process. She suggested finding out the PAC's opinion by going from the bottom
up instead of from the top down. She spoke to establishing a general rule for the selection of a
piece from the Arts Downtown collection: the Arts Commission would delegate the first cut to
the PAC with certain guidelines on money, size, etc. The PAC would develop some
recommendations to pass through the Arts Commission for endorsement or modification, which
would then come to the Council. She mentioned including more public input in the process at
some point.
Councilor McPeak indicated to Mayor Hammerstad that she would like to see a redo of this
particular decision as a foundation for the future procedure. Mayor Hammerstad observed that
they could put this off, as they could install the artwork after the completion of the street.
Ms. Gilmer mentioned a bond that the Arts Commission intended to use to purchase some
pieces of art for parks, which she knew they would be willing to go through a process on.
Councilor McPeak spoke of needing a specific process to make the annual Arts Downtown
selections. Councilor Hoffman concurred.
City Council Morning Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 11
October 16, 2001 31
Mayor Hammerstad suggested that the Arts Commission designate the piece for First & A as
well as the pieces for the qualifying projects all at one time. Councilor McPeak spoke of
following the ordinance guidelines. Ms. Gilmer indicated to Councilor Graham that she did
not see any problems with the artist negotiations.
Councilor McPeak observed that she had not included a way to bring more public involvement
into the Arts Downtown selection process, which she thought would be a good thing. Mayor
Ilammerstad asked the Councilor to bring back a suggestion to the Council.
5.3 Sister City continued
Councilor McPeak reiterated that she did not support funding the sister city program. She
referenced the recent expenditure of $900 to send art to Japan, which was an amount of money
no one had intended to spend. She questioned whether the City could be spending money on a
program that the Council has not yet funded.
Councilor McPeak questioned using $900 from the Public Art Trust Fund to send the two
pieces oi'public art to Japan. She stated that she did not find that specific allowed use in the
governing documents for the Public Art Committee and the Arts Commission. She quoted from
the operating procedures of the Public Art Committee, which made it the responsibility of the
borrowing gallery or institution to pay the transportation expenses. She argued that it was
improper to use the Public Art Trust Fund money for this expense. She spoke to funding it out of
contingency instead.
Mr. Schmitz indicated that staff would do so.
Councilor McPeak observed that it was likely that the Council would vote to reinstate the sister
city program. She asked to see reports tracking the City's expenditures for the program. Mr.
Schmitz mentioned that last year the budget allocated $4,500 to the sister city program; the City
spent $2,500. Chris Jordan, Assistant City Manager, indicated that the City's accounting
system had a line for `Sister Cities.'
The Council discussed the question of whether a program continued if it had no funding.
Mayor Hammerstad observed that the Council should have had a discussion on the Sister Cities
program at the Budget Committee. She mentioned Councilor McPeak's concern that she (the
Mayor) was doing end runs in order to accomplish what the Council did not accomplish in a
straightforward manner by funding the program. She referenced the circumstances behind the
expenditure. She apologized and observed that it could have been done better.
Councilor Turchi asked for an update on the sewer to the Rivergrove area. Mr. Schmitz said
that the City had an agreement with the developers on those projects. He mentioned mapping the
length of the project and the City Attorney's work on drafting an agreement with the School
District and the County for the remaining sections. He indicated that construction would start
probably in the spring.
Mr. Powell indicated that, while the agreement was drafted, he was still waiting on the approval
on the developers' side on their plans and bonds before the City made the agreement. He
mentioned that there was a verbal understanding.
Councilor McPeak asked if the City had a sister city program or not, and if so, how much
money would the Council allocate to it. Mr. Jordan indicated that the Council could do a
supplemental budget from the general fund non -departmental contingency to fund the program.
Councilor Rohde moved to continue the sister city program at sonic level. Councilor
Schoen seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken and the motion gassed with Mayor
Hammerstad, Councilors Rohde, Schoen and Turchi voting in favor; Councilors Hoffman,
Graham and McPeak voted against the motion. 14-31
Mayor Ilammerstad asked if the Council wanted to fund the program, and if so, at what level.
She noted that this would be for the supplemental budget.
City Council Morning Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 11
October 16, 2001
32
Councilor McPeak moved to fund the sister city program at $3,000 for this fiscal year.
Councilor Schoen seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken and the motion'passed
with Mayor Hammerstad, Councilors Rohde, Schoen, Turchi and McPeak voting in favor;
Councilors Hoffman and Graham voted against the motion. 15-21
Mr. Powell indicated to Mayor llammerstad that they did need an executive session. Mayor
Hammerstad suggested holding the executive session at 5:30 p.m.
Councilor Rohde asked if the City required mitigation for the large Douglas fir tree removed
from in front of the Sacred Heart Cemetery on Stafford Road next to the Pioneer Cemetery.
Mayor Hammerstad asked if the Council was interested in participating in the National
Christmas tree from Oregon. Councilor Rohde said yes while Councilors McPeak and
Graham said no. Mayor Hammerstad indicated to Councilor Turchi that it would not
necessarily cost the City money if someone wanted to volunteer to find sponsors. Councilor
Rohde said that he would talk with the Mayor about it.
Mayor Hammerstad indicated to Councilor Graham that the letter, which the City received
from Metro, was not a standard letter; rather it bid the Council to present its arguments before
the Metro Council on the 30`h. She indicated that they should have no problem justifying the
extension, as they only had the issues of connectivity and density left. She concurred with
Councilor Hoffman that they did have the Title 3 items and the Goal 5 items left also.
Mr. Benson observed that the Council lived in a complicated world.
Ms. Christie noted that they did schedule a LORA meeting for this morning.
6. EXECUTIVE SESSION
This item was continued to 5:30 p.m., October 16, 2001.
Mayor Hammerstad recessed the meeting at 9:15 a.m.
Mayor Hammerstad reconvened the special City Council meeting at 5:30 p.m. on October 16,
2001, in the City Council Workroom.
Mayor Hammerstad recessed the meeting at 5:31 p.m, to Executive Session pursuant to ORS
192.660(1)(h), potential litigation.
7. RETURN TO OPEN SESSION
Mayor Hammerstad returned the meeting to open session at 6:00 p.m.
8. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Hammerstad adjourned the meeting at 6:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Robyn Ch istie
City Recorder
APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
ON
Indie Hammeretad Mnvnr
City Council Morning Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 11
October 16, 2001 3 3
5.3.2
01/]5/02
MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 5, 2001
INFORMATION SESSION
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
} November 5, 2001
i
w��or
A voice vote was taken on a motion to select Councilor Rohde as Presiding 01111cer and the
motion passed with all members present voting in favor.
Presiding Officer Karl Rohde called the City Council joint meeting with the Parks and
Recreation Advisory Board to order at 4:05 p.m. on November 5, 2001, in the Municipal
Courtroom.
Present: Councilors Rohde, Schoen, Turchi, Graham, McPeak and Council President
Hoffman (arrived 4:05 p.m.). Mayor Hammerstad was excused.
Staff Present: Doug Schmitz, City Manager; David Powell, City Attorney; Robyn Christie, City
Recorder; Chris Jordan, Assistant City Manager; Gary Evans, Recreation
Superintendent; Kim Gilmer, Parks & Recreation Director; Terry Record,
MacLeod Record; Tom Beckwith, MacLeod Record
PRAB Present: Susanne Rimkeit, Cary Strauch, Stephanie Wagner (Chair), and Dan Eller
(arrived 4:55 p.m.). Jerry Trageser, Marcia Robertson and Craig Dewey were
excused.
TSAC Present: Gene Mildren
Presiding Officer Rohde turned the meeting over to Council President Iloff man at 4:05 p.m.
3. INFORMATION SESSION
3.1 Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Terry Record, MacLeod Record, introduced Toni Beckwith, the principal consultant on the
City's Parks & Recreation Master Plan. He noted that the City chose to split out the open space
element from its parks plan, and that the Council has already adopted the Open Space Master
Plan. He observed that this recreational element planned for the future of active recreation in
Lake Oswego over the next 20 years.
Tom Beckwith, MacLeod Record, noted the revisions to Chapter S (page 454) since the draft in
June, including the graphics. He observed that this master plan was a standard document except
for the lack of a financial chapter and a public opinions chapter. He reviewed the basic kind of
information in each chapter. He mentioned meeting four times with the Parks and Recreation
Advisory Board (PRAB), four times with the Team Sports Advisory Committee (TSAC), one
time with the Natural Resources Advisory Board (NRAB) and two to three times with staff.
Doug Schmitz, City Manager, indicated to Councilor Rohde that the next step was taking the
final draft to the advisory boards and committee; PRAB would meet with the interested parties
and make a recommendation to Council for adoption. Kim Gilmer, Parks & Recreation
Director, confirmed that staff intended to let PRAB, TSAC and other groups who submitted
input on the plan, review the draft before taking it out for general community input.
Ms. Strauch observed that this was the first time PRAB has seen the draft document with the
changes incorporated into it that the Board recommended. She mentioned that the Board had
wanted to meet with Mr. Beckwith after receiving the plan summary but that did not happen.
Ms. Rimkeit described the Board's frustration in not receiving a presentation of the revised plan
from Mr. Beckwith, which would have helped them to understand it better than simply reading it
did.
City Council Information Session Minutes Page 1 of 9
November 5, 2001
3i
Council President Hoffman opened the floor to questions.
Ms. Rimkeit asked if the plan would contain more specific conclusions, which were pertinent to
Lake Oswego or similar communities, as opposed to conclusions that were pertinent to
communities in general. Mr. Beckwith explained the methodology in Chapter 5, the standards
chapter, which he used to calculate ratios for establishing a comparative quantitative value for
each of Lake Oswego's facilities in its parks system, from playgrounds to trails to boat launches.
Mr. Beckwith explained that the two common sources for standards in the recreation field were
the National Recreational Parks Association (NRPA), which used nation wide standards, and the
Pacific Northwest ratio, which was a series of studies conducted in Oregon, Washington and
Idaho in the 1980s that gathered data on what percentage of the population engaged in 24 listed
activities. He said that they developed the Pacific Northwest data into facility requirements and
expressed them in the same ratio per 1,000 population used by the NRPA as a basis for
comparison.
Mr. Beckwith noted that the Pacific Northwest model also allowed them to look at the
percentage of population by age group and to follow the ripple effect through time. He
mentioned the expectation that the demand for playgrounds would decline in the future as the
percentage of the population of children declined. He explained how they projected the number
of facilities needed in the future based on maintaining the same ratios as the population grew
(Chapter 8).
Mr. Beckwith commented that Lake Oswego was a unique community that did not fit the
standards exactly. He indicated that they developed standards for Lake Oswego based on the
NRPA standards, the Pacific Northwest standards and Lake Oswego City staff input.
Mr. Beckwith reviewed their recommended uses for an additional 16 acres of land to
supplement the available City's resources. He explained that the City did not have certain kinds
of facilities or its land was not distributed within the city to meet all the neighborhoods needs.
These uses included trails, a new recreation center, special use facilities, more picnic tables,
more launch ramps and other facilities as described in Chapter 5.
Mr. Beckwith emphasized that Lake Oswego's plan needed to reflect the unique assets it had
available to it, such as a private lake, a boathouse and a trolley. He indicated that it was more
accurate to assess Lake Oswego as Lake Oswego (in comparison with the Pacific Northwest
standards) than it was to look for a comparable community X because there was no other
community with Lake Oswego's demographics, physical situation and context.
Ms. Strauch commented that the Board found the document confusing with its many statistics
but lack of substance. She mentioned her interest in tennis courts. She questioned why the study
did not reflect the usage in all areas, especially the tennis courts. She referenced page 5, where
the study did not state how many tennis courts the community needed, although it gave a specific
recommendation on the number of fields needed.
Ms. Strauch spoke of figures prepared by City staff, which she interpreted as showing
conclusively that the community needed more indoor tennis courts. She expressed her
disappointment that the study did not provide a specific number of courts.
Mr. Beckwith explained that they had advice to put extra emphasis on the athletic fields usage
in this system wide plan. He noted the detailed analysis they did on the athletic fields, which
provided the data for a recommendation on a specific number of fields. lie commented that the
issue was not quantity but quality and availability. He observed that they did not do a detailed
assessment for every facility.
Mr. Beckwith said that he looked at the inventory with respect to tennis courts, per Ms.
Gilmer's questions, and concluded that he could not make a recommendation on a specific
number of tennis courts without the same detailed analysis as they did for the athletic fields. Fie
said that the best forecast he could make was that the community might need more tennis courts.
City Council Information Session Minutes Page 2 of 9
November 5, 2001 3S
Mr. Mildren pointed out that the study on page 50 stated that there was no data for projected
football fields. Mr. Beckwith explained that the Pacific Northwest model did not contain that
data at the time of the study. Mr. Mildren noted the large growth in kids' football since the
1980s. Mr. Beckwith referenced Lake Oswego statistics (page 51), which showed a ratio of.17
fields per 1,000 population.
Mr. Mildren noted the statement (page 50) that Lake Oswego needed four more baseball fields
and the conclusion in the chart that identified no additional land for baseball fields. He
calculated that four new baseball fields required approximately 16 acres. He asked where in the
system did Mr. Beckwith think that land was available. Mr. Beckwith said that the city had
property available adjacent to Luscher Farm and the possibility of joint venture fields.
Mr. Mildren observed that the joint venture discussed had been with Marylhurst and Portland
Community College. He commented that, after seeing the development plans for Marylhurst, he
disagreed that they had 16 acres available for baseball fields. He referenced the recommendation
for seven soccer fields (20 acres) but no additional land. He reiterated his question of where was
this additional 36 acres within the City's present land holdings.
Mr. Beckwith reiterated that the City had plenty of land available at Luscher Farm and its
adjacent properties. He commented that the first issue to consider was how the City chose to use
those facilities. He spoke to the City upgrading fields and fully developing currently under-
developed park sites. He held that until the City had master plans for all of those sites, it did not
need more fields. He conceded that if the master plans did not put fields on those sites, then the
City would need more land.
Mr. Beckwith described the summary document as presenting the incremental growth that the
City would need over the next 20 years. He reiterated that, depending on how the City utilized
its existing assets, it did not need any more ball fields right now.
Mr. Mildren commented that the TSAC has not seen the June draft. Ms. Wagner indicated that
neither has PRAB.
Mr. Beckwith reiterated that the summary document stated that for baseball and softball,
depending on how the City used its existing assets, it did not need more fields now but it would
in the future (Chapter 5). He said that the City needed more fields for soccer and football
immediately but not additional land because the old Luscher Farm master plan and the adjacent
properties had sufficient capacity. He emphasized that he would not recommend purchasing
more property until the City resolved the Luscher Farm issue.
Mr. Beckwith described the potential use of Luscher Farm as an open space active recreation
field without any structures (such as backstops). He said that Luscher Farm was `greenspace,'
which was flexible space for sports like soccer but not baseball. He commented that they could
go across the road for baseball fields.
Mr. Beckwith confirmed to Ms. Rimkeit that the numbers used in the draft were the 1980s
numbers from the NRPA and Pacific Northwest studies. He mentioned just completing an
update of the Pacific Northwest study for Washington State and that Oregon was doing its own
update beginning in January 2002.
Ms. Rimkeit observed that there were fewer families involved in sports in the 1980s compared
to today. Mr. Beckwith indicated that the Washington State update surveying 400 households
did find that certain sports, such as soccer, had a wider involvement of both kids and adults. He
mentioned that the percentage of the population that engaged in those sports was not a
significant portion of the population total, yet they were highly visible in the community. He
said that the Bellevue data showed 7% of its total population involved in baseball with 60-70%
of the children population playing at some point in time.
Mr. Beckwith reiterated that the standards depended on how the community used its facilities
and how many used them, rather than the NRPA or Pacific Northwest standards. He observed
City Council Information Session Minutes Page 3 of 9
November 5, 2001 39
that that was why the key issue seemed to be athletic fields, which was where they spent their
discretionary time in analysis.
Mr. Beckwith indicated to Ms. Wagner that staff scheduled him to meet with them last
summer, in addition to the earlier meetings with PRAB and TSAC.
Councilor Graham asked if the study was done before or after the Mary's Woods developincia
at Marylhurst. Mr. Beckwith said that he did not know and conceded that the numbers and the
availability of acreage could have changed, had Mary's Woods been taken into consideration.
Mr. Beckwith discussed the master planning process in Washington State, which required a 20 -
year planning horizon and coordination with all other elements in the Comprehensive Plan. He
said that the last chapter was specific financial strategies for the short term (6 years). He
explained that because the City could not pursue an element that was not listed in the 20 -year
vision, it tended to include items it was uncertain of in the present in order to allow consideration
of those items in the future.
Mr. Beckwith indicated that staff raised questions when his team identified those `candy' items
because of uncertainty regarding the present and the future. He recommended leaving in those
items with the caveats.
Councilor Graham referenced the Portland State University population census figures of a Lake
Oswego population of 39,000 by 2015. She recalled other population projections for Lake
Oswego of 50,000, although not by 2015. She asked if a change in the population growth rate
affected the numbers. Mr. Beckwith indicated that faster population growth could dramatically
change the plan in terms of some of the long-range future projections. He mentioned possibly
seeing more pressure to build a recreation and/or swimming center sooner.
Councilor Graham asked if the fact that Lake Oswego had an aging population was taken into
consideration for elements in the plan, other than the picnic tables. Mr. Beckwith said that he
tried to take that fact into consideration in the strategy for every facility. He mentioned that the
Pacific Northwest model used county projections for age, as no one projected aging for cities
because there were so many dynamics involved.
Mr. Beckwith observed that a city often developed a lifestyle and facilities attractive to certain
age groups and those age groups moved to that city; as long as the city maintained those
facilities, it tended to maintain an appeal for that population. He pointed out that Lake Oswego
has kept single-family houses as a mainstay, which catered to a youth -oriented community
requiring more facilities, as opposed to condominiums and townhouses aimed at households with
no children.
Mr. Beckwith mentioned that, in some communities in Portland and Seattle, the aging population
stayed in place rather than moving on after the children grew up, thus diminishing the need for
playgrounds and schools and increasing the need for buses and senior centers. He indicated that
when the market provided alternative housing opportunities for the aging population, there was a
faster turnover in the neighborhoods, replacing the older adults with families with children.
Councilor Rohde observed that it sounded like DRAB has not finished evaluating and debating
the document. He asked if they have established a timeline for this plan and its eventual
adoption.
Ms. Wagner asked what PRAB's responsibility was with respect to the draft, as this was the
first time that they have seen it and they did have questions. Council President Hoffman
described the next steps as Mr. Schmitz and Ms. Gilmer developing a timeline based on the
concerns they heard from the Council and PRAB, and involving Mr. Beckwith with DRAB and
TSAC. He mentioned his concerns with the use of 1980s data, with the assumptions Mr.
Beckwith made, and the need to make sure that those assumptions fit Lake Oswego. He noted
that this study would form the basis for any potential bond, so they had to have it right.
City Council Information Session Minutes Page 4 of 9
November 5, 2001 4 ()
Council President Hoffman asked for Council concurrence with sending this matter to staff to
develop a timeline involving the advisory groups (PRAB, TSAC, Adult Community Center,
Library Advisory Board) and to run it by the School District to verify the assumptions with
respect to youth. Mr. Schmitz observed that it would take longer than a couple of meetings if
they started attacking the assumptions. Council President Hoffman suggested the timeline as
part of a first phase culminating in a recommendation from PRAB.
Dan Eller (PRAB) arrived at 4:55 p.m.
3.2 Park Rules
Ms. Gilmer reported that PRAB reviewed the items that Council had questions on in the park
rules resolution it passed earlier, and made recommendations. She noted that the definition for
city park clarified that `city park' did not refer to Lake Oswego School District properties.
Ms. Gilmer mentioned the PRAB recommendation, with respect to serving only beer and wine
at the Adult Community Center, to require those serving alcohol to get a permit from the OLCC
when required or from the City. She noted that those selling alcohol had to get a permit from the
OLCC; those simply serving alcohol would go through the City permit process only.
Ms. Gilmer indicated to Councilor Graham that it was a simple process to get a permit from the
OLCC.
Councilor Graham asked if the liquor liability insurance was part of the permit system and
what was the cost. Ms. Gilmer indicated that the OLCC required liquor liability as part of their
permit process for selling beer and wine; the cost was minimal. She said that the City required
those serving beer and wine to show liquor liability coverage, which was typically covered under
homeowners insurance.
Council President Hoffman explained to Councilor McPeak that the insurance covered both
the server and the City's liability. David Powell, City Attorney, confirmed that a homeowner's
policy did cover that type of liability without an additional premium; the City permit process
required the alcohol server to obtain verification from his/her insurance company that the City
was named as an additional insured on the homeowner policy.
Councilor Rohde asked why the rules limited alcoholic beverages to beer and wine. Ms.
Wagner explained that allowing beer and wine was consistent with other cities' practices and
appropriate to the Adult Community Center. She commented that they did not discuss other
kinds of alcohol. Councilor Rohde recalled that the restaurant at the golf course used to sell
cocktails, which he did not think was a big deal.
Ms. Gilmer indicated to Councilor McPeak that the OLCC required a trained server for events
selling beer and wine. She explained that staff did not include that information specifically in
the park rules because it was part of the OLCC permit process; the City did not require a trained
server for simply serving beer and wine.
Ms. Gilmer noted that staff modified the language in the golf course section to match the Adult
Community section, and listed the same requirements for Millennium Plaza Park. Mr. Powell
recommended adding the phrase `except as provided in the subsection below' to clarify in the
red portion that citizens could bring alcohol to the concerts for personal consumption but
otherwise alcohol was limited to permits. He indicated to Council President Hoffman that
doing so would make it clear that both PRAB recommendation C(i) and C(ii) applied.
Council President Hoffman directed the discussion to Councilor Rohde's issue of allowing
other alcoholic beverages, in addition to beer and wine, when there was a provider. Ms.
Wagner recalled that allowing beer and wine had been a community compromise, as some had
not wanted any alcohol at all. Council President Hoffman wondered whether serving alcohol
at an outside bar at Millennium Plaza Park was more offensive than serving alcohol at an inside
bar at the Adult Community Center.
City Council information Session Minutes Page 5 of 9
November 5, 2001 4 1
Councilor Rohde spoke to substituting `alcoholic beverages' for `beer and wine.' He
mentioned other non-regulated alcoholic beverages, such as Zima or hard lemonade. Ms.
Wagner observed that the question of expanding the definition beyond beer and wine was not an
issue brought to PRAB. She indicated that if PRAB were to look at it, they would want statistics
on the behavior and cost associated with the different types of liquor served.
Councilor Turchi described the compromise last time as going to the first level of' liquor
licensing, which was beer and wine. He indicated to Councilor McPeak that the different levels
of liquor licensing went back to Prohibition. Councilor Rohde commented that the State
maintained control over liquor sales now because it was a cash cow.
Council President Hoffman, Councilors McPeak, Turchi and Schoen supported leaving it at
beer and wine.
Ms. Gilmer explained to the Council that the reason why the rules were different for the Roehr
Park amphitheatre than for Millennium Plaza Park was because the Roehr Park rules included
references to the viewing dolphins and the Millennium Plaza Park rules allowed serving and
selling beer and wine at events other than concerts. She confirmed to Councilor Graham that in
Roehr Park, one could not get a permit to serve or sell beer and wine outside of the concerts.
Ms. Gilmer mentioned that PRAB felt that it was important to maintain the prohibition against
certain types of amplified sound. She noted that PRAB handled the Council's concern about PA
systems during ball games through an exception for city -approved or sponsored special events.
She indicated to Councilor Graham that the City allowed the kids who wanted to play at
Pilkington to play at Millennium Plaza Park under a permit.
Ms. Gilmer reviewed the rules limiting fires to the provided barbeque pits and allowing portable
barbeques. Mr. Powell suggested amending the language to say `except in areas where
barbeque pits or fireplaces or provided or allowed' in order to make it consistent with the entire
rule.
Ms. Gilmer indicated to Councilor Rohde that staff has not yet developed the process for
obtaining a permit to build a fire at Millennium Park. She hypothesized providing information at
the park directing people to call the Parks and Recreation Department for a permit, which would
probably not include a deposit unless problems arose.
Councilor Rohde spoke to maintaining the spontaneity of a family deciding to get together
around the fireplace in Millennium Plaza Park and finding a way for them to get a permit after 5
p.m. on Friday. Ms. Rimkeit suggested asking the fire department to handle the permits. Ms.
Gilmer said that she would talk to the fire department to see if that would work.
Ms. Gilmer indicated to Council President Hoffman that, although the City has not had
problems with people building fires in the fireplace, PRAB wanted to address the issue before it
became a problem, as the park was becoming more well known and used.
Ms. Gilmer mentioned the prohibition of fishing and bathing only where posted. She noted the
clause on prohibiting the molestation of animals in parks. She referenced the clause prohibiting
damage to public art. Mr. Powell indicated to Councilor Graham that vandalism to things like
waste cans and fences was covered under Section 18, public property
Ms. Gilmer noted PRAB's recommendation to name a chapter dealing with the uses of a variety
of recreational tools only in designated areas as `Hazards and Nuisances.' She reviewed the
rules about dogs, including the leash law except in designated off leash areas, and the prohibition
of dogs at concerts or City events. She indicated to Councilor Graham that dogs were not
allowed in sensitive wildlife habitat, even on leash, because they could be disruptive to the
habitat. She mentioned that the Natural Resources Advisory Board wanted park rules for natural
areas, which she thought might allow dogs in certain natural areas with trails.
City Council information Session Minutes Page 6 of 9
November 5, 2001 d 2
Council President Hoffman asked why the City needed these rules. Ms. Gilmer explained that
the problem the City ran into was that without these rules regulating disruptive behavior, the
police could not enforce reasonable behavior. Mr. Powell observed that most of these things
were not illegal elsewhere in the Code. Council President Hoffman held that many of these
rules were self-explanatory. He stated that the argument could be made questioning whether the
City really needed these rules.
Councilor Graham asked about field closures and artificial turf. Ms. Gilmer pointed out that
the rules dealt only with City property. Mr. Powell confirmed that the rules specifically did not
refer to facilities owned by the School District. He indicated that the intent was to allow the
joint use agreement to govern the artificial turf fields, which did have closure provisions in it.
Councilor Rohde explained to Councilor Graham that the reason that Westlake was not
included as a park where beer and wine could be sold or served was because a certain group of
citizens did not want alcohol served there. He held that attendance at the Westlake concerts was
sparse. Council President Hoffman noted that Westlake fell under the general park rule that
prohibited alcohol in parks.
Council President Hoffman recalled that the neighborhood association had spoken strongly on
the issue. He observed that the Council could direct PRAB to hold a public hearing on the
question if it wanted to look at it again. Mr. Schmitz suggested putting the question on the
website as question of the month.
3.3 Cost Recovery for Maintaining and Lighting Athletic Fields
Ms. Gilmer gave a PowerPoint presentation. She indicated that PRAB would like guidance with
respect to a policy for recovering the costs of maintaining and lighting athletic fields, as part of
its work on the master fee schedule. She mentioned that, although the City initiated lighting fees
several years ago, there was no policy for establishing the fees or policy on what degree of the
costs should be recovered. She noted the significant capital improvements made by the City to
both City and School District fields over the last five years (page 2).
Ms. Gilmer reviewed the annual increases in the cost of maintaining and lighting fields since
1998 (page 3) for a total increase of 53% up to this fiscal year. She mentioned the annual
maintenance cost of $10,900 per acre of playing field ($294,000 a year School District athletic
fields and $141,700 a year on City fields) (page 4).
Ms. Gilmer noted the anticipated 57% increase in athletic field lighting costs this year (page 5)
for the five lighted fields paid for by the City: George Rogers, Waluga, Westlake, Waluga
Junior High and Lake Oswego Junior High. She reviewed the lighting field costs over the past
five years (page 6). She commented that the drop last year was due to fields going offline.
Ms. Gilmer discussed the approximate cost per Lake Oswego participant for a one-time use of
the field (page 7), looking at both youth and adults. She explained to Councilor Graham that,
given the number of different fees charged by the City, she chose the resident fee to use in this
example demonstrating the costs. She indicated to Councilor Turchi that the difference in
average season length between youth and adults was the youth playing both practice and
competitive games and adults playing only competitive games.
Ms. Gilmer reviewed a comparison of Lake Oswego's costs to the costs of other communities in
the area (page 8). She indicated to Councilor Graham that, other than Tualatin Hills Parks &
Recreation District (THPRD), she did not know if other communities charged a parks &
recreation tax. She indicated to Councilor Schoen that Lake Oswego had 17% to 20% non-
residents participating in the adult leagues and 12% to 15% non-resident youth participating in
the youth sports.
Councilor McPeak asked if there was a quality difference between the fields Lake Oswego
offered and other fields. Ms. Gilmer mentioned that Oregon City had some fields of
City Council Information Session Minutes Page 7 of 9
November 5, 2001 43
significantly lesser quality than Lake Oswego fields, although THPRD and Hillsboro both had
nice fields.
Ms. Gilmer reviewed the registration fees charged by different organizations for different sports
(page 9), both youth and adult, including organizations outside of Lake Oswego. She presented
a comparison chart of the cost of maintenance to the revenues collected since FY 1997/98 (page
10) and the costs of field lighting compared to light card fees collected since FY 1997/98 (page
11). She commented that staff felt that the lower revenues from light cards resulted from the
teams not buying cards from the City.
Ms. Gilmer concurred with Councilor Turchi that they needed more data before they could
draw a fair conclusion with respect to whether Lake Oswego private organizations were charging
more than other cities. She indicated that staff tried to get additional data but did not get the
information back. Councilor Turchi described staff's goal as finding out whether or not there
was a mismatch in comparing Lake Oswego to other places in terms of how much people spent
privately to participate to sports versus how much public expenditure.
Ms. Gilmer noted the current funding sources and amounts (page 12) while observing that the
fees collected have averaged at 10% of the overall costs (page 13).
Ms. Gilmer noted the two basic options to reduce reliance on property taxes: reduce
maintenance standards or raise revenues (page 14). She reviewed possible options to increase
revenues: lighting surcharge, increased field fees and increased tax revenues (page 15).
Ms. Gilmer mentioned that the City budgeted $33,000 this year for lighting costs, and expected
light card revenues of $1,300, which represented a 4% cost recovery (page 15). She discussed
the option of lighting surcharges (page 16). She indicated that the PRAB discussion of this issue
yielded no solutions but the Board did feel that the sports organizations, as major users of
athletic field lighting and directly benefiting from them, should share in the lighting costs.
Ms. Gilmer discussed the option of increasing field fees (page 17). She presented a chart
estimating the cost to user impact of increasing the cost recovery percentage for field
maintenance from 10% to 15% and 20% (page 18). She reviewed the impacts on user groups
(page 19). She emphasized the importance of discussing any increases with the user groups prior
to adoption of fee increases.
Councilor Schoen asked to see a breakdown of the numbers by sport. Councilor McPeak
asked how the fees have changed over the last ten years. Ms. Gilmer said that the City started
with a $5 per user fee for youth five years ago and increased it to $7 per youth last year. She
noted that that was a 40% increase but pointed out that the fees collected went up 71% over a
five-year period.
Ms. Gilmer reviewed the four options for recovering the cost of maintaining and lighting
athletic fields (page 20): user fees, user fees and property tax, property tax and no change. She
indicated to Councilor McPeak that she believed they could negotiate with the user groups to
achieve something more equitable, if Council chose to recover whatever percentage it designated
solely through user fees.
Councilor Schoen asked for a breakdown on the use of the fields. He mentioned his concern
about adding new fields when the City could not maintain its existing fields.
Ms. Gilmer indicated to Councilor Graham that the $10,900 per acre figure was probably
based on last year's budget. She referenced the historic increases in considering a five-year
projection of field maintenance costs. Chris Jordan, Assistant City Manager, pointed out that
any projections were simply guesses because there were too many cost variables outside the
City's control.
City Council Information Session Minutes Page 8 of 9
November 5, 2001 4 1
Ms. Gilmer clarified to Council President Hoffman that the lighting costs were for more than
City fields; the City paid for lighting the Lake Oswego and Waluga Junior High fields but not
the high school fields.
Councilors Rohde, McPeak, and Ms. Strauch left at 6:00 p.m.
Council President Hoffman observed that some field maintenance was necessary regardless of
field use by organized activities. He asked if staff could figure out what the incremental costs
were for field use by organized activities. Ms. Gilmer indicated that the differential between
how much it cost to maintain the athletic fields and how much it cost to maintain grass in a park
would be the athletic fields maintenance cost.
Council President Hoffman held that staff needed to know the costs for the different levels of
maintenance before the City charged the whole cost of maintenance. He asked that staff talk to
both public and private user groups, given the significant use of fields by the high schools. He
clarified that by public user groups he meant the School District; private user groups were
organizations like Lake Oswego Soccer Club.
Council President Hoffman spoke to asking the question `should the City reduce its reliance on
property taxes' before asking the question `how it could do so.' He commented that the
community might find property taxes an appropriate funding source. Mr. Jordan clarified that
the question for the Council, from staffs perspective, was should the City maintain recovery of
10% of its maintenance costs through user fees or should it seek a higher or lower recovery rate
through user fees; a policy for 0% user fees meant 100% reliance on property taxes.
Councilor Graham noted that tennis and golf were successful in sustaining themselves. She
suggested looking at how to make these other sports self-sustaining, as there would come a point
when taxpayers would not pay any more.
Ms. Gilmer pointed out that the costs of golf and tennis in Lake Oswego, compared to the costs
of other similar agencies in the area, were medium to low; Lake Oswego did not price itself out
of the market, as it had control over what it did in those facilities. She observed that others
besides sports groups used the athletic fields. Councilor Turchi noted that Lake Oswego
charged a relatively large amount to play tennis compared to soccer.
Councilor Graham commented that she thought that there was something wrong in running a
business that recovered only 10% of its costs. Councilor Turchi mentioned the argument that
these services were a community good and should be supported by general property tax revenue,
similar to taxes paid to support parks or a library. He observed that he might never go to a park
or a library but he thought it was good for him to pay taxes for a library. Councilor Graham
reiterated that the question was how to make it self-sustaining.
4. ADJOURNMENT
Council President lloff nan adjourned the meeting at 6:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Robyn Chri tic
City Recorder
APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
ON
Judie Hammerstad, Mayor
City Council Information Session Minutes
November 5, 2001
Page 9 of 9 t_
5.3.3
01/15/02
MINUTES OF DECEMBER 4, 2001.
MORNING MEETING
4t
CITY COUNCIL MORNING MEETING MINUTES
i December 4, 2001
Mayor Judie Hammerstad called the special City Council meeting to order at 7:30 a.m. on
December 4, 2001, in the City Council Chambers.
Present: Mayor Hammerstad, Councilors Schoen, Turchi, Graham, McPeak, Hoffman and
Rohde.
Staff Present: Doug Schmitz, City Manager; David Powell, City Attorney; Robyn Christie, City
Recorder; Stephan Lashbrook, Community Development Director; Sidaro Sin,
Associate Planner; Mark Schoening, City Engineer; Janice Deardorff, Assistant
City Manager
3. REVIEW EVENING AGENDA
Mayor Hammerstad noted the Unsung Heroes award and presentation by Larry Goff.
Councilor Graham clarified her remarks on signs (minutes, page 35) that the paperwork took a
long time to find at City Hall but the signs were retrieved. She noted that Kathy Wheatly was
the correct name spelling (page 40).
Doug Schmitz, City Manager, referenced the section on the Lakewood Center (minutes, page
42) in suggesting the addition of an explanatory sentence that the Center requested a
contribution. He noted that Item 5.5 (page 43) dealt with the National Christmas Tree for 2002.
3.1 Item 8.1, Public Hearing on minimum roof pitch and height
Mayor Hammerstad directed the Council to the backup information staff sent last week. She
asked the Council if it wanted to make the decision tonight or wait to think about the testimony
received during the hearing tonight and continue the hearing to the next meeting.
David Powell, City Attorney, advised the Council that the Planning Commission took out
Subsection 4 (page 39), which had limited roof pitch on flag lots, in addition to height. He
explained to Councilor Hoffman that the Commission removed it because, although staff set the
average heights at the time of a flag lot partition (which the ordinance grandfathered in for lots
partitioned prior to September 6 [page 38]), staff did not set roof pitch at that time and there was
no need to grandfather it in for flag lots.
Mr. Powell clarified to Councilor McPeak that flag lots would be subject to the current roof
pitch requirement. He indicated that the new roof pitch requirement would apply to all dwellings
and accessory dwellings, including those on flag lots, located in these zones 30 days from the
adoption date of the ordinance.
3.2 Item 10, Information from the Council
Councilor Graham spoke of mentioning the Fire Department's toy drive. Mayor Hammerstad
mentioned that Councilor Rohde had suggested that each Council member bring a toy tonight.
Councilor Rohde suggested having someone from the Fire Department at the meeting to receive
the toys. The Council agreed on unwrapped toys under $10.
Mayor Hammerstad noted that Councilor Schoen would review the consent agenda tonight and
she would wrap up the goals.
Mr. Schmitz informed the Council that staff has received multiple calls from the Wheatherstone
Neighborhood about its desire for a neighborhood enhancement grant to help pay for the
City Council Morning Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 10
December 4, 2001
d c,
t
conversion from gas to electric. He noted that the project was completed, and staff has been
telling the neighborhood `no' because the program was not for completed projects.
Sidaro Sin, Associate Planner, indicated to Councilor Graham that the Bryant Woods Home
Owners Association was located within the city limits (page 80).
4. REVIEW FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
4.1 Density Hearing
Mayor Hammerstad advised the Council that the citizens have been asking the Council not to
hold the density hearing on January 2. She commented that she thought that the Council would
have a difficult time preparing for it due to the holidays. She suggested that they hear all the
testimony on January 15, leave the record open to January 22 for written testimony, and then
deliberate and decide on February 5.
The Council discussed the Mayor's suggested procedure. Councilor McPeak questioned if
there was a problem with the `aging' of the testimony over so long a period, in terms of people
retaining the discussions. Mayor Hammerstad held that the citizens had the responsibility to
keep themselves fresh on the issues, just the Council did.
Mayor Hammerstad indicated to Councilor Hoffman that the reason for waiting three weeks
was that the Council did not meet the last week of the month. She spoke to holding the
deliberations during a televised meeting. Robyn Christie, City Recorder, indicated to
Councilor McPeak that the City could not change the dates of the live cablecasts. Councilor
McPeak commented that she saw value in having the deliberation meeting broadcast live.
Councilor Rohde observed that the people most concerned would likely not attend the
deliberation and decision meeting because they knew that they could not testify again. Mayor
Hammerstad concurred that the lack of an audience would allow the Council to make its
decision without the pressure of people in the audience. She indicated that her experience told
her otherwise: the people would show up anyway for the deliberation and decision, and feel
more comfortable because they did not have to prepare for their testimony.
Mayor Hammerstad argued that the Councilors reviewing the record, putting their thoughts in
order, and knowing the reason for their vote made for thoughtful decision making.
Mr. Powell confirmed to Councilor Hoffman that a zoning code amendment was a legislative
matter, and the Council could hear new evidence; the Council was not limited to the record as it
would be in a quasi-judicial hearing. Councilor Hoffman commented that there was merit in
having time to digest the testimony of several new people.
Councilor McPeak spoke in support of the Mayor's proposal for two separate meetings, with
the second meeting in particular to be televised.
Councilor Hoffman asked if Ms. Heisler, who would present the staff report, could explain the
difference between partition and subdivision. Jane Heisler, Community Planning Manager,
noted that the Planning Commission eliminated applying the amendment to partitions out o1'
concern for potential serial partitions.
Mayor Hammerstad suggested having a Council briefing before the hearing in order to ensure
that the Council understood what the issues were. She observed that much of the testimony
would not address the issues before the Council. Councilor Rohde held that a Council briefing
on January 2 followed by a public hearing on January 15 and deliberations on February 5 was
overkill. He suggested a Council briefing before the public testimony on January 15.
Mayor Hammerstad commented that the Council would then have to understand the material
well enough before January 15 to be able to ask intelligent questions and not appear to "wallow
in ignorance" before the TV cameras.
City Council Morning Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 10
December 4, 2001 50
Councilor Hoffman mentioned his concern with the three-week delay between the testimony
and the decision. He indicated his preference for holding the deliberations on January 29 or 22.
Councilor McPeak reiterated that live broadcasts were only on the first and third meetings.
Councilor Rohde said that he did not have a problem with the three-week delay.
Councilor Schoen and Councilor McPeak agreed that staff needed to be very clear on how few
parcels in the city this amendment applied to. Councilor Hoffman pointed out that that did not
address Forest Highlands concerns. Councilor Turchi concurred, observing that developing at
this density could make a significant difference to the parcels immediately adjacent to the city
when they annexed.
Councilor McPeak asked for a clear indication of the number of parcels in the city impacted by
this amendment. Councilor Graham spoke to including Forest Highlands and the other areas
because those residents would key in on this issue. Ms. Heisler indicated to Councilor Schoen
that staff could figure out the number of parcels potentially affected both inside and outside the
city. Councilor Rohde asked to see a map showing the affected areas with Lake Oswego's
urban services boundary.
Mayor Hammerstad described this question as a topic for the annexation discussion. She held
that including it in this mix meant dealing with something that the Council did not have to deal
with. She concurred that the information was available but noted that the Council was not
making decisions for those areas outside the city.
Councilor Rohde observed that this decision would have the most dramatic effect on those areas
outside the city when they annexed. Mayor Hammerstad commented that the impact largely
depended on the property owner's decision to develop a subdivision or not.
Mayor Hammerstad suggested concentrating the discussion on the properties within the city
while providing a snap of the properties within Lake Oswego and its area of influence.
Councilor Schoen described going beyond the current city boundaries was `inviting trouble.'
He pointed out that the Council had no choice, as it has already put off decision on the density
guidelines for four years. Mayor Ilammerstad observed that Lake Oswego was the last city to
adopt them.
Councilor Schoen commented that lie did not want Lake Oswego to be the first city that Metro
filed action against. He indicated that he opposed the guidelines in principle but held that they
had to move on the issue.
Mr. Powell suggested prefacing the discussion with information on the Metro requirements and
mandate for compliance. Mayor Hammerstad said that she did not want to make Metro the bad
guy.
Councilor Hoffman spoke to having a Council briefing at the Monday information session on
January 14. Councilor McPeak concurred with Ms. Heisler presenting the basic outlines of the
issues the day before the hearing. Councilors Graham, Turchi and Mayor Hammerstad
agreed.
Councilor Hoffman indicated that he had the same concern as Councilor Rohde, that a briefing
on Monday meant no discussion on Tuesday. Mayor Hammerstad concurred with the concern
but held that the Council did need to be prepared for the hearing. She spoke to the Council
asking clarification questions of Ms. Heisler on Tuesday that would paraphrase the material so
that the audience would understand it.
Councilor Rohde mentioned hearing from people in the community that the broadcasted
meetings had no substance, as all the discussion and in-depth inquiry occurred at the study
sessions. Mayor Hammerstad argued that it was the Council's job to be so engaged with this
issue that that did not happen.
Mayor Hammerstad suggested publicizing the Monday meeting as an information session on
density guidelines. She said that she would announce this process at the meeting tonight.
City Council Morning Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 10
December 4, 2001 51
Councilor Turchi described the Council discussion as discussing two things that were on a
parallel track and intertwined with one another. He observed that the density issue within the
city seemed fairly simple and non -controversial because there was little developable property left
within the city.
Councilor Turchi discussed the second issue of people living within the City's urban services
boundary, whom he thought should be part of the City because Lake Oswego provided their
urban services. He conceded that in areas such as Forest Highlands and Lake Forest Boulevard,
the land plots were bigger and subdividable. He argued that the eventual annexation of these
properties essentially extended the density decision made by the Council for the city.
Councilor Turchi said that one of the things he has been wrestling with was whether he wanted
Forest Highlands developed at an R-7.5 density or would he vote against annexation in order to
maintain the R-20 zoning. He indicated that while he understood why the City wanted to
separate the two issues, lie did not think that they could be separated. He held that a vote on one
issue presupposed a vote on the other. He acknowledged that they could not consider that as part
of this particular deliberation but argued that it was critical to the later decisions on annexation.
Mayor Hammerstad clarified that the zoning was not the Council's decision. She explained
that those properties were within the urban growth boundary and would develop at urban
densities when the property owner decided to develop the property, which he/she did not have to
do. She emphasized that developing land within the urban growth boundary to urban densities
was how they preserved farmland.
Councilor Rohde observed that they were having substantive discussion. Councilor McPeak
concurred. She referenced the fact that the Council actually had no choice on this issue. She
spoke to each Councilor deciding in his/her own mind whether he/she would vote for or against
minimum density guidelines, if they had a choice. She said that she did not have trouble
personally with the concept.
Mayor Hammerstad held that the decision was made when the Council voted for the zoning
density. She clarified to Councilor Turchi that a developer would develop land at its zoned
density; no developer would develop land at a lesser density because developing it at 100% was
how they made their money.
Ms. Heisler noted that all areas in the urban services boundary had Comprehensive Plan
designations, with Forest Highlands at R-7.5. She clarified that this amendment required a
developer to develop at a minimum of 80% of the designated zoning. She commented that the
question of whether the designated zoning was the right designation for an area was another
question, which the Council could revisit and change the Comprehensive Plan if it felt doing so
was appropriate.
Councilor Rohde asked to hold the density guidelines discussion at the January 8 meeting,
instead of on a Monday from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m., in order to allow more people to attend.
4.2 Infill Task Force Study
Councilor Schoen asked when the neighborhood compatibility study was scheduled for a
Council update. Ms. Heisler said that she expected a report to Council by the end of January,
first part of February. She mentioned that the two test neighborhoods, First Addition and Lake
Grove, had some ideas specific to those two neighborhoods. She suggested, before the Council
applied the study more broadly, that it do a more in-depth analysis of other areas, making it the
end of the year before it applied the findings on a wider basis.
Councilor Schoen said that he rethought this issue because he thought that they had gone
beyond the original scope. He mentioned hearing conversations in the neighborhood about the
issue, particularly from residents of lakefront properties. He questioned whether the City was
shooting itself in the foot on this issue. I le held that it was more complex than a simple
City Council Morning Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 10
December 4, 2001 5 2
temporary ordinance, as it could last one and a half years by the time the Council came to a
conclusion on it.
4.3 Monday meetings
Councilor Hoffman asked staff to put the Monday meetings on the tentative schedule so he
could block out the times on his schedule. Mayor Hammerstad indicated that they only
scheduled Monday meetings when they had topics for them. She pointed out that after the
Council retreat, when it identified the issues that it wanted to study in greater depth, they would
have topics for the Monday meetings. Mr. Schmitz observed that the Monday meetings
functioned as a safety valve to accommodate the ebb and flow of topics; if Tuesday grew too
crowded, staff scheduled items for Monday.
4.4 Council Retreat
Mayor Hammerstad asked the Council to think about the topics it wanted to discuss at the
retreat. She mentioned that Joe Hertzberg would facilitate the meeting. She asked the Council
to consider an evaluation of the Council's work during the last year, what it has done well and
accomplished and what it has not done well and why. She commented that she thought there
was room for improvement in both substance and process of how they handled material.
Mayor Hammerstad mentioned that the `universe' was open for discussion regarding goals,
although she preferred to concentrate on doable goals. She indicated that she thought they were
ready to do long term goals this year.
3.5 Charter Officer Evaluations
Mayor Hainnierstad asked if the Council wanted to participate as a whole in a face-to-face
evaluation process of the charter officers or let the evaluation committee handle that. The
Council agreed by consensus on the Council as a whole engaging in the face-to-face evaluation.
The Council agreed to schedule the City Judge and City Attorney reviews for the morning and
the City Manager's for the evening.
3.6 Tree Code
Councilor Hoffman reported that he and Councilor McPeak finished the Tree Code Task Force
interviews. He noted their recommendation of six people whom they thought had a balanced
approach to the issue and represented different perspectives and different neighborhoods.
3.7 Compassionate Leave Policy
Mr. Schmitz asked for Council authorization to proceed with development of a compassionate
leave policy to address the situation of employees with terminally ill family members. He
mentioned that the City has had three employees in the past five months in this situation. He
spoke to developing a policy and options on how to fortify their leave capability and provide
them with some income.
Councilor Turchi suggested checking with the School District about its pool of leave days
donated by other employees. Mr. Schmitz commented that he has heard in the past that that
method had some tax problems. He said that he would check with the district.
Mayor Hammerstad stated that Mr. Schmitz had authorization to look into a compassionate
leave policy.
5. OTHER BUSINESS
5.1 Discussion of Undergrounding Utilities
Mr. Schmitz informed the Council that, at the next Council meeting, staff would ask for the bid
award for a sewer line for the First Street alley. He mentioned that he has told Councilor Rohde
City Council Morning Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 10
December 4, 2001 53
that undergrounding would not be part of that project. He indicated that staff has developed a
cost estimate for including undergrounding in the project.
Mr. Schmitz asked the Council to allow the opportunity for a community discussion of the
undergrounding issue. He recalled that the Council did not adopt the East End Development
Committee's recommendation for undergrounding in the 1992 pian because it did not want to
increase fees and charges immediately after Measure 5, and because neighborhoods complained
that the City should finance undergrounding in residential districts first.
Mark Schoening, City Engineer, referenced his handout showing the plan of the First Street
alley between A and B Avenues. He reported that staff worked with the three utilities that had
overhead lines (Qwest, AT&T, PGE) in developing the plan for the placement of underground
conduits, transformer pads, utility vaults and cabinet pads. He noted that maintaining PGE's
loop system meant crossing B Avenue and taking out two of three cherry trees on B Avenue. He
mentioned that Qwest was uncertain whether it could do a directional bore and avoid cutting A
Avenue.
Mr. Schoening said that staff worked with Oregon Electric Group, as well as the three utilities,
in making its cost estimate of $400,000 to $500,000 to underground the utilities. He explained
that half the cost came from the tenant conversions because of the age of the structures and the
way the utility connections have grown over the years. He mentioned that the City would place
the conduits and vaults at its expense while the utilities would relocate their wires and place
transformers at their expense. He observed that the total cost was significantly more than staff
had expected.
Mr. Schoening indicated to Mayor Hammerstad that the cost of the project without the tenant
conversions (the sewer project only) was $200,000. He explained to Councilor Rohde that the
City typically paid the costs of the tenant conversions when the City initiated the project. He
said that the cost per tenant varied significantly from property to property because it depended
on what it took to convert the building wiring.
At Councilor McPeak's request, Mr. Schoening distributed color pictures showing the above
ground utility poles that would disappear with undergrounding.
Mr. Schoening clarified to Mayor Hammerstad that the project included relocation of the
sewer line, decommissioning of an underground oil storage tank and restoring the asphalt from A
Avenue to the public parking; the bid was for $207,000. He observed that the sewer project did
not include any work north of the public parking lot.
Mr. Schoening indicated to Councilor Graham that staff would find out during the excavation
which building the oil tank went to. Councilor Graham asked who had the responsibility for
the oil tank. Mr. Schoening said that the City took the initiative to decommission the tank
because it was working in the alley. Mr. Powell indicated that there was probably not a time
limit on the DEQ issue, in terms of the tank owner having the responsibility, but he thought that
there might be a 10 -year time limit on the trespass issue.
Mr. Powell questioned whether the City could recover the cost of the decommissioning if the
tank was old and not used by the current owner. He indicated to Councilor Graham that he was
unaware of any DEQ funding available to cities to help pay for decommissioning. Councilor
Rohde observed that decommissioning cost only $5,000, although it could run to $15,000 if the
tank has leaked.
Mr. Schoening confirmed that the $207,000 sewer project would leave the alley looking as it
did now; the undergrounding would cost an additional $400,000 to $500,000.
Councilor Rohde argued that the vision of the downtown improved dramatically when the City
undergrounded the utilities on A Avenue. He described this as a significant aesthetic issue in
creating a more attractive downtown. He spoke in support of adopting a program to
underground utilities in the downtown and of looking for ways for property owners to contribute.
City Council Morning Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 10
December 4, 2001 54
Councilor Schoen said that, while he agreed with Councilor Rohde in principle, he wondered
what the other options were for the half a million dollars. Mayor Hammerstad observed that
half a million dollars was nearly the annual budget for street maintenance. Councilor McPeak
agreed with Councilor Rohde that undergrounding would improve the aesthetics.
Councilor McPeak asked if the undergrounding would be more expensive if done separately
from the sewer project at a later time. Mr. Schoening reiterated that the tenant conversions
drove the cost. He recalled that the undergrounding on A Avenue had been significantly less
expensive for a greater distance because there were not complications with the few tenant
conversions.
Mr. Schoening indicated that the only additional cost, if the project was done separately from
the sewer project, was cutting the new pavement in the alley, which was not a significant cost.
He commented that it would get crowded working in the alley doing both the sewer and the
undergrounding at the same time. He questioned whether it would be a real savings for a
contractor to do both projects at the same time.
Mr. Schmitz mentioned that the options, should the Council want to do the undergrounding as
part of the sewer project, were dropping the current LORA project, using City money or finding
another funding source. He noted that the LORA money was already committed for the year.
Councilor Hoffman concurred with Councilor Rohde on improving the aesthetics of the
downtown but indicated that this would not be his top priority for things to improve in the
downtown. He mentioned the road directly west of Safeway. He discussed his concern with
improving the aesthetics for cars, in light of the intent to create a pedestrian walkway to connect
First Street to Second Street.
Mayor Hammerstad suggested postponing the project. She mentioned that Crandall Arambula,
the consultant for the Foothills Task Force, has also been looking at options for the transit center
block. She described undergrounding as something that they would want improved in the future
but held that it did not need to be linked to the sewer project.
Mayor Hammerstad spoke to making undergrounding a long-term goal and including it in the
CIP. She mentioned an obligation along Boones Ferry Road but observed that the improvement
would be very expensive. She suggested discussing the issue at the retreat.
5.2 Arts Downtown
Councilor McPeak reviewed her proposal for a selection process for purchasing artwork from
Arts Downtown. She spoke to following the current guidelines for purchasing artwork using the
Public Art Trust Fund monies in order to allow that fund as an option for money to purchase an
Arts Downtown piece. She described the additional step 3 (page 63), which brought in a public
involvement process. She mentioned that a community discussion would help build community
feeling. She suggested sending her proposal to the Arts Commission for its input.
Councilor Rohde moved adoption of Councilor McPeak's concept. Councilor Turehi
seconded the motion.
The Council discussed the public input process. Councilor Graham mentioned an opinion
survey. Councilor McPeak suggested online voting; Mayor Hammerstad pointed out that one
person could vote several times through that method.
Mayor Hantinerstad observed that there would be practical problems with this process,
especially if Arts Downtown had only one or two sculptures that the City could afford or find a
place for. She suggested moving forward with Councilor McPeak's proposal this year to see if it
worked and re-evaluating it in a year. She supported sending the proposal to the Arts
Commission for its review.
Councilor Rohde clarified that his motion was to forward the proposal to the Arts
Commission.
City Council Morning Meeting Minutes
December 4, 2001
Page 7 of 10
55
Councilor Hoffman asked why the Public Arts Committee selected the Arts Downtown
Committee, and not the Arts Commission. Councilor McPeak explained that the Public Arts
Committee had a role in the purchase of art through the Public Art Trust Fund; leaving them in
this process allowed the Council the option of using Trust fund money for a purchase.
Councilor Hoffman agreed with giving the process a year to see what happened.
Mayor Hammerstad spoke to suggesting to the Arts Commission that it hold an Arts
Downtown show every other year, instead of every year, in order to keep it fresh. Councilor
McPeak noted that Arts Downtown was a tremendous amount of work; the Arts Commission
probably would not object to the idea.
A voice vote was taken and the motionap ssed with Mayor Hammerstad, Councilors
Schoen, Turchi, Graham, McPeak, Hoffman and Rohde voting; in favor. 17-01
5.3 Update: Library Task Force
Mayor Hammerstad advised the Council that the Library Task Force has met and asked the
Council to give it a vision. She referenced a memo written by Mr. Schmitz last March.
Mr. Schmitz explained that he thought it would be more appropriate to give the Task Force the
Council's vision, rather than the staff's vision. He noted that his memo identified five
categories, including functions and services remaining at the main library, services transferred
from the main library, and services new to the new facility.
Mayor Hammerstad commented that she understood that the Task Force discussion included
questions on some items that were givens, such as the downtown library remaining as a full
service library at its current site. She suggested providing the Task Force a narrative describing
those givens. She mentioned that she had seen a dual library as providing services in addition to
those provided at the current library, including additional technology, hours, storage and perhaps
administrative space.
Councilor Rohde said that he had understood that the Task Force looked at the criteria provided
by the City and asked `what do you mean by a joint facility?' He commented that he thought it
was part of the Task Force's charge statement to answer that question. Mayor Hammerstad
concurred.
Janice. Deardorff, Human Resources Director, clarified that there had been only one person
on the Task Force who had not been clear about the main library staying open. She explained
that this 25 -member task force was still at the "baby beginning" stage of the process, with some
having more knowledge than others. She agreed that providing the Task Force with some basic
information and statistics about the existing library was a good idea. She commented that the
school might have a different vision of what the dual library might be, besides something in
addition to the main library.
Ms. Deardorff suggested giving the Task Force a general statement from the City describing the
Council's preliminary vision of what it had thought about when starting the project. She
observed that most of the questions came from the Task Force members who were not regular
library users. She indicated that she had staff prepare an information packet on the library.
Councilor Graham concurred with providing basic information to the Task Force. She
observed that one reason some of the members were on the Task Force was that they were not
immersed in the library question.
Councilor Graham discussed her concerns with an interview of a Task Force member printed in
the Revieiv. She commented that she had thought that if the member had read the charge
statement, he/she would not be asking those questions. She speculated that this individual was
going into the Task Force with a set opinion.
City Council Morning Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 10
December 4, 2001 56
Councilor Graham recommended that they ask the school and public librarians what they
thought the community needed in terms of library services at a joint facility, as they were the
ones who saw the community need on a day-to-day basis.
Councilor McPeak asked for information on what services a school library provided. Mayor
Hammerstad asked staff to put the two documents coming from the City and the District on the
City website. Ms. Deardorff mentioned that they were trying to put the minutes on the website.
Councilor Turchi questioned whether the District would allow this facility to be open during
the day. Ms. Deardorff held that the District parameters for the operation of the library were
one of the key issues. She indicated that she did not think that they wanted to engage in that
conversation yet but thought that it would be a sticking point.
Ms. Deardorff mentioned that, so far, all indications were that the District was looking at the
library as a closed facility until 3 p.m. She noted that the literature did not support those limited
hours; the literature supported a library open from 8 a.m. to 9 p.m. for full public use.
Mayor Hammerstad expressed her hope that those issues would remain open. She observed
that if the District said in its paper that it preferred that the library not be open during the school
day but it was an issue for discussion by the Task Force, then they could look at the issue. A
statement that the District would not consider opening the library up during the school day meant
a different situation.
Mr. Schmitz mentioned that he and Ms. Deardorff would meet with Mr. Korach and Ms.
Campbell tomorrow. He spoke of an issue that came up at the DRC last night about training
space at the library facility.
5.4 Miscellaneous
Mr. Powell indicated to Councilor Graham that he was responding to the letter from a citizen
regarding vendors and solicitation. He explained that unfortunately the citizen's posted sign did
not meet the City's sign ordinance criteria. He mentioned that the dispatcher gave the gentleman
incorrect information with respect to the cutoff times: solicitation was legal to 8 p.m., standard
time, or 9 p.m., daylight savings time. He said that the police did encounter some of those
solicitors and warn them of the City ordinance regulating this activity. He commented that
usually a warning was sufficient to garner compliance but the City would enforce the ordinance
if necessary.
Councilors Hoffman and Schoen left the meeting.
Councilor Turchi observed that the State of Oregon appeared to be losing money by the
hundreds of millions a day. He asked if staff had a sense of what this meant to the City's budget.
Mayor Hammerstad said that the State did not give Lake Oswego money.
Councilor Turchi pointed out that a decrease in state revenues meant a probable decrease in
School District revenue. He suggested that if the legislature did not make the school fund
whole, and the School District lost a significant amount of revenue, that the City revisit the
school levy. Councilor McPeak observed that raising taxes in the face of a serious recession
was another question to consider. She spoke to discussing this topic at the Council retreat.
Councilor Graham mentioned that she asked the same question of Mr. Schmitz yesterday.
6. EXECUTIVE SESSION
7. RETURN TO OPEN SESSION
8. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Ilammerstad adjourned the meeting at 9:02 a.m.
City Council Morning Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 10
December 4, 2001 J !
APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
ON
Judie Hammerstad, Mayor
City Council Morning Meeting Minutes
December 4, 2001
Respectfully submitted,
fj��
Robyn Christie �—
City Recorder
Page 10 of 10
5.3.4
01/15/02
MINUTES OF DECEMBER 4, 2001
REGULAR MEETING
59
rp rKr rr,WIc
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
\ December 4, 2001
1
. akar �-
Mayor Judie Hammerstad called the regular City Council meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. on
December 4, 2001, in the City Council Chambers.
Present: Mayor Hammerstad, Councilors Schoen, Turchi, Graham, McPeak, Hoffman, and
Rohde.
Staff Present: Doug Schmitz, City Manager; David Powell, City Attorney; Robyn Christie, City
Recorder; Sidaro Sin, Associate Planner; Carole Dickerson, Public Affairs
Director; Stephan Lashbrook, Community Development Director; Jane Heisler,
Community Planning Manager; Larry Goff, Emergency Manager
Mayor Hammerstad introduced two of the newly selected Youth Councilors: Matt Buehler and
Tommy Noble.
3. UPDATE ON COUNCIL GOALS FOR 2001
Mayor Hammerstad reviewed the Council's work on its goals for 2001. She observed that the
Council achieved 75% of its goals. She thanked the Council for its diligent work.
Councilor Rohde welcomed Julie Morrison, Lake Oswego Fire Department. Ms. Morrison
explained the purpose of the annual Toys for Tots program, begun in 1973, to collect new,
unwrapped toys to deliver with food baskets to over 100 families in the Clackamas and
Washington County area in partnership with the Tualatin Valley Elks Club. The Council
members each donated a toy to the program. Councilor Rohde encouraged the audience to
participate in the program.
4. PRESENTATIONS AND RECOGNITION
4.1 Unsung Heroes Award
Mayor Hammerstad described this program, started this year, to recognize special citizens in
Lake Oswego who contributed to making the community a better place to live but have not
received recognition. She said that the 10 -member selection committee appointed by the
Council, and chaired by Councilor Graham, met on October 15 to review the nominations
received from friends, neighbors and co-workers of the nominees. She announced the 2002
Unsung Heroes: Werner Gerling and Kathy Wheatly.
Lou Jordan accepted the award on behalf of Werner Gerling. He described Mr. Gerling as the
consummate `behind the scenes' person, always willing to find the time to volunteer for city -
sponsored activities, civic organizations or charitable events.
Mayor Hammerstad mentioned that Care Northwest nominated Ms. Wheatly for her creation of
the "Quilts for Kids" program, which provided quilts to abused children. Ms. Wheatly thanked
her employer, Jeri Grasbeck, for her generous donation of display space in The Pine Needle, a
store frequented by quilters. She accepted the award on behalf of all the quilters who donated
quilts to the program.
Mayor flammerstad thanked Councilor Graham and Carole Dickerson for their work on this
progrann.
4.2 Presentation of Terrorism Planning and 12esponse, Larry (;off'
City Council Minutes
December 4, 2001
Pagel of 20
61
Larry Goff, Emergency Manager, observed that the response to terrorism occurring now was a
continuation of the emergency management program already established in Lake Oswego. He
described Lake Oswego's active role in the Regional Emergency Management Group (REMG),
which was formed by five counties in 1994 in recognition of the need to respond to wide -scale
emergencies on a regional basis. He said that Lake Oswego joined REMG in 1998; Councilor
McPeak was the current Lake Oswego representative on REMPAC, the elected officials'
committee that reviewed the annual work plan produced by the Emergency Managers Group.
Mr. Goff mentioned that FEMA called this regional program `exemplary.' He said that Mayor
Rob Drake of Beaverton, REMPAC Chair, has written to Oregon representatives in Washington,
D.C., to discuss obtaining potential federal funds allocated for expenditures on a regional basis
to increase the response to terrorism.
Mr. Goff reviewed the proposed REMG work plan. He mentioned the Terrorism
Subcommittee's draft medical response plan to a terrorism event. He described the research into
a phone system to improve the region's alert notification capabilities, and the research into a
system to improve emergency coordination between the different emergency operations centers
of the local regional providers.
Mr. Goff mentioned developing a heavy urban search and rescue team for the Portland area to
help in the case of a large building collapse. He spoke of purchasing decontamination equipment
for hospitals and improving community outreach. He discussed hiring a full-time Emergency
Coordinator for the REMG to facilitate the local staff work.
Mr. Goff said that Lake Oswego formed a City Task Force to work on coordinating the incident
response between fire, police, maintenance services and the school district. He observed that,
although they had no evidence of a terrorist threat to Lake Oswego, they needed to continue to
work on emergency preparedness because of the potential natural hazards, such as an
earthquake.
Councilor Turchi asked how many Lake Oswego emergency service personnel lived in Lake
Oswego. Mr. Goff referenced a map developed by the Task Force showing where all City
personnel lived in the Metro area. He said that about 10 firefighters lived in Lake Oswego. He
mentioned work on a pre -agreement among jurisdictions to allow emergency service personnel
to respond where they lived, if they could not get to the city in which they worked.
Mr. Goff indicated to Councilor Turchi that they have trained 450 Lake Oswego residents
through the Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) training program with another class
scheduled in the near future. He mentioned the importance of volunteers in emergency response
efforts to large-scale disasters, noting that non-professional rescuers made 80% of the rescues in
any emergency.
5. CONSENT AGENDA
Councilor Schoen reviewed the consent agenda for the audience.
Councilor Schoen moved approval of the consent agenda. Councilor Turchi seconded the
motion. A voice vote was taken and the motion passed with Mayor Hatnmerstad,
Councilors Schoen, Turchi, Graham, McPeak, Hoffman, and Rohde voting; in favor. 17-01
5.1 APPROVAL OF MINUTES
5.1.1 October 23, 2001, special meeting
5.1.2 October 24, 2001, joint meeting with the Lake Oswego School Board
5.1.3 November 6, 2001, morning meeting
ACTION: Approve minutes as corrected
City Council Minutes
December 4, 2001
Page 2 of 20
62
END CONSENT AGENDA
6. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA
There were none.
7. CITIZEN COMMENT
Mayor Hammerstad asked the City Attorney to discuss the proper procedure for the Council
when a citizen wished to testify on a potential quasi-judicial matter, such as the School District's
plan to reduce bicycle parking.
David Powell, City Attorney, explained that a sustentative communication to the Council or
any Council member outside the formal land use hearing process on a matter that could come to
the Council as a tribunal hearing, including an appeal, was called an `ex parte contact.' He
pointed out that a decision by the Development Review Commission was subject to appeal to the
Council; any comments made by citizens with respect to the DRC's consideration of the bicycle
parking proposed at the Lake Oswego schools constituted an ex parte contact.
Mr. Powell reviewed the legal procedures for handling ex parte contacts. He noted that the first
preference was for no ex parte contacts; all communication should be made to the DRC or in
writing on the record, and staff would provide them to the Council in the event of an appeal. He
explained that the procedure, in the event of an ex parte contact, was declaration of the contact
on the record and provision of an opportunity for rebuttal.
Mr. Powell observed that staff did not prevent any citizen from addressing the C OL11161. lie
advised the Council not to respond to the testimony in any sustentative way or to express any
opinion about the merits of the case.
Mr. Powell indicated to Ms. Rummel-Eury that he assumed it would be all right to address the
School Board, as they should not be holding a quasi-judicial land use hearing.
The Council discussed how to handle Ms. Rummel-Eury's request to address them on the
bicycle parking at the schools. Councilor Turchi observed that there could not be a more public
ex parte contact than this situation. Councilor Hoffman said that he would like to hear Ms.
Rummel-Eury's comments.
• Rose Rummel-Eury, 5060A Foothills Drive
Ms. Rummel-Eury mentioned her membership on the Lake Oswego Transportation Advisory
Board. She said that she was here tonight on behalf of the Lake Oswego/West Linn Chapter of
the Bicycle Transportation Alliance regarding the proposed School District plans for bicycle
parking. She reviewed the state and city requirements for the provision of bicycle parking,
which translated to 276 spaces for Lakeridge High School.
Ms. Rummel-Eury noted that the District balked at 276 spaces and proposed 10 to 16. She said
that the architects designed 92 spaces following the designation for elementary schools. She
mentioned the Lake Oswego bicycle advocates' suggestion of 60 to 90 spaces as a compromise,
with usage monitoring to add more if needed.
Ms. Rummel-Eury conceded that few students biked to school at this time but argued that more
would do so if there were safe bicycle routes to the schools, and if the District provided secure
and dry places to lock their bikes. She spoke to providing bicycle parking now as a means of
encouraging kids to bike to school and reducing the traffic congestion of parents dropping kids
o ff.
Ms. Rummel-Eury pointed out that the District planned to sacrifice valuable green space to
additional car parking, which contributed to the high school's problem of handling polluted
water runoff. She observed that one surface parking space cost more than $4,000 to construct.
City Council Minutes Page 3 of 20 6 3
December 4, 2001
She asked the Council to recommend to the School Board that it look for other solutions besides
creating more car parking, such as car pooling, bussing, walking and bike -riding.
Bonni Canary, 4972 Hampton Court
Ms. Canary spoke in support of Jane Hickman's comments at the last Council meeting asking
Lake Oswego to appoint a task force to work with the West Linn aquatics task force on a joint
community pool. She discussed the information in the master plan: community use justified
16,000 square feet of pool but there was only 9,000 square feet of pool space in the community.
Ms. Canary contended that the community only had the 2,500 square feet of pool space at Lake
Oswego High School actually available, as the community as a whole did not have access to the
Mountain Park pool and the total square footage included the Portland Community College pool.
She held that the community had a shortage of almost 14,000 square feet of pool space. She
argued that the master plan contained sufficient justification for the City to move forward on an
aquatics task force to work with West Linn on a community pool.
Ms. Canary recalled that the City purchased the Rassekh property at the corner of Rosemont
and Stafford with money from a bond 10 years ago, which included funds designated for an
aquatics facility. She pointed out that this approximately 9 -acre property crossed by a creek lay
within the urban growth boundary and across from Luscher Farm, near Lakeridge High School
on the other side of the lake.
Ms. Canary observed that the swimming community has waited over 10 years since the bond
measure passed. She commented that she knew of no other viable property within the urban
growth boundary. She argued that they would have to wait yet again on a good community pool
if there were no land available within the boundary.
Ms. Canary mentioned that the Clatsop Community County senior women had put out a bathing
suit calendar (complete with center foldout of a 93 year old woman) as a fundraiser for a therapy
pool. She stated that she did not want to be 93 years old before Lake Oswego got a therapy pool.
She reiterated that they have been waiting a long time and there was a strong need in the
community for adequate pool space. She volunteered to serve on an aquatics task force.
8. PUBLIC HEARINGS
8.1 Planning Commission recommendation to adopt LU 00-0050, Zoning Code text
amendments to amend the minimum roof pitch in the Country Club/and Lakewood
Neighborhoods, as well as clarifying the application of roof pitch for accessory
structures and additions and the method of measuring height for flag lots in these
neighborhoods as well as Lake Grove and First Addition.
Mayor Hammerstad read the hearing title. Mr. Powell reviewed the standard criteria for a
legislative hearing, the hearing procedures and the testimony time limits. He asked the Council
to declare any conflicts of interest. There were none. There were no challenges from the
audience.
STAFF REPORT
Jane Heisler, Community Planning Manager, presented the staff report. She recalled that a
year ago the Council appointed an Infill Task Force to look into the infill issues raised by the
First Addition and Lake Grove neighborhoods and to develop a way to improve the infill
process. She mentioned that at the same time, the Council directed staff to work with the two
neighborhoods to develop an interim solution; staff and the neighborhoods agreed upon the
height issue as an interim solution. She noted that, at the August 7 meeting at which the Council
adopted the interim solution for First Addition and Lake Grove, two other neighborhoods (North
Shore/Country Club and Lakewood) asked for similar treatment to address their compatibility
concerns.
City Council Minutes Page 4 of 20
December 4, 2001 64
Ms. Heisler referenced Exhibit F-1, which amended the methodology used for measuring height
in the North Shore/Country Club and Lakewood neighborhoods. She noted that it also required a
minimum 6:12 roof pitch for single-family structures and a minimum roof pitch for accessory
structures in all four neighborhoods. She discussed the exemption for flag lots from the roof
pitch requirements recommended by the Planning Commission (page 3, No. 4). She mentioned
that a desire for flexibility lay behind the exemption for remodeling affecting 50% or less of a
primary roof structure, which was for all four neighborhoods.
Ms. Heisler noted the additional letters in the Council packets, Exhibit G (303 through 306).
Ms. Heisler reviewed drawings of how the existing regulations applied in an R-7.5 zone on a flat
lot and on a sloped lot. She indicated that a homeowner could get nearly three stories on a flat
lot with the current measurement methodology, which the proposed methodology reduced to two
to two and a half stories. She described how application of the methodologies on a sloped lot
reduced the two stories allowed under the current method to one and a half to two stories under
the proposed method.
Ms. Heisler reviewed the proposals made during the public testimony received by the Planning
Commission. These included a sunset date and an exemption for lakefront properties (due to
their different character). She said that the Planning Commission felt that it should support all
parcels in the neighborhood as part of the neighborhood, and that lakefront properties should be
compatible with other areas.
COUNCIL QUESTIONS OF STAFF
Councilor McPeak referenced the discussion in the packet on how the temporary ordinance
affected people who have completed a partition or subdivision application. Mr. Powell
discussed the City ordinance, which gave applicants one year from the date of the final plat
recording to build under the regulations in place at the time of that recording. I le noted that in
the Cofield case, that partition had a condition of approval specifically allowing the applicant to
build under the current standards.
Mr. Powell mentioned the `vested rights' issue, which came from court law that held that
someone investing sufficient money and time in good faith under the assumptions of the current
regulations gained a vested right to develop under those regulations. He indicated that, while
staff has not reached that opinion with respect to Ms. Cofield's client, he did not think it was
necessary to do so, since both the ordinance and the condition of approval allowed her client at
least one year to develop under the current standards.
Mr. Powell indicated to Councilor McPeak that the applicant did not need to complete the
building within that year; however, they did have to take out a building permit within the year.
He said that he had no data on how common it was for people to take less than a year from the
record date of the plat to the issuance of the building permit. Ms. Heisler mentioned that an
applicant had 180 days following issuance of the building permit before an inspection, which
could be extended by another 180 days.
Councilor McPeak clarified that her concern was whether the ordinance made it difficult for
these individuals to meet the deadlines to build under the existing regulations. Mr. Powell gave
his opinion that applicants should be able to meet the deadline easily, given that they had a year
to build under the old rules.
Nis. Heisler explained to Councilor Hoffman that the thinking behind requiring a minimum
roof pitch had been that, given the height reduction, people might try to maximize the floor arca
by installing a flat roof, which could further reduce compatibility. She indicated that the thought
was that a pitched roof would produce a more attractive result.
Ms. Heisler clarified to Councilor Graham that the shed type roof was listed as not a primary
roof form (page 38) because the neighbors saw it as a type of roof that would allow people to
City Council Minutes Page 5 of 20
December 4, 2001 65
maximize their floor area but not be attractive in the neighborhood. She referenced a drawing
showing a shed roof, which had no peak but was more of a lean-to type roof.
Ms. Heisler explained to Councilor Graham that the date of September 6, 2001, was the
effective date when the ordinance for the change in height methodology began to apply in First
Addition and Lake Grove Neighborhoods.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY
Mayor Hammerstad opened the hearing to public testimony.
• Heather Chrisman, 172 Middlecrest Road, Lakewood Neighborhood Association
Ms. Chrisman mentioned that the Association Board discussed this issue at its November 13
meeting. She explained that most homes in this R-7.5 zone neighborhood were one and a half to
two stories high on small lots. She described their interest in having a height limitation as a
"preventative measure," as their neighborhood currently did not have incompatible homes.
Ms. Chrisman discussed the Board's opinion that oversized houses dwarfing a smaller, adjacent
house decreased the value of both homes. She mentioned concerns of attractiveness and privacy.
She pointed out that people who disagreed with the ordinance could go through the variance
process.
Ms. Chrisman confirmed to Councilor Graham that the photos submitted from the Lakewood
neighborhood showed examples of compatible infill development and remodeling.
Ms. Chrisman indicated to Councilor Turchi that, as a member of the Infill Task Force, she
believed they would agree on a recommendation to address the problems, which the Council and
the Development Review Commission could support.
• Kenneth 3. Hall, 232 Berwick Road, Country Club/North Shore Neighborhood
Association
Mr. Hall mentioned that lie has lived in Lake Oswego for 71 years. He read the history of the
Country Club/North Shore neighborhood as recounted in An Illustrated History of Lake Oswego
by Ann Fulton, soon to be published by the Oswego Heritage Council. He mentioned that the
`Country Club District' was the Ladd Estate Company's second and largest development (1923).
Mr. Hall described how the developers used the Arts & Crafts, Tudor and English Cottage
romantic architectural styles, outdoor recreation facilities and natural scenic areas as themes in
building a planned development to fit the marketing motto "Live where you play." He noted that
various well-known Portland architects displayed their skills on homes in this district.
Mr. Hall spoke to preserving the history of Lake Oswego by preserving the neighborhood
character of the Country Club/North Shore neighborhood, as it was designed in the 1920s. He
argued that the romantic, scenic and picturesque qualities of this piece of the city's history were
disappearing one by one through the destruction of historic homes or incompatible infill housing.
11 r. I IMI cited Goal 2, Land Use Planning, in the Comprehensive Plan as providing the ability to
protect the city's history. He contended that they had both the ability and the duty to protect the
character of the neighborhoods. He asked the Council to approve the interim ordinance until the
Task Force completed its work.
• Patrick Young, 1151 North Shore
Mr. Young spoke in favor of the interim ordinance. He described a scenario of a small home
sitting between two `monster houses,' such as happened on Douglas Circle in Lake Grove, in
which the homeowner lost his privacy, his view and the property value of the house. He
contended that this situation could occur on several streets in the Country Club/North Shore
neighborhood where half -acre lots were for sale or in areas where smaller homes were ripe for
tear down and rebuild. He argued that if the interim ordinance prevented one `monster house'
City Council Minutes Page 6 of 20
December 4, 2001 66
from coming into their neighborhood, then it was worth the time and energy. lie observed that
Ordinance 2038 might not be perfect but it was all they had for now.
• Dorothy Cofield, 4248 Galewood Street, attorney representing Deirdre Marriott
Ms. Cofield stated that her client owned a home in the Lakewood neighborhood, and recently
received preliminary approval to partition her one tot into two lots with the intent of building
another house on the second lot. She concurred that her client's conditions of approval clearly
stated that she could develop under the existing standards. She explained that when she called
the Planning staff in response to the notice about this proposed ordinance, the staff told her that
Ms. Marriott would fall under the new ordinance.
Ms. Cofield asked the Council to codify the conditions of approval in her client's preliminary
partition approval in order to ensure that her client could build under the existing standards. She
presented two amendments to the draft ordinance, which stipulated the height and roof pitch
methodologies for partition and subdivision applications prior to September 6, 2001 (LOC
48.07.10(3) and 47.6.110(5))
Ms. Cofield noted that the City Attorney has already indicated that the conditions of approval in
the preliminary partition decision did lock in the existing standards for her client's application.
She expressed their concern with the differences she has heard in staff interpretations when they
applied for the building permit.
Ms. Cofield explained to Councilor Turchi that, due to the topographical constraints of the site,
Ms. Marriott would need at least two floors for a 2,500 square foot house. Ms. Heisler clarified
that the height allowed under the existing methodology depended on the severity of the slope.
Ms. Cofield mentioned that Ms. Marriott intended to build a house on the second lot that was
compatible with her existing home.
Councilor Hoffman referenced Deputy City Attorney Evan Boone's verbal indication to Ms.
Cofield (as referenced in Ms. Cofield's November 5, 2001, letter [page 67]) that the proposed
methodology change would not apply to Ms. Marriott's property for one year following the
recording of the plat. Mr. Powell confirmed that that constituted a legal position taken by the
City, which it would find difficult to change. Ms. Cofield commented that their caution carne
from the difficulty Ms. Marriott has had in trying to sell the second lot; one sale fell through
after the interested party started their due diligence investigation.
Mr. Powell clarified that, while Ms. Cofield's first amendment simply restated her client's
entitlement to the height measurement exemption, her second amendment asked for an
exemption to the roof pitch requirement as well. He stated that the ordinance did not grandfather
in the roof pitch or other design criteria. He advised the Council that roof pitch would apply to
Ms. Cofield's client.
Mr. Powell indicated to Councilor Graham that these amendments could apply to others in a
similar situation. He reiterated that the height measurement amendment was redundant, with
respect to Ms. Marriott. He explained that the second sentence could create a situation where
people who had received their partition would have to relate back twice to the old building
standard. He suggested leaving the ordinance as written, which clearly stated that the applicant
had the height standard (that was in place on the date of his/her partition plat) for one year.
Mayor Hammerstad commented that she interpreted exempting this property as meaning that
there was something wrong with the ordinance. She observed that there might be other
properties in a similar situation whose owners would want the same consideration, similar to
what happened when two more neighborhoods wanted the height restrictions that the Council
passed for First Addition and Lake Grove. She stated her reluctance to exempt one property.
Ms. Cofield observed that the `vested rights' theory in the law was based on the idea that
citizens entering into a process should be able to count on the law being uniform.
City Council Minutes Page 7 of 20
December 4, 2001
• Bob Barnum. 1445 Oak Terrace, Lake Corporation Vice President in charge of
Development
Mr. Barnum mentioned that the Lake Corporation consisted of 700 homeowners who lived in
several neighborhood associations. He stated that the Corporation supported the neighborhood
associations but believed that lakefront properties did not fit the ordinance. He explained that
most of the opposition to the ordinance came from lakefront property owners who would have to
get a variance to this ordinance due to the topography.
Mr. Barnum described the differences between lakefront properties and non -lakefront
properties. He noted that lakefront properties were built right up to the street and had no privacy
due to the small lots and close -set houses.
Mr. Barnum mentioned that 35% of the lakefront properties have redeveloped since 1985. He
discussed their concern that the height restriction in this ordinance would restrict homes to a
design that would diminish the value of the homes next door. He spoke of the `box look' that
they were starting to see around the lake.
Mr. Barnum asked the Council to exempt the lakefront properties from the ordinance in
recognition that they had issues separate from non -lakefront properties. He indicated that the
Corporation would work with the City to develop an overlay to address those unique issues so
that lakefront property owners did not have to spend thousands of dollars on the variance process
in attempting to conform to the Code.
Mr. Barnum indicated to Councilor Rohde that they did think that there should be a height
restriction on lakefront properties but this was not the appropriate mechanism for it. He
confirmed that the existing height limitation in the city has worked for lakefront properties in the
past. He reiterated that there were unique topographical considerations with lakefront properties,
such as little flat land. He described how the restrictions created the box look that the
Corporation wanted to avoid or discouraged homeowners from redeveloping their homes.
Councilor Rohde described his concern that the argument that the special conditions on the
lake, including the value of the property, led to the conclusion that restrictions placed on
lakefront property were too great a burden, and that the need to maximize the land use argued for
no setbacks and homes four to five stories high.
Mr. Barnum emphasized that the Board opposed four to five story buildings on the lake. He
reiterated that they believed that they needed an overlay that took into consideration the unique
factors of lakefront property. He stated that a 28 -foot height did not work with their topography
and land values. He spoke to working through the issues with City staff and Council support.
Mr. Barnum commented that the Corporation did not want to be adversarial but it did want the
Council to understand the negative impact that this ordinance would have on many lakefront
homeowners. He said that he understood the non -lakefront neighbors' concerns. He indicated
that they were asking for the same courtesy through an exemption and development of
regulations that made sense for both the lakefront property owners and the City.
Councilor McPeak mentioned that, although she did want to look at an overlay for lakefront
properties, tonight the Council was addressing a temporary ordinance affecting two
neighborhoods, including lakefront properties. She asked how many of the 700 homes in the
Corporation were in the Lakewood and Country Club/North Shore neighborhoods.
Mr. Barnum estimated that 60 to 70 lakefront homes lay within those neighborhoods. He
mentioned that four to six of those homes were in a situation similar to Ms. Marriott's, which
was why he suggested an exemption for lakefront properties. He reiterated that those who
opposed the ordinance were the lakefront property owners that it affected.
Councilor McPeak noted that those half a dozen property owners could apply for variances
during the temporary period that the ordinance was in effect until the Task Force report came
City Council Minutes Page 8 of 20
December 4, 2001 68
back. She indicated that she understood the problem and was almost convinced that those
properties needed special treatment because of the topography. She said that she was not
convinced that they needed to make an exemption to the ordinance tonight.
• Cara Thompson, 461 Country Club Road, Country Club/North Shore Neighborhood
Association
Ms. Thompson reviewed the history of the neighborhood's request for inclusion in the height
restriction ordinance, starting with a neighborhood survey of the 235 households and ending with
the Planning Commission recommending their inclusion to the Council. She mentioned that the
survey found traffic and `monster houses' as the two top concerns in the neighborhood. She
referenced the petition with 148 signatures that they presented to Council on August 7, 2001.
Ms. Thompson observed that the Infill Task Force has not returned with a workable ordinance
as quickly as the Council had hoped. She expressed their appreciation that in August the
Council approved sending forward their request to the Planning Commission. She held that,
given the procedural requirements, it would probably be a year before the City had an ordinance
in place.
Ms. Thompson spoke of those who felt that they would be injured by this ordinance because
they had to get a variance. She recalled that the Planning Commission decided to wait until after
the Infill Task Force report before examining amendments and exceptions.
Ms. Thompson cited the threats of partitions as the reason why they needed protection now.
She referenced the `monster houses' built on Troon and Chandler Roads, which have negatively
affected the adjacent homes with respect to views, privacy, quiet and property values. She
mentioned situations on Chandler Place and Westward Ho Road where the property owners did
not find partitioning as profitable as they had hoped.
Ms. Thompson held that the only winner in the game was the developer who put the maximum
bulk on lots. She argued that the City did not gain revenues from increased density and
maximum bulk housing because the adjacent property values decreased. She contended that the
city taxpayers had to foot the bill for the increased costs of providing urban services to more
people, given the legislative restrictions on systems development charges.
Ms. Thompson held that the community's duty was to protect the present residents' interests
and the neighborhood's ambience, views, privacy and character; its duty did not lie with the
builder whose sole interest was profit at the residents' expense. She asked the Council to
approve the interim ordinance until such time as the Infill Task Force made its recommendation.
• Henry Germond, 224 Iron Mountain Boulevard
Mr. Germond spoke in favor of the interim ordinance as one small step among many to regain
control of their quality of life. He pointed out that the Metro campaign to increase density
originated in the legislature, which was heavily lobbied by the Homebuilders Association. He
argued that it was time to challenge the proposition that `growth was good.' He contended that
higher density damaged their quality of life.
Mr. Germond argued that all the taxpayers paid more for infrastructure with each new house
built, citing the legislature's prohibition against charging full systems development fees,
especially for schools, at the insistence of the Homebuilders Association. He contended that this
was subsidy in the purest sense.
Councilor Rohde pointed out that this ordinance would not stop any partitions or building of
homes. Mr. Germond clarified that he believed this ordinance would be a small step in
inhibiting potential growth. He confirmed to the Councilor that his house, built in 1949, did not
comply with the ordinance with respect to roof pitch. He concurred that the ordinance applied
only to new construction or remodeling.
City Council Minutes Page 9 of 20
December 4, 2001
69
• Celeste Lewis, 4486 SW Washougal Avenue, Portland
Ms. Lewis stated that she has done residential architecture for 12 years in the Portland area,
including Lake Oswego. She mentioned her work on the Hillsdale Town Center Plan and the
Southwest Community Plan in Portland.
Ms. Lewis submitted a petition signed by 19 architects and 2 builders, who did residential work
in the Portland area, expressing their grave concerns about the ordinance and asking the Council
to table the issue. She cited the odd exceptions for housing and the probability that the
temporary ordinance could last longer than anticipated, given the group dynamics of solving
problems.
Ms. Lewis argued that regulating roof pitch would not necessarily solve the issue of good or bad
infill development. She presented a sketch depicting various options for roof pitches in relation
to setbacks. She concurred that a flat roof or shallow roof pitch had a bigger impact on the
neighborhood aesthetics but held that simply outlawing these options as viable building
alternatives was extreme.
Ms. Lewis suggested varying the setback requirements with respect to the roof pitch as a means
of addressing the massing and proportion issues. She mentioned that Lake Oswego had a history
of varying its requirements on different lots within the same zone. She spoke to allowing some
variation and working with the massing issues.
Ms. Lewis pointed out that in order to obtain a variance, the builder had to go hack to the same
neighborhood people who wanted the ordinance to begin with. She argued that it was difficult to
see how the ordinance would work fairly for the homeowner when the neighborhood association
favored a particular roof pitch.
Councilor Rohde observed that the massing issue was an intricate issue. He asked if Ms. Lewis
could suggest a temporary ordinance to provide security to those individuals fearful of
developers attempting to build inappropriate houses before the permanent ordinance became
effective, which did not put a blanket restriction on height, as this temporary ordinance did. Ms.
Lewis suggested having three cutoffs: a flat roof (or a roof pitch of 3:12 or less) could not be
higher than 25 feet, a roof pitch of 3:12 to 6:12 could not be higher than 28 feet, and a roof pitch
greater than 6:12 could not be higher than 32 feet.
Mayor Hammerstad asked Ms. Heisler if the Task Force has discussed this idea, as it did sound
reasonable. Ms. Heisler said that the Task Force has discussed varying setbacks by height but
not by roof pitch. Ms. Lewis urged the City to work with the American Institute of Architects
Urban Design Committee, which was a good resource for these issues.
• Janis Olson, 1400 Fairway Road
Ms. Olson spoke in support of the interim zoning Ordinance 2308. She described the
remodeling down by the Macintosh family, the current owners of the old Schlining estate at the
end of Fairway Road, which preserved the character of the house, as the original homeowner's
son had required of the purchaser. She pointed out that not every homeowner could be so
choosy about his/her buyer in the interests of preserving the character of the property.
Ms. Olson mentioned that the Schlining estate had three additional undeveloped large parcels of
land, comprising a total of over 5.5 acres. She noted that R-15 zoning translated to 10 to I I
homes on those parcels. She said that a Fairway neighbor intent upon preserving the character of
the neighborhood purchased all three lots and sold two of them with deed restrictions preventing
subdivision for 20 years.
Ms. Olson mentioned that the first lot already had one 6,000 square foot home under
construction and another home of similar size in the design process. She argued that, even
though these were large homes, they could fit into the neighborhood if they were compatible
City Council Minutes Page 10 of 20
December 4, 2001 'j ()
with the existing and desired character of the neighborhood and with the building size and
proportions of the existing dwellings.
Ms. Olson pointed out that most people in their neighborhood did not have the funds to do what
the Fairway neighbor did, as 50% of those responding to the neighborhood survey were over 60
years old and on a retirement income. She asked the Council to pass the ordinance and provide
the neighborhood with interim protection.
Ms. Olson reviewed other potential developments on historic properties on Fairway Road,
questioning whether the developers would build homes consistent with the neighborhood. She
concurred that the community's duty lay with protecting the present residents' interests and the
neighborhood character. She asked the Council to hear the neighborhood's voice in expressing
its desire to preserve the picturesque, scenic and romantic character of the neighborhood.
• Elaine Lord, 1048 North Shore Road
Ms. Lord mentioned her family's desire to preserve the history of Lake Oswego. She stated her
dream to make their 1962 lakefront house conform to the neighbors. She expressed her concern
that this ordinance would either prohibit or hamper doing so. She presented pl►otographs
showing her house and the adjacent homes. She said that they wanted to pitch their flat roof
house but feared that the slope on their lot would not qualify as a `sloped lot' under the City
definition.
Ms. Lord said that she did not have a lot of money to go through the variance process. She
discussed her concern that if she could not build up, then her property value would be greatly
reduced. She asked the Council to consider an overlay for the lakefront properties, as they were
unique.
• Gary Lord, 1048 North Shore Road
Mr. Lord said that he counted 200 homes on the map that this ordinance would affect, many of
which would have difficulty retaining property value and keeping in character with the lake. He
referenced a photo, which illustrated a one-story home with a daylight basement on a level lot
that complied with the proposed ordinance. He contended that he could not build up or maintain
the neighborhood character on his level. He pointed out that a 1920 home and a 1939 home,
while out of compliance with the ordinance, did fit in with the neighborhood.
Mr. Lord spoke in support of an exemption for lake homes with the option of an overlay. He
mentioned that he found the terms `MacMansion" and "monster homes' degrading to those who
worked hard on their homes.
Mr. Lord pointed out that many lakefront homes needed to build 10 feet higher than their
current location (out of the flood plain) in order to comply with current flood insurance laws. He
contended that doing so would be impossible under the proposed ordinance. He concurred that
the lake homes were of a different nature and with different problems than non -lakefront homes
in the associated neighborhoods.
Councilor Hoffman asked how the proposed ordinance would impact Mr. Lord. Ms. Heisler
concurred that the primary impact would be limiting the building height to 28 feet, which Mr.
Lord was concerned would prohibit him from building another story. She noted that on a sloped
lot, a building could be 35 feet high.
Mr. Lord indicated to the Councilor that he had no plans to go up higher than needed to modify
the house. He explained that this 1962 house (3,400 square feet and located on an expensive
piece of property) had little usable space because of its design and construction. He argued that
he would have to buy variances to do anything in an attempt to adjust the house to fit in with the
existing neighborhood.
Ms. Heisler referenced the North Shore 1 example on page 33, which illustrated the dilemma of
a sloped lot.
City Council Minutes Page 11 of 20
December 4, 2001 71
Councilor McPeak asked for an estimate on the cost of buying a variance. Mr. Lord
mentioned a cost of $1,000 per variance. Ms. Heisler confirmed that staff would interpret a
variance request to height and roof pitch as two variances. Mr. Lord contended that building on
his lot would require more than two variances. Councilor McPeak asked staff to find out the
potential cost of variances with respect to the ordinance under consideration.
Mayor Hammerstad recessed the meeting at 8:25 p.m. for a break.
Mayor Hammerstad reconvened the meeting at 8:30 p.m.
Councilor Rohde declared that during the break he received a phone call from an individual
who was watching the televised meeting at home, and wanted to testify on this issue. Mr.
Powell said that ex parte contacts did not count in legislative hearings.
• Phil Scoles, 149 Middlecrest Road
Mr. Scoles referenced his letter. He said that, while he supported the overall concept of an
interim moratorium, he had some suggestions to make it more effective and to help set the stage
for the Infill Task Force. He agreed with the exemption of lakefront homes, as they were of a
different category, and the Infill Task Force should deal with them separately from the
neighborhoods.
Mr. Scoles spoke to putting in a sunset clause to lilt the moratorium automatically in a year,
should the Task Force become deadlocked or the issue become a `political hot potato.' He
argued that an ending date would also motivate the Task Force to find appropriate compromises.
He held that a sunset clause guaranteed to the citizens that this was not a permanent situation.
Ms. Scoles mentioned his concern about the roof pitch issue, which he suggested be dropped.
He discussed considerations of aesthetics and preserving view corridors and solar access. He
spoke to restricting non -lakefront homes to two stories, excluding basements and daylight
basements. He pointed out that a steeper roof pitch made it easier to keep the roof clean, given
the cedar and fir trees prevalent in the neighborhood. He spoke of a 32 -foot roof with 28 feet at
the mid -point.
Mr. Scoles mentioned that his house sat in the middle of two neighborhood examples of infill,
Middlecrest 1 (good infill) and Middlecrest 2 (bad infill). He explained that the owner of the
Middlecrest 2 example remodeled on a non -conforming use and could not have done anything to
change the appearance of the house.
Mayor Hammerstad asked that Mr. Scoles' letter go to the Infill Task Force.
0 Mark Roberts, 1024 North Shore Road
Mr. Roberts said that, while he supported an attempt to maintain the character of the lake, he
thought that this was the wrong way to do it. He agreed that the Lords' situation (of a lot
potentially not meeting the City's definition of a sloped lot) existed for other lots on the lake as
well. He noted which of the examples identified as `good development' on pages 33 through 35
did not meet the proposed ordinance or did so only at only one story.
Mr. Roberts observed that the testimony tonight focused on infill and partitioning and not on
the height of the houses. lie held that because the `good development' examples did not meet
the new height requirement, it became an issue.
Mr. Roberts argued that the allocation of 28 feet high for a flat lot and 35 feet for a sloped lot
was an attempt to reduce potential three story homes to two stories and two story homes to one
story because the height was only increased by seven feet on a ten -foot slope; thus, the
homeowner lost three feet. He concurred that this ordinance represented a negative impact on
sloped lots around the lake.
Mr. Roberts argued that the concern with respect to houses not described as `good
development' was more about style than height. He pointed out, with respect to the cost
City Council Minutes Page 12 of 20
December 4, 2001 7 2
ti
concerns raised on variances, that application for a variance was not a guarantee of receiving a
variance. He contended that passing this ordinance armed the opposition to reasonable
development.
11 r. Roberts referenced the information from staff identifying the numerous variance requests
for lake properties; most of which were granted and few of which had negative comments by the
neighbors. He mentioned the Lake Corporation statement that 35% of the houses have been
redeveloped with many still left for redevelopment.
Mr. Roberts held that it was `telling;' that a homeowner conceded that his home would not meet
the standards that the neighbors were trying to impose upon others today, yet his home was
'good development.'
Mr. Roberts characterized the ordinance as a `good first attempt' but held that it did not address
the issues. He spoke to looking at the whole Development Code with lot size dictating the kind
of development on the property as opposed to matching North Shore development to First
Addition development.
Councilor Hoffman asked Mr. Roberts what he thought 100 people opposing a variance request
told the decision makers about whether that variance should be granted. Mr. Roberts said that
the issue was that the proposed change would harm people on sloped lots. He argued that those
with sloped lots would need to come in for a variance in order to get reasonable development but
the neighbors would forget that a house they considered to be `good development' was 41 feet
tall and only look at whether the request met the Code as changed.
Mr. Roberts pointed out that many people purchased their lots knowing what the Development
Code was. He argued that this ordinance would `pull the rug out from under them' in making
changes that impacted sloped lots. He reiterated that this ordinance would arm the opposition
because it forced property owners to ask for a variance for something that they would have
received under the existing code.
• Anthony Seyer, 220 Chandler Place
Mr. Seyer mentioned his family's work on the petition requesting their neighborhood's
inclusion in the temporary ordinance on building height and roof pitch. He recalled that this
became an issue in the neighborhood because of a partition request on Chandler Road, which he
characterized as `an assault upon the neighborhood.' He indicated that the buyer who purchased
that property did not intend to partition it now.
Mr. Seyer discussed their concern that the R-10 zoning in the neighborhood, in combination
with the recent vacation of right-of-way by the City, created situations in which lots that were
previously not partitionable became viable candidates for partitioning. He emphasized that they
wanted to preserve the character of their neighborhood.
Mr. Seyer held that the matter was still urgent for the neighborhood as a new owner on Iron
Mountain Road has requested a partition and has approached his neighbor about buying 2,000
square feet to create a third home site. He stated that they wanted assurances that the character
of their neighborhood would be protected. He asked the Council to approve the interim
ordinance.
• Bill Ward, 17152 Cedar Road
Mr. Ward spoke against the ordinance. He referenced materials in the Council packet that he
had submitted earlier. He argued that the existing restrictions were already adequate, and
possibly too restrictive as they stood. He contended that the current setback requirements
allowed someone to build on only 25% of the lot, leaving 75% in open space. He observed that
they have managed to build decent homes under the existing regulations. He held that the
existing height restrictions effectively limited homes to two stories, given the construction
requirements for building a home.
City Council Minutes Page 13 of 20
December 4, 2001 73
Mr. Ward reported that he obtained 119 signatures in a short period of time in his neighborhood
from people who opposed further restricting the current limitations on height on single -family
residences in Lake Oswego, and imposing any limitations on roof pitch of single family
residences and their accessory structures in Lake Oswego. He said that 75% of the people with
whom he spoke did not feel that the community needed further restrictions.
Mr. Ward described the roof pitch issue as `silly.' He cited the Parthenon in Athens, Greece,
which has long been regarded as one of the best proportioned and best designed structures ever
built, and had a roof pitch of 3-12. He contended that Lake Oswego had a number of good-
looking homes with flat roofs. He spoke against prohibiting flat roofs as a design option.
Mr. Ward held that they had certain rights to use their properties as they saw fit within the
existing strictures; they have been living with those strictures and building decent homes. He
argued that further restricting people's ability to design and build homes was a bad idea.
• Barbara MacIntosh, 1200 Fairway Road
Ms. Macintosh noted that the Lords did not intend to build within the next year, and therefore
would probably not fall within the timeframe of the ordinance. She mentioned that Mr. Ward's
petition was from the Bryant area on the other side of the lake and not from the historic, affected
neighborhoods.
Ms. Macintosh argued that infill and partitioning did relate to roof pitch and height because
developers had less economic incentive to partition lots under those restrictions. She reiterated
that infill was upon the community, citing homes for sale on various streets in the area.
Ms. Maclntosh conceded that they could not control infill because of their zoning but reiterated
that they wanted reasonable guidelines to protect the neighborhoods. She concurred that the
height and roof pitch proposals were not perfect but held that was why this was a temporary
ordinance. She conceded that their examples did include homes that exceeded the height
restrictions.
Ms. MacIntosh argued that this ordinance would help get them to the next step, which was the
work of the Task Force. She indicated that they would appreciate it if the Council would
approve this small step on the way to the next point.
• Alice Schlenker, 257 Iron Mountain Blvd
Ms. Schlenker mentioned that she also owned a flat-roofed home in First Addition. She
recalled that the issue of height, infill and density came before the Council on more than one
occasion when she was Mayor. She described it as one of the most important issues that the
Councilors would deal with in their terms as elected officials.
Ms. Schlenker read several excerpts from "The Restrictions of Forest Hills," v.182, p. 190,
signed by M. Ladd and A.S. Petulow of the Oregon Iron & Steel Company. She commented that
these restrictions were stili in the deed for her 1927 home on Iron Mountain Blvd. The
restrictions mandated building only single detached dwelling houses and outbuildings for a
period of 25 years from January 1, 1925, which cost not less than $4,000, and prohibited any
portion of a building within 25 feet of the lot line adjacent to a dedicated street.
Nis. Schlenker commented that she preferred to call her neighborhood (Country Club
neighborhood) the Heritage neighborhood because it was a heritage neighborhood. She thanked
the Council for including their neighborhood in the proposed interim ordinance.
Nis. Schlenker pointed out that from the beginning of Lake Oswego, there were restrictions with
intent towards character and land use. She observed that the issue of character was a significant
issue at the state, regional and local community levels, especially with its significant impact on
individual neighborhoods with distinctive characters, such as Laurelhurst in Portland and Ballard
in Seattle. She suggested that the Council take a walking tour of the neighborhood in order to
City Council Minutes Page 14 of 20 .r
December 4, 2001
understand why so many people signed the petition out of their deep concern and interest in the
ordinances before the Council.
Ms. Schlenker observed that they were not talking about height as much as they were talking
about character and the community. She spoke to the importance of preserving; the historical
intent of those who came before them and maintaining an area that gave the community
something special within a few square blocks of the city.
Ms. Schlenker said that 10 years ago the Council knew that these issues of lot partitioning and
density would come to the Council; now this Council was faced with them. She urged the
Council to pass the interim ordinance, not because it was a great ordinance, but because it bought
the community time to make the permanent ordinance better for Lake Oswego. She stated her
belief that there was overwhelming support in certain portions of Lake Oswego for the ordinance
because the people, like the Councilors, cared about what happened to the community.
• Mike Glanville, 769 North Shore Road
Mr. Glanville recounted his work on remodeling his 1968 home located on a flat lakefront lot
with a second story at street level. He mentioned developing a master plan to pitch the roof
because he was tired of cleaning off the tree debris every few weeks. He said that it took him
nine months to get his three variances and another several months to get his building permit. He
commented that the cost of the variances was not high on the City fee side but it did cost to have
the architects go through the process of documenting their design and plan and obtaining
neighbor approval.
Mr. Glanville mentioned his concern about the height, as he has not yet done the roof. He said
that he did not recall how high the roof was but he knew that it did not obstruct any neighbor's
view. He held that putting restrictions on without evaluating each case created problems because
things were different on the lake.
Mr. Glanville said that he found the City's development process fair but he was now concerned
about losing his whole master plan because of these height restrictions. He mentioned that his
next-door neighbors had not known about the neighborhood association's petition; they were not
consulted. He indicated that he did get the City's notice. He commented that he had had to go
through the Lake Corporation to get approval before he came to the City, which made for a long
approval process.
Mayor Hammerstad closed the public hearing.
COUNCIL DISCUSSION
Councilor McPeak moved to approve LU 01-00050, Ordinance 2308. Councilor Graham
seconded the motion.
Councilor Rohde recalled that he had supported bringing this forward in its current form with
some misgivings with respect to the roof pitch issue. He mentioned that he lived in a flat -roofed
house that fit in with the neighborhood, which gave him pause on whether it was appropriate to
make these kind of restrictions. lie said that Mr. Scoles' letter outlined his feelings. He
indicated that he could support the ordinance if the Council modified it with respect to the sunset
clause, the roof pitch and other items in the letter.
Councilor Hoffman said that he had no problem with using zoning to affect design, aesthetics
and neighborhood compatibility. He pointed out that zoning regulated use, density and bulk, and
they have had zoning for 75 years. He mentioned that zoning was based upon nuisance law,
which came from the fifteenth century and the idea that one used his/her property so as not to
injure his/her neighbors.
Councilor Hoffman quoted from an 1872 Supreme Court case, which ruled that "every person
ought to use his property so not to injure his neighbors, and that private interests must be made
City Council Minutes Pae 15 of 20
December 4, 2001 g '7
subservient to the general interests of the community." He noted that that was the police power
that gave municipalities their authority. He explained that the general justification of the
ordinance was that a restriction on any given lot was justified because that property owner
benefited from the similar restrictions placed on his/her neighbors' lots.
Councilor Hoffman held that the regulation of aesthetics was a legitimate goal and justification
for zoning, citing the aesthetic concerns of a Cleveland suburb named Euclid as the origination
of zoning.
Councilor Hoffman concurred that the character of the neighborhood was of legitimate concern.
He mentioned his concern about the problem they were trying to solve, what techniques were
available and whether or not this was the right tool.
Councilor Hoffman observed that making these decisions was the proper role for the Council as
the policy makers. He spoke to the Council's role in balancing the equities, which involved the
comparison of the cost of the restrictions on lots versus the benefits to the community as a
whole. He said that he thought that this was the right tool.
Councilor Hoffman said that he did not believe that they needed an overlay for the Lake
Corporation. He referenced Ms. Schlenker's comments about the importance of character and
the partitioning, zoning, density and infill issues. He concurred that this was an interim
ordinance that bought them time.
Councilor Hoffman said that his support of the ordinance did not send a message to Lake
Oswego or developers that he did not approve partitioning or disfavored developers. He held
that developers had a legitimate interest in the economic viability and development of the
community. He indicated that he did not see the ordinance as a way of decreasing density or
stopping infill or partitioning. He agreed that it was a small interim step towards preserving the
character of the neighborhoods.
Councilor Hoffman held that change was coming and that neighborhoods would change over
time, observing that they were not Williamsburg. He said that his goal with the Infill Task Force
and this ordinance was to moderate change so that it occurred over decades as opposed to weeks.
Councilor McPeak concurred with Councilor Hoffman's remarks. She quoted from the
Comprehensive Plan, Goal 2, Land Use Planning, Section 1, Item 4B (page 24), which required
the use of land use regulations to "promote the compatibility between development and existing
and desired neighborhood character." She held that the Council's organization of the Infill Task
Force was an important step in working towards that Comprehensive Plan goal and recognizing
the land use issues currently facing the city. She observed that these issues have grown out of
the economic pressures on developers, such as many people willing to spend money on large
homes.
Councilor McPeak said that the Infill Task Force would deal with making the necessary
accommodations between competing interests. She commented that many in the audience might
not be happy with the Infill Task Force's recommendations but argued that they were going to
have to accept some accommodation of their best hopes for Lake Oswego.
Councilor McPeak described the Council's action tonight as adopting "a hammer." She agreed
with Ms. Schlenker that it was not a great ordinance but it did buy them time. She recalled that
the Council asked the Planning Commission to develop a fast, easy -to -interpret rule while
waiting for the Infill Task Force. She concurred that height was not the be-all and end-all of the
infill issues but she pointed out that it was something simple to deal with and understandable to
everyone.
Councilor McPeak said that she would vote for the ordinance because she saw it as a necessary
interim measure to avoid bad events in these neighborhoods. She expressed her hope that they
could do something to push the Infill Task Force into returning with a more comprehensive
package of tools to address these difficult problems in a more subtle way.
City Council Minutes Page 16 of 20
December 4, 2001 7
Councilor Schoen recalled that the original concerns revolved around height and volume on lots
in First Addition and Lake Grove. He mentioned the inclusion of waterfront properties within
the inner neighborhood as a concern also, as many of those properties already exceeded the
City's recommended heights and volume. He commented that he saw the examples provided by
the neighborhood as seeming to perpetuate existing designs, rather than addressing the
transitional nature of the community or showing any consideration of the diverse designs within
the neighborhood.
Councilor Schoen said that he was impressed by the paper signed by 19 architects, which
discussed the compatibility of a variety of styles and roof pitches when properly designed. He
spoke to including more community input on the issue. He disagreed that big houses were
driven by developers, contending that they were driven by buyers who could afford large houses.
He indicated that while he wanted to maintain the character of the neighborhoods, they had to
realize that partitions would happen. He expressed his hope that appropriate steps could be
taken within the existing guidelines.
Councilor Schoen discussed his concern with how long this ordinance would be `temporary.'
He held that it would be in effect for at least a year. He said that he could not support the
ordinance unless they exempted lakefront properties and removed the roof pitch, which he held
were irrelevant to the issues under discussion. He concurred that waterfront properties were
unique, while recognizing the issues of the rest of the neighborhood.
Councilor Turchi said that he had voted against sending this request to the Planning
Commission, as he thought that the two neighborhoods were both heterogeneous enough and
diverse enough to create the split seen here tonight. He held that the ordinance was too crude a
method to meet the needs of all the homes within those two neighborhoods.
Councilor Turchi referenced Ms. Schlenker's remarks that the issue was not height, but rather
character. He pointed out that 50% of the examples provided did not ►neet the height
requirement. He said that lie wanted to preserve the neighborhoods but he also wanted the Infill
Task Force to do the job right in a thoughtful and careful way. He held that this was not the right
way to do it, although it was a good first attempt. He indicated that he looked forward to
supporting another approach in the future.
Councilor Rohde indicated to Councilor Hoffman that he agreed with him on the issue of
property values and the need for government regulations to prevent people from doing things on
their properties that negatively affected their neighbors. He pointed out that none of the
documentation in the record provided evidence of an actual loss in property value as a result of
one of these large homes built next to a property, although many such assertions were made.
Councilor Rohde described the variety of styles in the Country Club neighborhood. He
observed that many of the homes would be in violation of the proposed ordinance. He argued
that this went beyond what the City should be doing in terms of dictating design. He concurred
with Councilor Schoen in supporting an ordinance exempting lakefront property, deleting the
roof pitch section and adding a sunset clause. He mentioned his fear that if the Task Force could
not complete its work for any reason, then the temporary ordinance might become a permanent
ordinance.
Mayor Hammerstad said that she had not voted to send the request to the Planning
Commission because she was afraid that it would become the controversy that it became. She
stated that she did not see the ordinance as `anti -growth,' as it would not stop partitioning even iI'
the developer made less money on a smaller house. She held that the height restrictions were not
a driving factor for compatibility, noting that at least four Councilors lived in homes that would
be out of compliance with these restrictions.
Mayor liammerstad commented that they wanted compatibility, and not `cookie cutter.' She
described 28 feet as very restrictive and not necessarily compatible everywhere. She reiterated
City Council Minutes Page 17 of 20
December 4, 2001 '7 ��
that the need for exceptions to the ordinance meant that it had flaws. She spoke to the Task
Force finishing its work in an atmosphere not as charged as the existing atmosphere.
Mayor Hammerstad observed that the Planning Commission sent back to the Council exactly
what it asked for as a body. She mentioned her dilemma, in that she did not support that request
and yet she was the head of the Council as a body. She pointed out that the Council has
telegraphed to the Task Force its intentions of adopting restrictions, which she feared opened up
a window to quick speculators if the Council did not pass the ordinance.
Mayor Hammerstad spoke in support of exempting the lakefront properties, as it was a
different area with different needs due to the value of the property. She explained that, while she
was reluctant to ask for amendments because she did not think they should have done this in the
first place, neither did she want to pass the ordinance in its current form. She said that she would
vote for the ordinance with amendments.
Councilor Rohde moved to amend the proposed ordinance to exempt all lakefront
properties. Councilor Schoen seconded the motion.
Mr. Powell clarified that the ordinance would come back to the Council on December 18 for the
adoption of the findings, whatever amendments the Council made. Mayor Hammerstad asked
for newspaper notice of the ordinance changes.
Councilor Hoffman discussed his concern with exempting all the lakefront properties. He
commented that, while he was not certain that this was the right tool for the lakefront properties,
he knew that some of the bitterest compatibility disputes have been between lakefront neighbors.
Councilor McPeak reiterated that she wanted to look at an overlay for lakefront properties once
they had the Infill Task Force recommendations. Mayor Hammerstad indicated to the
Councilor that she would vote against an ordinance that did not exempt the lakefront properties.
A voice vote was taken and the motion to amend the ordinance to exempt the lakefront
propertiesap ssed with Mayor Hammerstad, Councilors Schoen, Turchi, Graham, McPeak,
Hoffman and Rohde voting in favor. 17-01
Councilor Rohde moved to amend the proposed ordinance to delete the roof pitch
restrictions. Councilor Schoen seconded the motion.
Mayor Hammerstad stated that she would not support this amendment, as she did not see it as a
major issue. She spoke to keeping the ordinance confined to the issues that the Council could
deal with easily.
Councilor Rohde explained that this was primarily a design issue. He argued that the Council
went too far in telling people that a flat roofed house was not compatible in these two
neighborhoods.
Councilor Turchi concurred with Mayor Hammerstad.
A roll call vote was taken and the motion to amend the ordinance to delete the roof pitch
restrictions failed with Councilors Schoen and Rohde voting in favor; Mayor I-lammerstad,
Councilors Turchi, Graham, McPeak and Iloffman voting against the motion. 12-51
Councilor Rohde moved to amend the ordinance to add a one year sunset clause or that it
will sunset upon the adoption of an infill ordinance as provided to the Council by the Task
Force, whichever comes first. Councilor Schoen seconded the motion.
Mayor Hammerstad spoke in support of the sunset clause. She commented that the Infill Task
Force needed to complete its work as soon as possible.
Mayor Hammerstad confirmed to Councilor McPeak that, if the Infill Task Force took longer
than a year, a sunset clause could result in the quick speculation she had mentioned earlier. She
City Council Minutes Page 18 of 20
December 4, 2001 �7
commented that she thought that a year was plenty of time, given the pressure on the Task Force
and the Council to do something.
Councilor Schoen commented that if they went beyond a year in adopting the final form of the
ordinance, then they would create problems.
A roll call vote was taken and the motion to amend the ordinance to insert a one-year
sunset clauseap ssed with Mayor Hammerstad, Councilors Schoen, 'Turchi, Graham,
McPeak, Hoffman and Rohde voting in favor. ]7-0]
A voice vote was taken and the motion to adopt the ordinance as amended passed with
Mayor Hammerstad, Councilors Schoen, Turchi, Graham, McPeak, Hoffman and Rohde
voting in favor. ]7-0]
Mr. Powell noted that this was a tentative decision of the Council, which would be final upon
adoption of the written findings and ordinance on December 18, 2001, after 6 p.m.
9. ORDINANCES AND FINDINGS
9.1 Ordinance 2307, an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego
adopting new Lake Oswego Development Standard 26 (Local Street Connectivity),
adopting related amendments to Lake Oswego Code Section 42.03.085 (cul-de-sacs
and dead end streets), Lake Oswego Code Section 49.20.110 (Minor Development),
and Lake Oswego Development Standard 20 (On-site Circulation Standards) and
adopting findings LU 00-0015(A) - 1450
A public hearing was held on this item on November 6, 2001. A motion was made to
tentatively approve LU 00-0015 (A), which passed 6-0. Mayor Hammerstad was excused.
Mayor Hammerstad read the ordinance title.
Councilor Schoen moved to enact Ordinance 2307. Councilor McPeak seconded the
motion. A voice vote was taken and the motion passed with Mayor Hammerstad,
Councilors Schoen, Turchi, Graham, McPeak, Hoffman and Rohde voting in favor. ]7-0]
10. INFORMATION FROM COUNCIL
10.1 Councilor Information
Mayor Hammerstad reviewed the changes in the Council calendar. She mentioned the density
guidelines study session scheduled for Tuesday, January 8, at 6 p.m. in the Council Chambers.
She explained that the Council would hear public testimony on the density guidelines on January
15, leave the record open for 10 days, and conduct its deliberations and decision on February 2,
the next televised meeting. She noted the cancellation of the January 22 meeting and the re-
scheduling of those items to a January 29 meeting.
10.1.1 Neighborhood Enhancement Grant Recommendations
Councilor Rohde moved to adopt proposed neighborhood enhancement program proposals
totaling $25,000 for FY2001/02. Councilor Schoen seconded the motion. A voice vote was
taken and the motionap ssed with Mayor Hammerstad, Councilors Schoen, Turchi,
Graham, McPeak, Hoffman and Rohde voting in favor. ]7-0]
10.2 Reports of Council Committees, Organizational Committees and Intergovernmental
Committees
Councilor Graham informed the community that people could drop off toys lirr the 'Toys for
Tots program at the main fire station from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, until
December 21. She explained that the families were selected to receive food baskets and toys
based on recommendations from Clackamas County Social Services and special requests from
City Council Minutes
December 4, 2001
Page 19 of 20
the families or their neighbors and friends. She mentioned that the Fire Department did need
some help to deliver the baskets. She directed people to contact Julie Morris at the Fire
Department's main business phone number.
11. REPORTS OF OFFICERS
11.1 City Manager
Doug Schmitz, City Manager, announced that Gramor submitted the development application
for Block 138 yesterday afternoon at 5 p.m. He said that the Planning Department staff would
begin the application review and schedule it for a hearing.
11.2 City Attorney
12. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Hammerstad adjourned the meeting at 9;45 p.m.
Respectfully submittal,
gl"D,y.� J
Robyn Christie
City Recorder
ie Hammerstad, Mayor
City Council Minutes
December 4, 2001
Page 20 of 20
s()
5.3.5
01/15/02
MINUTES OF DECEMBER 11, 2001
SPECIAL MORNING MEETING
00, O, !
O
CITY COUNCIL MORNING MEETING MINUTES
December 11, 2001
'-
Mayor Judie Hammerstad called the special City Council meeting to order at 7:30 a.m. on
December 11, 2001, in the Council Workroom.
Present: Mayor Hammerstad, Councilors Rohde, Schoen and Turchi. Councilors
Hoffman, McPeak and Graham were excused
Staff Present: David Powell, City Attorney; Tom Ratstetter, Municipal Judge
3. CHARTER OFFICER EVALUATION
Mayor Hammerstad recessed the meeting to Executive Session at 7:31 a.m. pursuant to ORS
192.660(1)(i), to review and evaluate the performance of an officer, employee or staff member
pursuant to standards, criteria and policy directives adopted by the City Council.
3.1 Municipal Judge
3.2 City Attorney
4. RETURN TO OPEN SESSION
Mayor Hammerstad reconvened the special meeting at 9:18 a.m.
Mayor Hammerstad mentioned that the coyote petition went away after the OpEd piece.
Mayor Hammerstad advised the Council that it might receive a petition with respect to
questions of language with respect to the Christmas tree or Holiday tree. The Council discussed
the issue.
Councilor Rolyde noted that the Council did not hold its annual dinner with the Boards and
Commission chairs this year. Mayor Hammerstad said that she would ask Mr. Schmitz about
it. She mentioned hearing talk about doing something at the golf course for all Board and
Commission members as opposed to a dinner for the chairs. Councilor Rohde spoke to sticking
with the dinner for the chairs.
Councilor Turchi described the lights on the street trees as "pathetic." Mayor Hammerstad
explained that there was not enough electrical power to put more strings on the trees. She
indicated that the decorators have agreed to arrange the strings in a more attractive manner.
Councilor Turchi held that it was better to decorate one tree well than many trees poorly.
5. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Hammerstad adjourned the meeting at 9:22 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Robyn CI istie
City Recorder
APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
ON
Judie Hammerstad, Mayor
City Council Morning Meeting
December 11, 2001
Page l of 1
8;i
5.3.6
01/15/02
MINUTES OF DECEMBER 11, 2001
SPECIAL MEETING
85
CO
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES
December 11, 2001
Mayor Judie Hammerstad called the special City Council meeting to order at 5:57 p.m. on
December 11, 2001, in the Council Workroom.
Present: Mayor Hammerstad, Councilors McPeak, Schoen, Turchi and Rohde. Councilors
Hoffman and Graham were excused
Staff Present: Doug Schmitz, City Manager; Darrell Beck
3. CHARTER OFFICER EVALUATION
Mayor Hammerstad recessed the meeting to Executive Session at 5:58 p.m. pursuant to ORS
192.660(1)(i), to review and evaluate the performance of an officer, employee or staff member
pursuant to standards, criteria and policy directives adopted by the City Council.
3.1 City Manager
4. RETURN TO OPEN SESSION
Mayor Hammerstad reconvened the special meeting at 8:39 p.m.
Mayor Hammerstad noted the arborist matrix prepared by staff ranking the arborists it interviewed
for the position on the Tree Task Force. She observed that it seemed reasonable to nominate the top
ranked person, Terry Flannagan.
Councilor McPeak moved to appoint 'ferry Flannagan to the Tree 'Task Force. Councilor
Schoen seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken and the motion gassed with Mayor
Hammerstad, Councilors McPeak, Schoen, Turchi and Rohde voting in favor. 15-01
Councilor Rohde raised the issue of the Council/Board Chairs dinner. Mayor Hammerstad said
that Mr. Schmitz indicated that it slipped through the cracks this year, as Bob Chizum formerly had
made the arrangements. She suggested holding it in January, if the Council was interested in doing
it.
Mayor I-lammerstad mentioned hearing that the Board and Commission members might like an
event at the golf course. She observed that it probably would cost about the same as the Chair
dinner, and not be as intimate. Councilor Rohde argued for staying with the dinner, as it gave
some recognition to the position of chair.
Mayor Hammerstad spoke of holding a summertime event in a park for all Board and Commission
members. She said that she would inform Mr. Schmitz to make arrangements for the annual dinner.
Councilor Rohde asked to have a formal swearing-in ceremony for the Youth Advisory Council.
5. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor I-lammerstad adjourned the meeting at 8:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
�L
Robyn Ch istie
City Recorder
APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
ON
Judie Hammerstad, Mayor
City Council Minutes Page 1 of 1
December 11, 2001 8
5.3.7
MINUTES OF DECEMBER 18, 2001
REGULAR MEETING
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
December 18, 2001
Mayor Judie Hammerstad called the regular City Council meeting to order at 6:07 p.m. on
December 18, 2001, in the City Council Chambers.
Present: Mayor Hammerstad, Councilors Turchi, Graham, McPeak, Hoffman, Rohde and
Schoen.
Staff Present: Doug Schmitz, City Manager; David Powell, City Attorney; Robyn Christie, City
Recorder; Richard Seals, Financial Planning Manager
3. PRESENTATIONS AND RECOGNITION
3.1 Distinguished Service Award, Douglas P. Cushing, for service on Development
Review Commission as chair and member
On behalf of the City Council, Mayor Iiammerstad presented a Distinguished Service Award
to Mr. Cushing for his 6.5 years of service on the Development Review Board and thanked him
for his work.
3.2 League of Oregon Cities recognition of David Powell
Mayor Hammerstad presented a plaque from the League of Oregon Cities to David Powell for
his work on public contracting on behalf of Oregon cities during the 2001 legislative session.
She mentioned the respect that Mr. Powell had from his peers around Oregon and the Council's
pride in having him as the Lake Oswego City Attorney.
3.3 Adult Community Center Marketing Presentation
Theme Grenz and Randy Akin gave a PowerPoint presentation. Mr. Grenz mentioned that
Mayor Hammerstad and Councilor Graham saw the full presentation at the Center in October.
He said that, along with their fellow PSU students Erin Devin and David Vandchey, he and Mr.
Akin developed a marketing plan for the Lake Oswego Adult Community Center.
Mr. Grenz reviewed the initial problem statement given to them by the ACC Board (page 1) and
the revised problem statement that they developed from the initial interviews (page 2). He
described the research steps they took to gather information on which to base their
recommendations and implementation strategy (page 2); they primarily used interviewing of
Center members, staff, volunteers, non-members and the Advisory Board.
Mr. Grenz reviewed the interview results (pages 3, 4, 5), which were generally positive from
members, volunteers and non-members. He pointed out that the Advisory Board had a different
view of the Center than the others.
Mr. Akin presented the conclusions they reached based on their interviews (pages 5,6). He
noted that strengths of the Center included people liking the name and the image of the Center.
He observed that people often did not know that the Center provided a service that they were
interested in; the Center needed to promote itself and its existing services rather than develop
new services.
Mr. Akin mentioned the lack of recognition of the Center's logo as a weakness (page 6). He
suggested changing it or teaming it up with a slogan. He pointed out that, with the Center only
open during the day, they needed to change their target audience from baby boomers and the
sandwich generation to focusing on the 60 plus group (page 6,8). He reviewed the membership
data (page 7).
City Council Minutes Page 1 of 10
December 18, 2001
91
Mr. Akin and Mr. Grenz reviewed their recommendations (pages 8, 9,10). Mr. Akin
explained that they based their strategy on communicating to people what services the Center
provided. He mentioned developing a relationship with the schools and churches in the
community. He discussed the need for a team to implement the strategy. Mr. Grenz presented a
proposed logo and slogan "Where AGE is an attitude," to create a more active inlage for the
Center.
Mr. Akin mentioned that the total cost of the recommendations, excluding hiring a part-time
Event Coordinator, was $8,600 or 1% of the current budget. He suggested ways to fund the cost,
including a coffee kiosk at the Center and renting out the facility at night and on weekends.
Councilor Rohde asked if they could explain why their survey found that the members
perceived an active image to the Center and the Board members saw a sedentary image. Mr.
Grenz said that he could not say more than the data showed. He indicated that when informed
that the members had a positive view of the Center and the services it offered, the Board was
more apt to accept the fact that the Center offered some great services.
Councilor McPeak referenced the intent to create more awareness and use of the center. She
asked at what point did staffing become a problem. Mr. Grenz said that they felt that staffing
was a problem now, with respect to taking on tasks other than running events.
Councilor McPeak asked if they should increase the budget to hire more staff. Mr. Grenz
pointed out that the options they gave to the Center were both cheap and effective tools to attack
and address the communication issue. He said that they agreed that hiring a fulltime person
would be a possible solution in the long term but they could not say whether that meant adding
more money to the budget. Mr. Akin commented that it depended on the event: a computer
class would not require more staff but adding health care services would.
Ardis Stevenson, ACC Board Chair, complimented the PSU students on their excellent work.
She indicated that the Board decided to develop overall goals before jumping into individual
projects. She said that the Board has not yet picked any of the suggestions made by the students.
Mayor Hammerstad commented that the students have identified some real possibilities to
bring in additional members to take advantage of this wonderful community resource.
Councilor Rohde referenced the membership data showing that only a small percentage of the
60 plus age group in Lake Oswego were members of the Center. He asked if the Center was
prepared to handle a significant influx of new members as a result of the marketing program, or
would it find itself in a situation of disappointing the new members because the Center
membership outgrew the Center's ability to provide the services.
Ms. Stevenson mentioned that the Center looked for opportunities to provide services outside
the Center facility, such as at Mary's Woods and Carman Oaks. She concurred that it was a
challenge to see if the Center could provide quality services without overburdening the physical
facility or the personnel.
Mr. Grenz mentioned their projection of a total of 2,000 members in 10 years or a net gain of
700 members.
Mayor Hammerstad recognized the new Youth Councilors: Meg Gadler, Matt Buehler and
Tommy Noble. (Kristin Johnson was not present)
4. CONSENT AGENDA
Councilor Turchi reviewed the consent agenda for the audience.
Councilor Rohde moved approval of the consent agenda with a special note of the award of
the contract for the First Street Alley improvement ((tem 4.2.1). Councilor McPeak
seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken and the motionap ssed with Mayor
City Council Minutes Page 2 of 10
Decemher 18, 2001
`f
Hammerstad, Councilors Turchi, Graham, McPeak, Hoffman, Rohde and Schoen voting; in
favor. 17-01
4.1 BUSINESS FROM THE COUNCIL
4. 1.1 Appointment of members to the Tree Code Review Task Force
ACTION: Appoint proposed members
4.1.2 Resolution 01-94, appointing members to the Development Review Committee
ACTION: Adopt Resolution 01-94
4.1.3 Resignation of Linda Leigh Paul from the Arts Commission
ACTION: Accept resignation with regret
4.2 REPORTS
4.2.1 Public Improvement Contract for construction of First Street Alley Sewer
Improvements.
ACTION: Award a public improvement contract for Work Order 1162, First Street Alley
Sewer Improvement, to Utility Contractors, Inc., in the amount of $201,918.00
4.3 APPROVAL OF MINUTES
4.3.1 November 6, 2001, regular meeting
4.3.2 November 27, 2001, morning meeting
4.3.3 November 27, 2001, regular meeting
ACTION: Approve minutes as written
END CONSENT AGENDA
5. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA
6. CITIZEN COMMENT
• Bev Henderson
Ms. Henderson referenced comments made by City officials with respect to the sequoia tree in
the Safeway parking lot, namely that it had no official name and that the City had nothing to do
with it. She said that she had documentation proving that Safeway donated the tree to the City in
1964, through the efforts of Mary Goodall, with the stipulation that it be lighted every year and
be known as "Lake Oswego's Living Christmas Tree."
Ms. Henderson recalled the ceremony held in 1989 commemorating Mary Goodall's
contributions to the City and the tree dedication. She mentioned the plaque installed by the City
and the presence of City officials and staff at the ceremony.
Ms. Henderson said that the Living Christmas Tree was a focal point for families to view every
year and a unique tourist attraction. She commended Mary Jacobsen for her letter to the Review
and her efforts to maintain the Lake Oswego Christmas tree established in 1964. She argued that
this long-standing tradition of almost 40 years should be not trampled on by a few people
ignorant of Lake Oswego's history.
Mary Jacobsen, 22325 SW Stafford Road, Tualatin
Ms. Jacobsen said that she got angry when she heard that the Christmas Tree had its name
changed to the Holiday Tree because she associated evergreen trees with Christmas trees. She
pointed out that other holidays occurring during the winter, such as Hanukah or Ramadan, did
not use a tree as a focal point. She presented a petition to retain the name `Christmas Tree.'
City Council Minutes
December 18, 2001
Page 3 of 10
9:3
Hannah Moony, 1212 Stonehaven Court, West Linn
Ms. Moony recounted her little sister's excitement at seeing the Living Christmas Tree
whenever they drove past it on their way to services at Our Lady of the Lake Church. She said
that her sister was too little to understand about the name change but she knew that it meant a lot
to her to call it a `Christmas tree.'
Ms. Moony held that the holiday season was primarily the same as the Christmas season, noting
that Ramadan did not always fall at the same time period. She argued for keeping the 40 -year-
old tradition of calling the tree a Christmas tree, especially in light of the events of September
11. She held that keeping the name did not mean that they did not respect the diversity of other
religions or cultures.
Mayor Hammerstad thanked the girls for participating in the democratic process, and
expressed the Council's respect for the work they have done.
Councilor Hoffman asked if Safeway gave the tree to the City 30 years ago. Doug Schmitz,
City Manager, said that he did not know but staff would research it. He mentioned that
Safeway represented the tree as belonging to them during the negotiations last year for the Bob
Bigelow Plaza.
Councilor Rohde asked Ms. Henderson what proof documentation she had. Ms. Henderson
said that she had copies of newspaper articles documenting the tree and its history but not a copy
of an official resolution by the City Council. She reiterated that she remembered Safeway
donating the tree with stipulations.
Councilor McPeak said that she thought that the girls should call the tree a Christmas tree if
that was what they wanted to call it. She remarked that she suspected that many people in the
community did the same thing. She commented that this went towards establishing a tradition
and held that, over time, the name would stick.
Mayor Hammerstad said that no one she knew of changed the name. She concurred that if the
girls saw it as a Christmas tree, then it was a Christmas tree. She commented that one reason
this issue came up this year was that they raised $6,300 in private money to light the tree, which
indicated an overwhelming support by the community to light the tree. She mentioned that the
Lake Corporation Board members donated $400 as seed money to light the tree next year.
Mayor Hammerstad mentioned that the Chamber raised $2,800 from its membership to buy the
additional snowflakes. She pointed out that lighting the tree was a community event, which the
Council wanted everyone to enjoy, regardless of whether they called it a Christmas tree or a
holiday tree, and to come together in respect of each other and in celebration of the holidays.
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS
7.1 Resolution 01-92, revising fees and charges shorn in file Master Fees and Charges
booklet for the City of Lake Oswego—calendar %ear 2002.
Mayor Hammerstad read the resolution by title.
STAFF REPORT
Richard Seals, Financial Planning Manager, stated that this year's update of the Master Fees
and Charges Booklet had no significant changes; most increases were due to inflation. He
mentioned that staff incorporated the Council's comments made during its review at its last study
session. He recommended adoption of the resolution.
Mr. Seals indicated to Councilor Turchi that fees and charges revenue represented $18 million
or one-third of the City's operating revenues, which was almost the same amount coming in
from property taxes.
City Council Minutes Page 4 of 10
December 18, 2001 9 4
Mr. Seals confirmed to Councilor McPeak that the fees and charges covered the cost of doing
the activity; staff did not build profit into them. Mayor Hammerstad commented that charging
fees in excess of the actual cost could result in litigation.
At Councilor Hoffman's request, Mr. Seals reviewed the basis for the utility fee increases
(page 84-85). He explained that a year ago staff developed a six-year plan on utility rates; this
booklet reflected the second year of that plan. He noted that water rates were not increasing;
sewer rates were increasing by 11 % and surface water rates by 6%. He confirmed that the lake
interceptor project (scheduled in three to four years) drove the sewer rate increases.
Mayor Hammerstad commented that the problem with aging infrastructure was the need to
maintain current capacity with deteriorating pipes as well as adding new capacity. She indicated
that the City was planning ahead for the replacement of deteriorating pipes. She mentioned that
Councilor McPeak has talked about an adult way of paying for things by saving for a rainy day
as opposed to paying the high interest rates of bonds.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY
David Powell, City Attorney, reviewed the hearing procedures and public testimony time limits
Mayor IIanunerstad opened the hearing to public testimony.
• Carolyne Jones, 2818 S Poplar Way
Ms. Jones spoke in opposition to the fee increases. She held that there was no justification in
the paperwork for the fee increases outlined. She mentioned the recession. She argued that
increasing the fees would further inflate the cost of housing in the area.
Ms. Jones asked if the legislature enacted any laws limiting system development charges (SDC).
Mr. Powell said that the new law changed noticing timelines for SDC methodologies and
challenges to the imposition of an SDC but it did not limit the amount. Mayor Hammerstad
recalled that the legislature did not pass any action on charging SDCs for schools.
Ms. Jones contended that the unexpected increase in the number of units in the Marylhurst
development (from 300 to 500) meant an increase in revenue to the City, which she did not see
reflected in the paperwork. Mr. Schmitz pointed out that the fee booklet listed the fees charged
by the City; it did not include speculation on the number of permits that would be issued or the
revenue that might be generated. Mayor Hammerstad observed that, regardless of the number
of units, the City charged each unit the same SDC.
Mayor Hammerstad commented that any increased revenues from SDCs went to pay for the
consequences of the growth in population, such as more traffic signals or increased capacity on
the roads, sewers and parks. Ms. Jones said that the paperwork did not reflect that.
Councilor Schoen observed that the Council was sensitive to the issue of fees and charges. He
held that the question came down to maintaining the existing quality level of service or reducing
the services to the community. He said that the Council was not willing to reduce the quality
level of service provided by the City, which was the underlying reason for increasing the fees.
He indicated that the Council did review the fees critically to make sure that they were as
equitable as possible within the framework of the cost of the City doing business.
Councilor Rohde noted that the line charge for the sewer would increase annually to reflect the
Engineering News -Record Construction Cost Index, the official record used around the U.S. to
determine actual costs.
Councilor McPeak directed Ms. Jones to pages 75 and 76, which gave a summary justification
of the fee increases. She noted that they were due to inflation and cost adjustments to standards.
She described the process as the City charging a fee to cover the cost of a service requested by a
citizen; when the costs increased, the fees increased.
City Council Minutes Page 5 of 10
December 18, 2001 95
Ms. Jones said that it would have been helpful to have the income statement of revenue, both
past and anticipated.
Mayor Hammerstad closed the public hearing.
COUNCIL DISCUSSION
Councilor Graham moved to adopt Resolution 01-92, revising fees and charges shown in
the Master Fees and Charges Booklet for the City of Lake Oswego, Calendar Year 2002.
Councilor Schoen seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken and the motion passed with
Mayor Hammerstad, Councilors Turchi, Graham, McPeak, Hoffman, Rohde and Schoen
voting in favor. 17-0]
7.2 Resolution 01-93, amending the annual budget for fiscal year 2001-02 and making;
appropriations.
Mayor Hammerstad said that the hearing process was the same as outlined by the City
Attorney at the previous hearing. She reviewed the testimony time limits.
STAFF REPORT
Mr. Seals explained that staff amended the annual budget at least once a year through the
adoption of the supplemental budget. He noted that this was the first supplemental budget for
this fiscal year. He said that the purpose of a supplemental budget was to reflect financial
changes due to unforeseen circumstances after adoption of the regular budget. He indicated that
this was a $409,000 supplement to the $87 million original budget. He mentioned that the
amount was spread out over six funds, as described in the attached documentation. He
recommended adopting the resolution.
At Mayor Hammerstad's request, Mr. Seals explained that the most significant increase, which
was to the Public Safety Capital Equipment fund, reflected receipt of a FEMA grant awarded to
the Fire Department to install fire sprinklers in adult foster care facilities. He said that the grant
was for $287,500 (70% of the supplemental budget) with a 10% City match ($28,000).
PUBLIC TESTIMONY
Mayor Hammerstad opened the hearing to public testimony. Hearing none, she closed the
public hearing.
COUNCIL DISCUSSION
Councilor McPeak moved to adopt Resolution 01-93, amending the annual budget for FY
2001/02 and making appropriations. Councilor Hoffman seconded the motion. A voice
vote was taken and the motionap ssed with Mayor Hammerstad, Councilors Turchi,
Graham, McPeak, Hoffman, Rohde and Schoen voting in favor. 17-01
8. ORDINANCES AND FINDINGS
8.1 Ordinance 2308, an ordinance amending Article 07 of Chapter 48 of the Lake Oswego
Code to alter the method of measuring the height of dwellings in the Country
Club/North Shore and Lakewood neighborhoods and to establish a minimum roof
pitch for dwellings and accessory structures in those neighborhoods, making an
exception for parcels adjacent to Oswego Lake, making an exception to the height
measurement methodology for dwellings on flag lots created prior to September 6,
2001, and adopting findings (LU 01-0050-1454).
A public hearing was held on this item on December 4, 2001. A motion was made to
tentatively approve LU 01-0050, which passed 7-0.
Mayor Hammerstad read the ordinance by number and title.
City Council Minutes Page 6 of 10
December 18, 2001
9
Mayor Hammerstad opened the public hearing for additional testimony on the two
amendments to the ordinance added at the December 4 public hearing. She noted that one was to
exempt parcels adjacent to Oswego Lake and the other was a sunset clause to repeal the
ordinance on January 17, 2003, or on the effective date of the adoption of the ordinance
proposed by the Infill Task Force.
Hearing no requests to testify, Mayor Hammerstad closed the public hearing
Councilor Schoen moved to adopt Ordinance 2308. Councilor Iloffman seconded the
motion.
Councilor Rohde commented that this was a crude method to achieve the Council's objectives.
He expressed his hope that the previous hearing and the Council discussion informed the Task
Force that the Council was looking for a more elegant approach to the issue.
A voice vote was taken and the motionap ssed with Mayor Hammerstad, Councilors
Turchi, Graham, McPeak, Hoffman, Rohde and Schoen voting in favor. 17-01
9. INFORMATION FROM COUNCIL
9.1 Councilor Information
9.1.1 Recommendation from the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board regarding
Softball Field at Lakeridge High School
Mr. Schmitz recounted the history of this recommendation. He explained that the 1998 bond
measure for open space acquisition and field improvements identified the soccer field on the
north side of Lakeridge High School for improvements. He mentioned the claim filed against
the School District at the Oregon Civil Rights Commission regarding the lack of a girls' softball
field at Lakeridge.
Mr. Schmitz said that the District, at the November joint meeting, asked the Council to redirect
the $250,000 allocated for improvements to the soccer field to development of the girls' softball
field. He indicated that the Council sent the request to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board
and the Team Sports Advisory Committee for review. He reported that both groups
recommended redirecting the money.
School Superintendent Bill Korach described this as an opportunity to extend the City/School
partnership in providing facilities for the community. He emphasized that the District saw this
softball field as operating within the joint use agreement as a community field.
Mr. Korach confirmed to Mayor Hammerstad that the District has identified three potential
sites but not decided which site to locate the field on, as all three had advantages and
disadvantages. He said that the School Board would make the decision in January following a
public hearing.
Mr. Korach indicated to Councilor Turchi that $250,000 would not cover the entire cost of the
field. He mentioned the $177,000 check that the District gave to the City to start the
architectural work with MacLeod Record, who worked on the Lake Oswego High School
baseball field. He said that an earlier estimate had been for $210,000 beyond the $250,000 but
the amount depended on which field the District selected.
Mayor Hammerstad asked if people would think it discriminatory if the boys used the baseball
field at George Rogers Park while the girls used the softball field, as opposed to building a new
field. Mr. Korach explained that the basis of the Title 9 complaint was the girls having to
practice and compete off campus while the boys could practice and compete on campus. He
indicated that the ruling mandated the District to put a girls softball field on campus.
Mr. Korach clarified to Mayor Hammerstad that the District had to have comparable facilities
for males and females: if the boys practiced and competed off campus, then the District could
put the girls softball field off campus. He noted the baseball and softball fields at Lake Oswego
City Council Minutes Page 7 of 10
December 18, 2001 9
High School and Junior High School, the baseball field at Lakeridge High School and the lack of
a softball field at Lakeridge, which put the District out of compliance.
Mr. Korach confirmed to Mayor Hammerstad that there were downsides to each of the three
fields under consideration for a softball field.
Mr. Korach indicated to Councilor Schoen that he assumed that the District would maintain
the field. He commented that over time they would need to continue to work with the
City/School partnership about which agency maintained which fields.
Mr. Korach confirmed to Councilor Hoffman that the District has already assigned $177,000
to the City to pay for the MacLeod Record architects. He confirmed that the design and location
of the field would be the District's responsibility, although in cooperation with the City similarly
to their work on other bond projects.
Mr. Schmitz mentioned that the City supervised the contracts and the Council awarded the
construction contracts. He indicated that the City and the District would jointly make
application to the land use process, as the project involved the District's property and the City's
bond money.
Mr. Korach indicated to Councilor Hoffman that the District did contribute money to the Lake
Oswego lligh School baseball field.
Councilor Hoffman moved that the $250,000 bond fund that had been previously allocated
for improvements on the Lakeridge north field be redirected for a girls' softball field at
Lakeridge High School, which would be governed by the joint use agreement. Councilor
Turchi seconded the motion.
Mr. Korach reiterated that the District saw the field as governed by the joint use agreement,
making it a District field used by the comnumity.
A voice vote was taken and the motion passed with Mayor Hammerstad, Councilors
Turchi, Graham, McPeak, Hoffman, Rohde and Schoen voting in favor. 17-01
9.1.2 Clackamas County Coordinating Committee Proposal
Mayor Hammerstad referenced the two questions in the memo regarding the Clackamas
County Coordinating Committee's process and activities. She noted the matrix of opportunities
available for a parks special district, a library special district or a parks and library special
district. She asked which option the Council preferred.
Councilor McPeak commented that Lake Oswego's concerns revolved less around the level of
its park services and facilities and more around the library. She held that they had a greater
interest in meeting the library funding needs than they did the parks needs.
Councilor Hoffman wondered if it would be advantageous for Lake Oswego to participate on
the parks side if it included an aquatics or community center to serve both West Linn and Lake
Oswego. Mayor Hammerstad said that that would be different from the proposal, although it
would also have to be a County service district, which meant the Board of County
Commissioners as the governing board.
Councilor Rohde spoke to focusing on the library and skipping the parks. Councilor Schoen
said that he saw no advantage to joining in a parks program, as Lake Oswego had better park
facilities than the other Clackamas County cities. He indicated that he saw a possible advantage
in a local option levy for libraries.
Mayor Hammerstad observed that Option 8, the local option levy for libraries, was consistent
with the past Countywide local option levy funding the County library system. She pointed out
that it was not a permanent source of funding but it was a renewable one.
Councilor Rohde said that he was interested in the levy only, and not the library district.
Mayor Hammerstad indicated to Councilor Hoffman that a problem with a library district was
City Council Minutes Page 8 of 10
December 18, 2001 g 98
its governance by the Board of County Commissioners, although it did have a permanent source
of funding. She suggested asking the Committee to explore the library district option further as a
possibility for stable library funding.
Councilor McPeak spoke to expanding the research to look at the various possibilities for
libraries, which the Council could revisit. Councilor Schoen commented that they could protect
their interests based on the way the funds were dispersed. Mayor Hammerstad agreed with
forwarding the concern on to the Committee that Lake Oswego wanted its library allocation
formula protected.
Councilor Rohde asked if the fact that a local option levy was subject to a tax cap on a
property -by -property basis meant that some areas of the County might contribute more and
others less, possibly creating significant inequity. Mr. Powell concurred with Mayor
Hammerstad that the Measure 5 cap would have that effect.
The Council agreed by consensus to forward the library options on for further study.
Mayor Hammerstad noted the second question in the memo: the Transportation Technical
Committee was discussing the issue of a street utility fee for road maintenance countywide,
excluding Tualatin and Wilsonville who already had a fee. The Council agreed by consensus to
indicate its interest in the Committee continuing to explore the possibility.
Councilor Rohde noted that the Committee was looking at both a transportation utility fee and a
transportation impact fee (similar to Washington County's traffic impact fee). He explained that
the transportation impact fee (TIF) was similar to a system development charge (SDC) in that the
County charged the fee to developments that caused impacts offsite of their development, thus
allowing funds to be directed further away than the actual site of the development.
Councilor Rohde indicated to Councilor Graham that a transportation impact fee could lead to
people asking for cutbacks in SDCs. He commented that they needed to determine what impact
a transportation impact fee had on local SDCs. He described an example of a TIF on
development in the Stafford Triangle (should it come within the urban growth boundary) paying
for intersection improvements at the Borland intersection, even if the intersection itself did not
come within the UGB.
Mayor Hammerstad observed that it would not satisfy the need for ongoing road maintenance
Councilor Graham asked if a number of counties adopting this kind of fee would spur the state
legislature into cutting back on the revenues that the state sent to cities. Councilor Rohde
indicated that, while lie could not prognosticate what the legislature might do, he did not think
that that would happen. He pointed out that a TIF has not caused a reduction in transportation
funding for Washington County.
Mayor Hammerstad said that she would pass on these directions to the Cominittec, which she
and Councilor Rohde would follow up on at the next meeting.
9.2 Reports of Council Committees, Organizational Committees and Intergovernmental
Committees
9.2.1 JPACT
Councilor Rohde recalled that the Portland metro region received $70 million (out of the $400
million State transportation bond) for capital projects; $60 million of that immediately went to
four large projects, leaving $10 million for two other projects. He explained that those two
projects totaled $20 million but the Oregon Transportation Committee refused JPACT's request
to use the $20 million in discretionary funds to pay for both projects and ordered it to decide
which project to fund.
Councilor Rohde reported that the situation degenerated into a fight between Wilsonville and
Happy Valley (the two jurisdictions with the two projects), both of which were Clackamas
County cities. He noted that he was the Clackamas County Cities representative on JPACT. He
City Council Minutes Page 9 of 10
December 18, 2001 �{
said that JPACT tabled the issue to January 10.
Councilor Rohde said that today he met with the players in the decision and they reached an
equitable solution, which allowed the completion of both projects. He summarized the situation
as there was not enough money to do what the region wanted to do.
10. REPORTS OF OFFICERS
10.1 City Manager
Mr. Schmitz noted the copy of the West Waluga Plan in the Council packet, as requested.
10.2 City Attorney
11. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Hammerstad reviewed the upcoming Council meeting schedule. She wished the staff
and citizens Happy Holidays, Merry Christmas and the best for the New Year.
Mayor Hammerstad adjourned the meeting at 7:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Robyn Chri, ie
City Recorder
APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
N
Judie Hammerstad, Mayor
City Council Minutes Page 10 of 10
December 18, 2001 100
GU
M E M O R A N D U M
10 � / / ��/[)Z
M ETRO C'.�
Date: May 10, 1999
To: Elaine Wilkerson, Director
Growth Management Services Department
From: Mary A. Weber, Manager
Community Development
Re: Functional Plan Definition of Development Application
A question has arisen that pertains to the Metro Code definition of "development application" and
applying the minimum density requirements in Title 1 of the Functional Plan. Metro Code
Section 3.07.1010(p) (Title 10) defines development application as "an application for a land use
decision, limited land decision including expedited land divisions, but excluding partitions as defined in
ORS 92.010 (7) and ministerial decisions such as a building permit." The ORS defines partitioned land
as land that is divided into two or three parcels of land within a calendar year, but this does not include
land resulting from the recording of a subdivision or condominium plat.
The term development application comes into play in Metro Code Section 3.07.120A (Title 1).
Section A outlines the methods to increase calculated capacity. This section directs cities and counties
to apply a minimum density standard to all zones allowing residential use. It also states that a
development application, including a subdivision, may not be approved unless the development will
result in the building of 80 percent or more of the maximum number of dwelling units per net acre
permitted by the zoning designation.
The Code language suggests that if the site were recently partitioned and the proposed development
was at a density less than the minimum required by the zone that the City could approve the
development application. When MTAC drafted the Code, there was likely discussion about
encouraging infill development, making it "easier" to develop these sites and the difficulty of applying
minimum densities to small parcels. This exclusion in the Code provides local flexibility in applying the
minimum density requirement and removes what might be a burdensome regulation on small lot infill
development. This provision also seems consistent with another Metro Code requirement,
Section 3.07.1208, which prohibits local governments from prohibiting partitioning of parcels two or
more times the minimum lot size of the development code.
Paulette Copperstone was enlisted to search through the MTAC minutes to find any references
pertaining to this issue. In the minutes of the October 24, 1996 meeting of MTAC Jim Jacks of Tualatin,
initiated a discussion about defining development application. The Committee discussed this issue and
the issue of partitioning. John Fregonese, the Chair of MTAC, added that it "would be good to exempt
partitions from minimum density standards." A copy of the meeting minutes is attached. Also attached
is a time sequence of Title 10 changes dating from October 24 to November 21, 1996 that show the
evolution of the definition of development application.
I Vmbonununity development\shareldevelopment application discussion.doc
cc: Tom Coffee, City of Lake Oswego — w/Attachments
METRO TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING RECORD
October 24, 1996
Room 370A&B
Committee Members Present: Chair John Fregonese, Ben Altman, G. B. Arrington, Brian Campbell, Jon Chandler, Bob
Clay (alternate for David Knowles), Tom Coffee, Maggie Collins, Brent Curtis, Jacqueline Dingfelder (alternate for
Mike Houck), Richard Faith, David C. Johnson (alternate for John Alland), Patricia Kliewer, Steven Ladd, Diane Luther,
Michael Morrissey, R. Scott Pemble, Lidwien Rahman, Richard Ross, Norm Scott, Jim Sitzman, Alwin Turiel (alternate
for Elaine Wilkerson), Glory Yankauskas
Committee Alternates Also Present: Jim Jacks (alternate for Ben Altman), John Leeper (alternate for Patricia
Kliewer), Christine Roth (alternate for Glory Yankauskas)
Metro Staff Present: Brenda Bernards, Sonny Conder, Joe Gibbon, Carol Krigger, Barbara Linssen, Larry Shaw
Also Present: Doug Bollam, citizen; Ginny Brewster, citizen; Michael Butts, West Linn; Ken Ducker, Portland State
University; Karl Mawson, Forest Grove; Chris Nelson, Georgia Tech, Atlanta, Georgia; Greg Nokes, The Oregonian;
Paul Silver, Wilsonville; Nadine Smith, Tigard; Jackie Tommas, citizen; Ramsey Weit, Portland
Chair Fregonese called the regular meeting to order at 9:35 a.m. He noted MTAC had two new members: 1) Citizen
representative member from Multnomah County, John Alland; and 2) Citizen representative member alternate David
Johnson who was present at this meeting and was introduced to those present.
1. MINUTES Of OCTOBER 10, 1996
Lidwien Rahman noted she was present at the October 10 meeting but was not listed in the minutes.
Motion N1 Glory Yankauskas moved, seconded by Lidwien Rahman, for approval of the minutes as
corrected.
vote #1 All those present voted aye. The vote was unanimous and the minutes were approved as
corrected.
2. URBAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONAL PLAN • UPDATE
Chair Fregonese said the Council was scheduled to adopt Ordinance No. 96-647, For the Purpose of Adopting a
Functional Plan for Early Implementation of the 2040 Growth Concept the date of this meeting but that some
Councilors had some amendments for it and per 1992 Metro Charter Section 37(1), could not amend and adopt the
ordinance at the same meeting. He said the ordinance was scheduled for final adoption on November 14, 1996.
Chair Fregonese noted proposed amendments to the Functional Plan were printed in the agenda packet and that Larry
Shaw, Legal Counsel, had new amendments per this date for distribution.
Michael Morrissey explained Councilor McLain's Amendment No. 11 to Title 4, Section 20 as follows:
at line 605:
'-for any new retail uses larger than 60,00square feet...
MTAC MEETING RECORD/October 24, 19961Page 1
at lines 607611:
'The standards for the land use decision to allow any such retail uses shall require (1) a demonstration in
the record that adequate transportation facilities adequate to serve the retail use, consistent with Metro's
functional plan for transportation will be in place at the time the retail use begins operation; and (2) a
demonstration that adequate transportation facilities adequate to meet the transportation need for the
other planned uses in the Employment Areas are included in the applicable comprehensive plan provisions'
The Committee briefly discussed the language as proposed. Chair Fregonese noted the existing Retail and
Employment Centers map had been slightly redone and modified because some mixed use areas from the 2040
Growth Concept had not been used and displayed a copy of same. He said the employment areas were smaller than
before because areas that were zoned industrial in mixed use areas were permitted to have retail.
Michael Morrissey explained Councilor McLain's Amendment No. 12 to Title 6, Section 3(8) as follows:
Lines 776.778 (0ctober 24, 1996 functional Plan draft):
Cities and counties shall develop local street design standards in text or maps or both with street
intersection spacing to occur at intervals of no less than eight street intersections per mile except where
topography, barriers such as railroads or freeways, or environmental constraints such as major streams and
rivers, prevent street extension.
Michael Morrissey explained Councilor Kvistad's Amendment No. 6 to Title 8, line 1002, October 24, 1996 Functional
Plan draft:
C. The Metro Council may grant an extension to time lines under
this functional plan if the city or county has demonstrated
substantial progress or proof of good cause for failing to
complete the requirements on time. Requests for extensions of the compliance requirement in Section 1 of
this Title should accompany the compliance transmittal required in Section 2.A. of this Title.
Subsections C and D become D and E, respectively.
Michael Morrissey said Councilor McCaig would have some amendments for Title 8 also and that tiie Metro Policy
Advisory Committee (MPAC) had proposed three amendments at their October 23 meeting.
Chair Fregonese explained that MPAC wanted to add language to Title 1, Section 2, Methods to Increase Calculated
Capacity Required for all Cities and Counties to the effect that any minimum density would be permitted and that as
an alternative any minimum density standard could be adopted as long as the units that were counted for compliance
with Table 1 were the minimum density units. lie said that meant the local jurisdictions could adopt whatever they
wanted in and for their community, but that Metro would count overall capacity achieved for each jurisdiction.
The Committee as a whole discussed the proposed new language further.
Ben Altman said design standards were needed. Chair Fregonese agreed and said they would be in the model code.
Chair Fregonese noted that accessory units were now required and said they would qualify for infill and
redevelopment. Alwin Turiel asked why accessory units were approved and noted they did not add greatly to
additional capacity. Chair Fregonese said accessory units were proposed by Councilor Morissette, unanimously
adopted by the Council, and approved for various reasons, including changing demographics such as housing aging
MTAC MEETING RECORDIOctober 24, 19961Page 2
parents, renting out to help with mortgage payments and other factors. Alwin Turiel noted a typographical error on
line 156 for correction.
Bob Clay asked if the proposed language, if approved, could preclude a jurisdiction from applying an original proposal.
Chair Fregonese it could not and that the original proposal was the standard prescriptive that locals had complied. He
said it would be considered automatic minimum compliance if the local jurisdictions had the 80 percent minimum
standard. He said if the local jurisdictions varied from that, what it allowed was that Metro would only count what
the locals permitted via minimum density. Larry Shaw said the new language was an alternative that would allow
locals to vary minimum densities so long as they accomplished their calculated capacities in Table 1 using the
minimum densities proposed for all of the minimum density areas. Chair Fregonese said it would be best for the locals
to stay with 80 percent minimums and vary only when they had too.
Jim Jacks asked �as defined or if everyone would know that meant "land use
allocation" or 'Ian whet er or not it included building permit issuance. He asked if locals would
know what the terminology meant, or they might conclude it included building permits. Chair Fregonese said it could
be made into a land use decisionlapplication. Norm Scott said that would include everything but building permits. ,fon
Chandler said it would exclude other things so should be warded very carefully. Chair Fregonese said it was obvious
that theIan ould not include building permits. Jim Jacks suggested the languag
hair Fregonese agreed and suggested language to the following effecopmom
p
Ica ions include land use decisions and limited and expedited land use decisions, but do not include building
permits and other ministerial acts," Jim Jacks asked if subdivisions could be considered ministerial. Chair Fre onese
said it would be good to exempt partitions from minimum density standards,_
The Committee discussed the issues further. Chair Fregonese said there was alrea Jfsplitting
lots two or more sizes the normal lot size. The Committee discussed various issues related to codes, permitting and
partitioning further. Norm Scott expressed some concern about odd -sized lots or larger size lots due to natural
terrain. Chair Fregonese said Title 8 provided for exemptions. The Committee discussed the exemptions process.
Jim Jacks said some exemptions could be granted but the project would not he done for several years and might have
some problems. He asked what could be done in that case when the exemptions process had already been completed
for years. The Committee discussed problems resulting from unknown factors on sites such as wetlands.
Chair Fregonese suggested adding the following language to line 112: `For any area constrained by environmental
concerns." The Committee had consensus on that language.
Doug Bollam noted that sometimes subdivisions or partitions were done in phases. Chair Fregonese said if the
minimum density standard was applied to partitions that would not be allowed. He said Metro should try to define
development application as not including ministerial acts, which meant that a major partition could probably be
allowed in the case of creating a road, but a minor partition would not.
Pat Kliewer asked where the language in Title 1, Section 4(B)(a) language: 'Financial incentives for higher density
housing;" came from. Chair Fregonese said financial incentives could he anything such as reduced fees, various types
of SOCs, tax abatement such as that done in Multnomah County. Pat Kliewer asked if Metro had contacted
erg anizationslcorporations to discuss the option and whether or not actual amounts had been discussed. Chair
Fregonese said financial incentives had been discussed with various entities but that there was no intent on Metro's
part to mandate specific amounts or levels. Jon Chandler noted subsections (a) to (e) were directly from state law.
Richard Ross asked Chair Fregonese to explain Title 8's compliance procedures further and noted MPAC discussed
same at their October 23 meeting. Chair Fregonese referred the Committee to line 1036, Section 5, Compliance
Interpretation Process, new language on lines 1036-1044, and Section 6, Citizen Review Process on line 1045-1048.
Richard Ross asked where the proposed amendment language from MPAC was for Sections 5 and 6. Larry Shaw
MTAC MEETING RECORDIOctober 24, 19961Page 3
said amendment language was pending because he was scheduled to meet with Councilor McLain the date of this
meeting after this meeting on MPAC's proposed amendment language.
Chair Fregonese said Section 5 allowed cities and counties to seek an interpretation of the requirements of the
Functional Plan. He said that language was advocated by Jim Jacks and other planners who felt that, if they were
performing tasks that implemented the Functional Plan, they wanted Metro to put it in writing that it did fulfill the
Functional Plan rather than finding out it did not after the fact. He said the locals could get it in writing from the
Council before the fact that what they were going to do would implement the Functional Plan.
Jim Jacks said another concern he had was that words, terms and phrases in the Functional Plan could be interpreted
differently by local jurisdictions, developers and other entities. He said all local governments had interpretation
processes.
Chair Fregonese said Section 6, Citizen Review Process, would allow a citizen, who had to have participated at the
local level, to petition Metro for an interpretation of the Functional Plan to see if a particular provision complied or did
not comply with the Functional Plan. Richard Ross asked who would do the interpretation. Chair Fregonese said
MPAC had proposed that the Executive Officer would make the first interpretation and that would be forwarded to
the Metro Council for consideration. He said MPAC did not want a hearings officer to perform that function.
Ginny Brewster suggested that a time frame or time limit be put in Section 6 so that a citizen or citizens could not
"gum" up the process with late or frivolous appeals. Chair Fregonese concurred and said that time frame could be 21
days for a citizen who did not like a local decision to take it up with Metro.
Jon Chandler said Title 8, Compliance Procedures, was a complete mess legally and would not work. Ile said he had
suggested that the Council review and work on it separately. lie said the title was full of procedural glitches. Chair
Fregonese did not think Title 8 was a mess, but that compliance procedures usually required tune-ups over time and
could be amended in the future.
Larry Shaw explained there would he further opportunities to amend Title 8 and other titles because there would he a
series of amending ordinances: 1) An amendment to the RUGGOs (Regional Urban Goals and Objectives) map; 2►
Implementation of Title 3 in two steps, the first being on the map and the second on the model ordinance.
Chair Fregonese said the steps on how to apply for compliance and exemptions were fairly clear. He said the
consequences for non-compliance was unknown. Jon Chandler said his concern was that the process as written had
the potential of constantly going to the land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). The Committee briefly discussed the
compliance section further. Chair Fregonese noted that MTAC had worked on the language for over one year.
Richard Ross noted that the new language discussed at this time had been proposed in the last week.
G. B. Arrington said he was sensitive to the Council's desire to adopt something soon but that the compliance section
did need more work. He said a compromise would be to adopt it and then have a working group review the language
and submit an amending ordinance to clean it up. He said the compliance section had changed a great deal over time.
Chair Fregonese and Brent Curtis discussed the time frame for requests for clarification. Larry Shaw noted Councilor
McLain did have gate keeping functions included in her proposed amendment language.
Motion #2 G. B. Arrington moved, seconded by Jon Chandler, to recommend to the Metro Council that
MTAC establish a working group to review the compliance section (Title 8) in it's totality of
how it works that would include the local jurisdictions, the land use bar, with the idea of looking
at a quick and easy process for compliance.
MTAC MEETING RECORDIOctober 24, 19961Page 4
There was no Committee discussion or questions.
Vote #1 All those present voted aye. The vote was unanimous and the motion passed.
The Committee continued discussion of the proposed amendments and noted various items which should be clarified
further for the Council's consideration including environmental constraints and how they related to Goal 5 lands and
design types for high density development. R. Scott Pemble noted that fine 144 should clarify what "within its
jurisdiction" meant. He asked if meant with city limits, city UGBs (Urban Growth Boundary) or the Metro UGB. lie
said there were a lot of areas that were not within the UGB. Chair Fregonese said that was a good point and the
language should be clarified.
3. JOBSIHOUSING BALANCE DISCUSSION
Jim Sitzman said the Land Conservation and Development Department had recommended to LCDC that Metro be
treated the same as other jurisdictions within the state regarding time frames for urban reserves so that Metro could
adopt urban reserves for an intended 30 year period. He said the Washington County Coordinating Committee
suggested also that was a desirable time period rather than 10 years. He said the other proposed amendment was to
amend the rule to identify as an example of special needs where lower priority lands could be taken ahead of
exception areas for the purposes of achieving jobslhousing balance. He said LCDC staff required that the analysis for
achieving jobs/housing balance he within the larger area served by a regional center. fie said they represented a
substantial planning unit within the regional concept and were also one of the important building blocks of the region.
lie said DLCD was concerned that smaller areas of analysis for jobslhousing balance subjected resource lands too
frequently to a potential for use ahead of exception areas. He said there was a provision within the rule that
whenever there was a dispute between the jurisdictions and Metro on designation, that that dispute could be
addressed to the Commission for review and interpretation and decision. lie said that would be the appropriate place
to deal with issues that would arise regarding jobslhousing balance supply outside of the regional center analysis.
Chair Fregonese briefly reviewed how Metro measured jobslhousing balance initially for the 2040 Growth Concept
and map and later an for Urban Reserves decision. Fie said jobs/housing issues arose early in the process. He said
with the 2040 Growth Concept, staff could have used the TAZs (Traffic Analysis Zones), but decided to use the
regional and town centers instead. He said major highways were used as borders for those areas in the computer
data base and discussed Beaverton, Milwaukie, and Hillsboro as examples of same. He said since the original
designations were done, staff had measured the geocode building permits to measure business activities in the
regional and town centers and also measured them by design types. He said the TCs and RCs were being redefined
via TAZ lines. tie said staff wanted to contain all TCs and RCs within one or another TAZ area for easier analysis.
He said the average jobslhousing balance in 1992 was 1.66 and the average in 2040 was 1.38 because of more
retirees. He said the idea was to get a regional range in jobslhousing balance. Chair Fregonese discussed how
regional and town centers were defined and developed in more detail.
The Committee as a whole discussed details and criteria for regional and town centers. Tom Coffee asked if there
was an intermediate measurement between town centers and regional centers. Chair Fregonese said there was and
that Lake Oswego could be divided in half and West Linn put in Oregon City's center. Tani Coffee asked how that
movement data would be measured.
Patricia Kliewer said she was uncomfortable with the lack of definition on centers. She said also Metro's perspective
on jobslhousing was unrealistic. She said most professionals worked in the downtown Portland area. She said there
were many factors involved regardless of regional or town center designation. Chair Fregonese agreed, but said there
was a definite correlation between jobslhousing balance and travel.
MTAC MEETING RECORD/October 24, 1996/Page 5
Jon Chandler agreed with Jim Jacks' statement on the stretching of the regional center concept. Chair Fregonese
said Metro did not want LCOC defining regional centers for them. Jim Sitzman discussed LCOC's definition of same.
Brent Curtis said he agreed with Chair Fregonese's original definition of regional centers but said he would like to see
that written direc,:y into the rule which was hard to read now. Jim Sitzman said he believed the definition was there
within the limits of the urban reserve rule or hierarchy. lie said regional center imbalances could be corrected by
using land use hierarchy and different land designations in specific areas. Brent Curtis and Jim Sitzman discussed the
language on town centers further.
4. URBAN RESERVES - WORK SESSION
A. School District Responses
B. Master Planning Discussion
Chair Fregonese said MPAC had an excellent discussion about school districts and their needs. lie said there had also
been discussion about adding a school district representative to MPAC's membership.
Steven Ladd gave a presentation on school district needs and MPAC's discussion of same. lie said the same
presentation would be given to the Metro Council also.
All business items completed, Chair Fregonese adjourned the regular meeting at 11:35 p.m.
Meeting record prepared by Paulette Allen, Program Assistant I
rntac1024.min
MTAC MEETING RECORD/October 24, 19961Page 6
126 TITLE 10
DEFINITIONS
October 24, 1996
1127 Accessibility means the amount of time required to reach a given location or service by any
1128 mode of travel.
1129 Alternative Modes means alternative methods of travel to the automobile, including public
1130 transportation (►fight rail bus and other forms of public transportation), bicycles and walking.
1131 Balanced cut and fill means no net increase in fill within the floodplain.
1132 Dikeway means separated bike paths striped bike lanes, or wide outside lanes that
1133 accommodate bicycles and motor vehicles.
11343oulevard Design means a design concept that emphasizes pedestrian travel, hicYcling and the
1135 use of public transportation, and accommodates motor vehicle travel.
1136 Calculated Capacity means the number of dwelling units and jobs that can be contained in an
1137 area based on the calculation required by this functional plan.
1138
Capacity Expansion means constructed or operational improvements to the regional motor
1139
_vehicle system that increase the capacity of the system.
1140
Comprehensive plan means the all inclusive generalized coordinated land use map and�oiicy
1141
statement of cities and counties defined in ORS 197.01551_
1142
Connectivity means the degree to which the local and regional street systems in a given area
1143
are interconnected.
\°
1144
Designated Beneficial N5'ater Uses means the same as the term as defined by the Oregon
1145
Department of Water Resources, which is: an instream public use of water for the benefit of an
1 146
appropriator for a purpose consistent with the laws and the economic and general welfare of the
1147
people of the state and includes, but is not limited to, domestic, fish life, industrial, irrigation,
1148
mining, municipal, pollution abatement, power development, recreation, stockwater and wildlife
S
1149
uses.
J
1150
Design Type means the conceptual areas described in the Metro 2040 Growth Concept text and
1151
lDap in Metro's regional coals and obiectives including central city, regional centers,_ town
1152
centers station communities, corridors. main streels_inner and outer neighborhoods, industrial
1153
areas, and employment areas.
1154 Development means any manmade change defined as buildings or other structures, mining,
1155 dredging, paving, filling, or grading in amounts greater than ten (10) cubic yards on any lot or
1156 excavation. In addition, any other activity that results In the removal of more than 10% of the
1157 existing vegetated area on the lot is defined as development, 10f the purposes of I itle 1
Page YQ—Urban Growth ManaEemern Funawnit Plan October 24, 19%
n
r15y
1160
1161
1162
1163
1164
1165
1166
1167
1168
Exceptions:
ent or restoration projects approved by ce l
cities and countiesl
a. Stream enhancem
b. Agricultural activity.existing
C. Replacement, AAdditions,—aM alterations and accessor vises
Quality d Flood
structures and development that do not encroach into the Water Q y
Management Area more than the existing structure or development.
1175
1176
1177
1178
1179
1180
1181
1182
1183
1184
1185
1186
1187
1188
,"89
1190
DB11 means the diameter of a tree measured at breast height.
oal 5 F,SEE means a decision rocess local eovemnients carry out
040,
Metro
Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conse�rvManArea means the to be completed and atea tached heoretohe hese in Jude
ater
Quality and Flood Management Area p
all Water Quality and Flood Management 1a Areas that require
includci�hciarea 200 feet fromorder to protect ftop
sil
and wildlife habitat. This arca has been pp togenerally
of bank of streams in undeveloped areas with less than 25% slope, and 100 feet from edge of
mapped wetland on undeveloped land.
ing the
plain
Floodplain means land subject to tPe I udnesdor o tle substantialdevicl nce of O actual flood devents.
a5
mapped by FEMA Flood Insurance S
have the
ing
Functions and Values of Stream Corridors tendon andeans stream enhancement,o floodsattenuation,f fishand
functions and values: water quality re s ace and wildlife
wildlife habitat, recreation, erosion control, education, aesthetic, open p
corridor.
Growth Concept Map means the conceptual map demonstrating the 2040 Growth Concept
design types attached to this plan in the Appendix-es-� hit -3
Hazardous materials means materials described as hazardous by Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality.
--
standards for lementint' a comprehensive Ian_
imp
Curb.
the DOC(
Vlfn
ivi
is rip-M-ot-
w
octobar 24. 19%
October 29, 1996
5 T171Y 10: DEFINITIONS
Accessibility means the amount of time required to reach a given location or service by any
mode of travel.
311, Alternative Modes means alternative methods of travel to the automobile, including public
35 transportation (light rail, bus and other forms of public transportation), bicycles and walking.
Balanced cut and fill means no net increase in fill within the floodplain.
41 Bikeway means separated bike paths, striped bike lanes, or wide outside lanes that
d: accommodate bicycles and motor vehicles.
►a_ Boulevard Design means a design concept that emphasizes pedestrian travel, bicycling and the
9-1 use of public transportation, and accommodates motor vehicle travel.
k5 Calculated Capacity means the number of dwelling units and jobs that can be contained in an
F area based on the calculation required by this functional plan.
}4- Capacity Expansion means constructed or operational improvements to the regional motor
}4F- vehicle system that increase the capacity of the system.
549 Comprehensive plan means the all inclusive, generalized, coordinated land use map and policy
a50 statement of cities and counties defined in ORS 197.015(5).
051 Connectivity means the degree to which the local and regional street systems in a given area
052 are interconnected.
05: Designated Beneficial Water Uses means the same as the term as defined by the Oregon
.054 Department of Water Resources, which is: an instream public use of water for the benefit of an
.055 appropriator for a purpose consistent with the laws and the economic and general welfare of the
105.6 people of the state and includes, but is not limited to, domestic, fish life, industrial, irrigation,
1057 mining, municipal, pollution abatement, power development, recreation, stock -water and wildlife
1058 uses.
1059 Design Type means the conceptual areas described in the Metro 2040 Growth Concept text and
1060 map in Metro's regional goals and objectives, including central city, regional centers, town
1061 centers, station communities, corridors, main streets, inner and outer neighborhoods, industrial
1062 areas, and employment areas.
1063 Development means any manmade change defined as buildings or other stnlctures, mining,
1064 dredging, paving, filling, or grading in amounts greater than ten (10) cubic yards on any lot or
1065 excavation. In addition, any other activity that results in the removal of more than 10% of the
1066- existing vegetated area on the lot is defined as development, for the purposes of Title 3.
Page 34—Urban Orow6 Management PuwtknW Plan Dmft - October 29,19%
57 ✓xccplions:
58 a. Stream enhancement or restoration projects approved by cities and counties.
59 b. Agricultural activity.
70 C. Replacement, additions, alterations and accessory uses for existing structures and
71 development that do not encroach into the Water Quality and Flood Management
72 Area more than the existing structure or development.
73 Development Annlieation means an annlication for a land use decision, limited land decision
74 i_rciudinv- expedited land divisions, but excluding partitions as defined in ORS 92.010(7) and
175 ;-:inisterial decisions such as a building hermit.
176 DBII means the diameter of a tree measured at breast height.
77 DLCD Goal 5 ESEE means a decision process local governments carry out under OAR 660-23-
178 x:40.
379 Fish and Wildlife habitat Conservation Area means the area defined on the Metro Water
380 Quality and Flood Management Area Map to be completed and attached hereto. "These include
381 all Water Quality and Flood Management Areas that require regulation in order to protect fish
392 and wildlife habitat. This area has been mapped to generally include the area 200 feet from top
383 of bank of streams in undeveloped areas with less than 25% slope, and 100 feet from edge of
)84 .-upped wetland on undeveloped land.
085 Floodplain means land subject to periodic flooding, including the 100 -year floodplain as
086 mapped by FEMA Flood Insurance Studies or other substantial evidence of actual flood events.
087 Functions and Values of Stream Corridors means stream corridors have the following
088 functions and values: water quality retention and enhancement, flood attenuation, fish and
089 vrildlife habitat, recreation, erosion control, education, aesthetic, open space and wildlife
090 corridor.
;091 Growth Concept Map means the conceptual map demonstrating the 2040 Growth Concept
im design types attached to this plan in the Appendix.
1093 Hazardous materials means materials described as hazardous by Oregon Department of
1094 Environmental Quality.
1095 Implementing Regulations means any city or county land use regulation as defined by
1096 ORS 197.015(11) which includes zoning, land division or other ordinances which establish
1097 s,andards for implementing a comprehensive plan.
1098 Landscape Strip means the portion of public right-of-way located between the sidewalk and
1099 curb.
Pur 35—Urban OmwM Mam9emerrt Ruwtoaal Plan
Draft - October 29, 1996
CJ
TITLE 10: DEFINITIONS November 21, 1996
Accessibility means the amount of time required to reach a given location or
mode of travel. service b y any
Alternative Modes means alternative methods of travel to the automobile, ineludin
transportation (light rail, bus and other forms of public trans g public
transportation), bicycles and walking.
Balanced cut and rill means no net increase in fill within the floodplain.
Bikewav means separated bike paths, striped bike lanes, or wide outside la
accommodate bicycles and motor vehicles. nes that
Boulevard Design means a design concept that emphasizes pedestrian trave
use of public transportation, and accommodates motor vehicle travel. l bicycling and the
Calculated Capacity means the number of dwelling units and jobs that can be conta
area based on the calculation required by this functional plan. pned in an
Capacity Expansion means constructed or operational improvements to the re
vehicle system iliac increase the capacity of the system.
' regional motor
Comprehensive plan means the all inclusive,
statement of cities and counties defined in ORS 1 97 015( �' coordinated land use map and policy
Connectivity means the degree to which the local and regional street s
are interconnected. stems in y
a given arca
Designated Beneficial Water Uses means the same as the term as defined b
Department of Water Resources, which is: an instream public use of water for the benefit
y the Oregon
appropriator for a purpose consistent with the laws and the economic and general welf eof han
e
�oople of the state and includes, but is not limited to, domestic, fish life; industrial irrigation,
othe
Wig, municipal, pollution abatement, power development, recreation, stock`water fe
�� and wildlife
3es.ign 'Type means the conceptual areas described in the Metro 2040 Growth Co
Win Metro's regional goals and objectives, including central city, regional centers,
Concept text and
xaters, station communities, corridors, main streets, r and outer neighborhoods industrialinner
development means any manmade change defined as buildings or other structures,
�8�g, paving, filling, or grading in amounts aures, mining,
xcavation. In addition, any other activity that results in the ten
m(o1 al of cubic re than l any lot e
posting vegetated area on the lot is defined as development, for the Purposes of
0 /a of the
� Title 3,
K X—Urban Gro.nh Manatemcnr p unctwry� Plan
NDvcmber 21, 1996
Exceptions:
a.
b
Stream enhancement or restoration projects approved by cities and cour
Agricultural activity.
Replacement, additions, alterations and accessory uses for existing str.............-
development that do not encroach into the Water Quality and Flood Management
Area more than the existing structure or development.
t Development Application means an application for a land use decision, limited land decision
t including expedited land divisions, but excluding partitions as defined in ORS 92.010(7) and
5 ministerial decisions such as a building permit.
6 DBH means the diameter of a tree measured at breast height.
7 DLCD Goal 5 ESEE means a decision process local governments carry out under OAR 660-23-
.8 030.
t9 Fisb and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area means the area defined on the Metro Water
r0 Quality and Flood Management Area Map to be completed and attached hereto. These include
21 all Water Quality and Flood Management Areas that require regulation in order to protect fish
22 annw wildlife habitat. This area has been mapped to generally include the area 200 feet from top
Z', ci bank of streams in undeveloped areas with less than 25% slope, and 100 feet from edge of
21, mapped wetland on undeveloped land.
,25 Floodplain means land subject to periodic flooding, including the 100 -year floodplain as
126 mapped by FEMA Flood Insurance Studies or other substantial evidence of actual flood events.
127 Functions and Values of Stream Corridors means stream condors have the following
128 functions and values: water quality retention and enhancement, flood attenuation, fish and
12:9 wildlife habitat, recreation, erosion control, education, aesthetic, open space and wildlife
130 corridor.
1131 Growth Concept Map means the conceptual map demonstrating the 2040 Growth Concept
1132 design types attached to this plan in the Appendix.
1133 Hazardous materials means materials described as hazardous by Oregon Department of
1134 Environmental Quality.
1135 Implementing Regulations means any city or county land use regulation as defined by
1136 ORS 197.015(11) which includes zoning, land division or other ordinances which establish
1137 standards for implementing a comprehensive plan.
1138 Landscape Strip means the portion of public right-of-way located between the sidewalk and
1139 curb.
PW r—Urt an arownh Mammo rvnai«nl Plan
November 21. 1996
t_ -J
8.2
01/15/02
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY
MEETING DATE: January 15, 2002
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION No. 02-03. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO AMENDING THE PROCESS FOR MAKING
RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE OREGON LIQUOR CONTROL COMMISSION
REGARDING APPLICATIONS FOR LIQUOR LICENSES
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Move the Adoption of Resolution 02-03 amending the process for making
recommendations to the Oregon Liquor Control Commission regarding applications for
liquor licenses.
ESTIMATED FISCAL ATTACHMENTS:
IMPACT:
STAFF COST: $
BUDGETED:
Y N
FUNDING SOURCE:
• Council Report
• Exhibit A - Resolution 02-
03
• Exhibit B — Bases for
Unfavorable
Recommendations on
Liquor Licenses
NOTICED (Date):
Ordinance no.:
Resolution no.: 02-03
Previous Council
consideration:
CITY ATTORNEY ,�r CITY MANNAGEV
/ . ,2,
signoff/date
.\t :\Rpt-Cov-Reso-02-03.doc
/u— p7---
signoff/date
2u3
City Attorney's Office
To: Judie Hammerstad, Mayor
Members of Lake Oswego City Council
Doug Schmitz, City Manager
From: David D. Powell, City Attorney J -F
Council Report
Subject: Resolution 02-03
Updating the Process for Recommendations on Liquor License Applications
Date: January 9, 2002
BACKGROUND
The Oregon Liquor Control Commission solicits the city's recommendation on applications for
new, renewed or changed liquor licenses. In 1992, the Council adopted a resolution delegating
to the City Manager the authority to make these recommendations. This resolution listed only
four examples of bases for recommending denial of a license. State law now provides that, in
order to charge certain processing fees, the bases for such recommendations must be consistent
with current OLCC regulations. Current state statutes and administrative rules list dozens of
factors that can be considered in deciding whether a license should be denied.
Althougli the few examples of criteria that are listed in the 1992 resolution are arguably
consistent with the current regulations, it is advisable to amend the process to incorporate all of
the permissible grounds for denial so that there is no question that Lake Oswego's process meets
current statutory requirements, and so as to clarify the extent of the City Manager's authority
Furthermore, Lake Oswego's listed fee for processing liquor license applications for changes of
ownership is $25 higher than the current limit set by state law. In addition, the city's fee
schedule lists a fee for a "dispenser's license" that is obsolete and should be deleted.
Attached Resolution 02-03 (Exhibit A) accomplishes these necessary changes.
DISCUSSION
Attached Resolution 02-03 repeals the 1992 resolution, and again delegates to the City Manager
the authority to make recommendations on liquor licenses under a specified process.
205
Council Report
Resolution 02-03
Liquor License Applications
January 9, 2002
Page 2
State law requires that there be an opportunity for public comment on liquor license applications.
Resolution 02-03 provides that notice of liquor license applications be posted in City Hall for at
least 10 days, and that the notice inform members of the public of the opportunity to submit
written comments.
The proposed Resolution also provides that the City Manager shall base his or her
recommendation on the criteria listed in current statutes and administrative rules. These criteria
have been listed in detail on Exhibit B for the Council's reference. They include such factors as
the character of the applicant, criminal convictions, whether the establishment is sanitary,
whether there is a history of disturbances or unlawful activities at the premises, whether the
applicant has the financial resources to operate the premises, whether the applicant has had
repeated problems at another licensed location or has had a license canceled because of problems
with disturbances or unlawful activities, etc.
Like the 1992 resolution, Resolution 02-03 requires that the City Manager seek the advice of the
Police Chief as to whether there is reliable information disclosing these kinds of problems.
Lake Oswego's current Master Fee Schedule includes fees for reviewing six di fferent types of
liquor license applications. These are listed in Section 6 of the proposed Resolution. One, the fee
for "dispenser's license," is now obsolete and will be repealed by the Resolution. All of the
remaining fees are consistent with state regulations except the fee for "change in ownership,"
which will be reduced by $25 to meet the current limitation. According to Business License
Records Specialist Debbie Russell, the city processes approximately 10 change of ownership
applications each year. Consequently the fiscal impact of this fee reduction will be minor.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution 02-03, updating the process for
making recommendations on liquor license applications.
206
RESOLUTION 02-03
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
AMENDING THE PROCESS FOR MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE OREGON
LIQUOR CONTROL COMMISSION REGARDING APPLICATIONS FOR LIQUOR
LICENSES
WHEREAS, ORS 471.155(3) allows the Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLCC) to require
that applicants for liquor licenses acquire the recommendation of the City Council; and
WHEREAS, ORS 471.155(4) allows the city to adopt a resolution prescribing guidelines to be
followed in making recommendations on license applications; and
WHEREAS, in 1992, pursuant to Resolution 92-29, the Council delegated its authority to make
recommendations on liquor licenses to the City Manager, and established certain guidelines for
such recommendations; and
WHEREAS, ORS 471.166 provides that the city's guidelines for liquor license recommendations
must be consistent with current OLCC rules in order to charge a processing fee for such
recommendations; and
WHEREAS, the Council deems it advisable to update the city's guidelines to incorporate current
statutory provisions and OLCC rules relating to the bases for license denials or restrictions, and also
to correct the January 1, 2002 Master Fees and Charges Schedule by reducing the processing fee for
change in ownership applications, and deleting the separate fee for dispenser's licenses, so as to be
consistent with current regulations; and
WHEREAS, after public notice, a hearing on this Resolution was held at the regular City Council
meeting on January 15, 2002, at which an opportunity for public comment was provided.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego that:
Section 1. Resolution 92-29 is hereby repealed.
Section 2. The City Council hereby delegates to the City Manager its authority pursuant to ORS
471.155 and ORS 471.166 to make recommendations to the OLCC regarding applications for
liquor licenses.
Section 3. Notices of applications for liquor licenses, and for renewals of liquor licenses, shall be
posted in City Hall for at least 10 days before the City Manager's recommendation, and shall state
that members of the public may submit written comments on an application within that 10 -day
period.
Section 4. The City Manager shall base his or her recommendation on the license refusal bases
of ORS 471.313(4), ORS 471.313(5), OAR 845-005-0320, OAR 845-005-0325 or OAR 845-005-
0326, or the license restriction bases of OAR 845-005-0355. The recommendation must be 2 07
Resolution 02-03
Pagel of 2
supported by reliable factual information.
Section 5. Prior to making a recommendation to the OLCC, the City Manager shall seek the
recommendation of the Lake Oswego Chief of Police. The Chief of Police shall provide to the City
Manager any reliable factual information relating to the criteria in Section 4 of this Resolution.
Section 6. The City Council finds that the fees stated in Subsection (17)(3) of Section 1 of the
city's January 1, 2002 Master Fees and Charges Schedule relating to Liquor Licenses are
reasonable and necessary to pay the expenses of processing written recommendations. However,
the Council also finds that, to be consistent with current regulations, the processing fee for changes
of ownership should be reduced by $25 and the obsolete reference to a separate fee for dispenser's
licenses should be deleted. Subsection (F)(3) of Section 1 of the Master Fees and Charges
Schedule is hereby amended to read as follows (new material in bold type, deleted material shown
with st;ikethfeu):
3) Liquor License: Original application
$100
Change in ownership
$4-09 $75
Change in location
$75
Change in privilege
$75
Renewal of license
$35
Section 7. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect upon passage.
Considered and enacted at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego on
the day of January, 2002.
AYES:
NOES:
EXCUSED:
ABSTAIN:
Judie Hammerstad, Mayor
ATTEST:
Robyn Christie, City Recorder
APPROVED AS T ORM:
J141'
�J 01"
David D. Powell, City Attorney
Resolution 02-03
Page 2 of 2
208
BASES FOR UNFAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION ON LIQUOR LICENSE
ORS 471.313. The Oregon Liquor Control Commission may refuse to license any
applicant under the provisions of this chapter if the commission has reasonable ground to
believe any of the following to be true:
(4) That the applicant:
(a) Is in the habit of using alcoholic beverages, habit-fornling drugs or controlled
substances to excess.
(b) Has made false statements to the commission.
(c) Is incompetent or physically unable to carry on the management of the establishment
proposed to be licensed.
(d) Has been convicted of violating any of the alcoholic liquor laws of this state, general
or local, or has been convicted at any time of a felony.
(e) Has maintained an insanitary (sic) establishment.
(f) Is not of good repute and moral character.
(g) Did not have a good record of compliance with the alcoholic liquor laws of this state
and the rules of the commission when previously licensed.
(h) Is not the legitimate owner of the business proposed to be licensed, or other persons
have ownership interests in the business which have not been disclosed.
(i) Is not possessed of or has not demonstrated financial responsibility sufficient to
adequately meet the requirements of the business proposed to be licensed.
0) Is unable to read or write the English language or to understand the laws of Oregon
relating to alcoholic liquor or the rules of the commission.
(5) That there is a history of serious and persistent problems involving disturbances, lewd
or unlawful activities or noise either in the premises proposed to be licensed or involving
patrons of the establishment in the immediate vicinity of the premises if the activities in
the immediate vicinity of the premises are related to the sale or service of alcohol under
the exercise of the license privilege. Behavior which is grounds for refusal of a license
under this section, where so related to the sale or service of alcohol, includes, but is not
limited to obtrusive or excessive noise, music or sound vibrations; public drunkenness;
fights; altercations; harassment; unlawful drug sales; alcohol or related litter; trespassing
on private property; and public urination. Histories from premises currently or previously
operated by the applicant may be considered when reasonable inference may be made
that similar activities will occur as to the premises proposed to be licensed. The applicant
may overcome the history by showing that the problems are not serious or persistent or
that the applicant demonstrates a willingness and ability to control adequately the
premises proposed to be licensed and patrons' behavior in the immediate vicinity of the
premises which is related to the licensee's sale or service of alcohol under the licensee's
exercise of the license privilege.
N t
OAR 845-005-0320
3+ EXgIBIT
Page I of 7 — Bases for Unfavorable Recommendation on Liquor License
License Refusal Reasons that Can Not be Overcome
The following criteria will preclude issuing a license:
(1) The applicant has or would have an interest in another liquor business that ORS
471.313(3), 471.394, or 471.396 prohibits.
(2) The applicant seeks a license or sales authority that requires food service and is
unable to show the applicant will comply with the food service requirements set by the
rules of the Commission.
(3) The applicant seeks a Full On -Premises Sales license as a commercial establishment
as defined in ORS 471.001(2) and will not be open to the public to the extent
Commission rules require.
(4) The applicant seeks a Full On -Premises Sales license as an other public location as
allowed by ORS 471.175(2)(d) and will not allow public access to its premises.
(5) The applicant seeks a Full On -Premises Sales license as a private club as allowed by
ORS 471.175(2)(a) and the applicant has fewer than 200 members or has been chartered
for less than one year. Member means an individual with voting rights and privileges in
the private club equal to any other individual in the club whose club dues are fully paid
on the date upon which membership is counted.
(6) The applicant is a retail sales agent of the Commission with a contract for an
exclusive agency or seeks to exercise the license privileges in an exclusive sales agents
premises.
(7) The applicant fails to successfully complete an approved Alcohol Server Education
Program as ORS 471.542 and the Commission rules require.
(8) The applicant has not paid an outstanding fine to the Commission. ORS 471.313(4)(g)
allows the Commission to deny a license if the applicant had a poor compliance record
when previously licensed. Nonpayment of a fine is one indicator of a poor compliance
record.
(9) The applicant who is subject to the bonding requirements of ORS 471.155(1) has
failed to post a tax bond or the equivalent as required.
(10) The applicant who is subject to the liquor liability insurance requirements of OAR
845-005-0400 has failed to obtain or maintain liquor liability insurance or bond as
required.
(11) The applicant for an initial license has not completed Commission -given law
orientation.
OAR 845-005-0325
License Refusal Reasons: Applicant Qualifications
Page 2 of 7 — Bases for Unfavorable Recommendation on Liquor License ? U
If any of the following criteria apply, the Commission will deny a license unless the
applicant shows good cause that overcomes the criterion involved:
(1) The applicant has inadequate financial resources to build or operate the licensed
premises as proposed, or has inadequate financial resources to meet the financial
obligations of the licensed business. This section does not apply to license renewal
applications.
(2) The applicant has not built the licensed premises, or has not operated the licensed
business, substantially as proposed by the applicant and previously approved by the
Commission.
(3) The applicant can not or will not provide an employee who can communicate
effectively with customers and Commission regulatory employees. This person must be
on the licensed premises during the licensees business hours. Communicate effectively
means:
(a) Knowing how to lawfully sell and serve alcoholic beverages and communicating this
to customers;
(b) Understanding Commission regulatory employees when the employees explain lawful
sale and service of alcoholic beverages and responding in a way the employee
understands.
(4) Alcohol or Controlled Substance History or Record:
(a) The applicant has a recent history or record of using alcohol or controlled substances
to excess. Some of the types of records the Commission uses to establish a record of
using to excess include court, Motor Vehicles Division, police, or medical records;
(b) Good cause to overcome this criterion is a showing by the applicant that the applicant
no longer uses alcohol or controlled substances to excess and is not likely to do so in the
future. Some of the factors the Commission considers in detennining good cause are:
successful participation in treatment program(s), counselor, employer or probation officer
recommendations, severity of the applicants record, passage of time since last relevant
incident and previous record of compliance.
(5) The applicant has been convicted of a felony when there is a relationship between the
facts that support the conviction and applicants fitness to exercise the license privileges.
When there is a relationship between the applicants fitness and the felony, the
Commission considers any intervening circumstances since the commission of the crime
in determining whether the applicant is an acceptable future compliance risk.
(6) The applicant provides material false or misleading information to the Commission.
(7) The applicant is not at least 21 years old. Good cause to overcome this criterion
includes a showing by the applicant that the minor applicant will not participate in the
management or control of alcohol-related business decisions or of employees involved in
alcoholic beverage sale or service.
Page 3 of 7 — Bases for Unfavorable Recommendation on Liquor License 211
OAR 845-005-0326
License Not Demanded by Public Interest or Convenience
ORS 471.313(1) allows the Commission to deny a license that public interest or
convenience does not demand. The following are some of the public interest or
convenience reasons for which the Commission may deny a license unless the applicant
shows good cause to overcome the criteria:
(1) Alcohol -Related Problems at Other Licensed Premises:
(a) The applicant has had repeated problems at another licensed location during the two
years preceding this application or has had a license canceled or renewal refused because
of problems with disturbances, lewd or unlawful activities or noise. These problems:
(A) Must occur on the licensed premises or be caused by patrons in the immediate
vicinity of the licensed premises;
(B) Include, but are not limited to, obtrusive or excessive noise, music or sound
vibrations; public drunkenness; fights; altercations; harassment; unlawful drug sales;
alcohol-related litter; trespassing on private property; and public urination; and
(C) Must be related to the sale or service of alcohol under the exercise of the license
privileges.
(b) Good cause to overcome this criterion is a showing by the applicant that the applicant
will reasonably control all of the applicant's licensed premises to prevent problems
described in paragraphs (1)(a)(A), (B), and (C) of this rule. Factors that affect this good
cause determination may include, but are not limited to:
(A) Applicant is currently licensed at an outlet that has not had the problems described in
paragraphs (1)(a)(A), (B), and (C) of this rule in the past year;
(B) Applicant successfully regained control of premises that had problems described in
paragraphs (1)(a)(A), (B), and (C) of this rule;
(C) Applicant has a corrective plan that is likely to be effective;
(D) License conditions or restrictions would enable control of applicant's premises; and
(E) Applicant did not participate in the daily operation of the problem outlet, and there
has not been a pattern of problems described in paragraphs (1)(a)(A), (B), and (C) of this
rule at other outlets where applicant has been licensed.
(c) This criterion does not apply to renewal applications.
(2) Proximity to Facilities:
(a) The licensed premises:
Page 4 of 7 — Bases for Unfavorable Recommendation on Liquor License 2 1
(A) Will be located within 500 feet in urban or suburban areas or within 1,500 feet in a
rural area of the boundary (measured property line to property line) of a licensed child
care facility or elementary or secondary school; a church; a hospital, nursing care facility
or convalescent care facility; a park or children -oriented recreational facility; and alcohol
and other drug treatment or rehabilitation facility; and
(B) Will adversely impact the facility.
(b) Good cause to overcome this criterion includes, but is not limited to, a showing by the
applicant that:
(A) The proposed operation is consistent with the zoning where the proposed premises
will be located, is consistent with the general character of the area and the adverse impact
will not unreasonably affect the facility; or
(B) The size of the proposed premises' community is so small that the proposed location
is a reasonable location for the proposed operation.
(c) This criterion does not apply to renewal applications or to changes of ownership with
no change in license privileges or operation.
(3) Problem Areas:
(a) The licensed premises will be located in an area that has a history of serious or
persistent problems with unlawful activities, noise or disturbances. These problems need
not be alcohol-related;
(b) Good cause to overcome this criterion includes, but is not limited to, a showing by the
applicant that:
(A) Alcoholic beverage sale or service at the premises will not substantially contribute to
the problems; or
(B) The applicant has a plan that demonstrates a willingness and ability to adequately
control the proposed premises and patrons' behavior near the licensed premises.
(c) This criterion does not apply to renewal applications or to changes of ownership with
no change in license privileges or operation.
(4) Off -Premises Sales License.
(a) The applicant seeks an Off -Premises Sales license in conjunction with a Full On -
Premises Sales license. Good cause to overcome this criterion is a showing by the
applicant that the community is inadequately served by other Off -Premises Sales licenses
or that the Off -Premises Sales license will not detract from the licensees primary
operation as a restaurant;
(b) The applicant seeks an Off -Premises Sales license at an outlet that sells petroleum
products and does not or will not maintain a wide variety of grocery items available for
immediate sale. "Wide variety" means an inventory at a cost to the applicant of not less
Page 5 of 7 — Bases for Unfavorable Recommendation on Liquor License
21i
than $5,000 of foods that satisfy the general public's ordinary eating habits and personal
and household products. "Wide variety" does not include alcoholic beverages or tobacco
products. It also does not include snack food items that exceed ten percent of the
inventory's value.
(5) Licensed physician or other professional evaluations of the applicant or any on -
premises managers mental, emotional or physical condition that show incompetence or
physical inability to manage the business the applicant wants licensed. ORS
471.313(4)(b) allows the Commission to deny a license if the applicant is incompetent or
physically unable to manage the business the applicant wants licensed. These evaluations
are some indicators of this incompetence or physical inability.
(6) There is a final order of a court or administrative agency in a criminal or civil
proceeding finding that the applicant failed to comply with the liquor laws of this or any
other state. ORS 471.313(4)(d) allows the Commission to deny a license if the applicant
has violated liquor laws. These final orders are some but not the only indicators of liquor
law violations.
OAR 845-005-0355
Restricting License Privileges and Conduct of Operations
(1) The Commission may restrict a license or service permit when:
(a) In the absence of a restriction, the Commission has a basis to cancel, suspend/fine or
deny the license or service permit;
(b) In addition to all or part of a suspension or fine, a restriction may prevent the
recurrence of the problem(s) that caused the violation(s); or
(c) The Commission determines that a restriction is in the public interest or convenience.
(2) In determining public interest or convenience reasons to restrict a license or pennit,
the Commission considers factors that include but are not limited to:
(a) The character or environment of the neighborhood in which the licensed premises
operate;
(b) The need to eliminate or prevent conditions that have contributed to or that the
Commission reasonably believes will contribute to liquor or criminal law violations by
the licensee, patrons of the licensed premises or the public; or
(c) The need to limit the availability of alcohol to minors, visibly intoxicated persons or
street drinkers.
(3) The Commission has determined that it is not in the public interest or convenience to
issue or renew:
Page 6 of 7 — Bases for Unfavorable Recommendation on Liquor License 2 1 4
(a) A license that allows off -premises sales in an area frequented by street drinkers,
unless the Commission restricts the sales of the alcoholic beverages associated with street
drinkers;
(b) A license to a relative or associate of a person whose license was cancelled,
surrendered or not renewed because of problems at the premises that involved the person,
unless the Commission restricts the relative or associate from permitting the person from
being on the premises;
(c) A license or permit to a person who has a recent history or record of alcohol or drug
problems, unless the Commission requires the person to complete an alcohol/drug
treatment program and follow the program's recommendations regarding alcohol/drug use
or to abstain from alcohol/drug use.
(7) As used in subsections (2)(c) and (3)(a) of this rule, "street drinkers" means people
who drink unlawfully in streets, alleys, parks and other similar public places.
(8) As used in subsection (2)(b) of this rule, "conditions" means conditions in the
immediate vicinity of the premises that are related to the exercise of the license privileges
and conditions in the premises or in the areas around the premises that the
applicant/licensee controls.
Page 7 of 7 — Bases for Unfavorable Recommendation on Liquor License 2 1 5
9.1.1
01/15/02
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY
MEETING DATE: January 15, 2002
SUBJECT: Transportation Advisory Board recommendations to reconsider 5`r' and
A Avenue Traffic Change
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
ESTIMATED FISCAL
IMPACT:
STAFF COST: $
BUDGETED:
Y N
FUNDING SOURCE:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
signoffldate
Documenc2s
ATTACHMENTS:
• Transportation
Advisory Board memo
of December 17, 2001
• Tushner memo of
December 28, 2001
NOTICED (Date):
Ordinance no.:
Resolution no.:
Previous Council
consideration:
CITY MA AGER
signoliate
Memorandum
To: Lake Oswego City Council
From: Transportation Advisory Board
Subject: Summary of the TAB Recommendations to
Reconsider 5`" and A Avenue Traffic Change
Date: December 17, 2001
At the September 12, 2001 meeting of the Transportation Advisory Board
(TAB), the Board voted to support Transportation and Development's
recommendation to remove the crosswalk markings across A Avenue at 5"'
Street. The recommendation was based upon information presented by staff
that documented the need for removal of the crosswalk markings based upon
both a predicted and demonstrated safety concern. Following the meeting,
staff contacted the Evergreen and First Addition Neighborhood (FAN) chairs
to inform them of the intended removal action.
At the November 6, 2001 City Council meeting, the Chairs of the Evergreen
and First Addition neighborhoods presented a request to have TAB
reconsider the action. The neighborhood Chairs also informed City Council
of their intention to sponsor a demonstration on November 17'h to heighten
awareness of the crossing.
Transportation and Development staff met with the neighhorhood prior to
the December 12 TAB meeting to facilitate a joint proposal by Staff and the
neighborhood. A decision was made to take a phased approach to enhance
the pedestrian movements at the intersection of 5`" and A Avenue. The
approach is summarized as follows:
Phase l: Remove both of the striped crosswalk markings on A Avenue.
Pedestrian crossings would still be allowed, but would not occur in a striped
crosswalk across A Avenue. In addition, request a stepped up enforcement
effort by the LO PD and remove the crossing Flags currently posted at the
intersection.
21 19
Lake Oswego City Council
Summary of TAB Reconsideration of 5th and A Avenue Recommendation
Page 2 of 2
December 17, 2001
Phase 2: Install pedestrian scale lighting (the same globe lighting that is
located to the east on A Avenue). The intersection is currently lit by one
cobra head streetlight located on the northwest corner.
Phase 3: Install a curb extension on the southeast corner of 5t" and A
Avenue. Staff will be doing additional engineering to examine the costs and
impacts of this installation.
Phase 4: Long term, incorporate pedestrian oriented facilities into planning
efforts for this intersection that would enhance the pedestrian environment
and provide for safe crossings as deemed appropriate.
Timing for Phase 1 can occur within the next two to three months. Phase 2
funding is being actively pursued, and if funding falls into place, could occur
within approximately one year. Staff is working with the City Manager on
funding sources for the first three phases. Staff will provide periodic
updates to the TAB.
TAB supported and recommended that staff pursue this approach to
enhancing pedestrian movements and safety on A Avenue at 5th Street.
C: Lynn Peterson, FAN Chair
Anne Meneakis, Evergreen Chair
TAB
Doug Schmitz, City Manager
Stephan Lashbrook, Community Development Director
Stacie Bernert, LOPD
J:\COMMON_E\TOM_T\Meetings\1'AB\TAB memo to Council 5th and A Ave 12-12-0i.doc
2 Ii
Community Development Department
Engineering Division
Memorandum
TO: Douglas J. Schmitz, City Manager
FIZO)M: Tom Tushner, g
Principal Engineer '
P
RE: 5th and A Avenue Crosswalk
Cost Estimates
DATE: December 28, 2001
On December 1211, the Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) voted to support a phased
approach to the pedestrian crossing traffic control on 5th and A Avenue. The phases would
be implemented as funding allowed, with the first phase being implemented immediately out
of the City's maintenance funds. The phases are generally described as follows:
Phase 1: Remove both of the striped crosswalk markings on A Avenue. Pedestrian crossings
would still be allowed, but would not occur in a striped crosswalk across A Avenue. In
addition, request a stepped up enforcement effort by the LO PD and remove the crossing
flags currently posted at the intersection. Estimated Cost = $1,000
Phase 2: Install pedestrian scale lighting (two luminaries are recommended on the east side
to compliment the, the same globe lighting that is located to the east on A Avenue). The
intersection is currently lit by one cobra head streetlight located on the northwest corner.
Estimated Cost = Option A Two Luminaries $17,000 Option B One Light $7,000
Phase 3: Install a curb extension on the southeast corner of 5th and A Avenue. Staff will be
doing additional engineering to examine the costs and impacts of this installation. Estimated
Cost = Option A curb extension S/E corner $40,500 with illumination Option B curb
extensions on three corners $107,000 with illumination
Phase 4: Long term, incorporate pedestrian oriented facilities into plarn-ting efforts for this
intersection that would enhance the pedestrian environment and provide for safe crossings
as deemed appropriate.
These cost estimates are rough. Funding for the first phase would come out of the City's
Street fund, funding sources for the other pleases have not been identified.
ATTACHMENT ]:\COMMON_E\TOM_T\Meetings\TAB\5th and A memo to Schmitz 12-27-01,doc
2i
A Avenue @ Fifth Street Intersection Improvements
12/28/01
Engineer's Construction Cost Estimate
IMI -,� b�®r��%�!
Olt .0
Item
Description
Unit
Qty.
Price
Total
1
1V1UU11J4dt1U11, IfIbUldilCU, MUMMY
LS
1
$300.00
$300.00
2
Erosion Control
LS
1
$80,00
$80.00
3
Traffic Control
LS
1
$200.00
$200.00
4
New Sidewalk
SF
35
$7.00
$245.00
5
Landscaping
LS
1
$150.00
$150.00
6
Irrigation
LS
1
$60.00
$60.00
7
Illumination
a. Street Lighting
EA
1
$3,800.00
$3,800.00
b. Lighting Electrical (general)
LS
1
$550.00
$550.00
c. Electrical Conduit
LF
30
$35.00
$1,050.00
d. Painting
EA
1
$280.00
$280.00
Estimated Total
$6,715.00
common_e/john_I/transportation/estimates/5th
street
x-walk_est
23
A Avenue @ Fifth Street Intersection Improvements
12/28/01
Engineer's Construction Cost Estimate
Street lights
(NE & SE Corners)
Item Description
Unit
Qty.
Price
Total
1
1
$300.00
$300.00
2 Erosion Control
LS
1
$80.00
$80.00
3 Traffic Control
LS
1
$900.00
$900.00
4 New Sidewalk
SF
70
$7.00
$490.00
5 Landscaping
LS
1
$150.00
$150.00
6 Irrigation
LS
1
$60.00
$60.00
7 Illumination
a. Street Lighting
EA
2
$3,800.00
$7,600.00
b. Lighting Electrical (general)
LS
1
$800.00
$800.00
c. Electrical Conduit
LF
110
$35.00
$3,850.00
d. Painting
EA
2
$280.00
$560.00
8 Asphaltic Concrete (Class C Mix)
a. Cut & replace asphaltic concrete, 6" depth
SY
35
$58.00
$2,030.00
Estimated Total
$16,820.00
wmmon_e/john_I/transportation/estimates/5th street x-walk_est
2:,�
A Avenue @ Fifth Street Intersection Improvements
12/28/01
Curb Extension @ SE Corner w/Lighting on NE
Engineer's Construction Cost Estimate & SE Corners
Item Description Unit
1
Mobilization, Insurance, Bonding
LS
2
Erosion Control
LS
3
Traffic Control
LS
4
Site Preparation - Surface removal and rough grading
LS
5
New Sidewalk
SF
6
Concrete Curb
LF
7
Landscaping
LS
8
Irrigation
LS
9
Water Meter
EA
10
Illumination
$7,600.00
1
a. Street Lighting
EA
110
b. Lighting Electrical (general)
LS
2
c. Electrical Conduit
LF
1
d. Painting
LS
11
No Parking Sign
EA
12
Asphaltic Concrete (Class C Mix)
a. Cut & replace asphaltic concrete, 6" depth
SY
Estimated Totals
common_e/john_!/transportation/estimates!5th street x -walk est
Qty. Price Total
1
$2,300.00
$2,300.00
1
$350.00
$350.00
1
$2,500.00
$2,500.00
1
$4,400.00
$4,400.00
600
$7.00
$4,200.00
100
$22.00
$2,200.00
1
$1,500.00
$1,500.00
1
$4,000.00
$4,000.00
1
$1,500.00
$1,500.00
2
$3,800.00
$7,600.00
1
$800.00
$800.00
110
$35.00
$3,850.00
2
$280.00
$560.00
1
$175,00
$175.00
75 $58.00 $4,350.00
$40,285.00
A Avenue @ Fifth Street Intersection Improvements
12/28/01
Curb Extension on SE, SW, &
NW Corners
Engineer's Construction
Cost Estimate
w/Lighting
on all 4 Corners
Item
Description
Unit
Qty.
Price
Total
1
LS
1
$5,000.00
$5,000.00
2
Erosion Control
LS
1
$700,00
$700.00
3
Traffic Control
LS
1
54,600.00
$4,600.00
4
Site Preparation - Surface removal and rough grading
EA
3
$4,400.00
$13,200.00
5
New Sidewalk
SF
2000
$6.25
$12,500.00
6
Concrete Curb
LF
300
$18.00
$5,400.00
7
Landscaping
LS
1
$4,500.00
$4,500.00
8
Irrigation
LS
1
$8,000.00
$8,000.00
9
Water Meter
EA
1
$1,500.00
$1,500.00
10
Storm Sewer Modifications
EA
2
$1,900.00
$3,800.00
11
Illumination
a. Street Lighting
EA
4
$3,800.00
$15,200.00
b. Lighting Electrical (general)
LS
1
$1,300.00
$1,300.00
c. Electrical Conduit
LF
230
$35.00
$8,050.00
d. Painting
LS
4
5280.00
$1,120.00
12
Tree Removal
EA
1
$325,00
$325.00
13
No Parking Sign
EA
2
$175.00
$350.00
14
Asphaltic Concrete (Class C Mix)
a. Cut & replace asphaltic concrete, 6" depth
SY
105
$58.00
56,090.00
15
Basalt facing frontage improvements
SF
126
$120.00
$15,120.00
Estimated Totals
$106,755.00
co,-... �m._e/John_I/transportation/estimates/5th
street x-walk_est
J
10.1.1
01/15/02
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY
MEETING DATE: January 15, 2002
SUBJECT: Bangy Road/Bonita Road CIP Projects
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Authorize acceleration of Bonita Road project to 2002 for incorporation into
Bangy Road project.
ESTIMATED FISCAL
IMPACT:
• 2001-02: $640,000
• 2002-03: $150,000
STAFF COST: $
BUDGETED:
Y—./— N
FUNDING SOURCE:
• SDC's (city and
county)
• Street Fund
• Schmitz memo of 8
January with
attachment
NOTICED (Date):
Ordinance no.:
Resolution no.:
Previous Council
consideration: June '01:
Budget 2001-02.
------------
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR CITY WANAGER
41
signoff/date si no/dZe
sig
lo
CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
TO: Judie Hammerstad, Mayor
Members of the City Council
FROM: Douglas J. Schmitz, City Manager
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Bangy Road Project - Consolidation of Two CIP Projects into a
Single Fiscal Year
DATE: 3 January 2002
BACKGROUND
The Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) identifies the Bangy Road project, located
between the I-5/217 intersection and Bonita Road, as a project for FY 2001-02.
The project involves repaving Bangy Road and the addition of a landscaped
entryway and medians. The estimated project cost was at $290,000 and is
budgeted in this year's budget.
The CIP also identifies for FY 2003-04 intersection improvements, including the
installation of a traffic signal at Bangy and Bonita Roads. The project cost was
estimated in the CIP at $350,000.
COMMENTARY
As the Bangy Road project has evolved through the planning and review
process, it became evident that aspects of the Bangy Road project were
intertwined with the Bonita Road intersection improvements. This interweaving
involved the location of curbs on the northeast corner of Bangy at Bonita; a right
turn lane from Bangy northbound onto Bonita; as well as the repaving of a
portion of the intersection. The Engineering staff has recommended that it
would be cost effective and the City could obtain economies of scale by
accelerating the Bonita Road intersection improvement project, consolidating
both projects into a singular plan, and bidding the projects singularly, except for
2 20 k -i
MEMORANDUM: Bangy Road Project - Consolidation ... Page 2
3 January 2002
the installation of the signal poles and boxes. These require an extended lead
time to design and order. Delivery is usually six months after ordering.
FINANCING
The Bonita Road project was to be funded with a combination of City
transportation and County transportation SDC's. According to Richard Seals of
the Finance Department, sufficient City transportation SDC's are available this
fiscal year to cover both the City and County transportation SDC contributions.
The City will approach the County about accelerating its contribution or, upon
receipt of the monies in 2003-04, backfill the City's transportation SDC fund.
The $640,000 of combined revenue for the two projects is sufficient to do all of
the work for both projects with the exception of the signal poles and operational
boxes. Due to the design work and specifications for these specialized features
and the long lead time to receive the equipment after ordering, the project could
be fully constructed with available monies. The poles and boxes would be
budgeted in FY 2002-03.
The roadway bed and structural integrity of the road is much worse than the
City had been led to believe. The remedial work on the road is expected to
exceed the original estimate for the combined projects by approximately
$150,000.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Council authorize the consolidation of the Bangy
Road and Bonita Road intersection improvement projects into a single project for
bidding and construction in early 2002. A budget adjustment, if necessary,
would be made at a later date.
23()
8A
01/15/02
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY
MEETING DATE: January15, 2002
SUBJECT: Planning Commission Recommendation for Approval of Density
Guidelines, ZC 7-98 (A)
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve ZC 7-98(A), Density Guidelines and direct staff to
prepare Findings, Conclusions and Order and finalize Ordinance 2309.
EST. FISCAL
IMPACT:
STAFF COST:
BUDGETED:
Y N
FUNDING SOURCE:
DE T. DIRECTOR
ATTACHMENTS:
• January 8, 2002
Heisler Staff Report
11q loz _
Signoff/d to
ASSISTANT CITY
MANAGER
Signoff/date
L:\Case Files\l998\ZC 7-98/2001 Activity/Council Cover Memo,doc
I
PUBLISHED NOTICES
(Date): January 3, 2002
Ordinance No. 2309
Previous Council
consideration:
September 15, 1998, Study
Session January 8, 2002
CITY MANAG
Signoff/date
101
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
COUNCIL REPORT
TO: Douglas J. Schmitz, City Manager
FROM: Jane Heisler, Project Pla 9 �
SUBJECT: ZC 7-98(A) Planning Commission Recommendation to Adopt Zoning
Code Text Amendments to LOC 48, Recommending Density Guidelines
for all Residential Zones
DATE: January 8, 2002
ACTION:
The action before the City Council is to consider a recommendation made by the Planning
Commission at its November 26, 2001 meeting to approve ZC 7-98(A) requiring density guidelines
for All residential zones, and to direct staff to prepare findings and finalize Ordinance 2309.
The City of Lake Oswego is requesting Zoning Code Text Amendments to require minimum
density in all residential zones, as well as conforming amendments to the Zoning Code and to
LOC 49, the Development Code. These changes will result in City compliance with the Metro
Functional Plan, Title 1, Requirements for Housing and Employment Accommodation. The
recommended changes are found in Exhibit B, Attachment A, Minimum Density Text.
The Planning Commission found that the changes meet City Comprehensive Plan policies,
statewide planning goals and administrative rules and the Metro Urban Growth Boundary
Functional Plan (Density Guidelines).
ACTION BY PLANNING COMMISSION:
Following a public hearing on November 26, 2001, the Planning Commission voted to
recommend approval of ZC 7-98(A). Ten people testified against the proposal and no one
testified in favor. See Exhibit C for Planning Commission minutes.
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION:
The Planning Commission recommendation follows Council's direction to the Commission to
propose density guidelines which will meet Metro's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan
(adopted in November, 1996).
Page 1 of 3
Council Report ZC 7-98(A) Density Guidelines
103
On January 8, 2002, the Council held a Study Session to discuss the Planning Commission
recommendation. The primary topic of discussion was the portion of the recommendation
requiring a Future Development Plan when the potential exists for a subdivision, but a property
owner proposes partitioning. Issues raised regarding applying future development plans to series
partitions included the following:
Pro:
• Implements the underlying zone
• Promotes development that is in scale with other development in the zone
• Promotes more efficient use of the land
• Promotes more efficient use of utilities
• Implements densities at the level for which utilities are planned
• Treats partitions the same as subdivisions
Cons:
• Requires additional review of where dwelling units may be placed on lots
• May limit the size/footprint of some dwellings in the smaller lot zones
• Makes subsequent partitions more complicated by requiring compliance with a future
development plan.
• Exceeds the minimum Metro requirements and, therefore, may be more difficult to adopt.
The Planning Commission's recommended text is contained in Exhibit B, Findings, Conclusions
and Order, Attachment A. Exhibit B-1 contains this recommendation as well as optional
language for amending items discussed at the Study Session.
An additional question was raised at the Study Session regarding how much land may be
affected by the minimum density proposal. Two conflicting sets of acreage were presented from
past staff materials. Staff indicated that it would provide more recent data prior to the public
hearing, which would take into consideration updated City boundaries and lots developed over
the past two years. These maps are attached as Exhibits E-2 and E-3.
In 1997, initial amendments considered for implementing these requirements included language
for the R-3 and R-5 Zones. The City Council adopted the ordinance and it became effective
March 18, 1997. A second proposal to apply density guidelines to the remaining residential
zones was proposed by Planning Commission in 1999. The previous Council denied this
proposal, which included applying minimum density to any proposed lot or dwelling unit. The
current Council directed staff to pursue compliance with all Metro Functional Plan
Requirements, including minimum density, in its 2001 Goals. Additional history and
background may be found in the Planning Commission's Staff Report, Exhibit D.
Letters received in favor of the proposal are found in Exhibit G-2. Letters against the proposal
are found in Exhibit G-3.
Page 2 of 3
Council Report ZC 7-98(A) Density Guidelines
104
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve ZC 7-98(A), which
recommends that Ordinance 2309 be adopted.
EXHIBITS:
A. Notice of Appeal (No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use)
B. Findings Findings, Conclusion and Order ZC 7-98(A)-1453, adopted on
December 10, 2001.
B-1. Council Optional Language based on January 8, 2002 Study Session Discussion
C. Minutes November 26, 2001 Planning Commission meeting.
D. Staff Reports Planning Commission Staff Report dated November 1, 2001
E. Graphics/Plans
E-1. Typical Multi-family/Condominium Development Densities in the R-0
Zone
E-2 Map of Lots within the Urban Services Boundary that would be affected by
minimum density requirements for subdivisions
E-3 Chart of acreage by zone that would be affected by minimum density
requirements for subdivisions.
F. Written Materials
F-1. Proposed Minimum Density Zoning Code and Development Code
Changes
F-2. Previously Approved Minimum Density Zoning code language
F-3. April 18, 2000 City Council Minutes
F-4. Internal Metro memo dated May 10, 1999 from Mary Weber to Elaine
Wilkerson, Director, Growth Management Services
F-5. Existing code density transfer language
G. Letters
G-1.
Neither for Nor Against (None)
G-2.
In Favor
G-2-1 Letter from Andrew Fraser, sent via email December 16, 2001
G- ', .
Opposed
G-3-1. Letter from Lynora Saunders received September 26, 2001
G-3-2 Letter from Anan Raymond, Chair, Forest Highlands
Neighborhood Association, received November 26, 2001
G-3-3 Letter from Mike Hoglund, Regional Planning Director, Metro,
dated November 15, 2001
G-3-4 Letter from John Pullen, received November 26, 2001
G-3-5 Letter from Daniel Baer sent via email dated December 16, 2001.
P/case files/1998/ZC 7-98/2001 Activity/Council Report 1-15-02.doc
Page 3 of 3
Council Report ZC 7-98(A) Density Guidelines
105
2
3
4
c
6
S
9
afl
al
12
13
14
16
16
17
18
19
20
22
23
24
2{
_6
27
2'8
29
30
31
32
33
3.4
3�
6
Z-�
3S
39
40
4[
4=
4-
44'
4t
46
��'��PPREED
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
A REQUEST FOR LEGISLATIVE TEXT ) ZC 7-98 (A) - 1453
AMENDMENTS TO LAKE OSWEGO ) (CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO)
ZONING CODE [LOC CHAPTER 48] ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & ORDER
REQUIRING THAT MINIMUM LOT )
DENSITY BE ACHIEVED WHEN )
SUBDIVIDING IN ANY RESIDENTIAL )
ZONE )
NATURE OF APPLICATION
Legislative text amendments to the Lake Oswego Zoning Code (LOC Chapter 48) that require a
minimum lot density be achieved when land is subdivided in any residential zone and to amend
the minimum density text currently in the Zoning Code for R-3 and R-5 zones so that it only
applies to subdivision development.
HEARINGS
The Planning Commission held a public hearing and considered this application at its meeting of
November 26, 2001.
CRITERIA AND STANDARDS
A. City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan
Goal I Citizen Involvement,
Policies 1,2,10
Goal 2 Land Use Planning
Policies 5,8,11
Goal 5 Open Spaces, Historic and Natural Areas
General Goal
Goal 7 Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards,
Section 1: Flood Hazards Goal
Goal 10 Housing
Policies La., l .b.,14,17
Goal 11 Public Facilities and Services
General Goal
Goal 12 Transportation - - --
Goal 1: Major Streets System
EXHIBIT B
PAGE I ZC 7-98 (A) — 1453
I Goal 13 Energy Conservation
2 General Goal
3 Goal 14 Urbanization
4 Policies 1,3
5
6 B. City of Lake Oswego Zoning Code
7 LOC 48.04.132 Minimum Density
8 LOC 48.08.280 Allowable Density and Density Transfer
9
10 C. City of Lake Oswego Development Code
1 1 LOC 49.44.900 Review by a Hearing Body
12 LOC 49.60.1500 Legislative Decisions Defined
13 LOC 49.60.1505 Criteria for a Legislative Decision
14 LOC 49.60.1515 Planning Commission Recommendation Required; Notice; Conduct of
15 Hearing
16 LOC 49.60.1520 City Council Review and Decision
t LOC 49.46.1030 Decision of the Hearing Body
18
19 D. Statewide Planning Goals
20 Goal 1 Citizen Involvement
21 Goal 2 Land Use Planning
-- Goal 5 Open Spaces, Historic and Natural Areas
Goal 7 Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards
_ Goal 10 Housing
Goal 11 Public Facilities and Services
26 Goal 12 Transportation
2- Goal 13 Energy Conservation
28 Goal 14 Urbanization
29
30 E. Applicable Administrative Rules pursuant to ORS CH. 197
31 OAR 660-07 Metropolitan Housing Rule
32
33 F. Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan
34 3.07.120 Methods to Increase Calculated Capacity Required for All Cities and Counties
35
36
37 CONCLUSION
38
39 The Planning Commission concludes that ZC 7-98 (A) is in compliance with all applicable
40 criteria.
41
42
43
m
PAGE 2 ZC 7-98 (A) — 1453
108
FINDINGS AND REASONS
3 The Planning Commission incorporates the staff report, dated November 1, 2001, on ZC 7-98 (A)
4 with all exhibits attached thereto, including Exhibits submitted after publication of the Staff
5 Report, as follows:
7 F-6 Supplemental proposed Zoning Code amendments for the R-0, R-2 and DD Zones
8 submitted by staff on November 26, 2001
9 G-3-2 Letter from Anan Raymond, Chair, Forest Highlands Neighborhood Association, received
to November 26, 2001
11 G-3-3 Letter from Mike Hoglund, Regional Planning Director dated November 15, 2001
12
13 as support for its decision, supplemented by the further findings and conclusions set forth herein.
14 In the event of any inconsistency between the supplementary matter herein and the staff report,
15 the matter herein controls. To the extent they are consistent with the approval granted herein, the
16 Commission adopts by reference its oral deliberations on this matter.
17
18 Following are the supplementary findings and conclusions of this Commission:
19
20 1. The Commission heard testimony that it should resist minimum density requirements
1 because Lake Oswego is different in character than other cities in the Metro area and that
22 imposing minimum density will compromise the character of neighborhoods.
,;
24 The Commission concluded that imposing a minimum density of 8000 of the maximum
2� allowed by a zone, when subdivisions are proposed, is not allowing any type of
26 development or density of development that is not currently allowed by the
2' Comprehensive Plan and Zoning and Development Codes. If infill development by
2 subdivision or series partitioning is compromising the character of existing
29 neighborhoods, then the community should address that separate question by examining
30 the lot size requirements in the zoning designations. The Commission opined that Lake
31 Oswego is part of the metropolitan region and, as a City in the region, it is subject to the
32 state planning laws and metro planning regulations and should fulfill its role as a partner
33 in those legal requirements.
34
35 2. A citizen testified that the Metro minimum density requirements were fashioned in
36 anticipation of large numbers of residents moving to the metropolitan area. Currently, the
37 Oregon economy is in recession, a circumstance that will result in slower growth. It was
38 also indicated that the City should pursue an exception to the Metro requirements.
39
40 The Commission concluded that the current recession is a short-term economic
41 circumstance and that cities and counties are mandated to plan 20 years or more into the
42 future. The Commission indicated that the Council has not asked staff and the
43 Commission to pursue an exception to minimum density, but to meet the Metro
44 requirement.
45
PAGE 3 ZC 7-98 (A) - 1453 109
3. The Commission received testimony from Metro indicating that the proposed minimum
density standards, only apply to certain residential zones and, therefore, do not satisfy the
Metro Code, which requires minimum densities to be applied to all residential zones.
= The Commission agreed to amend the ordinance text as proposed in the staff report, as
5 well as staff's recommended language requiring minimum densities for the R-0, R-2 and
6 DD zones as submitted in Exhibit F-6, in order to comply with Metro Code.
s 4. The Commission discussed the ability of a property owner to circumvent the minimum
9 density requirements by conducting series partitions over two or more years. The
to Commission agreed to amend the ordinance language to address this concern. Proposed
1 H additional language to assure minimum density through a partition plan, is attached in
12 Exhibit A.
t3
1.4 5. The Commission expressed concern regarding the list of exceptions to the minimum
15 density requirement for all zones (Proposed LOC 48.20.517) because it did not reference
16 all types of Sensitive Lands. While the proposal indicates that sites containing RC tree
17 groves on which preservation of more than 501i16 minimum protection would curtail
1` development such that the minimum number of lots could not be developed, it did not
19 allow consideration for wetlands or stream corridors. The Commission agreed to amend
20 the proposed ordinance to state that development on parcels that contained all types of
' 1 Sensitive Lands would be eligible for an exception to the minimum density requirements
2- in all zones.
24 6, The Commission discussed how proposed LOC 48.20.517(2)(e) would allow for an
25 exception to minimum density requirements when subdivisions were proposed in zones
26 where there was no minimum lot size required (e.g., DD, R-0 and R-2 zones), but a
27 number of dwelling units is proposed that provides for an equivalent minimum density.
2S The Commission agreed to amend the proposed ordinance language to permit dwelling
29 units to be counted toward minimum density in these zones.
30
31
32
33 ORDER
34
35 IT IS ORDERED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION of the City of Lake Oswego that:
36
37 1. The Planning Commission recommends that ZC 7-98 (A) be approved by the City
38 Council, as amended in Exhibit A.
39
40 1 CERTIFY THAT THIS ORDER was presented to and APPROVED by the Planning
41 Commission of the City of Lake Oswego.
42
43
44
45
PAGE 4 ZC 7-98 (A) — 1453
I i o
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
is
19
20
21
71
23
24
,;
,6
1
2S
29
30
31
32
DATED this 10th day of December 2001.
Daniel Vizzini, C
Planning Commission
Iris Treinen
Senior Secretary
ATTEST:
PRELIMINARY DECISION - November 26, 2001
AYES: Johnson, Sandlbast, Vizzini, Waring, Webster
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Edwards, Groznik
RECUSE: None
ADOPTION OF FINDINGS AND ORDER - December 10 2001
AYES:
Groznik, Johnson, Sandblast, Vizzini, Waring, Webster
NOES:
None
ABSTAIN:
None
ABSENT:
Edwards
RECUSE:
None
PAGE 5 ZC 7-98 (A) — 1453
111
PROPOSED MINIMUM DENSITY TEXT
ORDINANCE 2309
------
EXHIBIT A
ZC 7-98 (A) Findings
Proposed Additions appear in bold/underline, proposed deletions in stFilcethriwo. Changes
addressing Planning Commission findings appear in double underline/hnid
Proposed Zoning Code Amendments
Article 48.04 Residential — High Density R-0, R-2, R-5, WR Zones
48.04.132 Minimum Density
When lots are er-eated through a partition or si isien, a mill -MUM density of
80-1,,� of the maximum density permitted by the Zone is r-equired pureels of one half
aeFe or- larger- in the R 3 and R 5 zones. For- purposes of thisr-seetion, Cheer- of lots
rts+ve e€
P e derts+t�-#arse 8 Tho emit shall be r-ettr led -rip €e trfr-y
P ._hr-eate-r-s r-ed-uet4vM-a
motion ,.r than .e.
48.04.132 Minimum Density
1. NVhen subdivisions are proposed in the R-0 Zone, a minimum density of 20 lots
per acre is required. When subdivisions are proposed in the R-2 Zone, a minimum
density of 12 lots per acre is required. For purposes of this section, this number is
computed by multiplying the net developable acreage by either 20 or 12 per the
applicable zone. The result shall rounded up for any product with a fraction of .5 or
greater and rounded down for any product with a fraction of less than .5. The
requirements of this section are subject to the exceptions contained in LOC 48.20.517.
2. When subdivisions are proposed in the R -3 R-5, or SVR Zones, a minimum
density of 80%► is required. When a partition is pro ed in the R -3 R-5 or VE ones
either a. -Minimum density of 80% is required on a lot which is four times the minimum
lot size required in the zone or greater, or there shall be an approved Future_
Development Plan pursuant t O - 48 20 51 R fur the lnt For purposes of this section
the number of lots required shall be determined by dividing the net developable acreage
by the minimum lot size per unit required in the underlvini! zone, and multiplvine this
number by -.8. The result shall be rounded up for any product with a fraction of.5 or
Qreater and rounded down for any product with a fraction of less than 5 The
requirements of this section are subject to the exceptions contained in LOC 48.20.517.
48.05.027 Minimum Density: R-6 Zone
When subdivisions are proposed in the R-6 Zone, a minimum density of 80% is
required. When a partition is propos d in the R-6 Zonedthrr a minimum density of
"o is required on a lot which is four times the minimum lot size r quircdin the-Z9M
or greater, or there shall be an approved Future De -u Plan pursuant to LOC
48.20.518 for the lot. For purposes of this section the number of lots required shall be
determined by dividing the net developable acreage by the minimum lot size per unit
ZC 7-98(A) Minimum Density Proposed Code Changc., Page 1 of 8 1. 13
required by the underlying zone, and multiplving this number by 8 The result shall be
rounded up for any product with a fraction of 5 or greater and rounded down for anv
product with a fraction of less than 5 The requirements of this section are subject to
the exceptions contained in LOC 48.20.517.
48.06.207 Minimum Density: R-7.5 R-10 R-15 Zones
When subdivisions are proposed in the R-7.5, R-10, or R-15 Zones, a minimum
density of 80% is required Wen a partition u proposed in the R-7-5, R-1 0or R-15
either a minimum density of 80 is rkgui2, lot wh
red on four times -the
r of size required in h on or r at r or there shall be an approved Future
Develop enIPlan pursuant to LOC 48.20.518. for the lot. For purposes of this section,
the number of lots required shall be determined by dividing the net developable acreage
by the minimum lot size per unit required in the underlying zone, and [trultiplving this
number by .8. The result shall be rounded up for any product with a fraction of.5 or
greater and rounded down for any product with a fraction of less than S. The
requirements of this section are subject to the exceptions contained in LOC 48.20.517.
48.08.257 Minimum Density: DD "Zone
When subdivisions are proposed in the DD Zone for the purposes of single family
development, a minimum density of 5 lots per acre is required When subdivisions are
proposed for the purposes of constructing duplex development in the DD Zone, a
minimum density of 10 units per acre is required When subdivisions are proposed for
the purpose of constructing multi -family development in the DD 'Zone a minimum
density of 14 units per acre is required For purposes of this section, the density is
computed by multiplying the net developable acreage by either 5, 10 or 14 per the
Applicable type of development The result shall be rounded up for anv product with a
fraction of .5 or greater and rounded down for any product with a fraction of less than
.5.
48.09.020 Town Home Residential (R-2.5)
a)iv). When subdivisions are proposed in the R-2.5 zone, a minimum density of 80% is
required. When a partition is roposed in the R-2.5 Zone either a minimum deust4 7
80% is required on a lot which is four times the rnjnimum lot size_ required-ju Ille zone
orgreater, or there shall be an annroyed Future ileyclu meat Plan pursuant to LOC
48,20.518 for the lot. For purposes of this section, the number of lots required shall be
determined by dividing the net developable acreaee by the minimum lot size per unit
required in the underlying zone, and multiplying this number by 8 The result shall be
rounded up for anv product with a fraction of 5 or greater and rounded down for anv
Product with a fraction of less than 5 The requirements of this section are subject to
the exceptions contained in LOC 48.20.517.
48.20.517 Exceptions to the Minimum Density Requirement for all zones
1. The minimum density requirements are not applicable to sites identified
on the City's Historic Landmark Designation list
ZC 7-98(A) Minimum Density Proposed Code Changes Page 2 of 8 1 14
2. The number of lots required by the minimum density provisions may be
reduced as necessary in anv of the following circumstances:
a) Where the most appropriate design and location for a storm water
detention or water quality facility is above ground and outside a required open space or
b) Where in order to comply with the minimum density requirement it
would be necessary to develop in a flood plain or
c) Where an RC tree grove is designated on the site and preservation of
more than 50% minimum protection area required by the Sensitive Lands Ordinance
would preclude development such that the minimum number of lots could not be
developed, or
d) Where topographic, natural resources and/or soil constraints exist on site,
to the extent that an applicant can demonstrate that compliance with I ODS 16.005.
Hillside Protection Standard, LOC 48.17, Sensitive Lands Districts,, or other soil
constraints regulated by the City's Codes or the State of Oregon Uniform Building Code
would preclude development such that the minimum number of lots could not be
developed.
e) Where the total number of residential dwelling units resulting from the
development will be at least 80% of the maximum number permitted in the zone. For
the R-0, R-2 zones, the minimum lots per acre and methodology specified in 48 04 132
shall be used for calculating minimum densitv. For the DD zone the minimum lots per
acre and methodolo�giv specified in 48.08.257 shall be used for calculating minimum
densitv.
48,24 517
5 2.0031
Flan for Future Division of Lot «'hen Partitionin
L_ A Future Development Plan is required at the time of partitioning, when a
lot in any residential zone except the R-0 R-2 and DD Zones •
a) Is -four or more times the minimum re size and
b) The lot is not eligible for a reduction in the minimum number of lots required
pursuant to LOC 48 20.517(2) below 4 lots;,and
0 The partition n,ill not result in the minimm ger of lots required by the
zonks
2. A Futureto the City Manager at the
time of submission ofAh-Q-proposed partition, and upon approval of the Future
D y,&yment Plan by the City Manager, notice of the Future )sYd pment Plau, as
approved in form by the City Attorney, shall then be recorded in the ounty records.
3. The Future Development Plan shall illustrate the how the proposed
partition, and any possible future lots created in accordance with the Future
Develo meat Plan. will meet the minimum density required for the nrioil lnt
ZC 7-98(A) Minimum Density Proposed Code Changes Page 3 of 8 1 ( J
4�— Thy -placement of structures on the nartitigned lots ba11 be in a manner
tlut e etbacks lot coverage and floor area ratio -(EAR) zoningtandar& why
on
applied to the possible future lots snectfied to the Future Dev IQ_pntent Plan a_ nd_s al
tnot prcytnt vtstof the future lots In accordancemvitb. the Fnturn
Development Plan
Ho r-r-Ito ated such that -future nd_7uninumcnts met
Future lots •end Structures
PI•..q.Nn�Il1a41h71\� r— _ in:�liaz�. 51"M IdRI :: : :::
—-_ _ _I I� .a�aaw.:�:...thl:et�r11l1
uture n_vlopment Plnn — Fvamnle -
Ho Ic ocated s ch that F"#—,_tots may h�e p. tiQ� yt Zoning reyuirctiieu,ts.tuet.
n ens
dity requires 61 nartltiQn groposes ?tots_ Wt Lf tt I -c Do'clupnicut_1'lan
' 1 ti 1f ald-su 1
– — -- — --'�- – - �..asa.e aa�rt,7 �t�1•l Pl!/Illyll�r/ft��
48A8-.2S"'lOwWAn:sfeF
ZC 7-98(A) Minimum Density Proposed Code Changes Page 4 of 8 1 l 6
-----
l._..............
......
I... , ...
w..
i
Future lots •end Structures
PI•..q.Nn�Il1a41h71\� r— _ in:�liaz�. 51"M IdRI :: : :::
—-_ _ _I I� .a�aaw.:�:...thl:et�r11l1
uture n_vlopment Plnn — Fvamnle -
Ho Ic ocated s ch that F"#—,_tots may h�e p. tiQ� yt Zoning reyuirctiieu,ts.tuet.
n ens
dity requires 61 nartltiQn groposes ?tots_ Wt Lf tt I -c Do'clupnicut_1'lan
' 1 ti 1f ald-su 1
– — -- — --'�- – - �..asa.e aa�rt,7 �t�1•l Pl!/Illyll�r/ft��
48A8-.2S"'lOwWAn:sfeF
ZC 7-98(A) Minimum Density Proposed Code Changes Page 4 of 8 1 l 6
ZC 7-98(A) Minimum Density Proposed Code Changes Page 5 of 8 11
48.02.015 Definitions.
DensiTt-Y,TTR7TTi C2 S i 4 The tfansfef of 11 b
F +'
gueus
LOC 48.18 Planned Development Overlay
LOC 48.18.470. Purpose, Applicability.
2. Use of the Planned Development Overlay (PD) is allowed in any zone for
subdivision proposals. elassi ;ed as develeeffielit SHF914AAt tA L-42 �,„ , � T 1—
f
48.18.476 150.17.0151 Authorization
I . in considering an application for a PD Overlay, the hear-i*t Hedy reviewing
authority shall apply the height, Floor Area Ratio (FAR), lot coverage, use, open space and
density requirements of the underlying zone and, if applicable, the setback requirements of
LOC 48.04.150(5). The FAR and lot coverage requirements may be applied with reference to
the total area of the project as a whole and not on a lot by lot basis.
2. Except for the special setback requirements of LOC 48.04.150(5), the heafing4)edy
reviewing authoritv may grant exceptions to the lot size, lot dimension and front and rear
setback requirements of the underlying zone if the applicant demonstrates that the proposed
PD provides the same or a better sense of privacy, appropriate scale and open space as a PD
designed in compliance with the standard or standards to which an exception is sought. In
making this determination, the he&P;n# N* reviewing authority may consider:
a. Whether the applicant has reserved or dedicated more than the minimum amount
of open space required by the Park and Open Space Development Standard.
b. Whether the requested exception allows the lots to be designed in a manner that
provides better access to common open space areas from within and/or outside the PD, better
protects views, allows better solar access, maintains or improves relationships between
structures, maintains or improves privacy and/or improves pedestrian or bicycle access to
surrounding neighborhoods.
c. Whether the requested exception will allow a more attractive streetscape through
use of meandering streets, access through alleys or shared driveways, provision of median
plantings, or other pedestrian amenities.
d. Whether the requested exception will enhance or better protect a significant natural
feature on the site, such as a wetland, a tree or tree grove, or a stream corridor.
e. Whether the requested exception will provide better linkage with adjacent
neighborhoods, parks and open space areas, pathways, and natural features.
f. Whether the requested exception will allow the development to be designed more
compatibly with the topography and/or physical limitations of the site.
3. If the proposed PD is part of an approved ODPS as described in LOC Article 49.26,
requirements of the ODPS approval regarding arrangement of uses, open space and resource
conservation and provision of public services, will be considered when reviewing tile
considerations in subsection (1) for the PD.
ZC 7-98(A) Minimum Density Proposed Code Changes Page 6 of 8 .118
4. Except as required by LOC 48.04.150(5), the lig-bedy reviewing authority may
grant exceptions to the minimum side yard setbacks of the underlying zone, without the
necessity of meeting the requirements of LOC 48.24.650 to 48.24.690 (variances) if the
requirements of 48.18.476 are met, and:
a. Proposed lot sizes are less than the minimum size required by the underlying zone,
or
b. Lesser setbacks are necessary to provide additional tree preservation or protection
of abutting natural areas.
(Ord. No. 2027, Sec. 1; 4-02-91. Ord. No. 2063, Sec. 2; 08-18-92. Ord. No. 2148,
Amended, 07/22/97)
48.18.485 150.17.0251 Expiration, Revocation
If 15% of the structural construction of the planned development has not occurred within
three years of the date of the order granting approval for the PD Overlay or if development
has occurred in violation of the approval granted, the Nannie reviewing
authority may initiate a review of the Planned Development Overlay to determine whether or
not its continuation in whole or in part is in the public interest. The 1 +n,--C-ffi i
reviewing authority may decide that the Planned Development Overlay is to be removed and
the plan or plat be resubmitted and made to conform to the requirements of the underlying
zone, that the approval be retained, or that the approval be modified in any manner consistent
with laws in effect at that time.
(Ord. No. 1851, Sec. 1; 11-16-82.)
Proposed Development Code Amendments
LOC 49.20.105(2)(j) Ministerial Development
2. Ministerial developments include:
LOC 49.20.110(2)(g) Minor Development.
2. "Minor development includes:
g. subdivisions (with or without a Planned Development overlay) , including
subdivisions which require one or more Class 1 Zoning Code or Class 1
Development Code Variances.
LOC 49.20.115 (2)(1) Major Development.
2. Major development includes:
l•
Planned DeN,elepmefiis (PD)
Definitions: 49.16.015.
Density Transfer Acre/Acreage. Potentially hazardous or resource areas within which
development may occur or from which density may be transferred to buildable portions of the
site, only after it has been demonstrated by the applicant that development can occur in
compliance with criteria established by this Code, including the Development Standards.
Density Transfer Acre includes the following:
a. Area within the floodway and the floodway fringe as shown on U.S. Army Corp of
Engineers flood maps,
ZC 7-98(A) Minimum Density Proposed Code Changes Page 7 of 8 1 19
b. Area of over 25% slope,
c. Area in known landslide areas or in areas shown to have potential for severe or
moderate landslide hazard,
d. Area in the RC or RP Districts, pursuant to LOC 48 17 115 (51) 16.045 1, stream
buffer areas of major stream corridors, wetlands and Distinctive Natural Arcas,
e. Area in public open space and parks.
Pr-eeedur-e for- site by site density deteffninatien is defined by LOG 0,
P/case files zc 7-98/ final draft for PC rec.zc 7-98.ord.doc
1 ... 0
ZC 7-98(A) Minimum Density Proposed Cote r-rra„ges Page 8 of 8
PROPOSED MINIMUM DENSITY TEXT
COUNCIL OPTIONS
ORDINANCE 2309
Additions appear in bold/underline, proposed deletions in strife thFOU814. Changes
addressing Planning Commission findings appear in doublc underline/bold
Optional Language based on Council discussion or staff wording clarification appears in a
ox with commentary inin italtics.
Proposed Zoning Code Amendments
Article 48.04 Residential - High Density R-0, R-2, R-5, WR Zones
48.04.132 Minimum Density
Wtel lots-nreereatedthFoughftimft4ie ,-minhnunt-densit-y--of
°permitted-b�� e, Zo:•� dog �ireels-ozone- iatf
sere e 4s,; er4,rth seetion-i-the umber-o"ots
reclu+red-sh-all--te-d tying the -m11.x1rn*n de*sitye'whtsive-of
P°te'}ti aity-altowarounded-mi)--for-any.
productwitha motion of .5 or- greater- r-aoy pr-odliet with a
fr aetion of less than .5.
48.04.132 Minimum Density
1. When subdivisions are proposed in the R-0 Zone, a minimum density of 20 lots
per acre is required. When subdivisions are proposed in the R-2 Zone, a minimum
density of 12 lots per acre is required. For purposes of this section, this number is
computed by multiplying the net developable acreage by either 20 or 12 per the
applicable zone. The result shall rounded up for any product with a fraction of 5 or
Qreater and rounded down for any product with a fraction of less than 5 The
requirements of this section are subject to the exceptions contained in IOC 48.20.517.
2. When subdivisions are proposed in the R-3. R-5, or WR Zones, a minimum
density of 80% is required.
Commentary: Staff suggests the following changes to this article and all articles with this
language, to clarify the density requirements: "When subdivisions are proposed in the R-3,
R -S, or WR Zones, a minimum density of 80% of the inavitnum allowed by the zone is
EXHIBIT B-1
ZC 7-98(A) Minimum Density Proposed Code Changes -Council Options Page 1 of 9
When a partition is proposed in the R-3, R-5, or WR Zones, either a minimum density of
°° is required on a lot which is four times the minimum Int size rennired in the zm
or greater, or there shell be an aguroved Future Development Plan pure Cant to 1 -QC
48,20.518 for the lot
Commentary.• This language appears in the R-3 through R-15 zones and would apply to
series partitioning, as proposed by the Planning Commission. Council discussed how this
requirement could impact a property owner's ability to locate a large home on a parcel.
Council could delete this lanizuaAe for all zones or adopt this lan-euake.
For purposes of this section, the number of lots required shall be determined by dividin
the net developable acreage by the minimum lot size per unit required in the underlying
zone, and multiplying this number b1• .8. The result shall be rounded up for any
Product with a fraction of .5 or greater and rounded down for any product with a
fraction of less than .5. The requirements of this section are subject to the exceptions
contained in LOC 48.20.517.
Commentary: Staff suggests the following changes to this article, and all cuticles containing
this language, to clarif � the procedure for calculating minimum density. The correct
calculation cannot be arrived at using acres, but must be converted to square footage. Also,
since minimum density is required only for subdivisions, "per unit " does not apply and
should be removed: " For purposes of this section, the number of lots required shall be
determined by dividing the net developable aer-eage square footage by the minimum lot size
per -umIe required in the underlying zone, and multiplying this number by .8. The result shall
be rounded up for any product with a fraction of. 5 or greater and rounded down for any
product with a fraction of less than .5. The requirements of this section are subject to the
exceptions contained in LOC 48.20.517. "
48.0.5.027 Minimum Densitv: R-6 Zone
When subdivisions are proposed in the R-6 Zone, a minimum density of 80% is
required. '1V en a partition is proposed in the R-6 Zone, either a minimum density of
80% is required on.a lot which is four times the minimum lot size required in the zone
or greater, or there shall be an approved Future Development Plan pursuant to LOC
48.20.518 for the lot. For purposes of this section, the number of lots required shall be
determined by dividing the net developable acreage by the minimum lot size per unit
required by the underlving zone, and multiplying this number by .8. The result shall be
rounded up for any product N ith a fraction of .5 or greater and rounded clown for any
product with a fraction of less than .5. The requirements of this section are subiect to
the exceptions contained in LOC 48.20.517.
4.8.06.207 Minimum Density: R-7.5, R-10, R-15 Zones
When subdivisions are proposed in the R-7.5, R-10, or R-15 Zones, a minimum
density of 80% is required. When a partition is proposed in the R-7 R-10 or R--15
Zones, eithera nunimum dens' ° _ the
_
minomurn of size required in the zone or greater, or there hall be an pproved Future
ZC 7-98(A) Minimum Density Proposed Code Changes -Council Options Page 2 of 9
1%2
Dmyjdppmut Plan Pursuant to LOC 48 20 518 for the lot For purposes of this section,
the number of lots required shall be determined by dividing the net developable acreage
by the minimum lot size per unit required in the underlying zone, and multiplying this
number by .8. The result shall be rounded up for anv product with a fraction of 5 or
greater and rounded down for anv product with a fraction of less than 5 The
requirements of this section are subject to the exceptions contained in 1,0C 48.20.517.
48.08.257 Minimum Density: DD Zone
When subdivisions are proposed in the DD Zone for the purposes of single family
development, a minimum density of 5 lots per acre is required When subdivisions are
proposed for the purposes of constructing duplex development in the DD Zone, a
minimum density of 10 units per acre is required When subdivisions are proposed for
the purpose of constructing multi -family development in the DD Zone a minimum
density of 14 units per acre is required For purposes of this section, the density is
computed by multiplying the net developable acreage by either 5, 10 or 14 per the
applicable tvve of development. The result shall be rounded up for any product with a
fraction of .5 or greater and rounded down for any product with a fraction of less than
.5.
48.09.020 Town home Residential (R-2.5)
a)iv). When subdivisions are proposed in the R-2.5 zone, a minimum density of 80% is
required. When a Partition is proposed in titc.-R-2.5 Zone,either a minimum density of
80% is aquir_ed on a lot which is four times the minimum lot si' gumimd in the zone
or er, or there shall be an approved Future Development Plan Pmumit to LOC
48.20.518 for the lot. For purposes of this section, the number of lots required shall be
determined by dividing the net developable acreage by the minimum lot size per unit
required in the underlying zone, and multiplying this number by 8 The result shall be
rounded up for any product with a fraction of 5 or greater and rounded down for anv
product with a fraction of less than .5. The requirements of this section are subject to
the exceptions contained in LOC 48.20 517
48.20.517 Exceptions to the Minimum Density Requirement for all zones:
1. The minimum density requirements are not applicable to sites identified
on the Ci
y's Historic Landmark Designation list
Exception for Publicly Owned Open Space Lands:
Commentary: It was suggested at the Study Session that the Council may want to consider an
exception publicly owned open space lands. If the Council desires to include language, the
following could be used: "2. The minimum densi requirements are not applicable to
publicly owned open space lands " Article 2, below would then become Article 3.
2. The number of lots required by the minimum density provisions may be
reduced as necessary in any of the following circumstances:
a) Where the most appropriate design and location for a storm water
detention or water quality facility is above ground and outside a required open space, or
ZC 7-98(A) Minimum Density Proposed Code Changes -Council Options Page 3 of 9 t 3
b) Where in order to comply with the minimum densitv requirement it
would be necessary to develop in a flood plain, or
c) Where an RC tree prove is designated on the site and preservation of
more than 50% minimum protection area required by the Sensitive Lands Ordinance
would preclude development such that the minimum number of lots could not be
developed, or
d) Where topographic, natural resources and/or soil constraints exist on site,
to the extent that an applicant can demonstrate that compliance with L.ODS 16.005,
Hillside Protection Standard, LOC 48 17 ensitive Lands District , or other soil
constraints regulated by the City's Codes or the State of Oregon Uniform Building Code
would preclude development such that the minimum number of lots could not be
developed.
Commentary: It was suggested at the Study Session that the Council may want to consider an
additional option for reduction of the minimum required number of lots, in situations where
an existing house is located such that mininn ni density can not be achieved. Possible
language may include: "Where the location of an existing dwelling is such that the applicant
can demonstrate that Zonin.e Code requirements can not be met if the minimum reguired
e) Where the total number of residential dwellin i units resulting from the
development will be at least 80% of the maximum number permitted in the zone. For
the R-0, R-2 zones, the minimum lots per acre and methodology specified in 48 04 132
shall be used for calculating minimum density For the DD zone, the ►ninimum lots per
acre and methodoloav specified in 48.08.257 shall be used for calculating minimum
density.
r
Plan for Future Division of Lot When Partitioninu
Commentary: If the Council chooses not to apply the proposed requirement of a plan for
fixture development for partitions on subdividable lots, this entire section (LOC 48.20.518)
should be removed.
1. A Future Develoom nt Plan _bsequired at.the time of partitioning when a
lot in any residential zone except the R-0 R-2 and DD Zones,
a) Is four or more times the minirea aired size, and
b) The lot is not eligible for a reduction in the minim um numlz4r of lilts nquin(l
pursuant to L.00 48 20 517(2) below 4 lots;, said
C) The partition will not result in the minim rn number of lots rec114r-0 bN the
ZC 7-98(A) Minimum Density Proposed Code Changes -Council Options Page 4 of 9 /�
nrov
iRvmmmmtIM it!! 1 si KW rl t 0 .t t M W �IR1 M.11 lFtl_M 'fi M tMIM
_! . t
12,
.t! .no ! accordance
will MCA the
tt._ tt_u densky—uquiud falor t
The placement ofstructures ti mt ! lots shall be i a mamm
it !t9l t t. t t t t tit t'
Dim
t!u i t
e located such that future lots may bt`nartitioned and "Coning rerrnirr my1L r L
Future Development PI_ — aanu�le 2
-'--- -- 1 LLL.LILL JI. CL:I
House located such that future lots may he nartitinnrd srnri 7nnina rCquirellicuts_met.
Minimum -density reauirec 61 rtc• partition proposes 21ots6withXutur€D ezeiopment Flan
ZC 7-98(A) Minimum Density Proposed Code Changes -Council Options Page 5 of 9 1-'->5
Seetie .
ZC 7-98(A) Minimum Density Proposed Code Changes -Council Options Page 6 of 9 t -,, G
v
MMMM
Mel
48.02.015 Definitions.
ties of eentigueus
pr-epeFty in a single wAgier-ship to another atitherized in eFder te pFeteet RG and RP zoned lands or- as
otherwise pFevided in LOG 48.08.2W.
LOC 48.18 Planned Development Overlay
LOC 48.18.470. Purpose, Applicability.
2. Use of the Planned Development Overlay (PD) is allowed in any zone for
subdivision pro osals. elassifiea ..s r development ur-s ... t to LOC 49 20 115
p a• u »Jv v avraaavaaa t.I NIJMlal14 lIV� T�V� L—I—J. -JJGJ pi
the PD Overlay is required in any zone for- a residential deyelopment proposal of 'rmore
units or four- of mer -e affes that is elassified as a MajOF development pur-suant to of
LOG 49 2n 1 15
48.18.476 [50.17.015] Authorization
1. In considering an application for a PD Overlay, the hearing body reviewing
authority shall apply the height, Floor Area Ratio (FAR), lot coverage, use, open space and
density requirements of the underlying zone and, if applicable, the setback requirements of
LOC 48.04.150(5). The FAR and lot coverage requirements may be applied with reference to
the total area of the project as a whole and not on a lot by lot basis.
2. Except for the special setback requirements of LOC 48.04.150(5), the hearing-bedy
reviewing authority may grant exceptions to the lot size, lot dimension and front and rear
setback requirements of the underlying zone if the applicant demonstrates that the proposed
PD provides the same or a better sense of privacy, appropriate scale and open space as a PD
designed in compliance with the standard or standards to which an exception is sought. In
making this determination, the hearing bed reviewing authority may consider;
a. Whether the applicant has reserved or dedicated more than the minimum amount
of open space required by the Park and Open Space Development Standard.
b. Whether the requested exception allows the lots to be designed in a manner that
provides better access to common open space areas from within and/or outside the PD, better
protects views, allows better solar access, maintains or improves relationships between
structures, maintains or improves privacy and/or improves pedestrian or bicycle access to
surrounding neighborhoods.
c. Whether the requested exception will allow a more attractive streetscape through
use of meandering streets, access through alleys or shared driveways, provision of median
plantings, or other pedestrian amenities.
d. Whether the requested exception will enhance or better protect a significant natural
feature on the site, such as a wetland, a tree or tree grove, or a stream corridor.
e. Whether the requested exception will provide better linkage with adjacent
neighborhoods, parks and open space areas pathways, and natural features.
l .r
ZC 7-98(A) Minimum Density Proposed Code Changes -Council Options Page 7 of 9
f. Whether the requested exception will allow the development to be designed more
compatibly with the topography and/or physical limitations of the site.
3. If the proposed PD is part of an approved ODPS as described in LOC Article 49.26,
requirements of the ODPS approval regarding arrangement of uses, open space and resource
conservation and provision of public services, will be considered when reviewing the
considerations in subsection (1) for the PD.
4. Except as required by LOC 48.04.150(5), the heaF4vg43e4y reviewing authority nuiy
grant exceptions to the minimum side yard setbacks of the underlying zone, without the
necessity of meeting the requirements of LOC 48.24.650 to 48.24.690 (variances) if the
requirements of 48.18.476 are met, and:
a. Proposed lot sizes are less than the minimum size required by the underlying zone,
or
b. Lesser setbacks are necessary to provide additional tree preservation or protection
of abutting natural areas.
(Ord. No. 2027, Sec. l; 4-02-91. Ord. No. 2063, Sec. 2; 08-18-92. Ord. No. 2148,
Amended, 07/22/97)
48.18.485 150.17.0251 Expiration, Revocation
If 15% of the structural construction of the planned development has not occurred within
three years of the date of the order granting approval for the PD Overlay or if development
has occurred in violation of the approval granted, the Planning-C-effifflissien reviewing
authority may initiate a review of the Planned Development Overlay to determine whether or
not its continuation in whole or in part is in the public interest. The
Planning Go i i -
reviewing authority may decide that the Planned Development Overlay is to be removed and
the plan or plat be resubmitted and made to conform to the requirements of the underlying
zone, that the approval be retained, or that the approval be modified in any manner consistent
with laws in effect at that time.
(Ord. No. 1851, Sec. 1; 11-16-82.)
Proposed Development Code Amendments
LOC 49.20.105(2)(j) Ministerial Development
2. Ministerial developments include:
LOC 49.20.110(2)(g) Minor Development.
2. "Minor development includes:
g. subdivisions (with or without a Planned Development overlay), including
subdivisions which require one or more Class 1 Zoning Code or Class 1
Development Code Variances.
LOC 49.20.115 (2)(f) Major Development.
2. Major development includes:
f Planned DeN,elepments (PD)
Definitions: 49.16.015.
Density Transfer Acre/Acreage. P��t�lly hazardous or resource areas within which
ZC 7-98(A) Minimum Density Proposed Code Changes -Council Options Page 8 of 9 $
development may occur or from which density may be transferred to buildable portions of the
site, only after it has been demonstrated by the applicant that development can occur in
compliance with criteria established by this Code, including the Development Standards.
Density Transfer Acre includes the following:
a. Area within the floodway and the floodway fringe as shown on U.S. Army Corp of
Engineers flood maps,
b. Area of over 25% slope,
c. Area in known landslide areas or in areas shown to have potential for severe or
moderate landslide hazard,
d. Area in the RC or RP Districts, pursuant to LOC 48.17.115 L50.16.0451, stream
buffer areas of major stream corridors, wetlands and Distinctive Natural Areas,
e. Area in public open space and parks.
PFOeeduFe for site by site density detefminatien is defined by LOG ,280:
P/case files ze 7-98/ final draft for PC rec.zc 7-98.ord.doe
ZC 7-98(A) Minimum Density Proposed Code Changes -Council Options Page 9 of 9 1 OrVJc)
DRAFT
Mr. Sin concluded that the application met the burden of proof and he recommended that
the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the version
recommended by the staff in Exhibit F-1. The staff clarified for the Commissioners that
the proposed procedures (except for any neighborhood association meeting with the staff)
would take place before the 120 -day review period began.
Public Comment
Jeff Novak, 4322 Collins 'Way. Lake Oswe o, 97035, stated he represented the Waluga
Neighborhood Association, which supported the proposed amendment with the exception
of the wording of the provision related to three alternative meeting options. He suggested
that the requirement specify that the applicant was to offer the neighborhood chair a
choice of three different meeting days "at times and locations to be agreed." Chair
Vizzini observed that would also require a change in another part of the proposal that
would then read "If the site proposed for development is where there is no recognized or
forming neighborhood association the applicant shall provide the neighborhood chair of a
recognized or forming neighborhood association closest to the site proposed for
development with three alternative dates."
Chair Vizzini then closed the public hearing and opened deliberations.
Deliberations
Commissioner Sandblast moved to recommend that the City Council adopt LU 01-
0045 as recommended by the staff, with the modification regarding alternative
meeting choices suggested by Mr. Novak during his testimony. Ms. Webster
seconded the motion and it passed with Chair Vizzini, Vice Chair Edwards and
Commissioners Johnson, Sandblast, Waring, Webster and voting yes. Commissioner
Groznik was not present. There were no votes against. Chair Vizzini announced that a
vote on the findings, conclusions and order was to be held on December 10, 2001 and the
proposal would then be forwarded to the City Council for consideration.
ZC 7-98 — Density Guidelines, a request by the City of Lake Oswego proposing
legislative text amendments to the Lake Oswego Zoning Code (LOC Chapter 48) that
require a minimum lot density be achieved when land is subdivided in any residential
zone and to amend the minimum density text currently in the Zoning Code for R-3 and R-
5 zones so that it only applies to subdivision development. Staff coordinator is Jane
Heisler, Community Planning Manager. The hearing was continued from October 8 and
November 14, 2001.
*Vice Chair Edwards left the meeting at 9:05 PM. _
EXH1617 C
City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Page 5 of 3
Meeting of November 26, 2001 131
DRAFT
Chair Vizzini opened the public hearing and explained the procedures and time limits to
be followed. He asked the Commissioners to report any ex parte contacts or conflicts of
interest. None were reported.
Jane Heisler, Community Planning Manager, explained the proposal was to address
requirements set forth in Metro's Urban Growth Management Function Plan, Title I, to
assure that new development was not allowed to develop at substantially less density than
had been planned for and to allow land inside the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) to be
used more efficiently and slow the need to expand the UGB. She explained the primary
difference between the current proposal and a previous proposal that had been considered
by the Commission was that the current version applied minimum density requirements
only to subdivisions, while the previous version applied them to all partitions or
developments that created dwelling units. She advised that subdivisions were
developments of four or more dwelling units. She further advised that the proposal
would not impact public facilities because it would establish a mitlimurn density of 80%
for subdivisions in areas where the Public Facility Plan had prepared the area for the
maximum density of development allowed there. She pointed out Exhibit G-3-2 was a
letter in opposition submitted by the chair of the Forest Highlands Neighborhood
Association, and Exhibit G-3-3 was a letter from Metro advising that the City staff's
recommendation to not apply the density requirement to DD, R-0 and R-2 Zones (which
did not require a minimum lot size, but did apply a floor area ratio) would not satisfy the
Metro Code. She said that Metro had recommended that the density requirement be
applied to all residential zones and that the City apply for an extension of time to adopt
Title 1 requirements. She pointed out that draft language in Exhibit F-6 would apply the
density requirement to those three zones. She noted that other changes in the draft would
serve to fully implement the proposal, including elimination of a redundant definition
related to calculating density transfer and a change to allow a subdivision to be
considered a major development (which would allow the developer the same flexibility in
lot sizes, setbacks and lot coverage as a Planned Development).
The staff clarified for the Commissioners that the City currently dealt with "series
partitions" by limiting partitions to one per calendar year. They confirmed that to
reclassify a subdivision as a Planned Development would not allow the developer to use
an expedited land use approval process. They agreed with Vice Chair Edwards that it
would make sense at some future time to consider a requirement for 20 units rattier than
20 lots in the R-0 zone. They confirmed that Exhibit F-6 would apply the subdivision
minimum density to the DD, R-0 and R-2 Zones. Ms. Heisler recalled a five -unit
townhouse development in First Addition and a couple of townhouse developments in
Old Town that had been treated a subdivisions. She advised that if a developer built one
multifamily structure of four dwelling units he would not be subdividing the lot.
Commissioner Sandblast expressed his concern that a developer might choose to
subdivide a parcel into four lots and then construct six units on each lot instead of
planning 20 town homes on the parcel. Ms. Heisler observed that the R-0 and R-2 Zones
included the highest activity areas (town centers and main streets) and those were where
the City desired to see higher density development. She explained that if the City did not
apply the density requirement to creation of four or more dwelling units, as well as four
City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission Page 6 of 13 3
Meeting of November 26, 2001
DRAFT
or more lots, the City may be missing an opportunity to achieve minimum density in
those zones. She cautioned that because Metro was becoming increasingly reluctant to
approve requests for extensions it might be expedient for the City to adopt the current
proposal and recommend to Council later consideration of density requirements for
multifamily developments. She observed the three zones in question did not include
much vacant land. Ms. Heisler clarified that language found in the previous proposal to
apply minimum density requirements to partitions of as few as two lots was not in the
current proposal. She related that the City Council had requested that the staff
recommend ways to apply the minimum Metro requirement in all zones.
The staff recommended that redundant definitions of density transfer calculation methods
found in the Development and Zoning Codes be reduced to one definition to avoid
confusion (as they had also recommended in LU 01-0048 Code Consolidation). They
advised that although each method was slightly different, their results were similar (see
page 21 of the staff report). Commissioner Sandblast indicated he was concerned that if
the density requirement was applied to a parcel after resource protection areas were
removed, a developer might not have room to build a development at minimum density.
Mr. Boone pointed out that the proposed language allowed for reductions of minimum
density requirements under certain circumstances where there were constraints such as
storm water facilities, flood plains, topographic and/or soil constraints and protected tree
groves. Commissioner Sandblast suggested that the language in 48.20.517 (d) also refer
to wetlands: "Where topographic, wetlands and/or soil constraints..."
Public Testimony
Karen Ingels, 12831 SW Alto Park Road, Lake Oswego, 97034, read aloud a letter
from Anan Raymond, Chair of the Forest Highlands Neighborhood Association, urging
the Commission not to recommend the proposed amendment on the basis that it should
not be applied to infill development in established neighborhoods where it would impose
an infill density that would negatively impact the existing character and environment of
the neighborhood. Mr. Raymond urged the City to limit application of any minimum
density rule to lots larger than ten acres. He urged the City to negotiate an agreement
with Clackamas County that would implement the City's Sensitive Lands regulations on
county land in areas such as Forest Highlands that were not entirely in the City. He
suggested that the City reply to Metro density requirements by pointing out the City was
in compliance with Metro's density plan and explain to the regional government that it
was taking other constructive action to meet Metro goals by arranging for the Sensitive
Lands Ordinance to be applied to county lands and applying minimum density zoning
regulations only to large undeveloped tracts of land that were not within an existing
neighborhood.
Ms. Ingels acknowledged that she did not completely understand the current proposal.
She opined that if density transfer on a parcel meant that density could be allowed to be
"stacked up" somewhere else within a neighborhood, the parcel should be considered
unbuildable. She stressed the City had considered density requirements several times and
had heard a larger volume of public testimony against density requirements over time
than was reflected in Exhibit F-3. She suggested that inadequacy of the City's water
City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission
Meeting of November 26, 2001
Page 7 of 13
133
DRAFT
reservoirs could be used as an argument against Metro's minimum density requirements.
She urged the Commissioners not to recommend the proposed amendment.
Commissioner Sandblast confirmed that Ms. Ingels was correct about how density
transfer worked, and that density transfer from a natural resource area served as a form of
compensation to the property owner. However, he expressed his concern that there were
situations where it was not physically possible to build the minimum number of units
after density transfer. Ms. Ingels opined that when property owners knowingly purchased
property that contained a stream corridor, they should consider it an amenity and not be
allowed to increase the density of the neighborhood. Chair Vizzini observed that a
development was also subject to other regulations intended to ensure that it conformed to
the Comprehensive Plan and was compatible with the neighborhood. Commissioner
Sandblast opined that most land was developed at maximum density to optimize the value
of the site, and thus he was more concerned about owners who series -partitioned land
instead of appropriately planning a development. Ms. Ingels asked for more information
about a meeting she understood had taken place between the City Manager and Metro
Executive Director, Mike Burton, to negotiate the issue.
Tony Oliver, PO Box 363, Lake Oswego, 97034, stated she resided in the
unincorporated portion of the Forest Highlands Neighborhood. She recalled the
neighborhood association had requested to be allowed to maintain its current density on
three previous occasions. She also recalled residents had testified then about water,
sewer, school and traffic problems. She reasoned that it would make sense for the City to
ask Metro to consider those factors. She urged the City to continue to protest Metro
requirements and to argue that Lake Oswego was already in substantial compliance with
Metro goals. She recalled that neighborhood action had reduced the number of units
allowed in a development on the corner of Atwater and Boca Ratan Roads to 4 single-
family houses from the 17 townhouses that had originally been proposed.
Lenora Saunders, 13790 SW Knaus Road, Lake Oswego, 97034, argued against
allowing increased density to generate more impervious surface, traffic, pets and negative
impacts on the environment and quality of life. She observed that development had
already caused soil and surface water problems. She urged the City to respect the
neighborhood's wishes.
Jim Bolland, 804 Fifth Street, Lake Oswego, 97034, advised that no City neighborhood
had changed its opposition to the proposal and the Lake Oswego Neighborhood Action
Coalition (LONAC) was against it. He said it was his understanding that there had been
no agreement between the City Manager and the Metro Director at the meeting Ms. Ingels
referred to, and the City Council had directed the staff to negotiate a compromise witli
Metro. He requested a record of the City Manager/Metro Director meeting. He opined
that the letter from Metro in Exhibit G-3-3 regarding how the City was to be zoned anti
populated did not reflect the original intent of those who created Metro. He said the City
was already meeting the spirit of Metro goals and the regional government should
recognize that. He anticipated that the next Metro requirement would be to "upzone."
He urged the City to negotiate with Metro to ensure that density increases stopped.
City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission
Meeting of November 26, 2001
Page 8of13 134
DRAFT
Ed Buchman, Chair, Lake Grove Neighborhood Association, 3151 Upper Drive,
Lake Oswego, 97035, reported that his Association had discussed the staff report on
November 13, 2001 and continued to oppose the proposal. He said the Association was
concerned that consolidation of larger parcels along Upper Drive under the proposed
density requirement would result in eight -lot subdivisions along that street. He stressed
that the community had already planned higher density in the GAP area.
John Pullen, 18 Britten Court, Lake Oswego, 97035, recalled the City Council had
denied a minimum density proposal on two previous occasions and the area's Metro
representative was not in favor of minimum density for Lake Oswego. He said he had
first testified against minimum density regulations in 1998 and LONAC had opposed the
regulations in 1998 and again in November 2001. He recalled that no developer had
testified in favor of minimum density in the last three years and the Metro President had
never written a letter to demand that the City approve minimum density. He recalled that
when Metro Executive Director, Mike Burton, had met with the City Council two years
ago he had clarified that he was not demanding the City adopt minimum density
regulations because the City was already meeting its density goal. Mr. Pullen
acknowledged that some persons might argue that the City should conform to the Metro
Functional Plan to provide for efficient use of land, but that would mean that
neighborhoods would lose standing in negotiations with developers. He recalled that a
former City Planning Director had advised that the proposed requirements would mean
that the Forest Highlands Neighborhood would lose its present character and any future
development in the Stafford area under Metro standards would far exceed Lake Oswego's
maximum densities. He urged the City to ask Metro for an exception to Metro's density
standards.
Carolyne R. Jones, 2818 S. Poplar «av, Lake OsNvego, 97034, stated she resided in
the Glenmorrie Neighborhood. She said that Metro should also consider water and air
quality, traffic, potential electricity shortages, and the increased crime that stemmed from
higher development. She also opined the amendment would not prevent UGB expansion.
She urged the City to reject the proposal and to review density proposals every five years
instead of every year.
Heidi Hutchison, 13746 Cameo Court, Lake Oswego, 97034, asked for a history of the
Metro mandate. The staff explained that the Metro Functional Plan had been adopted in
the mid-1990s. Ms. Hutchison observed that economic times had changed and she
questioned why the City should push development when there was adequate available
housing. She observed that new development did not seem to be paying its own way.
She asked why the City continued to hold hearings on density when it had already met
90% of its density goal. She wondered how other cities were dealing with the issue.
City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission
Meeting of November 26, 2001
Page 9 of 13
135
DRAFT
Kevin Mead 13730 Cameo Court, lake Oswego, 97034, questioned why density
should take priority over quality of life issues, schools, safety, infrastructure and
neighborhood character. He said he opposed any kind of minimum density zoning and
urged the City to focus on its plan and character. He advised that the intent of the Metro
Functional Plan and Metro 2040 Plan had been to focus density on Design Type (e.g.,
town centers, regional centers, employment centers, main streets, transit corridors) rather
than residential, single-family zones. He said that Forest Highlands did not fit the criteria
listed in the Metro 2040 plan.
Evan Williams, 13085 Knaus Road, Lake Oswego, 97034, said he agreed with all of
the previous testimony. He anticipated that the City would see denser development in the
future, but he questioned why the City should hasten the process. He said the City should
concentrate on other serious issues, such as the impact of lighted advertising signs along
Goodall and Knaus Roads and the impact of the Street of Dreams planned near Lakeridge
High School.
Chair Vizzini closed the public hearing and announced a five-minute break in the meeting
and reconvened the meeting at 9:10 PM.
Deliberations
Chair Vizzini observed the primary difference between the current proposal and the
previous minimum density proposal was that the current proposal ►night allow series land
partitions. He held that after good community planning had determined what was to be
allowed to happen in a zone, land should be allowed to be divided within the parameters
set by the zone and developments should be reviewed under the community's
compatibility standards. He opined that that the issue between Forest Highlands and the
City was how annexed property was to be zoned and that minimum density requirements
would provide another tool in the City's toolbox.
Commissioner Johnson observed that because the City was part of a state and regional
plan the current issue was how the density standards should be applied, and was not a
policy debate. He agreed that the issue was not density (as in the number of lots
required), but how land was developed, and he said that development of any kind would
still be required to conform to City Development Standards, which addressed design,
compatibility and livability. He said the City should not attempt to justify an exception
from the Metro requirement, population growth would continue through economic cycles,
and the City should plan for the future. He indicated that he favored the proposal, but it
should be modified so it would not allow an owner to accomplish multiple partitions over
time instead of planning a subdivision.
Commissioner Sandblast observed the letter from Metro in Exhibit F4 advised that the
Metro Code provided local flexibility in applying the minimum density requirement to
small lot infill development. Commissioner Vizzini stressed the difference between
regulations about how land could be divided and how it could be developed.
Commissioner Johnson explained that the City was to conform to state law and the
City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission
Meeting of November 26, 2001
Page 10 of 13
1 ,3
DRAFT
Commission was just recommending how the law was to be applied in the City. He
asked if the staff should be directed to address the distinction between subdivisions and
series partitions. Mr. Boone advised the staff would address series partitions when they
prepared formal language for the proposed amendment before it was formally adopted.
Commissioner Sandblast suggested that the draft amendment should also include
wetlands in the exceptions section. He also suggested an exception be added to address
situations where density transfer on parcels with protected resources did not leave
sufficient buildable area for minimum density. Commissioner Johnson suggested the
exceptions language should refer to Sensitive Lands. The staff confirmed that Metro staff
had not commented on the exceptions clause.
Commissioner Sandblast suggested that if minimum density was based on net buildable
acre instead of net developable acre that would help to address concern about
development of too many units on a parcel. When Commissioner Sandblast asked why
exceptions should be necessary if the definition was applied to "net buildable acre,"
Commissioner Johnson explained that he favored the exception process because it
specified the reasons for a result. The staff asked Commissioner Sandblast if he was
suggesting that the density transfer definition specify 80% of the net buildable acre after
removing areas of natural resources and steep slopes. Commissioner Sandblast suggested
that the 80% specification should not be in the language. Chair Vizzini observed the 80%
specification was intended to leave room for transit ways and access and infrastructure.
Mr. Boone advised that buffer and known landslide areas would also have to be removed.
He cautioned that that 80% of net buildable area, after excluding sensitive lands areas,
would not achieve the City's density goals and housing unit projections. Commissioner
Sandblast held that from a practical perspective the number of people who would build at
minimum density was limited. Mr. Boone agreed that people were building at maximum
density because of land value. Commissioner Johnson suggested that adding to the
exceptions clause would be preferable to attempting to reshape the definition. Chair
Vizzini said he supported the modification of the exceptions section, but he anticipated a
result that a larger number of parcels would be removed from the requirement to plat at
minimum density. Commissioner Johnson said he was not concerned about that because
Sensitive Lands were addressed in the Comprehensive Plan, Commissioner Sandblast
asked how the proposal would apply to division of a parcel with an existing house. The
staff advised that the existing house would count as one unit on the parcel and if the
house was in the middle of the parcel and the parcel was to be divided into four lots, the
owner could apply for a Planned Development so that he could adjust some setbacks and
still get the specified number of units.
Commissioner Sandblast suggested the staff be directed to prepare language that
addressed the exceptions and series partitions. Commissioner Johnson advised that
language could be made part of the final order. Chair Vizzini observed the general
consensus that the proposal should be approved with amendments that could be included
in the language of the order.
Ms. Heisler anticipated that Commissioner Sandblast's suggested modification to the
exceptions section 48.20.517 (e) to allow the minimum density requirement to be reduced
City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission , . Page 11 of 13
Meeting of November 26, 2001 137
3,
DRAFT
if there is insufficient room to build the required number of housing units might help to
resolve the problem in the R-0, R-2 and DD Zones. She also noted that could result in an
interpretation that a secondary dwelling unit that was part of a townhouse development
could be counted. Commissioner Johnson agreed with that interpretation. Mr. Boone
agreed that concept would meet Metro goals. Ms. Heisler noted that the clause could be
used for non -lot -based development proposals.
Commissioner Johnson moved to recommend that the City Council adopt ZC 7-98
as recommended in the staff' report together NN ith the following amendments:
• The staff -recommended amendment included in Exhibit F-6
• Additional language to apply the requirements to series partitions
• Exceptions related to all sensitive lands
Methodology language to be drafted by the staff to address the maximum
number of lots required when a subdivision was proposed in zones where there
was no minimum lot size.
Commissioner Johnson suggested that the City Council should be made aware that the
Planning Commission recommendation was based on applicable law and the Council
could decide to apply to Metro for an extension of time to conforni to Metro requirements
or to ask Metro to except the City from the requirements.
Commissioner Sandblast seconded the motion and it passed with Commissioners
Johnson, Sandblast, Waring and Webster voting yes. Vice Chair Edwards and
Commissioner Groznik were not present. Mr. Boone anticipated the City Council would
consider the recommendation on January 2, 2002. Chair Vizzini thanked the citizens who
had testified for their participation.
VII. OTHER BUSINESS
City Budget
The Commissioners planned to hear Planning Department budget priorities at a December
meeting.
Future Agenda Items
11 LU 01-0004 - Sedoruk/Prince Zoning Map Anundment
The staff reported that the applicant anticipated that he would negotiate an agreement
with neighbors of the site and gain DRC approval of his application conditioned on a
Planning Commission approval of a zone change.
City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission
Meeting of November 26, 2001
Page 12 of 13
138
STAFF REPORT
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
PLANNING DIVISION
APPLICANT
City of Lake Oswego
STAFF
Jane Heisler, Community Planning Manager
DATE OF REPORT
November 1, 2001
DATE OF MEETING:
November 14, 2001
I. APPLICANT'S REQUEST
FILE NO.
ZC 7-98(A)
NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION
All
LOCATION
City-wide
The City is proposing legislative text amendments to the Lake Oswego Zoning Code
(LOC Chapter 48) that require a minimum lot density be achieved when land is
subdivided in any residential zone (with the exception of the DD, R-0 and R-2 zones) and
to amend the minimum density text currently in the Zoning Code for R-3 and R-5 zones
so that it only applies to subdivision development. The proposed changes are found in
Exhibit F-1.
BACKGROUND
On July 16, 1996 the City Council responded to the recommendation of the Planning
Commission regarding the need to increase residential density in Lake Oswego and
directed staff to initiate Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code amendments to implement
the Metro 2040 Plan. Staff identified a number of ways to accomplish this direction,
including rezoning areas from larger minimum lot sizes to smaller lot sizes, revising flag
lot restrictions, reducing requirements for secondary dwelling units, rezoning single
family areas to multi -family areas, and requiring minimum density. Following a review
of vacant and redevelopable lands for their location, quantity, potential for larger scale
development, and impact of additional density on adjoining properties and public
facilities, staff proposed that the initial amendment to be considered for implementing the
planned residential density be the establishment of minimum lot density requirements in
the R-3 and R-5 Zones. The City Council adopted the ordinance and it became effective
March 18, 1997.
EXHIBIT D ZC 7-98
-- Page 1 of 18 13 9
Since then, the Council has adopted a Flag Lot Ordinance and related text amendments to
allow the development of new flag lots. Extension of the minimum density requirement
to the remaining residential zones will further implement City Council's direction and
enable the City to achieve compliance with the Metro Functional Plan.
The previous Council reviewed a prior Planning Commission recommendation to extend
the minimum density concept to all other residential zones on April 18, 2000 (Exhibit F-
3). The Council did not take action on the proposal, but requested that staff review the
possibility with Metro of amending the Functional Plan to recognize that some
jurisdictions may be complying with the Functional Plan if they have a rolling average
density that exceeds the 80% minimum density over a certain period of time. In
discussions with Metro representatives, it was determined that this would require the City
to request an exception to the Functional Plan requirements per Metro Code Title
8.07.820(B) Compliance Procedures. Evidence would have to be submitted to Metro
which included a demonstration of substantial evidence that the City could not provide
sewer ,water or transportation facilities to its area of jurisdiction, that areas have prior
commitments to development at densities inconsistent with Metro targets, or that the
dwelling unit and job capacities cannot be accommodated during the planning period.
Given the perceived difficulty in complying with these criteria, this option appeared
infeasible.
The current Council directed staff to pursue compliance with all Metro Functional Plan
Requirements, including minimum density, in its 2001 Goals.
DISCUSSION OF ISSUES
Metro Density Requirements:
The Metro Council has adopted an Urban Growth Management Functional Plan
(Functional Plan). The Functional Plan implements the Metro 2040 Plan, and one of its
requirements is that local governments incorporate minimum density provisions in their
zoning ordinances. The objective of this requirement is to ensure that new development is
not allowed to occur at substantially less density than has been planned for. This will
allow land inside the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) to be used more efficiently and
will slow the need to expand the UGB.
Functional Plan Title 1, Section 3.07.120, Methods to Increase Calculated Capacity
Required for All Cities and Counties:
3.07.120(A)
1)a) Provide that no development application, including a subdivision,
may be approved unless the development will result in the building of
80 percent or more of the maximum number of dwelling units per net
acre permitted by the zoning designation for the site;
While the Functional Plan states that this requirement extends to all "development
applications", further correspondence from Metro has indicated that the intent is only to
apply this requirement to subdivisions. In a memo dated May 10, 1999, Metro clarified
ZC 7-98
Page 2of18 0
the definition of "development application" as it applies to the minimum density
requirements of Title 1 (Exhibit F-4). It is specifically noted that the Metro Code
3.07,1010(p) (Title 10) excludes partitions from the term. The code defines development
application as " an application for a land use decision, limited land decision including
expedited land divisions, but excluding partitions as defined in ORS 92.010 (7)" and
ministerial decisions such as a building permit. The ORS defines partitioned land as land
that is divided into two or three parcels of land in a calendar year.
The effect of such code language is to remove any land division application of three
parcels or less from the requirements of minimum density. Therefore, on large buildable
lots capable of four or more units, the property owner retains the choice of developing the
site through a partition process that is not subject to minimum density requirements.
Alternatively, if the property owner chooses to develop a subdivision, or planned
development (four or more lots) a minimum 80% of the parcel's potential number of lots
allowed by the zone will be required.
At a work session held on June 8, 1999, Council directed staff to develop a minimum
density ordinance for all residential zones. The Council directed this action in order to
comply with the Metro Functional Plan. The Planning Commission had previously
recommended that all land divisions and the development of multiple dwelling units be
subject to a minimum density ordinance. However, Council chose to direct staff to
develop an ordinance that would comply with Metro's definition of development, which
only applies to subdivision creations. Concurrent with this action is a repeal of LOC
48.03.132, a previously approved minimum density standard for the R-3 and R-5 Zones
which applies the standard to any land divisions over %i acre in size.
Amount of Residential Land Zoned Medium to Low Density:
Table 1 denotes the amount of vacant and infill land in the low to medium density
residential zoning districts that is not yet subject to the minimum density requirement.
Table 1, Amount of Land that Could Accommodate a Subdivision
in the R-7.5, R-10 and R-15 Zones
(as of July, 1998)
120.0
100.0
w 80.0
c� 60.0
v
Q 40.0
20.0
0.0
R-7.5 R-10
ZONE
84.4
40.6
R-15
li�lill
Vacant
ZC 7-98 141
Page 3 of 18
Impacts on Public Facilities and Surrounding Area:
Impacts of future development on urban services, occurring at the minimum density level
would be within the levels of intensity already anticipated by the Comprehensive Plan
and Zoning Ordinance. The minimum lot density requirement would not allow a density
that exceeds the maximum that is already permitted by the underlying zone. Therefore,
the proposed minimum density requirement would have no additional impact on
neighborhoods beyond what could have been developed at maximum density
development. An increase beyond the current maximum density allowed on any parcel is
only allowed pursuant to a zone change. Compliance with Development Standards
regarding natural resource protection, open space, parking and traffic circulation would
remain in effect and would not be in conflict with the density requirement.
PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT
Applicahility:
The proposed text is included as Exhibit F-1 and the existing text is included as ExhibitF-
2. The proposed text amendment would add new language to the R-3, R-5, WR, R-6, R-
7.5, R-10, R-15, and R-2.5 residential zoning district sections of the Zoning Code.
While staff advertised the proposed changes as applying also to the DD, R-0 and R-2
zones when subdivisions are proposed (four or more lots are created), at this time, staff is
not recommending applying the minimum density standards to these zones for several
reasons. First, these zones do not have a minimum parcel size that is required, rather the
number of units is constrained only by floor area ratio, setbacks, height and lot coverage.
By requiring a minimum number of "lots", rather than dwelling units, property owners
could be forced to create small parcels that may limit types of housing tenure (e.g.,
subdivision of lots implies a configuration that encourages ownership, rather than rental
units). Also, based on staff s cursory examination of ten R-0 developments in the City,
one single lot in the R-0 or DD zones typically accommodates 18-28 dwellings (Exhibit
E-1). This means that no "subdivision" or creation of new lots is occurring. Staff
recommends that Planning Commission, at some time in the near future, examine
different language for these three zones that takes into consideration the variety of
housing types and tenures that are encouraged in these zones. For example, a minimum
density that is based not on the creation of a minimum number of lots but a minimum
number of dwelling units.
The minimum density requirements are proposed to apply to residential parcels of any
size. It is not necessary to exclude lands less than ''/z acre from the requirements as the
current provision does for the R-3 and R-5 Zones. If the minimum density standard is
applied to subdivisions only, the parent parcel size is only relevant to the extent that it
can accommodate four or more lots.
ZC 7-98
Page 4of18
Mininutro Density Calculation:
The proposed text uses an existing definition of "net developable acre" which includes
density transfer lands. The current methodology for determining the minimum density
excludes these lands. Calculating a density requirement based upon the "net
developable" acreage is consistent with the existing prescribed method for determining
the "maximum density" of a parcel'. It is proposed to permit a density reduction below
the required minimum where necessary to protect certain density transfer lands and other
lands in specific circumstances only (depending on structure placement or historic
designation status for example). The method for calculating the required density is as
follows:
Step 1 Determine the gross acreage of the parcel
(this includes any resource lands, referred to as "density transfer
lands", and any required open space whether public or private)
Step 2 Subtract the area needed for streets or access easements (if specific
area is not known, use 20% of the parcel size) to find the "net
developable acreage"
Step 3 Divide this number by the minimum lot size of the zone to find the
total potential density
Step 4 Multiply this number by .8 to find the required minimum density
The minimum density may then be partially reduced for lots that would otherwise have
been allowed through density transfer, but which are demonstrated to be in conflict with
the City Codes specified in the density exemptions section. This process is explained in
more detail on pages 11 and 12 of this report under the discussion of compliance with
Goal 5 criteria.
CONFORMING AMENDMENTS
Changes to various sections of existing City Codes are also required in order to fully
coordinate and implement the minimum density requirements. The affected sections are
specified and the actual changes are summarized below. The proposed new language is
underlined, and deleted language is shown with a strikethrough.
Note: The City is currently processing LU 01-0048, Zoning and Development Code
Consolidation. This legislative amendment to the Code will result in a consolidated
1 As previously noted, there is a duplicative process in the Code for determining density—LOC 48.08.280.
Although that density section is located within the DD zone, by its terms, it appears applicable to all
residential zones (except the R-6 zone and the West Lake Grove Design District). As discussed hereafter,
staff is recommending that this duplicative section, LOC 48.08.280, be repealed.
ZC 7-98
Page 5of18 ���
Zoning and Development Code and Development Standards document, LOC 50. Since
the Code Consolidation process is running parallel with ZC 7-98, Minimum Density, both
the current and proposed code citations are included in the following proposed
amendments. The Consolidated Code citation is found in parentheses following the
existing Code citation.
LOC 48.08.280(1)(h) Allowable Density and Density Transfer (LOC
50.09.050/50.02.050)
LOC 48.02.015 Net Developable Acre (LOC 50.02.005)
LOC 49.16.015 Net Developable Acre (LOC 50.02.005)
The calculation of a minimum density includes density transfer lands. There are
currently three code sections that discuss the methodology for calculating density
transfer. These definitions are listed in Exhibit F-5. Two of these definitions are the
identical (48.02.015 and 49.16.015) and will be placed in the proposed Consolidated
Development Code as one single definition. LOC 48.08.280 also describes density
transfer in a slightly different manner. The difference between the "net developable acre"
definition and the "allowable density and density transfer" section is that the latter
requires subtraction of an amount of land associated with any existing dwellings on the
site that will remain as a part of the development, equal to the minimum lot area required
in the zone. Then the applicant is (apparently) required to add the area back in. This
requires an extra step to take out the area and calculate the 80% minimum density and
then an additional step to add it back in (100%). The simplest approach would be to
apply the 80% test to the whole of the lot. Also, the Zoning Code residential zone
descriptions all refer to the "density transfer acre/net developable acre" process, which is
the method most typically used. The existence of this additional description has caused
confusion on the part of individuals trying to interpret the code as well as staff, and staff
is suggesting that it be deleted.
LOC 48.02.015 Density Transfer Acre (LOC 50.02.005)
LOC 49.16.015 Density Transfer Acre (LOC 50.02.005)
There are currently two definitions of Density Transfer Acre/Acreage, one in the Zoning
Code and one in the Development Code and each is different. The more comprehensive
definition is the one that is currently found in the Development Code. Staff suggests that
this definition remain and the other be deleted. If the Commission supports the previous
recommendation to retain Net Developable Acre and delete the Allowable
Density/Density Transfer methodology, then the last sentence of 49.16.015 Density
Transfer Acre could be deleted also.
These definitions, with proposed amendments are listed below:
Definitiens1 Q—� nvr L141-5
I"i ■L7 t-icniiZ'.- The ['['{yi-j JTOi D2 Rlio r. [bi density ffemene-pe4ion
tee 1 in «Je« t, pr-.r r D!
ZC 7-98
Page 6of18 144
Definitions 49.16.015.
Density Transfer Acre/Acreage. Potentially hazardous or resource areas within which
development may occur or from which density may be transferred to buildable portions
of the site, only after it has been demonstrated by the applicant that development can
occur in compliance with criteria established by this Code, including the Development
Standards. Density Transfer Acre includes the following:
a. Area within the floodway and the floodway fringe as shown on U.S. Army Corp
of Engineers flood maps,
b. Area of over 25% slope,
c. Area in known landslide areas or in areas shown to have potential for severe or
moderate landslide hazard,
d. Area in the RC or RP Districts, pursuant to LOC 48.17.115 [50.16.045], stream
buffer areas of major stream corridors, wetlands and Distinctive Natural Areas,
e. Area in public open space and parks.
Preeedure faf site by site density deteFminatien is defined by I=QG 48.08.280-.
LOC 48.18.470(2) Planned Development Overlay/Applicability (LOC 50.17.005)
This provision allows only developments that are classified as major development to
utilize the planned development overlay. In order to implement minimum density it is
necessary to provide the flexibility of a planned development overlay to subdivisions,
which are now classified as minor developments. In addition, it is suggested to delete a
section of this provision that requires the PD Overlay to be used at a specific threshold
because this does not serve any useful purpose. Therefore, this section is proposed to be
amended to include the following language:
"Use of the Planned Development Overlay (PD) is allowed in any zone for subdivision
proposals. . Use e f the RD
units er- four er- meFe aer-es that is elassified as a majeF deNelepment pursuant to the tefm
efLOG 49.20.115.
LODS 49.20.110(2)(g) Minor Development (LOC 50.79.020(2)(i))
For the same reasons described above, this section is proposed to be amended to include
the following language:
2. "Minor development includes:
g. subdivisions (with or without a Planned Development overlay) , including
subdivisions which require one or more Class 1 Zoning Code or Class 1
Development Code Variances.
ZC 7-98 1 4 5
Page 7of18
LODS 49.20.115 (2)(f) Major Development (50.79.030)
Again, for the same reasons as described above, the following text proposed to be
deleted:
2. "Major development includes:
f-. Planned DeN,elepmeats )
NOTIFICATION PROVIDED
LOC 49.60.1515 (3) requires notice of a Planning Commission hearing on a legislative
decision to be published once in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Lake
Oswego at least 10 days in advance of the hearing. Notice will be published in the Lake
Oswego Review on November 1, 2001. In addition, notice was sent on October 26 to all
the recognized Neighborhood Associations, appropriate jurisdictions and public agencies,
and interested citizens that requested notice As required by ORS227.186, (Measure 56),
notice was also mailed to all property owners owning parcels that are at least four times
larger than the minimum lot size in the zone in which they are located. For zones which
do not have a minimum lot size specified (e.g., R-0, R-2, DD) owners of parcels were
notified if their parcels were four times or larger than a minimum lot size based on the
number of minimum density units required by these proposed changes. (e.g., R-0
minimum density = 20 units per acre = 2178 square feet per dwelling unit = 8712 square
feet (2178 x 4 = 8712).
APPLICABLE CRITERIA
A. City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan
Goal 1
Citizen Involvement,
Policies 1,2,10
Goal 2
Land Use Planning
Policies 5,8,11
Goal 5
Open Spaces, Historic and Natural Areas
General Goal
Goal 7
Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards,
Section 1: Flood Hazards Goal
Goal 10
Housing
Policies La., l.b.,14,17
Goal 11
Public Facilities and Services
General Goal
Goal 12 Transportation
Goal 1: Major Streets System
Goal 13 Energy Conservation
General Goal
zC 7-98 146
Page 8of18
Goal 14 Urbanization
Policies 1,3
B. City of Lake Oswego Zoning Code
LOC 48.04.132 Minimum Density
LOC 48.08.280 Allowable Density and Density Transfer
C. City of Lake Oswego Development Code
LOC 49.44.900
Review by a Hearing Body
LOC 49.60,1500
Legislative Decisions Defined
LOC 49.60.1505
Criteria for a Legislative Decision
LOC 49.60.1515
Planning Commission Recommendation Required;
Goal 10
Notice: Conduct of Hearing
LOC 49.60.1520
City Council Review and Decision
LOC 49.46.1030
Decision of the Hearing Body
D. Statewide Planning Goals
Goal 1
Citizen Involvement
Goal 2
Land Use Planning
Goal 5
Open Spaces, Historic and Natural Areas
Goal 7
Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards
Goal 10
Housing
Goal 11
Public Facilities and Services
Goal 12
Transportation
Goal 13
Energy Conservation
Goal 14
Urbanization
E. Applicable Administrative Rules pursuant to 01ZS (11. 197
OAR 660-07 Metropolitan Housing Rule
F. Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan
3.07.120 Methods to Increase Calculated Capacity Required for All Cities and
Counties.
Compliance With Criteria for Approval
LOC 49.60.1505 Criteria for a Legislative Decision. A legislative decision is
generally a policy decision which is up to the discretion of the City Council, but
shall:
Comply with any applicable state la)v;
There are no specific state laws which are applicable to the proposed zoning code text
amendment.
Comply with any applicable Statewide Planning Goal or: idnninistrative Rule adopted
pursuant to ORS Chapter 197.
ZC 7-98
Page 9 of 18
The City has a Comprehensive Plan that has been acknowledged by the Department of
Land Conservation and Development as being in conformance with Statewide Planning
Goals. These Statewide Planning Goals are therefore adequately addressed within the
applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies portion of this report.
Coiuplr with any applicable provision of the Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan:
Goal l: Citizen Involvement
GOAL: The City shall:
a. Create opportunities for every interested citizen to be involved
in all phases of the planning process to ensure that their
concerns are heard;
b. Encourage broadly based public participation including all
geographic areas and diverse interests, and;
C. Ensure regular and ongoing two-way communication between
citizens and City elected and appointed officials.
POLICIES:
1. Provide opportunities for citizen participation in preparing and revising
local land use plans and ordinances.
2. Provide citizen involvement opportunities that are appropriate to the scale of
a given planning effort. Large area plans, affecting a large portion of
community residents and groups require citizen involvement opportunities of
a broader scope than that required for more limited land use decisions.
10. Provide opportunities for citizens to be involved in the planning process,
including data collection. flan preparation, adoption, and implementation,
evaluation and revision.
The Development Code requires a two step decision process, which allows citizen
involvement by first giving an opportunity to testify at the Planning Commission Public
hearing, and secondly to testify at the City Council public hearings. These hearing
procedures comply with the City's mandated Citizen Involvement Program contained in
LOC Chapter 49, which is acknowledged to be in compliance with Comprehensive Plan
Goal 1.
Notice of the public hearing is printed in the local newspaper. The City's various boards
and commissions are comprised of local residents. These hearing and advisory bodies
will assure that the proposed legislative policy, if adopted, will be properly implemented
and applied to future land use decisions.
zC 7-98 .148
Page 10 of 18
For the reasons outlined above, staff concludes that the proposed zoning text amendment
is in compliance with Goal 1 of the Comprehensive Plan.
Goal 2: Section 1, Land Use Policies and Regulations
GOAL: Lake Oswego shall ensure that:
a. The City's land use planning processes and policy framework
serve as a basis for all decisions and actions related to the use
of land and;
b. Land use regulations, actions, and related plans are consistent
with, and implement the Comprehensive Plan.
POLICIES:
5. Maintain residential neighborhoods at existing zone and plan density
designations, except where:
a. Changes to higher residential density designations are necessary to be
consistent with development on the subject property at the time of this
policy's adoption, or;
b. In areas where applicable and adopted neighborhood plans allow
consideration of zone and plan amendments to higher density
designations based on:
i. Locational criteria and design and development standards to
ensure compatibility with existing and desired neighborhood
character, and;
ii. Consistence Nvith Comprehensive Plan goals and policies.
8. Ensure that development and implementation of the City's land use
regulations and Comprehensive Plan minimize pressures to expand the
Portland Metropolitan Urban Growth Boundary.
1.1. Require that residential densities and allowed land uses within the Lake
Oswego Urban Services Boundary not exceed the capacity of planned public
facilities and services.
The proposed density minimum standards will maintain existing neighborhoods or below
their current level of planned density. The text amendment will not result in development
which would exceed the density allowed by the existing Zoning Map and Code. The
proposed text amendment will require future subdivisions to efficiently utilize residential
lands in a manner consistent with the number of dwelling units that has been planned for
by the comprehensive plan, and will avoid the establishment of inappropriate land use
patterns that result in an inefficient use of land.
Requiring a minimum density is an important tool for ensuring that new development is
carefully designed to fully accommodate appropriate density within the City's residential
districts. This mechanism will help to avoid the consequence of expanding the UGB by
ZC 7-98 1. 4 19
Page 11 of 18
efficiently utilizing residential lands and containing development within a compact urban
form that is compatible with the land use pattern directed by the Comprehensive Plan.
Each of the City's facilities plans, from surface water management, water, and sewer to
the transportation system, has been evaluated and completed in order to accommodate the
City's land uses at full build out as allowed by the Comprehensive Plan and Zone Maps.
The ability to provide planned services is determined at the time of review of a
subdivision application, regardless whether the proposed subdivision is at maximum
density or some lesser density. This ordinance would not alter the current "services
available" analysis in the subdivision review process.
For the reasons outlined above, staff concludes that the proposed zoning text amendment
is in compliance «•ith Goal 2 of the Comprehensive Plan.
Goal 5: Open Spaces, Historic and Natural Resources
GOAL: To conserve open space and protect natural and scenic resources
The proposed Zoning Code text amendment does not change the manner in which open
space is preserved and natural and scenic resources are protected. One way in which
these resources are protected is through the use of density transfer. Density transfer
involves the transfer of allowable density from one portion of contiguous property in
single ownership to another in order to protect Resource Conservation (RC) and Resource
Protection (RP) zoned lands and other lands which qualify. Resources protected through
density transfer include flood ways, steep slopes, landslide hazard areas, natural resources
and public open spaces. The area of the density transfer is added to the area of net
developable acre for the purpose of density calculation to the extent that the applicant can
demonstrate by site specific information that the requirements of the Development
Standards will be met for all units proposed to be built, pursuant to Per LOC 48.08.280.
Therefore, a minimum density provision would require that the opportunity for additional
dwelling units must be accomplished through careful site design utilizing density transfer
from constrained portions of a parcel. However, by calculating the density in this
manner, Goal 5 resources will not be compromised, as the Sensitive Lands Ordinance
requires natural resources such as wetlands, tree groves, and stream corridors to be
protected from development impacts. Furthermore, the proposed density provision
includes exemptions to reduce the minimum density by the degree necessary to provide
additional tree grove and flood plain protection. The proposed text amendment will not
impact or reduce the amount of open space or natural resources that must be conserved.
In addition, the minimum density requirement is not proposed to be applied to sites
designated as Historic.
For the reasons outlined above, staff concludes that the proposed zoning text amendment
is in compliance with Goal 5 of the Comprehensive Plan.
ZC 7-98 t 5 U
Page 12 of 18
Goal 7: Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards
GOAL: The City shall protect life and property from flood hazards
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) provides the City with mapped
flood plain information that identifies flood plain elevations and areas subject to flooding.
Lands located within the floodplain will not be affected by the adoption of the proposed
zoning code text amendment. The provision includes an exemption process for density to
be reduced below the required minimum where necessary to avoid development in the
flood plain. For this reason, staff concludes that the proposed zoning text amendment is
in compliance with Goal 7 of the Comprehensive Plan.
Goal 10: Housing:
GOAL: The ("itv shall:
a. Provide the opportunity for a variety of housing types in
locations and environments to provide an adequate supply of
safe, sanitary, energy efficient housing at price and rent levels
appropriate to the varied financial capabilities of present and
future city residents;
b. Protect the character of existing neighborhoods, and;
C. Provide for needed housing while protecting environmentally
sensitive areas, using land and public facilities as efficiently as
possible, and facilitating greater use of alternative
transportation modes.
POLICIES:
1. Maintain the following residential land use designations and locational
criteria which support the above goal:
a. Low Density Residential:
Density Classification Minimum Square Feet of Area per Unit
R-15 15,000 Sq. ft
R-10 10,000 Sq. ft
R-7.5 7,500 Sq. ft
Low Density is intended for areas:
i. Which are currently developed at low density;
ii. Where transportation routes are primarily limited to collectors and
local streets;
iii. Where public services Are adequate but development constraints may
exist, and;
iv. Where sensitivity to the natural environment or the existence of
natural hazards indicates a reduced density.
ZC 7-98 151
Page 13 of 18
b. Medium and High Density Residential:
Densitv Classification Minimum Square Feet of Area per Unit
R-5 5,000 Sq. ft.
R-3 3,375 Sq. ft.
R-0 1.2 Floor Area Ratio
(FAR)* Maximum
Medium and high-density residential areas may be designated in areas:
L Which are currently developed at medium and high density,
ii. Where there are public services and few development constraints,
and;
iii. Near arterials or major collector and transit service, and particularly
for high density residential, areas in close proximity to commercial
areas and/or employment concentrations.
14. Provide a wide range of housing types to meet the needs of various lifestyles
and family types.
17. Support public and private actions which increase housing choices and
reduce housing construction costs.
The proposed zoning text amendment may result in fewer detached single family
dwelling units and more attached housing structures in order to meet a specific density
requirement. Citywide this may produce a greater supply of new housing. The Metro
Housing Rule requires city's to provide an equitable housing distribution of 50/50
detached single-family structures and attached multi -family units. While the City
currently provides the opportunity for an even mix of dwelling units, the proposed
minimum density standards may further ensure that common wall units, which tend to be
more affordable, will be constructed on smaller lots in higher density zone.
There will be no significant change to the character of the existing neighborhoods than
currently planned because minimum density standards will not allow any additional
density or uses that are not currently permitted. Providing a minimum number of lots in
the proposed zones, in addition to the current maximum possible will result in a more
efficient use of public facilities, reducing the need to extend these services. In addition,
compact residential development will increase the efficiency and demand for carpooling
and/or additional transit stops and as more sidewalks are constructed with these
developments, additional opportunities for biking and walking will be created.
For the reasons outlined above, staff concludes that the proposed zoning text amendment
is in compliance with Goal 10 of the Comprehensive Plan.
ZC 7-98
Page 14 of 18
Goal 11: Public Facilities and Services
GOAL: To plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of
public facilities and services to serve as a framework for urban and
rural development.
Statewide Planning Goal 11 requires communities to develop plans and implementing
measures to ensure that development is guided by appropriate types and levels of public
facilities and services. In addition to the guiding goals and policies of Comprehensive
Plans, jurisdictions are required to adopt public facility plans (PFP's) which identify key
facilities needed to accommodate existing and future development. Lake Oswego's PFP
is based upon planned and zoned land uses and densities. The proposed text amendment
will not change the zoning designations on the Comprehensive Plan or Zoning Maps, and
will not create additional uses or higher densities in any of the existing residential zones.
For the reason outlined above, staff concludes that the proposed zoning text amendment
is in compliance with Goal 1 I of the Comprehensive Plan.
Goal 12: Transportation:
GOAL: To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic
transportation system."
The transportation element of the Comprehensive Plan is modeled on development at
build -out. The adoption of minimum density requirements will not have any effect on the
build out projections upon which the Comprehensive Plan is based.
For this reason, staff concludes that the proposed zoning text amendment is in
compliance with Goal 12 of the Comprehensive Plan.
Goal 13: Energy Conservation
GOAL: The City shall conserve energy.
The transportation chapter of the Comprehensive Plan proposes that the City accomplish
a reduction in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) through a number of methods including
promoting mixed use development and making the design and type of new development
amenable to users of alternative transportation such as carpooling, walking, bicycling and
transit. Transportation accounts for a large percentage of all oil consumed nationally, thus
any reduction in VMTs will have a corresponding effect on the overall consumption of
energy. Compact, efficient infill development, such as that promoted by the Metro
Functional Plan, can be an effective means to encourage the demand for additional
transit. Many Functional Plan requirements are intended to promote compact
development so that the Urban Growth Boundary does not have to be expanded and
vehicle miles traveled (VMT) will not increase as much as with more sprawling
ZC 7-98 153
Page 15 of 18
development. In addition, as more sidewalks are constructed with new clustered
residential development additional opportunities for biking and walking will be created.
Furthermore, reduced housing costs and a more efficient use of urban services will result
in an energy savings.
For the reasons outlined above, staff concludes that the proposed zoning text amendment
is in compliance with Goal 13 of the Comprehensive Plan.
Goal 14: Urbanization
GOAL..: The City shall, in conjunction with adjacent jurisdictions and Metro,
control urban sprawl and enhance livability by managing growth in
an orderly and efficient manner to establish stable and predictable
land use patterns.
POLICES:
1. Support the Metropolitan Area Urban Growth Boundary as a means to:
a. Provide sufficient urban lands to accommodate forecasted need for
regional employment, housing, public facilities, and other urban uses.
b. Reduce urban sprawl and ensure an efficient urban growth form.
c. Provide a clear distinction between urban and rural lauds, and;
d. Encourage appropriate urban infill and redevelopment.
Recognize the Metro Regional Urban Growth Goals and Objectives
(RUGGOs) as the framework for the region's growth management program.
Requiring minimum densities in all residential zones recognizes the need to maintain the
urban growth boundary (UGB). This will encourage an efficient and compact use of land
within the existing City limits and Urban Services Boundary. The minimum density
standards will allow infill development to occur at a density level that is consistent with
the City's Comprehensive Plan and is appropriate to the residential district. The proposed
text change fully supports the Urbanization Policy, Goal 14. The proposed text
amendment is also consistent with the regional density objectives of RUGGOs.
For the reasons outlined above, staff concludes that the proposed zoning text amendment
is in compliance with Goal 14 of the Comprehensive Plan.
E. Applicable Administrative Rules pursuant to ORS CH. 197
The Metropolitan Housing Rule requires Lake Oswego to provide the opportunity for a
minimum density of 10 dwelling units per acre on vacant, buildable or redevelopable
lands. Lake Oswego currently complies with this objective, as existing zoning currently
provides the opportunity for 10.4 units per acre citywide. Requiring a minimum density
in all zones will further promote compliance with this state -mandated objective for the
Portland metro area.
ZC 7-98 .154
Page 16 of 18
F. Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan
3.07.120 Methods to Increase Calculated Capacity Required for All Cities and
Counties.
Related to Statewide Planning Goal 10 is the Metro Urban Growth Management
Functional Plan (Functional Plan) and its requirements that are related to provision of
housing. The purpose of the Functional Plan is to require changes to city and county
comprehensive plans and implementing ordinances that will implement the Regional
Urban Growth Goals and Objectives, including the Metro 20540 Growth Concept and the
Regional Framework Plan.
Metro Code 3.07.120, Methods to Increase Calculated Capacity Required for All Cities
and Counties, states that cities and counties shall apply a minimum density standard to all
zones allowing residential use that will result in the building of 80 percent or more of the
maximum number of dwelling units per net acre permitted by the zoning designation for
the site, when a subdivision is proposed. The proposed changes will result in the City
achieving compliance with this Functional Plan requirement.
CONCLUSION
• This amendment is required by the Metro Functional Plan.
• This proposal will extend the minimum density requirements to all residential zones.
• This proposal will not allow an increase in the maximum density allowed in any zone.
• This proposed amendment will simplify the application of the minimum density
requirement, and will be a consistent requirement for all residential zones.
• The proposed text amendment to the City of Lake Oswego Zoning and Development
Codes is in compliance with all applicable State Laws, Statewide Planning Goals and
Administrative Rules, Metro Functional Plan and Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan
Policies.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed
text amendments to the City Council.
EXHIBITS
A. Notice of Appeal (No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use)
B. Findings, Conclusions and Order (No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use)
C. Minutes (No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use)
D. Staff Reports (No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use)
E. Graphics/Plans
E-1. Typical Multi-family/Condominium Development Densities in the R-0
Zone
ZC 7-98 155
Page 17 of 18
F. Written Materials
F-1.
Proposed Minimum Density Zoning Code and Development Code
Changes
F-2.
Previously Approved Minimum Density Zoning code language
F-3.
April 18, 2000 City Council Minutes
F-4.
Internal Metro memo dated May 10, 1999 from Mary Weber to Elaine
Wilkerson, Director, Growth Management Services
F-5.
Existing code density transfer language
G. Letters
G-1. Neither for Nor Against (None)
G-2. In Favor (None)
G-3. Opposed
G-3-1. Letter from Lynora Saunders received September 26, 2001.
P/case files/1998/ZC 7-98/2001 Activity/staff report ZC 7-98(A)
ZC 7-98 .156
Page 18 of 18
Typical Multi-family/Condominium_ Development Densities in the R-0 Zone
Location
Dwellings/
Development '(Neighborhood)
Acre
TerraceEvergreen 18y
Fergreen
Roc Apartments1_La�kewood
Apartments I Evergreen
22
28
Bay_Vista
I
241
Edgewater Garden Court Lakewood
_
Leonard Square 1,01a Town
24
Lake Oswego Village O, swego Pointe
19.
Peg Tree _ � Old Town
24 _
—
Talisman First Addition
Tan lewood Mtn. Park
28
20
The Ridge Apartments Mtn. Park
25 _
Total
_
232
Average... r
23.2,dwellin s/acre
EXHIBIT E-1
r
159
PROPOSED MINIMUM DENSITY TEXT
ORDINANCE 2309
(applicable to subdivisions only)
Proposed Zoning Code Amendments
Article 48.04 Residential — High Density R-0, R-2, R-5, WR Zones
48.04.132 Minimum Density
trbd+wsis
osityTermitted by the Zone is Fequired areels of one half
a the number- of lets
required she!! be deter-mftw"y-mwWpb4ng4he-m
tfSii� @f
pok- iiia V y ended-ap-for-mi-Y
f Adtt(';t �9f2-9f�-o b��w t'od-uet with a
fFaetio of less tha .G-.
48.04.132 Minimum Density:
When subdivisions are proposed in the R-3, R-5, or WR Zones, a minimum
density of 80°/, is required For purposes of this section, the number of lots required
shall he determined by dividing the net developable acreage by the minimum lot size per
unit required in the underlying zone, and multiplying this number by .8. The result
shall be rounded up for any product with a fraction of .5 or greater and rounded down
for anv product with a fraction of less than .5. The requirements of this section are
subiect to the exceptions contained in LOC 48.20.517.
48.05.027 Minimum Density: R-6 Zone
When subdivisions are proposed in the R-6 Zone, a minimum density of 800/) is
required For purposes of this section, the number of lots required shall be determined
by dividing the net developable acreage by the minimum lot size per unit required by
the underlvina zone, and multiplying this number by 8 The result shall be rounded up
for any product with a fraction of 5 or greater and rounded down for any product _wit h
a fraction of less than 5 The requirements of this section are subject to the exceptions
contained in LOC 48.20.517.
48 06 207 Minimum Density: R-7.5, R-10, R-15 Zones
When subdivisions are proposed in the R-7.5, R-10, or R-15 Zones, a minimum
density of 80% is required For purposes of this section, the number of lots required shall
be determined by dividing the net developable acreage by the minimum lot size per unit
required in the underlying zone and multiplying this number by .8. The result shall be
rounded up for anv product with a fraction of 5 or greater and rounded down for an
product with a fraction of less than 5 The requirements of this section are subject to the
exceptions contained in LOC 48.20.517.
--EEXHIBIT F-1
ZC 7-98(A) Minimum Density Proposed Code Changes
Page 1 of 5
163
48.09.020 Town Home Residential (R-2.5)
a)iv) When subdivisions are proposed in the R-2.5 zone, a minimum density of 80% is
required For purposes of this section, the number of lots required shall he determined
by dividing the net developable acreage by the minimum lot size per unit required in the
underlving zone, and multiplving this number by .8. The result shall be rounded up for
anv product with a fraction of .5 or greater and rounded down for any product with a
fraction of less than 5 The requirements of this section are subject to the exceptions
contained in LOC 48.20.517.
48 20 517 Exceptions to the N1 1inimum Densitv Requirement for all zones:
1. The minimum density requirements are not applicable to sites identified
on the City's Historic Landmark Designation list.
2. The number of lots required b%, the minimum density provisions may be
reduced as necessary in any of the following circumstances:
a) 'Where the most appropriate design and location for a storm water
detention or water quality facility is above ground and outside a required open space, or
b) Where in order to comply with the mininnim density requirement it
would be necessary to develop in a flood plain, or
c) Where an RC tree grove is designated on the site and preservation of
more than 50% minimum protection area required by the Sensitive Lands Ordinance
would preclude development such that the minimum number of lots could not be
developed, or
d) NN'here topographic and/or soil constraints exist on site, to the extent that
an applicant can demonstrate that compliance with LODS 16.00.5, hillside Protection
Standard or other soil constraints regulated by the Citv's Codes or the State of Oregon
Uniform Building Code would preclude development such that the minimum number of
lots could not be developed.
e) Where the total number of residential dwelling units resulting from the
development will be at least 80%, of the maximum number permitted in the zone.
OTT!
ZC 7-98(A) Minimum Density Proposed Code Changes Page 2 of 5 164
48.02.015 Definitions.
n-ef-eEf4igueus
LOC 48.18 Planned Development Overlay
LOC 48.18.470. Purpose, Applicability.
2. Use of the Planned Development Overlay (PD) is allowed in any zone for
subdivision proposals. • • .—Use-ef
r "r -Stift
LOG 4 9.2 0.115
ZC 7-98(A) Minimum Density Proposed Code Changes Page 3 of 5 s ` s
1
48.18.476 [50.17.015] Authorization
1. In considering an application for a PD Overlay, the hearing bedy reviewing
,nithority shall apply the height, Floor Area Ratio (FAR), lot coverage, use, open space and
density requirements of the underlying zone and, if applicable, the setback requirements of
LOC 48.04.150(5). The FAR and lot coverage requirements may be applied with reference to
the total area of the project as a whole and not on a lot by lot basis.
2. Except for the special setback requirements of LOC 48.04.150(5), the hearty
reviewing authority may grant exceptions to the lot size, lot dimension and front and rear
setback requirements of the underlying zone if the applicant demonstrates that the proposed
PD provides the same or a better sense of privacy, appropriate scale and open space as a PD
designed in compliance with the standard or standards to which an exception is sought. In
making this determination, the hearing -bed reviewing authority may consider:
a. Whether the applicant has reserved or dedicated more than the minimum amount
of open space required by the Park and Open Space Development Standard.
b. Whether the requested exception allows the lots to be designed in a manner that
provides better access to common open space areas from within and/or outside the PD, better
protects views, allows better solar access, maintains or improves relationships between
structures, maintains or improves privacy and/or improves pedestrian or bicycle access to
surrounding neighborhoods.
c. Whether the requested exception will allow a more attractive streetscape through
use of meandering streets, access through alleys or shared driveways, provision of median
plantings, or other pedestrian amenities.
d. Whether the requested exception will enhance or better protect a significant natural
feature on the site, such as a wetland, a tree or tree grove, or a stream corridor.
e. Whether the requested exception will provide better linkage with adjacent
neighborhoods, parks and open space areas, pathways, and natural features.
f. Whether the requested exception will allow the development to be designed more
compatibly with the topography and/or physical limitations of the site.
3. If the proposed PD is part of an approved ODPS as described in LOC Article 49.26,
requirements of the ODPS approval regarding arrangement of uses, open space and resource
conservation and provision of public services, will be considered when reviewing the
considerations in subsection (1) for the PD.
4. Except as required by LOC 48.04.150(5), the hemming-bedreviewing authority. may
grant exceptions to the minimum side yard setbacks of the underlying zone, without the
necessity of meeting the requirements of LOC 48.24.650 to 48.24.690 (variances) if the
requirements of 48.18.476 are met, and:
a. Proposed lot sizes are less than the minimum size required by the underlying zone,
or
b. Lesser setbacks are necessary to provide additional tree preservation or protection
of abutting natural areas.
(Ord. No. 2027, Sec. 1; 4-02-91. Ord. No. 2063, Sec. 2; 08-18-92. Ord. No. 2148,
Amended, 07/22/97)
48.18.485 [50.17.025] Expiration, Revocation
If 15% of the structural construction of the planned development has not occurred within
three years of the date of the order granting approval for the PD Overlay or if development
ZC 7-98(A) Minimum Density Proposed Code Changes Page 4 of 5 166
has occurred in violation of the approval granted, the Plamming Cenunissien reviewing
authority may initiate a review of the Planned Development Overlay to determine whether or
not its continuation in whole or in part is in the public interest. The
reviewing authority may decide that the Planned Development Overlay is to be removed and
the plan or plat be resubmitted and made to conform to the requirements of the underlying
zone, that the approval be retained, or that the approval be modified in any manner consistent
with laws in effect at that time.
(Ord. No. 1851, Sec. 1; 11-16-82.)
Proposed Development Code .-amendments
LODS 49.20.110(2)(g) Minor Development.
2. "Minor development includes:
g. subdivisions (with or NN,ithout a Planned Development overlaY) , including
subdivisions which require one or more Class I Zoning Code or Class 1
Development Code Variances.
LODS 49.20.115 (2)(f) Major Development.
2. Major development includes:
Planned Develepments (PD)
Definitions: 49.16.015.
Density Transfer Acre/Acrea&e. Potentially hazardous or resource areas within which
development may occur or from which density may be transferred to buildable portions of the
site, only after it has been demonstrated by the applicant that development can occur in
compliance with criteria established by this Code, including the Development Standards,
Density Transfer Acre includes the following:
a. Area within the floodway and the floodway fringe as shown on U.S. Army Corp of
Engineers flood maps,
b. Area of over 25% slope,
c. Area in known landslide areas or in areas shown to have potential for severe or
moderate landslide hazard,
d. Area in the RC or RP Districts, pursuant to LOC 48.17.115 [50.16.0451, stream
buffer areas of major stream corridors, wetlands and Distinctive Natural Areas,
e. Area in public open space and parks.
Reeedure feF site by site density detennination is defined by LOG 48.08.280.
16'i
ZC 7-98(A) Minimum Density Proposed Code Changes Page 5 of 5
Previously Approved Minimum Density Zoning Code Language
Article 48.04 Residential — High Density R-0, R-2, R-5, WR Zones
48.04.132 Minimum Density
When lots are created through a partition or subdivision, a minimum density of 80% of
the maximum density permitted by the Zone is required on parcels of one-half acre or larger in
the R-3 and R-5 zojnes. For purposes of this section, the number of lots required shall be
determined by multiplying the maximum density exclusive of potentially allowable density
transfer, by .8. The result shall be rounded up for any product with a fraction of .5 or greater and
rounded down for any product with a fraction of less than .5.
P/casefiles/1998/ZC 7-98/Previously approved minimum density zoning code language
EXHIBIT F-2
1 WI
Meeting Minutes of April 18, 2000
Page 5 of 14
Mrs. Harlan argued that there would be more revisions to that route, given the 25% slope identified by
the surveyor firm Andy Paris & Associates, thus increasing the cost beyond the $62,000 estimate. She
indicated that the $120,000 cost estimate for the Cornell route would come down. She stated that she
would return to Council with different cost estimates and request separate vacation of the Pine and
Bickner right-of-ways.
Mayor Klammer closed thepublic hearing.
COUNCIL QUESTIONS OF STAFF
David Powell, City Attorney, confirmed to Councilor Hoffman that the 60 -foot right-of-way adjacent
to Tax Lot 11900 would revert back to the property owner and to the park, 30 feet to each. Mr. Coffee
confirmed that this was the only right-of-way reversion issue in this proposal, as the Windsor amended
plat did not dedicate any right-of-way on the south side. Mr. Powell verified that the City would deal
with the reversion issue again if the Council revisited the rest of Bickner and Pine. Ms. Harlan
mentioned that she and her husband already offered to donate any land reverting to them.
COUNCIL DISCUSSION
Councilor Rohde moved to enact Ordinance 2235. Councilor McPeak secon(led the motion. A
voice vote was taken and the motion passed with Councilors McPeak, Hoffnian, Mayor Klammer,
Rohde and Lowrey voting in favor. Councilor Chizum did not vote.
[5-01
Mayor Klammer read Ordinance 2235 into the record.
6.2 ZC 7-98, a proposal to apply a minimum density standard to future subdiN-isiuns in all
residential zones (continued from April 4, 2000)
Mayor Klammer read the hearing title. Mr. Powell reviewed the legislative land use hearing procedures,
and the specific procedures for this continued hearing. Mayor Klammer reviewed the testimony time
limits.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY
Mayor Klammer opened the hearing to public testimony.
OPPONENTS EXHIBIT F•3
Richard Bolls, 13750 SW Knauss Road
Mr. Bolls mentioned his attendance at all the previous meetings on this subject. He cited the aggregate
years lived in the Forest Hills neighborhood by those in attendance at the last meeting, 350 years, as
evidence of the residents' emotional commitment to the neighborhood. He referenced his job-related
travel on the West Coast in noting the many places elsewhere in the US where people knew of Lake
Oswego.
Mr. Bolls referenced the discussion at the last meeting as to whether Lake Oswego had a problem today,
and the conclusion that they did not have a problem meeting the required density today but they might
by the year 2040. He suggested a compromise to preserve the distinctive rural character of Forest
http:llwww.ci.oswego.or.us/CALENDARICouncilMtgs/2000CCMinutes/041800councilminut... 11/1/01
Meeting Minutes of April 18, 2000 Page 6 of 14
Highlands, without forcing the extra density, in -fill and mandatory minimum lot sizes that could ruin the
character of the neighborhood.
Mr. Boll spoke of the large parcels of farmland by Beaverton and Hillsboro that could be developed to a
maximum density, and that those moving there knew what they were getting into. He held that the
Forest Highlands neighbors moved to the neighborhood in the hopes that it would be preserved as a
place for children to grow up. He suggested applying minimum density to those areas that might cause
problems in the future and not to apply it to areas where no problem existed today.
Burr Battwell, 920 Fairway Road
Mr. Battwell mentioned that he was a third -generation Oswegan whose children would also go through
the Lake Oswego school system. He said that the City annexed his property last November, changing
zoning designation from R-10 County to R-15 City. He observed that his property with its tree grove,
wetland, stream and historical landmark was already restricted by the existing rules and regulations. He
indicated that he represented a different neighborhood than Forest Highlands, which also opposed
minimum density.
Mr. Battwell spoke to maintaining the character and history of the community, the charm and quality
that were in and of themselves community resources. He expressed his concern that in -fill and a
minimum density requirement would result in a `dogpatch' neighborhood where larger lots with single
homes sat next to cul-de-sacs with many little homes. He noted that the City has stayed within the
minimum density requirement using its existing regulations. He spoke against jumping on the Metro
bandwagon with its focus on a homogeneous metro area.
Mr. Battwell mentioned the traffic concerns inherent in a community with winding roads, unfriendly to
pedestrians, as opposed to the grid systems of other areas. He reiterated his support of maintaining the
status quo and the unique identity of Lake Oswego. He asked the Council to take note that not one
citizen has testified in favor of minimum density.
Mary Maxwell (address unknown)
Ms. Maxwell observed that Lake Oswego followed its own development path of bigger lots and less
density within the opportune natural resources. She argued that Metro's requirement for more intense
development did not take into account the appropriateness for each individual community or
neighborhood. She held that a blanket approach was not in the best interests of each community,
although it might level the field. She questioned if it made sense to enforce the minimum density that
would impact the natural resources of the community, if the City was committed to protecting those
natural resources and to acquiring more open space.
Ms. Maxwell held that increased densities impacted the attractive resource of the School District,
causing the District to deteriorate and families to move away. She said that the City would lose one of
best resources: an educated population. She argued that passing this ordinance could have an irreversible
effect on Lake Oswego. She suggested that the Council follow the citizens' choice and not enact the
ordinance but wait to see how Metro would respond to a community with high minimum density
compliance.
Ms. Maxwell mentioned the amendment provision allowing the review of density transfers without a
public hearing. She strongly objected to the loss of the citizens' voice in such a crucial issue that could
change the face of a neighborhood.
1'7 2
http://www.ci.oswego.or.usICALENDAR/CouncilMtgs/2000CCMinutes/041800councilniinul... 11/1/01
Meeting Minutes of April 18, 2000
Sherry Finnigan, 3700 Upper Drive
Page 7 of 14
Ms. Finnigan reported on Metro Executive Director Mike Burton's answer to her question at a meeting
that day. She said that she asked what Metro would do if jurisdictions did not adopt minimum density.
She indicated that the question surprised Mr. Burton but he answered by stating that Metro would
withhold transportation monies. She paraphrased his comments as jurisdictions preferred the carrot to
the stick, and he doubted that it would come to that.
Ms. Finnigan spoke against minimum density because the areas of the city currently containing large
houses on large lots would develop in an incompatible fashion with the existing neighborhood under a
minimum density requirement. She spoke to keeping Metro waiting until the City straightened out what
compatibility meant in these areas.
Mike Smith, 860 SW Atwater Road
Mr. Smith described the location of his family's land. He indicated that his family found the minimum
density proposal repugnant in its restriction on their ability to do what they chose to do in developing
their land in an appropriate fashion to meet the neighborhood and City standards. He asked the Council
to reach an appropriate accommodation with Metro, taking into account the sign Gcant citizen
opposition to minimum density and the imposition of unnecessary constraints on citizens by this
legislation. He asked the Council to represent the will of the citizens.
Matt Finnigan, 3700 Upper Drive
Mr. Finnigan described Metro's request as asking the City to establish minimum density without having
the City standards in place to protect and sustain the character of the neighborhood during development.
He referenced a recent Planning Commission meeting he attended where the Commission struggled with
the issue of how to maintain neighborhood character. He asked the Council to delay its decision until the
City had the standards and neighborhood plans in place to protect the livability and uniqueness of the
neighborhoods. He held that the subdivisions had the greatest visual impact and character change in a
neighborhood, yet they provided the greatest return on a developer's investment.
Ed Tromke, 4097 Wood Hill Court
Mr. Tromke observed that people did not want Metro imposing a rule on them. He spoke to telling
Metro that they could achieve the objective in a more orderly way. He emphasized the need to protect
compatibility with the existing neighborhoods. He commented that next week he would be representing
his neighborhood about the zone change to R-3 on Kruse Way, a change that would allow build out at
80% density. He held that minimum density punished the people who had livable neighborhoods by
putting the density on the undeveloped lots where people were used to having open space and trees,
rather than developing it at lower densities.
Mr. Tromke argued that the City had the authority to say that it would comply with minimum density at
its own speed. He referenced the summary of Title 1 at the Metro website, which stated that a city
simply needed to demonstrate that the local zoning would accommodate the housing and jobs targets of
Title 1. He held that it did not specify how or when the city had to meet those targets, prior to 2017. He
spoke to finding out whether Metro really meant what it said in that statement.
Ms. Hitchcock noted for the record the receipt of a fax from Peter L. Stroud in opposition to minimum
density.
1'73
http://Nv-vvw.ci.oswego.or.us/CALENDAR/CouncilMtgs/2000CCMinutes/041800councilminut... 11/1/01
Meeting Minutes of April 18, 2000 Page 8 of 14
NEUTRAL
Judie Hammerstadt, 17330 Grandview Court
Ms. Hammerstadt urged the Council not to adopt the ordinance at this time, suggesting instead that the
City look at presenting an argument of substantial compliance to Metro as a means of fulfilling the goal
that Metro, the region and the neighbors wanted. She observed that the neighbors wanted to continue
with livable neighborhoods and open spaces without increased density. She pointed out that 80% of the
allowable density did not create a completely different picture, as the City stood at 90% of the approved
zoning right now, and people felt comfortable with it.
Nis. Hammerstadt held that the City could demonstrate substantial compliance because the City has
already met that standard. She commented that she saw the fear residing in those areas not yet annexed
to the city where both zoning and design became critical in future planning.
Nis. Hammerstadt suggested that the City take a leadership role and responsibility in influencing how
Metro handed down its regulations and what compliance Metro expected of the jurisdictions in
implementing the 2040 plan smoothly and successfully. She mentioned suggesting to Mike Burton that
2040 could not work if the local governments and residents opposed the provisions, as the Council has
seen during the hearings on minimum density. She held that people were afraid that the community
%vould change, and they did not want change that occurred without their substantial input. She reiterated
her suggestion that the Council not adopt the ordinance but take an argument of substantial compliance
to Metro.
Cathy Shroyer, 16727 SW Babson Place
Nis. Shroyer mentioned that County Community Planning Organizations (CPO) were not notified of this
hearing, noting that she received phone calls from city residents asking where Rural Lake Grove has
been, given the potentially serious impacts minimum density could have on the neighborhood. She
reviewed her research into the issue of minimum density. She commented that the conclusion she heard
(with respect to her neighborhood) was that developers buying up land for development would go for
maximum density; therefore, minimum density was not an issue.
Nis. Shroyer pointed out that other neighborhoods might be adversely impacted by minimum density in
ways that did not impact her neighborhood. She stated her concern that the City gave up its flexibility to
deal with situations where minimum density might not work. She referenced the concept of substantial
compliance. She reiterated that passing this ordinance tied the City's hands with respect to density
issues. She indicated that, although she saw both sides of the issue, it worried her that Metro forced the
jurisdictions to comply with this state mandate, instead of leaving planning at the local level.
Nlay or Klammer closed the public hearing.
Niavor Klammer asked Mr. Schmitz to present the staff suggestion on what to do. Doug Schmitz, City
:Manager, indicated that, following last week's meeting, staff concluded that the Council was divided on
this issue, which created several problems for the Council and the organization. He noted the political
problem created if the Council passed the ordinance in the face of no community support, and the legal
problem created if the Council failed to pass an ordinance that represented the law.
NIT. Schmitz proposed a middle-of-the-road approach, in which the Council would not take action at the
meeting but direct staff to meet with Metro to try to work out a middle course of action acceptable to
174
http://www.ci.oswego.or.us/CALENDAR/CounciIMtgs/2000CCMinutes/041800councilminut... 11/1/01
Meeting Minutes of April 18, 2000
Page 9 of 14
both parties. He mentioned a possibility that an agency that had 80% or more density for a specified
period of time did not have to proceed with the minimum density requirement.
COUNCIL QUESTIONS OF STAFF
Councilor Chizum asked for clarification on the 89% density average Lake Oswego had over the past
two years. Mr. Coffee explained that, according to the staff interpretation of the Metro requirement, a
jurisdiction that did not adopt the requirement of minimum density was out of compliance because it did
not matter what it had done historically.
Councilor Lowrey asked for Mr. Coffee's comments on Mr. Tromke's and Ms. Hammerstadt's
suggestions about substantial compliance. Mr. Coffee explained that the purpose of Title 1 of the
Functional Plan was to get each local jurisdiction to take its share of the growth projected by Metro. He
said that Metro's method of insuring the accommodation of that growth was to require two things:
adoption of minimum density and projection of future capacity within a jurisdiction's current zoning.
Mr. Coffee explained that the statement mentioned by Mr. Tromke dealt with the second requirement,
not the first. If a jurisdiction could achieve its future capacity within its current zoning, then it was in
substantial compliance. If not, then Metro wanted the jurisdiction to start rezoning. He emphasized that
that was different from minimum density.
Councilor Lowery asked if Mr. Coffee held the opinion that Metro would still deniand minimum
density, even if Lake Oswego could show substantial compliance within its zoning. Mr. Coffee
confirmed that that was staff's understanding of the language and Metro's expectations. He indicated
that Mr. Schmitz's proposal allowed for the possibility of convincing Metro to change the text to allow
for those communities who have shown historically that they could meet minimum density and continue
to do so.
Councilor Lowrey commented that it sounded like the only way to fashion a compromise with Metro
was if Metro was willing to change the language of Title 1. Mr. Coffee agreed. He concurred with the
Councilor that, without a minimum density ordinance, Metro would see Lake Oswego as not following
the Functional Plan.
Councilor McPeak asked at what point did the City start the conversation with Metro. She commented
that she saw Metro as doing too much top down stuff and not enough listening to the bottom up. Mr.
Schmitz indicated that he would start by meeting with Mr. Burton. Councilor McPeak characterized this
as a way to save a fine concept that was perceived as an enemy instead of as a tool.
Councilor Hoffman stated that he favored following the Metro mandate in the Functional Plan. He
indicated his disagreement with Mr. Tromke's interpretation that the Functional Plan did not required
the 80%. He mentioned the importance of the City having a relationship and understanding with the
neighborhoods as well as a working relationship with Metro. He pointed out that Lake Oswego was part
of Metro. He said that he supported staff's proposal to try to work through this issue with Metro to
resolve it with a mutually acceptable solution.
Mayor Klammer asked if Lake Oswego could band together with other communities unhappy with the
minimum density requirement and present their argument to Metro, bolstered by strength in numbers.
Mr. Schmitz said that his approach would be to meet with Mr. Burton first to see what his response was.
Mr. Coffee suggested bringing the issue before the Growth Management Caucus, following the meeting
with Mr. Burton.
17
http://www.ci.oswego.or.us/CALENDAR/CouncilMtgs/2000CCMinutes/041800councilminut... 11/1/01
Meeting Minutes of April 18, 2000
Page 10 of 14
Councilor Lowrey said that, while he supported talking to Metro to see if they could develop a more
reasonable approach, he considered it highly probable that Metro would reject the City's approach. He
commented that they would have to revisit the issue for the fourth time in the last two years. He held
that Metro's mandate for minimum density to all jurisdictions in the Portland metro region was an
unreasonable approach.
Councilor Lowrey spoke to his belief that Metro was not a planning organization. He conceded that
Metro had certain appropriate functions with respect to the Urban Growth Boundary and regional
transportation but held that it overstepped the purpose intended for it by the voters with this specific
detailed plan. He reiterated that it was worth a try to see if Metro would back off to some degree with
respect to those communities that could show that they have reached some degree of density.
Councilor Chizum commented that Councilors wanted to listen to the citizens if the citizens agreed with
the Councilor's opinion. He referenced the complete lack of testimony in support of minimum density
and the several times that the Council has voted down minimum density. He spoke to going to Metro
with a stronger statement, saying that they did not agree with Metro's logic on minimum density and
here is what they would do.
Councilor Chizum questioned what Metro could do to the City. He held that Lake Oswego has not
received any of the transportation money Metro threatened to withhold from non -complying
jurisdictions. He said that he doubted that Metro would kick them out of Clackamas County or Metro
itself.
Councilor Chizum commented that there were conflicting interpretations of legal documents. He
indicated that he understood the 89% average over two years but not why 70% in one year automatically
put the City out of compliance. He argued that the City should enter into compromise discussions from a
position of strength, in which they said that they would not accept Metro's interpretation and present an
alternative.
Councilor Rohde stated that the staff proposal was a reasonable approach to take to Metro, which he
described as a reasonable agency. He spoke to the importance of acting in a spirit of cooperation and not
considering Lake Oswego as independent of the region. He argued that Lake Oswego's quality of life
was based on its proximity to the regional attractions and the other developed communities; if Lake
Oswego had developed in the middle of Harney County, it would not be an attractive place to live.
Councilor Rohde held that it was important for the community not to disdain the regional effort to try to
make the entire region a livable place for all citizens. He said that they had a responsibility to respect
their status as part of the region and to be a willing player. He spoke to this effort to meet with Metro to
try to find a way to work this out as a worthy effort.
Councilor Rohde commented that what they were missing was the discussion on density that the
community needed to have. He noted that the community held widely divergent views on whether
density was good or bad and on what constituted density. He referenced the comment made this evening
that increased densities would cause the schools to suffer. He said that he could not make that
connection; increased population would cause an increased need in the school system but density itself
had no impact on the schools. Children living in First Addition were no worse off than children living in
Forest Hills simply because they lived closer to their neighbors. He said that he did not believe that
living within conversation distance of a neighbor was a negative to the quality of life in the community.
Councilor Rohde reiterated that this concern abou rginimum density was largely `much ado about
176
http://www.ci.oswego.or.us/CALENDAR/CouncilMtgsi2000CCMinutes/041800councilminul... 11/1/01
4leeting Minutes of April 18, 2000 Page 11 of 14
nothing,' given the fact that there were not many properties to which the ordinance would apply (in light
of Metro's definitions), and the fact that a profit -minded developer would develop to the maximum
density, not the minimum density. He questioned whether minimum density would create the evils
predicted to come with it. He indicated that he thought it wise to ask Metro about other opportunities
that the City could pursue. He said that once they exhausted all reasonable efforts, the Council would
have to make a decision on whether or not to violate a state law.
Councilor Hoffman moved to authorize the staff to initiate discussions with Metro's staff for the
purposes of exploring the possibilities of amending the Functional Plan to recognize that some
jurisdictions may be complying with the Functional Plan if they have a rolling average that
exceeds the 80% minimum density over a certain period of time, whether it be 2 years, 4 years or
_5 years, without listing a certain number of years, but the intent is that staff start its discussion
with the intent that we can be found in compliance with Metro's Functional Plan in some way
other than the 80% proposed for proposed development. Councilor Rohde seconded the motion.
Councilor McPeak asked to add the option of other ways to achieve the goal of 80% minimum density
besides the rolling performance standard. She commented that with Lake Oswego achieving 89%
density through zoning and market-driven forces, she was not sure that they needed anything more.
Councilor Rohde said that the motion allowed staff the flexibility to pursue a number of options in
negotiating with Metro to achieve a solution for Lake Oswego.
Councilor Chizum reiterated that the motion was not a strong enough statement; all it would do was
return the discussion to the Council. He argued that the motion was meaningless without a statement that
Lake Oswego would not accept Metro's present interpretation. He noted that there was no support on the
Council for his position. He commented that he was willing to get rid of minimum density for Zones 3
and 5 but had not wanted to bring it up. He characterized minimum density as a government edict trying
to make everyone in an area the same when everyone was not the same.
A voice vote was taken and the motion Passed with Councilors McPeak, lloffman, Mayor
Klammer, Rohde and Lowrey voting in favor. Councilor Chizum voted against the motion. 15-01
Karen Ingels, 12831 SW Alto Park Road
Ms. Ingels pointed out that the Council had not discussed the issue of the amendment transferring the
review of density transfer away from a public hearing body (Exhibit C, page 11). She argued that this
was an important issue because the public lost its right to provide input on density transfers. She
emphasized that many citizens were seriously concerned about this provision.
Councilor Chizum recessed the meeting for a break. Mayor Klammer reconvened the meeting.
COUNCIL DISCUSSION
7. BUSINESS FROM THE COUNCIL
7.1 Councilor Issues for Discussion
Councilor Rohde complimented staff on Millennium Plaza Park, referencing the many people he saw
enjoying it now that the weather has improved.
Mayor Klammer concurred. He mentioned a question a citizen asked him about what happened if a kid
f
177
http://www.ci.oswego.or.us/CALENDAR/CouncilMtgsl2000CCMinutesIO41800councilni incl... ll/l/01
!'ETRO-GROWTH MRN 503 797 1911
M
May 10,99 15:10 No.005 P.01
M 0 R A N
Post-tt' Fax Note
Date: May 10, 1999
M EI 1 CY�tk'c W
7671
Fax*
To: Blaine Wilkerson, Director
Growth Management Services Department
From: Mary A. Weber, Manager
Community Development
Re; Functional Plan Definition of Development Application
D U M
ate
rom V e -Y
r,
K
hono 4,7 '
7
ax
A question has arisen that pertains to the Metro Code definition of 'development application" and
applying the minimum density requirements in Title 1 of the Functional Plan, tro Code
for a land use
Section 3.07.1010(p) (Title 10) defines development application as "an application
decision, limited land decision Including expedited land divisions, but excluding partitions as defined in
ORS 92.010 (7) and ministerial decisions such as a building permit." The ORS defines partitioned land
a-. land that is divided into two or three parcels of land within a calendar year, but this does not include
land resulting from the recording of a subdivision or condominium plat.
The term development application comes into play in Metro Code Section 3.07.120A (Title 1).
Section A outlines the methods to increase calculated capacity. This section directs cities and counties
to apply a minimum density standard to all zones allowing residential use. It also states that a
development application, including a subdivision, may not be approved unless the development will
result in the building of 80 percent or more of the maximum number of dwelling units per net acre
permitted by the zoning designation.
The Code language suggests that if the site were recently partitioned and the proposed development
was at a density less than the minimum required by the zone that the City could approve the
development application. When MTAC drafted the Code, there was likely discussion about
encouraging Infill development, making it "easier" to develop these sites and the difficulty of applying
rninimum densities to small parcels. This exclusion in the Code provides local flexibility in applying the
minimum density requirement and removes what might be a burdensome regulation on small lot Infill
development. This provision also seems consistent with another Metro Code requirement,
Section 3.07,1208, which prohibits local governments from prohibiting partitioning of parcels two or
more times the minimum lot size of the development code.
Paulette Copperstone was enlisted to search through the MTAC minutes to find any references
pertaining to this Issue. In the minutes of the October 24, 1996 meeting of MTAC Jim Jacks of Tualatin
Initiated a discussion about defining development application. The Committee discussed this issue anc
the Issue of partitioning. John Fregonese, the Chair of NITAC, added that it "would be good to exempt
partitions from minimum density standards." A copy of the meeting minutes is attached, Also attached
is a time sequence of Title 10 changes dating from October 24 to November 21, 1996 that show the
evolution of the definition of development application.
MAWlsrb EXHIBIT F
l;\gm\community_dcvclopment�ehot"ovelopment application discussion.d-
cc: Tom Coffee, City of Lake Oswego — w/Attachments
1',''+ 11
Existing Code Density Transfer Language
Section 48.08.280 Allowable Density and Density Transfer.
1. Except as provided in subsection 2, of this section, this section explains the
method for computation of the number of units allowed for each site in the DD, WR, R-0, R-3,
R-5, R-7.5, R-10 and R-15 zones, except in mixed use zones.
a. Compute the area of Net Developable Acre by subtracting from gross
acreage (at 43,560 sq. ft. per acre) of residentially designated land the area required for street
right-of-way. For public streets, use the actual acreage if known or 20% of the gross acreage. For
private streets, use actual acreage if known or 40 foot right-of-way.
b. For all residential zones except the R-0 zone if there are existing dwellings
on the site that will remain as a part of the development, subtract from the area calculated in A, an area
amount equal to the minimum lot area per unit required in the zone. For the R-0 zone subtract an
area amount equal to 1.2 times the floor area for the existing dwellings.
C. Compute the area of Density Transfer Acre by adding together the area of
the components listed below.
i. Area within the floodway and the floodway fringe as shown on U.
S. Army Corps of Engineers' flood maps.
ii. Area over 25% slope.
iii. Area in known landslide areas or in areas shown to have potential
for severe or moderate landslide hazard.
iv. Area in public open space and parks.
d. Subtract the area of the Density Transfer Acre from the difference
obtained after performing the calculation described in subsection l .b., or if there are no existing
dwellings on the site that will remain, from the area of the Net Developable Acre.
e. For zones, other than the R-0 zone, calculate the base number of units by
dividing the result of the calculation from subsection l.d. by the minimum lot area per unit
allowed in the zone. For the R-0 zone, there is no base number of units. The base allowable FAR
is 1.2 times the result of the calculation from subsection l.d..
f. The area of the Density Transfer Acre may be added to the area of Net
Developable Acre for the purpose of density calculation to the extent that the applicant has
demonstrated by site specific information (in specified cases by an engineer's report) that the
requirements of the Development Standards will be met for all units proposed to be built. The
number of units allocated to the Density Transfer Acreage is computed in the same manner as the
base number of units or FAR is calculated pursuant to subsection I.e., less any units which
cannot be placed due to failure to comply with the requirements of the Development Standards.
g. To determine the total number of units or FAR allowed on the site, add to
the result of the calculation in subsection 1.e. the result of the calculation in subsection Lf..
h. The hearing body will review the above calculations as part of the hearing
process on the application. LOC 48.04.130(l)(b), 48.06.205(1)(b) and 48.08.255(3)(b) provide
that the hearing body will approve the total number of units calculated in subsection l .g. above if
the facts presented by the applicant demonstrate that the resulting density can occur within
requirements set forth in the Development Standards.
EXHIBIT F-5
1.SI
2. LOC 48.04.125, 48.04.130(2), 48.06.195, 48.06.205(2), 48.08.245, LOC Article
48.17. and Development Standard 21, the Residential Energy Conservation Incentives, provide
for density bonuses under specified circumstances. The maximum number of units will not
exceed the numbers allowed by those sections.
(Ord. No. 2088, Enacted, 03/03/94; Ord. No. 2148, Amended, 07/22/97)
48.02.015 Deflnitions.
Density Transfer Acre/Acreage. The transfer of allowable density from one portion of
contiguous property in a single ownership to another authorized in order to protect RC and RP
zoned lands or as otherwise provided in LOC 48.08.280.
49.15.0 Definitions 49.16.015.
Density Transfer Acre/Acreage. Potentially hazardous or resource areas within which
development may occur or from which density may be transferred to buildable portions of the
site, only after it has been demonstrated by the applicant that development can occur in
compliance with criteria established by this Code, including the Development Standards.
Density Transfer Acre includes the following:
a. Area within the floodway and the floodway fringe as shown on U.S. Army Corp of
Engineers flood maps,
b. Area of over 25% slope,
c. Area in known landslide areas or in areas shown to have potential for severe or moderate
landslide hazard,
d. Area in stream buffer areas of major stream corridors, wetlands and Distinctive Natural
Areas,
e. Area in public open space and parks.
Procedure for site by site density determination is defined by LOC 48.08.280.
182
Heisler, Jane
From: Christie, Robyn on behalf of Density
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 1:43 PM
To: Heisler, Jane
Subject: FW: minimum density in residential area
--Original Message -----
From: Zapl0l@aol.com [mailto:Zap101 @aol.com]
Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2001 6:48 PM
To: dens ity@ci.oswego. or. us
Subject: minimum density in residential area
My name is Andrew Fraser. I'm a 8th grade student at LOJH. My opinion is
that we should keep the Urban Growth Boundary were it is and to
establish minimum density in residential zones. When I have kids I want
Oregon to look like, smell like, sound like, Oregon. Not some major city
caking over forest, beautiful farm land. I want to take my kids to
parks, forests, to the beach. The trips to the beach through lush green
`orests, a place to get away from this hectic world. To go to
undeveloped areas. Not some large city.
I may just be 13 but I don't want to see row after row after row of
houses on the way to the beach, when I'm 30, 40, 50, 90, or beyond. I
want Oregon's nature to be nature. In short I think that establishing a
minimum density provision will be extremely helpful. Regards Andrew
Fraser.
EXHIBIT G-2-1
183
01
To-. The
CARRYING CAPACITY ROTIATES POPULATION GROWTH SUSTAINABILITY
Each community must consider its own CARRYING CAPACITY.., that is,
"How many people, cars, and pets that Nature can support wLthout
causLng environmental deterioration over time?" This question is
absolutely the crLtical core for each neighborhood to sustaLn a
r.ealthy qualLty of life that we all desperately need and want.
WATERSHED HEAL'T'H IS CRITICAL... that L5, if Sze want to sustaLn water
quality and quantLty for fish, vegetation, and all species...plus
maintain pure drinking water without fear of contamination.
Currently, we are waLktng on a tight -rope regardLng quantLty and
qualLty of water, because we have lost our focus on "What Nature
can support".. -that Ls, NATURE''S CARRYING CAPACITY.
'Nieeting the density goals of Lake Oswego has not been a problem,
therefore, the people MUST HAVE A CHOICE. Say GOOD-BYE to our
ne Lghborhoods IF your proposed DENSITY GUIDELINES will be passed t 1 !
F'ECIVED
SEP Z 6 200,
CITY oF It,rCc CStiU
Dept. of P11r) Ing a Development
Lynora Saunders
(Con erned CitLzen)
13790 Sti"+ Knaus Road
Lake Oswego, OR 97034
Tel. (503) 636-1169
EXHIBIT G-3-1
185
Anan Raymond, ('hair
Forest Highlands Neighborhood Association
729 Atwater Road
Lake Oswego, OR 97034
503-697-8125
LLC WED
u 6 2001
CITY 4;F LAVE OSWEGO
Dept. of Planning & Development
To: City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission
Daniel Vizzini, Chair; Ray Edwards, Vice Chair; Frank Groinik, .lames Johnson,
Kenneth Sandblast, David Waring, and Alison Webster
City of Lake Oswego
380 "A" Avenue
Lake Oswego, OR 97034
Subject: ZC 7-98, A proposed amendment to the ('ity of Lake Oswego zoning code requiring
minimum density zoning
Dear Planning Commission:
The Forest Highlands Neighborhood Association does not support ZC 7-98, a zoning code amendment
requiring minimum density zoning. We request that the Planning Commission advise the City Council
of Lake Oswego to turn down the proposed amendment.
For years Forest Highlands, other Lake Oswego neighborhood associations, and many citizens of Lake
Oswego have repeatedly testified against the minimum density zoning amendment. Our arguments of
the past still hold true today. The present (and previous) Planning Division Staff Reports on ZC 7-98
indicate that our concerns have been heard, but they still go unheeded. Rather than repeat all the
reasons against minimum density zoning here, we urge you to reread the testimony in the staff reports
and the attached copies of our previous letters. You will find universal distaste for this zoning
amendment.
We recommend that the Planning Division, Planning Commission, and City Council resolve two issues
before they consider the proposed minimum density zoning amendment.
Infill and minimum density zoning
A minimum density zoning rule may make sense for developing large parcels of vacant land. But when
minimum density zoning is applied to infill development in established neighborhoods, like Forest
Highlands, it will result in chaos and disgruntlement. The City Council and Planning Commission have
acknowledged the challenges posed by infill. They commissioned an excellent public presentation on
infill by Lennertz Coyle and Associates on October 23, 2001, and hosted an infill survey on the City's
web site. The overwhelming conclusion is that infill requires careful planning and respect for the
EXHIBIT G-3.2
IS 'i'
existing neighborhood and natural environment. Minimum density zoning will impose an infill housing
density that will seriously damage the existing character and natural environment of neighborhoods like
Forest Highlands. We recommend that the city abandon the proposed minimum density rule and work
with the citizenry to write a zoning amendment that will not damage existing neighborhoods. We
recommend that the city write a minimum density zoning rule that only applies to lots larger than 10
acres.
Work to apply sensitive land ordinances throughout the urban services boundary.
The Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan has labeled Forest Highlands a "Distinctive Natural Area." The
neighborhood contains critical headwaters for the Tryon Creek watershed. The riparian wetlands and
large groves of old trees create a natural environment that provides irreplaceable wildlife links to Tryon
Creek State Park and habitat for endangered steelhead trout
(see attached map). Development under minimum density zoning threatens the health of this ecosystem.
Half of the Forest Highlands neighborhood has yet to be annexed by the city. Thus the city's sensitive
lands ordinances do not apply. Upon infill development, builders, unhindered by Clackamas County,
clear cut the trees, level the ground, and fill wetlands. By the time the builders annex, the natural habitat
is destroyed. Minimum density zoning exacerbates this problem. It compels more clearing and leveling
to pack in more houses. We urge the City of Lake Oswego to negotiate an agreement with Clackamas
County that implements the City's sensitive land ordinances on county land before it is annexed. Such
an agreement is essential before the city contemplates a minimum density rule that will accelerate
drastic losses to the natural environment.
Metro and Lake Oswego
The city of Lake Oswego has done an outstanding job in complying with many Metro goals. Since 1990
the city has achieved over 90% of the density allowed by zoning. This has been accomplished without
a minimum density zoning rule. Will Lake Oswego adopt an unnecessary zoning amendment in
defiance of its citizens? We hope not. Rather, the city should explain to Metro that instead of the
proposed minimum density rule, the city will take constructive action. Action that will meet Metro's
other goals and the city's Comprehensive Plan. First, the city will negotiate application of its sensitive
lands ordinance to county land within neighborhoods; and second, the city will write a zoning rule that
applies minimum density zoning only to large tracts of land, which have not been developed, and which
do not occur within existing neighborhoods.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal
Sincerely, /
If �
.?ivt .� 4
Anan Raymond
Chair, Forest Highlands Neighborhood Association
188
UM cxn
A.I IIS WE 0
HIL H
cumc)
06
STATC r
N
I"!
on,
%b
0SWE
-AKC
I HIGH HIljH
OL
S PRI ;GBRook
Pi.ANDS
1. t- PIC NI AR
nve
j 17
r
,lARK
t I
��o.'IWEGO LAKE COUNTRY CLUB GOLF COURSE
coo
NATURAL
RESOURCES
TREE GROVE
STREAM CORRIDOR
WETLAND
mrfa
HIGHLANDS
Kiv-i(--wmnv.)wnnn PLAN
UM cxn
A.I IIS WE 0
HIL H
cumc)
06
I"!
on,
0SWE
-AKC
I HIGH HIljH
OL
S PRI ;GBRook
Pi.ANDS
1. t- PIC NI AR
nve
j 17
r
,lARK
t I
��o.'IWEGO LAKE COUNTRY CLUB GOLF COURSE
NATURAL
RESOURCES
TREE GROVE
STREAM CORRIDOR
WETLAND
HIGHLANDS
Kiv-i(--wmnv.)wnnn PLAN
UM cxn
Anan Raymond
729 Atwater Road
Lake Oswego, OR 97034
503-625-4377
To: Bill Klammer, Mayor
Bill Atherton, Councilor
Bob Chizum, Councilor
Heather Chrisman, Councilor
Tom Lowrey, Councilor
Craig Prosser, Councilor
Karl Rhode, Councilor
City of Lake Oswego
380 "A" Avenue
Lake Oswego, OR 97034
September 30, 1998
isrrTVED
OCT -1 1998
01" UV LHNL U�)WECO
Subject: ZC 7-98, A proposal for a Minimum Density Zoning Ordinance
Dear Councilors:
A legislative amendment is before the City Council. It proposes to change the
zoning code to require a minimum density when land is divided or developed in any
residential zone. Known as "minimum density zoning" this law would compel land
owners who partition to provide for 80 percent of the maximum allowable
residences. This may make sense when developing large parcels of vacant land.
But the Forest Highlands Neighborhood Association strongly believes that it makes
no sense as a strategy to infill established neighborhoods.
With its low residential density, the Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan has labeled
Forest Highlands a "Distinctive Natural Area." It contains critical headwaters for
the Tryon Creek watershed. The riparian wetlands and large groves of very old
trees create a natural environment that provides irreplaceable wildlife links to Tryon
Creek State Park and habitat for endangered steelhead trout.
Minimum density zoning would destroy the natural landscape and neighborhood of
Forest Highlands. As one lot is partitioned, this zoning law would force the packing
of five to six houses per acre, while the adjacent lot supports one, maybe two
houses per acre. A mish-mash of density would result. The Forest Highlands
street layout and other infrastructure never envisioned, nor can it support, such
density. Minimum density zoning could work on large tracts of land, which have
not been developed, and which don't have existing neighborhoods. But Forest
Highlands is not at ground zero. Houses, yards, trees, creeks, wetlands are in the
way.
191
We must ask: Is minimum density zoning necessary? Our regional government,
Metro, calls for cities to adopt such a rule, if necessary, and certainly not blindly.
Metro demands cities to average 80 percent of the allowable maximum density in
residential zones. In August 1998 the city of Lake Oswego published its Metro
Compliance Report. It states that for the 1 990-1 995 period, Lake Oswego
achieved 94% of the density allowed by zoning. This is 14% above the Metro
standard, and has been accomplished without minimum density zoning. We
suspect that development since 1995 has maintained, if not exceeded, this pace.
Lake Oswego does not need to adopt a zoning change that will destroy
neighborhoods and the natural environment. The city is already way ahead in
meeting Metro's density quota (known as Title 1 of the Metro Urban Growth
Management Functional Plan).
We must also ask: Has the city planned for high density "Town Centers" as
required by Metro? Apparently not very well. The Lake Oswego Compliance
Report to Metro states that the city has not defined or mapped potential "Town
Centers," "Main Streets," and "Inner Neighborhoods" where high residential density
will be achieved. However, we all know things like the East End redevelopment will
go a long way to increasing the density that Metro covets. Minimum density
zoning is not needed to infill existing low density neighborhoods, like Forest
Highlands.
And finally we must ask: Who's the boss? Metro has many goals for the region,
the subtext of which is sensible growth. For every density goal there is a
corresponding goal concerning the preservation of open space, the natural
environment, and healthy watersheds. The city of Lake Oswego has done an
outstanding job in complying with many Metro goals. But the city must also look
and listen to its neighborhoods and local citizens. Will Lake Oswego adopt a zoning
change (which is unnecessary) merely to put another notch on its barrel of
appeasement of Metro? Or, will the city pursue other Metro goals such as
watershed protection? And, will Lake Oswego stand by the objectives of its own
Comprehensive Plan where it vows to protect natural areas, invo!ve citizens, and
fashion neighborhood growth the way the neighborhood wants it? Lake Oswego
does not need to apply minimum density zoning in places like Forest Highlands to
solve Metro's growth problems. The only groups that need minimum density
zoning are the speculators and developers.
We respectfully request that the City Council turn down the zoning amendment
requiring minimum density. Thank you for the opportunity comment on this
proposal.
Sincerely,
/�-_
fzzU-111-2
Anan Raymond
Mary anc David Peaslee
13131 Knaus Road
Lake Oswego, OR 97034
September 23. 1998
.=3ke Oswego City Council
tee: Minimum Density Zoning Ordinance
o Mayor Klammer and Council Members:
We are writing to express our opposition to the minimum density zoning ordinance forwarded to
you by the planning commission. We have spoken to you and the planning commission in the past
regarding some of our concerns about minimum density zoning in regard to our neighborhood, Forest
Highlands, We are disappointed to note that those concerns have in no way been addressed in the draft
proposed.
As you are aware. the Forest Highlands Neighborhood Association has spent a great deal of time
over the past several years grappling with the issue of how to grow. We have conductea surveys, held
many public meetings and forums, and examined all of the currently available data on land development
and use, existing and potential, within our neighborhood. In addition, the neighborhood steeringg
committee enlistea the help of a respected professional on these matters (Ralph Tahran, from OTAK).
The efforts we made to determine what was feasible specifically for Forest Highlands far exceeded any
made by city planners in thepast. The ena result was a consensus that minimum density zoning simply
is not workable in our neighborhood.
Our concerns were generally met with two, fairly superficial, responses from city staff : (A) the
conflicts between minimum density and other development standards would be sorted out at the time an
application was made to develop, and (B) when the existing zoning was overlaid on our neighborhood, it
was set at a density that the infrastructure (existing and future) could accommodate. Thoughtful
reflection on these responses leads us to believe both fail to acdress the problems we foresee.
The ordinance before you is not accompanied by any ;,Ian or policies regarding how it will be
implemented. Think hard about whether this is acceptable to you. Minimum density , in concept, sounds
very simple. Having spent many months struggling with this in Forest Highlands, let us assure you that it
is not. In our opinion, a minimum density ordinance can be applied in a straightforward manner ONLY
in areas where there is little or no development -- for instance, Stafford. Applying minimum density
standards to INFILL lots is an entirely different matter. It has never been done before, and the conflicts
which it can create are numerous. Without some policies regarding how you will handle these conflicts
when they arise, you will be opening yourself and city staff to endless hearings and hassles over how to
implement this ordinance in particular cases.
A brief illustration -- just one of several we considered -- might help. There is quite a bit of
potentially developable land along unincorporated Atwater Roac in Forest Highlands. These lots back
up to sensitive lands on both sides of the road, so no connections to other existing roads are feasible,
Atwater road is perhaps 15 feet wide and in terrible condition. There is no infrastructure for storm water
runoff and no sewer in place. Many of the lots are narrow and deep -- 75' by 500' would be typical -- and
are held by separate individual owners. These lots are zoned R-7.5, meaning that the typical lot
mentioned above would need to be partitioned into at least 4 lots if the owner wanted to partition. There
is no way these lots can develop one by one and have the outcome be anything other than awful. Each
individual lot is too small to require much in the way of improvements to infrastructure, however the end
result of all of them developing would be to quadruple the existing development. This is but one of many
examples we mulled over. One of the approaches we considered, which might help improve the quality
of development and the way it integrates into the neighborhood would be to require a minimum acreage
for partitions at minimum density. That would result in a developer having to acquire several of these
narrow, deep lots, and develop them as a whole, rather in a piecemeal, disorganized fashion. While we
are still concerned with transportation and environmental issues, this would at least result in a coherent
building pattern along this road when development occurs. The ordinance you are considering now,
however, does not deal with a complex situation like this. It simply requires the addition of at least 4 lots
for each one that now exists. Without any other policies or standards to guide this increase in density,
we are left vulnerable to the addition of a string of unconnected cul de sacs and flag lots stacked on one
ovPrinadod ,trept.
1
As we studied our neighborhood, we also became increasingly skeptical about the feasibility of
-evelopment at the R-7.5 density overlaid on Forest Highlands years ago. While that may have been
*easible at the time it was designated, many things have changed since then. A considerable amount of
cevelopment has been added to the neighborhood, and the organization of that development did nothing
tc facilitate a future change to higher density. In fact, it has considerably complicated the picture. In
3CCition, new federal, state and local environmental and transportation regulations have been adopted.
L::;,king at Forest Highlands now, with the benefit of having these new rules and a clear picture of the
value and placement of existing development, we determined that the existing zoning overlay was not
workable. Requiring developers to build at these densities will have one of two effects -- either you will
preclude the addition of any units, by requiring an unrealistic number, or you will destroy the community
that currently exists here. You can not maintain or improve the livability of Forest Highlands with future
accitional housing distributed as the current comprehensive plan has it designated. You need to
acknowledge that the situation on the ground and in the community has changed since those zoning
designations were made. What was once feasible may no longer be. We did not conclude that it would
be impossible to add the number of units the R-7.5 zoning would require -- only that it would be
possible to add them in the pattern the existing map calls for, and that an effort to comply with that
zoning map would be very destructive of our neighborhood.
Forest Highlands and the city were unable to arrive at a solution for these complex problems in
'^e form of a neighborhood plan. That failure does not exempt you as city representatives from your
resaonsiblity to plan for future growth in our neighborhood. You have possibly lost your best ally --
ccrcerned neighbors -- however you are still left with the problem of what to do. Remember, as you
^raceed, that there wasn't any disagreement between the city and Forest Highlands on the problem of
how to accommodate future growth, only a refusal by the city to accept the neighborhood's proposed
solutions.
Lake Oswego is ahead of the surrounding communities in our efforts to grapple with minimum
cer'sity zoning. None of the surrounding suburbs have adopted a minimum density ordinance for infill
lots. For you as the city council to proceed now based on an assumption that this is the right time would
be a mistake. You still have time to examine further how you will implement and enforce minimum
censity zoning. You have time to consider how you will balance density issues against neighborhood
concerns such as traffic, pedestrian safety, environmental protections, etc. It would be very naive for You
to assume that the community will support your efforts, or believe they were appropriate, if you haven t
mace an effort to deal with these complex issues. You have had a taste of the controversy your first
move to minimum density created already. Proceeding to expand that ordinance to all residential areas
city-wide will vastly increase that controversy if you have not first settled how it will work. You need to be
confident that minimum density will work before you require it. This is only common sense. Please
hole off on approving minimum density zoning, for infill properties, until you have examined its
implementation further.
Sincerely,
194
Anan Raymond
729 Atwater Road
Lake Oswego, OR 97034
503-625-4377
To: Bill Klammer, Mayor November 17, 1998
Bill Atherton, Councilor
Bob Chizum, Councilor
Heather Chrisman, Councilor
Tom Lowrey, Councilor
Craig Prosser, Councilor
Karl Rhode, Councilor
City of Lake Oswego
380 "A" Avenue
Lake Oswego, OR 97034
Subject: Neighborhood Planning and Minimum Density "Zoning
Dear Councilors:
I `d like to share some mixed messages that we (the Forest Highlands Neighborhood Association) have
received form the Lake Oswego Planning Commission.
Then
As you know, Forest Highlands has struggled with the neighborhood planning process. This is because
our instructions compelled us to consider minimum density zoning for the neighborhood. When we
recognized that minimum density zoning was unworkable (succinctly summarized in the September 23,
1998 letter to you from Mary and David Peaslee) we floated the idea of re -zoning the neighborhood.
We also sought to emphasize the unique and sensitive natural resources of the neighborhood. But, we
were told that rezoning was an extreme long shot. And, although natural resources are important, we
sensed the city was really interested in a neighborhood plan that accommodates development.
Now
On November 9, 1998 I sat in on the Planning Commission work session that discussed minimum
density zoning. The Commission acknowledged that minimum density zoning would present
considerable problems when infilling existing neighborhoods. The commissioners suggested two
avenues, in the context of the neighborhood planning process, to alleviate these problems. 1) rezoning,
and 2) fulfill statewide planning Goal 5.
Rezoning
The commissioners said that existing neighborhoods which can't accommodate minimum
density zoning under their current zoning should rezone so that infill will occur at a density that
195
makes sense with the current character and associated infrastructure of the neighborhood.
Statewide Planning Goal 5
The commissioners suggested that neighborhoods protect sensitive natural resources in
compliance with Goal 5. This would include removing from "net developable acreage" lands
containing sensitive natural resources, rather than using such lands as a "bank" for density
transfer.
Where to?
What do the comments from the Planning Commission mean? Does it mean they are serious about
tackling the problems of infill in existing neighborhoods? Are they acknowledging that blindly adopting
a minimum density ordinance would wreck havoc on existing neighborhoods? If the City must adopt a
minimum density ordinance (my letter of September 30, 1998 makes a good case to the contrary), will
it ask the Planning Commission and staff to craft one that accommodates the challenges posed by infill?
Will the City and Commission seriously entertain a neighborhood plan from Forest Highlands in which
protection of natural resources and rezoning are, indeed, viable options? My neighbors and I would
like to work with you on these issues
Sincerely,
Anan Raymond
cc: Diane Davis and Lenora Saunders, Co-chairs, Forest Highlands Neighborhood Association
196
S'LJT BY: METRO GMS;
November 15, 2001
503797191i; NOV-15-01 11:01;
!!! N O A T n/ A S T G I A NO A v I N U t I 1 015 T L^ N 11. 0 1 1 0 0 71 1 1 t 17 2 7 C
TI L I OI 711 700 )Ax; 101 717 1 70 7
METR�
PAGE 1/1
Post -it! F x Note 7671
° � p I papos�
T0_4� ► J Al—CLS11 t i=
From ,e A L, ,< —
Co r (G'I Aij
Phone M j
Phone 1
Faxa G3S� o2b�
rpx!
Ms. Jane Heisler
Community Planning Manager
City of Lake Oswego p R. G� L /v Iro 1 w 1 J t/e S, -AA I Z A to L
P. O. Box 369
Lake Oswego, OR 97034
i
Dear Ms. Heisler:
We have reviewed your staff report for the proposed Iegiislative changes to Chapter 48 of the City's
zoning code (File No. ZC 7-88(A)). As you know, the U n Growth Management Functional Pian
(Functional Plan) requires all cities and counties within etro's jurisdiction to apply a minimum density
standard for all zones that allow residential use (Metro a 3.07.120.A). The staff report, page 4,
rec onxnends that the Planning Commission not apply m nimum densities to the DD, R-0 and R-2
zones. Eventual adoption of this recommendation by th City
�Coduenncila would not satisfy the Metro
Code. The requirement for minimum densities applies
I
We understand that there may be other ways for the Cit* to Implement minimum densities for these
three zones. If the City chooses to wait until a tater dateto adopt minimum densities for these Tones,
we will need the City to revise its request for an extensito the Functional Plan compliance deadline.
The City has Indicated that their council will approve a nimum density standard before the end of this
year. If an extension until later in 2002 Is needed for Tit 1 compliance, we will need a revised work
schedule and an assessment of any consequences of laying compliance.
Please place this letter into the record for File No. ZC 7 -
Ray Valone at 503-797-1808, or email him at valoner
Sincerely,
l�, jj__A_
�H lu
Regional Planning Director
M"Vtwt
t•Igm�mmunity. dewlopment�oje ZOMPLLANCL\Lake CbweyoWC
cc: Ray Valone
If you have any questions, please call
11-01.dm
1. EXHIBIT G-3-3
.Mev�4" -g
Tno 717 1 0.
As the saying goes, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". This phrase suits this item to a T.
In prior testimony, staff could recount only a couple of applications where the density of the
development came in at less than fifty per cent. Twice the City Council has not approved
Minimum Density . Our own District 2 Metro Councilor is not in favor of Minimum Density
for Lake Oswego. He probably will address the Council when this item goes before that
body another time. I was the first citizen to speak against Minimum Density at your
meeting July 27, 1998. LONAC, the Lake Oswego Neighborhood Action Coalition, with
membership made up mostly of neighborhood activists across the city, voted against
Minimum Density at their meeting on December 5, 1998, and again at their recent meeting
November 3, 2001. On both occasions, Chris Roth, LONAC's Vice Chair, wrote a letter to
the City Council asking them to oppose the measure.
In all the prior testimony, I cannot find any developer asking the Planning
Commission or the City Council to approve Minimum Density. There has been plenty of
testimony by citizens and some prior Council members opposing it. Is there any letter
from the Metro President in the staff report asking or demanding that the City approve
the Minimum Density measure? I can't find it. When Mr. Burton, Executive Director of
Metro, met with the City Council over a year ago, he was not demanding the Council
pass a Minimum Density measure since the City as a whole was way above the mark for
density purposes. This Minimum Density issue has been going on for over five years. I
surmise the Metro staff and our City staff would like to see the measure passed, and
some politicians would say it is necessary for the efficient use of our land.
On the other side of the coin, I see neighborhoods losing flexibility in dealing with
developers on projects. I see neighborhoods losing their character, as Forest Highlands
would. I also see, if and when there is development in the Stafford area, that under
Metro's standards the minimum densities would far exceed Lake Oswego's maximum
densities.
I think that this proposed land use policy is dictatorial, and I would appreciate it if
the City government would get off our back and not pass the measure. City policy would
be more appealing to residents if there were more effort by our policy makers in
promoting good neighborhood planning than trying to please the central planning office
of Metro.
John Pullen
18 Britten Court
Lake Oswego, OR 97035
November 26, 2001
EXHIBIT G-3-4
199
Page 1 of 2
Heisler, Jane
From: Christie, Robyn on behalf of Density
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 1:42 PM
To: Heisler, Jane
Subject: FW: Comments on density
Jane would you include this as written testimony for your report? I have one more that I will forward next.
Robyn Christie
City Recorder
City of Lake Oswego
(503) 675-3984
-----Original Message -----
From: Daniel Baer [mailto:dan-baer@woridnet.att.net]
Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2001 10:40 AM
To: density@ci.oswego.or.us
Subject: Comments on density guidelines
I wish to comment on the consideration of amendments to the zoning code to require minimum
density in new developments.
Maintaining the residential character of our neighborhoods is an important value for residents
of Lake Oswego. Our Neighborhood Associations and the City Council have already spoken
out about other issues such as oversized homes on small lots, excessive building height and
tree removal, that threaten this character. The requirement to develop at minimum density is
another such issue.
Our state, county, city and Metro have taken actions to preserve open space by purchasing
land and providing tax incentives to make open space available. In our neighborhood, we have
several large lots with homes built far back from the street. The front portions of these lots
contain private open space that enhances the visual quality of the neighborhood at no cost to
the public. As the density increases, these open spaces are lost to the community.
Changing the density might require changing of some other zoning ordinances such as the
restriction of building heights on flag lots (a desirable limitation) and our tree cutting ordinance
because it would be uneconomical to build with these restrictions in place.
A possible way to satisfy the Metro requirement for a minimum density provision may be to
allow exceptions for such factors as:
Land features as slopes, water drainage ways
Tree groves or large trees
Preservation of privately held open space
Incompatibility with size or density of existing homes EXHIBIT G•3.5
201
1/7/02
Page 2 of 2
I think the harm to our neighborhoods by forcing an increase in density with the addition of
relatively few additional homes in Lake Oswego may outweigh the benefit of protecting our
urban growth boundary.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Daniel M. Baer
3240 Upper Drive
Lake Oswego, OR 97035-4452
11Uti
1/7/02